📜
WARNING: THIS IS AN AI-TRANSLATED EXPERIMENT.
Please do not blindly trust the LLM output. LLMs can produce errors. If you are uncertain, refer to the original Pāḷi text for verification.
The main purpose of this page is to facilitate quick searches using English keywords to locate relevant Pāḷi passages.
- For the Table of Contents, please click on the 📜 icon in the left-hand corner.
- Click on any word to pop up ONLINE dictionaries.
- Code files to assist with translation: https://github.com/vpnry/ai-translation
Hide|Show Translations:
Source text: https://tipitakapali.org (Feb 2025)
Translation 1: Grok3 (3 Mar 2025)
Translation 2: gemini2.0-pro-exp-02-05 (03 Mar 2025)
Translation 3: Deepseek (05 Mar 2025)
This file was last generated on: 2025-03-18 19:42:33
ID1
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammāsambuddhassa
Homage to that Blessed One, the Worthy One, the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One
Homage to that Blessed One, the Worthy One, the Fully Enlightened One.
Homage to the Blessed One, the Worthy One, the Perfectly Enlightened One
ID2
ID3
ID4
ID5
ID6
Yo loke lokaloko varataraparado rājarājaggajañño; Ākāsākārakāro paramaratirato devadevantavajjo.
He who is the light of the world, the supreme bestower of excellence, the king of kings, the foremost lion; the one whose form is like the sky, delighting in supreme bliss, revered by the gods and free from their faults.
He who is the light of the world in the world, bestower of excellent benefits, foremost of kings and rulers, possessor of knowledge; who is of the nature of space, takes supreme delight (in Nibbāna), worthy of veneration by gods and the divine.
He who is the most excellent in the world, surpassing all others, the noble king of kings; the creator of the sky, delighting in the highest truth, revered by the gods.
ID7
Saṃsārāsārasāro sunaranamanato mārahārantaraṭṭho; Lokālaṅkārakāro atisatigatimā dhīravīrattarammo.
The essence of the essenceless samsara, beautifully bowed to, the destroyer of Māra, abiding within; the adornment of the world, surpassing all motion, the steadfast hero, the supreme object of reverence.
He who is the essence of the insubstantial cycle of existence, to whom good men bow, who has destroyed Māra, who stands within (the Noble Path), who is the embellishment of the world, possessed of extraordinary mindfulness, delightful to the wise and courageous.
The essence of the cycle of existence, revered by the wise, the destroyer of Māra, the ornament of the world, of supreme wisdom and great courage.
ID8
ID9
Saṃsāracakkaviddhaṃsaṃ, sambuddhaṃ taṃ sumānasaṃ; Saṃnamāmi suguṇesaṃ, saṃdesitasududdasaṃ.
I bow to the Fully Enlightened One, who has destroyed the wheel of samsara, possessed of a virtuous mind; endowed with excellent qualities, who has taught the difficult-to-see.
To the Fully Enlightened One, who has destroyed the wheel of saṃsāra, who is of good mind, possessed of good qualities, who has taught the well-taught and hard-to-see (Dhamma), I bow.
I pay homage to the Fully Enlightened One, who has destroyed the wheel of saṃsāra, endowed with excellent qualities, who has shown the path so hard to see.
ID10
ID11
Yena viddhaṃsitā pāpā, yena nibbāpitā darā; Yena lokā nissarisuṃ, yena cāhaṃ namāmi taṃ.
By whom evil was destroyed, by whom suffering was extinguished; by whom beings escaped the world, and by whom I offer my reverence.
By whom evil has been destroyed, by whom anguish has been quenched; by whom the world has escaped, and by whom, I bow to him.
By whom evil is destroyed, by whom suffering is extinguished, by whom the world is liberated, to Him I pay homage.
ID12
ID13
Saṅghaṃ sasaṅghaṃ namāmi, vantantavaradhammajaṃ; Maggaggamanaphalaṭṭhaṃ, susaṃsaṃ subhamānasaṃ.
I bow to the Sangha with the Sangha, born of the supreme Dhamma that dispels evil; established in the fruits of the noble path, well-praised, with a virtuous mind.
I bow to the Saṅgha, together with the Saṅgha, born of the excellent Dhamma ending in extinction; those established in the path, the fruition of entering the foremost path, those of praised conduct, and of wholesome mind.
I pay homage to the Saṅgha, the excellent community born of the Dhamma, established in the path, its fruits, and Nibbāna, endowed with good conduct and a pure mind.
ID14
ID15
Vinayaṃ vinayaṃ sāraṃ, saṅgahaṃ saṅgahaṃ karaṃ; Cariyaṃ cariyaṃ vande, paramaṃ paramaṃ sutaṃ.
I honor the Vinaya, the essence of discipline, the collection that gathers; the conduct, the supreme conduct, the highest teaching heard.
The Vinaya, the essence of the Vinaya, a compilation, a maker of compilation; conduct, excellent conduct I venerate, supreme, supremely heard.
I venerate the Vinaya, the essence of discipline, the collection of rules, the conduct, and the highest teaching.
ID16
ID17
Pakāre bahupakāre, sāgare guṇasāgare; Garavo mama garavo, vandāmi abhivandāmi.
In manifold ways, in the ocean of manifold virtues; my reverence, my deep reverence, I bow and offer my salutation.
In many ways, in many ways, in the ocean, in the ocean of virtue; reverence, my reverence, I venerate, I pay homage.
In various ways, in many ways, in the ocean of qualities, my reverence, I pay homage, I bow down.
ID18
Vatthuttaye ganthakāre, garūsu sādaraṃ mayā; Katena namakkārena, hitvā sabbe upaddave.
To the three bases and the author of the text, with respect to the venerables by me; with this act of homage performed, abandoning all obstacles.
By me, with reverence towards the authors (of the texts) regarding the three objects (of refuge), having eliminated all obstacles by the act of reverence.
With respect, I pay homage to the threefold basis, to the teachers, having abandoned all obstacles.
ID19
Sikkhākāmehi dhīrehi, jinasāsanakāribhi; Bhikkhūhi vinayaññūhi, sādaraṃ abhiyācito.
By those desiring training, the wise ones who uphold the Victor’s dispensation; by monks who know the Vinaya, respectfully requested.
Earnestly requested by wise monks desirous of training, who are practitioners of the Buddha’s Dispensation, knowledgeable in the Vinaya, with reverence.
Requested respectfully by the wise monks, who are devoted to the training, who uphold the discipline, who are skilled in the Buddha’s teaching.
ID20
Vaṇṇayissāmi vinaya-saṅgahaṃ pītivaḍḍhanaṃ; Bhikkhūnaṃ venayikānaṃ, yathāsattibalaṃ ahaṃ.
I will expound the vinaya-saṅgahaṃ, increasing joy; for the monks skilled in discipline, according to my strength and ability.
I shall expound the Vinaya-saṅgaha (Compendium of Vinaya), which increases joy, for the bhikkhus who are undergoing training, according to my ability and strength.
I will explain the compendium of the Vinaya, which increases joy, for the monks skilled in the Vinaya, according to my ability.
ID21
Porāṇehi katā ṭīkā, kiñcāpi atthi sā pana; Atisaṅkhepabhāvena, na sādheti yathicchitaṃ.
Though a commentary was made by the ancients, it exists; yet due to its extreme brevity, it does not satisfy as desired.
Although there exists a commentary (ṭīkā) made by the ancients, it, due to its extreme brevity, does not accomplish what is desired.
Though commentaries have been composed by the ancients, they are too brief and do not fully achieve the desired purpose.
ID22
Tasmā hi nānāsatthehi, sāramādāya sādhukaṃ; Nātisaṅkhepavitthāraṃ, karissaṃ atthavaṇṇanaṃ.
Therefore, drawing the essence well from various teachings; neither too brief nor too elaborate, I will compose an atthavaṇṇanaṃ.
Therefore, having properly extracted the essence from various treatises, I shall compose an elucidation of the meaning that is neither too concise nor too extensive.
Therefore, taking the essence from various texts, I will compose this exposition of the meaning without being too brief or too elaborate.
ID23
Vinayālaṅkāraṃ nāma, pesalānaṃ pamodanaṃ; Imaṃ pakaraṇaṃ sabbe, sammā dhārentu sādhavoti.
Named Vinayālaṅkāra, a delight to the virtuous; may all bear this text rightly and well.
May all virtuous ones properly maintain this treatise, named Vinayālaṅkāra (Ornament of the Vinaya), which brings delight to the virtuous.
This treatise, known as the Vinayālaṅkāra, brings joy to the virtuous. May all good people uphold it rightly.
ID24
ID25
Vividhavisesanayasamannāgataṃ kāyavācāvinayanakaraṇasamatthaṃ lajjipesalabhikkhūnaṃ saṃsayavinodanakārakaṃ yogāvacarapuggalānaṃ sīlavisuddhisampāpakaṃ jinasāsanavuḍḍhihetubhūtaṃ pakaraṇamidamārabhitukāmo ayamācariyāsabho paṭhamaṃ tāva ratanattayapaṇāmapaṇāmārahabhāvaabhidheyyakaraṇahetu karaṇappakārapakaraṇābhidhānanimittapayojanāni dassetuṃ “vatthuttayaṃ namassitvā”tiādimāha. Ettha hi vatthuttayaṃ namassitvāti iminā ratanattayapaṇāmo vutto paṇāmetabbapaṇāmaatthadassanato. Saraṇaṃ sabbapāṇinanti iminā paṇāmārahabhāvo paṇāmahetudassanato. Pāḷimuttavinicchayanti abhidheyyo imassa pakaraṇassa atthabhāvato. Vippakiṇṇamanekatthāti karaṇahetu tenevakāraṇena pakaraṇassa katattā. Samāharitvā ekattha, dassayissamanākulanti karaṇappakāro tenākārena pakaraṇassa karaṇato. Pakaraṇābhidhānaṃ pana samāharitasaddassa sāmatthiyato dassitaṃ samāharitvā dassaneneva imassa pakaraṇassa vinayasaṅgahaiti nāmassa labhanato.
Desiring to undertake this text, which is endowed with various distinctions, capable of disciplining body and speech, dispelling doubts for virtuous monks with shame, establishing purity of virtue for practitioners, and serving as a cause for the growth of the Victor’s dispensation, this teacher first spoke thus, beginning with “vatthuttayaṃ namassitvā”, to show the homage to the Triple Gem, the worthiness of homage, the subject matter, the reason for composition, the method of composition, the naming of the text, the occasion, and the purpose. Here, with vatthuttayaṃ namassitvā, the homage to the Triple Gem is expressed, due to indicating the meaning worthy of homage; with saraṇaṃ sabbapāṇinaṃ, the worthiness of homage is shown, due to indicating the reason for homage; with pāḷimuttavinicchayaṃ, the subject matter of this text is indicated, due to its meaningfulness; with vippakiṇṇamanekatthā, the reason for composition is shown, due to this being the cause of the text’s creation; with samāharitvā ekattha, dassayissamanākulaṃ, the method of composition is indicated, due to the text being composed in this manner; the naming of the text is shown by the capability of the gathered words, as by gathering and presenting them, this text obtains the name vinaya-saṅgaha.
This venerable teacher, wishing to begin this treatise which is endowed with diverse and special methods, capable of effecting restraint of body and speech, causing the removal of doubt for modest and virtuous bhikkhus, accomplishing the purification of virtue for individuals practicing meditation, and being a cause for the growth of the Buddha’s Dispensation, first speaks, beginning with “vatthuttayaṃ namassitvā,” in order to show reverence for the Triple Gem, the worthiness of being revered, the subject matter, the cause of composition, the method of composition, and the purpose for the name and benefit of the treatise. Herein, “having paid homage to the Triple Gem” (vatthuttayaṃ namassitvā) expresses reverence to the Triple Gem by showing the object of reverence and the act of reverence. “The refuge for all beings” (Saraṇaṃ sabbapāṇinaṃ) expresses the worthiness of being revered and the reason for reverence. “The unincluded determination of the Text” (Pāḷimuttavinicchayaṃ) is the subject matter, because of its being the subject matter of this treatise. “Scattered in many places” (Vippakiṇṇamanekatthā) is the cause of composition because by that very reason the treatise was made. “Having gathered into one place, I will show it without confusion”(Samāharitvā ekattha, dassayissamanākulaṃ) is the method of composition, since by that method the treatise is composed. The title of the treatise, however, is shown through the implication of the word samāharitvā (having gathered), since through the very act of showing after gathering, this treatise receives the name Vinayasaṅgaha (Compendium of Vinaya).
Desiring to begin this treatise, which is endowed with various special methods, capable of training the body and speech, dispelling doubts for conscientious monks, purifying the conduct of meditators, and serving as a cause for the growth of the Buddha’s dispensation, this teacher first explains the reasons for paying homage to the Triple Gem, the worthiness of homage, the subject matter, the method of composition, and the purpose. Here, the phrase “having paid homage to the threefold basis” indicates the homage to the Triple Gem, showing the purpose of paying homage. The phrase “refuge for all beings” indicates the worthiness of homage, showing the reason for paying homage. The phrase “the analysis of the Pāli texts” refers to the subject matter of this treatise. The phrase “scattered with various meanings” indicates the reason for composition, as the treatise is composed for that purpose. The phrase “having collected and presented it coherently” indicates the method of composition, showing how the treatise is composed. The naming of the treatise is shown by the phrase “having collected and presented it,” indicating that the treatise is capable of being collected and presented, and thus it is called the Vinayasaṅgaha.
ID26
Nimittaṃ pana ajjhattikabāhiravasena duvidhaṃ. Tattha ajjhattikaṃ nāma karuṇā, taṃ dassanakiriyāya sāmatthiyato dassitaṃ tasmiṃ asati dassanakiriyāya abhāvato. Bāhiraṃ nāma sotujanasamūho, taṃ yogāvacarabhikkhūnanti tassa karuṇārammaṇabhāvato. Payojanaṃ pana duvidhaṃ paṇāmapayojanapakaraṇapayojanavasena. Tattha paṇāmapayojanaṃ nāma antarāyavisosanapasādajananādikaṃ, taṃ saraṇaṃ sabbapāṇinanti imassa sāmatthiyato dassitaṃ hetumhi sati phalassa avinābhāvato. Vuttañhi abhidhammaṭīkācariyena “guṇavisesavā hi paṇāmāraho hoti, paṇāmārahe ca kato paṇāmo vuttappayojanasiddhikarova hotī”ti (dha. sa. mūlaṭī. 1). Pakaraṇapayojanampi duvidhaṃ mukhyānusaṅgikavasena. Tesu mukhyapayojanaṃ nāma byañjanānurūpaṃ atthassa paṭivijjhanaṃ pakāsanañca atthānurūpaṃ byañjanassa uddisanaṃ uddesāpanañca, taṃ vinaye pāṭavatthāyāti iminā vuttaṃ. Anusaṅgikapayojanaṃ nāma sīlādianupādāparinibbānanto attho, taṃ samāharitvā ekattha dassayissanti imassa sāmatthiyena dassitaṃ ekattha samāharitvā dassane sati taduggahaparipucchādinā katapayogassa anantarāyena tadatthasijjhanatoti.
The occasion is twofold: internal and external. The internal is compassion, shown by the capability of the act of presentation, due to the absence of presentation without it. The external is the group of listeners, indicated by yogāvacarabhikkhūnaṃ, due to their being the object of compassion. The purpose is also twofold: the purpose of homage and the purpose of the text. The purpose of homage includes removing obstacles and generating confidence, shown by the capability of saraṇaṃ sabbapāṇinaṃ, due to the invariable result when the cause is present. For it is said by the Abhidhamma commentary teacher: “One is worthy of homage due to exceptional qualities, and homage paid to one worthy of it surely accomplishes the stated purpose” (dha. sa. mūlaṭī. 1). The purpose of the text is also twofold: primary and secondary. The primary purpose is penetrating and illuminating the meaning in accordance with the phrasing, and indicating and expounding the phrasing in accordance with the meaning, expressed by vinaye pāṭavatthāya. The secondary purpose is the attainment of nibbāna through the non-clinging to virtue and so forth, shown by the capability of samāharitvā ekattha dassayissa, due to achieving that meaning without obstacles through effort in recitation and questioning when it is gathered and presented in one place.
The occasion, however, is twofold: internal and external. Of these, the internal is compassion. That has been made clear from its capacity for the act of explaining, for if that is absent there is no explanation. The external are the listeners. That means the yogāvacara bhikkhus (yogāvacarabhikkhūnaṃ), through their being the object of his compassion. The purpose, moreover, is twofold: the purpose of the salutation and the purpose of the treatise. Herein, the purpose of the salutation, is the elimination of obstacles, the creation of confidence, and so on. That is made clear through the power of “the refuge for all beings”(saraṇaṃ sabbapāṇinaṃ), since when the cause is present, the result is inevitable. Indeed, it was said by the commentator of the Abhidhamma, “One possessed of special virtue is worthy of reverence, and when reverence is shown to one worthy of reverence, it is indeed the accomplisher of the stated purpose.” (dha. sa. mūlaṭī. 1). The purpose of the treatise is also two-fold: the main and subsidiary. Of these, the main purpose is the understanding and elucidation of the meaning that accords with the expression, and the presentation and exposition of the expression that accords with the meaning, That is stated by “for proficiency in the Vinaya” (vinaye pāṭavatthāyā). The subsidiary purpose is the meaning, ending with virtue, etc., up to non-clinging parinibbāna. That has been revealed by the force of “having brought them together in one place” (samāharitvā ekattha dassayissaṃ), with a focused presentation, this purpose can be accomplished by one following through diligent learning, questioning and application.
The purpose is twofold: internal and external. The internal purpose is compassion, shown by the ability to perform the act of seeing, as without it, the act of seeing cannot occur. The external purpose is the assembly of listeners, shown by the phrase “for the meditating monks,” as they are the object of compassion. The purpose is also twofold: the purpose of paying homage and the purpose of the treatise. The purpose of paying homage is to remove obstacles, generate faith, etc., shown by the phrase “refuge for all beings,” indicating its capability, as when the cause exists, the result inevitably follows. As stated by the Abhidhamma commentary: “One who possesses special qualities is worthy of homage, and homage paid to one who is worthy achieves the stated purpose” (DhsA. 1). The purpose of the treatise is also twofold: primary and secondary. The primary purpose is to understand and explain the meaning in accordance with the text, and to teach the text in accordance with the meaning, shown by the phrase “for the study of the Vinaya.” The secondary purpose is the attainment of virtue, etc., up to the final goal of Nibbāna, shown by the phrase “having collected and presented it coherently,” indicating that when the meaning is collected and presented, the purpose is achieved through questions and answers, etc., without obstruction.
ID27
Kimatthaṃ panettha ratanattayapaṇāmādayo ācariyena katā, nanu adhippetaganthārambhova kātabboti? Vuccate – ettha ratanattayapaṇāmakaraṇaṃ tabbihatantarāyo hutvā anāyāsena ganthaparisamāpanatthaṃ. Paṇāmārahabhāvavacanaṃ attano yuttapattakāritādassanatthaṃ, taṃ viññūnaṃ tosāpanatthaṃ, taṃ pakaraṇassa uggahaṇatthaṃ, taṃ sabbasampattinipphādanatthaṃ. Abhidheyyakathanaṃ viditābhidheyyassa ganthassa viññūnaṃ uggahadhāraṇādivasena paṭipajjanatthaṃ. Karaṇahetukathanaṃ akāraṇe katassa vāyāmassa nipphalabhāvato tappaṭikkhepanatthaṃ. Karaṇappakārakathanaṃ viditappakārassa ganthassa sotūnaṃ uggahaṇādīsu rucijananatthaṃ. Abhidhānadassanaṃ vohārasukhatthaṃ. Nimittakathanaṃ āsannakāraṇadassanatthaṃ. Payojanadassanaṃ duvidhapayojanakāmīnaṃ sotūnaṃ samussāhajananatthanti.
But why did the teacher begin with homage to the Triple Gem and so forth—should not the intended composition alone be undertaken? It is said: The performance of homage to the Triple Gem is to remove associated obstacles and complete the text effortlessly; stating its worthiness shows the teacher’s own reasoned competence, for the satisfaction of the wise, for the text’s retention, and for the fulfillment of all accomplishments; stating the subject matter is for the wise to practice by learning and retaining the text with a known subject; stating the reason for composition is to counter the fruitlessness of effort without cause; stating the method of composition is to generate interest in learning and so forth among listeners through a known method; stating the naming is for ease of reference; stating the occasion is to show the proximate cause; stating the purpose is to inspire effort in listeners desiring both purposes.
For what reason are the reverence for the Triple Gem and so forth made here by the teacher? Should he not just begin the intended treatise? It is said – here, the act of reverence for the Triple Gem is to become free of obstacles pertaining to it and for the effortless completion of the treatise. The statement of the worthiness of being revered is to show the appropriateness of his own actions, that is for the purpose of pleasing the wise, that is for the purpose of taking up the treatise, that is for the purpose of accomplishing all success. The statement of the subject matter is for the purpose of the wise undertaking (the treatise) through taking it up, retaining it, and so on, having known the subject matter of the treatise. The statement of the cause of composition is for the purpose of refuting the notion that effort made without cause is fruitless. The statement of the method of composition is for the purpose of creating interest in the listeners in taking up the treatise, having known its method, and so forth. The showing of the title is for the purpose of ease of usage. The statement of the occasion is for the purpose of showing the proximate cause. The showing of the purpose is for the purpose of encouraging the listeners who desire both kinds of purpose.
Why then did the teacher begin with the homage to the Triple Gem? Shouldn’t the intended beginning of the treatise be done directly? It is said: Here, the homage to the Triple Gem is done to remove obstacles, so that the composition of the treatise may be completed without difficulty. The declaration of the worthiness of homage is to show one’s own suitability and to please the wise. The explanation of the subject matter is to enable the wise to understand, retain, and practice the treatise. The explanation of the reason for composition is to reject unnecessary effort, as effort without cause is fruitless. The explanation of the method of composition is to generate interest in the listeners for understanding, etc., the treatise. The showing of the name is for the ease of communication. The explanation of the purpose is to show the proximate cause. The showing of the purpose is to encourage listeners who desire the twofold purpose.
ID28
Ratanattayapaṇāmapayojanaṃ pana bahūhi pakārehi vitthārayanti ācariyā, taṃ tattha tattha vuttanayeneva gahetabbaṃ. Idha pana ganthagarubhāvamocanatthaṃ aṭṭhakathācariyehi adhippetapayojanameva kathayimha. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathācariyena –
Teachers elaborate the purpose of homage to the Triple Gem in many ways, to be understood as stated in various places. Here, to avoid the burden of the text, we have only discussed the purpose intended by the commentary teachers. For it is said by the commentary teacher:
The purpose of reverence for the Triple Gem, however, is explained in many ways by the teachers; that should be understood according to the method stated in each place. Here, however, in order to avoid making the book burdensome, we have only stated the purpose intended by the author of the Aṭṭhakathā. Indeed, it was said by the author of the Aṭṭhakathā –
The purpose of paying homage to the Triple Gem is explained in various ways by the teachers, and it should be understood accordingly. Here, however, the commentary teachers have explained the intended purpose as the liberation from the burden of the treatise. As stated by the commentary teacher:
ID29
“Nipaccakārassetassa ; Katassa ratanattaye; Ānubhāvena sosetvā; Antarāye asesato”ti. (dha. sa. aṭṭha. ganthārambhakathā 7);
“Having performed this reverence; to the Triple Gem; by its power, drying up; all obstacles completely” (dha. sa. aṭṭha. ganthārambhakathā 7).
“By the power of this performer of what is proper, which has been done to the Triple Gem; having dried up all obstacles completely.” (dha. sa. aṭṭha. ganthārambhakathā 7);
“Having paid homage to the Triple Gem, by its power, all obstacles are completely removed” (DhsA. Ganthārambhakathā 7).
ID30
Ayamettha samudāyattho, ayaṃ pana avayavattho – ahaṃ sabbapāṇīnaṃ saraṇaṃ saraṇībhūtaṃ vatthuttayaṃ namassāmi, namassitvā yogāvacarabhikkhūnaṃ vinaye pāṭavatthāya anekatthavippakiṇṇaṃ pāḷimuttavinicchayaṃ ekattha samāharitvā anākulaṃ katvā dassayissaṃ dassayissāmīti yojanā.
This is the overall meaning here; now the meaning of the parts: I bow to the Triple Gem, the refuge of all beings, and having bowed, for proficiency in the Vinaya for practitioner monks, I will present and clearly show the manifold and scattered pāḷimuttavinicchayaṃ gathered in one place—this is the construction.
This is the meaning of the whole here, but this is the meaning of the parts – I bow to the Triple Gem, which is the refuge, the place of refuge for all beings, and having bowed, for the yogāvacara bhikkhus, I will show the unincluded determination of the Text (pāḷimuttavinicchayaṃ) scattered with many meanings regarding proficiency in the Vinaya, having brought them together in one place, having made it free from confusion; I will show it; this is the connection.
This is the collective meaning; the detailed meaning is as follows: I pay homage to the threefold basis, which is the refuge for all beings. Having paid homage, I will collect and present the analysis of the Pāli texts, scattered with various meanings, coherently and without confusion, for the meditating monks to study the Vinaya.
ID31
Tattha vasanti etthāti vatthu. Kiṃ taṃ? Buddhādiratanaṃ. Tañhi yasmā saraṇagatā sappurisā saraṇagamanasamaṅgino hutvā buddhādiratanaṃ ārammaṇaṃ katvā tasmiṃ ārammaṇe vasanti āvasanti nivasanti, tasmā “vatthū”ti vuccati. Ārammaṇañhi ādhāro, ārammaṇikaṃ ādheyyoti. Ito parānipi vatthusaddassa vacanatthādīni ācariyehi vuttāni, tānipi tattha tattha vuttanayeneva veditabbāni. Idha pana ganthavitthārapariharaṇatthaṃ ettakameva vuttanti veditabbanti. Tiṇṇaṃ samūhoti tayaṃ, tayo aṃsā avayavā assāti vā tayaṃ. Kiṃ taṃ? Samudāyo. Vatthūnaṃ tayanti vatthuttayaṃ. Kiṃ taṃ? Buddhādiratanattayaṃ. Namassāmīti namassitvā, anaminti namassitvā. Buddhādiratanañhi ārammaṇaṃ katvā cittassa uppajjanakāle tvā-paccayo paccuppannakāliko hoti, tasmā paṭhamo viggaho kato, pāḷimuttavinicchayaṃ ekattha dassanakāle atītakāliko, tasmā dutiyo viggaho. Teneva ca kāraṇena atthayojanāyapi paccuppannakālaatītakālavasena yojanā katā.
That in which they abide is vatthu. What is it? The jewel of the Buddha and so forth. Because noble beings who have gone for refuge, endowed with the act of taking refuge, abide, dwell, and reside in that jewel of the Buddha and so forth as their object, it is called “vatthu.” For the object is the support, and the one with the object is supported. Beyond this, the meanings and derivations of the word vatthu have been explained by teachers elsewhere and should be understood as stated there. Here, to avoid textual elaboration, only this much is said. The group of three is tayaṃ, or that which has three parts or components is tayaṃ. What is it? The aggregate. The group of vatthus is vatthuttayaṃ. What is it? The Triple Gem of the Buddha and so forth. I bow, thus namassitvā; not bowing, thus namassitvā. When the mind arises with the jewel of the Buddha and so forth as object, the tvā suffix denotes the present tense, hence the first analysis; when showing the pāḷimuttavinicchayaṃ gathered in one place, it denotes the past tense, hence the second analysis. For this reason, the construction of the meaning is made with both present and past tenses.
Therein, they dwell in this, thus it is a vatthu (object). What is that? The jewel such as the Buddha, etc. Because the noble ones who have gone for refuge, being endowed with taking refuge, making the jewel such as the Buddha, etc., the object, dwell, reside, live in that object, therefore it is called “vatthu.” Indeed, the object is the support, and that which has the object is the supported. Other meanings of the word vatthu have also been stated by the teachers; they should be understood according to the method stated in each place. Here, however, in order to avoid expanding the book, only this much has been stated. A group of three is a tayaṃ (triad), or three parts, members, are its, thus it is tayaṃ. What is that? A collection. The tayaṃ of vatthus is vatthuttayaṃ. What is that? The Triple Gem consisting of the Buddha, and so forth. I bow (namassāmi) means having bowed (namassitvā). The tvā suffix is in the present tense when the mind arises making the jewel such as the Buddha, etc., the object. Hence the first interpretation. When displaying the unincluded determination of the text it is in the past tense. Hence the second interpretation. Therefore, also in the arrangement of meaning, the arrangement is made with the present and past tenses.
Here, “basis” means that in which they dwell. What is it? The Triple Gem. Because virtuous people, having taken refuge, dwell, reside, and abide in the Triple Gem as their object, it is called the “basis.” The object is the support, and the object is the supported. Beyond this, the teachers have explained the meanings of the word “basis” in various ways, and they should be understood accordingly. Here, however, only this much is said to avoid elaborating on the treatise. The “threefold” means the threefold collection, the three parts. What is it? The Triple Gem. “Having paid homage” means paying homage, not paying homage. When the mind arises with the Triple Gem as its object, the suffix “tvā” indicates the present time, hence the first analysis. At the time of presenting the analysis of the Pāli texts, the past time is indicated, hence the second analysis. For this reason, the explanation of the meaning is also given in terms of present and past time.
ID32
Sarati hiṃsatīti saraṇaṃ. Kiṃ taṃ? Buddhādiratanattayaṃ. Tañhi saraṇagatānaṃ sappurisānaṃ bhayaṃ santāsaṃ dukkhaṃ duggativinipātaṃ saṃkilesaṃ sarati hiṃsati vināseti, tasmā “saraṇa”nti vuccati. Vuttañhi bhagavatā –
It goes and destroys, thus saraṇaṃ. What is it? The Triple Gem of the Buddha and so forth. For it goes, destroys, and eliminates the fear, terror, suffering, evil destiny, and defilements of noble beings who have gone for refuge, hence it is called “saraṇaṃ.” For it is said by the Blessed One:
That which destroys (sarati hiṃsatī) is saraṇaṃ (refuge). What is that? The Triple Gem, consisting of the Buddha, etc. Because it destroys (sarati hiṃsati vināseti) the fear, terror, suffering, bad destinations, downfall, and defilement of noble ones who have gone for refuge, therefore it is called “saraṇaṃ.” Indeed, it has been said by the Blessed One –
“Refuge” means that which destroys harm. What is it? The Triple Gem. For virtuous people who have taken refuge, it destroys fear, terror, suffering, bad destinies, and defilements, hence it is called “refuge.” As the Blessed One has said:
ID33
“Yasmiṃ, mahānāma, samaye ariyasāvako tathāgataṃ anussarati, nevassa tasmiṃ samaye rāgapariyuṭṭhitaṃ cittaṃ hotī”tiādi (a. ni. 6.10; 11.11),
“At the time, Mahānāma, when a noble disciple recollects the Tathāgata, his mind is not obsessed with lust” and so forth (a. ni. 6.10; 11.11),
“At such a time, Mahānāma, as a noble disciple recollects the Tathāgata, at that time his mind is not overcome by lust,” and so on. (a. ni. 6.10; 11.11),
“At the time, Mahānāma, when a noble disciple recollects the Tathāgata, his mind is not overcome by lust” (A. Ni. 6.10; 11.11).
ID34
“Evaṃ buddhaṃ sarantānaṃ; Dhammaṃ saṅghañca bhikkhavo; Bhayaṃ vā chambhitattaṃ vā; Lomahaṃso na hessatī”ti ca. (saṃ. ni. 1.249);
“Thus for those recollecting the Buddha; the Dhamma, and the Sangha, monks; there will be no fear, trembling; or horripilation” (saṃ. ni. 1.249).
“Thus, for those who recollect the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Saṅgha, bhikkhus; there will be no fear, trepidation, or raising of the hairs.” (saṃ. ni. 1.249);
“Thus, monks, for those who recollect the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Saṅgha, fear, terror, and horripilation will not arise” (Saṃ. Ni. 1.249).
ID35
Yasmā pana “saraṇa”nti idaṃ padaṃ “nātha”nti padassa vevacanabhūtaṃ kitasuddhanāmapadaṃ hoti, na kitamattapadaṃ, tasmā dhātvattho antonīto. “Sara hiṃsāya”nti hi vuttaṃ hiṃsatthaṃ gahetvā sabbapāṇīnaṃ saraṇaṃ hiṃsakaṃ vatthuttayaṃ namassitvā viññāyamāne aniṭṭhappasaṅgato sabbapāṇīnaṃ saraṇaṃ saraṇībhūtaṃ nāthabhūtaṃ vatthuttayaṃ namassitvāti viññāyamāneyeva yujjati, teneva ca kāraṇena atthayojanāyampi tathā yojanā katā. Sabba-saddo niravasesatthavācakaṃ sabbanāmapadaṃ. Saha avena yo vattatīti sabboti kate pana sakala-saddo viya samudāyavācakaṃ samāsanāmapadaṃ hoti. Pāṇo etesaṃ atthīti pāṇino, pāṇoti cettha jīvitindriyaṃ adhippetaṃ. Sabbe pāṇino sabbapāṇino, tesaṃ sabbapāṇīnaṃ. Ettāvatā vatthuttayassa sabbalokasaraṇabhāvaṃ, tatoyeva ca namassanārahabhāvaṃ, namassanārahe ca katāyanamassanakiriyāya yathādhippetatthasiddhikarabhāvaṃ, attano kiriyāya ca khettaṅgatabhāvaṃ dasseti.
Since the word “saraṇaṃ” is a synonym of “nātha” (lord), a pure nominal derivative and not merely a verbal noun, its root meaning is implied. If “sara hiṃsāya” (for going and harming) were taken as meaning harm, leading to “having bowed to the Triple Gem that harms all beings,” an undesired implication would arise; thus, it is fitting only as “having bowed to the Triple Gem, the refuge and lord of all beings,” and for this reason, the construction of the meaning is made accordingly. The word sabba denotes entirety, a universal noun; when compounded as “existing with entirety,” like sakala, it denotes an aggregate, a compound noun. They have life, thus pāṇino; here, pāṇa means the life faculty. All beings are sabbapāṇino, of them, sabbapāṇīnaṃ. Thus, it shows the Triple Gem as the refuge of the entire world, its worthiness of homage, the efficacy of the act of bowing to one worthy of homage as intended, and the field-like nature of one’s own action.
But because this word “saraṇaṃ” is a pure nominal word, being a synonym of the word “nātha” (protector), and not merely a derivative word, therefore the root meaning is implied. Indeed, “Sara hiṃsāya” (to injure) has been stated. If taken to mean “injury”, when understood as the object of triple refuge which injures all beings, it results in undesired consequences. It should be understood as refuge in the sense of a protector. Because by that very reason, in the arrangement of meaning also, the arrangement is made thus. The word Sabba is an all-inclusive pronoun. When made sabba from saha avena yo vattati, it becomes a compound noun like the word sakala (whole) denoting a collection. Those who have life are pāṇino, pāṇa here refers to the life faculty. All living beings are sabbapāṇino, of them, sabbapāṇīnaṃ. By this, he shows the state of the Triple Gem as a refuge for the whole world, and precisely because of that, the state of being worthy of reverence, and because of the act of reverence made to that which is worthy of reverence, the state of accomplishing the intended meaning, and the state of his action as having reached its field.
Since the word “refuge” is synonymous with “protector,” it is a pure noun, not a mere root. The meaning of the root is implied. “Sara” means to destroy, hence it is appropriate to understand that the threefold basis, which destroys harm, is the refuge and protector of all beings. For this reason, the explanation of the meaning is also given accordingly. The word “all” is a noun indicating totality. “Beings” means those who possess life, here referring to the life faculty. “All beings” means all living beings. Thus, the threefold basis is shown to be the refuge of the entire world, worthy of homage, and the act of paying homage achieves the intended purpose, and it is also shown to be a field of merit.
ID36
Evaṃ sahetukaṃ ratanattayapaṇāmaṃ dassetvā idāni pakaraṇārambhassa sanimittaṃ mukhyapayojanaṃ dassetumāha “vinaye pāṭavatthāya, yogāvacarabhikkhūna”nti. Ettha ca vinaye pāṭavatthāyāti mukhyapayojanadassanaṃ, taṃdassanena ca anusaṅgikapayojanampi vibhāvitameva hoti kāraṇe siddhe kāriyassa sijjhanato. Yogāvacarabhikkhūnanti bāhiranimittadassanaṃ, tasmiṃ dassite ajjhattikanimittampi dīpitameva hoti ārammaṇe ñāte ārammaṇikassa ñātabbato. Tattha vividhā nayā etthāti vinayo, duvidhapātimokkhaduvidhavibhaṅgapañcavidhapātimokkhuddesapañcaāpattikkhandhasattaāpattikkhandhādayo vividhā anekappakārā nayā ettha santīti attho. Atha vā visesā nayā etthāti vinayo, daḷhīkammasithilakaraṇapayojanā anupaññattinayādayo visesā nayā ettha santīti attho. Atha vā vinetīti vinayo. Kāyo vineti kāyavācāyo, iti kāyavācānaṃ vinayanato vinayo. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ –
Having shown the reasoned homage to the Triple Gem, now the teacher states the primary purpose with its occasion for beginning the text: “vinaye pāṭavatthāya, yogāvacarabhikkhūnaṃ”. Here, vinaye pāṭavatthāya indicates the primary purpose, and by showing it, the secondary purpose is also clarified, as the effect is accomplished when the cause is established. Yogāvacarabhikkhūnaṃ indicates the external occasion, and by showing it, the internal occasion is also illuminated, as the subject is known when the object is known. There, various methods exist, thus vinaya—various and manifold methods such as the two Pātimokkhas, two Vibhaṅgas, fivefold Pātimokkha recitation, five offense categories, seven offense categories, and so forth. Or, distinct methods exist, thus vinaya—distinct methods such as firm action, lenient action, purposes, supplementary rules, and so forth. Or, it disciplines, thus vinaya—it disciplines body and speech, hence vinaya due to disciplining body and speech. For it is said in the commentary:
Thus, having shown reverence for the Triple Gem together with its cause, now, in order to show the main purpose together with the occasion for beginning the treatise, he says “vinaye” “pāṭavatthāya, yogāvacarabhikkhūna”ti. Herein, vinaye pāṭavatthāyāti is the showing of the main purpose, and by showing that, the secondary purpose is also made clear, since when the cause is accomplished, the effect is accomplished. Yogāvacarabhikkhūnanti is the showing of the external occasion, and when that is shown, the internal occasion is also illuminated, since when the object is known, that which has the object must be known. Therein, various methods are in this (vinayo), the various pātimokkhas, the two kinds of vibhaṅgas, the five kinds of pātimokkha recitations, the five āpattikkhandhas, the seven āpattikkhandhas, and so forth, various, many kinds of methods are in this, thus is the meaning. Or, special methods are in this (vinayo), the purposes of strengthening and loosening (rules), methods of subsequent enactments, and so forth, special methods are in this, thus is the meaning. Or, it disciplines (vineti) is vinayo. The body disciplines bodily and verbal actions; thus, because of disciplining bodily and verbal actions, it is vinayo. Indeed, it has been said in the Aṭṭhakathā –
Having thus shown the homage to the Triple Gem with its reasons, now the primary purpose of beginning the treatise, along with its proximate cause, is explained by the phrase “for the study of the Vinaya, for the meditating monks.” Here, the phrase “for the study of the Vinaya” shows the primary purpose, and by showing this, the secondary purpose is also clarified, as when the cause is accomplished, the result is achieved. The phrase “for the meditating monks” shows the external proximate cause, and by showing this, the internal proximate cause is also indicated, as when the object is known, the subject is known. Here, “Vinaya” means the various methods, such as the twofold Pātimokkha, the twofold Vibhaṅga, the fivefold Pātimokkha recitation, the sevenfold classification of offenses, etc., which are of various kinds. Alternatively, “Vinaya” means the special methods, such as the strengthening or loosening of rules, the purpose of supplementary rules, etc. Alternatively, “Vinaya” means that which trains. It trains the body and speech, hence it is called “Vinaya.” As stated in the commentary:
ID37
“Vividhavisesanayattā ; Vinayanato ceva kāyavācānaṃ; Vinayatthavidūhi ayaṃ; Vinayo ’vinayo’ti akkhāto”ti. (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.paṭhamamahāsaṅgītikathā; dha. sa. aṭṭha. nidānakathā; dī. ni. aṭṭha. 1.paṭhamamahāsaṅgītikathā);
“Due to various distinct methods; and due to disciplining body and speech; by those who know the meaning of discipline; this vinaya is called ‘vinaya’” (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.paṭhamamahāsaṅgītikathā; dha. sa. aṭṭha. nidānakathā; dī. ni. aṭṭha. 1.paṭhamamahāsaṅgītikathā).
“Because of diverse and special methods; and because of disciplining body and speech; this is by those who understand the Vinaya; declared as ‘Vinaya,’ ‘Vinaya.’” (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.paṭhamamahāsaṅgītikathā; dha. sa. aṭṭha. nidānakathā; dī. ni. aṭṭha. 1.paṭhamamahāsaṅgītikathā);
“Because of its various special methods, and because it trains the body and speech, it is called ‘Vinaya’ by those who understand the purpose of training” (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1; DhsA. Nidānakathā; Dī. Ni. Aṭṭha. 1).
ID38
Ko so? Vinayapiṭakaṃ. Tasmiṃ vinaye. Paṭati viyattabhāvaṃ gacchatīti paṭu. Ko so? Paṇḍito. Paṭuno bhāvo pāṭavaṃ. Kiṃ taṃ? Ñāṇaṃ. Asati kāraṇānurūpaṃ bhavatīti attho. Ko so? Payojanaṃ. Pāṭavameva attho pāṭavattho, tassa pāṭavatthāya, vinayapiṭake kosallañāṇapayojanāyāti vuttaṃ hoti. Yuñjanaṃ yogo, kammaṭṭhānamanasikāro. Avacarantīti avacarā, yoge avacarā yogāvacarā, kammaṭṭhānikā bhikkhū. Saṃsāre bhayaṃ ikkhantīti bhikkhū, yogāvacarā ca te bhikkhū cāti yogāvacarabhikkhū, tesaṃ yogāvacarabhikkhūnaṃ. Etena vinaye paṭubhāvo nāma bhikkhūnaṃyeva attho hoti, na gahaṭṭhatāpasaparibbājakādīnaṃ. Bhikkhūsu ca kammaṭṭhāne niyuttānaṃ lajjipesalabhikkhūnaṃyeva, na vissaṭṭhakammaṭṭhānānaṃ alajjibhikkhūnanti imamatthaṃ dasseti.
What is it? The Vinaya Piṭaka. In that vinaye. It falls into clarity, thus paṭu. Who is it? A wise person. The state of being paṭu is pāṭavaṃ. What is it? Knowledge. It exists in accordance with its cause, thus the meaning. What is it? The purpose. Pāṭavaṃ itself is the meaning, pāṭavattha, for that pāṭavatthāya—meaning for the sake of skill-knowledge in the Vinaya Piṭaka. Practice is yoga, attention to meditation subjects. They engage in it, thus avacarā; engaging in yoga, yogāvacarā—monks practicing meditation. They see danger in samsara, thus bhikkhū; they are both practitioners and monks, thus yogāvacarabhikkhū, of them, yogāvacarabhikkhūnaṃ. This shows that proficiency in the Vinaya is the purpose only for monks, not for householders, ascetics, wanderers, and so forth; and among monks, only for virtuous monks with shame practicing meditation, not for shameless monks who abandon meditation.
What is that? The Vinayapiṭaka. In that vinaye. One who proceeds (paṭati) to a state of proficiency is paṭu. Who is that? A wise person. The state of a paṭu is pāṭavaṃ. What is that? Knowledge. It exists according to its cause, is the meaning. What is that? Purpose. The very proficiency is the meaning, pāṭavattho, of that, pāṭavatthāya, for the purpose of knowledge of proficiency in the Vinayapiṭaka, is what is said. Those who practice (avacaranti) engagement (yujjanaṃ) is yoga, mental cultivation of a meditation subject (kammaṭṭhāna). Those who practice in yoga are yogāvacarā, bhikkhus who are engaged in meditation. Those who see (ikkhanti) fear in saṃsāra are bhikkhū, yogāvacarā and those bhikkhū are yogāvacarabhikkhū, of them, yogāvacarabhikkhūnaṃ. By this, he shows that proficiency in the Vinaya is indeed the purpose of bhikkhus, not of householders, ascetics, wanderers, and so forth. And among bhikkhus, it is only of modest bhikkhus who are engaged in meditation, not of bhikkhus who have abandoned meditation and who are immodest.
What is it? The Vinaya Piṭaka. In that Vinaya. “Study” means going towards clarity. What is it? Wisdom. The state of being clear is clarity. What is it? The purpose. The purpose is clarity. “For the study” means for the purpose of skill and knowledge in the Vinaya Piṭaka. “Meditating monks” means those monks who are devoted to meditation, who are diligent in their practice. They are called “meditating monks” because they see danger in saṃsāra. Thus, the clarity in the Vinaya is meant for the monks, not for householders, ascetics, or wanderers. Among the monks, it is meant for those who are devoted to meditation, the conscientious monks, not for those who are negligent in meditation, the shameless monks. This meaning is shown here.
ID39
Evaṃ pakaraṇārambhassa sanimittaṃ payojanaṃ dassetvā idāni sahetukaṃ abhidheyyaṃ dassetuṃ “vippakiṇṇamanekattha, pāḷimuttavinicchaya”nti āha. Tattha vippakiṇṇaṃ anekatthāti iminā pakaraṇārambhassa hetuṃ dasseti hetumantavisesanattā, imassa anekatthavippakiṇṇattāyeva ācariyassa ārambho hoti, na avippakiṇṇe sati. Vakkhati hi “samāharitvā ekattha dassayissa”nti (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. ganthārambhakathā). Pāḷimuttavinicchayanti iminā pakaraṇābhidheyyaṃ. Tattha kirati vikkhipatīti kiṇṇo, pakārena kiṇṇo pakiṇṇo, vividhena pakiṇṇo vippakiṇṇo. Ko so? Pāḷimuttavinicchayo, taṃ vippakiṇṇaṃ.
Having shown the purpose with its occasion for beginning the text, now to show the reasoned subject matter, he says: “vippakiṇṇamanekattha, pāḷimuttavinicchayaṃ”. Here, vippakiṇṇaṃ anekatthā indicates the reason for beginning the text, due to its being a qualifying attribute with a cause; the teacher’s undertaking occurs precisely because of this manifold scattered nature, not if it were unscattered. For he will say, “I will show it gathered in one place” (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. ganthārambhakathā). Pāḷimuttavinicchayaṃ indicates the subject matter of the text. There, it scatters and disperses, thus kiṇṇo; scattered by method, pakiṇṇo; scattered variously, vippakiṇṇo. What is it? The pāḷimuttavinicchaya, that vippakiṇṇaṃ.
Having thus shown the purpose of commencing this treatise, along with its cause, he now says “vippakiṇṇamanekattha, pāḷimuttavinicchaya” to show the subject matter along with its reason. Herein, “scattered, of many meanings” shows the reason for commencing this treatise, as it serves as an adjective that denotes a reason; the teacher’s commencement is due to its being scattered with many meanings, not when it is not scattered. For he will say, “having gathered it together in one place, I will show it” (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. ganthārambhakathā). “Pāḷimuttavinicchaya” indicates the subject matter of the treatise. Here, kirati means scatters; what is scattered is called kiṇṇa. Scattered in various ways is pakiṇṇa. Scattered thoroughly is vippakiṇṇa. What is that? The Pāḷimuttavinicchaya, that is vippakiṇṇaṃ.
Having thus shown the purpose with its indications for beginning the treatise, now to explain the subject matter with its reasons, it is said: “Scattered in many places, the Pāḷi and its decisions.” Herein, “scattered in many places” indicates the reason for beginning the treatise because it is a qualifying reason; due to this being scattered in many places, the teacher’s undertaking occurs, not when it is not scattered. For it is said: “Having gathered, I will explain it in one place” (Vin. Saṅgaha Aṭṭhakathā, Treatise Beginning). “The Pāḷi and its decisions” indicates the subject matter of the treatise. Herein, “kiṇṇa” means scattered; “pakiṇṇa” means scattered in a particular way; “vippakiṇṇa” means scattered in various ways. What is that? The Pāḷi and its decisions, that is “scattered.”
ID40
Anekatthāti ettha saṅkhyāvācako sabbanāmiko eka-saddo, na eko aneke. Bahvatthavācako anekasaddo. Ekantaekavacanantopi eka-saddo na-itinipātena yuttattā bahuvacananto jātoti. Tattha anekattha bahūsūti attho, pārājikakaṇḍaṭṭhakathādīsu anekesu pakaraṇesūti vuttaṃ hoti. Porāṇaṭīkāyaṃ pana anekatthāti anekesu sikkhāpadapadesesūti attho dassito, evañca sati upari “samāharitvā ekatthā”ti vakkhamānattā “anekatthavippakiṇṇaṃ ekattha samāharitvā”ti imesaṃ padānaṃ sahayogībhūtattā anekesu sikkhāpadapadesesu vippakiṇṇaṃ ekasmiṃ sikkhāpadapadese samāharitvāti attho bhaveyya, so ca attho ayutto. Kasmā? Anekesu pakaraṇesu vippakiṇṇaṃ ekasmiṃ pakaraṇe samāharitvāti attho amhehi vutto. Atha pana “ekatthā”ti imassa “ekato”ti atthaṃ vikappetvā anekesu sikkhāpadapadesesu vippakiṇṇaṃ ekato samāharitvāti atthaṃ gaṇheyya, so attho yutto bhaveyya.
Anekatthā—here, the numeral “one” (eka) is a universal term, not “one” as opposed to “many”; “many” (aneka) denotes multiple meanings. Though “eka” ends in the singular, by the rule of negation it becomes plural in form. Thus, anekattha means “in many”; it is said to mean “in many texts such as the Pārājika section commentary and so forth.” In the ancient commentary, however, anekatthā is said to mean “in many sections of training rules”; if so, given the later statement “gathered in one place,” the phrase “scattered in many meanings gathered in one place” would imply “scattered in many sections of training rules gathered in one section of a training rule,” which is inappropriate. Why? We say it means “scattered in many texts gathered in one text.” Alternatively, if “ekatthā” is interpreted as “together,” meaning “scattered in many sections of training rules gathered together,” that meaning would be appropriate.
In anekatthā, the word ‘eka’ is a pronoun indicating number, not one and many. The word ‘aneka’ indicates many meanings. Even though the word ‘eka’ is decidedly singular, because it is combined with the particle ‘na-iti,’ it becomes plural. Therefore, anekattha means many suttas, meaning in many sections like the Pārājikakaṇḍaṭṭhakathā. In the ancient commentary, however, anekatthā means in many sections of training rules. If this were the case, since it will be said later “having gathered in one place”, because the words “anekatthavippakiṇṇaṃ ekattha samāharitvā” are used together, it would mean “having gathered in one training rule what is scattered across many training rule sections,” but that meaning is inappropriate. Why? The meaning we have stated is “having gathered in one section what is scattered across many sections.” But if we interpret “ekatthā” as “ekato” (together), and take the meaning as “having gathered together what is scattered across many training rule sections,” that meaning would be appropriate.
“In many places”: Here, the numeral “eka” is a pronoun, not “one” or “many.” The word “aneka” means “many.” Although “eka” is singular, it is not appropriate here due to the context, so the plural form is used. Herein, “anekattha” means “in many places,” as stated in the commentaries on the Pārājika section, etc. In the ancient commentary, however, “anekattha” is explained as “in many sections of the training rules,” and thus, considering the statement above, “having gathered into one place,” it means “having gathered what is scattered in many sections of the training rules into one section.” But this meaning is inappropriate. Why? Because we have stated that it means “having gathered what is scattered in many treatises into one treatise.” Alternatively, if one interprets “ekattha” as “into one,” then it would mean “having gathered what is scattered in many sections of the training rules into one,” which would be appropriate.
ID41
Pakaṭṭhānaṃ āḷīti pāḷi, uttamānaṃ vacanānaṃ anukkamoti attho. Atha vā attatthaparatthādibhedaṃ atthaṃ pāleti rakkhatīti pāḷi, laḷānamaviseso. Kā sā? Vinayatanti. Muccatīti mutto, pāḷito mutto pāḷimutto. Chindiyate anenāti chayo, nīharitvā chayo nicchayo, visesena nicchayo vinicchayo, khilamaddanākārena pavatto saddanayo atthanayo ca. Pāḷimutto ca so vinicchayo cāti pāḷimuttavinicchayo, taṃ pāḷimuttavinicchayaṃ. Idañca “ānagarā khadiravana”ntiādīsu viya yebhuyyanayavasena vuttaṃ katthaci pāḷivinicchayassapi dissanato. Porāṇaṭīkāyaṃ pana pāḷivinicchayo ca pāḷimuttavinicchayo ca pāḷimuttavinicchayoti evaṃ ekadesasarūpekasesavasena vā etaṃ vuttanti daṭṭhabbanti dutiyanayopi vutto, evañca sati pāḷivinicchayapāḷimuttavinicchayehi aññassa vinicchayassa abhāvā kimetena ganthagarukarena pāḷimuttaggahaṇena. Visesanañhi sambhavabyabhicāre ca sati sātthakaṃ siyāti paṭhamanayova ārādhanīyo hoti.
The line of the exalted ones is pāḷi, meaning the sequence of their supreme words. Or, it protects the meaning—self-benefit, others’ benefit, and so forth—thus pāḷi, a general term for speech. What is it? The Vinaya text. It is released, thus mutto; released from pāḷi, pāḷimutto. It is cut by this, thus chayo; extracted and determined, nicchayo; specifically determined, vinicchayo—both the method of sound and meaning proceeding by crushing difficulties. It is both released from pāḷi and a determination, thus pāḷimuttavinicchayo, that pāḷimuttavinicchayaṃ. This is said by the majority rule, as in “from the city to the khadira forest,” since some pāḷi determinations are also seen. In the ancient commentary, it is said as “both pāḷi determination and pāḷimuttavinicchayo, thus pāḷimuttavinicchayo,” understood as a partial identity or remainder; if so, since there is no other determination apart from pāḷi determination and pāḷimuttavinicchayo, what is the point of this text-heavy inclusion of “pāḷimutto”? A qualifier is meaningful when there is possibility and distinction, so the first interpretation is preferable.
Pāḷi is a row (āḷi) of excellent (pakaṭṭhānaṃ) things. It means the sequence of the statements of the excellent ones. Or, Pāḷi protects (pāleti, rakkhati) the meaning (atthaṃ) which is divided into one’s own benefit, the benefit of others, and so on. It does not discriminate between ‘la’ and ‘ḷa’. What is that? It is the Vinaya. What is freed (muccati) is mutta. Freed from the Pāḷi is pāḷimutto. What one cuts off (chindiyate) with is chayo. Having removed and cut, it is a decision (nicchayo). A special decision is a vinicchayo, the method of sound and meaning that arises through crushing the barrenness. The pāḷimuttavinicchayo is that which is both freed from the Pāḷi and a decision; that is pāḷimuttavinicchayaṃ. And this is said by way of prevalence, as in examples like “ānagarā khadiravana,” since sometimes even Pāḷivinicchaya is seen. In the ancient commentary, however, a second interpretation is also mentioned: pāḷivinicchayo ca pāḷimuttavinicchayo ca pāḷimuttavinicchayoti, and it is understood that this is stated by way of combining identical forms in one residue. If this were so, since there is no decision other than Pāḷivinicchaya and Pāḷimuttavinicchaya, what is the point of burdening the text with the inclusion of pāḷimutta? For an adjective is meaningful when there is both possibility and deviation; therefore, the first interpretation is to be preferred.
“Pāḷi” means the collection of excellent sayings, the sequence of the highest words. Alternatively, it means that which protects or guards the meaning, whether for oneself or others, hence “Pāḷi,” with no difference in meaning. What is that? The Vinaya. “Mutto” means freed; freed from the Pāḷi is “Pāḷimutto.” “Chayo” means cutting; having removed, it is “nicchayo”; particularly, “nicchayo” is “vinicchayo,” the process of crushing the thorns, both in terms of language and meaning. The Pāḷi and its decisions, that is “Pāḷimuttavinicchayo.” This is also stated in places like “Ānagarā Khadiravana,” where the Pāḷi and its decisions are mostly explained. In the ancient commentary, however, it is said that “Pāḷivinicchayo” and “Pāḷimuttavinicchayo” are sometimes treated as one, and this should be understood accordingly. Since there is no other decision apart from the Pāḷi and its decisions, why this emphasis on the term “Pāḷimutta”? Because when there is a possibility of confusion, it is meaningful to specify, hence the first interpretation is preferable.
ID42
Evaṃ sahetukaṃ abhidheyyaṃ dassetvā idāni karaṇappakāraṃ dasseti “samāharitvā”tiādinā. Duvidho hettha karaṇappakāro ekatthasamāharaṇaanākulakaraṇavasena. So duvidhopi tena pakārena pakaraṇassa katattā “karaṇappakāro”ti vuccati. Tattha samāharissāmīti samāharitvā, saṃ-saddo saṅkhepattho, tasmā saṅkhipiya āharissāmīti attho. Anāgatakālikavasena paccamānena “dassayissa”nti padena samānakālattā anāgatakāliko idha tvā-paccayo vutto. Ekatthāti ekasmiṃ idha vinayasaṅgahappakaraṇe. Ekatthāti vā ekato. Dassayissanti dassayissāmi, ñāpayissāmīti attho. Ākulati byākulatīti ākulo, na ākulo anākulo, pubbāparabyākiṇṇavirahito pāḷimuttavinicchayo. Anākulanti pana bhāvanapuṃsakaṃ, tasmā karadhātumayena katvāsaddena yojetvā dassanakiriyāya sambandhitabbaṃ.
Having shown the reasoned subject matter, now he shows the method of composition with “samāharitvā” and so forth. The method of composition here is twofold: gathering in one place and making it unconfused. Both are called “method of composition” because the text is made in this way. There, I will gather, thus samāharitvā; the prefix “saṃ” denotes brevity, so it means “I will gather succinctly.” Due to contemporaneity with the future tense “dassayissa,” the tvā suffix here denotes the future. Ekatthā means “in one,” here the vinaya-saṅgaha text; or ekatthā means “together.” Dassayissa means “I will show,” meaning “I will make known.” It becomes confused and disordered, thus ākulo; not confused, anākulo—free from prior and subsequent disorder, the pāḷimuttavinicchayo. Anākulaṃ is a neuter substantive, so it should be connected with the act of showing via the participle “katvā” derived from the root “to do.”
Having thus shown the subject matter along with its reason, he now shows the method of exposition with “samāharitvā” and so on. Here, there are two types of exposition methods: gathering in one place and making it non-confused. Both of these methods are called “method of exposition” because the treatise is done in that manner. Here, “I will collect” means samāharitvā. The prefix ‘saṃ’ denotes conciseness, therefore, the meaning is “I will collect concisely”. Since it is simultaneous with the word “dassayissa” (I will show) which presents future, the tvā suffix shows futurity. Ekatthā means in one place, here in this compendium of Vinaya. Or, ekatthā means together. Dassayissa means I will show, I will make known. Ākulo means confused or perplexed. Na ākulo is anākulo, a Pāḷimuttavinicchaya free from before-and-after confusion. But, anākula is a neuter abstract noun, therefore, it should be connected with the verb katvā and linked with the act of showing.
Having thus explained the subject matter with its reasons, now the method of action is explained with “having gathered.” Herein, the method of action is twofold: gathering into one place and making it non-confused. Both are called “method of action” because they are ways of composing the treatise. Herein, “I will gather” means “having gathered,” where the prefix “saṃ-” indicates abbreviation, hence it means “I will gather after abbreviating.” The future tense is used here with the suffix “-issa,” but the present tense is implied. “In one place” means in this Vinaya compilation treatise. “In one place” or “into one.” “I will explain” means “I will make known.” “Confused” means mixed; not confused is “non-confused,” free from being scattered before and after, the Pāḷi and its decisions. “Non-confused” is a positive term, hence it should be connected with the verb “to do” and the suffix “-as” to indicate the act of showing.
ID43
Evaṃ ratanattayapaṇāmādikaṃ pubbakaraṇaṃ dassetvā idāni ye pāḷimuttavinicchaye dassetukāmo, tesaṃ anukkamakaraṇatthaṃ mātikaṃ ṭhapento “tatrāyaṃ mātikā”tiādimāha. Mātikāya hi asati dassitavinicchayā vikiranti vidhaṃsenti yathā taṃ suttena asaṅgahitāni pupphāni. Santiyā pana mātikāya dassitavinicchayā na vikiranti na vidhaṃsenti yathā taṃ suttena saṅgahitāni pupphāni. Taṃ taṃ atthaṃ jānitukāmehi mātikānusārena gantvā icchiticchitavinicchayaṃ patvā so so attho jānitabbo hoti, tasmā sukhaggahaṇatthaṃ mātikā ṭhapitā. Tattha tatrāti tasmiṃ pāḷimuttavinicchaye. Ayanti ayaṃ mayā vakkhamānā. Mātā viyāti mātikā. Yathā hi puttā mātito pabhavanti, evaṃ niddesapadāni uddesato pabhavanti, tasmā uddeso mātikā viyāti “mātikā”ti vuccati.
Having shown the preliminary acts like homage to the Triple Gem, now, to establish a sequence for those pāḷimuttavinicchayas he wishes to present, he sets forth a table of contents, saying “tatrāyaṃ mātikā” and so forth. Without a table of contents, the presented determinations scatter and disintegrate, like flowers not held together by a thread. With a table of contents, they do not scatter or disintegrate, like flowers held together by a thread. Those desiring to know various meanings should follow the table of contents to reach and understand the desired determinations, so it is set forth for ease of comprehension. There, tatra means “in that pāḷimuttavinicchaya.” Ayaṃ means “this, which I will state.” Like a mother, thus mātikā. Just as children originate from a mother, so the detailed terms originate from the outline, hence the outline is like a mother, thus called “mātikā.”
Thus, having shown the preliminary act such as the homage to the Triple Gem, now, in order to enumerate those things he intends to show in the Pāḷimuttavinicchaya, he introduces a matrix, saying “tatrāyaṃ mātikā” and so on. For in the absence of a matrix, the decisions shown would scatter and disperse, just like flowers not strung together by a thread. But when there is a matrix, the decisions shown do not scatter, do not disperse, just like flowers strung together by a thread. Those who want to know this or that meaning, having gone according to the matrix and reached the desired decision, that particular meaning should be known. Therefore, the matrix is established for the sake of easy comprehension. Here, tatrā means in that Pāḷimuttavinicchaya. Aya means this one that I will speak. Mātikā is like a mother (mātā). Just as sons originate from a mother, so too do the words of explanation originate from the outline. Therefore, the outline is like a mother; thus it is called “mātikā.”
Having thus shown the preliminary actions such as paying homage to the Triple Gem, now, for those who wish to explain the Pāḷi and its decisions, a matrix is set up to proceed in order, saying “here is the matrix.” For without a matrix, the explained decisions would scatter and be destroyed, like flowers not gathered in a basket. But with a matrix, the explained decisions do not scatter or get destroyed, like flowers gathered in a basket. Therefore, to easily grasp the meaning, one should follow the matrix, and having reached the desired decision, that meaning should be understood. Hence, for ease of understanding, the matrix is established. Herein, “here” means in this Pāḷi and its decisions. “This” means this is what I will explain. Like a mother, hence “matrix.” Just as children arise from a mother, so the explanatory terms arise from the recitation, hence the recitation is called the matrix.
ID44
Divāseyyātiādīsu divāseyyā divāseyyavinicchayakathā. Parikkhāro parikkhāravinicchayakathā…pe… pakiṇṇakaṃ pakiṇṇakavinicchayakathāti yojanā. Teneva vakkhati “divāsayanavinicchayakathā samattā”tiādi. Iti-saddo idamattho vā nidassanattho vā parisamāpanattho vā. Tesu idamatthe kā sā? Divāseyyā…pe… pakiṇṇakaṃ iti ayanti. Nidassanatthe kathaṃ sā? Divāseyyā…pe… pakiṇṇakaṃ iti daṭṭhabbāti. Parisamāpanatthe sā kittakena parisamattā? Divāseyyā…pe… pakiṇṇakaṃ iti ettakena parisamattāti attho. Imesaṃ pana divāseyyādipadānaṃ vākyaviggahaṃ katvā atthe idha vuccamāne atipapañco bhavissati, sotūnañca dussallakkhaṇīyo, tasmā tassa tassa niddesassa ādimhiyeva yathānurūpaṃ vakkhāma.
In divāseyyā and so forth, divāseyyā is the discussion of the determination on daytime rest; parikkhāro is the discussion of the determination on requisites; … up to pakiṇṇakaṃ, the discussion of miscellaneous determinations—this is the construction. Thus he will say, “The discussion of the determination on daytime rest is completed” and so forth. The word iti may denote mere existence, exemplification, or completion. In the sense of existence: “divāseyyā … up to pakiṇṇakaṃ, thus this.” In the sense of exemplification: “divāseyyā … up to pakiṇṇakaṃ, thus it should be seen.” In the sense of completion: “divāseyyā … up to pakiṇṇakaṃ, thus it is completed to this extent.” Analyzing these terms like divāseyyā into sentences and explaining their meaning here would be overly elaborate and difficult for listeners to grasp, so we will explain them appropriately at the beginning of each respective section.
In divāseyyā and so on, divāseyyā means the discussion of the decision regarding daytime sleep. Parikkhāro means the discussion of the decision regarding requisites… and so on… pakiṇṇakaṃ means the discussion of the decision regarding miscellaneous matters. He will, therefore, state “The discussion on the decision about daytime sleep is concluded,” and so forth. The word iti can mean ‘this,’ ‘for example,’ or ‘conclusion.’ Of these, if it means ‘this,’ what is it? It is this: Divāseyyā…pe… pakiṇṇakaṃ. If it means ‘for example,’ how is it? It should be seen as ‘for example’: Divāseyyā…pe… pakiṇṇakaṃ. If it means ‘conclusion,’ with how much is it concluded? It is concluded with this much: Divāseyyā…pe… pakiṇṇakaṃ. But if we were to provide grammatical analyses and meanings of these words, divāseyyā and so on, it would become overly extensive and difficult for the listeners to grasp. Therefore, we will explain them appropriately at the very beginning of each explanation.
“Daytime resting” etc., “daytime resting” is the discussion on the decision regarding daytime resting. “Requirement” is the discussion on the decision regarding requirements… and so on… “Miscellaneous” is the discussion on the decision regarding miscellaneous matters. Thus, it is said: “The discussion on the decision regarding daytime resting is concluded,” etc. The word “iti” means “this is the meaning,” or “indicating,” or “concluding.” Herein, in the sense of “this is the meaning,” what is it? Daytime resting… and so on… miscellaneous matters, this is it. In the sense of indicating, how is it? Daytime resting… and so on… miscellaneous matters, thus it should be seen. In the sense of concluding, how much is concluded? Daytime resting… and so on… miscellaneous matters, thus much is concluded. However, to elaborate on the meaning of these terms such as daytime resting here would be excessive and difficult for listeners to grasp, hence we will explain each explanation at the beginning as appropriate.
ID45
Ganthārambhakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.
The explanation of the discourse on the beginning of the composition is completed.
The exposition of the introductory discussion of the text is finished.
The explanation of the treatise’s beginning is concluded.
ID46
ID47
1. Evaṃ pāḷimuttavinicchayakathānaṃ mātikaṃ ṭhapetvā idāni yathāṭhapitamātikānukkamena niddisanto “tattha divāseyyāti divānipajjana”ntiādimāha. Tattha tatthāti tesu mātikāpadesu samabhiniviṭṭhassa “divāseyyā”ti padassa “divānipajjana”nti attho daṭṭhabboti yojanā. Tattha divā-saddo ahavācako ākāranto nipāto. Vuttañhi abhidhānappadīpikāyaṃ “ānukūlyetu saddhañca, nattaṃ doso divā tvahe”ti. Sayanaṃ seyyā, karajakāyagatarūpānaṃ uddhaṃ anuggantvā dīghavasena vitthārato pavattanasaṅkhāto iriyāpathaviseso. Divākālasmiṃ seyyā divāseyyā. Aruṇuggamanato paṭṭhāya yāva sūriyatthaṅgamanā, etasmiṃ kāle sayanairiyāpathakaraṇanti. Tenāha “divānipajjananti attho”ti.
1. Having set forth the table of contents for the discussions of pāḷimuttavinicchaya, now explaining them in the order of the table, he says “tattha divāseyyāti divānipajjanaṃ” and so forth. There, tattha means “among those table of contents terms”; the meaning of the term “divāseyyā” as “lying down in the daytime” should be understood—this is the construction. There, divā is a word for day, an indeclinable ending in ā. For it is said in the Abhidhānappadīpikā: “Favor and faith, absence of fault, divā for day.” Resting is seyyā, a specific posture characterized by the body’s form extending lengthwise without rising upward. Resting in the daytime, divāseyyā. From sunrise until sunset, performing the posture of resting in this period—thus he says, “meaning lying down in the daytime.”
1. Having thus established the matrix of the discussions on the Pāḷi and decisions freed from the Pāḷi, now explaining according to the order of the established matrix, he says “tattha divāseyyāti divānipajjana” and so on. Here, in regard to the word ‘divāseyyā’ situated amongst those words of the matrix, the meaning should be understood as ‘divānipajjana’ (daytime lying down). Here, the word divā is an indeclinable with the ‘ā’ ending, signifying day. As stated in the Abhidhānappadīpikā, “Saddha is in agreement, and natta is night, dosa is fault, divā is day.” Sleeping (sayanaṃ) is seyyā, a specific posture characterized by extending the body’s generated forms horizontally, without rising up. Seyyā during the daytime (divākālasmiṃ) is divāseyyā. It is the act of adopting the sleeping posture from the time of sunrise until sunset. Therefore, he says “divānipajjananti attho” (the meaning is lying down during the day).
1. Having thus set up the matrix for the discussion on the Pāḷi and its decisions, now, following the established matrix, it is explained: “Here, ‘daytime resting’ means lying down during the day.” Herein, “here” means in the matrix terms, where the term “daytime resting” is established, and its meaning should be understood as “lying down during the day.” Herein, the word “divā” is a particle indicating time, ending with “-ā.” As stated in the Abhidhānappadīpikā: “Favor, faith, and ‘divā’ mean ‘day.’” “Seyyā” means lying down, the posture of lying stretched out lengthwise, after the body has risen. Lying down during the daytime is “divāseyyā.” From the rising of the dawn until the setting of the sun, during this time, the act of lying down is performed. Hence, it is said: “Lying down during the day is the meaning.”
ID48
Tatrāti tasmiṃ divāsayane ayaṃ vakkhamāno vinicchayo veditabboti yojanā. “Anujānāmi…pe… vacanato”ti (pārā. 77) ayaṃ paṭhamapārājikasikkhāpadassa vinītavatthūsu āgato bhagavatā āhaccabhāsito ñāpakapāṭho. Tattha divā paṭisallīyantenāti divā nipajjantena. Dvāraṃ saṃvaritvā paṭisallīyitunti dvāraṃ pidahitvā nipajjituṃ. “Divā…pe… nipajjitabbanti ñāpyaṃ. Nanu pāḷiyaṃ “ayaṃ nāma āpattī”ti na vuttā, atha kathamettha āpatti viññāyatīti codanaṃ sandhāyāha “ettha ca kiñcāpī”tiādi. Tattha etthāti etasmiṃ divānipajjane. Ca-saddo vākyārambhajotako, kiñcāpi-saddo nipātasamudāyo, yadipītyattho. Pāḷiyaṃ ayaṃ nāma āpattīti kiñcāpi na vuttā, pana tathāpi asaṃvaritvā nipajjantassa aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.77) dukkaṭaṃ yasmā vuttaṃ, tasmā ettha āpatti viññāyatīti yojanā. Evaṃ santepi asati bhagavato vacane kathaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ siyāti āha “vivaritvā…pe… anuññātattā”ti. Etena bhagavato anujānanampi taṃ akarontassa āpattikāraṇaṃ hotīti dasseti.
Tatra means “in that daytime rest, this determination to be stated should be understood”—this is the construction. “Anujānāmi…pe… vacanato” (pārā. 77) is a passage spoken directly by the Blessed One in the cases adjudicated under the first Pārājika training rule. There, divā paṭisallīyantena means “by one lying down in the daytime”; dvāraṃ saṃvaritvā paṭisallīyituṃ means “to lie down having closed the door”; “divā…pe… nipajjitabbaṃ” indicates permission. But since the text does not say “this is such an offense,” how is an offense understood here? Addressing this objection, he says “ettha ca kiñcāpi” and so forth. There, ettha means “in this lying down in the daytime”; ca marks the start of the sentence; kiñcāpi is a compound particle meaning “although.” Although the text does not state “this is such an offense,” still, since the commentary (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.77) states a dukkaṭa offense for one lying down without closing the door, an offense is understood here—this is the construction. Even so, without the Blessed One’s statement, how could it be stated in the commentary? He says “vivaritvā…pe… anuññātattā”. This shows that even the Blessed One’s permission becomes a cause of offense if not followed.
Tatrā means in that daytime sleep, this forthcoming decision should be known. “Anujānāmi…pe… vacanato” (pārā. 77) – this is the declarative passage spoken responsively by the Blessed One, found in the Vinīta Vatthu section of the first Pārājika training rule. Here, divā paṭisallīyantenā means by one lying down during the day. Dvāraṃ saṃvaritvā paṭisallīyitu means to lie down having closed the door. “Divā…pe… nipajjitabba” is the statement to be made known. Now, in the Pāḷi, it is not stated “this is such-and-such an offense,” so how is an offense to be understood here? He answers this challenge by saying “ettha ca kiñcāpī” and so on. Here, etthā means in this matter of daytime lying down. The particle ca indicates the commencement of a sentence, and kiñcāpi is a collection of particles, meaning ‘although.’ Although it is not stated in the Pāḷi that ‘this is such and such offense’, but, however, since it is stated in the commentary (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.77) that there is a dukkaṭa offense for one who lies down without closing [the door], therefore an offense is to be understood here. Even so, in the absence of the Blessed One’s statement, how could it have been stated in the commentary? He says “vivaritvā…pe… anuññātattā”. By this, he shows that even the Blessed One’s permission becomes a cause for offense for one who does not do it.
“Here” means in this daytime resting, this decision should be understood as explained. “I allow… and so on… from the statement” (Pārā. 77) is the explanatory passage from the first Pārājika training rule, spoken by the Blessed One in the context of the disciplined matters. Herein, “divā paṭisallīyantena” means lying down during the day. “Having closed the door, one should lie down” means lying down after closing the door. “During the day… and so on… one should lie down” is the instruction. Although the Pāḷi does not say “this is an offense,” how then is an offense understood here? Addressing this doubt, it is said: “Here, although…” etc. Herein, “here” means in this lying down during the day. The word “ca” is a sentence connector, and “kiñcāpi” is a particle combination meaning “even though.” Although the Pāḷi does not say “this is an offense,” nevertheless, in the commentary (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1.77), it is said that lying down without closing the door is a minor offense, hence an offense is understood here. Even so, how could it be stated in the commentary without the Buddha’s word? It is said: “Having opened… and so on… because it was allowed.” This shows that even though the Buddha allowed it, not doing so is the cause of the offense.
ID49
Tattha “uppanne vatthumhīti itthiyā kataajjhācāravatthusmi”nti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.77) vuttaṃ, sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.77) pana “methunavatthusmiṃ uppanne”ti vuttaṃ, porāṇaṭīkāyampi tameva gahetvā “uppanne methunavatthusmi”nti vuttaṃ, tadetaṃ vicāretabbaṃ methunalakkhaṇassa abhāvā. Nanu sikkhāpadapaññāpanaṃ nāma buddhavisayo, atha kasmā aṭṭhakathāyaṃ dukkaṭaṃ vuttanti āha “bhagavato”tiādi. Na kevalaṃ upālittherādīhi eva aṭṭhakathā ṭhapitā, atha kho pāḷito ca atthato ca buddhena bhagavatā vutto. Na hi bhagavatā abyākataṃ tantipadaṃ nāma atthi, sabbesaṃyeva attho kathito, tasmā sambuddheneva tiṇṇaṃ piṭakānaṃ atthavaṇṇanakkamopi bhāsitoti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Tattha tattha hi bhagavatā pavattitā pakiṇṇakadesanāyeva aṭṭhakathāti.
There, “uppanne vatthumhi” is said in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.77) to mean “in the case of misconduct by a woman”; in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.77), it is said as “in the case of sexual conduct”; the ancient commentary also takes it as “in the case of sexual conduct,” but this should be examined due to the absence of sexual characteristics. Since establishing training rules is the domain of the Buddha, why is a dukkaṭa stated in the commentary? He says “bhagavato” and so forth. The commentary was not established only by Upāli Thera and others but was spoken by the Buddha, the Blessed One, in terms of both text and meaning. There is no unexplained term in the tradition left by the Blessed One; the meaning of all was explained. Thus, it should be seen that the method of commentary on the meaning of the three Piṭakas was also spoken by the Fully Enlightened One. The scattered teachings given by the Blessed One in various places are indeed the commentary.
Here, it is said in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.77), “uppanne vatthumhī** means in the case of a transgression committed by a woman,” while in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.77), it is stated, “when a case of sexual intercourse has arisen.” In the ancient commentary, also, adopting that very idea, it is stated, “when a case of sexual intercourse has arisen,” but this should be investigated, as there is no characteristic of sexual intercourse. Now, the laying down of a training rule is the domain of the Buddha, so why is a dukkaṭa stated in the commentary? He states ”bhagavato”** and so on. The commentary was not established only by elders like Upāli, but it was also stated by the Blessed Buddha, both from the Pāḷi and in its meaning. For there is no text-word not explained by the Blessed One; the meaning of all of them has been stated. Therefore, it should be understood that the Blessed One himself spoke the method of expounding the meaning of the three Piṭakas. For the occasional teachings delivered by the Blessed One in various places are indeed the commentary.
Herein, “when a situation arises” means in the case of a woman’s improper approach (Vimativinodanī, Vin. Ṭī. 1.77), but in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.77), it is said “when a sexual situation arises,” and the ancient commentary also states “when a sexual situation arises,” but this should be examined due to the absence of the characteristic of sexuality. Is not the establishment of training rules the domain of the Buddha? Why then is a minor offense stated in the commentary? It is said: “By the Blessed One…” etc. The commentary was not established only by Upāli Thera and others, but also by the Buddha himself, both in terms of the Pāḷi and its meaning. For there is no word or teaching left unspoken by the Blessed One; all meanings have been explained. Therefore, it should be understood that the Blessed One himself spoke the commentary on the meaning of the three Piṭakas. For the scattered teachings given by the Blessed One in various places are indeed the commentary.
ID50
Kiṃ panettha etaṃ divā dvāraṃ asaṃvaritvā nipajjantassa dukkaṭāpattiāpajjanaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttattā eva siddhaṃ, udāhu aññenapīti āha “atthāpattī”tiādi. Etaṃ dukkaṭāpattiāpajjanaṃ na kevalaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttattā eva siddhaṃ, atha kho “atthāpatti divā āpajjati, no ratti”nti (pari. 323) iminā parivārapāṭhenapi siddhaṃ hotīti yojanā. Katarasmiṃ pana vatthusmiṃ idaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ vuttanti? “Tena kho pana samayena aññataro bhikkhu vesāliyaṃ mahāvane kūṭāgārasālāyaṃ divā vihāragato dvāraṃ vivaritvā nipanno ahosi. Tassa aṅgamaṅgāni vātupatthaddhāni ahesuṃ. Tena kho pana samayena sambahulā itthiyo gandhañca mālañca ādāya vihāraṃ āgamiṃsu vihārapekkhikāyo. Atha kho tā itthiyo taṃ bhikkhuṃ passitvā aṅgajāte abhinisīditvā yāvadatthaṃ katvā ’purisusabho vatāya’nti vatvā gandhañca mālañca āropetvā pakkamiṃsu. Bhikkhū kilinnaṃ passitvā bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ. Pañcahi, bhikkhave, ākārehi aṅgajātaṃ kammaniyaṃ hoti rāgena, vaccena, passāvena, vātena, uccāliṅgapāṇakadaṭṭhena. Imehi kho, bhikkhave, pañcahākārehi aṅgajātaṃ kammaniyaṃ hoti. Aṭṭhānametaṃ, bhikkhave, anavakāso, yaṃ tassa bhikkhuno rāgena aṅgajātaṃ kammaniyaṃ assa, arahaṃ so, bhikkhave, bhikkhu, anāpatti bhikkhave tassa bhikkhuno. Anujānāmi bhikkhave divā paṭisallīyantena dvāraṃ saṃvaritvā paṭisallīyitu”nti (pārā. 77) etasmiṃ vatthusmiṃ idaṃ vuttanti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
But is this dukkaṭa offense for lying down in the daytime without closing the door established merely because it is stated in the commentary, or by something else? He says “atthāpattī” and so forth. This dukkaṭa offense is not established merely because it is stated in the commentary but also by the Parivāra text: “There is an offense in the daytime, not at night” (pari. 323)—this is the construction. In which case was this training rule stated? “At that time, a certain monk in Vesālī, in the Great Forest, in the peaked hall, staying in the monastery during the day, lay down with the door open. His limbs were stiffened by the wind. At that time, several women came to the monastery with scents and garlands to inspect it. Seeing that monk, they sat on his private parts, did as they pleased, said ‘What a vigorous man,’ applied scents and garlands, and left. The monks, seeing him defiled, reported it to the Blessed One. ‘Monks, the private parts become responsive in five ways: by lust, urine, excrement, wind, or the bite of a centipede. In these five ways, monks, the private parts become responsive. It is impossible, monks, there is no chance that this monk’s private parts became responsive due to lust; that monk is an arahant, monks, there is no offense for that monk. I allow, monks, one resting in the daytime to rest having closed the door’” (pārā. 77)—it should be seen as stated in this case.
Is this matter of incurring a dukkaṭa offense for lying down during the day without closing the door established only because it is stated in the commentary, or is there another reason? He says “atthāpattī” and so on. This incurring of a dukkaṭa offense is not only established because it is stated in the commentary, but it is also established by this passage in the Parivāra: “atthāpatti divā āpajjati, no ratti” (pari. 323). But in what context was this training rule stated? “At that time, a certain bhikkhu, while visiting the Mahāvana in Vesāli during the day, lay down in the kūṭāgārasālā with the door open. His limbs were agitated by the wind. At that time, many women, having taken incense and garlands, came to the monastery, wishing to see the monastery. Then those women, seeing that bhikkhu, sat down near his sexual organ, did as they pleased, and saying ‘he is indeed a bull of a man,’ placed incense and garlands and departed. The bhikkhus, seeing him moistened, reported this matter to the Blessed One. In five ways, bhikkhus, does the sexual organ become stimulated by lust: by feces, by urine, by wind, by being bitten by insects. In these five ways, bhikkhus, does the sexual organ become stimulated. It is impossible, bhikkhus, it is not possible, that the sexual organ of that bhikkhu was stimulated by lust; that bhikkhu, bhikkhus, is an arahant, there is no offense for that bhikkhu, bhikkhus. I allow, bhikkhus, that when retiring for the day, one should retire after closing the door” (pārā. 77) – it should be understood that this was said in this context.
But here, is the minor offense of lying down during the day without closing the door established only because it is stated in the commentary, or is there another reason? It is said: “Because of the offense…” etc. This minor offense is not only established because it is stated in the commentary, but also because it is established by the Parivāra passage: “An offense is committed during the day, not at night” (Parivāra 323). In what situation was this training rule established? “At that time, a certain monk in Vesālī, in the Great Forest, in the gabled hall, having entered the dwelling during the day, lay down with the door open. His limbs were stretched out by the wind. At that time, several women, carrying perfumes and garlands, came to the monastery to see the dwelling. Seeing the monk, they sat on his limbs and, having done as they pleased, said, ‘What a manly bull!’ and placed perfumes and garlands on him before leaving. The monks, seeing him soiled, reported the matter to the Blessed One. ‘Monks, the male organ becomes active for five reasons: due to lust, urine, feces, wind, or the bite of a creeping insect. Monks, it is impossible, it cannot be, that this monk’s male organ became active due to lust. That monk is an Arahant. Monks, there is no offense for that monk. I allow, monks, that one who lies down during the day should close the door and lie down’” (Pārā. 77). This training rule was established in this situation.
ID51
2. Idāni dvāravisesaṃ dassetuṃ “kīdisa”ntiādimāha. Tattha parivattakadvāramevāti saṃvaraṇavivaraṇavasena ito cito ca parivattanayoggadvārameva. Rukkhasūcikaṇṭakadvāranti rukkhasūcidvāraṃ kaṇṭakadvārañca. “Rukkhasūcidvārakaṇṭakadvāra”micceva vā pāṭho. Yaṃ ubhosu passesu rukkhatthambhe nikhanitvā tattha vijjhitvā majjhe dve tisso rukkhasūciyo pavesetvā karonti, taṃ rukkhasūcidvāraṃ nāma. Pavesananikkhamanakāle apanetvā thakanayoggaṃ ekāya, bahūhi vā kaṇṭakasākhāhi kataṃ kaṇṭakadvāraṃ nāma. Gāmadvārassa pidhānatthaṃ padarena vā kaṇṭakasākhādīhi vā katassa kavāṭassa udukkhalapāsakarahitatāya ekena saṃvarituṃ vivarituñca asakkuṇeyyassa heṭṭhā ekaṃ cakkaṃ yojenti, yena parivattamānakakavāṭaṃ sukhathakanakaṃ hoti, taṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ “cakkalakayuttadvāra”nti. Cakkameva hi lātabbatthena saṃvaraṇavivaraṇatthāya gahetabbatthena cakkalakaṃ, tena yuttakavāṭampi cakkalakaṃ nāma, tena yuttadvāraṃ cakkalakayuttadvāraṃ.
2. Now, to specify the type of door, he says “kīdisa” and so forth. There, parivattakadvārameva means “only a revolving door suitable for turning this way and that for closing and opening”; rukkhasūcikaṇṭakadvāra means “a door of wooden bars and a thorn door”; or the reading may be “rukkhasūcidvārakaṇṭakadvāra.” That which is made by embedding wooden posts on both sides, piercing them, and inserting two or three wooden bars in the middle is called rukkhasūcidvāraṃ. That which is made removable for entry and exit, suitable for closing with one or many thorny branches, is called kaṇṭakadvāraṃ. For closing a village gate, a panel or thorny branches are used; due to the absence of a latch or bolt, unable to be closed or opened by one person, a single wheel is attached below, making the revolving panel easy to close—this is meant by “cakkalakayuttadvāra”. The wheel itself, taken for closing and opening, is cakkalaka; the panel attached to it is also called cakkalaka; a door attached to it is cakkalakayuttadvāraṃ.
2. Now, to show the specific type of door, he says “kīdisa” and so on. Here, parivattakadvāramevā means only a door that can be turned this way and that, for closing and opening. Rukkhasūcikaṇṭakadvāra means a tree-pin door and a thorn door. Or the reading can be “rukkhasūcidvārakaṇṭakadvāra”. That which is made by digging tree trunks on both sides, piercing them, and inserting two or three tree-pins in the middle is called a rukkhasūcidvāraṃ (tree-pin door). Made with one or many thorn branches, suitable to be blocked after removing it at the time of entering and exiting, is called a kaṇṭakadvāraṃ (thorn door). For covering the village gate, a door made of planks or thorn branches, etc., lacking a threshold lock, and unable to be closed or opened with one hand, has a wheel attached at the bottom, by which the rotating door can be easily closed. With reference to that, it is stated “cakkalakayuttadvāra”. Indeed, the wheel itself, due to its function of holding for closing and opening in the sense of being graspable like a Lātabatta creeper, is called cakkalaka. A door connected to it is also called cakkalaka. A door connected to that is cakkalakayuttadvāraṃ.
2. Now, to explain the different types of doors, it is said: “What kind?” etc. Herein, “only a revolving door” means a door that can be opened and closed by turning it this way and that. “A door with a wooden bolt or thorns” means a door with a wooden bolt or thorns. Alternatively, the reading is “a door with a wooden bolt and thorns.” What is that? A door where wooden bolts are inserted into posts on both sides, with two or three wooden bolts driven through the middle, is called a “wooden bolt door.” A door made by removing and placing one or many thorny branches at the time of entering and exiting is called a “thorn door.” For the village gate, a door made of wood or thorny branches, without a latch or bolt, is difficult to close or open with one hand, so a wheel is attached below, making it easy to turn the door, hence it is called a “wheel-attached door.” The wheel itself is called a “wheel-attachment,” and the door attached to it is also called a “wheel-attached door,” hence the door is called a “wheel-attached door.”
ID52
Mahādvāresu pana dve tīṇi cakkalakāni yojetīti āha “phalakesū”tiādi. Kiṭikāsūti veḷupesikādīhi kaṇṭakasākhādīhi ca katathakanakesu. Saṃsaraṇakiṭikadvāranti cakkalakayantena saṃsaraṇakiṭikāyuttamahādvāraṃ. Gopphetvāti āvuṇitvā, rajjūhi ganthetvā vā. Ekaṃ dussasāṇidvāramevāti ettha kilañjasāṇidvārampi saṅgahaṃ gacchati. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 76-77) pana “dussadvāraṃ sāṇidvārañca dussasāṇidvāraṃ. Dussasāṇi kilañjasāṇītiādinā vuttaṃ sabbampi dussasāṇiyameva saṅgahetvā vuttaṃ, ekasadisattā ekanti vutta”nti vuttaṃ.
However, in the great doors, two or three wheeled devices are fitted, thus it is said, “phalakesu” and so forth. Kiṭikāsu means in the lattices made of bamboo stakes or thorny branches and the like. Saṃsaraṇakiṭikadvāra refers to a great door equipped with a sliding lattice operated by a wheeled mechanism. Gopphetvā means having fastened it, or tied it with ropes. Ekaṃ dussasāṇidvārameva indicates that here even a door made of mat and cloth is included. However, in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 76-77), it is stated: “A cloth door and a mat door are called a dussasāṇidvāra. All that is said, such as ‘dussasāṇi’ meaning mat and cloth, is included under dussasāṇi alone, and it is called ‘one’ due to their similarity.”
In the case of large doors, however, he says “to fasten two or three small wheels,” etc., with the words, “on the boards,” etc. Kiṭikāsū means on small, light, temporary, constructions made from things such as split bamboo and thorny branches. Saṃsaraṇakiṭikadvāra means a large door with a small moving door with a wheel mechanism. Gopphetvā means having tied, or having fastened with ropes. Only a single cloth-screen door - here, a screen door made of matting is also included. In the Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā (Vajira. ṭī. Pārājika 76-77), however, it is said: “A cloth door and a screen door is a cloth-screen door. Everything that is mentioned by ‘cloth screen, matting screen,’ etc., is included in ‘cloth-screen’ itself; it is said to be ‘one’ because of its similarity.”
Regarding the main doors, it is said that two or three wheel-like mechanisms are to be fitted, as stated in “phalakesū”tiādi. Kiṭikāsūti refers to places made with bamboo lattice or thorny branches. Saṃsaraṇakiṭikadvāra means a main door fitted with a rolling lattice mechanism. Gopphetvāti means having fastened or tied with ropes. Ekaṃ dussasāṇidvāramevāti here includes even a door made of reed matting. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 76-77), it is said, “A cloth door and a hemp door are called a dussasāṇidvāra. All terms like dussasāṇi and kilañjasāṇi refer to dussasāṇi, and since they are similar, they are spoken of as one.”
ID53
3. Evaṃ dvāravisesaṃ dassetvā idāni yattakena dvāraṃ saṃvutaṃ hoti, taṃ pamāṇaṃ dassetuṃ “kittakena”tyādimāha. Tattha sūcīti majjhe chiddaṃ katvā pavesitā. Ghaṭikāti upari yojitā. Idāni yattha dvāraṃ saṃvaritvā nipajjituṃ na sakkā hoti, tattha kātabbavidhiṃ dassetuṃ “sace bahūnaṃ vaḷañjanaṭṭhānaṃ hotī”tiādi vuttaṃ. Bahūnaṃ avaḷañjanaṭṭhānepi ekaṃ āpucchitvā nipajjituṃ vaṭṭatiyeva. Atha bhikkhū…pe… nisinnā hontīti idaṃ tattha bhikkhūnaṃ sannihitabhāvadassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ, na sesairiyāpathasamaṅgitānivattanatthaṃ, tasmā nipannepi ābhogaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Nipajjitvā niddāyante pana ābhogaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭati. Asantapakkhe ṭhitattā raho nisajjāya viya dvārasaṃvaraṇaṃ nāma mātugāmānaṃ pavesanivāraṇatthaṃ anuññātanti āha “kevalaṃ bhikkhuniṃ vā”tiādi.
3. Having thus shown the distinctions of doors, now to indicate the extent to which a door is considered closed, it begins with “kittakena” and so on. Therein, sūcī refers to a bolt inserted through a hole in the middle. Ghaṭikā means a latch fitted at the top. Now, to show the procedure to be followed where a door cannot be closed and one cannot lie down, it is said, “sace bahūnaṃ vaḷañjanaṭṭhānaṃ hoti” and so forth. Even in a place not suitable for many to dwell, it is indeed permissible to lie down after informing one person. Atha bhikkhū…pe… nisinnā honti is stated to show the presence of monks there, not to preclude other postures; therefore, it is permissible to make an effort even while lying down. However, it is not permissible to make an effort while sleeping after lying down. Since there is no opposing side, the closing of the door, like sitting in seclusion, is permitted to prevent the entry of women, thus it says, “kevalaṃ bhikkhuniṃ vā” and so forth.
3. Having thus shown the different kinds of doors, now, in order to show the measure by which a door is considered closed, he says “by how much,” etc. There, sūcī means inserted after making a hole in the middle. Ghaṭikā means fastened above. Now, where it is not possible to sleep after closing the door, in order to show the method to be followed, it is said, “if it is a place frequented by many,” etc. Even if it is not a place frequented by many, it is certainly allowable to sleep after taking leave of one person. If monks…etc…are sitting, this is said in order to show the presence of monks there, not to exclude those engaging in other postures; therefore, even if one is lying down, it is allowable to apply one’s mind. When one is lying down and sleeping, however, it is not allowable to apply one’s mind. Because in the case of absence (of covering), it stands as it is. Like secluded sitting, closing of a door is allowed in order to prevent the entrance of women, so he says, “only a bhikkhunī, or,” etc.
3. Having explained the different types of doors, now to indicate the extent to which a door must be closed, it is said “kittakena”tiādi. Here, sūcī means a needle inserted through a hole in the middle. Ghaṭikā means fitted above. Now, to explain the procedure for when it is not possible to lie down after closing the door, it is said “sace bahūnaṃ vaḷañjanaṭṭhānaṃ hotī”tiādi. Even if there are many places where it cannot be closed, it is permissible to lie down after informing one person. Atha bhikkhū…pe… nisinnā hontīti is said to show the presence of the monks there, not to indicate the cessation of other postures. Therefore, even while lying down, it is permissible to attend to the matter. However, it is not permissible to attend to it while asleep. Since it is not a heated situation, standing or sitting in private is allowed, and the closing of the door is permitted to prevent women from entering, as stated in “kevalaṃ bhikkhuniṃ vā”tiādi.
ID54
Ettha ca taṃ yuttaṃ, evaṃ sabbatthapi yo yo theravādo vā aṭṭhakathāvādo vā pacchā vuccati, so sova pamāṇanti gahetabbanti idaṃ aṭṭhakathāvacanato atirekaṃ ācariyassa vacanaṃ. Ito pubbāparavacanaṃ aṭṭhakathāvacanameva. Tattha taṃ yuttanti “kurundaṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana…pe… na vattatī”ti yaṃ vacanaṃ aṭṭhakathācariyehi vuttaṃ, taṃ vacanaṃ yuttanti attho. Evaṃ…pe… gahetabbanti yathā cettha kurundiyaṃ vuttavacanaṃ yuttaṃ, evaṃ sabbatthapi vinicchaye yo yo theravādo vā aṭṭhakathāvādo vā pacchā vuccati, so sova pamāṇanti gahetabbaṃ, pure vutto theravādo vā aṭṭhakathāvādo vā pamāṇanti na gahetabbanti adhippāyo. Idaṃ vacanaṃ aṭṭhāne vuttaṃ viya dissati. Kathaṃ? Yaṃ tāva vuttaṃ, taṃ yuttanti. Taṃ imasmiṃ āpucchanaābhogakaraṇavinicchaye aññassa ayuttassa aṭṭhakathāvādassa vā theravādassa vā abhāvā vattuṃ na sakkā. Na hi pubbavākye “bhikkhū evā”ti avadhāraṇaṃ kataṃ, atha kho āsannavasena vā paṭṭhānavasena vā “bhikkhū cīvarakammaṃ”iccādikaṃyeva vuttaṃ. Yampi vuttaṃ “evaṃ sabbatthapī”tyādi, tampi anokāsaṃ. Imasmiṃ vinicchaye aññassa aṭṭhakathāvādassa vā ācariyavādassa vā avacanato pure pacchābhāvo ca na dissati, ayaṃ “pamāṇa”nti gahetabbo, ayaṃ “na gahetabbo”ti vattabbabhāvo ca.
Ettha ca taṃ yuttaṃ, evaṃ sabbatthapi yo yo theravādo vā aṭṭhakathāvādo vā pacchā vuccati, so sova pamāṇanti gahetabba—this is the teacher’s statement beyond the commentary text. The preceding and following statements are indeed commentary text. Therein, taṃ yuttaṃ means that the statement made by the commentary teachers, “In the Kurundaṭṭhakathā… it is not said,” is appropriate. Evaṃ…pe… gahetabba means that just as the statement in the Kurunda here is appropriate, so too in all cases of judgment, whatever Theravāda or commentary opinion is stated later should be taken as authoritative, not the earlier stated Theravāda or commentary opinion—this is the intent. This statement seems to be misplaced. Why? Because what was said is appropriate. It cannot be said in this judgment about asking and making effort that there is another inappropriate commentary or Theravāda opinion, since no such restriction as “only monks” is made in the prior sentence; rather, it is stated merely in proximity or as a starting point, such as “monks making robes” and so forth. What is said as “evaṃ sabbatthapi” and so on also lacks basis. In this judgment, since no other commentary or teacher’s opinion is mentioned, there is no sequence of earlier or later, nor a basis to say “this should be taken” or “this should not be taken.”
And here, that is appropriate; thus, everywhere, whatever Theravāda tradition or commentary statement is mentioned later, that alone should be taken as the standard. This statement, besides the commentary text, is the statement of the teacher. The preceding and following statements are the commentary statements alone. There, that is appropriate means, the meaning is, that statement which is said by the commentary teachers, “but in the Kurunda commentary…etc…does not apply”, that statement is appropriate. Thus…etc… should be taken means, just as here, the statement mentioned in the Kurundi is appropriate, similarly, everywhere in decisions, whatever Theravāda tradition or commentary statement is said later, that alone should be taken as the standard, the previously mentioned Theravāda tradition or commentary statement should not be taken as the standard, is the intended meaning. This statement seems to be said in an inappropriate place. How? First, what is said, that is appropriate. That cannot be said because there is the absence of any other inappropriate commentary tradition or Theravāda tradition in this decision about taking leave and applying one’s mind. In the previous sentence, “monks only” is not determined, but “monks are doing robe work” etc. is just said according to presence or commencement. Even what is said, “thus everywhere”, etc., is also not appropriate. Because there is no mentioning of any other commentary tradition or teacher’s opinion in this decision, a sequence of before and after is not seen, nor the state of being something “to be taken as the standard”, or something “not to be taken.”
Here, what is appropriate should be taken as the standard, and in all cases, whatever is later stated as the opinion of the elders or the commentary should be taken as the standard—this is an additional statement by the teacher beyond the commentary. The earlier and later statements are all from the commentary. Here, taṃ yutta means that what is said in the Kurundaṭṭhakathā, “it is not stated,” is appropriate, as it is the opinion of the commentary teachers. Evaṃ…pe… gahetabba means that just as what is stated in the Kurundaṭṭhakathā is appropriate, so too in all cases of judgment, whatever is later stated as the opinion of the elders or the commentary should be taken as the standard, and what was stated earlier should not be taken as the standard. This statement seems out of place. How? What was stated earlier is appropriate. In this case of seeking permission and attending to the matter, it is not possible to say that another commentary opinion or elder’s opinion is inappropriate, as there is no such opinion. For in the earlier statement, “the monks should,” there is no definitive declaration, but rather it is said in a general way, “the monks are engaged in robe-making,” etc. And what is said, “evaṃ sabbatthapī”tiādi, is also not out of place. In this judgment, since no other commentary opinion or teacher’s opinion is stated, there is no earlier or later discrepancy, and this should be taken as the standard, and that should not be taken as the standard.
ID55
Upari pana “ko muccati, ko na muccatī”ti imassa pañhassa vissajjane mahāpaccarivādo ca kurundivādo ca mahāaṭṭhakathāvādo cāti tayo aṭṭhakathāvādā āgatā, eko mahāpadumattheravādo, tasmā tattheva yuttāyuttabhāvo ca pamāṇāpamāṇabhāvo ca gahetabbāgahetabbabhāvo ca dissati, tasmā tasmiṃyeva ṭhāne vattabbaṃ siyā, suvimalavipulapaññāveyyattiyasamannāgatena pana ācariyāsabhena avattabbaṭṭhāne vuttaṃ na siyā, tasmā upari aṭṭhakathāvādasaṃsandanāvasāne mahāpadumattherena vuttanti imassa vacanassa pacchato vuttaṃ siyā, taṃ pacchā lekhakehi parivattetvā likhitaṃ bhaveyya, pārājikakaṇḍaṭṭhakathāyañca idaṃ vacanaṃ vuttaṃ. Ṭīkāyañca imasmiṃ ṭhāne na vuttaṃ, upariyeva vuttaṃ, “yo ca yakkhagahitako, yo ca bandhitvā nipajjāpito”ti imassa aṭṭhakathāvādassa pacchimattā soyeva pamāṇato gahetabbo. Tathā ca vakkhati “sabbattha yo yo aṭṭhakathāvādo vā theravādo vā pacchā vuccati, so soyeva pamāṇato daṭṭhabbo”ti, tasmā idamettha vicāretvā gahetabbaṃ.
However, above, in answering the question “Who is released, who is not released,” three commentary opinions are given—Mahāpaccari, Kurundi, and Mahā-aṭṭhakathā—along with one opinion of the Elder Mahāpaduma. Thus, only there is it evident whether something is appropriate or not and whether it should or should not be taken as authoritative. Therefore, it should be stated only in that context. Yet, it seems it was stated in an inappropriate place by a teacher endowed with extremely pure, vast wisdom and skill, where it should not have been said. Hence, it might have been stated after the opinion of Elder Mahāpaduma at the end of the comparison of commentary opinions above and later rearranged and written by scribes. This statement is also found in the Pārājikakaṇḍaṭṭhakathā. In this subcommentary, it is not stated here but above, regarding the commentary opinion “one possessed by a yakkha and one bound and made to lie down,” which is the last, and thus it alone should be taken as authoritative. It will also say, “In all cases, whatever commentary or Theravāda opinion is stated later should be regarded as authoritative.” Therefore, this should be considered and taken accordingly.
Further on, however, in the answer to the question, “who is released, who is not released?”, three commentary traditions have come: the Mahāpaccari tradition, the Kurundi tradition, and the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā tradition, and one Mahāpaduma Thera tradition; therefore, only there do appropriateness and inappropriateness, and the state of being the standard or not the standard, the state of being what should be accepted or not accepted, appear. Thus it should be said in that place alone, but it may not have been said in the place where it should not have been said by the noble teacher, endowed with clear, extensive, and broad wisdom and accomplishment; therefore, it might have been said after the statement, “said by Mahāpaduma Thera” at the end of the comparison of commentary traditions below; it may have been written later by copyists after altering it. And this statement is said in the commentary on the pārājika section. In the ṭīkā, it is not said in this place, it is said only later, because the commentary tradition of “one who is possessed by a yakkha, and one who is made to lie down after being bound” is the last, that alone should be taken as the standard. And so he will say, “everywhere, whatever commentary tradition or Theravāda tradition is said later, that alone should be seen as the standard.” Therefore, this should be considered here after investigation.
Above, in answering the question, “who is released, who is not released,” three commentary opinions are mentioned: the Mahāpaccari, the Kurundi, and the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, and one elder’s opinion, the Mahāpaduma. Therefore, in that very place, the appropriateness or inappropriateness, the standard or non-standard, and what should or should not be taken as the standard are seen. Therefore, it should be spoken of in that very place. However, it should not be said in an inappropriate place by the teacher Sabha, who is endowed with clear and vast wisdom. Therefore, at the conclusion of the commentary discussion, it is said by the elder Mahāpaduma, and this statement might have been written later by the scribes. This statement is also found in the Pārājikakaṇḍaṭṭhakathā. In the Ṭīkā, it is not stated in this place but above, “yo ca yakkhagahitako, yo ca bandhitvā nipajjāpito”—this latter commentary opinion should be taken as the standard. And it is said, “in all cases, whatever is later stated as the opinion of the commentary or the elders should be taken as the standard,” therefore, this should be considered and taken as the standard here.
ID56
4. Idāni dvāraṃ saṃvaraṇassa antarāye sati asaṃvaritvāpi nipajjituṃ vaṭṭatīti dassetuṃ “atha dvārassa”tyādimāha. Nisseṇiṃ āropetvāti uparimatalaṃ āropetvā visaṅkharitvā bhūmiyaṃ pātetvā, chaḍḍetvā vā nipajjituṃ vaṭṭati. Idaṃ ekābaddhatāya vuttaṃ. Dvepi dvārāni jaggitabbānīti ettha sace ekasmiṃ dvāre kavāṭaṃ vā natthi, heṭṭhā vuttanayena saṃvarituṃ vā na sakkā , itaraṃ dvāraṃ asaṃvaritvā nipajjituṃ vaṭṭati. Dvārapālassāti dvārakoṭṭhake mahādvāre, nisseṇimūle vā ṭhatvā dvārajagganakassa. Pacchimānaṃ bhāroti ekābaddhavasena āgacchante sandhāya vuttaṃ. Asaṃvutadvāre antogabbhe vāti yojetabbaṃ. Bahi vāti gabbhato bahi. Nipajjanakālepi…pe… vaṭṭatiyevāti ettha dvārajagganakassa tadadhīnattā tadā tassa tattha sannihitāsannihitabhāvaṃ anupadhāretvāpi ābhogaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatiyevāti vadanti.
4. Now, to show that it is permissible to lie down without closing the door if there is an obstruction to closing it, it begins with “atha dvārassa” and so forth. Nisseṇiṃ āropetvā means having lifted it to the upper level, dismantled it, and placed it on the ground or discarded it, it is permissible to lie down. This is said due to its being a single unit. Dvepi dvārāni jaggitabbāni—here, if there is no panel in one door or it cannot be closed as described below, it is permissible to lie down without closing the other door. Dvārapālassa refers to the door-keeper standing at the doorpost of the great door or at the base of the ladder, guarding the door. Pacchimānaṃ bhāro is said with reference to those arriving as a single unit, meaning the burden falls on the later ones. It should be understood as “in an unclosed door within the inner chamber.” Bahi vā means outside the chamber. Nipajjanakālepi…pe… vaṭṭatiyeva—here, due to the door-keeper’s dependence on it, it is indeed permissible to make an effort even without considering whether he is present or absent at that time, they say.
4. Now, in order to show that it is allowable to sleep even without closing the door when there is an obstruction to closing the door, he says, “if the door,” etc. Having set up a ladder, means it is allowable to sleep after having placed it on the upper floor, dismantling it and dropping it to the ground, or discarding it. This is said in the case of one continuous unit. Both doors should be guarded - here, if in one door, there is no panel or it is not possible to close it in the way mentioned before, it is allowable to sleep without closing the other door. Of the doorkeeper means for the one guarding the door, standing in the door-hut, at the main door, or at the foot of the ladder. The responsibility of those coming later is said referring to those arriving as a single continuous group. It should be connected as: inside the inner chamber with the door not closed. Or outside means outside the chamber. Even at the time of sleeping…etc…it is allowable - here, because the door-guard is under that control, even without ascertaining his presence or absence there at that time, it is allowable to apply one’s mind, so they say.
4. Now, to show that even if there is an obstacle to closing the door, it is permissible to lie down without closing it, it is said “atha dvārassa”tiādi. Nisseṇiṃ āropetvā means having ascended to the upper floor, dismantled, and thrown down to the ground, or discarded, it is permissible to lie down. This is said regarding a single binding. Dvepi dvārāni jaggitabbānī means that if there is no door panel at one door, or if it cannot be closed as explained below, it is permissible to lie down without closing the other door. Dvārapālassā refers to the door guard standing at the main door threshold or at the foot of the stairs, attending to the door. Pacchimānaṃ bhāro is said regarding those coming in a single file. It should be connected to “asaṃvutadvāre antogabbhe vā”—inside the room or outside. Bahi vā means outside the room. Nipajjanakālepi…pe… vaṭṭatiyevā means that even at the time of lying down, since the door guard is dependent on it, it is permissible to attend to the matter without considering whether he is present or not.
ID57
Yena kenaci parikkhitteti ettha parikkhepassa ubbedhato pamāṇaṃ sahaseyyappahonake vuttasadisameva. Vuttañhi samantapāsādikāyaṃ (pāci. aṭṭha. 51) “yañhi senāsanaṃ upari pañcahi chadanehi aññena vā kenaci sabbameva paṭicchannaṃ, ayaṃ sabbacchannā nāma seyyā…pe… yaṃ pana senāsanaṃ bhūmito paṭṭhāya yāva chadanaṃ āhacca pākārena vā aññena vā kenaci antamaso vatthenapi parikkhittaṃ, ayaṃ sabbaparicchannā nāma seyyā. Chadanaṃ anāhacca sabbantimena pariyāyena diyaḍḍhahatthubbedhena pākārādinā parikkhittāpi sabbaparicchannāyevāti kurundaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vutta”nti. “Diyaḍḍhahatthubbedho vaḍḍhakihatthena gahetabbo”ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.51) vimativinodaniyañca (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.50-51) vuttaṃ. Mahāpariveṇanti mahantaṃ aṅgaṇaṃ. Tena bahujanasañcaraṇaṭṭhānaṃ dasseti. Tenāha “mahābodhī”tiādi.
Yena kenaci parikkhitte—here, the measure of the height of the enclosure is the same as stated in the context of a suitable shared sleeping place. Indeed, it is said in the Samantapāsādikā (pāci. aṭṭha. 51), “A sleeping place that is entirely covered above with any of the five types of roofing or anything else is called ‘fully covered’… However, a sleeping place enclosed from the ground up to the roof with a wall or anything else, even a cloth, is called ‘fully enclosed.’ Even if enclosed with a wall or the like of a minimum height of one and a half cubits, not touching the roof, it is still considered ‘fully enclosed,’ as stated in the Kurundaṭṭhakathā.” In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.51) and Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.50-51), it is said, “The height of one and a half cubits should be taken as a carpenter’s cubit.” Mahāpariveṇa means a large courtyard, indicating a place where many people move about. Thus, it says, “mahābodhi” and so forth.
Surrounded by anything - here, the measure for the height of the enclosure is similar to that mentioned in (the section on) sufficient for sleeping together. For it is said in the Samantapāsādikā (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 51), “Whatever dwelling is completely covered above by five coverings or by anything else, this is a dwelling that is ‘completely covered’…etc… But whatever dwelling, starting from the ground up to the roof, is surrounded by a wall or by anything else, even at the very least by a cloth, this is a dwelling that is ‘completely enclosed’. Even if it is surrounded, without reaching the roof, by a wall, etc., with a height of one and a half cubits, by every last method, it is still ‘completely enclosed,’ it is said in the Kurunda commentary.” “One and a half cubits in height should be taken by the builder’s cubit,” it is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. Pācittiya 3.51) and in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. ṭī. Pācittiya 2.50-51). Mahāpariveṇa means a large courtyard. By that, he shows a place frequented by many people. Therefore, he says, “the Mahābodhi,” etc.
Yena kenaci parikkhitte means that the measure of the enclosure is similar to what is stated in the Sahaseyyappahonaka. For it is said in the Samantapāsādikā (pāci. aṭṭha. 51), “A dwelling that is covered above by five layers or by anything else, completely covered, is called a fully covered dwelling… but a dwelling that is enclosed from the ground up to the roof by a wall or anything else, even by a cloth, is called a fully enclosed dwelling. Even if the roof is not reached, if it is enclosed by a wall or anything else up to two and a half cubits, it is still called a fully enclosed dwelling, as stated in the Kurundaṭṭhakathā.” “Diyaḍḍhahatthubbedho vaḍḍhakihatthena gahetabbo” is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.51) and the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.50-51). Mahāpariveṇa means a large courtyard, indicating a place where many people gather. Therefore, it is said “mahābodhī”tiādi.
ID58
Aruṇe uggate vuṭṭhāti, anāpatti anāpattikhettabhūtāya rattiyā suddhacittena nipannattā. Pabujjhitvā puna supati, āpattīti aruṇe uggate pabujjhitvā aruṇuggamanaṃ ñatvā vā añatvā vā anuṭṭhahitvā sayitasantānena supati, uṭṭhahitvā kattabbassa dvārasaṃvaraṇādino akatattā akiriyasamuṭṭhānā āpatti hoti anāpattikhette katanipajjanakiriyāya anaṅgattā. Ayañhi āpatti īdise ṭhāne akiriyā, divā dvāraṃ asaṃvaritvā nipajjanakkhaṇe kiriyākiriyā ca acittakā cāti veditabbā. Purāruṇā pabujjhitvāpi yāva aruṇuggamanā sayantassapi purimanayena āpattiyeva.
Aruṇe uggate vuṭṭhāti, anāpatti—there is no offense since he lies down with a pure mind during the night, which is a field free of offense. Pabujjhitvā puna supati, āpatti—if, after waking at dawn and knowing or not knowing the dawn, he sleeps again without rising, due to not performing the required tasks like closing the door, an offense arises from inaction, not because the act of lying down in a field free of offense is itself faulty. This offense should be understood as arising from inaction in such a case, while during the day, lying down without closing the door is an offense of both action and inaction and is without intent.
When dawn has risen, one gets up; no offense - because one has slept with a pure mind in the night, which is a field of no offense. Having awakened, one sleeps again; an offense - having awakened when dawn has risen, whether knowing or not knowing that dawn has risen, without getting up, one sleeps on in the same posture as sleeping. Because one hasn’t performed the duty of closing the door, etc., that needs to get up, it results in an offense arising from non-action, since the act of lying down which takes place in the range where is not offense does not constitute as a limb. This offense, in such a place, is non-action; at the time of lying down during the day without closing the door, it is both action and non-action, and without thought, it should be understood. Even if one wakes up before dawn, if one sleeps until dawn, it is still an offense, according to the previous method.
Aruṇe uggate vuṭṭhāti, anāpatti—there is no offense because the night is a time of no offense, and one lies down with a pure mind. Pabujjhitvā puna supati, āpattī—if one wakes up at dawn, knowing or not knowing that dawn has come, and without getting up, continues to sleep, there is an offense due to not performing the duty of closing the door, etc., arising from non-action in a time of no offense. This offense is due to inaction in such a situation, and during the day, lying down without closing the door is an action or inaction without intention. Even if one wakes up before dawn and sleeps until dawn, the offense is the same as before.
ID59
Aruṇe uggate vuṭṭhahissāmīti…pe… āpattiyevāti ettha kadā assa āpattīti? Vuccate – na tāva rattiyaṃ, “divā āpajjati, no ratti”nti (pari. 323) vuttattā anādariyadukkaṭā na muccatīti vuttadukkaṭaṃ pana divāsayanadukkaṭameva na hoti anādariyadukkaṭattā eva. “Aruṇuggamane pana acittakaṃ akiriyasamuṭṭhānaṃ āpattiṃ āpajjatīti veditabba”nti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.77) vuttaṃ, sāratthadīpaniyampi (sārattha. ṭī. pārājika 2.77) “yathāparicchedameva vuṭṭhātīti aruṇe uggateyeva uṭṭhahati. Tassa āpattīti asuddhacitteneva nipannattā niddāyantassapi aruṇe uggate divāpaṭisallānamūlikā āpatti. ’Evaṃ nipajjanto anādariyadukkaṭāpi na muccatī’ti vuttattā asuddhacittena nipajjanto aruṇuggamanato puretaraṃ uṭṭhahantopi anuṭṭhahantopi nipajjanakāleyeva anādariyadukkaṭaṃ āpajjati, divāpaṭisallānamūlikaṃ pana dukkaṭaṃ aruṇeyeva āpajjatī”ti vuttaṃ, tasmā evaṃ nipajjantassa dve dukkaṭāni āpajjantīti veditabbaṃ.
Aruṇe uggate vuṭṭhahissāmīti…pe… āpatti yeva—here, when does the offense occur? It is said: not during the night, since it is stated (pari. 323), “He commits an offense during the day, not at night,” and he is not exempt from the offense of disrespect. The stated minor offense is not merely the offense of lying down during the day but rather one of disrespect. In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.77), it is said, “It should be understood that at dawn, he commits an offense of inaction without intent.” In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. pārājika 2.77), it is said, “He rises exactly as planned only at dawn. He has an offense because he lay down with an impure mind; even if he sleeps, at dawn, he incurs an offense rooted in daytime seclusion. Since it is said, ‘Thus lying down, he is not exempt from the offense of disrespect,’ one who lies down with an impure mind incurs the offense of disrespect at the moment of lying down, whether he rises before dawn or not, and incurs the daytime-seclusion-rooted minor offense only at dawn.” Thus, it should be understood that such a person incurs two minor offenses.
I will get up when dawn has risen…etc…it is still an offense - here, when is there an offense for him? It is said – not, indeed, during the night, because it is said, “one incurs during the day, not during the night” (Pari. 323); one is not released from the dukkata of disrespect, it is said, but the mentioned dukkata is not the dukkata of daytime sleeping because it is a dukkata of disrespect itself. “But at dawn, it should be understood that one incurs an offense arising from non-action, without thought,” it is said in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. ṭī. 1.77). In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. Pārājika 2.77) also, it is said: “One gets up exactly as determined,” means one gets up just as dawn has risen. For him, it is an offense because he has slept with an impure mind, even if he sleeps, at dawn, the offense based on secluding oneself during the day arises. Because it is said, ‘one sleeping thus is not even released from the dukkata of disrespect,’ one sleeping with an impure mind, whether one gets up before dawn or not, incurs the dukkata of disrespect at the time of lying down itself; but the dukkata based on secluding oneself during the day, one incurs only at dawn.” Therefore, it should be understood that one sleeping thus incurs two dukkatas.
Aruṇe uggate vuṭṭhahissāmīti…pe… āpattiyevāti—when does the offense occur? It is said—not during the night, because it is said, “divā āpajjati, no ratti” (pari. 323), so one is not free from the offense of disrespect. However, the offense of disrespect during the day is not the same as the offense of lying down during the day, because it is due to disrespect. “Aruṇuggamane pana acittakaṃ akiriyasamuṭṭhānaṃ āpattiṃ āpajjatīti veditabba” is stated in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.77), and in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. pārājika 2.77), “yathāparicchedameva vuṭṭhātīti aruṇe uggateyeva uṭṭhahati. Tassa āpattīti asuddhacitteneva nipannattā niddāyantassapi aruṇe uggate divāpaṭisallānamūlikā āpatti. ’Evaṃ nipajjanto anādariyadukkaṭāpi na muccatī’ti vuttattā asuddhacittena nipajjanto aruṇuggamanato puretaraṃ uṭṭhahantopi anuṭṭhahantopi nipajjanakāleyeva anādariyadukkaṭaṃ āpajjati, divāpaṭisallānamūlikaṃ pana dukkaṭaṃ aruṇeyeva āpajjatī”ti vuttaṃ, therefore, it should be understood that two offenses of wrongdoing are committed by one who lies down in this way.
ID60
Sace dvāraṃ saṃvaritvā aruṇe uggate uṭṭhahissāmīti nipajjati, dvāre ca aññehi aruṇuggamanakāle vivaṭepi tassa anāpattiyeva dvārapidahanassa rattidivābhāgesu visesābhāvā. Āpattiāpajjanasseva kālaviseso icchitabbo, na tapparihārassāti gahetabbaṃ. “Dvāraṃ saṃvaritvā rattiṃ nipajjatī”ti (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.77) hi vuttaṃ. Divā saṃvaritvā nipannassa kenaci vivaṭepi dvāre anāpattiyeva, attanāpi anuṭṭhahitvāva sati paccaye vivaṭepi anāpattīti vadanti, idampi vimativinodaniyameva (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.77) vuttaṃ.
If he lies down thinking, “Having closed the door, I will rise at dawn,” and others open the door at dawn, there is still no offense for him, as there is no distinction between night and day regarding the closing of the door. It should be understood that a specific time is intended for incurring an offense, not for avoiding it. Indeed, it is said (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.77), “He lies down at night having closed the door.” Even if he lies down during the day after closing it and someone opens it, there is no offense; even if he opens it himself for some reason without rising, they say there is no offense. This too is stated in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.77).
If one sleeps after closing the door, (thinking) ‘I will get up when dawn has risen,’ and even if the door is opened by others at the time of dawn, there is still no offense for him, because there is no difference between the parts of the night and the day in the closing of the door. Only a specific time for incurring the offense should be desired, not for its avoidance, it should be understood. For it is said, “Having closed the door, one sleeps during the night” (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1.77). If one sleeps during the day after closing (the door), even if the door is opened by someone, there is no offense; even if one opens it oneself without getting up, if there is a reason, there is no offense, they say; this also is said only in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. ṭī. 1.77).
If one lies down intending to get up at dawn after closing the door, and even if others open the door at dawn, there is no offense for him, as there is no difference between night and day regarding the door being closed. The difference in time of committing the offense should be considered, not the avoidance of the offense. For it is said, “dvāraṃ saṃvaritvā rattiṃ nipajjatī” (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.77). If one lies down during the day after closing the door, even if others open it, there is no offense, and even if one does not get up oneself, if the door is opened by others due to a reason, there is no offense, as stated in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.77).
ID61
Yathāparicchedameva vuṭṭhātīti aruṇe uggateyeva vuṭṭhāti, āpattiyevāti mūlāpattiṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Anādariyaāpatti pana purāruṇā uṭṭhitassapi tassa hoteva “dukkaṭā na muccatī”ti vuttattā. Dukkaṭā na muccatīti ca purāruṇā uṭṭhahitvā mūlāpattiyā muttopi anādariyadukkaṭā na muccatīti adhippāyo.
Yathāparicchedameva vuṭṭhāti—he rises exactly at dawn as planned, yet there is an offense; this is said with reference to the root offense. However, even if he rises before dawn, he still incurs the offense of disrespect, as it is said, “He is not exempt from the minor offense.” Dukkaṭā na muccati means that even if he rises before dawn and is exempt from the root offense, he is not exempt from the offense of disrespect—this is the intent.
One gets up exactly as determined means one gets up just as dawn has risen; it is still an offense - is said referring to the root offense. The offense of disrespect, however, occurs even for one who has gotten up before dawn, because it is said, “one is not released from the dukkata.” One is not released from the dukkata - the intended meaning is that even one who has gotten up before dawn and is released from the root offense is not released from the dukkata of disrespect.
Yathāparicchedameva vuṭṭhātī means one gets up exactly at dawn, and there is an offense—this refers to the root offense. However, the offense of disrespect also occurs for one who gets up before dawn, as it is said, “dukkaṭā na muccatī”. Dukkaṭā na muccatī means that even if one is free from the root offense by getting up before dawn, one is not free from the offense of disrespect—this is the meaning.
ID62
5. Niddāvasena nipajjatīti niddābhibhūtatāya ekapassena nipajjati. “Niddāvasena nipajjatī”ti vohāravasena vuttaṃ, pādānaṃ pana bhūmito amocitattā ayaṃ nipanno nāma hotīti teneva anāpatti vuttā. Apassāya supantassāti kaṭiṭṭhito uddhaṃ piṭṭhikaṇṭake appamattakaṃ padesaṃ bhūmiṃ aphusāpetvā supantassa. Kaṭiṭṭhiṃ pana bhūmiṃ phusāpentassa sayanaṃ nāma na hoti. Piṭṭhipasāraṇalakkhaṇā hi seyyā dīghā, vandanādīsupi tiriyaṃ piṭṭhikaṇṭakānaṃ pasāritattā nipajjanamevāti āpatti pariharitabbāva. Vandanāpi hi pādamūle nipajjatītiādīsu nipajjanameva vuttā. Sahasā vuṭṭhātīti pakkhalitā patito viya sahasā vuṭṭhāti, tassapi anāpatti patanakkhaṇe avisayattā, visaye jāte sahasā vuṭṭhitattā ca. Yassa pana visaññitāya pacchāpi avisayo eva, tassa anāpattiyeva patanakkhaṇe viya. Tattheva sayati, na vuṭṭhātīti iminā visayepi akaraṇaṃ dasseti, teneva tassa āpattīti vuttaṃ.
5. Niddāvasena nipajjati—he lies down overcome by sleep on one side. “He lies down due to sleep” is said conventionally, but since his feet do not leave the ground, he is not considered to have lain down, and thus it is said there is no offense. Apassāya supantassa—for one sleeping without fully resting the area above the waist, even a small part of the spine, on the ground; however, resting the waist on the ground is not considered lying down. A sleeping posture is characterized by the lengthwise extension of the spine, and even in acts like bowing, since the spine is extended crosswise, it is indeed lying down, and thus an offense must be avoided. Bowing is also said to be lying down in phrases like “he lies down at the feet.” Sahasā vuṭṭhāti—he rises suddenly, like one who has slipped and fallen; tassapi anāpatti—there is no offense for him either, due to the lack of intent at the moment of falling and because he rises suddenly once intent arises. For one who remains without intent even afterward due to unconsciousness, there is no offense, just as at the moment of falling. Tattheva sayati, na vuṭṭhāti—this shows inaction even with intent, and thus it is said he incurs an offense.
5. One lies down due to sleep means one lies down on one side due to being overcome by sleep. “One lies down due to sleep” is said by way of common usage; however, because the feet are not released from the ground, this is not called “lying down,” therefore, no offense is mentioned. For one sleeping on one’s side means for one sleeping without touching even a small area of the back-vertebrae above the coccyx to the ground. However, for one touching the coccyx to the ground, it is not called lying down. For lying down, which has the characteristic of stretching out the back, is long; even in bowing down, etc., because the back-vertebrae are stretched out sideways, it is lying down; therefore, the offense should certainly be avoided. For even in bowing down, it is said to be lying down in “one lies down at the base of the feet,” etc. One gets up suddenly means one gets up suddenly, like one who has slipped and fallen. There is also no offense for him, because at the moment of falling, it is not an object (of awareness), and when the object arises, one has gotten up suddenly. But for one who, even after being unconscious, it is still not an object, there is no offense, just as at the moment of falling. One sleeps there, one does not get up - by this, he shows non-action even in an object; therefore, it is said that there is an offense for him.
5. Niddāvasena nipajjatī means one lies down on one side due to being overcome by sleep. “Niddāvasena nipajjatī” is a conventional expression, but since the feet are not lifted from the ground, this is called lying down, and therefore no offense is incurred. Apassāya supantassā means one sleeps without letting a small part of the ground touch above the hips and the spine. However, if the hips touch the ground, it is not called a bed. For a bed is characterized by the extension of the back, and since the spine is extended sideways even during bowing, etc., it is considered lying down, and the offense must be avoided. For even in bowing at the feet, etc., it is said to be lying down. Sahasā vuṭṭhātī means one gets up suddenly as if falling, tassapi anāpatti—there is no offense at the moment of falling because it is unintentional, but if it becomes intentional, there is an offense due to getting up suddenly. For one who remains unconscious afterward, there is no offense even at the moment of falling. Tattheva sayati, na vuṭṭhātī means that even in the intentional state, non-action is shown, and therefore there is an offense.
ID63
Idāni aṭṭhakathāvādasaṃsandanaṃ kātuṃ “ko muccati, ko na muccatī”tiādimāha. Tattha mahāpaccariyantiādīsu paccarīti uḷumpaṃ vuccati, tasmiṃ nisīditvā katattā tameva nāmaṃ jātaṃ. Kurundivallivihāro nāma atthi, tattha katattā kurundīti nāmaṃ jātaṃ. Mahāaṭṭhakathā nāma saṅgītittayamāruḷhā tepiṭakassa buddhavacanassa aṭṭhakathā. Yā mahāmahindattherena tambapaṇṇidīpaṃ ābhatā, tambapaṇṇiyehi therehi pacchā sīhaḷabhāsāya abhisaṅkhatā ca hoti. Ekabhaṅgenāti ekapassabhañjanena pāde bhūmito amocetvā ekapassena sarīraṃ bhañjitvā nipannoti vuttaṃ hoti. Mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana mahāpadumattherena vuttanti sambandho. Tena mahāaṭṭhakathāya likhitamahāpadumattheravāde “aya”nti dasseti. “Mucchitvā patitattā avisayattā āpatti na dissatī”ti therena vuttaṃ. Ācariyā pana yathā yakkhagahitako bandhitvā nipajjāpito ca paravaso hoti, evaṃ aparavasattā mucchitvā patito kañcikālaṃ jānitvā nipajjatīti anāpattiṃ na vadanti, visaññite pana sati anāpattiyeva.
Now, to compare commentary opinions, it begins with “ko muccati, ko na muccatī” and so forth. Therein, in mahāpaccariya and so on, paccarī refers to a raft, and since it was made while seated on it, it received that name. There is a monastery called Kurundivalli, and since it was made there, it is called kurundī. Mahāaṭṭhakathā refers to the commentary on the threefold recited Tipiṭaka, the Buddha’s word, brought to the island of Tambapaṇṇi by the Elder Mahāmahinda and later refined in the Sinhala language by the Tambapaṇṇi elders. Ekabhaṅgena means lying down by bending the body on one side without lifting the feet from the ground. In the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, it is said by the Elder Mahāpaduma—this is the connection. He indicates “this one” in the opinion of Elder Mahāpaduma written in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā. The elder said, “Since he fell unconscious, there is no offense due to lack of intent.” However, the teachers say that, just as one possessed by a yakkha or bound and made to lie down is under another’s control, one who falls unconscious and lies down knowing the time of death is not free from control, and thus they do not say there is no offense; but if unconscious, there is indeed no offense.
Now, in order to make a comparison of the commentary traditions, he says, “who is released, who is not released,” etc. There, in Mahāpaccariya, etc., paccarī is called a raft; because it was made after sitting on it, that same name arose. There is the Kurundivalli monastery; because it was made there, the name Kurundī arose. Mahā-aṭṭhakathā is the name of the commentary on the Tipiṭaka, the word of the Buddha, which was recited in the three councils. That which was brought to the island of Tambapaṇṇi by the great Thera Mahinda, and which was later compiled in the Sinhalese language by the Theras of Tambapaṇṇi. Ekabhaṅgenā means having bent the body on one side without releasing the feet from the ground, having slept with one side bent, it is said. But in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā, it is connected with what was said by the great Thera Mahāpaduma. Therefore, in the Mahāpaduma Thera tradition written in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā, he shows “this.” “Because one has fallen unconscious, and because it is not an object, an offense is not seen,” it was said by the Thera. The teachers, however, do not say there is no offense when one, being like one possessed by a yakkha and one made to lie down after being bound, is under the control of another, thus falls unconscious, and for some time knows and lies down, but when one is unconscious, there is no offense, certainly.
Now, to connect the commentary opinions, it is said “ko muccati, ko na muccatī”tiādi. Here, mahāpaccariya refers to a boat, and because one sits in it, it is called by that name. There is a Kurundivalli monastery, and because it was made there, it is called kurundī. Mahāaṭṭhakathā refers to the commentary on the Buddha’s words in the Tipiṭaka, which was brought to the island of Tambapaṇṇi by the elder Mahāmahinda and later translated into Sinhalese by the elders of Tambapaṇṇi. Ekabhaṅgenā means having freed one foot from the ground and bending the body on one side, one lies down. In the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, it is said by the elder Mahāpaduma, “aya”—this indicates the connection. In the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, it is written, “mucchitvā patitattā avisayattā āpatti na dissatī”—the elder said there is no offense because one falls unconscious and it is unintentional. However, the teachers say that just as one who is possessed by a spirit or bound and made to lie down is under another’s control, so too one who falls unconscious and lies down knowing the time is not free from offense, but if one is unconscious, there is no offense.
ID64
Dve janātiādi mahāaṭṭhakathāyameva vacanaṃ, tadeva pacchā vuttattā pamāṇaṃ. Yakkhagahitaggahaṇeneva cettha visaññibhūtopi saṅgahito, ekabhaṅgena nipanno pana anipannattā āpattito muccatiyevāti gahetabbaṃ. Sāratthadīpaniyañca (sārattha. ṭī. 2.77) “yo ca yakkhagahitako, yo ca bandhitvā nipajjāpito”ti imassa aṭṭhakathāvādassa pacchimattā soyeva pamāṇato gahetabbo, tathā ca vakkhati “sabbattha yo yo aṭṭhakathāvādo vā pacchā vuccati, so soyeva pamāṇato gahetabbo”ti. Imasmiṃ ṭhāne imassa aṭṭhakathāpāṭhassa ānītattā imasmiṃ vinayasaṅgahappakaraṇepi imasmiṃyeva ṭhāne so pāṭho vattabboti no khanti. Ettha ca “rattiṃ dvāraṃ vivaritvā nipanno aruṇe uggate uṭṭhāti, anāpattī”tiādivacanato aruṇuggamane saṃsayavinodanatthaṃ aruṇakathā vattabbā. Tatridaṃ vuccati –
Dve janā and so forth is a statement from the Mahāaṭṭhakathā itself, and since it is stated later, it is authoritative. Here, by the mention of one possessed by a yakkha, even one who becomes unconscious is included; however, one who lies down with one bend is exempt from an offense because he is not considered to have lain down—this should be understood. In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.77), regarding the commentary opinion “one possessed by a yakkha and one bound and made to lie down,” since it is the last, it alone should be taken as authoritative. It will also say, “In all cases, whatever commentary opinion is stated later should be taken as authoritative.” Since this commentary text is brought up here, we do not agree that it should be stated only here in this section of the Vinaya compilation. And here, from statements like “He lies down at night with the door open and rises at dawn, no offense,” the discussion of dawn is appropriate to dispel doubt about the time of dawn. Thus, it is said:
The statement, “Dve janā,” etc., is indeed found in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā, and that very statement, because it was stated later, is authoritative. Here, even one who is unconscious due to seizure by a yakkha is included, however, one who merely lies down in a single position is considered not to be lying down and is released from any offense. It should be understood in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.77), it says that regarding: “He who is seized by a yakkha, and he who is bound and made to lie down” the statement in the Aṭṭhakathā because mentioned lately, it must be authoritative, and thus, it will say: “Everywhere, whatever commentary tradition (aṭṭhakathāvāda) is stated later, that very one should be taken as authoritative.” Because the aṭṭhakathā text which has been brought here and in this Vinayasaṅgahappakaraṇe, is not satisfying (to me) that the text should only be mentioned in this place . Here, because of statements such as “Having opened the door at night and lain down, one rises when the dawn has arisen; there is no offense”, a discussion of dawn should be presented in order to dispel doubts at the arising of dawn. Therefore, this is said:
Dve janātiādi: This statement is from the Mahā Aṭṭhakathā itself, and since it is mentioned later, it is authoritative. Here, even one who is unconscious due to being possessed by a yakkha is included, but one who lies down with one limb broken is exempt from the offense because he is not considered to be lying down. The Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.77) states, “One who is possessed by a yakkha and one who is made to lie down after being bound,” and since this is the latter part of the Aṭṭhakathā’s statement, it should be taken as authoritative. Thus, it is said, “In all cases, whichever Aṭṭhakathā statement is mentioned later should be taken as authoritative.” Since this Aṭṭhakathā passage is cited in this context, it should also be applied in this Vinaya compilation. However, it is not acceptable to say that this passage should be applied here because it is cited in this context. Here, the discussion of dawn (aruṇa) is introduced to resolve doubts regarding the time of dawn, as stated in the passage, “If one lies down after opening the door at night and rises at dawn, there is no offense.” Therefore, the following is said:
ID65
“Ko esa aruṇo nāma; Kena so aruṇo bhave; Kīdiso tassa vaṇṇā tu; Saṇṭhānaṃ kīdisaṃ bhave.
“What is this dawn called? By what is it dawn? What is its color like? What is its shape like?
“What is this thing called dawn? By what does dawn occur? What is its color like? What is its shape like?
“What is this called dawn? By what does it arise? What is its color? What is its form?
ID66
“Kismiṃ kāle ca dese ca, aruṇo samugacchati; Kiṃ paccakkhasiddho eso, udāhu anumānato”ti.
“At what time and in what place does dawn arise? Is it directly evident, or known by inference?”
At what time and in what place does dawn arise? Is this something directly perceived, or is it inferred?“
At what time and in what direction does dawn appear? Is it directly perceived or inferred?”
ID67
Tattha ko esa aruṇo nāmāti ettha esa aruṇo nāma sūriyassa pabhāviseso. Vuttañhetaṃ abhidhānappadīpikāyaṃ –
Therein, ko esa aruṇo nāma—this dawn is a special radiance of the sun. It is said in the Abhidhānappadīpikā:
Herein, regarding “What is this thing called dawn?,” this dawn is a specific radiance of the sun. This is stated in the Abhidhānappadīpikā:
Here, ko esa aruṇo nāma: In this context, “dawn” refers to a special radiance of the sun. As stated in the Abhidhānappadīpikā:
ID68
“Sūrassodayato pubbuṭṭhitaraṃsi siyāruṇo”ti;
“The rays that rise before the sun’s rising may be called aruṇa.”
“The ray that arises before the rising of the sun is said to be dawn.”
“The rays that arise before the sun’s rising are called dawn.”
ID69
Taṭṭīkāyañca “sūrassa udayato pubbe uṭṭhitaraṃsi aruṇo nāma siyā”ti. Vimativinodanīnāmikāyaṃ vinayaṭīkāyañca (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.463) “aruṇoti cettha sūriyuggamanassa purecaro vaḍḍhanaghanaratto pabhāvisesoti daṭṭhabbo”ti vuttaṃ, tasmā sūriyappabhāyeva aruṇo nāma, na aññoti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Kena so aruṇo bhaveti ettha aruṇo vaṇṇo assāti aruṇo, kiñcirattavaṇṇasamannāgatoti attho. Atha vā arati gacchati rattavaṇṇabhāvena pavattatīti aruṇo. Vuttañhetaṃ abhidhānappadīpikāṭīkāyaṃ “aruṇavaṇṇatāya arati gacchatīti aruṇo”ti. Kīdiso tassa vaṇṇoti ettha abyattarattavaṇṇo tassa vaṇṇo bhave. Vuttañhi abhidhānappadīpikāyaṃ “aruṇo kiñcirattothā”ti. Taṭṭīkāyañca “kiñciratto abyattarattavaṇṇo aruṇo nāma yathā macchassa akkhī”ti. Vimativinodaniyañca (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.463) “vaḍḍhanaghanaratto pabhāviseso”ti, tasmā sūriyassa rattappabhāyeva aruṇo nāma, na setappabhādayoti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Yadi evaṃ pātimokkhaṭṭhapanakkhandhakavaṇṇanāya vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.383) “pāḷiyaṃ pana nandimukhiyāti odātadisāmukhatāya tuṭṭhamukhiyā”ti vuttaṃ, taṃ kathaṃ yujjeyyāti, no na yujjeyya. Tattha hi aruṇuggatakāle aruṇobhāsena odātadisāmukhabhāvo vutto, na aruṇobhāsassa odātabhāvo. Vuttañhetaṃ udānaṭṭhakathāyaṃ (udā. aṭṭha. 23) “nandimukhiyāti aruṇassa uggatattā eva aruṇobhāya sūriyālokūpajīvino satte nandāpanamukhiyā rattiyā jātāya vibhāyamānāyāti attho”ti.
In its subcommentary, “The rays that rise before the sun’s rising are called aruṇa.” In the Vinaya subcommentary named Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.463), it is said, “Here, aruṇa should be regarded as a special radiance, reddish and dense, preceding the sun’s rising.” Thus, it should be seen as the sun’s radiance alone, not anything else. Kena so aruṇo bhave—it is aruṇa because it has the color aruṇa, meaning it is endowed with a slightly reddish hue. Alternatively, it moves away as aruṇa due to its reddish nature. It is said in the Abhidhānappadīpikāṭīkā, “It is aruṇa because it moves away due to its aruṇa color.” Kīdiso tassa vaṇṇo—its color is an indistinct reddish hue. It is said in the Abhidhānappadīpikā, “Aruṇa is somewhat reddish.” In its subcommentary, “Somewhat reddish, an indistinct reddish hue, aruṇa is like the eye of a fish.” In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.463), “A dense reddish special radiance.” Thus, it should be seen as the reddish radiance of the sun, not white or other colors. If so, how does it align with the statement in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.383) on the Pātimokkha suppression section, “In the text, nandimukhiyā means having a joyful face due to the whiteness of the directions”? It does not contradict. There, it refers to the whiteness of the directions due to the dawn’s glow at the time of its rising, not the whiteness of the dawn’s glow itself. It is said in the Udānaṭṭhakathā (udā. aṭṭha. 23), “nandimukhiyā—because of the rising of aruṇa, beings dependent on sunlight have joyful faces due to the dawn’s glow, with the night illuminated and shining.”
And in its commentary: “The ray that arises before the rising of the sun is said to be dawn.” And it is said in the Vinaya commentary called Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.463), “Here, ‘dawn’ should be understood as the specific radiance, preceding the sunrise, that is intensely and thickly red,” Therefore, the very radiance of the sun is what is called dawn, it should be understood to be nothing else. Regarding “By what does dawn occur?”, dawn is so called because it possesses the color of dawn (aruṇa), meaning it is endowed with a slightly reddish color. Or, it is called ‘aruṇa’ because it moves (arati), proceeding with a reddish hue. It is stated in the Abhidhānappadīpikā-ṭīkā, “It moves (arati) due to its reddish color, therefore it is aruṇa.” Regarding “Kīdiso tassa vaṇṇo,” the color of it would be indistinctly red. For it is stated in Abhidhānappadīpikā, “Dawn is slightly red”. And in its commentary, “Slightly red is the indistinctly red color called ‘aruṇa’, like the eye of a fish.” And in Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.463) “a specific radiance, that is intensely and thickly red”, therefore only the reddish radiance of the sun is the dawn, and not the white radiance, etc., it should be seen.. If this is so, then it might be asked, how does it accord with what is stated in the Vimativinodanī’s (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.383) explanation of the Pātimokkhaṭṭhapanakkhandhaka, “But in the Pāḷi, ‘Nandimukhiyā’ means having the face of the bright direction, having a joyful face.”? It does not disagree. For there, it is the state of having the face of the bright direction due to the light of dawn at the time of dawn’s arising that is stated, not the whiteness of the light of dawn. This has been stated in the Udāna-aṭṭhakathā (udā. aṭṭha. 23): “Having a joyful face (nandimukhiyā), it mean dawn has arisen, causing those beings who live by the light of the sun to have a face of rejoicing, because the night is fading away, becoming visible”.
And in the Ṭīkā: “The rays that arise before the sun’s rising are called dawn.” In the Vimativinodanī Vinaya Ṭīkā (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.463), it is said, “Here, ‘dawn’ should be understood as the special radiance, reddish in color, that precedes the sun’s rising.” Therefore, it should be understood that dawn is the radiance of the sun and nothing else. Kena so aruṇo bhave: Here, “dawn” is so called because it has a reddish color, meaning it is tinged with red. Alternatively, it is called “dawn” because it dispels darkness, as it arises with a reddish hue. As stated in the Abhidhānappadīpikā Ṭīkā: “It is called ‘dawn’ because it dispels darkness with its reddish color.” Kīdiso tassa vaṇṇo: Here, its color is a faint reddish hue. As stated in the Abhidhānappadīpikā: “Dawn is slightly reddish.” And in the Ṭīkā: “Dawn is a faint reddish color, like the eye of a fish.” In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.463), it is said, “It is a special radiance, reddish in color.” Therefore, it should be understood that dawn is the reddish radiance of the sun, not white or other colors. If this is so, how does it reconcile with the statement in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 2.383) in the explanation of the Pātimokkhaṭṭhapanakkhandhaka: “In the Pāli, nandimukhiyā means ‘with a joyful face due to the whiteness of the eastern direction’”? It does reconcile. There, at the time of dawn, the eastern direction is described as having a white appearance due to the dawn’s radiance, not that the dawn’s radiance itself is white. As stated in the Udāna Aṭṭhakathā (Udā. Aṭṭha. 23): **“Nandimukhiyā** means ‘with a joyful face’ because, at the rising of dawn, beings dependent on the sun’s light become joyful as the night fades and the day approaches.”
ID70
Jātakaṭṭhakathāyañca –
In the Jātakaṭṭhakathā:
And in the Jātaka-aṭṭhakathā:
And in the Jātaka Aṭṭhakathā:
ID71
“Jighaññarattiṃ aruṇasmimuhate; Yā dissati uttamarūpavaṇṇinī; Tathūpamā maṃ paṭibhāsi devate; Ācikkha me taṃ katamāsi accharā”ti. (jā. aṭṭha. 5.21.254);
“In the last part of the night when aruṇa dawns, she who is seen as supremely beautiful in form, like her I seem to myself, O deity; tell me, which nymph are you?” (jā. aṭṭha. 5.21.254)
“At the end of the night of hunger, when dawn arises; that which is seen, possessing the most excellent beauty and color; like that, oh goddess, it appears to me; tell me, who are you, o nymph?” (jā. aṭṭha. 5.21.254);
“At the end of the night, when dawn breaks, a woman of supreme beauty appears. O goddess, you resemble her; tell me, who are you?” (Jā. Aṭṭha. 5.21.254).
ID72
Imassa gāthāya atthavaṇṇanāyaṃ “tattha jighaññarattinti pacchimarattiṃ, rattipariyosāneti attho. Uhateti aruṇe uggate. Yāti yā puratthimā disā rattavaṇṇatāya uttamarūpadharā hutvā dissatī”ti. Evaṃ aruṇuggatasamaye puratthimadisāya rattavaṇṇatā vuttā, tasmā tasmiṃ samaye aruṇassa uṭṭhitattā puratthimāya disāya rattabhāgo sūriyālokassa patthaṭattā sesadisānaṃ odātabhāvo viññāyati.
In the explanation of this verse, “Therein, jighaññaratti means the last part of the night, the end of the night. Uhate means when aruṇa has risen. Yā refers to the eastern direction, which appears supremely beautiful due to its reddish hue.” Thus, the reddishness of the eastern direction at the time of dawn’s rising is stated. Therefore, at that time, due to the rising of aruṇa, the reddish part of the eastern direction is understood due to the spreading of sunlight, while the whiteness of the other directions is perceived.
In the explanation of the meaning of this verse: “Here, jighaññaratti means the last part of the night, the end of the night. Uhate means when dawn arises. Yā means that eastern direction, which being reddish in colour, possessor of the most excellent beauty and color, is seen. Thus, at the time of dawn’s arising, the reddishness of the eastern direction is stated. Therefore, because at that time, dawn has arisen in that eastern direction, it’s reddish part is the spread of the sun’s light, it is understood that the remaining directions become bright (white).
In the explanation of this verse: “Here, jighaññaratti means the last part of the night, the end of the night. Uhate means when dawn breaks. Yā refers to the eastern direction, which appears with a reddish hue, bearing an excellent form.” Thus, at the time of dawn, the eastern direction is described as having a reddish hue, and due to the spread of the sun’s light, the other directions appear white.
ID73
Saṇṭhānaṃ kīdisaṃ bhaveti ettha aruṇassa pāṭekkaṃ saṇṭhānaṃ nāma natthi rasmimattattā. Yattakaṃ padesaṃ pharati, tattakaṃ tassa saṇṭhānanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Atha vā puratthimadisāsaṇṭhānaṃ. Vuttañhi jātakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ (jā. aṭṭha. 5.21.255) “puratthimadisā rattavaṇṇatāya uttamarūpadharā hutvā dissatī”ti.
Saṇṭhānaṃ kīdisaṃ bhave—there is no distinct shape of aruṇa as such, since it is merely rays. Its shape should be seen as the area it pervades. Alternatively, it takes the shape of the eastern direction. It is said in the Jātakaṭṭhakathā (jā. aṭṭha. 5.21.255), “The eastern direction appears supremely beautiful due to its reddish hue.”
Regarding “Saṇṭhānaṃ kīdisaṃ bhave” there is no distinct shape of dawn itself, because it is merely a ray. Whatever extent of area it pervades, that should be understood as its shape. Or, it is the shape of the eastern direction. For it is stated in the Jātaka-aṭṭhakathā (jā. aṭṭha. 5.21.255), “The eastern direction, being reddish in color, is seen as possessing the most excellent form.”
Saṇṭhānaṃ kīdisaṃ bhave: Here, dawn does not have a specific form because it consists of rays. It should be understood that its form extends as far as its rays reach. Alternatively, it has the form of the eastern direction. As stated in the Jātaka Aṭṭhakathā (Jā. Aṭṭha. 5.21.255): “The eastern direction appears with a reddish hue, bearing an excellent form.”
ID74
Kismiṃ kāle ca dese ca, aruṇo samugacchatīti ettha esa aruṇo sūriyuggamanassa pure kāle puratthimadisāyaṃ uggacchati. Vuttañhetaṃ udānaṭṭhakathāyaṃ (udā. aṭṭha. 23) “uddhaste aruṇeti uggate aruṇe, aruṇo nāma puratthimadisāyaṃ sūriyodayato puretarameva uṭṭhitobhāso”ti. Abhidhānappadīpikāyañca “sūrassodayato pubbuṭṭhitaraṃsī”ti.
Kismiṃ kāle ca dese ca, aruṇo samugacchati—this aruṇa rises before the sun’s rising in the eastern direction. It is said in the Udānaṭṭhakathā (udā. aṭṭha. 23), “uddhaste aruṇe—when aruṇa has risen, aruṇa is the glow that rises in the eastern direction just before the sun’s rising.” In the Abhidhānappadīpikā, “The rays that rise before the sun’s rising.”
Regarding “Kismiṃ kāle ca dese ca, aruṇo samugacchatī” this dawn arises in the eastern direction in the time before sunrise. This has been said in the Udāna-aṭṭhakathā (udā. aṭṭha. 23): “When the dawn has arisen, that is, dawn is the radiance that arises in the eastern direction just before sunrise.” And in Abhidhānappadīpikā: “The ray that arises before the rising of the sun.”
Kismiṃ kāle ca dese ca, aruṇo samugacchatī: Here, dawn arises in the eastern direction just before the sun rises. As stated in the Udāna Aṭṭhakathā (Udā. Aṭṭha. 23): **“Uddhaste aruṇe** means ‘when dawn has risen.’ Dawn refers to the radiance that arises in the eastern direction just before the sun rises.” And in the Abhidhānappadīpikā: “The rays that arise before the sun’s rising.”
ID75
Kiṃ paccakkhasiddho eso, udāhu anumānatoti ettha ayaṃ aruṇo nāma paccakkhasiddho eva , na anumānasiddho. Kasmā viññāyatīti ce? Cakkhuviññāṇagocaravaṇṇāyatanabhāvato. Akkhassa patīti paccakkhaṃ, cakkhurūpānaṃ abhimukhabhāvena āpāthagatattā cakkhuviññāṇaṃ hoti. Vuttañhetaṃ bhagavatā “cakkhuñca paṭicca rūpe ca uppajjati cakkhuviññāṇa”nti (ma. ni. 1.204, 400; 3.421, 425, 426; saṃ. ni. 2.43, 44, 45, saṃ. ni. 4.60; kathā. 465, 467), tasmā ayaṃ aruṇavaṇṇo cakkhunā disvā jānitabbato paccakkhasiddhoyeva hoti, na evaṃ sati evaṃ bhaveyyāti anumānena punappunaṃ cintanena siddhoti. Imaṃ pañhavissajjanaṃ sādhukaṃ manasi karitvā paṇḍitehi rattobhāsoyeva aruṇoti paccetabbo sallakkhetabboti.
Kiṃ paccakkhasiddho eso, udāhu anumānato—this aruṇa is indeed directly evident, not inferred. Why is it known? Because it is an object of eye-consciousness within the sphere of visible form. “Directly evident” means it comes into the range of the eye; due to the confrontation of eye and form, eye-consciousness arises. It is said by the Blessed One, “Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises” (ma. ni. 1.204, 400; 3.421, 425, 426; saṃ. ni. 2.43, 44, 45, saṃ. ni. 4.60; kathā. 465, 467). Thus, this aruṇa color is directly evident because it is known by seeing with the eye, not established by repeated inference thinking “if this, then that.” Having carefully considered this answer to the question, the wise should acknowledge and note that the reddish glow alone is aruṇa.
Regarding “Kiṃ paccakkhasiddho eso, udāhu anumānato”, this thing called dawn is indeed directly perceived, not inferred. If it is asked, “How is it known?” It is because it is the sphere of visual consciousness, being the object of color. Directly contacting the eye (akkha) is ‘paccakkha’, because of forms coming into the range of, being in front of the eye, visual consciousness arises. This has been said by the Blessed One, “Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises.” (ma. ni. 1.204, 400; 3.421, 425, 426; saṃ. ni. 2.43, 44, 45, saṃ. ni. 4.60; kathā. 465, 467). Therefore, because this dawn-color is to be known by seeing it with the eye, it is directly perceived; it is not established by repeated reasoning through inference, such as, “If this is so, then that would be so.” Having carefully considered this answer to the question, it should be noted and accepted by the wise that the very radiance of the night is dawn.
Kiṃ paccakkhasiddho eso, udāhu anumānato: Here, dawn is directly perceived, not inferred. Why is this understood? Because it falls within the scope of eye-consciousness and the visible form base. “Directly perceived” means it is within the range of the eye, as eye-consciousness arises when visible forms come into the eye’s range. As the Blessed One said: “Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises” (Ma. Ni. 1.204, 400; 3.421, 425, 426; Saṃ. Ni. 2.43, 44, 45; Saṃ. Ni. 4.60; Kathā. 465, 467). Therefore, this reddish hue of dawn is to be known by seeing it with the eye, and thus it is directly perceived, not inferred through repeated contemplation. After carefully considering this answer, the wise should understand that the reddish radiance is indeed dawn and should be recognized as such.
ID76
Kasmā pana imasmiṃ ṭhāne aruṇakathā vuttāti? Imissā aruṇakathāya mahāvisayabhāvato. Kathaṃ? Uposathikā upāsakā ca upāsikāyo ca aruṇuggamanaṃ tathato ajānantā anuggateyeva aruṇe uggatasaññāya khādanīyaṃ vā khādanti, bhojanīyaṃ vā bhuñjanti, mālāgandhādīni vā dhārenti, tato tesaṃ sīlaṃ bhijjati. Sāmaṇerā tatheva vikālabhojanaṃ bhuñjitvā sīlavināsaṃ pāpuṇanti. Nissayapaṭipannakā bhikkhū ācariyupajjhāyehi vinā bahisīme carantā nissayappassambhanaṃ pāpuṇanti, antovasse bhikkhū upacārasīmato bahigacchantā vassacchedaṃ, tecīvarikā bhikkhū abaddhasīmāyaṃ cīvarena vippavasantā nissaggiyapācittiyaṃ, tathā sattabbhantarasīmāyaṃ, sahaseyyappahonakaṭṭhāne anupasampannamātugāmehi saha sayantā pācittiyaṃ, tathā yāvakālikaṃ bhuñjantā bhikkhū, pārivāsikādayo vattaṃ nikkhipantā ratticchedaṃ. Evamādianekādīnavasambhavato lajjipesalānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ tathato aruṇuggamanassa jānanatthaṃ vuttāti daṭṭhabbā.
Why then is the discussion of aruṇa stated here? Because this discussion of aruṇa has great relevance. How? Lay devotees observing Uposatha and female lay devotees, not truly knowing the rising of aruṇa, eat chewable or edible food or wear garlands and scents with the perception that aruṇa has risen when it has not, thereby breaking their precepts. Novices, similarly eating at the wrong time, ruin their virtue. Monks under dependence, wandering outside the boundary without their preceptors or teachers, lose their dependence. Monks during the rains retreat going beyond the local boundary incur a breach of the retreat. Monks with three robes leaving their robes in an unbound area incur a nissaggiya pācittiya offense, as do those within seven abbhantaras of a boundary or sleeping with unordained women in a suitable shared sleeping place, or eating time-limited food, or probationers abandoning their duties, incurring a break at night. Due to such manifold dangers, this is stated for conscientious and scrupulous monks to truly know the rising of aruṇa.
But why is this discussion of dawn presented in this place? Because of the great importance of this discussion of dawn. How so? Because lay followers, both male and female, who are observing the Uposatha, not knowing the arising of dawn as it really is, when dawn has not actually arisen, with the perception that dawn has arisen, they eat hard food, or consume soft food, or wear garlands, perfumes, and so forth; then their precepts (sīla) are broken. Novices, likewise, consume food at the wrong time, thus falling into the destruction of precepts. Monks who are dependent on a preceptor for their support (nissaya), wandering outside the boundary without their preceptor or teacher, incur the lapse of their dependence. Monks in the rainy season, going outside the boundary of their dwelling, incur the breaking of the rains retreat. Monks who are entitled to three robes, staying away from their robes in an unbound area, incur a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. Likewise, in a boundary within seven abbhantaras, sleeping together with unconsecrated females in a place sufficient for co-sleeping, they incur a pācittiya offense. So too, monks who consume food that is allowable only at certain times (yāvakālikaṃ). Those undertaking the period of probation (pārivāsika) and others, discard their practice and incur the breaking of the night. Because of the possibility of these and many other disadvantages, it should be understood that it is presented for the sake of monks who are scrupulous and conscientious, so that they may know the arising of dawn as it really is.
Why is this discussion of dawn mentioned here? Because this topic of dawn is of great importance. How so? Uposatha observers, male and female lay devotees, not knowing the actual time of dawn, may eat solid or soft food, wear garlands or perfumes, thinking that dawn has already risen when it has not, thereby breaking their precepts. Novices, similarly, may eat at the wrong time and thus violate their precepts. Monks under training, wandering outside the boundary without their preceptors or teachers, may fail to fulfill their training. Monks within the rains residence, going outside the boundary, may break their rains residence. Monks with three robes, staying outside the boundary without their robes, may incur the nissaggiya pācittiya offense. Similarly, those who sleep within seven steps of a woman, or those who eat at the wrong time, or those who break their vows, may incur offenses. Thus, for the sake of conscientious monks who wish to know the actual time of dawn, this discussion has been introduced.
ID77
Keci pana bhikkhū aḍḍharattisamaye ghaṭisuññattā aḍḍharattikālaṃ atikkamma aññadivaso hoti, tasmā tasmiṃ kāle aruṇaṃ uṭṭhitaṃ nāma hotīti maññamānā aḍḍharattiṃ atikkamma khādanīyabhojanīyādīni bhuñjanti, te pana buddhasamayaṃ ajānantā vedasamayameva manasi karontā evaṃ karonti, tasmā tesaṃ taṃkaraṇaṃ pamāṇaṃ na hoti. Bahavo pana bhikkhū aruṇassa paccakkhabhāvaṃ ajānantā anumānavasena cintituñca asakkontā anussavavaseneva paravacanaṃ saddahantā amhākaṃ ācariyā aruṇuggamanavelāyaṃ uṭṭhāya gacchantā sūriyuggamanavelāyaṃ dvisahassadaṇḍappamāṇaṃ ṭhānaṃ pāpuṇanti, tisahassadaṇḍappamāṇaṃ ṭhānaṃ pāpuṇantīti ca vadanti. Imamhā vihārā asukaṃ nāma vihāraṃ asukaṃ nāma cetiyaṃ asukaṃ nāma gāmaṃ pāpuṇantītiādīni ca vadantīti evaṃ anussavavacanaṃ vadanti, tampi appamāṇaṃ. Kasmā? Addhānaṃ nāma balavantassa javasampannassa ca rassaṃ hoti, dubbalassa santassa ca dīghaṃ hoti. Vuttañhi bhagavatā –
Some monks, thinking that after midnight, when the pots are empty, it becomes another day, and thus aruṇa has risen at that time, eat chewable and edible food after midnight. Not knowing the Buddha’s tradition and relying on the Vedic tradition, they act thus; therefore, their action is not authoritative. Many monks, not knowing the direct nature of aruṇa and unable to infer it, trusting hearsay and others’ words, say, “Our teachers, rising at the time of aruṇa and going, reach a place two thousand rods away or three thousand rods away at sunrise,” or “From this monastery, they reach such-and-such a monastery, shrine, or village.” Such hearsay statements are also not authoritative. Why? Because distance is short for the strong and swift, but long for the weak and slow. It is said by the Blessed One:
But some monks, perceiving that it is the middle of the night because the clocks are silent, thinking that, having passed the middle of the night, it becomes another day, therefore thinking that at that time dawn has arisen, having passed the middle of the night, they consume hard and soft foods and so on. But those monks, not knowing the time according to the Buddha, are only considering the time according to the Vedas, and therefore they do so. Therefore, their actions are not authoritative. But many monks, not knowing the directly perceptible nature of dawn, and also being unable to reason by inference, relying solely on hearsay, believing the words of others, say, “Our teachers, rising at the time of dawn’s arising and walking, reach a place two thousand daṇḍas away, reach a place three thousand daṇḍas away, at the time of sunrise.” They also say, “From this monastery, they reach such and such a monastery, such and such a shrine, such and such a village,” and so on; thus they speak words based on hearsay. That too is not authoritative. Why? Because a distance is short for a strong and speedy person, but long for a weak and tired person. For it has been stated by the Blessed One:
Some monks, due to the emptiness of the water clock, think that dawn has risen after midnight and thus eat solid or soft food after midnight. However, not knowing the Buddha’s time, they act according to the Vedic time, and thus their actions are not authoritative. Many monks, not knowing the direct perception of dawn, are unable to infer it and instead rely on hearsay, believing the words of others. They say, “Our teachers rise at the time of dawn and reach a place two thousand dhanus away by the time the sun rises, or three thousand dhanus away.” They also say, “From this monastery, they reach such and such a monastery, such and such a shrine, or such and such a village.” Such hearsay is not authoritative. Why? Because distance is short for a strong and swift person but long for a weak and slow one. As the Blessed One said:
ID78
“Dīghā jāgarato ratti, dīghaṃ santassa yojanaṃ; Dīgho bālāna saṃsāro, saddhammaṃ avijānata”nti. (dha. pa. 60);
“Long is the night to one awake, long is a yojana to the weary; long is saṃsāra to fools who do not know the true Dhamma.” (dha. pa. 60)
“Long is the night to the wakeful, long is a yojana to the weary; long is saṃsāra to the foolish, who do not know the true Dhamma.” (dha. pa. 60);
“Long is the night for the wakeful, long is the league for the weary; long is samsāra for the foolish who do not know the true Dhamma” (Dha. Pa. 60).
ID79
Tasmā addhānaṃ nāma sabbesaṃ ekasadisaṃ na hotīti aruṇuggamanassa lakkhaṇaṃ bhavituṃ na sakkā, na ca te āyasmanto piṭakattayato kiñci sādhakabhūtaṃ vacanaṃ āharanti, asakkhikaṃ aḍḍaṃ karonti viya yathājjhāsayameva vadantīti pamāṇaṃ na hoti.
Thus, distance is not the same for all and cannot serve as a marker for aruṇa’s rising. Nor do those venerables cite any supporting evidence from the Tipiṭaka; like making a half-month without evidence, they speak merely as they wish, so it is not authoritative.
Therefore, because a distance is not the same for everyone, it cannot be a characteristic for the arising of dawn. Nor do those venerable ones bring forth any supporting statement from the three Piṭakas; they make an unsupported distance, as it were, speaking only according to their own inclination; thus it is not authoritative.
Therefore, distance is not the same for everyone, and thus the characteristics of dawn cannot be determined in this way. These venerable ones do not cite any authoritative statement from the Tipiṭaka but speak according to their own inclinations, like making a baseless claim, and thus their words are not authoritative.
ID80
Aññe pana –
Others say:
But others say –
Others say:
ID81
“Atītarattiyā yāmo; Pacchimoḍḍhamamussa vā; Bhāviniyādippahāro; Tadaḍḍhaṃ vājjatehya hoti –
“The last watch of the past night, or its half or more, or what follows it, that is today—”
“The last watch of the past night; Or half of the middle watch,; the beginning portion of the next; Or half of that is today.”
“The last watch of the past night; or the latter part of the night; or the approach of the future; or the middle of the night—
ID82
Kaccāyanasārappakaraṇāgataṃ gāthaṃ vatvā atītarattiyā pacchimo yāmo ajja pariyāpanno, tasmā pacchimayāmassa ādito paṭṭhāya aruṇaṃ uggacchatī”ti vadanti. Ayaṃ vādo sakāraṇasaññāpakattā purimehi balavā hoti, evaṃ santepi ayuttoyeva. Kasmā? Ayañhi gāthā bāhirasaddasatthe jaṅgadāsappakaraṇe vuttanayena ajja bhavā ajjatanīti vuttaajjavohārassa pavattanakālaṃ dassetuṃ vuttā, na piṭakattaye vuttassa aruṇuggamanassa kālaṃ dassetuṃ, tasmā aññasādhyassa aññasādhakena sādhitattā ayuttoyeva.
Quoting a verse from the Kaccāyanasāra treatise, they say, “The last watch of the past night belongs to today, so aruṇa rises from the start of the last watch.” This opinion, being supported by a reason, is stronger than the previous ones, yet it is still inappropriate. Why? This verse is stated in the external science of linguistics in the Jaṅgadāsa treatise to indicate the time of the term “today” in current usage, not to indicate the time of aruṇa’s rising as stated in the Tipiṭaka. Thus, proving something different with evidence for something else makes it inappropriate.
Reciting the verse found in the Kaccāyanasāra-ppakaraṇa, they say, “The last watch of the past night is included in today; therefore, starting from the beginning of the last watch, dawn arises.” This view, because it makes a statement with reasons, is stronger than the previous ones. Even so, it is still incorrect. Why? Because this verse, in the external grammar texts, in the section on Jaṅgadāsa, using the method stated there, “From what is today, today-ness (ajjatanī),” is stated to show the time of commencement of the usage of ‘today’, not to show the time of the arising of dawn as stated in the three Piṭakas. Therefore, because what is to be proven by one thing is proven by something else that proves another thing, it is incorrect.
Quoting a verse from the Kaccāyanasārappakaraṇa, they say, “The last watch of the past night has now ended, and thus dawn begins from the start of the last watch.” This statement, being supported by reasoning, is stronger than the previous ones, but it is still incorrect. Why? Because this verse, found in the external text Jaṅgadāsappakaraṇa, is meant to indicate the time of the present day, not the time of dawn as mentioned in the Tipiṭaka. Thus, using one thing to prove another is inappropriate.
ID83
Apare pana “pahāro yāmasaññito”ti abhidhānappadīpikāyaṃ vuttattā pahārayāmasaddānaṃ ekatthattā tattheva “tiyāmā saṃvarī bhave”ti vuttattā rattiyā ca tiyāmabhāvato pāḷiyañca (udā. 45; cūḷava. 383) “abhikkantā , bhante, ratti, nikkhanto pacchimo yāmo, uddhasto aruṇo”ti āgatattā idāni rattiyā catūsu pahāresu tatiyappahārassa avasāne aruṇo uggato, tasmā avasesaekappahāramatto kālo divasabhāgaṃ bhajatīti vadeyyuṃ, ayaṃ vādo tatiyavādatopi balavataro. Kasmā? Ñāpakañāpyānaṃ anurūpabhāvato. Tathā hi “pahāro yāmasaññito”ti ayaṃ ñāpako pahārayāmānaṃ ekatthabhāvassa anurūpo, “tiyāmā saṃvarībhave”ti ayaṃ rattiyā tiyāmabhāvassa, “pāḷiyañcā”tiādi tatiyappahārassa avasāne aruṇuggamanassa, tathāpi ayuttoyeva hoti. Kasmā? “Avasesaekappahāramatto kālo divasabhāgaṃ bhajatī”ti vacanassa viruddhattā. Majjhimadese hi dasaghaṭikāpamāṇassa kālassa ekappahārattā sabbā ratti tiyāmāva hoti, na catuyāmā, idāni pana paccantavisayesu sattaṭṭhaghaṭikāmattassa kālassa ekappahārakatattā catuppahārā bhavati, tasmā majjhimadesavohāraṃ gahetvā abhidhānappadīpikāyañca “tiyāmā saṃvarī bhave”ti vuttaṃ, pāḷiyañca (udā. 45; cūḷava. 383) “nikkhanto pacchimo yāmo, uddhasto aruṇo”ti, tasmā rattipariyosāneyeva aruṇo uggatoti daṭṭhabbo. Tathā hi vuttaṃ vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.201) “tathā pārivāsikādīnampi aruṇaṃ anuṭṭhāpetvā vattaṃ nikkhipantānaṃ ratticchedo vutto, uggate aruṇe nikkhipitabbanti hi vutta”nti.
Others might say, since it is said in the Abhidhānappadīpikā, “A watch is known as a yāma,” and the terms “watch” and “yāma” are synonymous, and there, “It is enclosed by three yāmas,” and since the night has three yāmas, and in the text (udā. 45; cūḷava. 383), “The night has advanced, venerable sir, the last yāma has passed, aruṇa has risen,” it follows that now, of the four watches of the night, aruṇa rises at the end of the third watch, and the remaining one watch belongs to the day. This opinion is stronger than the third due to the coherence of its indications. Indeed, “A watch is known as a yāma” indicates the synonymy of watch and yāma; “It is enclosed by three yāmas” indicates the night’s three yāmas; and “In the text…” indicates aruṇa’s rising at the end of the third watch. Yet it is still inappropriate. Why? Because the statement “The remaining one watch belongs to the day” contradicts it. In the middle region, since one watch equals ten ghaṭikās, the entire night consists of three yāmas, not four. But now, in border regions, since one watch is seven or eight ghaṭikās, it becomes four watches. Thus, taking the usage of the middle region, it is said in the Abhidhānappadīpikā, “It is enclosed by three yāmas,” and in the text (udā. 45; cūḷava. 383), “The last yāma has passed, aruṇa has risen.” Therefore, it should be seen that aruṇa rises only at the end of the night. Indeed, it is said in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.201), “Similarly, for probationers and others who abandon their duties without rising at aruṇa, a night-break is stated; it is said it should be abandoned when aruṇa has risen.”
But others might say, “A ‘pahāra’ is called a ‘yāma’,” as stated in the Abhidhānappadīpikā. Because the words ‘pahāra’ and ‘yāma’ have the same meaning, and in the same text, it is stated, “The night (saṃvarī) has three watches (tiyāmā)”, and because the night has three watches, and in the Pāḷi (udā. 45; cūḷava. 383) it is stated, “The night, venerable sir, has advanced, the last watch has passed, dawn has risen,” therefore now, out of the four watches of the night, at the end of the third watch, dawn has arisen. Therefore, the remaining single watch period of time belongs to the day portion.” This view is even stronger than the third view. Why? Because of the conformity between the indicator and what is indicated. Thus, “A ‘pahāra’ is called a ‘yāma’,” this indicator is in conformity with the single meaning of ‘pahāra’ and ‘yāma’; “The night (saṃvarī) has three watches (tiyāmā),” this is for the three watches of the night; and “in the pāḷi,” etc., is for the arising of dawn at the end of the third watch. Even so, it is still incorrect. Why? Because of the contradiction in the statement, “The remaining single watch period of time belongs to the day portion.” For in the middle country, because a period of ten ghaṭikās is a single watch, the whole night has only three watches, not four watches. But now, in the border regions, because a period of only seven or eight ghaṭikās constitutes a single watch, there are four watches. Therefore, taking the usage of the middle country, it is stated in the Abhidhānappadīpikā, “The night has three watches,” and in the Pāḷi (udā. 45; cūḷava. 383), “The last watch has passed, dawn has risen.” Therefore, it should be understood that dawn arises only at the very end of the night. Thus it has been stated in Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.201) “And similarly, for those undergoing probation (pārivāsika), etc., discarding their practice before dawn has risen is said to be a break of the night, for it is stated ‘discarding the practice when dawn has arisen’”.
Others say, “The watch is called ‘pahāra,’” and since the Abhidhānappadīpikā states that “pahāra” and “yāma” have the same meaning, and since the Pāli (Udā. 45; Cūḷava. 383) says, “Venerable sir, the night has advanced, the last watch has passed, dawn has risen,” they conclude that dawn rises at the end of the third watch, and thus only one watch remains before the day begins. This statement is stronger than the third one. Why? Because it is supported by evidence. The statement “pahāro yāmasaññito” indicates the equivalence of “pahāra” and “yāma,” and “tiyāmā saṃvarī bhave” indicates the threefold division of the night. However, this is also incorrect. Why? Because it contradicts the statement “only one watch remains before the day begins.” In the Middle Country, the night is divided into three watches, each lasting ten ghaṭikās, not four. In the border regions, however, the night is divided into four watches, each lasting seven or eight ghaṭikās. Therefore, based on the Middle Country’s usage, the Abhidhānappadīpikā states, “The night is divided into three watches,” and the Pāli (Udā. 45; Cūḷava. 383) says, “The last watch has passed, dawn has risen.” Thus, dawn should be understood to rise at the end of the night. As stated in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.201): “For those who break their vows without waiting for dawn, the night is said to be broken. It is said that the vow should be broken after dawn has risen.”
ID84
Sahaseyyasikkhāpadepi (pāci. 52-54) “anupasampannehi saha nivutthabhāvaparimocanatthaṃ purāruṇā nikkhamitvā”tiādi vuttaṃ. Evaṃ cīvaravippavāsādīsu ca sabbattha rattipariyosāne āgamanavasena aruṇuggamanaṃ dassitaṃ, na atītāruṇavasenāti. Jātakaṭṭhakathāyampi (jā. aṭṭha. 5.21.255) “rattipariyosāneti attho”ti. Na kevalaṃ majjhimadesesu rattiyāyeva tippahārabhāvo hoti , atha kho divasassapi. Tathā hi vuttaṃ aṭṭhasāliniyaṃ (dha. sa. aṭṭha. nidānakathā) “sammāsambuddhassa abhidhammadesanāpariyosānañca tesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ sattappakaraṇauggahaṇañca ekappahāreneva hotī”ti, mūlaṭīkāyañca (dha. sa. mūlaṭī. nidānakathāvaṇṇanā) “ekappahārenāti ettha pahāroti divasassa tatiyabhāgo vuccatī”ti, tasmā eko rattidivo chappahāro hotīti viññāyati. Evaṃ majjhimadesavohārena tiyāmasaṅkhātassa tippahārassa avasāne sabbarattipariyosāne uṭṭhitaṃ aruṇaṃ paccantadesavohārena tippahārassa avasāneti gahetvā ekappahārāvasesakāle aruṇo uggatoti vuttattā ayampi vādo ayuttoyeva hotīti daṭṭhabbo.
In the training rule concerning sleeping together (pāci. 52-54), it is stated: “To be free from the state of dwelling with those not fully ordained, one should depart before dawn,” and so forth. Thus, in cases such as being separated from one’s robe and other instances, it is shown everywhere that the arising of dawn is determined by the end of the night, not by the passing of dawn. In the Jātaka commentary too (jā. aṭṭha. 5.21.255), it says: “The meaning is ‘at the end of the night.’” It is not only in the middle regions that the night alone has three periods; indeed, the day has them too. For it is said in the Aṭṭhasālinī (dha. sa. aṭṭha. nidānakathā): “The conclusion of the Perfectly Enlightened One’s teaching of the Abhidhamma and the monks’ mastery of the seven treatises occur in a single period.” And in the root commentary (dha. sa. mūlaṭī. nidānakathāvaṇṇanā): “‘In a single period’—here pahāra refers to a third part of the day.” Thus, it is understood that one night and day consist of six periods. Accordingly, by the convention of the middle regions, the dawn that rises at the end of the three periods known as the three watches, at the complete end of the night, is taken in the peripheral regions as occurring at the end of the three periods. Since it is stated that the dawn rises when one period remains, this argument too is clearly unreasonable.
Even in the training rule regarding sleeping together (pāci. 52-54), it is said, “in order to be released from the state of having dwelled together with unordained ones, having gone out before dawn” and so on. And thus, regarding temporary absence from a robe and so forth, in all cases, the rising of dawn is indicated by the coming at the end of the night, not based on the dawn that has passed. Even in the Jātaka commentary (jā. aṭṭha. 5.21.255), “at the end of the night, is the meaning.” Not only in the middle regions is there the state of three watches of the night alone, but also of the day. Thus, it is said in the Aṭṭhasālinī (dha. sa. aṭṭha. nidānakathā), “The conclusion of the Blessed One’s teaching of the Abhidhamma and the bhikkhus’ learning of the seven treatises happened at once,” and in the Mūlaṭīkā (dha. sa. mūlaṭī. nidānakathāvaṇṇanā) “at once”, here “watch” refers to the third part of the day, therefore one day and night are known to be six watches. Thus, taking, according to the usage of the middle regions, the end of the three watches mentioned as the three watches of the night, as the end of all the watches of the night, the dawn that arises, according to the usage of the border regions is the end of the three watches, it is said that the dawn rises when one watch remains, so even this opinion should be regarded as improper.
In the Sahaseyya Sikkhāpada (pāci. 52-54), it is said, “Having gone out before dawn for the purpose of being released from the state of lying down together with the unordained.” Thus, in the case of leaving robes and other matters, the arrival at the end of the night is shown as the time of dawn, not as the time when dawn has already passed. In the Jātaka Commentary (jā. aṭṭha. 5.21.255), it is also stated, “The meaning is the end of the night.” Not only in the Middle Country is the division of the night into three watches, but also during the day. As stated in the Aṭṭhasālinī (dha. sa. aṭṭha. nidānakathā), “The conclusion of the Blessed One’s Abhidhamma discourse and the monks’ mastery of the seven treatises occurred in a single session.” And in the Mūlaṭīkā (dha. sa. mūlaṭī. nidānakathāvaṇṇanā), “In a single session” means “a session” refers to the third part of the day. Therefore, one night and day consist of six sessions. Thus, according to the Middle Country’s convention, at the end of the three watches, dawn arises at the conclusion of the entire night, but according to the border regions’ convention, dawn arises at the end of the three watches. Since it is said that dawn arises during the remaining time of one session, this statement is also inappropriate and should be understood as such.
ID85
Bahavo pana paṇḍitā “khuddasikkhānissaye vuttaṃ –
However, many learned ones say, “It is stated in the Khuddasikkhā commentary—
But many scholars, “relying on what is stated in the Khuddasikkhānissaya –
However, many learned ones say, “In the Khuddasikkhā Nissaya, it is stated –
ID86
’Setaruṇañca paṭhamaṃ, dutiyaṃ nandiyāvaṭṭaṃ; Tatiyaṃ tambavaṇṇañca, catutthaṃ gadrabhaṃ mukha’nti. –
‘The first dawn is white, the second is like the nandiyāvaṭṭa flower; the third is copper-colored, the fourth is like a donkey’s mouth.’—
‘The first is a white dawn, the second is like a nandiyāvaṭṭa; The third is copper-colored, the fourth is like the face of a donkey.’ –
‘The first dawn is white, the second is like the Nandiyāvaṭṭa flower; The third is copper-colored, and the fourth is like the face of a donkey.’ –
ID87
Imaṃ gāthaṃ nissāya ekarattiyaṃ aruṇo catukkhattuṃ uṭṭhahati, tattha paṭhamaṃ setavaṇṇaṃ hoti, dutiyaṃ nandiyāvaṭṭapupphavaṇṇaṃ hoti, tatiyaṃ tambavaṇṇaṃ hoti, catutthaṃ gadrabhamukhavaṇṇaṃ hotī”ti vatvā rattobhāsato puretaraṃ atītarattikāleyeva vattanikkhipanādikammaṃ karonti. Tesaṃ taṃ karaṇaṃ anisammakāritaṃ āpajjati. Ayañhi gāthā neva pāḷiyaṃ dissati, na aṭṭhakathāyaṃ, na ṭīkāsu, kevalaṃ nissaye eva, nissayesu ca ekasmiṃyeva khuddasikkhānissaye dissati, na aññanissayesu, tatthāpi neva pubbāparasambandho dissati, na hetuphalādibhāvo, na ca liṅganiyamoti na nissayakārācariyena ṭhapitā bhaveyya, atha kho pacchā aññehi lekhakehi vā attano icchānurūpaṃ likhitā bhaveyya, tasmā ayaṃ gāthā kuto ābhatā pāḷito vā aṭṭhakathāto vā ṭīkāto vā vinayato vā suttantato vā abhidhammato vāti pabhavaṃ apariyesitvā nissaye diṭṭhamattameva sārato gahetvā pāḷiyaṭṭhakathāṭīkāsu vuttavacanaṃ anisāmetvā katattā anisammakāritaṃ āpajjati.
Relying on this verse, they claim that in one night the dawn rises four times: the first is white, the second is the color of the nandiyāvaṭṭa flower, the third is copper-colored, and the fourth is the color of a donkey’s mouth. Thus, they perform actions like setting down the bowl even before the night’s glow, in the time already past the night. Their performance of this is improperly considered. For this verse is found neither in the canonical texts, nor in the commentaries, nor in the sub-commentaries, but only in a commentary—specifically, only in the Khuddasikkhā commentary among the commentaries. Even there, no connection between what precedes and follows is seen, nor any causal relation, nor gender-specific rule. It is unlikely to have been established by the author of the commentary; rather, it may have been written later by other scribes according to their own wishes. Therefore, without investigating the source of this verse—whether from the canon, commentary, sub-commentary, Vinaya, Sutta, or Abhidhamma—merely taking it as authoritative because it is seen in the commentary, without examining the statements in the canon, commentaries, and sub-commentaries, results in improperly considered action.
Relying on this verse, the dawn rises four times in one night; the first is white-colored, the second is the color of a nandiyāvaṭṭa flower, the third is copper-colored, the fourth is the color of a donkey’s face,” saying this, perform actions like placing the bowl before the brightness of night, in the time when night has passed. Their doing so incurs an action done without proper consideration. Because this verse is not seen in the Pāli, nor in the commentaries, nor in the sub-commentaries; it is seen only in the Nissayas, and among the Nissayas, only in one Khuddasikkhānissaya, not in other Nissayas; there also, neither the connection of the former and the latter is seen, nor the state of cause and effect, nor the rule of signs, therefore it would not have been established by the author of the Nissaya, but rather it would have been written by others later, scribes, or according to their own wishes. Therefore, without investigating the source from where this verse came, whether from the Pāli or from the commentary or from the sub-commentary, or from the Vinaya, or from the Suttanta, or from the Abhidhamma, taking merely what is seen in the Nissaya as essential, and not considering the statements spoken in the Pāli, the commentaries, and sub-commentaries, is incurred as an action done without proper consideration.
Relying on this verse, they claim that dawn arises four times in one night: the first is white, the second is the color of the Nandiyāvaṭṭa flower, the third is copper-colored, and the fourth is the color of a donkey’s face.” Thus, they perform actions such as concluding duties before the night has fully passed, during the time of the past night. Their actions are done without proper consideration. This verse is not found in the Pāli, the commentaries, or the sub-commentaries. It is only found in the Nissayas, and only in the Khuddasikkhā Nissaya, not in other Nissayas. There, no connection between the earlier and later parts is seen, nor is there any cause and effect relationship, nor any grammatical rule. Therefore, it is unlikely that this verse was established by the Nissaya teachers. Rather, it may have been written later by other authors according to their own preferences. Thus, this verse, without seeking its origin from the Pāli, commentaries, sub-commentaries, Vinaya, Suttanta, or Abhidhamma, is taken merely from what is seen in the Nissaya. Without examining the statements in the Pāli, commentaries, and sub-commentaries, it is done without proper consideration.
ID88
Tatrāyaṃ pāḷi “tena kho pana samayena buddho bhagavā sītāsu hemantikāsu rattīsu antaraṭṭhakāsu himapātasamaye rattiṃ ajjhokāse ekacīvaro nisīdi, na bhagavantaṃ sītaṃ ahosi. Nikkhante paṭhame yāme sītaṃ bhagavantaṃ ahosi, dutiyaṃ bhagavā cīvaraṃ pārupi, na bhagavantaṃ sītaṃ ahosi. Nikkhante majjhime yāme sītaṃ bhagavantaṃ ahosi, tatiyaṃ bhagavā cīvaraṃ pārupi, na bhagavantaṃ sītaṃ ahosi. Nikkhante pacchime yāme uddhaste aruṇe nandimukhiyā rattiyā sītaṃ bhagavantaṃ ahosi, catutthaṃ bhagavā cīvaraṃ pārupi, na bhagavantaṃ sītaṃ ahosī”ti. Ayaṃ mahāvagge (mahāva. 346) cīvarakkhandhakāgatā vinayapāḷi. Pāḷiyaṃ nandimukhiyāti tuṭṭhimukhiyā, pasannadisāmukhāyāti attho. Ayaṃ taṃsaṃvaṇṇanāya vimativinodanīpāṭho (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.346).
Here is the canonical text: “At that time, the Buddha, the Blessed One, during the cold winter nights between the eighth days, in the season of snowfall, sat outside at night with a single robe, and the Blessed One felt no cold. When the first watch passed, the Blessed One felt cold; he put on a second robe, and he felt no cold. When the middle watch passed, the Blessed One felt cold; he put on a third robe, and he felt no cold. When the last watch passed, with the dawn risen and the night bright with joy, the Blessed One felt cold; he put on a fourth robe, and he felt no cold.” This is a Vinaya passage from the robe section of the Mahāvagga (mahāva. 346). In the canon, nandimukhiyā means “bright with joy,” referring to a direction of clear appearance. This is the explanation from the Vimativinodanī commentary (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.346).
Here is the Pāli: “At that time, the Blessed Buddha, during the cold nights of the winter season, during the mid-winter nights, at the time of snowfall, sat in the open air at night wearing only one robe; the cold did not affect the Blessed One. When the first watch had passed, cold affected the Blessed One; the Blessed One donned a second robe, the cold did not affect the Blessed One. When the middle watch had passed, cold affected the Blessed One; the Blessed One donned a third robe, the cold did not affect the Blessed One. When the last watch had passed, with the dawn risen, in the night with a joyful face, cold affected the Blessed One; the Blessed One donned a fourth robe, the cold did not affect the Blessed One.” This is the Vinaya Pāli found in the Cīvarakkhandhaka of the Mahāvagga (mahāva. 346). In the Pāli, nandimukhiyā means with a joyful face, with a face of a pleasant direction. This is the passage from the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.346) which expounds on it.
Here is the Pāli: “At that time, the Blessed One, during the cold winter nights, sat in the open air with a single robe, and the cold did not affect the Blessed One. At the end of the first watch, the cold affected the Blessed One, and the Blessed One put on a second robe, and the cold did not affect the Blessed One. At the end of the middle watch, the cold affected the Blessed One, and the Blessed One put on a third robe, and the cold did not affect the Blessed One. At the end of the last watch, when dawn had risen and the night was joyful, the cold affected the Blessed One, and the Blessed One put on a fourth robe, and the cold did not affect the Blessed One.” This is the Vinaya Pāli found in the Mahāvagga (mahāva. 346) in the Cīvarakkhandhaka. In the Pāli, “nandimukhiyā” means with a joyful face, a face of satisfaction. This is the passage from the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.346).
ID89
“Tena kho pana samayena buddho bhagavā sāvatthiyaṃ viharati pubbārāme migāramātupāsāde . Tena kho pana samayena bhagavā tadahuposathe bhikkhusaṅghaparivuto nisinno hoti. Atha kho āyasmā ānando abhikkantāya rattiyā nikkhante paṭhame yāme uṭṭhāyāsanā ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvā yena bhagavā tenañjaliṃ paṇāmetvā bhagavantaṃ etadavoca – abhikkantā, bhante ratti, nikkhanto paṭhamo yāmo, ciranisinno bhikkhusaṅgho, uddisatu, bhante, bhagavā bhikkhūnaṃ pātimokkhanti. Evaṃ vutte bhagavā tuṇhī ahosi. Dutiyampi kho āyasmā ānando abhikkantāya rattiyā nikkhante majjhime yāme uṭṭhāyāsanā ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvā yena bhagavā tenañjaliṃ paṇāmetvā bhagavantaṃ etadavoca – abhikkantā, bhante, ratti, nikkhanto majjhimo yāmo, ciranisinno bhikkhusaṅgho, uddisatu, bhante, bhagavā bhikkhūnaṃ pātimokkhanti. Dutiyampi bhagavā tuṇhī ahosi. Tatiyampi kho āyasmā ānando abhikkantāya rattiyā nikkhante pacchime yāme uddhaste aruṇe nandimukhiyā rattiyā uṭṭhāyāsanā ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvā yena bhagavā tenañjaliṃ paṇāmetvā bhagavantaṃ etadavoca – abhikkantā, bhante, ratti, nikkhanto pacchimo yāmo, uddhastaṃ aruṇaṃ, nandimukhī ratti, ciranisinno bhikkhusaṅgho, uddisatu bhante bhagavā bhikkhūnaṃ pātimokkhanti. Aparisuddhā, ānanda, parisā”ti (cūḷava. 383). Ayaṃ cūḷavagge pātimokkhaṭṭhapanakkhandhakāgatā aparāpi vinayapāḷi.
“At that time, the Buddha, the Blessed One, was dwelling at Sāvatthī in the eastern monastery, Migāra’s mother’s palace. On that occasion, it was the Uposatha day, and the Blessed One was seated surrounded by the community of monks. Then, when the night was far advanced and the first watch had passed, the Venerable Ānanda rose from his seat, arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, saluted the Blessed One with joined hands, and said: ‘The night is far advanced, venerable sir, the first watch has passed, the community of monks has been seated for a long time; may the Blessed One, venerable sir, recite the Pātimokkha to the monks.’ When this was said, the Blessed One remained silent. A second time, when the night was far advanced and the middle watch had passed, the Venerable Ānanda rose from his seat, arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, saluted the Blessed One with joined hands, and said: ‘The night is far advanced, venerable sir, the middle watch has passed, the community of monks has been seated for a long time; may the Blessed One, venerable sir, recite the Pātimokkha to the monks.’ A second time, the Blessed One remained silent. A third time, when the night was far advanced, the last watch had passed, the dawn had risen, and the night was bright with joy, the Venerable Ānanda rose from his seat, arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, saluted the Blessed One with joined hands, and said: ‘The night is far advanced, venerable sir, the last watch has passed, the dawn has risen, the night is bright with joy, the community of monks has been seated for a long time; may the Blessed One, venerable sir, recite the Pātimokkha to the monks.’ ‘The assembly is not pure, Ānanda,’” (cūḷava. 383). This is another Vinaya passage from the Pātimokkha suspension section of the Cūḷavagga.
“At that time, the Blessed Buddha was dwelling at Sāvatthī in the Eastern Park, in the palace of Migāramātu. At that time, the Blessed One, on that Uposatha day, was sitting surrounded by the Saṅgha of bhikkhus. Then the Venerable Ānanda, when the night had advanced, when the first watch had passed, rising from his seat, arranging his upper robe over one shoulder, raising his joined hands towards the Blessed One, said this to the Blessed One: ‘The night, venerable sir, has advanced, the first watch has passed, the Saṅgha of bhikkhus has been sitting for a long time, may the Blessed One, venerable sir, recite the Pātimokkha to the bhikkhus.’ When this was said, the Blessed One remained silent. A second time, the Venerable Ānanda, when the night had advanced, when the middle watch had passed, rising from his seat, arranging his upper robe over one shoulder, raising his joined hands towards the Blessed One, said this to the Blessed One: ‘The night, venerable sir, has advanced, the middle watch has passed, the Saṅgha of bhikkhus has been sitting for a long time, may the Blessed One, venerable sir, recite the Pātimokkha to the bhikkhus.’ A second time, the Blessed One remained silent. A third time, the Venerable Ānanda, when the night had advanced, when the last watch had passed, with the dawn risen, in the night with a joyful face, rising from his seat, arranging his upper robe over one shoulder, raising his joined hands towards the Blessed One, said this to the Blessed One: ‘The night, venerable sir, has advanced, the last watch has passed, the dawn has risen, the night has a joyful face, the Saṅgha of bhikkhus has been sitting for a long time, may the Blessed One, venerable sir, recite the Pātimokkha to the bhikkhus.’ ‘The assembly, Ānanda, is impure.’” (cūḷava. 383). This is another Vinaya Pāli, found in the Pātimokkhaṭṭhapanakkhandhaka of the Cūḷavagga.
“At that time, the Blessed One was dwelling at Sāvatthī in the Eastern Park, in the Migāramātupāsāda. On that uposatha day, the Blessed One was seated surrounded by the Sangha of monks. Then, Venerable Ānanda, having risen from his seat at the end of the first watch, arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, approached the Blessed One, paid homage, and said, ‘Venerable, the night is far advanced, the first watch has ended, the Sangha has been sitting for a long time. Let the Blessed One recite the Pātimokkha for the monks.’ When this was said, the Blessed One remained silent. A second time, Venerable Ānanda, at the end of the middle watch, rose from his seat, arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, approached the Blessed One, paid homage, and said, ‘Venerable, the night is far advanced, the middle watch has ended, the Sangha has been sitting for a long time. Let the Blessed One recite the Pātimokkha for the monks.’ A second time, the Blessed One remained silent. A third time, Venerable Ānanda, at the end of the last watch, when dawn had risen and the night was joyful, rose from his seat, arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, approached the Blessed One, paid homage, and said, ‘Venerable, the night is far advanced, the last watch has ended, dawn has risen, the night is joyful, the Sangha has been sitting for a long time. Let the Blessed One recite the Pātimokkha for the monks.’ ‘The assembly is not pure, Ānanda.’” (cūḷava. 383). This is another Vinaya Pāli found in the Cūḷavagga in the Pātimokkhaṭṭhapanakkhandhaka.
ID90
Nandimukhiyā rattiyāti aruṇuṭṭhitakāle pītimukhā viya ratti khāyati. Tenāha “nandimukhiyā”ti (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 383) ayaṃ taṃsaṃvaṇṇanābhūtasamantapāsādikaṭṭhakathāpāṭho. Abhikkantāti parikkhīṇā. Uddhaste aruṇeti uggate aruṇasīse. Nandimukhiyāti tuṭṭhimukhiyā. Ayaṃ taṃsaṃvaṇṇanābhūtasāratthadīpanīpāṭho (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.383). Pāḷiyaṃ nandimukhiyāti odātadisāmukhitāya tuṭṭhamukhiyā. Ayaṃ taṃsaṃvaṇṇanāya (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.283) vimativinodanīpāṭho.
Nandimukhiyā rattiyā means that at the time of the dawn’s rising, the night appears as if with a joyful face. Hence it says “nandimukhiyā” (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 383), which is from the Samantapāsādikā commentary explaining it. Abhikkantā means “far advanced.” Uddhaste aruṇe means “with the dawn risen.” Nandimukhiyā means “bright with joy.” This is from the Sāratthadīpanī commentary explaining it (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.383). In the canon, nandimukhiyā refers to a direction bright with whiteness, meaning “bright with joy.” This is from the Vimativinodanī commentary explaining it (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.283).
In the night with a joyful face, at the time when the dawn has risen, the night appears as if it has a face of delight. Therefore, he said, “with a joyful face” (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 383); this is the passage from the Samantapāsādika commentary which explains it. When the night has advanced means when it has been exhausted. With the dawn risen means with the head of the dawn risen. With a joyful face means with a joyful face. This is the passage of the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.383) which explains it. In the Pāli, with a joyful face means with the joyfulness of the brightened direction. This is the passage of the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.283) which expounds on that.
“Nandimukhiyā rattiyā” means the night appears joyful like a delighted face at the time of dawn. Therefore, it is said, “nandimukhiyā” (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 383). This is the passage from the Samantapāsādikā (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.383). “Abhikkantā” means passed. “Uddhaste aruṇe” means when the dawn has risen. “Nandimukhiyā” means with a joyful face. This is the passage from the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. �ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.383). In the Pāli, “nandimukhiyā” means with a face of satisfaction, like a white face. This is the passage from the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.283).
ID91
“Tatiyampi kho āyasmā ānando abhikkantāyarattiyā nikkhante pacchime yāme uddhaste aruṇe nandimukhiyā rattiyā uṭṭhāyāsanā ekaṃsaṃ cīvaraṃ katvā yena bhagavā tenañjaliṃ paṇāmetvā bhagavantaṃ etadavoca – abhikkantā, bhante, ratti, nikkhanto pacchimo yāmo, uddhasto aruṇo, nandimukhī ratti, ciranisinnā āgantukā bhikkhū, paṭisammodatu, bhante, bhagavā āgantuke bhikkhū”ti. Ayaṃ udānāgatā suttantapāḷi (udā. 45). Uddhaste aruṇeti uggate aruṇe. Aruṇo nāma puratthimadisāyaṃ sūriyodayato puretarameva uṭṭhitobhāso. Nandimukhiyā rattiyāti aruṇassa uggatattā eva aruṇobhāya sūriyālokūpajīvino satte nandāpanamukhiyā rattiyā jātāya, vibhāyamānāyāti attho. Ayaṃ taṃsaṃvaṇṇanābhūtā udānaṭṭhakathā (udā. aṭṭha. 23).
“A third time, the Venerable Ānanda, when the night was far advanced, the last watch had passed, the dawn had risen, and the night was bright with joy, rose from his seat, arranged his robe over one shoulder, saluted the Blessed One with joined hands, and said to the Blessed One: ‘The night is far advanced, venerable sir, the last watch has passed, the dawn has risen, the night is bright with joy, the visiting monks have been seated for a long time; may the Blessed One, venerable sir, converse with the visiting monks.’” This is a Sutta passage from the Udāna (udā. 45). Uddhaste aruṇe means “with the dawn risen.” The dawn is the light that rises in the eastern direction even before sunrise. Nandimukhiyā rattiyā means that because of the dawn’s rising, due to its light, the night becomes one that brings joy to beings who depend on sunlight, shining brightly—this is the meaning. This is from the Udāna commentary explaining it (udā. aṭṭha. 23).
“A third time, the Venerable Ānanda, when the night had advanced, when the last watch had passed, with the dawn risen, in the night with a joyful face, rising from his seat, arranging his robe over one shoulder, raising his joined hands towards the Blessed One, said this to the Blessed One: ‘The night, venerable sir, has advanced, the last watch has passed, the dawn has risen, the night has a joyful face, the newly arrived bhikkhus have been sitting for a long time, may the Blessed One, venerable sir, exchange greetings with the newly arrived bhikkhus.’” This is the Suttanta Pāli found in the Udāna (udā. 45). With the dawn risen means with the dawn having risen. Dawn is the brightness that rises in the eastern direction even before the sunrise. In the night with a joyful face means because of the rising of the dawn, the night has become one with a face that makes beings who live by the light of the dawn’s brightness and the sunlight joyful, meaning that it is becoming bright. This is the Udāna commentary (udā. aṭṭha. 23) which explains it.
“A third time, Venerable Ānanda, at the end of the last watch, when dawn had risen and the night was joyful, rose from his seat, arranged his robe over one shoulder, approached the Blessed One, paid homage, and said, ‘Venerable, the night is far advanced, the last watch has ended, dawn has risen, the night is joyful, the visiting monks have been sitting for a long time. Let the Blessed One greet the visiting monks.’” This is the Suttanta Pāli found in the Udāna (udā. 45). “Uddhaste aruṇe” means when the dawn has risen. Dawn refers to the light that appears in the eastern direction before the sunrise. “Nandimukhiyā rattiyā” means the night appears joyful like a delighted face because of the dawn’s light, which brings joy to beings dependent on the sunlight. This is the passage from the Udāna Commentary (udā. aṭṭha. 23).
ID92
Iti ettakāsu vinayasuttantāgatāsu pāḷiyaṭṭhakathāṭīkāsu ekasmimpiṭhāne aruṇo catukkhattuṃ uggatoti natthi, ekavārameva vutto. Catubbidhavaṇṇasamannāgatotipi natthi, ekavaṇṇo eva vutto. Jātakaṭṭhakathāyampi (jā. aṭṭha. 5.21.255) rattavaṇṇo eva vutto, na setavaṇṇādiko. Nandimukhīti ca satte nandāpanadisāmukhī ratti eva vuttā, na aruṇassa nandiyāvaṭṭapupphasadisavaṇṇatā. Tenāha “satte nandāpanamukhiyā rattiyā”ti. Evaṃ abhidhānappadīpikāpakaraṇavacanena viruddhattā pāḷiyaṭṭhakathādīhi asaṃsandanato dubbalasādhakattā ca ayampi vādo ayuttoyevāti daṭṭhabbo, tasmā sammāsambuddhassa āṇaṃ anatikkantena lajjibhikkhunā yadi kenaci appaṭicchanne vivaṭokāse hoti, macchakkhisamānaabyattarattobhāsassa paññāyamānakālato paṭṭhāya vattanikkhipanādikammaṃ kātabbaṃ.
Thus, in all these passages from the Vinaya and Sutta, along with their commentaries and sub-commentaries, not a single place states that the dawn rises four times; it is stated only once. Nor is it said to possess four colors; it is described as having a single color. In the Jātaka commentary too (jā. aṭṭha. 5.21.255), only a reddish color is mentioned, not white or others. Nandimukhī is said to mean a night that brings joy to beings in the direction of brightness, not that the dawn has the color of the nandiyāvaṭṭa flower. Hence it says, “a night that brings joy to beings.” Since this contradicts the statement in the Abhidhānappadīpikā text, does not align with the canon and commentaries, and lacks strong evidence, this argument too is clearly unreasonable. Therefore, a conscientious monk who does not transgress the command of the Perfectly Enlightened One should, if in an uncovered open place, perform actions like setting down the bowl from the time when the reddish glow resembling fish eyes becomes visible.
Thus, in so many Pāli passages, commentaries, and sub-commentaries from the Vinaya and Suttanta, there is no place where the dawn is said to rise four times; it is spoken of only once. It is not said to be endowed with four kinds of color either; only one color is mentioned. Even in the Jātaka commentary (jā. aṭṭha. 5.21.255), only a reddish color is mentioned, not a white color and so on. And joyful face refers to the night with a face that makes beings joyful, not the color of the dawn being like the nandiyāvaṭṭa flower. Therefore he said “in the night with a face that makes beings joyful”. Thus, because it is contradictory to the statement of the Abhidhānappadīpikā text, because it is not consistent with the Pāli, commentaries, and so on, and because it is a weak proof, even this opinion should be regarded as improper. Therefore, a conscientious bhikkhu, not transgressing the command of the Perfectly Enlightened Buddha, if he is in any uncovered, open place, from the time when the brightness, similar to a fly’s eye and indistinctly, of the night is discernible, should perform actions like placing the bowl.
Thus, in the Vinaya, Suttanta, and their commentaries, there is no mention of dawn rising four times in one place; it is mentioned only once. There is no mention of it having four colors; it is described as having one color. In the Jātaka Commentary (jā. aṭṭha. 5.21.255), it is described as the color of night, not white or other colors. “Nandimukhī” is described as the night appearing joyful like a delighted face to beings, not as the dawn having the color of the Nandiyāvaṭṭa flower. Therefore, it is said, “the night appears joyful like a delighted face to beings.” Since this statement contradicts the Abhidhānappadīpikā and is not supported by the Pāli, commentaries, and sub-commentaries, and is weakly established, this statement is also inappropriate. Therefore, a monk who respects the Fully Enlightened One’s instruction should, from the time the night is recognized as such, perform actions like concluding duties if he is in an open, unconcealed place.
ID93
Yadi pana pabbatādinā paṭicchannaṭṭhānaṃ hoti, yattakena kālena vivaṭaṭṭhāne rattobhāso paññāyati, sūriyamaṇḍalassa dissanakālato ekaghaṭikāmattena vā dvighaṭikāmattena vā tattakaṃ kālaṃ sallakkhetvā imasmiṃ kāle aruṇo uggato bhaveyyāti takketvā kātabbaṃ, saṃsayaṃ anicchantena tatopi kañcikālaṃ adhivāsetvā nissaṃsayakāle kattabbaṃ, ayaṃ tattha sāmīci. Ayaṃ pana vādo yathāvuttappakaraṇavacanehi suṭṭhu saṃsandati yathā gaṅgodakena yamunodakaṃ, tasmā paṇḍitehi punappunaṃ pubbāparaṃ āloḷentena manasi kātabbo. Evaṃ manasi karitvā aruṇapaṭisaṃyuttesu ṭhānesu saṃsayo chinditabbo, saṃsayaṃ chinditvā visāradena hutvā taṃ taṃ kammaṃ kātabbanti.
However, if the place is concealed by a mountain or similar, one should estimate the time when the reddish glow would be visible in an open place—whether one or two hours before the sun’s disc appears—and infer that the dawn would have risen at this time, then act accordingly. One who wishes to avoid doubt should wait a little longer and act at a time free from uncertainty; this is the proper practice there. This argument aligns well with the statements in the aforementioned texts, like the waters of the Ganges and Yamunā merging. Thus, the wise should repeatedly reflect on what precedes and follows. By doing so, they should dispel doubt in matters related to the dawn, and having dispelled doubt, confidently perform the respective actions.
But if it is a place covered by mountains or other things, one should consider the amount of time it takes for the brightness of the night to be discernible in an open place, about one ghaṭikā or two ghaṭikās from the time the sun’s disc becomes visible, and estimate, ‘At this time the dawn would have risen,’ and act. One who does not desire doubt should wait a little longer even from that time and act at a time free from doubt; this is the proper conduct therein. This opinion fits well with the statements of the previously mentioned texts, like the water of the Ganges with the water of the Yamunā; therefore, the wise, repeatedly churning the former and the latter, should keep it in mind. Thus, keeping it in mind, doubt should be cut off in places connected with the dawn. Having cut off doubt, becoming confident, those particular actions should be performed.
However, if the place is concealed by a mountain or the like, one should determine the time when the dawn’s light becomes visible in an open place, and from the time the sun’s disc becomes visible, estimate the time as one or two hours, and then conclude that dawn has arisen at that time. If one does not wish to have any doubt, one should wait a little longer and perform the action at a time free from doubt. This is the proper procedure here. This statement, however, agrees well with the aforementioned texts, like the Ganges water meeting the Yamuna water. Therefore, the wise should repeatedly reflect on the earlier and later parts and take it to heart. Having done so, one should resolve any doubts regarding dawn-related matters, and having resolved the doubts, one should perform the respective actions with confidence.
ID94
Visuddhatthāya sīlassa, bhikkhūnaṃ piyasīlinaṃ; Katāruṇakathā esā, na sārambhādikāraṇā.
For the purity of virtue, for the monks who cherish virtue, this discussion on the dawn has been made, not out of contention or other reasons.
For the purity of virtuous conduct, of the bhikkhus who are dear in virtuous conduct; This discussion of dawn has been made, not for the sake of contention and so on.
For the purification of virtue, for monks who love virtue; This discourse on dawn has been spoken, not for the sake of conflict or other reasons.
ID95
Tasmā suṭṭhūpadhāretvā, yuttaṃ gaṇhantu sādhavo; Ayuttañce chaḍḍayantu, mā hontu dummanādayoti.
Therefore, having thoroughly discerned it, let the good take what is proper and discard what is improper, so they may not become distressed or otherwise.
Therefore, having well considered, let the virtuous accept what is proper; And let them discard what is improper, let them not become displeased and so on.
Therefore, having well considered, the virtuous should accept what is appropriate; And reject what is inappropriate, let them not be troubled in mind.
ID96
Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is an explanation of the Vinaya compendium,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is the explanation of the Vinayasaṅgaha,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinaya Saṅgaha,
ID97
Divāseyyavinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma
this is called the discussion on the determination of day and sleeping,
The chapter called the Ornament of the Discourse on the Determination of Sleeping by Day
The section on the determination of daytime resting is concluded.
ID98
Paṭhamo paricchedo.
the first chapter.
The first chapter.
The first chapter.
ID99
ID100
6. Evaṃ divāseyyavinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni parikkhāravinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ “parikkhāroti samaṇaparikkhāro”tiādimāha. Tattha divāseyyavinicchayakathāya ādimhi vuttaṃ “tatthā”ti padaṃ ānetvā tattha tesu mātikāpadesu samabhiniviṭṭhassa “parikkhāro”ti padassa “samaṇaparikkhāro”ti attho daṭṭhabboti yojanā, esa nayo ito parepi. Samaṇaparikkhāro vutto, na gihiparikkhāroti adhippāyo. Parisamantato kariyateti parikkhāro, chattādiko. Tatrāti samaṇaparikkhāre. Kappatīti kappiyo, na kappiyo akappiyo, kappiyo ca akappiyo ca kappiyākappiyo, samāhāradvandepi pulliṅgamicchanti paṇḍitā. Kappiyākappiyo ca so parikkhāro ceti tathā, tassa vinicchayo kappiyākappiyaparikkhāravinicchayo.
6. Having explained the determination of day and sleeping, now to explain the determination of requisites, it begins with: “Parikkhāro means ‘requisites of a ascetic.’” Here, by bringing the word “tatthā” stated at the beginning of the discussion on day and sleeping, it should be understood that among those topics in the outline, the meaning of the word “parikkhāro” as applied to them is “requisites of a ascetic.” This method applies hereafter as well. The requisites of a ascetic are stated, not those of a layperson—this is the intent. Parikkhāro means that which is prepared all around, such as an umbrella. Tatrā means “in the requisites of a ascetic.” What is proper is kappiya, what is improper is akappiya, both proper and improper together are kappiyākappiya; even in a collective compound, scholars prefer the masculine gender. That which is both proper and improper is the requisite—this is the determination of kappiyākappiyaparikkhāravinicchaya.
6. Thus, having explained the determination of sleeping by day, now, to explain the determination of requisites, he begins with “requisite means a monastic requisite” and so on. There, bringing the word “there” spoken at the beginning of the discourse on the determination of sleeping by day, the meaning of the word “requisite” that is perfectly placed in those key words should be understood as “monastic requisite”; this method is also to be applied hereafter. Monastic requisite is spoken of, not the requisite of a householder, is the intention. What is used all around is a requisite, like an umbrella and so on. There, in the monastic requisite. What is allowable is kappiya, what is not allowable is akappiya, what is allowable and unallowable is kappiyākappiya; even in a copulative compound, the scholars desire the masculine gender. What is determination of the requisites that are allowable and unallowable kappiyākappiya, is the determination of allowable and unallowable requisites (kappiyākappiyaparikkhāravinicchayo).
6. Having thus discussed the determination of daytime resting, now the determination of requisites is discussed, beginning with “requisites mean the requisites of an ascetic.” Here, the word “tattha” mentioned at the beginning of the discussion on daytime resting is brought in, and in those matrix topics, the word “requisites” should be understood as “the requisites of an ascetic.” This is the method; the same applies hereafter. The requisites of an ascetic are mentioned, not those of a householder. “Parikkhāro” means what is made for the sake of the community, such as a sunshade. “Tatrā” means in the requisites of an ascetic. What is allowable is “kappiya,” what is not allowable is “akappiya,” and what is both allowable and not allowable is “kappiyākappiya.” Even in compound words, the wise desire the masculine gender. Thus, the determination of what is allowable and not allowable is “kappiyākappiyaparikkhāravinicchayo.”
ID101
Keci tālapaṇṇacchattanti idaṃ upalakkhaṇamattaṃ. Sabbampi hi chattaṃ tathākariyamānaṃ na vaṭṭati. Tenevāha vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 85) “sabbaparikkhāresu vaṇṇamaṭṭhavikāraṃ karontassa dukkaṭanti dīpentena na vaṭṭatīti vuttanti veditabba”nti. Na vaṇṇamaṭṭhatthāyāti iminā thirakaraṇatthaṃ ekavaṇṇasuttena vinandhiyamānaṃ yadi vaṇṇamaṭṭhaṃ hoti, tattha na dosoti dasseti. Āraggenāti nikhādanamukhena. Yadi na vaṭṭati, tādisaṃ chattadaṇḍaṃ labhitvā kiṃ kātabbanti āha “ghaṭakaṃ vā”tiādi. Suttakena vā daṇḍo veṭhetabboti yathā lekhā na paññāyati, tathā veṭhetabbo. Daṇḍabundeti daṇḍamūle, chattadaṇḍassa heṭṭhimakoṭiyanti attho. Chattamaṇḍalikanti chattassa anto khuddakamaṇḍalaṃ, chattapañjare maṇḍalākārena baddhadaṇḍavalayaṃ vā. Ukkiritvāti ninnaṃ, unnataṃ vā katvā uṭṭhāpetvā. Sā vaṭṭatīti sā lekhā rajjukehi bandhantu vā mā vā, bandhituṃ yuttaṭṭhānattā vaṭṭati. Tena vuttaṃ ācariyabuddhadattamahātherena –
Some say a palm-leaf umbrella—this is merely an example. Indeed, any umbrella made in such a way is not permissible. Hence it is said in the Vajirabuddhi sub-commentary (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 85): “It should be understood as stated that making alterations for the sake of color or beauty in all requisites incurs a dukkaṭa offense, indicating it is not permissible.” Not for the sake of color or beauty—this shows that if an umbrella is woven with a single-colored thread for durability, and it happens to become beautiful, there is no fault in that. With the tip means with the pointed end for piercing. If such an umbrella staff is not permissible, what should be done upon obtaining one? It says: “Either a joint” and so forth. The staff should be wrapped with thread—it should be wrapped so that the carving is not visible. At the base of the staff means at the bottom end of the umbrella staff. The umbrella’s circular frame means the small circle inside the umbrella, or the ring of staffs bound in a circular shape within the umbrella’s frame. Having carved means making it sunken or raised. That is permissible—that carving, whether bound with ropes or not, is permissible because it is a place suitable for binding. Thus, the Venerable Buddhadatta Mahāthera said:
Some say a palmyra leaf umbrella, this is just an example. Because, all umbrellas being made like that are not suitable. Therefore, he says in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 85), “‘for one who makes a color or smooth alteration in all requisites, there is a dukkaṭa,’ showing this, it should be understood that it is said that it is not suitable.” Not for the sake of color or smoothness, by this, he shows that if, being intertwined with a single-colored thread for the sake of firmness, it becomes colored or smooth, there is no fault in that. With the tip means with the point of a spike. If it is not suitable, having obtained such an umbrella handle, what should be done? He says “either the knob” and so on. The handle should be wrapped with thread, it should be wrapped in such a way that the lines are not discernible. At the base of the handle means at the bottom of the handle, at the lower end of the umbrella handle. Umbrella circle means the small circle inside the umbrella, or the circular band of sticks bound in the shape of a circle in the umbrella frame. Having dug out means having made it concave or convex, having made it rise. That is suitable, whether that line is tied with cords or not, it is suitable because it is a suitable place to be tied. Therefore, it was said by the Venerable Ācariya Buddhadatta –
“Some say a palm-leaf sunshade” – this is merely an example. For not all sunshades made in such a way are allowable. Therefore, it is said in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 85), “In all requisites, altering the color or shape incurs a dukkaṭa offense, and it is not allowable.” “Not for the sake of color or shape” – this indicates that if it is made with a single-colored thread for the sake of firmness, there is no offense. “With a cord” – with a binding thread. If it is not allowable, what should be done with such a sunshade staff? It is said, “a joint should be made” or the like. “The staff should be wrapped with a thread” – it should be wrapped so that the writing is not visible. “At the base of the staff” – at the lower end of the sunshade staff. “The sunshade’s inner circle” – the small circle inside the sunshade, the lattice of the sunshade in the shape of a circle, or the ring of the staff bound in a circular shape. “Having raised it” – having made it low or high, having lifted it. “It is allowable” – that writing, whether bound with cords or not, is allowable because it is in a suitable place. Therefore, it is said by the Elder Ācariya Buddhaghosa –
ID102
“Chattaṃ paṇṇamayaṃ kiñci, bahi anto ca sabbaso; Pañcavaṇṇena suttena, sibbituṃ na ca vaṭṭati.
“An umbrella made of leaves, whether partially or entirely, inside or out, must not be sewn with five-colored thread.
“Any umbrella made of leaves, outside and inside, entirely; It is not suitable to sew with five-colored thread.
“A sunshade made of leaves, inside and out; It is not allowable to sew with a five-colored thread.
ID103
“Chindituṃ aḍḍhacandaṃ vā, paṇṇe makaradantakaṃ; Ghaṭakaṃ vāḷarūpaṃ vā, lekhā daṇḍe na vaṭṭati.
“Cutting a half-moon shape or a makara-tooth design on the leaves, or carving a joint or animal shape on the staff, is not permissible.
“To cut a half-moon, or a crocodile’s tooth on the leaves; A knob, a figure of a wild animal, or a line on the handle is not suitable.
“To cut a half-moon or a makara-toothed leaf; A joint or a lion-shaped figure, writing on the staff is not allowable.
ID104
“Sibbituṃ ekavaṇṇena, chattaṃ suttena vaṭṭati; Thiratthaṃ pañcavaṇṇena, pañjaraṃ vā vinandhituṃ.
“Sewing an umbrella with a single-colored thread is permissible, as is weaving the frame with five-colored thread for durability.
“To sew the umbrella with a single-colored thread is suitable; For the sake of firmness, to interweave the frame with five-colored thread is suitable.
“To sew with a single-colored thread, a sunshade is allowable; To make firm with a five-colored thread, a lattice is allowable.
ID105
“Ghaṭakaṃ vāḷarūpaṃ vā, lekhā vā pana kevalā; Chinditvā vāpi ghaṃsitvā, dhāretuṃ pana vaṭṭati.
“A joint or animal shape, or a mere carving, may be held after cutting or rubbing it off.
“A knob, a figure of a wild animal, or just lines; Having cut or rubbed, it is suitable to hold.
“A joint or a lion-shaped figure, or merely writing; Having cut or smoothed, it is allowable to wear.
ID106
“Ahicchattakasaṇṭhānaṃ , daṇḍabundamhi vaṭṭati; Ukkiritvā katā lekhā, bandhanatthāya vaṭṭatī”ti.
“The shape of a snake-hood umbrella at the base of the staff is permissible; a carving made by cutting for the purpose of binding is permissible.”
“The shape of a cobra’s hood is suitable at the base of the handle; A line made by digging out is suitable for the sake of tying.”
“In the shape of a snake’s hood, at the base of the staff, it is allowable; Having raised it, the writing made for binding is allowable.”
ID107
Tassa vaṇṇanāyampi chattaṃ paṇṇamayaṃ kiñcīti tālapaṇṇādipaṇṇacchadanaṃ yaṃ kiñci chattaṃ. Bahīti upari. Antoti heṭṭhā. Sibbitunti rūpaṃ dassetvā sūcikammaṃ kātuṃ. Paṇṇeti chadanapaṇṇe. Aḍḍhacandanti aḍḍhacandākāraṃ. Makaradantakanti makaradantākāraṃ, yaṃ “girikūṭa”nti vuccati. Chindituṃ na vaṭṭatīti sambandho. Mukhavaṭṭiyā nāmetvā baddhapaṇṇakoṭiyā vā matthakamaṇḍalakoṭiyā vā girikūṭādiṃ karonti, iminā taṃ paṭikkhittaṃ. Daṇḍeti chattadaṇḍe. Ghaṭakanti ghaṭākāro. Vāḷarūpaṃ vāti byagghādivāḷānaṃ rūpakaṃ vā. Lekhāti ukkiritvā vā chinditvā vā cittakammavasena vā katarāji. Pañcavaṇṇānaṃ suttānaṃ antare nīlādiekavaṇṇena suttena thiratthaṃ chattaṃ anto ca bahi ca sibbituṃ vā chattadaṇḍaggāhakasalākapañjaraṃ thiratthaṃ vinandhituṃ vā vaṭṭatīti yojanā. Pañcavaṇṇānaṃ ekavaṇṇena thiratthanti iminā anekavaṇṇehi suttehi vaṇṇamaṭṭhatthāya sibbituñca vinandhituñca na vaṭṭatīti dīpeti. Potthakesu pana “pañcavaṇṇenā”ti pāṭho dissati, tassa ekavaṇṇena pañcavaṇṇena vā suttena thiratthaṃ sibbituṃ vinandhituṃ vā vaṭṭatīti yojanā kātabbā hoti.
In its explanation too: An umbrella made of leaves, whether partially—this refers to any umbrella with a covering of palm leaves or similar. Outside means on the top. Inside means underneath. To sew means to do needlework to create a design. On the leaves means on the covering leaves. A half-moon means a half-moon shape. Makara-tooth means a shape like a makara’s tooth, also called “mountain peak.” It is not permissible to cut—this is the connection. They make a mountain peak or similar at the edge of the mouth-bound leaves or the top circular frame; this prohibits that. On the staff means on the umbrella staff. A joint means a joint shape. Or an animal shape means a figure of a tiger or other animal. A carving means a line made by cutting, carving, or for decorative purposes. It is permissible to sew an umbrella inside and out with a single-colored thread from among the five colors for durability, or to weave the frame of slats holding the umbrella staff for durability—this is the construction. With a single color from the five colors for durability—this indicates that sewing or weaving with multiple colored threads for the sake of beauty is not permissible. However, in some texts, the reading is “with five colors,” and the construction should be that it is permissible to sew or weave with either a single color or five colors for durability.
Even in the commentary on that, chattaṃ paṇṇamayaṃ kiñcīti means any kind of umbrella made of covering of leaves such as palm leaves. Bahīti means above. Antoti means below. Sibbitunti means to do needlework after showing the form. Paṇṇeti means on the covering leaves. Aḍḍhacandanti means in the shape of a half-moon. Makaradantakanti means in the shape of a makara’s tooth, which is called ‘girikūṭa’. The connection is that it should not be cut. They make a girikūṭa, etc., at the tip of the tied leaves bending at the edge of the face or at the tip of the head-circle; by this, that is prohibited. Daṇḍeti means on the umbrella handle. Ghaṭakanti means in the shape of a pot. Vāḷarūpaṃ vāti means or a form of wild animals, such as tigers, etc. Lekhāti means a line made by engraving, cutting, or as a design. The sentences should be constructed as: it is permissible to sew inside and outside the umbrella securely, or to bind securely the frame-cage of the spoke that holds the tip of the umbrella handle with a thread of one color, such as blue, among threads of five colors. Pañcavaṇṇānaṃ ekavaṇṇena thiratthanti - by this, it illustrates that it is not permissible to sew or bind for the sake of decoration with threads of many colors. But in the books, the reading “pañcavaṇṇenā” is seen, its construing should be made as, it is allowed to sew or bind the umbrella securely with a thread of one color or five colors.
In its explanation, “a leaf-made umbrella or whatever” refers to any umbrella covered with leaves such as palm leaves. “Outside” means above. “Inside” means below. “To sew” means to show the form and perform needlework. “Leaf” refers to the covering leaf. “Half-moon” means in the shape of a half-moon. “Shark’s tooth” means in the shape of a shark’s tooth, which is called “mountain peak.” It is not permissible to cut it, thus the connection. By bending the mouth rim or binding the leaf tips or the top circular part, they make a mountain peak, etc.; this is prohibited. “Staff” refers to the umbrella staff. “Pot-like” means in the shape of a pot. “Animal form” means the form of a tiger or other animals. “Design” refers to carving or cutting or painting with artistic work. It is permissible to sew or firmly attach a thread of one color, such as blue, among threads of five colors, both inside and outside the umbrella, or to firmly fasten the cage-like handle of the umbrella staff. “Firmly with one color among five colors” indicates that sewing or fastening with threads of multiple colors for the sake of ornamentation is not permissible. However, in some texts, the reading “with five colors” is found, and it should be interpreted that sewing or fastening with a single color or five-colored thread is permissible.
ID108
Ettha ca heṭṭhā vuttena “pañcavaṇṇena suttena sibbituṃ na ca vaṭṭatī”ti pāṭhena ca “keci tālapaṇṇacchattaṃ anto vā bahi vā pañcavaṇṇena suttena sibbetvā vaṇṇamaṭṭhaṃ karonti, taṃ na vaṭṭati, ekavaṇṇe pana nīlena vā pītakena vā yena kenaci suttena anto vā bahi vā sibbituṃ, chattadaṇḍaggāhakaṃ salākapañjaraṃ vā vinandhituṃ vaṭṭati, tañca kho thirakaraṇatthaṃ, na vaṇṇamaṭṭhatthāyā”ti aṭṭhakathāpāṭhena ca virujjhati, tasmā so na gahetabbo.
Here, this contradicts both the earlier statement, “It is not permissible to sew with five-colored thread,” and the commentary text: “Some sew a palm-leaf umbrella inside or out with five-colored thread for beauty, which is not permissible; however, it is permissible to sew inside or out with a single color such as blue or yellow, or any thread, or to weave the frame of slats holding the umbrella staff, and that only for durability, not for beauty.” Therefore, that reading should not be accepted.
And here, both the below-mentioned reading, “it is not permissible to sew with five-colored thread,” and the commentary reading, “some make decorations by sewing inside or outside of a palm-leaf umbrella with five-colored thread, that is not permissible, but it is permissible to sew inside or outside with any thread of one color, blue or yellow, or to bind the spoke-cage that holds the tip of the umbrella-handle; but that is for the purpose of making it firm, not for the sake of ornamentation,” contradict it, so that reading should not be accepted.
Here, the earlier statement “it is not permissible to sew with a five-colored thread” and the reading “some sew a palm-leaf umbrella inside or outside with a five-colored thread and make it ornamental, which is not permissible, but with a single color, such as blue or yellow, or any thread, it is permissible to sew inside or outside, or to fasten the cage-like handle of the umbrella staff, and that too for the purpose of making it firm, not for ornamentation” contradicts the commentary reading, therefore it should not be accepted.
ID109
Lekhā vā pana kevalāti yathāvuttappakārā sakalā lekhā vā. Chinditvāti ukkiritvā kataṃ chinditvā. Ghaṃsitvāti cittakammādivasena kataṃ ghaṃsitvā. Daṇḍabundamhīti chattadaṇḍassa pañjare gāhaṇatthāya phālitabundamhi, mūleti attho. Ayamettha nissandehe vuttanayo. Khuddasikkhāgaṇṭhipade pana “chattapiṇḍiyā mūle”ti vuttaṃ. Ahicchattakasaṇṭhānanti phullaahicchattakākāraṃ. Rajjukehi gāhāpetvā daṇḍe bandhanti, tasmiṃ bandhanaṭṭhāne valayamiva ukkiritvāti valayaṃ viya upaṭṭhāpetvā. Bandhanatthāyāti vātena yathā na calati, evaṃ rajjūhi daṇḍe pañjarassa bandhanatthāya. Ukkiritvā katā lekhā vaṭṭatīti yojanā. Yathā vātappahārena acalanatthaṃ chattamaṇḍalikaṃ rajjukehi gāhāpetvā daṇḍe bandhanti, tasmiṃ bandhanaṭṭhāne valayamiva ukkiritvā lekhaṃ ṭhapenti, sā vaṭṭatīti. Sacepi na bandhati, bandhanārahaṭṭhānattā valayaṃ ukkiritvā vaṭṭatīti gaṇṭhipade vattantīti āgataṃ, tasmā pakkharaṇesu āgatanayeneva chatte paṭipajjitabbanti.
A carving, merely—a complete carving of the type mentioned. Having cut means cutting what was carved. Having rubbed means rubbing off what was made decorative or otherwise. At the base of the staff means at the split base of the umbrella staff for holding in the frame, meaning at the root. This is the method stated without doubt here. However, in the Khuddasikkhā gloss it says “at the root of the umbrella’s hub.” The shape of a snake-hood umbrella means the form of an expanded snake-hood. They bind it with ropes to the staff; at that binding place, carving it like a ring means making it appear like a ring. For the purpose of binding means binding it to the staff with ropes so it does not move with the wind, for securing the frame. The construction is that a carving made by cutting is permissible. Just as they bind the umbrella’s circular frame with ropes to the staff to prevent movement by the wind, at that binding place they place a carving like a ring, and that is permissible. Even if it is not bound, it is permissible to carve a ring because it is a place suitable for binding—this is stated in the gloss, so one should act regarding umbrellas according to the method found in the texts.
Lekhā vā pana kevalāti or all of the mentioned kinds of lines. Chinditvāti means cutting after marking by engraving. Ghaṃsitvāti means polishing made by design work and so on. Daṇḍabundamhīti means on the split bundle of the umbrella handle for gripping the frame, meaning at the base. This is the method mentioned here without doubt. But in the Khuddasikkhā-gaṇṭhipada it is said, “at the base of the umbrella finial.” Ahicchattakasaṇṭhānanti means the shape of a fully spread snake’s hood. They make it grasp with strings and tie it to the handle, at that tying place, valayamiva ukkiritvāti means making it appear like a ring. Bandhanatthāyāti means for tying the frame to the handle with strings so that it does not move in the wind. The construction is that carved lines are permissible. Just as they make the umbrella-circle grasp with strings and tie it to the handle so that it does not move by the force of the wind, at that place of tying, they place a line carved like a ring, that is permissible. Even if one does not tie it, it is said in the Gaṇṭhipada that since it is a place suitable for tying, carving a ring is permissible, therefore one should treat the umbrella according to the method that has come in the texts.
“Or merely a design” refers to the entire design as described. “Cutting” means carving or cutting. “Smoothing” means smoothing through artistic work, etc. “At the base of the staff” refers to the split base of the umbrella staff for the purpose of holding the cage, meaning the root. This is the definite method stated here. However, in the Khuddasikkhāgaṇṭhipada, it is said “at the base of the umbrella bundle.” “In the shape of a snake’s hood” means in the shape of an expanded snake’s hood. They bind the staff with cords, and at the binding place, “like a ring carved” means setting up a ring-like structure. “For the purpose of binding” means binding the staff with cords so that it does not move due to wind. A carved design is permissible. For example, to prevent the umbrella from moving due to wind, they bind the circular part of the umbrella with cords and set up a ring-like structure at the binding place; that is permissible. Even if it is not bound, since it is suitable for binding, carving a ring is permissible, as stated in the gaṇṭhipada. Therefore, the method mentioned in the pakkharaṇa should be followed for the umbrella.
ID110
7. Cīvare pana nānāsuttakehīti (sārattha. ṭī. 2.85; vi. vi. ṭī. 1.85) nānāvaṇṇehi suttehi. Idañca tathā karontānaṃ vasena vuttaṃ, ekavaṇṇasuttakenapi na vaṭṭatiyeva. “Pakatisūcikammameva vaṭṭatī”ti hi vuttaṃ. Paṭṭamukheti dvinnaṃ paṭṭānaṃ saṅghaṭitaṭṭhānaṃ sandhāyetaṃ vuttaṃ. Pariyanteti cīvarapariyante. Anuvātaṃ sandhāyetaṃ vuttaṃ. Veṇīti varakasīsākārena sibbanaṃ. Saṅkhalikanti dviguṇasaṅkhalikākārena sibbanaṃ, biḷālasaṅkhalikākārena sibbanaṃ vā. Veṇiṃ vā saṅkhalikaṃ vā karontīti karaṇakiriyāya sambandho. Agghiyaṃ nāma cetiyasaṇṭhānaṃ , yaṃ “agghiyatthambho”ti vadanti. Gayā nāma mūle tanukaṃ agge mahantaṃ katvā gadākārena sibbanaṃ. Muggaro nāma mūle ca agge ca ekasadisaṃ katvā muggarākārena sibbanaṃ. Kakkaṭakkhīni ukkirantīti gaṇṭhikapaṭṭapāsakapaṭṭānaṃ ante pāḷibaddhaṃ katvā kakkaṭakānaṃ akkhisaṇṭhānaṃ paṭṭhapenti, karontīti attho. “Koṇasuttapiḷakāti gaṇṭhikapāsakapaṭṭānaṃ koṇehi nīhaṭasuttānaṃ koṭiyo”ti tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. Kathaṃ pana tā piḷakā duviññeyyarūpā kātabbāti? Koṇehi nīhaṭasuttānaṃ antesu ekavāraṃ gaṇṭhikakaraṇena vā puna nivattetvā sibbanena vā duviññeyyasabhāvaṃ katvā suttakoṭiyo rassaṃ katvā chinditabbā. Dhammasirittherena pana “koṇasuttā ca piḷakā, duviññeyyāva kappare”ti vuttaṃ, tathā ācariyabuddhadattattherenapi “suttā ca piḷakā tattha, duviññeyyāva dīpitā”ti vuttaṃ, tasmā tesaṃ matena koṇasuttā ca piḷakā ca koṇasuttapiḷakāti evamettha attho daṭṭhabbo.
7. Regarding the robe, with various threads (sārattha. ṭī. 2.85; vi. vi. ṭī. 1.85) means with threads of different colors. This is said with reference to those who do so; even with a single-colored thread, it is still not permissible. For it is said: “Only ordinary needlework is permissible.” At the face of the strip means referring to the joining place of two strips. At the edge means at the robe’s edge, referring to the hem. A braid means sewing in the shape of a fine rice grain. A chain means sewing in the shape of a double chain, or in the shape of a cat’s chain. “Making a braid or a chain”—this connects to the action of doing. A pinnacle is a shape like a stūpa, which they call “pinnacle pillar.” A club means sewing in the shape of a club, thinner at the base and thicker at the top. A hammer means sewing in the shape of a hammer, uniform at base and top. They carve crab eyes means they make shapes like crab eyes at the ends of the strips of the knotted section or looped section, attaching them to the canon—this is the meaning of “they do.” “Corner-thread tufts”—in all three glosses it is said: “the ends of threads drawn from the corners of the knotted or looped sections.” But how should those tufts be made to be doubly recognizable? By tying a knot once at the ends of the threads drawn from the corners or sewing them back, making them doubly recognizable in nature, and cutting the thread ends short. However, the Elder Dhammasiri said: “Corner threads and tufts should be doubly recognizable,” and the Elder Buddhadatta likewise said: “Threads and tufts there are shown as doubly recognizable.” Thus, according to their view, the meaning here should be understood as “corner threads and tufts” together as koṇasuttapiḷakā.
7. But on the robe, nānāsuttakehīti (sārattha. ṭī. 2.85; vi. vi. ṭī. 1.85) means with threads of various colors. And this is said in reference to those who do so; even with a single-colored thread it is not permissible. For it is said, “Only ordinary needlework is permissible.” Paṭṭamukheti this is said in reference to the junction of two pieces of cloth. Pariyanteti means on the edge of the robe. This is said in reference to the hem. Veṇīti means sewing in the shape of a hair-braid. Saṅkhalikanti means sewing in the manner of a double chain, or sewing in the manner of a cat’s chain. The connection with the causative verb is that they do a braid or a chain. Agghiyaṃ is the name of a stūpa-shape, which they call “agghiyatthambho”. Gayā is the name for sewing in the shape of a club, making it thin at the base and large at the top. Muggaro is the name for sewing in the shape of a pestle, making it uniform at the base and the top. Kakkaṭakkhīni ukkirantīti means at the end of the binding-cloth, and tie-cloth, they make it tied in line and display the shape of crabs’ eyes, meaning they do. It is said in all three gaṇṭhipadas: “Koṇasuttapiḷakāti means the ends of the threads drawn out from the corners of the binding-cloth, and tie-cloth.” But how should those piḷakās be made with a form that is difficult to discern? By making a knot once at the ends of the threads drawn out from the corners, or by turning it back and sewing it, making it difficult to discern, the ends of the threads should be made short and cut. But Venerable Dhammasiri said, “The corner-threads and the piḷakās, those are made to be hard to identify” and similarly, the teacher, Venerable Buddhadatta, said, “Threads and piḷakās there, are shown to be quite difficult to discern” therefore, according to their opinion, the meaning here should be understood as ‘corner-threads and piḷakās’ (koṇasuttapiḷakā) as a compound word.
7. Regarding the robe, “with various threads” (sārattha. ṭī. 2.85; vi. vi. ṭī. 1.85) means with threads of various colors. This is said for those who do so, but even with a single-colored thread, it is not permissible. It is said, “only ordinary needlework is permissible.” “At the edge of the cloth” refers to the joined place of two cloths. “At the border” means at the edge of the robe. It refers to the warp. “Braid” means sewing in the shape of a varaka head. “Chain-like” means sewing in the shape of a double chain or in the shape of a cat’s chain. The connection is with the action of making a braid or chain. “Agghiya” refers to a structure resembling a cetiya, which is called “agghiya pillar.” “Gayā” means sewing thin at the base and thick at the top in the shape of a club. “Muggaro” means sewing equally at the base and top in the shape of a hammer. “Carving crab’s eyes” means setting up the shape of a crab’s eye at the end of the stitched cloth or at the end of the gaṇṭhikapaṭṭa, meaning they make it. “Corner-thread knots” refers to the corners of the gaṇṭhikapāsakapaṭṭa where threads are drawn out and knotted, as stated in the three gaṇṭhipadas. How should those knots be made to be recognizable? The threads drawn from the corners should be knotted once at the ends or turned back and sewn to make them recognizable, and the thread ends should be cut short. However, Dhammasiri Thera says, “corner threads and knots should be recognizable,” and Ācariya Buddhaddatta Thera also says, “threads and knots are explained as recognizable,” therefore, according to their view, corner threads and knots should be understood as “corner-thread knots.”
ID111
Vimativinodaniyampi (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.85) koṇasuttapiḷakāti gaṇṭhikapāsakapaṭṭānaṃ koṇehi bahi niggatasuttānaṃ piḷakākārena ṭhapitakoṭiyoti keci vadanti, te piḷake chinditvā duviññeyyā kātabbāti tesaṃ adhippāyo. Keci pana “koṇasuttā ca piḷakā cāti dveyevā”ti vadanti, tesaṃ matena gaṇṭhikapāsakapaṭṭānaṃ koṇato koṇaṃ nīhaṭasuttā koṇasuttā nāma. Samantato pana pariyantena gatā caturassasuttā piḷakā nāma. Taṃ duvidhampi keci cīvarato visuṃ paññānatthāya vikārayuttaṃ karonti, taṃ nisedhāya “duviññeyyarūpā vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ, na pana sabbathā acakkhugocarabhāvena sibbanatthāya tathāsibbanassa asakkuṇeyyattā, yathā pakaticīvarato vikāro na paññāyati, evaṃ sibbitabbanti adhippāyo. Rajanakammato pubbe paññāyamānopi viseso cīvare ratte ekavaṇṇato na paññāyatīti āha “cīvare ratte”ti.
In the Vimativinodanī too (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.85), corner-thread tufts—some say it means the ends of threads extending outward from the corners of the knotted or looped sections, placed in the shape of tufts; they intend that the tufts should be cut and made doubly recognizable. Others say: “Corner threads and tufts are two separate things.” According to their view, threads drawn from corner to corner of the knotted or looped sections are called koṇasuttā. Threads going all around the edge in a square shape are called piḷakā. Some make both of these distinct from the robe for recognition, altering them; to prohibit this it is said: “A doubly recognizable form is permissible”—not meaning entirely invisible to the eye or impossible to sew, but they should be sewn so that no alteration is evident from the ordinary robe—this is the intent. Even if a distinction is visible before dyeing, it is not evident after the robe is dyed a single color; hence it says: “When the robe is dyed.”
Also in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.85), koṇasuttapiḷakāti, some say it means the ends made in the shape of pimples of threads that come out from the corners of the binding-cloth and tie-cloth, their intention is that, cutting those pimples, they should be made difficult to discern. But some say, “Koṇasuttā and piḷakā are only two things,” according to their opinion, the threads drawn from corner to corner of the binding-cloth and tie-cloth are called corner-threads (koṇasuttā). But the four-cornered threads that go all around along the edge are called piḷakā. Some make both of those distinct from the robe for the sake of identifying it, to prohibit that, it is said, “It is permissible to make the forms difficult to discern,” but not for sewing in a way completely invisible to the eye, because sewing like that is impossible. The intention is that just as the difference from the original robe is not discernible, so it should be sewn. It is said that even the difference that is discernible before dyeing the robe is not discernible from the single color after it is dyed, “cīvare ratte”ti.
In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.85), “corner-thread knots” refers to the threads drawn out from the corners of the gaṇṭhikapāsakapaṭṭa and set up in the shape of knots, which some say should be cut to make them recognizable. Others say, “corner threads and knots are two separate things,” meaning the threads drawn from corner to corner of the gaṇṭhikapāsakapaṭṭa are called corner threads, and the threads running around the border in a square shape are called knots. Some make both distinct from the robe for the purpose of identification, but to prohibit this, it is said, “they should be recognizable,” not entirely invisible to the eye, as sewing in such a way would make it unrecognizable from an ordinary robe, thus it should be sewn in such a way. Even if a distinction is visible before dyeing, it is not visible after dyeing the robe, hence it is said, “in a dyed robe.”
ID112
8. Maṇināti nīlamaṇiādipāsāṇena, aṃsabaddhakakāyabandhanādikaṃ acīvarattā saṅkhādīhi ghaṃsituṃ vaṭṭatīti vadanti. Kaṇṇasuttakanti cīvarassa dīghato tiriyañca sibbitānaṃ catūsu kaṇṇesu koṇesu ca nikkhantānaṃ suttasīsānametaṃ nāmaṃ, taṃ chinditvāva pārupitabbaṃ. Tenāha “rajitakāle chinditabba”nti. Bhagavatā anuññātaṃ ekaṃ kaṇṇasuttampi atthi, taṃ pana nāmena sadisampi ito aññamevāti dassetuṃ “yaṃ panā”tiādi vuttaṃ. Lagganatthāyāti cīvararajjuyaṃ cīvarabandhanatthāya. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.85) ettakameva vuttaṃ.
8. With a jewel means with a blue gem or other stone; since items like shoulder straps or body belts are not robes, it is said they may be rubbed with conch or similar. Ear-thread means the ends of threads sewn lengthwise and crosswise in the robe, protruding at the four corners or edges—this is their name; they must be cut before wearing. Hence it says: “To be cut at the time of dyeing.” There is also an ear-thread permitted by the Blessed One, but to show it is different despite the similar name, it says: “But that which” and so forth. For hanging means for binding the robe to the dyeing rope. In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.85), only this much is stated.
8. Maṇināti means with a gem such as a blue sapphire, etc. It is said that it is permissible to polish shoulder straps, waistbands, and so forth with conch shells and so forth since they are not robes. Kaṇṇasuttakanti is the name for the tips of the threads that emerge at the four corners and the edges of the robe sewn lengthwise and crosswise; they should be cut off before wearing. Therefore, he said, “rajitakāle chinditabba”nti. There is also one ear-thread allowed by the Blessed One, but to show that it is different from this although having the same name, it is said “yaṃ panā”ti, etc. Lagganatthāyāti means for fastening the robe-string to the robe. In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.85), only this much is said.
8. “With a gem” means with a blue gem or other stones. It is said that non-robe items like shoulder straps or body bindings can be rubbed with conch, etc. “Ear-thread” refers to the thread ends that come out from the four corners or edges of the robe, sewn lengthwise and crosswise, and this name is given to them. They should be cut before wearing. Hence it is said, “they should be cut at the time of dyeing.” The Buddha allowed one ear-thread, but it is different from this, hence it is said, “but whatever” etc. “For the purpose of attaching” means for tying the robe cord to fasten the robe. This much is said in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.85).
ID113
Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.85) pana “pāsakaṃ katvā bandhitabbanti rajanakāle bandhitabbaṃ, sesakāle mocetvā ṭhapetabba”nti vuttaṃ. Vinayasaṅgahappakaraṇassa porāṇaṭīkāyampi idameva gahetvā vuttaṃ, taṃ pana cīvarakkhandhake (mahāva. 344) “majjhena laggenti, ubhato galati, bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, kaṇṇe bandhitunti. Kaṇṇo jīrati. Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, kaṇṇasuttaka”nti evaṃ anuññātacīvararajjuyaṃ rajitvā pasāritacīvarassa olambakasuttaṃ sandhāya vuttanti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.85), however, it says: “Having made a loop, it should be bound—it should be bound at the time of dyeing, and at other times released and set aside.” The old sub-commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha text also adopts this, but it should be understood as referring to the thread hanging from the stretched robe after dyeing, as permitted in the robe section (mahāva. 344): “They hung it by the middle, it dripped from both sides; they reported this to the Blessed One. ‘I allow, monks, binding at the corner.’ The corner wore out. They reported this to the Blessed One. ‘I allow, monks, an ear-thread.’”
But in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.85), it is said, “pāsakaṃ katvā bandhitabbanti, it should be tied at the time of dyeing, at other times it should be untied and kept.” In the old commentary of the Vinayasaṅgahappakaraṇa, taking only this, it is said, but that should be understood as being said in reference to the hanging thread of the robe-string allowed in the Cīvarakkhandhaka (mahāva. 344) thus: “It hangs in the middle, it slips from both sides, they informed the Blessed One of this matter. I allow, monks, to tie it at the corner. The corner wears out. They informed the Blessed One of this matter. I allow, monks, an ear-thread,” after dyeing and spreading the robe.
In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.85), it is said, “it should be tied as a peg at the time of dyeing, and at other times it should be removed and set aside.” The ancient commentary of the Vinayasaṅgahappakaraṇa also states this, referring to the robe chapter (mahāva. 344), “they attach it in the middle, it slips on both sides, they informed the Buddha. The Buddha allowed, monks, to tie the ear. The ear wears out. They informed the Buddha. The Buddha allowed the ear-thread.” This refers to the robe cord allowed by the Buddha, which is used to hang the spread-out robe.
ID114
Gaṇṭhiketi cīvarapārupanakāle pāsake laggāpanatthaṃ kate dantādimaye gaṇṭhike. Piḷakāti binduṃ binduṃ katvā uṭṭhāpetabbapiḷakā. Vuttañhetaṃ vinayavinicchayappakaraṇe –
In the knot means a knot made of ivory or similar for hanging the robe in the loop when wearing. Tufts means tufts to be raised dot by dot. For it is said in the Vinayavinicchaya text:
Gaṇṭhiketi means knobs made of ivory, etc., made to fasten in the loop when wearing the robe. Piḷakāti means pimples to be raised making dot by dot. This is said in the Vinayavinicchayappakaraṇa –
“Knot” refers to the knot made of ivory, etc., for attaching pegs when wearing the robe. “Knots” means small raised dots. This is stated in the Vinayavinicchayappakaraṇa –
ID115
“Nānāvaṇṇehi suttehi, maṇḍanatthāya cīvaraṃ; Samaṃ satapadādīnaṃ, sibbituṃ na ca vaṭṭati.
“With threads of various colors, for the sake of decoration, a robe resembling a centipede or similar must not be sewn.
“With threads of various colors, for the sake of decoration, the robe; Like that of centipedes and so forth, to sew is not permissible.
“With threads of various colors, for ornamenting the robe; Sewing evenly like satapada, etc., is not permissible.
ID116
“Pattassa pariyante vā, tathā pattamukhepi ca; Veṇiṃ saṅkhalikaṃ vāpi, karoto hoti dukkaṭaṃ.
“At the edge of a strip or likewise at the face of a strip, making a braid or chain incurs a dukkaṭa offense.
“On the edge of the bowl, or also at the mouth of the bowl; Making a braid or a chain, there is a wrong-doing (dukkaṭa).
“At the edge of the bowl or at the rim of the bowl; Making a braid or chain is an offense.
ID117
“Paṭṭampi gaṇṭhipāsānaṃ, aṭṭhakoṇādikaṃ vidhiṃ; Tatthagghiyagadārūpaṃ, muggarādiṃ karonti ca.
“Even strips of knotted or looped sections, with an octagonal or similar method, they make shapes like a pinnacle or club.
“Even the cloth of the binding and the tie, the method of eight-cornered, etc.; There they make the form of an offering-stand, a club shape, and a pestle, etc.
“The cloth of the gaṇṭhipāsaka, the method of eight corners, etc.; There they make shapes like agghiya, clubs, etc.
ID118
“Tattha kakkaṭakakkhīni, uṭṭhāpenti na vaṭṭati; Suttā ca piḷakā tattha, duviññeyyāva dīpitā.
“There, raising crab-eye shapes is not permissible; threads and tufts there are shown as doubly recognizable.
“There, it is not permissible to raise crabs’ eyes; And the threads and piḷakās there, are shown as being difficult to discern.
“There, carving crab’s eyes is not permissible; Threads and knots there are explained as recognizable.
ID119
“Catukoṇāva vaṭṭanti, gaṇṭhipāsakapaṭṭakā; Kaṇṇakoṇesu suttāni, ratte chindeyya cīvare.
“Only four-cornered shapes are permissible for knotted or looped strips; threads at the corner-edges should be cut when the robe is dyed.
“Only four-cornered are permissible, the binding-cloth, tie-cloth; At the corners of the edges, threads, when dyed, should cut off from robe.
“The gaṇṭhipāsakapaṭṭa has four corners; The threads at the corners should be cut in a dyed robe.
ID120
“Sūcikammavikāraṃ vā, aññaṃ vā pana kiñcipi; Cīvare bhikkhunā kātuṃ, kārāpetuṃ na vaṭṭati.
“A monk must not make or cause to be made any alteration in needlework or anything else on a robe.
“Needlework variations, or anything else; For a monk to do, to make to be done, on the robe, is not permissible.
“Any alteration of needlework or anything else; A monk should not do or cause to be done on the robe.
ID121
“Yo ca pakkhipati bhikkhu cīvaraṃ, Kañjipiṭṭhakhaliallikādisu; Vaṇṇamaṭṭhamabhipatthayaṃ paraṃ; Tassa natthi pana mutti dukkaṭā.
“A monk who puts a robe in a bronze vessel, pot, or similar, desiring beauty for another, has no release from a dukkaṭa.
“And whatever monk throws the robe, into rice gruel, flour, sesame cake, etc.; Seeking especially for beautification; For him there is no release from wrong-doing.
“If a monk places the robe in a dye pot, etc., Desiring ornamentation for another; There is no escape from the offense for him.
ID122
“Sūcihatthamalādīnaṃ, karaṇe cīvarassa ca; Tathā kiliṭṭhakāle ca, dhovanatthaṃ tu vaṭṭati.
“For making a needle, hand-cloth, or similar, and for a robe, and when it is soiled, washing is permissible.
“For removing needle dirt, hand dirt, etc., of the robe; And at the time of being soiled, washing is permissible.
“Using a needle, hand, etc., for the robe; And at the time of washing when it is dirty, it is permissible.
ID123
“Rajane pana gandhaṃ vā, telaṃ vā lākhameva vā; Kiñci pakkhipituṃ tattha, bhikkhuno na ca vaṭṭati.
“But a monk must not put any scent, oil, or lac into the dye.
“But in dyeing, a scent, or oil, or lac; Anything to throw in there, for a monk, it is not permissible.
“But at the time of dyeing, adding perfume, oil, or lac; A monk should not place anything there.
ID124
“Saṅkhena maṇinā vāpi, aññenapi ca kenaci; Cīvaraṃ na ca ghaṭṭeyya, ghaṃsitabbaṃ na doṇiyā.
“With a conch, jewel, or anything else, a robe must not be rubbed; it should not be rubbed in a trough.
“With a conch, with a gem, or with anything else; One should not rub the robe, it should not be polished in a trough.
“With a conch, gem, or anything else; The robe should not be rubbed, nor should it be rubbed in a trough.
ID125
“Cīvaraṃ doṇiyaṃ katvā, nātighaṭṭeyya muṭṭhinā; Rattaṃ paharituṃ kiñci, hattheheva ca vaṭṭati.
“Having placed a robe in a trough, one must not rub it too much with the fist; striking a dyed robe with the hand alone is permissible.
“Having made the robe into a trough, one should not rub it much with the fist; After dyeing, to beat something, only with the hands is permissible.
“Having placed the robe in a trough, it should not be rubbed too much with the fist; It is permissible to beat it slightly with the hand.
ID126
“Gaṇṭhike pana lekhā vā, piḷakā vā na vaṭṭati; Kappabinduvikāro vā, pāḷikaṇṇikabhedato”ti.
“But in a knot, neither a carving nor tufts are permissible, nor an alteration with proper dots, due to breaking the edge rule.”
“But on the knobs, neither lines nor pimples are permissible; Nor variations of the kappabindu, due to the difference of the Pāli-ear.”
“But knots, designs, or dots are not permissible; Nor alterations like kappa dots or splitting the edge.”
ID127
Vinayasāratthasandīpaniyampi samaṃ satapadādīnanti satapadādīhi sadisaṃ. Tulyatthe karaṇavacanappasaṅge sāmivacanaṃ. Paṭṭassa pariyante vāti anuvātassa ubhayapariyante vā. Paṭṭamukhepi vāti dvinnaṃ āyāmavitthārapaṭṭānaṃ saṅghaṭitaṭṭhāne, kaṇṇepi vā ekasseva vā paṭṭassa ūnapūraṇatthaṃ ghaṭitaṭṭhānepi vā . Veṇīti kudrūsasīsākārena sibbanaṃ. Keci “varakasīsākārenā”ti vadanti. Saṅkhalikanti biḷāladāmasadisasibbanaṃ. Keci “satapadisadisa”nti vadanti.
In the Vinayasāratthasandīpanī too, resembling a centipede or similar means similar to a centipede or the like. In the context of equivalence, the instrumental case is used as a genitive. At the edge of a strip means at both edges of the hem. At the face of a strip too means at the joining place of two strips lengthwise and crosswise, or at the corner, or at the place joined to complete a single strip. A braid means sewing in the shape of coarse rice grains. Some say “in the shape of fine rice grains.” A chain means sewing resembling a cat’s leash. Some say “resembling a centipede.”
Also in the Vinayasāratthasandīpanī, samaṃ satapadādīnanti means similar to centipedes and so forth. In the context of the instrumental case of similarity, there is the use of the ‘like’ (sāmi) case. Paṭṭassa pariyante vāti means or on both edges of the hem. Paṭṭamukhepi vāti means at the junction of two pieces of cloth in length and width, or at the corner, or even at the place where a single piece of cloth is joined for filling up a deficiency. Veṇīti means sewing in the shape of millet seed head. Some say “in the shape of the varaka seed head”. Saṅkhalikanti means sewing similar to a cat’s chain. Some say “similar to a centipede”.
In the Vinayasāratthasandīpanī, “even like satapada, etc.” means similar to satapada, etc. The word “sāmi” is used in the sense of equality. “At the edge of the bowl” means at both edges of the warp. “At the rim of the bowl” means at the joined place of two lengthwise and crosswise cloths, or at the corner of a single cloth for filling or joining. “Braid” means sewing in the shape of a kudrūsa head. Some say, “in the shape of a varaka head.” “Chain-like” means sewing like a cat’s chain. Some say, “similar to satapada.”
ID128
Paṭṭampīti pattampi. Aṭṭhakoṇādiko vidhi pakāro etassāti aṭṭhakoṇādikavidhi, taṃ. Aṭṭhakoṇādikanti vā gāthābandhavasena niggahitāgamo. “Aṭṭhakoṇādikaṃ vidhi”nti etaṃ “paṭṭa”nti etassa samānādhikaraṇavisesanaṃ, kiriyāvisesanaṃ vā. “Karontī”ti iminā sambandho. Atha vā paṭṭanti ettha bhummatthe upayogavacanaṃ, paṭṭeti attho. Imasmiṃ pakkhe aṭṭhakoṇādikanti upayogavacanaṃ. Vidhinti etassa visesanaṃ. Idha vakkhamānacatukoṇasaṇṭhānato aññaṃ aṭṭhakoṇādikaṃ nāma. Tatthāti tasmiṃ paṭṭadvaye. Agghiyagadārūpanti agghiyasaṇṭhānañceva gadāsaṇṭhānañca sibbanaṃ. Muggaranti laguḷasaṇṭhānasibbanaṃ. Ādi-saddena cetiyādisaṇṭhānānaṃ gahaṇaṃ.
Even strips—also strips. Having a method such as octagonal or similar is aṭṭhakoṇādikavidhi, that. Octagonal or similar—or due to the meter of the verse, an added nasal. “Octagonal or similar method” is either an adjective in apposition to “strip” or an adverb modifying the action “they make.” Alternatively, strip here is an accusative in a locative sense, meaning “in the strip.” In this case, octagonal or similar is an accusative adjective qualifying method. Here, it refers to something other than the four-cornered shape to be mentioned later, such as octagonal or similar. There means in those two strips. Pinnacle or club shape means sewing in the shape of a pinnacle and a club. Hammer means sewing in the shape of a cudgel. The word ādi includes shapes like a stūpa.
Paṭṭampīti also means cloth. The method such as that of eight-cornered, etc., whose type this is, is aṭṭhakoṇādikavidhi, that. Aṭṭhakoṇādikanti or there is a lengthening of the vowel for the sake of the verse. “Aṭṭhakoṇādikaṃ vidhi” this is a coordinate appositional qualification of “paṭṭa”, or a verbal qualification. The connection is with “karontī”. Or else, paṭṭanti here there is an objective case in the sense of a locative, meaning on the cloth. In this view, aṭṭhakoṇādikanti is an objective case. It is a qualification of Vidhinti. Here, ‘aṭṭhakoṇādika’ is the name of something else other than the four-cornered shape about to be mentioned. Tatthāti means on those two pieces of cloth. Agghiyagadārūpanti means the sewing of the shape of an offering stand and the shape of a club. Muggaranti means sewing in the shape of a staff. By the word ādi-, the shapes of stūpas, etc., are included.
“Cloth” means patta. The method of eight corners, etc., is called “aṭṭhakoṇādikavidhi.” “Aṭṭhakoṇādika” is taken as a compound due to the verse structure. “Method of eight corners” is a qualifier of “paṭṭa,” or a qualifier of the action. “Doing” connects it. Alternatively, “paṭṭa” here is used in the sense of ground, meaning “to spread.” In this context, “aṭṭhakoṇādika” is used in the sense of application. “Method” is its qualifier. Here, apart from the described four-cornered shape, anything with eight corners is called aṭṭhakoṇādika. “There” means in those two cloths. “Agghiya and club shapes” means sewing in the shape of an agghiya and a club. “Hammer” means sewing in the shape of a cudgel. The word “etc.” includes shapes like cetiya, etc.
ID129
Tatthāti paṭṭadvaye tasmiṃ ṭhāne. Kakkaṭakakkhīnīti kuḷīrakacchisadisāni sibbanavikārāni. Uṭṭhāpentīti karonti. Tatthāti tasmiṃ gaṇṭhikapāsakapaṭṭake. Suttāti koṇato koṇaṃ sibbitasuttā ceva caturasse sibbitasuttā ca. Piḷakāti tesameva suttānaṃ nivattetvā sibbitakoṭiyo ca. Duviññeyyāvāti rajanakāle duviññeyyarūpā anoḷārikā dīpitā vaṭṭantīti. Yathāha “koṇasuttapiḷakā ca cīvare ratte duviññeyyarūpā vaṭṭantī”ti (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.85).
There means at that place on the two strips. Kakkaṭakakkhīnī means crab-eye-like, resembling the eyes of a crab, referring to sewing deformities. Uṭṭhāpentī means they make. There means at that knot-strip junction. Suttā means threads sewn from corner to corner as well as threads sewn in a square pattern. Piḷakā means the ends of those same threads turned back and sewn. Duviññeyyāvā means at the time of dyeing, they appear as forms difficult to discern, not coarse, shining, and persisting. As it is said, “The corner-thread ends and sewn loops on a dyed robe persist as forms difficult to discern” (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.85).
Tatthāti refers to that place, in the context of the two strips. Kakkaṭakakkhīnīti are variations of sewing resembling crab’s eyes. Uṭṭhāpentīti means they make. Tatthāti refers to that knotted strap. Suttāti refers to threads sewn from corner to corner and threads sewn in a square shape. Piḷakāti also the turned and sewn edges of those same threads. Duviññeyyāvāti means that they become hard to discern in a subtle form during the dyeing process, appearing unostentatious. As it is said, “Corner threads and knots become hard to discern when the robe is dyed” (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.85).
Tatthāti: In that place, in the two-fold context. Kakkaṭakakkhīnīti: Deformities resembling crab claws. Uṭṭhāpentīti: They cause. Tatthāti: In that place, on the knotted or tied cloth. Suttāti: Threads sewn corner to corner and threads sewn in a square. Piḷakāti: The same threads turned back and sewn at the edges. Duviññeyyāvāti: At the time of dyeing, they appear indistinct and subtle. As it is said: “The corner threads and the sewn edges of the robe appear indistinct when dyed” (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.85).
ID130
Gaṇṭhikapaṭṭikā pāsapaṭṭikāti yojanā. Kaṇṇakoṇesu suttānīti cīvarakaṇṇe suttā ceva pāsakapaṭṭānaṃ koṇesu suttāni ca acchindati. Ettha ca cīvare āyāmato vitthārato ca sibbitvā anuvātato bahi nikkhamitasuttaṃ cīvaraṃ rajitvā sukkhāpanakāle rajjuyā vā cīvaravaṃse vā bandhitvā olambituṃ anuvāte bandhasuttāni ca kaṇṇasuttāni nāma. Yathāha “cīvarassa kaṇṇasuttakaṃ na ca vaṭṭati, rajitakāle chinditabbaṃ, yaṃ pana ’anujānāmi bhikkhave kaṇṇasuttaka’nti evaṃ anuññātaṃ, taṃ anuvāte pāsakaṃ katvā bandhitabbaṃ rajanakāle lagganatthāyā”ti (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.85).
The knot-strip and loop-strip are to be understood together. Threads at the corners means both the threads at the corners of the robe and the threads at the corners of the loop-strips, which he does not cut. Here, a thread sewn lengthwise and widthwise on the robe and extended outward along the wind, after dyeing the robe and during drying, is tied to a rope or robe-pole to hang, and these are called wind-binding threads and corner threads. As it is said, “The corner thread of a robe is not permissible, and it should be cut at the time of dyeing; however, what has been allowed with ‘I allow, monks, a corner thread’ should be made into a wind-binding loop and tied at the time of dyeing to prevent sticking” (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.85).
The connection is between the knotted strip and the loop strip. Kaṇṇakoṇesu suttānīti means he does not cut the threads at the corners of the robe, nor the threads at the corners of the loop strips. And here, in the robe, having sewn it lengthwise and widthwise, the thread that extends outwards from the border, the threads used for tying and the threads on the corners which are used to tie it on the line or robe-stick when the robe is dyed and dried, these are called corner threads. As it is said, “The corner thread of the robe is not allowed, it should be cut off during dyeing. However, that which is permitted thus: ‘I allow, monks, a corner thread,’ should be made into a loop on the border and tied during dyeing so that it will stay in place.”(pārā. aṭṭha. 1.85).
Gaṇṭhikapaṭṭikā pāsapaṭṭikāti: This is the connection. Kaṇṇakoṇesu suttānīti: He cuts the threads at the corners of the robe and the threads at the corners of the tied cloth. Here, the robe is sewn lengthwise and widthwise, and the thread is drawn out after sewing. After dyeing the robe, when drying, it is tied with a cord or a robe stick and hung in the wind. The binding threads and corner threads are called thus. As it is said: “The corner thread of the robe should not be used; it should be cut at the time of dyeing. However, what is permitted by saying, ‘I allow, monks, the corner thread,’ should be tied in the wind for the purpose of dyeing” (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.85).
ID131
Sūcikammavikāraṃ vāti cīvaramaṇḍanatthāya nānāsuttakehi satapadisadisaṃ sibbantā āgantukapaṭṭaṃ ṭhapenti, evarūpaṃ sūcikammavikāraṃ vā. Aññaṃ vā pana kiñcipīti aññampi yaṃ kiñci mālākammamigapakkhipadādikaṃ sibbanavikāraṃ. Kātunti sayaṃ kātuṃ. Kārāpetunti aññena vā kārāpetuṃ.
Sūcikammavikāraṃ vā means a sewing deformity made with various threads like a centipede for the purpose of decorating the robe, or an additional strip placed by outsiders. Aññaṃ vā pana kiñcipī means any other kind of sewing deformity such as floral patterns, animal or bird shapes, or similar designs. Kātuṃ means to make it oneself. Kārāpetuṃ means to have it made by another.
Sūcikammavikāraṃ vāti, when they are sewing, resembling centipedes, with various threads, for the purpose of adorning the robe, they place an additional piece of cloth, or this kind of crafted variation of needlework. Aññaṃ vā pana kiñcipīti, any other crafted variation of sewing like garland work or images of animals and birds, etc. Kātunti means to do it himself. Kārāpetunti means to have it done by another.
Sūcikammavikāraṃ vāti: For the purpose of adorning the robe, they sew with various threads like the hundred-footed creature and leave an additional piece of cloth. Such is the alteration in needlework. Aññaṃ vā pana kiñcipīti: Any other alteration in sewing, such as making garlands, animal shapes, etc. Kātunti: To do oneself. Kārāpetunti: To have done by another.
ID132
Yo bhikkhu paraṃ uttamaṃ vaṇṇamaṭṭhamabhipatthayanto kañjikapiṭṭhakhaliallikādīsu cīvaraṃ pakkhipati, tassa pana bhikkhuno dukkaṭā mokkho na vijjatīti yojanā. Kañjikanti vāyanatantamakkhanaṃ kañjikasadisā sulākañjikaṃ. Piṭṭhanti taṇḍulapiṭṭhaṃ. Taṇḍulapiṭṭhehi pakkā khali. Allikāti niyyāso. Ādi-saddena lākhādīnaṃ gahaṇaṃ. Cīvarassa karaṇe karaṇakāle samuṭṭhitānaṃ sūcihatthamalādīnaṃ kiliṭṭhakāle dhovanatthañca kañjikapiṭṭhakhaliallikādīsu pakkhipati, vaṭṭatīti yojanā.
A monk who, desiring supreme beauty for another, places a robe in substances like fermented rice water, flour paste, or oil residue, has no escape from a dukkaṭa offense—this is the construction. Kañjika means fermented rice water resembling the smear of weaving threads. Piṭṭha means rice flour. Khali means a paste cooked with rice flour. Allikā means an extract. The word ādi includes substances like lac. For the purpose of making a robe, at the time of its preparation, when stains arise from needle, hand, or sweat, and for washing it when it becomes dirty, he places it in fermented rice water, flour paste, oil residue, or similar substances—this is permissible, as the construction implies.
That monk who, desiring superior color, puts the robe into rice-water, flour paste, sediment, resin, and so forth; for that monk, release from wrong-doing is not found, is the connection. Kañjikanti means thin rice-water, similar to the rice-water used to lubricate weaving threads. Piṭṭhanti means rice flour. Khali cooked with rice flour. Allikāti means sap. The word Ādi includes lac, etc. For cleaning robe stains which arose from needle-and-hand-dirt in the making of a robe, when putting it into rice-water, flour paste, sediment, resin, and so forth, it is allowed is the connection.
A monk who, desiring the highest quality, places the robe in rice water, flour, or starch, etc., for that monk there is no escape from the offense of wrongdoing. Kañjikanti: Rice water used for cleaning the loom. Piṭṭhanti: Rice flour. Cooked with rice flour is khali. Allikāti: Starch. Ādi-saddena: Including lac, etc. When making the robe, at the time of making, if the needle, hand, etc., become soiled, it is permissible to place them in rice water, flour, or starch for washing. This is the connection.
ID133
Tatthāti yena kasāvena cīvaraṃ rajati, tasmiṃ rajane cīvarassa sugandhabhāvatthāya gandhaṃ vā ujjalabhāvatthāya telaṃ vā vaṇṇatthāya lākhaṃ vā. Kiñcīti evarūpaṃ yaṃ kiñci. Maṇināti pāsāṇena. Aññenapi ca kenacīti yena ujjalaṃ hoti, evarūpena muggarādinā aññenapi kenaci vatthunā. Doṇiyāti rajanambaṇe na ghaṃsitabbaṃ hatthena gāhāpetvā na gahetabbaṃ. Rattaṃ cīvaraṃ hatthehi kiñci thokaṃ paharituṃ vaṭṭatīti yojanā. Yattha pakkarajanaṃ pakkhipanti, sā rajanadoṇī. Tattha aṃsabaddhakakāyabandhanādiṃ ghaṭṭetuṃ vaṭṭatīti gaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ.
There means with whatever dye he dyes the robe; for the sake of making the robe fragrant, gandhaṃ vā means scent; for the sake of making it lustrous, telaṃ vā means oil; for the sake of color, lākhaṃ vā means lac. Kiñcī means any such thing. Maṇinā means with a gemstone. Aññenapi ca kenacī means with any other object that makes it lustrous, such as a pestle or similar item. Doṇiyā means in a dyeing vessel; na ghaṃsitabbaṃ means it should not be rubbed by hand or held. A dyed robe may be lightly struck with the hands a little—this is permissible, as the construction implies. The dyeing vessel is where the dye is placed. It is permissible to rub it with shoulder straps or body ties, as stated in the knot section.
Tatthāti, with whatever dye he dyes the robe, in that dye, gandhaṃ vā for making fragrance of the robe, telaṃ vā for brightness, lākhaṃ vā for the purpose of color. Kiñcīti means anything of this sort. Maṇināti means with a stone. Aññenapi ca kenacīti means with anything else by which it becomes bright, with a mallet or anything else of that kind. Doṇiyāti means in the dyeing trough, na ghaṃsitabbaṃ; should not be grasped, by causing it to be held by the hand. It’s allowable to press the dyed robe, just a little. Where they pour the prepared dye is the dyeing trough. It is said in the knot-section that, there it’s permissible to rub things like shoulder-straps and waistbands, etc.
Tatthāti: In that dyeing process, for the purpose of making the robe fragrant, gandhaṃ vā: perfume; for the purpose of making it bright, telaṃ vā: oil; for the purpose of color, lākhaṃ vā: lac. Kiñcīti: Anything of this sort. Maṇināti: With a stone. Aññenapi ca kenacīti: With anything else that makes it bright, such as a pestle, etc. Doṇiyāti: In the dyeing vessel, na ghaṃsitabbaṃ: it should not be rubbed with the hand. It is permissible to strike the dyed robe lightly with the hands. This is the connection. Where the dye is placed, that is the dyeing vessel. There, it is permissible to rub the shoulder strap or body binding, etc., as stated in the section on knots.
ID134
Gaṇṭhiketi veḷudantavisāṇādimayagaṇṭhike. Lekhā vāti vaṭṭādibhedā lekhā vā. Piḷakāti sāsapabījasadisā khuddakabubbuḷā. Pāḷikaṇṇikabhedatoti maṇikāvaḷirūpapupphakaṇṇikarūpabhedato. “Kappabinduvikāro vā na vaṭṭatīti yojanā”ti vuttaṃ, tasmā tatheva cīvare paṭipajjitabbaṃ.
Gaṇṭhike means a knot made of bamboo, tooth, horn, or similar materials. Lekhā vā means lines, whether circular or otherwise. Piḷakā means small bubbles resembling mustard seeds. Pāḷikaṇṇikabhedato means differentiated by shapes like gem bracelets or flower earrings. It is said, “A kappabindu deformity is not permissible—this is the construction,” and thus one should act accordingly with the robe.
Gaṇṭhiketi means a knot made of bamboo, ivory, horn, or other such material. Lekhā vāti are various kinds of lines, such as circular ones. Piḷakāti are small blisters resembling mustard seeds. Pāḷikaṇṇikabhedatoti means that they differentiate based on the forms of jeweled rows and flower ear-ornaments. It has been said: “variation of Kappabindu is not permissible”, therefore, it is to conduct in accordance with the robe.
Gaṇṭhiketi: Knots made of bamboo, horn, etc. Lekhā vāti: Lines such as circles, etc. Piḷakāti: Small bubbles resembling mustard seeds. Pāḷikaṇṇikabhedatoti: Variations like the shape of a gem, a bracelet, or a flower petal. “The alteration of a drop of dye is not permissible,” thus it is said. Therefore, one should act accordingly with the robe.
ID135
9. Patte vā thālake vātiādīsu thālaketi tambādimaye puggalike tividhepi kappiyathālake. Na vaṭṭatīti maṇivaṇṇakaraṇapayogo na vaṭṭati, telavaṇṇapayogo pana vaṭṭati. Telavaṇṇoti samaṇasāruppavaṇṇaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, maṇivaṇṇaṃ pana pattaṃ aññena kataṃ labhitvā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatīti vadanti. Pattamaṇḍaleti tipusīsādimaye pattaṭṭhapanakamaṇḍale. “Na bhikkhave vicitrāni pattamaṇḍalāni dhāretabbāni rūpakākiṇṇāni bhittikammakatānī”ti (cūḷava. 253) vuttattā “bhittikammaṃ na vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, makaradantakaṃ chinditu”nti (cūḷava. 253) vuttattā “makaradantakaṃ pana vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ. Tenāhu porāṇā –
9. In a bowl or a plate and so forth; thālake means a plate made of copper or similar material, referring to any of the three permissible types of personal plates. Na vaṭṭati means the use of gem-like coloring is not permissible, though the use of oil-like coloring is permissible. Telavaṇṇo means an oil-like color, said with reference to a hue suitable for a monk, though it is said that a bowl colored like a gem, made by another, may be used if obtained. Pattamaṇḍale means a bowl stand made of tin or similar material. It is said, “Monks, you should not use ornate bowl stands decorated with figures or wall-like patterns” (cūḷava. 253), hence “bhittikammaṃ na vaṭṭati” means wall-like patterns are not permissible. It is said, “I allow, monks, a makaradantaka to be cut” (cūḷava. 253), hence “makaradantakaṃ pana vaṭṭati” means a makaradantaka is permissible. Thus the ancients said—
9. Patte vā thālake vātiādīsu, thālaketi means in a personal bowl made of copper or other material, even in all three types of allowable bowls. Na vaṭṭatīti means the application to produce a gem-like color is not allowed, but the application of oil is allowed. Telavaṇṇoti is said in reference to a color appropriate for a recluse; however, they say that it is permissible to obtain and use a bowl made with a gem-like color by another. Pattamaṇḍaleti refers to the bowl-stand made of tin, lead, or other such material. Since it is said, “Monks, you should not keep elaborately decorated bowl-stands, adorned with figures, or made with wall-decorations” (cūḷava. 253), it is stated, “bhittikammaṃ na vaṭṭatī”. Because it is said, “I allow, monks, a toothed-edge like a crocodile’s tooth, to be cut” (cūḷava. 253), it is stated, “makaradantakaṃ pana vaṭṭatī”. Therefore, the elders said –
9. Patte vā thālake vātiādīsu: thālaketi: In the three kinds of permissible vessels made of copper, etc. Na vaṭṭatīti: The effort to make a gem-like color is not permissible, but the effort to make an oil-like color is permissible. Telavaṇṇoti: Referring to a color suitable for ascetics. However, it is said that obtaining a bowl colored like a gem by another and using it is permissible. Pattamaṇḍaleti: A bowl stand made of tin, etc., for placing the bowl. “Monks, you should not use varied and ornate bowl stands adorned with figures” (cūḷava. 253), thus it is said, “bhittikammaṃ na vaṭṭatī”: “Ornamental work is not permissible.” “I allow, monks, to cut the makara tooth” (cūḷava. 253), thus it is said, “makaradantakaṃ pana vaṭṭatī”: “But the makara tooth is permissible.” Therefore, the ancients said:
ID136
“Thālakassa ca pattassa, bahi antopi vā pana; Āraggena katā lekhā, na ca vaṭṭati kācipi.
“For a plate or a bowl, whether outside or inside; Any line made with a bronze tool is not permissible.
“On the outside or inside of a bowl or a dish; Any line made with a pointed tool is not allowed.”
“For the vessel and the bowl, inside or outside; any line made with a needle is not permissible.
ID137
“Āropetvā bhamaṃ pattaṃ, majjitvā ce pacanti ca; ‘Maṇivaṇṇaṃ karissāma’, iti kātuṃ na vaṭṭati.
“Having mounted a bowl on a wheel and polished it while cooking; Thinking, ‘We will make it gem-colored,’ this is not permissible.
“Having placed the bowl on a wheel, and having polished and fired it; It is not permissible to do so, thinking ‘We will make it gem-colored’.”
“After placing the bowl on the wheel, turning and polishing it; thinking, ‘We will make it gem-colored,’ is not permissible.
ID138
“Pattamaṇḍalake kiñci; Bhittikammaṃ na vaṭṭati; Na doso koci tatthassa; Kātuṃ makaradantaka”nti.
“On a bowl stand, any wall-like pattern is not permissible; There is no fault in making a makaradantaka.”
“Any wall-decoration is not allowed on a bowl-stand; There is no fault in making a crocodile-tooth design there”.
“In the bowl stand, any ornamental work is not permissible; there is no fault in making the makara tooth.”
ID139
Vinayasāratthasandīpaniyampi āraggenāti ārakaṇṭakaggena, sūcimukhena vā. Kācipi lekhāti vaṭṭakagomuttādisaṇṭhānā yā kācipi rāji. Bhamaṃ āropetvāti bhame allīyāpetvā. Pattamaṇḍalaketi patte chavirakkhaṇatthāya tipusīsādīhi kate pattassa heṭṭhā ādhārādīnaṃ upari kātabbe pattamaṇḍalake. Bhittikammanti nānākārarūpakakammavicittaṃ. Yathāha “na, bhikkhave, vicitrāni pattamaṇḍalāni dhāretabbāni rūpakākiṇṇāni bhittikammakatānī”ti. Tatthāti tasmiṃ pattamaṇḍale. Assāti bhikkhussa. Makaradantakanti girikūṭanti vuttaṃ, tasmā evaṃ pattathālakādīsu paṭipajjitabbaṃ.
Also in the Vinayasāratthasandīpanī, āraggena means with a bronze thorn or needle tip. Kācipi lekhā means any line shaped like a circle or cow urine pattern. Bhamaṃ āropetvā means having affixed it to a wheel. Pattamaṇḍalake means on a bowl stand made of tin or similar material for protecting the bowl’s surface, placed beneath the bowl as a base. Bhittikammaṃ means ornate work with various shapes and figures. As it is said, “Monks, you should not use ornate bowl stands decorated with figures or wall-like patterns.” Tatthā means on that bowl stand. Assā means for the monk. Makaradantaka means a crocodile-tooth shape, it is said, and thus one should act accordingly with bowls and plates.
Also in the Vinayasāratthasandīpanī, āraggenāti means with the point of a needle or with the tip of a needle. Kācipi lekhāti refers to any kind of line, with forms like circles or cow-urine patterns. Bhamaṃ āropetvāti means having placed it on a wheel. Pattamaṇḍalaketi means on the bowl-stand made of tin, lead, etc. beneath the bowl, for the protection of the bowl’s surface, to be made on a support and so on. Bhittikammanti means elaborate work with various kinds of figure-work. As it is said “Monks, you should not keep elaborately decorated bowl stands, adorned with figures, made with wall decorations”. Tatthāti, on that bowl stand. Assāti, of the monk. Makaradantakanti is said to be a peak, therefore one should thus conduct with bowl and dish and etc.
In the Vinayasāratthasandīpani, āraggenāti: With the tip of a needle or the point of a thorn. Kācipi lekhāti: Any line resembling a circle, pearl, etc. Bhamaṃ āropetvāti: After placing it on the wheel. Pattamaṇḍalaketi: A bowl stand made of tin, etc., for protecting the bowl, placed below the bowl for support. Bhittikammanti: Ornamental work of various kinds. As it is said, “Monks, you should not use varied and ornate bowl stands adorned with figures.” Tatthāti: In that bowl stand. Assāti: For the monk. Makaradantakanti: The peak of a mountain, thus it is said. Therefore, one should act accordingly with bowls and vessels.
ID140
Dhamakaraṇa…pe… lekhā na vaṭṭatīti āraggena dinnalekhā na vaṭṭati, jātihiṅgulikādivaṇṇehi katalekhā pana vaṭṭati. Chattamukhavaṭṭiyanti dhamakaraṇassa hatthena gahaṇatthaṃ katassa chattākārassa mukhavaṭṭiyaṃ. “Parissāvanabandhaṭṭhāne”ti keci. Vinayavinicchayepi –
Dhamakaraṇa…pe… lekhā na vaṭṭati means a line made with a bronze tool is not permissible, though a line made with natural vermilion or similar colors is permissible. Chattamukhavaṭṭiya means the umbrella-shaped mouth-ring made for holding the bellows by hand. Some say “at the filter-binding place.” Also in the Vinayavinicchaya—
Dhamakaraṇa…pe… lekhā na vaṭṭatīti means that lines drawn with a pointed tool are not permissible, but lines made with natural cinnabar and other colors are permissible. Chattamukhavaṭṭiyanti means on the umbrella-shaped mouth-rim of the water strainer, made for grasping it by hand. Some say “at the place where the strainer is tied”. Also, in the Vinayavinicchaya –
Dhamakaraṇa…pe… lekhā na vaṭṭatīti: A line given with a needle is not permissible, but a line made with natural colors like red lead, etc., is permissible. Chattamukhavaṭṭiyanti: The circular rim of the dhamakaraṇa made for holding with the hand, resembling an umbrella. Some say, “For the purpose of tying the strainer.” In the Vinayavinicchaya also:
ID141
“Na dhammakaraṇacchatte, lekhā kācipi vaṭṭati; Kucchiyaṃ vā ṭhapetvā taṃ, lekhaṃ tu mukhavaṭṭiya”nti. –
“No line of any kind is permissible on the bellows’ umbrella; Except for that line at the mouth-ring, whether inside or out.”
“No line whatsoever is permitted on the umbrella of the water strainer; Having set aside any lines on the belly, only the lines on the mouth-rim”. –
“No line is permissible on the dhamakaraṇa or the umbrella; except for the line on the rim for tying the strainer.”
ID142
Vuttaṃ. Taṭṭīkāyaṃ pana “mukhavaṭṭiyā yā lekhā parissāvanabandhanatthāya anuññātā, taṃ lekhaṃ ṭhapetvā dhamakaraṇacchatte vā kucchiyaṃ vā kāci lekhā na vaṭṭatīti yojanā”ti vuttaṃ, tasmā tattha vuttanayeneva dhamakaraṇe paṭipajjitabbaṃ.
It is said. However, in its commentary, it is stated, “Excluding the line permitted for binding the filter, no line is permissible on the bellows’ umbrella or inside—this is the construction,” and thus one should act accordingly with the bellows as stated there.
Is said. However, in that commentary, “Having excluded the lines permitted on the mouth-rim for the purpose of tying the strainer, no line is permitted on either the umbrella or the belly of the water strainer, is the connection” has been said, therefore, it is to conduct in accordance with the water-strainer with the same method has been said there.
Thus it is said. In the commentary, it is explained: “The line on the rim for tying the strainer is permitted, but no other line is permissible on the dhamakaraṇa or the umbrella.” Therefore, one should act accordingly with the dhamakaraṇa.
ID143
10. Kāyabandhane pana kakkaṭakkhīnīti kakkaṭakassa akkhisadisāni. Makaramukhanti makaramukhasaṇṭhānaṃ. Deḍḍubhasīsanti udakasappasīsasadisasaṇṭhānāni. Acchīnīti kuñjaracchisaṇṭhānāni. Ekameva vaṭṭatīti ettha ekarajjukaṃ dviguṇatiguṇaṃ katvā bandhituṃ na vaṭṭati, ekameva pana satavārampi sarīraṃ parikkhipitvā bandhituṃ vaṭṭati. “Bahurajjuke ekato katvā ekena nirantaraṃ veṭhetvā kataṃ bahurajjukanti na vattabbaṃ, taṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vuttattā taṃ murajasaṅkhaṃ na gacchatīti veditabbaṃ. Murajañhi nānāvaṇṇehi suttehi murajavaṭṭisaṇṭhānaṃ veṭhetvā karonti. Idaṃ pana murajaṃ maddavīṇasaṅkhātaṃ pāmaṅgasaṇṭhānañca dasāsu vaṭṭati “kāyabandhanassa dasā jīranti. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, murajaṃ maddavīṇa”nti (cūḷava. 278) vuttattā.
10. In a body tie, kakkaṭakkhīnī means crab-eye-like, resembling the eyes of a crab. Makaramukha means shaped like a crocodile’s mouth. Deḍḍubhasīsa means shaped like a water snake’s head. Acchīnī means shaped like an elephant’s eyes. Ekameva vaṭṭati means here only one is permissible; it is not permissible to double or triple a single cord for binding, though it is permissible to wrap a single cord around the body a hundred times. It is said, “Multiple cords joined together and wrapped continuously with one should not be called a multi-cord; that is permissible,” and thus it should be understood as not resembling a drum. A drum is made by wrapping various colored threads in a drum-like shape. However, this drum and the soft lute shape, as well as the ten permissible edges, are allowed, as it is said, “For a body tie’s edges that wear out, I allow, monks, a drum and a soft lute” (cūḷava. 278).
10. Concerning waistbands, kakkaṭakkhīnīti means those resembling the eyes of a crab. Makaramukhanti refers to the shape of a crocodile’s mouth. Deḍḍubhasīsanti refers to shapes resembling the heads of water snakes. Acchīnīti means having shapes resembling the eyes of a young elephant. Ekameva vaṭṭatīti, here, it is not permissible to tie a single cord doubled or tripled, but it is permissible to wrap it around the body even a hundred times with a single one. It should be understood that the statement “It is not to be said that many cords made into one by continuously winding them with one is many-corded, that is allowable” is not including drum or conch. For the drum is made by winding it in the shape of a drum roll with threads of various colors. This waistband, called ‘muraja’ and ‘maddavīṇa’, is included among the ten as it is said, “The ends of a waistband fray. I allow, monks, a drum, a maddavīṇa” (cūḷava. 278).
10. In the case of body bindings, kakkaṭakkhīnīti: Resembling the eye of a crab. Makaramukhanti: Resembling the face of a makara. Deḍḍubhasīsanti: Resembling the head of a water snake. Acchīnīti: Resembling the tusk of an elephant. Ekameva vaṭṭatīti: Here, a single cord may be doubled or tripled, but it is not permissible to bind with multiple cords. However, it is permissible to bind by wrapping a single cord around the body a hundred times. “A multi-cord binding made by wrapping one cord continuously is not called a multi-cord binding; it is permissible.” Thus, it does not become a drum or conch. For drums are made by wrapping with cords of various colors in the shape of a drum. This, however, is called a soft lute, resembling a pāmaṅga, and is permissible in ten ways. “The ten ways of the body binding wear out. I allow, monks, the drum and the soft lute” (cūḷava. 278), thus it is said.
ID144
Vidheti dasāpariyosāne thirabhāvāya dantavisāṇasuttādīhi kate vidhe. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.85) pana “kāyabandhanassa pāsante dasāmūle tassa thirabhāvatthaṃ kattabbe dantavisāṇādimaye vidhe”ti vuttaṃ. Aṭṭhamaṅgalāni nāma saṅkho, cakkaṃ, puṇṇakumbho, gayā, sirīvaccho, aṅkuso, dhajaṃ, sovatthikanti. Macchayugaḷachattanandiyāvaṭṭādivasenapi vadanti. Paricchedalekhāmattanti dantādīhi katassa vidhassa ubhosu koṭīsu kātabbaparicchedarājimattaṃ. Vinayavinicchayappakaraṇepi –
Vidhe means a reinforcement made with tooth, horn, thread, or similar materials at the end of the edges for durability. However, in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.85), it is said, “For the durability of the body tie’s edges, a reinforcement should be made at the base of the edges with tooth, horn, or similar materials.” The aṭṭhamaṅgala are the conch, wheel, full pot, cow, auspicious calf, goad, flag, and swastika. Some also say they include a pair of fish, an umbrella, and a nandiyāvaṭṭa. Paricchedalekhāmatta means merely a boundary line to be made at both ends of the reinforcement made with tooth or similar materials. Also in the Vinayavinicchayappakaraṇa—
Vidheti, in the fastener, made of ivory, horn, thread, or other materials, for firmness at the end of the fringes. However, in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.85), it is said, “In the fastener made of ivory, horn or other materials, to be made at the root of the fringe at the end of the waistband, for the purpose of its firmness”. Aṭṭhamaṅgalāni are the conch, the wheel, the full pot, the bull, the auspicious mark, the goad, the banner, and the svastika. They are also described as a pair of fish, an umbrella, and a nandyāvarta, etc. Paricchedalekhāmattanti means only the boundary line to be made on both edges of the fastener made of ivory etc. Also, in the text Vinayavinicchayappakaraṇa –
Vidheti: At the end of the ten ways, for firmness, bindings made with ivory, horn, etc., are called vidhe. In the Sāratthadīpani (sārattha. ṭī. 2.85), it is said: “For the firmness of the body binding, at the end of the ten ways, bindings made of ivory, horn, etc., should be made.” Aṭṭhamaṅgalāni are: conch, wheel, full pot, gayā, sirīvaccha, goad, banner, and sovatthika. Some also say fish pair, umbrella, and nandiyāvaṭṭa, etc. Paricchedalekhāmattanti: The marking lines made with ivory, etc., at both ends of the binding. In the Vinayavinicchaya also:
ID145
“Suttaṃ vā diguṇaṃ katvā, koṭṭenti ca tahiṃ tahiṃ; Kāyabandhanasobhatthaṃ, taṃ na vaṭṭati bhikkhuno.
“Doubling a thread and striking it here and there; For the beauty of a body tie, this is not permissible for a monk.
“Doubling the thread, and marking it here and there; For the beauty of the waistband, that is not permissible for a monk.”
“A cord doubled and tied here and there for the beauty of the body binding is not permissible for a monk.
ID146
“Dasāmukhe daḷhatthāya, dvīsu antesu vaṭṭati; Mālākammalatākamma-cittikampi na vaṭṭati.
“For the strength of the edge’s mouth, at both ends it is permissible; But floral patterns, vine patterns, or ornate work are not permissible.
“At the fringe-ends, for firmness, it is permissible on the two ends; Garland work, creeper work, and decorative work are not permitted.”
“At the end of the ten ways, for firmness, it is permissible at both ends; garland work, creeper work, and ornamental work are not permissible.
ID147
“Akkhīni tattha dassetvā; Koṭṭite pana kā kathā. Kakkaṭakkhīni vā tattha; Uṭṭhāpetuṃ na vaṭṭati.
“Showing eyes there; When struck, what need is there to say? Crab-eye-like shapes there; Should not be raised.
“Displaying eyes there; What need is there to mention marking? Or placing crab’s eyes there; It is not permissible to raise them up.”
“Showing eyes there; what is there to say if it is tied? Making crab eyes there is not permissible.
ID148
“Ghaṭaṃ deḍḍubhasīsaṃ vā, makarassa mukhampi vā; Vikārarūpaṃ yaṃ kiñci, na vaṭṭati dasāmukhe.
“A pot, a water snake’s head, or a crocodile’s mouth; Any deformed shape at the edge’s mouth is not permissible.
“A pot, or a water-snake’s head, or the mouth of a crocodile; Any kind of altered form is not permissible at the fringe-end.”
“A pot, water snake head, or the face of a makara; any altered form is not permissible at the end of the ten ways.
ID149
“Ujukaṃ macchakaṇṭaṃ vā, maṭṭhaṃ vā pana paṭṭikaṃ; Khajjūripattakākāraṃ, katvā vaṭṭati koṭṭitaṃ.
“Straight, like a fish spine, or smooth, or a strip; Shaped like a date palm leaf, when struck, is permissible.
“Straight, or like fish bones, or smooth may be the strip; Having made it marked, in the shape of a date-palm leaf, is permissible.”
“Straight, like a fish spine, or smooth like a plank; shaped like a date palm leaf, it is permissible if tied.
ID150
“Paṭṭikā sūkarantanti, duvidhaṃ kāyabandhanaṃ; Rajjukā dussapaṭṭādi, sabbaṃ tassānulomikaṃ.
“A strip or a pig’s gut—these are the two kinds of body tie; A cord, a cloth strip, or anything conforming to it.
“The strip is a pig’s intestine, two types of waistband; Cords, cloth strips, etc., are all suitable for it.”
“The plank or the pig’s tail; the two-fold body binding; cords, cloth strips, etc., all are suitable for it.
ID151
“Murajaṃ maddavīṇañca, deḍḍubhañca kalābukaṃ; Rajjuyo ca na vaṭṭanti, purimā dvedasā siyuṃ.
“A drum, a soft lute, a water snake, or a gourd; Multiple cords—these are not permissible; the first two belong to the ten edges.
“A drum, a maddavīṇa, a water snake, and a kalābuka; Cords are not permissible, the former two might be fringes.”
“The drum, the soft lute, the water snake, and the kalābuka; cords are not permissible; the former twelve are permissible.
ID152
“Dasā pāmaṅgasaṇṭhānā, niddiṭṭhā kāyabandhane; Ekā dviticatasso vā, vaṭṭanti na tato paraṃ.
“The ten edges shaped like a necklace are specified for a body tie; One, two, three, or four are permissible, but no more.
“Fringes shaped like decorative borders are specified for waistbands; One, two, three, or four are permissible, but not more than that.”
“The ten ways resembling the pāmaṅga are prescribed for the body binding; one, two, or four are permissible, but not more.
ID153
“Ekarajjumayaṃ vuttaṃ, muninā kāyabandhanaṃ; Tañca pāmaṅgasaṇṭhānaṃ, ekampi ca na vaṭṭati.
“Made of a single cord, said by the Sage as a body tie; Even one shaped like a necklace is not permissible.
“A waistband made of a single cord is spoken of by the Sage; And that shaped like a decorative border is also not permissible, even one.”
“The single cord binding is said by the sage for the body binding; even one resembling the pāmaṅga is not permissible.
ID154
“Rajjuke ekato katvā, bahū ekāya rajjuyā; Nirantarañhi veṭhetvā, kataṃ vaṭṭati bandhituṃ.
“Multiple cords joined together, with one cord; Wrapped continuously, this is permissible to bind.
“Having made many cords into one, continuously wound with one cord; Made in this way, it is permissible to tie.”
“Making many cords into one, binding continuously with one cord is permissible.
ID155
“Dantakaṭṭhavisāṇaṭṭhi-lohaveḷunaḷabbhavā; Jatusaṅkhamayā sutta-phalajā vidhakā matā.
“Made of tooth, wood, horn, bone, metal, bamboo, or reed; Or resin, shell, thread, or fruit—such reinforcements are considered.
“Made of ivory, wood, horn, bone, iron, bamboo, reed; Fasteners made of lac, conch shell, thread, and fruit are considered.”
“Bindings made of ivory, wood, horn, bone, metal, bamboo, reed, or conch; fruit-born cords are considered bindings.
ID156
“Kāyabandhanavidhepi , vikāro na ca vaṭṭati; Tattha tattha pariccheda-lekhāmattaṃ tu vaṭṭatī”ti. –
“Even in the reinforcement of a body tie, deformity is not permissible; Only a boundary line here and there is permissible.”
“Even in a waistband fastener, alteration is not permissible; Here and there, only a boundary line is permissible.” –
“In the body binding, any alteration is not permissible; only marking lines are permissible.”
ID157
Vuttaṃ.
It is said.
Is said.
Thus it is said.
ID158
Vinayasāratthasandīpaniyampi tahiṃ tahinti paṭṭikāya tattha tattha. Tanti tathākoṭṭitadiguṇasuttakāyabandhanaṃ. Antesu daḷhatthāya dasāmukhe diguṇaṃ katvā koṭṭenti, vaṭṭatīti yojanā. Cittakampīti mālākammalatākammacittayuttampi kāyabandhanaṃ. Akkhīnīti kuñjarakkhīni. Tatthāti kāyabandhane na vaṭṭatīti kā kathā. Uṭṭhāpetunti ukkirituṃ.
Also in the Vinayasāratthasandīpanī, tahiṃ tahiṃ means here and there on the strip. Taṃ means a body tie with doubled thread struck that way. For the strength of the edge’s mouth, they double and strike it at the ends—this is permissible, as the construction implies. Cittakampi means a body tie adorned with floral patterns, vine patterns, or ornate work. Akkhīnī means elephant eyes. Tatthā means on that body tie, it is not permissible—what need is there to say? Uṭṭhāpetuṃ means to raise.
Also, in the Vinayasāratthasandīpanī, tahiṃ tahinti means here and there on the strip. Tanti, that doubled-thread waistband thus marked. At the ends, for firmness, at the fringe-ends, having doubled it, they mark, that is allowable, is the connection. Cittakampīti means even a waistband adorned with garland work, creeper work, and decorative work. Akkhīnīti means elephant eyes. Tatthāti means that in waistband it is not permissible, what to say. Uṭṭhāpetunti means to engrave.
In the Vinayasāratthasandīpani, tahiṃ tahinti: Here and there on the plank. Tanti: The body binding tied with a doubled cord. At the ends, for firmness, at the end of the ten ways, they tie by doubling the cord, it is permissible. Cittakampīti: Body bindings adorned with garlands, creepers, or ornaments. Akkhīnīti: Elephant eyes. Tatthāti: In the body binding, it is not permissible, what is there to say? Uṭṭhāpetunti: To remove.
ID159
Ghaṭanti ghaṭasaṇṭhānaṃ. Deḍḍubhasīsaṃ vāti udakasappasīsaṃ mukhasaṇṭhānaṃ vā. Yaṃ kiñci vikārarūpaṃ dasāmukhe na vaṭṭatīti yojanā. Ettha ca ubhayapassesu macchakaṇṭakayuttaṃ macchassa piṭṭhikaṇṭakaṃ viya yassā paṭṭikāya vāyanaṃ hoti, idaṃ kāyabandhanaṃ macchakaṇṭakaṃ nāma. Yassa khajjūripattasaṇṭhānamiva vāyanaṃ hoti, taṃ khajjūripattakākāraṃ nāma.
Ghaṭa means shaped like a pot. Deḍḍubhasīsaṃ vā means shaped like a water snake’s head or mouth. Any deformed shape at the edge’s mouth is not permissible—this is the construction. Here, a body tie woven with fish spines on both sides, like the backbone of a fish, is called macchakaṇṭaka. That which is woven like a date palm leaf is called khajjūripattakākāra.
Ghaṭanti means pot-shaped. Deḍḍubhasīsaṃ vāti means water snake’s head or mouth-shaped. Any kind of varied form is not permissible at the fringe end, is the connection. And here, the weaving of this waistband, having fish bones on both sides, like the backbone of a fish, this is called macchakaṇṭakaṃ. That which has a weaving like the shape of date-palm leaves, is called khajjūripattakākāraṃ.
Ghaṭanti: Resembling a pot. Deḍḍubhasīsaṃ vāti: Resembling the head of a water snake or the face of a makara. Any altered form is not permissible at the end of the ten ways. Here, on both sides, the plank with fish spines resembles the spine of a fish, thus it is called macchakaṇṭakaṃ. That which resembles the shape of a date palm leaf is called khajjūripattakākāraṃ.
ID160
Pakativikārā paṭṭikā sūkarantaṃ nāma kuñcikākosasaṇṭhānaṃ. Tassa duvidhassa kāyabandhanassa. Tattha rajjukā sūkarantānulomikā, dussapaṭṭaṃ paṭṭikānulomikaṃ. Ādi-saddena muddikakāyabandhanaṃ gahitaṃ, tañca sūkarantānulomikaṃ. Yathāha “ekarajjukaṃ pana muddikakāyabandhanañca sūkarantaṃ anulometī”ti (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 278). Tattha rajjukā nāma ekāvaṭṭā, bahurajjukassa akappiyabhāvaṃ vakkhati. Muddikakāyabandhanaṃ nāma caturassaṃ akatvā sajjitanti gaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ.
A strip with natural deformities, called sūkaranta, resembles a keyhole or pouch. Tassa means of that twofold body tie. There, a cord conforms to the pig’s gut type, and a cloth strip conforms to the strip type. The word ādi includes a ring-shaped body tie, which also conforms to the pig’s gut type. As it is said, “A single cord and a ring-shaped body tie conform to the pig’s gut type” (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 278). There, a cord means a single twist; it will state the impermissibility of multiple cords. A ring-shaped body tie is said to be prepared without making it square, as explained in the knot section.
The strip, natural and altered, is called sūkarantaṃ, in the shape of a keyhole. Tassa, of the two kinds of waistbands. Of these, cords are suitable for the pig’s intestine type, and the cloth strip is suitable for the strip type. The word Ādi includes the ring-waistband, and that is suitable for the pig’s intestine type. As it is said “However, a single cord and a ring waistband are suitable for the pig’s intestine type” (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 278). Here, cords are single-ply, the unsuitability of many cords will be explained. The ring waistband is described in knot-section as being made without being squared.
Natural alterations of the plank are called sūkarantaṃ, resembling a hook or a sheath. Tassa: Of the two-fold body binding. There, cords are suitable for the sūkaranta, and cloth strips are suitable for the plank. Ādi-saddena: Including the muddika body binding, which is suitable for the sūkaranta. As it is said: “A single cord and the muddika body binding are suitable for the sūkaranta” (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 278). There, cords are called single cords; multi-cord bindings are not permissible. The muddika body binding is called thus because it is not made square but is tied, as stated in the section on knots.
ID161
Murajaṃ nāma murajavaṭṭisaṇṭhānaṃ veṭhetvā kataṃ. Veṭhetvāti nānāsuttehi veṭhetvā. Sikkhābhājanavinicchaye pana “bahukā rajjuyo ekato katvā ekāya rajjuyā veṭhita”nti vuttaṃ. Maddavīṇaṃ nāma pāmaṅgasaṇṭhānaṃ. Deḍḍubhakaṃ nāma udakasappasadisaṃ. Kalābukaṃ nāma bahurajjukaṃ. Rajjuyoti ubhayakoṭiyaṃ ekato abandhā bahurajjuyo, tathābandhā kalābukaṃ nāma hoti. Na vaṭṭantīti murajādīni imāni sabbāni kāyabandhanāni na vaṭṭanti. Purimā dveti murajaṃ maddavīṇanāmañcāti dve. “Dasāsu siyu”nti vattabbe gāthābandhavasena vaṇṇalopena “dasā siyu”nti vuttaṃ. Yathāha “murajaṃ maddavīṇanti idaṃ dasāsuyeva anuññāta”nti.
Murajaṃ means something made by wrapping in a drum-like shape. Veṭhetvā means wrapped with various threads. However, in the Sikkhābhājanavinicchaya, it is said, “Multiple cords joined together and wrapped with one cord.” Maddavīṇaṃ means shaped like a necklace. Deḍḍubhakaṃ means resembling a water snake. Kalābukaṃ means multiple cords. Rajjuyo means multiple cords not tied together at both ends; when tied that way, it is called a gourd shape. Na vaṭṭanti means all these body ties—a drum and so forth—are not permissible. Purimā dve means the first two: the drum and the soft lute shape. “They belong to the ten edges” should be said, but due to metrical abbreviation, it is said as “dasā siyuṃ.” As it is said, “A drum and a soft lute—these are allowed only within the ten edges.”
Murajaṃ means made by plaiting in the shape of a muraja drum. Veṭhetvāti means by plaiting with various threads. However, in the Sikkhābhājanavinicchaya, it is said, “Many strings are made into one and plaited with a single string.” Maddavīṇaṃ means shaped like a pāmaṅga (shoulder-cloth frame). Deḍḍubhakaṃ means resembling a water snake. Kalābukaṃ means having many strings. Rajjuyoti means many strings not tied together at both ends; when tied in that way, it is called kalābuka. Na vaṭṭantīti means all these muraja and others are not allowed as waist-bands. Purimā dveti means two, namely muraja and maddavīṇa. Although it should be said “dasasu siyu,” it is said “dasā siyu” due to the elision of a syllable for the sake of the verse. As it is said, “The muraja and maddavīṇa are allowed only among the ten.”
Murajaṃ refers to something made by wrapping in the shape of a muraja drum. Veṭhetvā means wrapped with various threads. In the Sikkhābhājanavinicchaya, it is said, “Many cords are bound together and wrapped with one cord.” Maddavīṇaṃ refers to something shaped like a pāmaṅga. Deḍḍubhakaṃ is like a water snake. Kalābukaṃ refers to something with many cords. Rajjuyo means many cords bound together at both ends without being tied; when tied in such a way, it is called kalābukaṃ. Na vaṭṭantī means these, such as the muraja, are all body ornaments and are not allowed. Purimā dve refers to the two, namely the muraja and the maddavīṇa. When it should be said, “They are allowed in ten cases,” it is said as “dasā siyu” due to the elision of the letter “va” for the sake of the verse. As it is said, “The muraja and maddavīṇa are allowed in ten cases.”
ID162
Pāmaṅgasaṇṭhānāti pāmaṅgadāmaṃ viya caturassasaṇṭhānā. Ekarajjumayanti nānāvaṭṭe ekato vaṭṭetvā kataṃ rajjumayaṃ kāyabandhanaṃ vattuṃ vaṭṭatīti “rajjukā dussapaṭṭādī”ti ettha ekavaṭṭarajjukā gahitā. Idha pana nānāvaṭṭe ekato vaṭṭetvā katā ekāva rajju gahitā. Tañcāti taṃ vā nayampi ekarajjukakāyabandhanaṃ pāmaṅgasaṇṭhānena ganthitaṃ. Ekampi ca na vaṭṭatīti kevalampi na vaṭṭati.
Pāmaṅgasaṇṭhānā means shaped like a necklace cord, rectangular in form. Ekarajjumaya means a body tie made of a single cord twisted from various twists is permissible to mention; thus in “cords, cloth strips, and so forth,” a single-twist cord is included. Here, however, a single cord made by twisting various twists together is meant. Tañcā means that method or even that single-cord body tie shaped like a necklace. Ekampi ca na vaṭṭati means even one alone is not permissible.
Pāmaṅgasaṇṭhānāti means square-shaped like a pāmaṅga garland. Ekarajjumayanti means a string waist-band made by twisting multiple strands together is allowed to be spoken of, the single-strand string is included in the phrase “string, cloth band, etc.” Here, however, only one string made by twisting many strands into one is intended. Tañcāti means even that single-string waist-band, knotted in the shape of a pāmaṅga. Ekampi ca na vaṭṭatīti means even one alone is not allowed.
Pāmaṅgasaṇṭhānā means shaped like a pāmaṅga garland, i.e., quadrangular. Ekarajjumayaṃ refers to a body ornament made by twisting various strands into one cord. Here, a single cord made by twisting various strands is taken. Tañcā means that body ornament made of a single cord is tied in the shape of a pāmaṅga. Ekampi ca na vaṭṭatī means it is entirely not allowed.
ID163
Bahū rajjuke ekato katvāti yojanā. Vaṭṭati bandhitunti murajaṃ kalābukañca na hoti, rajjukakāyabandhanameva hotīti adhippāyo. Ayaṃ pana vinicchayo “bahurajjuke ekato katvā ekena nirantaraṃ veṭhetvā kataṃ bahurajjukanti na vattabbaṃ, taṃ vaṭṭatī”ti aṭṭhakathāgato idha vutto. Sikkhābhājanavinicchaye “bahurajjuyo ekato katvā ekāya veṭhitaṃ murajaṃ nāmā”ti yaṃ vuttaṃ, taṃ iminā virujjhanato na gahetabbaṃ.
Multiple cords joined together—this is the construction. Vaṭṭati bandhituṃ means it is permissible to bind; it does not become a drum or gourd but remains a corded body tie—this is the intent. This decision is stated here from the commentary: “Multiple cords joined together and wrapped continuously with one should not be called a multi-cord; that is permissible.” In the Sikkhābhājanavinicchaya, it is said, “Multiple cords joined together and wrapped with one is called a drum,” but since this contradicts this, it should not be accepted.
The connection is “Having made many strings into one.” Vaṭṭati bandhitunti The meaning is that it is not a muraja or a kalābuka, but only a string waist-band. This particular decision, found in the commentary, states that “it should not be said that many strings made into one and continuously plaited with one is called ‘many-stringed’, that is allowable.” What is stated in the Sikkhābhājanavinicchaya, that “many strings made into one and plaited with one is called a muraja,” contradicts this, therefore it should not be taken.
Bahū rajjuke ekato katvā is the connection. Vaṭṭati bandhituṃ means the muraja and kalābukaṃ are not allowed; only a body ornament made of cords is allowed. This is the meaning. However, this decision is stated in the commentary: “When many cords are bound together and wrapped continuously with one, it should not be called a multi-corded ornament; it is allowed.” In the Sikkhābhājanavinicchaya, it is said, “A muraja is made by binding many cords together and wrapping them with one cord.” This should not be taken as contradicting the above.
ID164
Danta-saddena hatthidantā vuttā. Jatūti lākhā. Saṅkhamayanti saṅkhanābhimayaṃ. Vidhakā matāti ettha vedhikātipi pāṭho, vidhapariyāyo. Kāyabandhanavidheti kāyabandhanassa dasāya thirabhāvatthaṃ kaṭṭhadantādīhi kate vidhe. Vikāro aṭṭhamaṅgalādiko. Tattha tatthāti tasmiṃ tasmiṃ ṭhāne. Tu-saddena ghaṭākāropi vaṭṭatīti dīpetīti attho pakāsito, tasmā tena nayena kāyabandhanavicāro kātabboti.
The word danta refers to elephant tusks. Jatu means lac. Saṅkhamaya means made from a conch navel. Vidhakā matā means reinforcements are considered; there is also the reading vedhikā, a synonym for reinforcement. Kāyabandhanavidhe means in the reinforcement of a body tie’s edge, made with wood, tooth, or similar materials for durability. Vikāro means deformities like the eight auspicious symbols. Tattha tatthā means at this or that place. The word tu indicates that a pot shape is also permissible, illuminating the meaning, and thus the consideration of a body tie should be done in that manner.
The word Danta refers to elephant tusks. Jatūti means lac. Saṅkhamayanti means made of conch shell. Vidhaka matāti here, Vedhikā is also a reading, it’s a synonym of vidha. Kāyabandhanavidheti means supports made of wood, ivory, etc., for the stability of the ten of the waist-band. Vikāro means ornamentation like the eight auspicious symbols and so on. Tattha tatthāti means in each respective place. The word Tu, by meaning, is used to indicate that even the shape of a pot is also allowed, it is explained that in that respect, an examination of the waist-band should be conducted.
Danta refers to elephant tusks. Jatū means lac. Saṅkhamayaṃ means made from conch shells. Vidhakā matā here has the variant reading vedhikā, meaning a partition. Kāyabandhanavidhe refers to the method of making body ornaments firm using wood, tusks, etc. Vikāro refers to decorations like the eight auspicious symbols. Tattha tatthā means in various places. The particle tu indicates that even the making of pots is allowed. This is the meaning explained. Therefore, body ornaments should be considered in this way.
ID165
11. Añjaniyaṃ “ujukamevā”ti vuttattā caturassādisaṇṭhānāpi vaṅkagatikā na vaṭṭati. Sipāṭikāyāti vāsiādibhaṇḍapakkhipane. Vinayavinicchayappakaraṇe pana –
11. In an añjaniyaṃ, since it is said “straight only,” even a rectangular or curved shape na vaṭṭati is not permissible. Sipāṭikāyā means for holding razors or other items. However, in the Vinayavinicchayappakaraṇa—
11. Because it is stated Añjaniyaṃ is “straight only”, a curved movement, even one of square shape, is not allowed. Sipāṭikāyāti means for putting in items like a razor. However, in the Vinayavinicchayappakaraṇa –
11. Añjaniyaṃ means “straight,” so even if it is quadrangular or has a curved path, it is not allowed. Sipāṭikāyā refers to placing tools like a chisel inside. In the Vinayavinicchayappakaraṇa, it is said:
ID166
“Mālākammalatākamma-nānārūpavicittitā; Na ca vaṭṭati bhikkhūnaṃ, añjanī janarañjanī.
“Floral patterns, vine patterns, and various ornate figures; Are not permissible for monks in an añjanī that delights the masses.
“Adorned with garland work, creeper work, or various forms; An añjanī (collyrium container), an object of delight for the people, is not allowed for monks.
“Ornaments made of garlands, creepers, or various designs are not allowed for monks, nor is the añjanī that delights people.
ID167
“Tādisaṃ pana ghaṃsitvā, veṭhetvā suttakena vā; Vaḷañjantassa bhikkhussa, na doso koci vijjati.
“But rubbing it or wrapping it with thread; For a monk anointing himself, there is no fault.
“But if a monk rubs such a thing or wraps it with thread; There is no fault for a monk using it.
“However, if such an añjanī is polished or wrapped with thread and worn by a monk, there is no fault.
ID168
“Vaṭṭā vā caturassā vā, aṭṭhaṃsā vāpi añjanī; Vaṭṭatevāti niddiṭṭhā, vaṇṇamaṭṭhā na vaṭṭati.
“Round, rectangular, or eight-sided; An añjanī is indeed permissible, but ornate coloring is not.
“Round or square, or eight-sided; An añjanī is declared to be allowable, but a decorated one is not allowed.
“Whether round, quadrangular, or octagonal, the añjanī is allowed, but not if it is decorated.
ID169
“Tathāñjanisalākāpi, añjanithavikāya ca; Nānāvaṇṇehi suttehi, cittakammaṃ na vaṭṭati.
“Likewise, an añjanī rod or its pouch; With various colored threads, ornate work is not permissible.
“Likewise, with an añjanī stick, and with an añjanī pouch; Ornamental work with threads of various colors is not allowed.
“Similarly, an añjanī stick or an añjanī pouch with threads of various colors is not allowed for decorative work.
ID170
“Ekavaṇṇena suttena, sipāṭiṃ yena kenaci; Yaṃ kiñci pana sibbetvā, vaḷañjantassa vaṭṭatī”ti. –
“With a single-colored thread, any pouch; Sewn in any way by anyone, for anointing, is permissible.”
“With thread of a single color, on any kind of pouch; Whatever is sewn and used is allowed.” –
“But if a sipāṭi is sewn with a single-colored thread and worn, it is allowed.”
ID171
Āgataṃ.
It is stated.
It is stated.
This is the passage.
ID172
Taṭṭīkāyampi mālā…pe… cittitāti mālākammalatākammehi ca migapakkhirūpādinānārūpehi ca vicittitā. Janarañjanīti bālajanapalobhinī. Aṭṭhaṃsā vāpīti ettha api-saddena soḷasaṃsādīnaṃ gahaṇaṃ. Vaṇṇamaṭṭhāti mālākammādivaṇṇamaṭṭhā. Añjanīsalākāpi tathā vaṇṇamaṭṭhā na vaṭṭatīti yojanā. Añjanīthavikāya ca nānāvaṇṇehi suttehi cittakammaṃ na vaṭṭatīti pāṭho yujjati, “thavikāpi vā”ti pāṭho dissati, so na gahetabbo. “Pītādinā yena kenaci ekavaṇṇena suttena pilotikādimayaṃ kiñcipi sipāṭikaṃ sibbetvā vaḷañjantassa vaṭṭatīti yojanā”ti āgataṃ.
In its commentary too, mālā…pe…cittitā means adorned with floral patterns, vine patterns, and various figures like animals or birds. Janarañjanī means delighting the foolish masses. Aṭṭhaṃsā vāpī means with the word api including sixteen-sided shapes and so forth. Vaṇṇamaṭṭhā means colored with floral patterns or similar. An añjanī rod too, colored in that way, is not permissible—this is the construction. Also, in its pouch, ornate work with various colored threads is not permissible—this reading fits; the reading “thavikāpi vā” is seen but should not be accepted. It is stated, “With any single-colored thread, such as yellow, sewing any pouch made of rags or similar material for anointing is permissible—this is the construction.”
Also in the sub-commentary, mālā…pe… cittitāti means decorated with garland work, creeper work, and with various forms such as deer, birds, etc. Janarañjanīti means enticing to foolish people. Aṭṭhaṃsā vāpīti here, the word api includes sixteen-sided and others. Vaṇṇamaṭṭhāti means decorated with garland work, etc. Likewise, even decoration of a añjanī stick is not allowable. With an añjanī pouch, ornamental work with threads of various colors is not allowable, this reading is fitting. A reading “thavikāpi vā”, is seen, It should not be taken. The explanation says, “With single-colored thread of yellow or any other color, sewing and using a pouch made of cloth or other material is allowed.” It is stated.
In the commentary, mālā…pe… cittitā refers to being decorated with garlands, creepers, or various designs like animals and birds. Janarañjanī means that which delights foolish people. Aṭṭhaṃsā vāpi here includes sixteen corners, etc. Vaṇṇamaṭṭhā means decorated with garlands, etc. The añjanī stick is also not allowed if decorated. The reading “añjanīthavikāya ca nānāvaṇṇehi suttehi cittakammaṃ na vaṭṭatī” is appropriate, while the variant “thavikāpi vā” should not be taken. It is explained that “a sipāṭi made of cloth, etc., sewn with a single-colored thread like yellow, etc., and worn is allowed.”
ID173
12. Ārakaṇṭakādīsu ārakaṇṭaketi potthakādiabhisaṅkharaṇatthaṃ kate dīghamukhasatthake. Bhamakārānaṃ dāruādilikhanasatthakanti keci. Vaṭṭamaṇikanti vaṭṭaṃ katvā uṭṭhāpetabbabubbuḷakaṃ. Aññanti iminā piḷakādiṃ saṅgaṇhāti. Pipphaliketi yaṃ kiñci chedanake khuddakasatthe. Maṇikanti ekavaṭṭamaṇi. Piḷakanti sāsapamattikāmuttarājisadisā bahuvaṭṭalekhā. Imasmiṃ adhikāre avuttattā lekhaniyaṃ yaṃ kiñci vaṇṇamaṭṭhaṃ vaṭṭatīti vadanti. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ pana “kuñcikāya senāsanaparikkhārattā suvaṇṇarūpiyamayāpi vaṭṭatīti chāyā dissati. ’Kuñcikāya vaṇṇamaṭṭhakammaṃ na vaṭṭatī’ti (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.85) vacanato aññe kappiyalohādimayāva kuñcikā kappanti pariharaṇīyaparikkhārattā”ti vuttaṃ. Ārakaṇṭako potthakādikaraṇasatthakajāti, āmaṇḍasārako āmalakaphalamayoti vadanti.
12. Among ārakaṇṭakā and so forth, ārakaṇṭake means a long-mouthed knife made for preparing books or similar tasks. Some say it is a wooden or similar carving knife used by wheelwrights. Vaṭṭamaṇika means a round bubble to be raised. Añña includes piḷaka and so forth with this. Pipphalike means any small cutting knife. Maṇika means a single round gem-like shape. Piḷaka means multiple bubble-like lines resembling mustard seeds or pearl rows. Since it is not mentioned in this section, it is said that any ornate coloring on a stylus is permissible. However, in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā, it is said, “Due to its use as a lodging accessory, even one made of gold or silver is permissible, as its shadow suggests. But since it is said, ‘Ornate work on a key is not permissible’ (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.85), only keys made of permissible metals are suitable as accessories to be carried.” Ārakaṇṭako means a type of knife for making books or similar items; āmaṇḍasārako means made from gooseberry fruit, they say.
12. Among Ārakaṇṭakādīsu, Ārakaṇṭaketi refers to long-mouthed knives made for preparing books, etc. Some say it is a knife for woodworkers to carve wood and other materials. Vaṭṭamaṇikanti refers to a raised bubble made round. Aññanti With this, it includes piḷaka (pimple-like protuberances), etc. Pipphaliketi refers to any small knife for cutting. Maṇikanti means single-rounded jewel. Piḷakanti refers to many rounded lines resembling a row of mustard seeds, etc. Because it is not mentioned in this section, they say that any decorated writing implement is allowed. However, in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā, it is said, “Because the key is a monastery requisite, even one made of gold or silver seems allowed. Because of the statement ‘ornamental work on a key is not allowed’ (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.85), other keys made of permissible metals, etc. are allowable as requisites that can be carried around.” Ārakaṇṭako is a type of knife for making books, etc., āmaṇḍasārako some say it is made of āmalaka fruit.
12. Ārakaṇṭakā refers to a long-bladed knife used for preparing books, etc. Some say it is a tool used by carpenters for carving wood. Vaṭṭamaṇikaṃ refers to a round bead that can be raised. Aññaṃ includes things like piḷaka. Pipphalikaṃ refers to any small cutting tool. Maṇikaṃ means a single round bead. Piḷakaṃ refers to something with many circular lines, like a mustard seed or a pearl. Since this is not mentioned in the text, some say any decorated writing tool is allowed. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā, it is said, “A key made of gold or silver is allowed for inspecting lodgings, but other keys should be made of allowable metals due to the need for inspection.” Ārakaṇṭakaṃ is a type of knife used for preparing books, etc., and āmaṇḍasārakaṃ is made of emblic myrobalan fruit.
ID174
Valitakanti nakhacchedanakāle daḷhaggahaṇatthaṃ valiyuttameva karonti. Tasmā taṃ vaṭṭatīti iminā aññampi vikāraṃ daḷhīkammādiatthāya karonti, na vaṇṇamaṭṭhatthāya, taṃ vaṭṭatīti dīpitaṃ, tena ca kattaradaṇḍakoṭiyaṃ aññamaññaṃ saṅghaṭṭanena saddaniccharaṇatthāya katavalayādikaṃ avuttampi yato upapannaṃ hoti. Ettha ca daḷhīkammādīti ādi-saddena parissayavinodanādiṃ saṅgaṇhāti, tena kattarayaṭṭhikoṭiyaṃ katavalayānaṃ aññamaññasaṅghaṭṭanena saddaniccharaṇaṃ dīghajātikādiparissayavinodanatthaṃ hoti, tasmā vaṭṭatīti dīpeti. Tenāha ācariyavaro –
Valitaka means at the time of nail-cutting, they make it with a fold for a firm grip. Tasmā taṃ vaṭṭati means therefore it is permissible; with this, it is indicated that other deformities made for reinforcement or similar purposes, not for ornate coloring, are permissible. Thus, even a ring or similar item made at the end of a scissor handle for producing sound by mutual striking, though unmentioned, is reasonable here. Here, daḷhīkammādi means with the word ādi including the warding off of dangers and so forth; thus, rings made at the end of a scissor stick produce sound by mutual striking to ward off dangers from long-lived beings and so forth, and therefore it is permissible, it indicates. Thus the eminent teacher said—
Valitakanti At the time of nail-cutting, they make it with a fold for a firm grip. Tasmā taṃ vaṭṭatīti With this, it is indicated that other modifications are made for the purpose of strengthening, etc., not for decoration, that is allowed. And with that, rings made for the clashing sound by rubbing together at the ends of the scissor handles, though not mentioned, are appropriate. And here, with daḷhīkammādīti, the word ādi includes warding off weariness, etc. So, rings made on the ends of the scissor handles, the sound of their clashing with each other, is for the purpose of warding off weariness from long lineages etc., therefore it is allowed. Therefore, the great teacher said –
Valitakaṃ refers to something made with grooves for firm grip during nail cutting. Tasmā taṃ vaṭṭatī means that other modifications for strengthening, etc., are allowed, but not for decoration. This is explained. Therefore, even if not mentioned, things like rings made by striking the ends of a staff together to produce sound are allowed. Here, daḷhīkammādī includes removing dangers, etc. The striking of rings on the ends of a staff to produce sound is for removing dangers like long nails, etc., and is therefore allowed. The noble teacher says:
ID175
“Maṇikaṃ piḷakaṃ vāpi, pipphale ārakaṇṭake; Ṭhapetuṃ pana yaṃ kiñci, na ca vaṭṭati bhikkhuno.
“A gem-like shape or bubble shape, in a pipphalika or ārakaṇṭaka; To place any such thing is not permissible for a monk.
“A maṇika, a piḷaka, or a pipphala, on an ārakaṇṭaka; Whatever is placed, is not allowed for a monk.
“A bead or piḷaka, or a pipphalika or ārakaṇṭaka, should not be used by a monk.
ID176
“Daṇḍakepi pariccheda-lekhāmattaṃ tu vaṭṭati; Valitvā ca nakhacchedaṃ, karontīti hi vaṭṭatī”ti.
“But on its handle, only a boundary line is permissible; And since they cut nails with a fold, this is permissible.”
“But on the handle, only a marking line for division is allowed; And since they do nail-cutting by folding, that is allowed.”
“However, marking or writing on a staff is allowed, and using a grooved tool for nail cutting is also allowed.”
ID177
Tassa vaṇṇanāyampi maṇikanti thūlabubbuḷaṃ. Pīḷakanti sukhumabubbuḷaṃ. Pipphaleti vatthacchedanasatthe. Ārakaṇṭaketi pattadhāravalayānaṃ vijjhanakaṇṭake. Ṭhapetunti uṭṭhāpetuṃ. Yaṃ kiñcīti sesavaṇṇamaṭṭhampi ca. Daṇḍaketi pipphalidaṇḍake. Yathāha “pipphalikepi maṇikaṃ vā piḷakaṃ vā yaṃ kiñci ṭhapetuṃ na vaṭṭati, daṇḍake pana paricchedalekhā vaṭṭatī”ti. Paricchedalekhāmattanti āṇibandhanaṭṭhānaṃ patvā paricchindanatthaṃ ekāva lekhā vaṭṭatīti. Valitvāti ubhayakoṭimukhaṃ katvā majjhe valiyo gāhetvā nakhacchedaṃ yasmā karonti, tasmā vaṭṭatīti yojanāti āgatā.
In its explanation too, maṇika means a large bubble. Piḷaka means a subtle bubble. Pipphale means a cloth-cutting knife. Ārakaṇṭake means a thorn for piercing leaf edges. Ṭhapetuṃ means to raise. Yaṃ kiñci means any remaining ornate coloring too. Daṇḍake means on the handle of a pipphalika. As it is said, “In a pipphalika, raising a gem-like shape or bubble shape or anything else is not permissible, but on its handle a boundary line is permissible.” Paricchedalekhāmatta means only a single line is permissible to mark the boundary where it reaches the binding point. Valitvā means since they cut nails by making both ends mouth-like and gripping with folds in the middle, it is permissible—this is the construction, it is stated.
In the explanation of that, maṇikanti means a large bubble. Pīḷakanti means a small bubble. Pipphaleti refers to a cloth-cutting knife. Ārakaṇṭaketi refers to the pointed edge that pierces the circle of leaf edges. Ṭhapetunti means to raise up. Yaṃ kiñcīti means also any other decoration. Daṇḍaketi means on the handle of the pipphali. As it is said, “Even on a pipphali, placing a maṇika or a piḷaka, or anything at all is not allowed, but on the handle, a marking line for division is allowed.” Paricchedalekhāmattanti means only one line is allowed for the purpose of marking the place where the pin is attached. Valitvāti means having made both end faces, and making folds in the middle, they do nail-cutting, therefore it is allowable, so it is stated.
In its explanation, maṇikaṃ means a large bead. Piḷakaṃ means a small bead. Pipphalikaṃ refers to a cloth-cutting tool. Ārakaṇṭakaṃ refers to the thorn used for piercing bowl stands. Ṭhapetuṃ means to raise. Yaṃ kiñci includes other decorations. Daṇḍakaṃ refers to a pipphalika staff. As it is said, “On a pipphalika, a bead or piḷaka or anything should not be placed, but marking or writing on a staff is allowed.” Paricchedalekhāmattaṃ means a single line for marking the place for binding. Valitvā means making grooves at both ends and holding the middle for nail cutting, and is therefore allowed.
ID178
Uttarāraṇiyaṃ maṇḍalanti uttarāraṇiyā pavesanatthaṃ āvāṭamaṇḍalaṃ hoti. Dantakaṭṭhacchedanavāsiyaṃ ujukameva bandhitunti sambandho. Ettha ca ujukamevāti iminā vaṅkaṃ katvā bandhituṃ na vaṭṭatīti dasseti, teneva añjaniyampi tathā dassitaṃ. Ubhosu passesu ekapasse vāti vacanaseso, vāsidaṇḍassa ubhosu passesu daṇḍakoṭīnaṃ acalanatthaṃ bandhitunti attho. Kappiyalohena caturassaṃ vā aṭṭhaṃsaṃ vā kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti yojanā.
Uttarāraṇiyaṃ maṇḍala means a circular indentation on the upper fire-stick for insertion. It connects with “A tooth-stick-cutting knife is bound straight only.” Here, ujukameva indicates that binding it crookedly is not permissible, showing the same for an añjanī. Ubhosu passesu implies “on both sides or one side,” as the remaining phrase; it means it is bound on both ends of the knife handle for stability. It is permissible to make it rectangular or eight-sided with permissible metal—this is the construction.
Uttarāraṇiyaṃ maṇḍalanti is the circle of the pit for inserting the upper fire-stick. The connection is that on the knife for cutting tooth-sticks, it is tied straight only. Here, ujukamevāti indicates that it is not allowed to be tied curved, therefore, the same is indicated for the añjanī. Ubhosu passesu The remaining part of the sentence is: on one side or the other, that is, the meaning is that it is tied on both sides of the handle of the knife for the ends of the handle not to move. The connection is that it is allowed to be made square or eight-sided with permissible metal.
Uttarāraṇiyaṃ maṇḍalaṃ refers to a circular pit for entering the upper fire chamber. The connection is that the toothpick knife should be bound straight. Here, ujukameva indicates that it should not be bound crookedly, and thus the añjaniya is also shown in the same way. Ubhosu passesu means on both sides or one side, referring to binding the ends of the knife handle to prevent movement. It is allowed to make it quadrangular or octagonal with allowable iron.
ID179
13. Āmaṇḍasāraketi āmalakaphalāni pisitvā tena kakkena katatelabhājane. Tattha kira pakkhittaṃ telaṃ sītaṃ hoti. Tathā hi vuttaṃ ācariyena –
13. Āmaṇḍasārake means a vessel for oil made with the pulp of crushed gooseberries. It is said that oil placed there becomes cool. Thus it is stated by the teacher—
13. Āmaṇḍasāraketi means in oil vessels made with pulp of pressed āmalaka fruits. It is said that oil placed in it becomes cool. Thus, it has been stated by the teacher –
13. Āmaṇḍasārakaṃ refers to a vessel made by crushing emblic myrobalan fruits and mixing them with oil. It is said that the oil placed in it becomes cool. As the teacher said:
ID180
“Uttarāraṇiyaṃ vāpi, dhanuke pelladaṇḍake; Mālākammādi yaṃ kiñci, vaṇṇamaṭṭhaṃ na vaṭṭati.
“On an upper fire-stick, a bow, or a pressing stick; Any floral pattern or similar ornate coloring is not permissible.
“On the upper fire-stick, or on the bow, or on the pelladaṇḍaka; Any garland work, etc., decoration is not allowed.
“In the upper fire chamber or on a bow or pestle, any decoration is not allowed.
ID181
“Saṇḍāse dantakaṭṭhānaṃ, tathā chedanavāsiyā; Dvīsu passesu lohena, bandhituṃ pana vaṭṭati.
“With tongs for tooth-sticks or a cutting knife; On both sides with metal, binding is permissible.
“On tongs, on tooth-sticks, and also on a knife for cutting them; It is allowed to be bound with metal on two sides.
“However, on a fire pit or a toothpick knife, it is allowed to bind with iron on both sides.
ID182
“Tathā kattaradaṇḍepi, cittakammaṃ na vaṭṭati; Vaṭṭalekhāva vaṭṭanti, ekā vā dvepi heṭṭhato.
“Likewise on a scissor handle, ornate work is not permissible; Only circular lines are permissible, one or two below.
“Likewise, on a scissor handle, decorative work is not allowed; But rounded lines are allowed, one or even two, below.
“Similarly, on a staff, decorative work is not allowed, but circular lines are allowed, one or two below.
ID183
“Visāṇe nāḷiyaṃ vāpi, tathevāmaṇḍasārake; Telabhājanake sabbaṃ, vaṇṇamaṭṭhaṃ tu vaṭṭatī”ti.
“On a horn or tube, or likewise an āmaṇḍasāraka; In all oil vessels, ornate coloring is permissible.”
“On a horn, or on a tube, and likewise on an āmaṇḍasāraka; On any oil vessel, all decoration is allowed.”
“On horns, tubes, or the āmaṇḍasāraka, and in oil vessels, all decorations are allowed.”
ID184
Ṭīkāyampi araṇisahite bhantakiccakaro daṇḍo uttarāraṇī nāma. Vāpīti pi-saddena adharāraṇiṃ saṅgaṇhāti. Udukkhaladaṇḍassetaṃ adhivacanaṃ. Añchanakayantadhanu dhanukaṃ nāma. Musalamatthakapīḷanadaṇḍako pelladaṇḍako nāma. Saṇḍāseti aggisaṇḍāse. Dantakaṭṭhānaṃ chedanavāsiyā tathā yaṃ kiñci vaṇṇamaṭṭhaṃ na vaṭṭatīti sambandho. Dvīsu passesūti vāsiyā ubhosu passesu. Lohenāti kappiyalohena. Bandhituṃ vaṭṭatīti ujukameva vā caturassaṃ vā aṭṭhaṃsaṃ vā bandhituṃ vaṭṭati. Saṇḍāseti aggisaṇḍāseti nissandehe vuttaṃ. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ panettha sūcisaṇḍāso dassito . Heṭṭhāti heṭṭhā ayopaṭṭavalaye. “Upari ahicchattakamakuḷamatta”nti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ. Visāṇeti telāsiñcanakagavayamahiṃsādisiṅge. Nāḷiyaṃ vāpīti veḷunāḷikādināḷiyaṃ. Api-saddena alābuṃ saṅgaṇhāti. Āmaṇḍasāraketi āmalakacuṇṇamayatelaghaṭe . Telabhājanaketi vuttappakāreyeva telabhājane. Sabbaṃ vaṇṇamaṭṭhaṃ vaṭṭatīti pumitthirūparahitaṃ mālākammādi sabbaṃ vaṇṇamaṭṭhaṃ vaṭṭatīti āgataṃ.
In its commentary too, the stick used with a fire-stick for spinning is called uttarāraṇī. Vāpī means with the word pi including the lower fire-stick. This is another term for a mortar pestle. A bow for a spinning machine is called dhanukaṃ. A pressing stick at the head of a pestle is called pelladaṇḍako. Saṇḍāse means fire tongs. For tooth-stick cutting knives, any ornate coloring is not permissible—this is the connection. Dvīsu passesu means on both sides of the knife. Lohenā means with permissible metal. Bandhituṃ vaṭṭati means binding straight, rectangular, or eight-sided is permissible. Saṇḍāse means fire tongs, stated to remove doubt. However, in the commentary, a needle tongs is shown here. Heṭṭhā means below, on an iron plate ring. It is said in the commentary, “Above, a snake-hood bud size.” Visāṇe means a horn of a cow or buffalo for pouring oil. Nāḷiyaṃ vāpī means in a tube of bamboo or similar material. The word api includes a gourd. Āmaṇḍasārake means an oil pot made of gooseberry powder. Telabhājanake means in oil vessels of the types mentioned. Sabbaṃ vaṇṇamaṭṭhaṃ vaṭṭati means all ornate coloring, free of male or female figures, such as floral patterns, is permissible, it is stated.
Also, in the sub-commentary, the stick that performs rotating action with fire-sticks is called uttarāraṇī. Vāpīti The word pi includes the lower fire-stick. This is a term for the pestle of a mortar. A bow of a string-pulling machine is called Dhanukaṃ. The stick for crushing the head of a pestle is called Pelladaṇḍako. Saṇḍāseti refers to fire tongs. The connection is that on tongs, tooth-sticks, and likewise on a knife for cutting them, any kind of decoration is not allowed. Dvīsu passesūti means on both sides of the knife. Lohenāti means with permissible metal. Bandhituṃ vaṭṭatīti means it is allowed to be bound straight, or square, or eight-sided. Saṇḍāseti it is stated without doubt, fire tongs. However, here in the commentary, needle-tongs are shown. Heṭṭhāti means below, on the iron band. “Above, the size of a cobra’s hood,” is stated in the commentary. Visāṇeti means on a cow’s or buffalo’s, etc., horn for pouring oil. Nāḷiyaṃ vāpīti means on a tube of bamboo, etc. Api-saddena includes a gourd. Āmaṇḍasāraketi means oil pots made of āmalaka powder. Telabhājanaketi means the oil vessel is the same as mentioned before. Sabbaṃ vaṇṇamaṭṭhaṃ vaṭṭatīti means all decoration, such as garland-work, etc., that is not in the form of male and female figures is allowable, so it is stated.
In the commentary, the staff used for turning the fire drill is called uttarāraṇī. Vāpī includes the lower fire drill with the particle pi. This is also called the mortar staff. The bow used for the añchanaka machine is called dhanukaṃ. The staff used for pressing the pestle head is called pelladaṇḍakaṃ. Saṇḍāse refers to the fire pit. The connection is that any decoration on a toothpick knife is not allowed. Dvīsu passesu means on both sides of the knife. Lohena means with allowable iron. Bandhituṃ vaṭṭatī means it is allowed to bind straight, quadrangular, or octagonal. Saṇḍāse clearly refers to the fire pit. In the commentary, a needle pit is shown here. Heṭṭhā means below the iron plate. “Above, the size of a cobra’s hood” is said in the commentary. Visāṇe refers to the horn used for pouring oil, like that of a cow or buffalo. Nāḷiyaṃ vāpi includes bamboo tubes, etc. The particle api includes the bottle gourd. Āmaṇḍasārakaṃ refers to a vessel made of emblic myrobalan powder mixed with oil. Telabhājanakaṃ refers to the oil vessel as described. Sabbaṃ vaṇṇamaṭṭhaṃ vaṭṭatī means all decorations except male and female forms are allowed.
ID185
Bhūmattharaṇeti kaṭasārādimaye parikammakatāya bhūmiyā attharitabbaattharaṇe. Pānīyaghaṭeti iminā sabbabhājane saṅgaṇhāti. Sabbaṃ…pe… vaṭṭatīti yathāvuttesu mañcādīsu itthipurisarūpampi vaṭṭati. Telabhājanesuyeva itthipurisarūpānaṃ paṭikkhipitattā telabhājanena saha agaṇetvā visuṃ mañcādīnaṃ gahitattā cāti vadanti. Kiñcāpi vadanti, etesaṃ pana mañcādīnaṃ hatthena āmasitabbabhaṇḍattā itthirūpamettha na vaṭṭatīti gahetabbaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 85) pana “tālavaṇṭabījaniādīsu vaṇṇamaṭṭhakammaṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ. Kiñcāpi tāni kuñcikā viya pariharaṇīyāni, atha kho uccāvacāni na dhāretabbānīti paṭikkhepābhāvato vuttaṃ. Kevalañhi tāni “anujānāmi bhikkhave vidhūpanañca tālavaṇṭañcā”tiādinā vuttāni. Gaṇṭhipade pana “telabhājanesu vaṇṇamaṭṭhakammaṃ vaṭṭati, senāsanaparikkhārattā vutta”nti vuttaṃ. Ācariyabuddhadattattherenapi vuttameva –
Bhūmattharaṇe means a covering to be spread on the ground made of mats or similar materials, prepared accordingly. Pānīyaghaṭe means with this including all vessels. Sabbaṃ…pe…vaṭṭati means in the aforementioned items like beds, even male and female figures are permissible. Since male and female figures are prohibited only in oil vessels, and since beds and so forth are considered separately from oil vessels, they say this. Though they say this, since these beds and so forth are items to be touched by hand, female figures here should not be permissible, it should be understood. However, in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 85), it is said, “Ornate work on fan handles and seeds is permissible.” Though these are accessories to be carried like keys, since there is no prohibition against high or low items, it is said due to statements like “I allow, monks, a smoker and a fan handle.” However, in the knot section, it is said, “Ornate work is permissible in oil vessels because they are lodging accessories.” The venerable teacher Buddhadatta also said—
Bhūmattharaṇeti means a floor covering to be spread on the ground, made of kaṭasāra, etc., with ornamentation. Pānīyaghaṭeti With this, it includes all vessels. Sabbaṃ…pe… vaṭṭatīti means on the aforementioned bed, etc., even images of men and women are allowed. Because images of men and women are prohibited only in oil vessels, and because beds, etc., are included separately without being counted together with oil vessels, it is said thus. And even though they say it, because these beds, etc., are articles to be touched by hand, images of women are not allowed here, it should be understood. However, in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 85), it is stated, “Ornamental work is allowed on fans made of palm leaves, whisks, etc.” Although they are portable like a key, they are mentioned because there is no prohibition against carrying high and low ones. Indeed, they are mentioned by saying, “I allow, monks, a vidhūpana (fan) and a tālavaṇṭa (palm-leaf fan),” and so on. In the Gaṇṭhipada, it is stated, “Ornamental work is allowed on oil vessels, it is stated because they are monastery requisites.” It has also been stated by the teacher Buddhadatta Thera –
Bhūmattharaṇaṃ refers to a spread made of kaṭasāra, etc., prepared for spreading on the ground. Pānīyaghaṭaṃ includes all vessels. Sabbaṃ…pe… vaṭṭatī means that in the cases mentioned, even male and female forms are allowed on beds, etc. Since male and female forms are prohibited in oil vessels, they are not included with oil vessels but are separately mentioned for beds, etc. Some say this, but since beds, etc., are items to be touched by hand, male and female forms are not allowed here. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Pārājika 85), it is said, “Decorations are allowed on palm leaves, seed containers, etc.” Although these are like keys and should be avoided, they are not prohibited because they are of various grades. Indeed, they are allowed as said, “I allow, monks, the fan and palm leaf, etc.” In the Gaṇṭhipada, it is said, “Decorations are allowed in oil vessels, as stated for inspecting lodgings.” The venerable teacher Buddhādatta also said:
ID186
“Pānīyassa uḷuṅkepi, doṇiyaṃ rajanassapi; Ghaṭe phalakapīṭhepi, valayādhārakādike.
“In a water pot’s ladle, a dyeing vessel too; In a pot, a wooden seat, or a ring stand and such.
“On a water ladle, on a trough for dye; On a pot, on a plank seat, on stands for rings, and so on.
“In the water pot, ladle, or bowl, in the dye pot, in the ghaṭa, plank, or seat, in the ring stand, etc.,
ID187
“Tathā pattapidhāne ca, tālavaṇṭe ca bījane; Pādapuñchaniyaṃ vāpi, sammuñjaniyameva ca.
“Likewise in a bowl lid, a fan handle, and seed fan; In a foot-wiper or even a broom.
“Likewise on a lid for a bowl, and on a palm-leaf fan, and a whisk; Or on a foot-wiper, and also on a broom.
“In the lid, palm leaf, or seed container, in the foot wiper or broom,
ID188
“Mañce bhūmatthare pīṭhe, bhisibimbohanesu ca; Mālākammādikaṃ cittaṃ, sabbameva ca vaṭṭatī”ti.
“On a bed, a floor cover, a seat, or a mat or pillow; All floral patterns and ornate work are permissible.”
“On a bed, on a floor covering, on a seat, on cushions and bolsters; Decorative work like garland work, etc., is all allowed.”
“On the bed, ground spread, seat, mattress, or pillow, all decorations are allowed.”
ID189
14. Evaṃ samaṇaparikkhāresu kappiyākappiyaṃ kathetvā idāni senāsane kathetuṃ “senāsane panā”tyādimāha. Ettha pana-saddo visesajotako. Tena sabbaratanamayampi vaṇṇamaṭṭhakammaṃ vaṭṭati, kimaṅgaṃ pana aññavaṇṇamaṭṭhakammanti atthaṃ joteti. Yadi evaṃ kismiñci paṭisedhetabbe santepi tathā vattabbaṃ siyāti āha “senāsane kiñci paṭisedhetabbaṃ natthī”ti. Vuttampi cetaṃ ācariyabuddhadattattherena –
14. Having thus explained what is allowable and unallowable regarding the requisites of a monk, now to discuss the topic of lodgings, it is said: “senāsane pana” and so forth. Here, the word pana indicates a distinction. By this, it suggests that even ornamentation made entirely of precious gems is permissible, so how much more so ornamentation of other colors? If this is so, even when there is something to be prohibited, it might still be stated as such, and thus it is said: “senāsane kiñci paṭisedhetabbaṃ natthī”—“In lodgings, there is nothing to be prohibited.” This is also stated by the Elder Ācariya Buddhadatta:
14. Having thus explained what is allowable and unallowable regarding a monk’s requisites, he now begins to explain about lodgings with the words “senāsane panā” etc. Here, the word pana indicates a specific distinction. By that, it highlights the meaning that even if it were made entirely of jewels, decorative and plastering work is allowed, so why mention other decorative and plastering work? If so, it should be stated as such, even if there is something to be prohibited; therefore he states “There is nothing to be prohibited in a dwelling.” And it was also said by the venerable teacher Buddhadatta Thera:
14. Having thus discussed what is allowable and unallowable in the requisites for monks, now it is said, “But as for the dwelling place” and so on. Here, the word “but” is used to indicate a distinction. Therefore, even a dwelling made entirely of precious stones is permissible, so how much more so a dwelling made of other materials? This is the meaning being highlighted. If even in such cases there is nothing to be prohibited, then it should be stated accordingly. Hence, it is said, “In the dwelling place, there is nothing to be prohibited.” This has also been stated by the Elder Ācariya Buddhaghosa—
ID190
“Nānāmaṇimayatthambha-kavāṭadvārabhittikaṃ ; Senāsanamanuññātaṃ, kā kathā vaṇṇamaṭṭhake.
“With pillars made of various gems, doors, windows, and walls; a lodging is permitted—how much more so with colored ornamentation?
“A dwelling with pillars, doors, gateways, and walls made of various jewels is permitted, so why mention decorative work and plastering?
“A dwelling place adorned with various gems, pillars, doors, and walls is permitted; what need is there to speak of a dwelling made of other materials?
ID191
“Sovaṇṇiyaṃ dvārakavāṭabaddhaṃ; Suvaṇṇanānāmaṇibhittibhūmiṃ; Na kiñci ekampi nisedhanīyaṃ; Senāsanaṃ vaṭṭati sabbamevā”ti.
“With golden doors and windows fastened; with walls and floors of gold and various gems; there is not even one thing to be forbidden; all lodgings are entirely permissible.”
“Even with doors and gates inlaid with gold, and floors and walls made of gold and various gems; Not even a single thing is to be prohibited; all of it is permissible for a dwelling.”
“A dwelling with doors fastened with gold, with walls and floors adorned with gold and various gems—nothing at all is to be prohibited; all such dwellings are permissible.”
ID192
Samantapāsādikāyampi paṭhamasaṅghādisesavaṇṇanāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.281) “senāsanaparibhogo pana sabbakappiyo, tasmā jātarūparajatamayā sabbepi senāsanaparikkhārā āmāsā. Bhikkhūnaṃ dhammavinayavaṇṇanaṭṭhāne ratanamaṇḍape karonti phalikatthambhe ratanadāmapaṭimaṇḍite. Tattha sabbupakaraṇāni bhikkhūnaṃ paṭijaggituṃ vaṭṭantī”ti āgataṃ. Tassā vaṇṇanāyaṃ pana vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.281) “sabbakappiyoti yathāvuttasuvaṇṇādimayānaṃ senāsanaparikkhārānaṃ āmasanagopanādivasena paribhogo sabbathā kappiyoti adhippāyo. Tenāha ’tasmā’tiādi. ’Bhikkhūnaṃ dhammavinayavaṇṇanaṭṭhāne’ti vuttattā saṅghikameva suvaṇṇamayaṃ senāsanaṃ senāsanaparikkhārā ca vaṭṭanti, na puggalikānīti veditabba”nti vaṇṇitaṃ.
In the Samantapāsādikā, in the commentary on the first Saṅghādisesa (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.281), it is stated: “The use of lodgings is entirely allowable; therefore, all requisites for lodgings made of gold and silver are permissible to touch. Monks construct pavilions adorned with gems at places for explaining the Dhamma and Vinaya, with crystal pillars decorated with garlands of jewels. There, all equipment may be maintained by the monks.” In its sub-commentary, the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.281), it is explained: “sabbakappiyo” means that the use of lodging requisites made of gold and so forth, as described, is entirely allowable through touching, guarding, and so on. Hence it says ‘therefore’ and so forth. Since it is said ‘at places for explaining the Dhamma and Vinaya to monks,’ it should be understood that lodgings and their requisites made of gold are permissible only for the Sangha, not for individuals.”
Also, in the Samantapāsādikā, in the explanation of the first Saṅghādisesa (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.281) it is said, “As for dwelling use, everything is allowable. Therefore, all dwelling requisites even made of gold and silver may be touched. In a place where the monks explain the Dhamma and Vinaya, they set up a pavilion of jewels, with crystal pillars adorned with strings of jewels. There, it is proper to maintain all the furnishings for the monks.” In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.281), however, which is a commentary on that, it is explained: “sabbakappiyo”- the meaning is that the use of dwelling requisites made of gold, etc., as previously stated, through touching, protecting, etc., is allowable in every way. Thus, it is stated as such. Because it is stated, ‘In a place where the monks explain the Dhamma and Vinaya’, it should be understood that dwellings and dwelling-requisites, made of gold belonging to the Sangha are allowed, not private one.”
In the Samantapāsādikā, in the commentary on the first Saṅghādisesa (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.281), it is stated: “The use of dwelling places is entirely allowable. Therefore, all dwelling requisites made of gold and silver are permissible. For the purpose of explaining the Dhamma and Vinaya to the monks, they construct pavilions adorned with precious stones, pillars decorated with jeweled garlands. There, all the necessary arrangements are made for the monks to reside.” In its commentary, the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.281) explains: “Entirely allowable” means that the use of dwelling requisites made of gold and other materials, for the purpose of touching, protecting, and so on, is entirely permissible. Therefore, it is said, “Hence,” etc. Since it is stated, “For the purpose of explaining the Dhamma and Vinaya to the monks,” it should be understood that the dwelling and its requisites made of gold are meant for the Sangha, not for individuals.
ID193
Senāsanakkhandhakavaṇṇanāyampi samantapāsādikāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 320) ’sabbaṃ pāsādaparibhoganti suvaṇṇarajatādivicitrāni kavāṭāni mañcapīṭhāni tālavaṇṭāni suvaṇṇarajatamayapānīyaghaṭapānīyasarāvāni yaṃ kiñci cittakammakataṃ, sabbaṃ vaṭṭati. Pāsādassa dāsidāsaṃ khettaṃ vatthuṃ gomahiṃsaṃ demāti vadanti, pāṭekkaṃ gahaṇakiccaṃ natthi, pāsāde paṭiggahite paṭiggahitameva hoti. Gonakādīni saṅghikavihāre vā puggalikavihāre vā mañcapīṭhesu attharitvā paribhuñjituṃ na vaṭṭanti, dhammāsane pana gihivikatanīhārena labbhanti, tatrāpi nipajjituṃ na vaṭṭatī”ti āgataṃ. Tassā vaṇṇanāyaṃ pana vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.320) “suvaṇṇarajatādivicitrānīti saṅghikasenāsanaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, puggalikaṃ pana suvaṇṇādivicitraṃ bhikkhussa sampaṭicchitumeva na vaṭṭati ’na tvevāhaṃ bhikkhave kenaci pariyāyena jātarūparajataṃ sāditabba’nti (mahāva. 299) vuttattā, tenevettha aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ’saṅghikavihāre vā puggalikavihāre vā’ti na vuttaṃ, gonakādiakappiyabhaṇḍavisayeva evaṃ vuttaṃ, ekabhikkhussapi tesaṃ gahaṇe dosābhāvā”ti vaṇṇitaṃ.
In the commentary on the Senāsanakkhandhaka in the Samantapāsādikā (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 320), it is stated: “sabbaṃ pāsādaparibhoga”—“All use of a palace is allowable”—including variegated doors of gold and silver, beds, chairs, fans, water pots and bowls made of gold and silver, and anything adorned with artistry; all is permissible. They say: “We give the palace’s slaves, fields, land, cattle, and buffaloes,” but there is no need to accept each separately; once the palace is accepted, it is fully accepted. However, items like woolen rugs are not permissible to spread on beds or chairs for use in a monastic dwelling, whether of the Sangha or an individual; yet they may be obtained through a layperson’s effort for a Dhamma seat, though lying on them is not allowed.” In its sub-commentary, the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.320), it is explained: “suvaṇṇarajatādivicitrāni” refers to lodgings of the Sangha; however, an individual monk may not accept variegated items of gold and so forth, as it is said: “Monks, I say that gold and silver are not to be accepted by any means” (mahāva. 299). Therefore, the commentary does not say ‘in a Sangha monastery or an individual monastery’ here; it is said only regarding unallowable goods like woolen rugs, as there is no fault in an individual monk accepting them.”
Also in the Samantapāsādikā’s (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 320) explanation of the Senāsanakkhandhaka it says: “Sabbaṁ pāsādaparibhoga” means all kinds of varied things such as gold and silver doors, beds, seats, palm-leaf fans, gold and silver water pots, and drinking vessels, whatever is made with artistic work, everything is permitted. They say, ‘we give slaves, male and female, fields, plots of land, cows, and buffaloes for the palace’, there is no need to accept each individually, for when the palace is accepted, they are also accepted. Rugs etc., are not permitted to be used by spreading them on beds and seats, either in a monastic dwelling belonging to the Saṅgha or in a private monastic dwelling, but at a preaching seat they are obtained by a method converted from lay use. However it’s not allowed to sleep on them”. However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.320) which is the commentary on that states: “Suvaṇṇarajatādivicitrānī”, This is said with respect to a Saṅgha-owned dwelling. A private dwelling, however, that is variegated with gold, etc. is not proper for a monk even to accept, as it’s said: ‘Monks, I do not say that gold and silver should be accepted by any means’. (mahāva. 299). For that very reason, in this commentary it is not stated: ‘whether in a monastic dwelling belonging to the Saṅgha or in a private monastic dwelling’, it is stated like this only with respect to rugs, etc. as unallowable things, because even if one monk receives them, there is no fault.”
In the commentary on the Senāsana Khandhaka in the Samantapāsādikā (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 320), it is stated: “All the use of the monastery” includes doors, beds, chairs, palm-leaf mats, and vessels for drinking water made of gold, silver, and other precious materials—whatever is artistically crafted, all is permissible. They say, “We give slaves, fields, land, cattle, and buffaloes to the monastery,” but there is no need to accept them individually; once the monastery is accepted, all is accepted. However, beds and chairs covered with animal skins are not to be used in Sangha or individual dwellings, but they may be used on Dhamma seats prepared by laypeople, though lying down on them is not allowed.” In its commentary, the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.320) explains: “Adorned with gold, silver, etc.” refers to Sangha dwellings. However, individual dwellings adorned with gold and other precious materials are not to be accepted by a monk, as it is said, “Monks, I do not allow the acceptance of gold and silver in any way” (mahāva. 299). Therefore, in this commentary, it is not stated, “In Sangha or individual dwellings,” but only in the context of allowable items like animal skins. Even for a single monk, there is no fault in accepting such items.
ID194
Tasmiṃyeva khandhake aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 321) “sacepi rājarājamahāmattādayo ekappahāreneva mañcasataṃ vā mañcasahassaṃ vā denti, sabbe kappiyamañcā sampaṭicchitabbā, sampaṭicchitvā vuḍḍhapaṭipāṭiyā saṅghikaparibhogena paribhuñjathāti dātabbā, puggalikavasena na dātabbā”ti āgataṃ. Tassā vaṇṇanāyaṃyeva vimativinodaniyaṃ “kappiyamañcā sampaṭicchitabbāti iminā suvaṇṇādivicittaṃ akappiyamañcaṃ ’saṅghassā’ti vuttepi sampaṭicchituṃ na vaṭṭatīti dasseti, ’vihārassa demā’ti vutte saṅghasseva vaṭṭati, na puggalassa khettādi viyāti daṭṭhabba”nti vaṇṇitaṃ, tasmā bhagavato āṇaṃ sampaṭicchantehi lajjipesalabahussutasikkhākāmabhūtehi bhikkhūhi suṭṭhu manasikātabbamidaṃ ṭhānaṃ.
In the same Khandhaka commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 321), it is stated: “Even if kings or royal ministers give a hundred or a thousand beds in a single offering, all allowable beds should be accepted; having accepted them, they should be given for use by the Sangha in order of seniority, not for individual use.” In its sub-commentary, the Vimativinodanī, it is explained: “kappiyamañcā sampaṭicchitabbā” indicates that even if it is said ‘for the Sangha,’ an unallowable bed adorned with gold and so forth should not be accepted; if it is said ‘we give it for the monastery,’ it is permissible only for the Sangha, not for an individual like fields and so forth. Thus, this matter should be well considered by monks who are modest, conscientious, learned, and eager for training, when accepting the Blessed One’s command.”
In that very Khandhaka, the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 321) states, “Even if kings, chief ministers, and others offer a hundred beds or a thousand beds at once, all allowable beds should be accepted. Having accepted them, they should be given to be used by the Saṅgha in order of seniority, as Saṅgha property; they should not be given for personal use.” In the Vimativinodanī, which is the commentary on that very same passage, it explains, “By stating, ‘kappiyamañcā sampaṭicchitabbā’, it shows that even an unallowable bed variegated with gold, etc., should not be accepted, even if it is offered with the words, ‘For the Saṅgha.’ It should be understood that if it is given with the words, ‘We give it to the monastery,’ it is only proper for the Saṅgha, not for an individual, like fields, etc.” Therefore, this point should be carefully considered by monks who are modest, scrupulous, learned, and diligent in training themselves, adhering to the word of the Blessed one.
In the same section of the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 321), it is stated: “Even if kings or ministers offer a hundred or a thousand beds at once, all are to be accepted as allowable beds. After accepting them, they should be distributed according to seniority and used by the Sangha, not given for individual use.” In its commentary, the Vimativinodanī explains: “Allowable beds are to be accepted” indicates that beds adorned with gold and other materials, even if offered to the Sangha, are not to be accepted. If it is said, “We give to the monastery,” it is meant for the Sangha, not for an individual, like fields, etc. Therefore, this matter should be carefully considered by monks who are respectful, learned, and desirous of training, following the Buddha’s instruction.
ID195
Nanu ca senāsane viruddhasenāsanaṃ nāma paṭisedhetabbaṃ atthi, atha kasmā “senāsane kiñci paṭisedhetabbaṃ natthī”ti vuttanti codanaṃ sandhāyāha “aññatra viruddhasenāsanā”ti. Tassattho – viruddhasenāsanā viruddhasenāsanaṃ aññatra ṭhapetvā aññaṃ vaṇṇamaṭṭhakammādikammaṃ sandhāya senāsane kiñci paṭisedhetabbaṃ natthīti vuttaṃ, na tadabhāvoti. Yadi evaṃ taṃ viruddhasenāsanaṃ ācariyena vattabbaṃ, katamaṃ viruddhasenāsanaṃ nāmāti pucchāyamāha “viruddha…pe… vuccatī”ti. Tattha aññesanti sīmassāmikānaṃ. Rājavallabhehīti lajjipesalānaṃ uposathādiantarāyakarā alajjino bhinnaladdhikā ca bhikkhū adhippetā tehi saha uposathādikaraṇāyogato. Tena ca “sīmāyā”ti vuttaṃ. Tesaṃ lajjiparisāti tesaṃ sīmassāmikānaṃ anubalaṃ dātuṃ samatthā lajjiparisā. Bhikkhūhi katanti yaṃ alajjīnaṃ senāsanabhedanādikaṃ lajjibhikkhūhi kataṃ, taṃ sabbaṃ sukatameva alajjiniggahatthāya pavattetabbato.
But isn’t there something called an opposing lodging that should be prohibited in the context of lodgings? Why then is it said: “senāsane kiñci paṭisedhetabbaṃ natthī”? Addressing this objection, it is said: “aññatra viruddhasenāsanā”—“Except for an opposing lodging.” Its meaning is: Apart from an opposing lodging—viruddhasenāsana—there is nothing to be prohibited in lodgings with regard to colored ornamentation and the like; it is not said that such does not exist. If so, the teacher should specify what an opposing lodging is, so it is asked: “What is an opposing lodging called?” and he says: “viruddha…pe… vuccati”. Here, aññesaṃ refers to the owners of the boundary. Rājavallabhehi refers to shameless monks who are favored by kings, obstructing observances like Uposatha, as well as those of differing views, due to their inability to perform Uposatha and so forth together. Hence it says “sīmāya”. Tesaṃ lajjiparisā refers to a modest assembly capable of supporting those boundary owners. Bhikkhūhi kataṃ means that whatever is done by modest monks, such as breaking up the lodgings of the shameless, is well done because it is undertaken to subdue the shameless.
Now, it may be said that within dwelling, there are improper dwelling that should be prohibited, so why it is said, “There is nothing to be prohibited in a dwelling”? With regard to this question, he says, “Except for improper dwelling.” Its meaning is - excluding improper dwellings, it is said, that with regard to other things, such as decorative and plastering work, that there is nothing to be prohibited, not that it (improper dwelling) doesn’t exist. If so, that improper dwelling should be stated by the teacher. To the question of what is called an improper dwelling, he answers “viruddha…pe… vuccatī”. Therein, “aññesa” means of the owners of the boundary. Rājavallabhehī means those monks, who because they can cause trouble in performing uposatha and other communal acts, are shameless, and of wrong views, are meant. Together with them, it’s not fit to perform uposatha and other communal acts. That’s why it is said as “sīmāya”. Tesaṃ lajjiparisā means those conscientious assemblies capable of providing support to those boundary owners. Bhikkhūhi kata means whatever breaking into a dwelling etc., of the shameless ones done by conscientious monks, taṃ all of that sukatameva is well done, because it is done for the suppression of the shameless ones.
But is there not something to be prohibited in the dwelling place, such as a conflicting dwelling? Why then is it said, “In the dwelling place, there is nothing to be prohibited”? In response to this objection, it is said, “Except for a conflicting dwelling.” The meaning is—a conflicting dwelling is to be prohibited, but apart from that, nothing else, such as artistic work on the dwelling, is to be prohibited. If so, what is meant by a conflicting dwelling? The Elder explains: “Conflicting…” etc. Here, “others” refers to the owners of the boundary. “Beloved by the king” refers to shameless monks who cause obstacles to the Uposatha and other acts, being favored by the king. Therefore, it is said, “In the boundary.” “Their assembly of the respectful” refers to the assembly of those boundary owners who are capable of supporting the respectful monks. “Done by the monks” refers to whatever actions, such as dividing the dwelling, are done by the respectful monks to restrain the shameless ones. “All that is well done” because it is done for the purpose of restraining the shameless.
ID196
Ettha ca siyā – “aññesaṃ sīmāyā”ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ, sīmā nāma bahuvidhā, katarasīmaṃ sandhāyāti? Baddhasīmaṃ sandhāyāti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce? “Mā amhākaṃ uposathapavāraṇānaṃ antarāyamakatthā”ti aṭṭhakathāyameva vuttattā, sāratthadīpaniyampi (sārattha.ṭī. 2.85) “uposathapavāraṇānaṃ antarāyakarā alajjino rājakulūpakā vuccantī”ti vuttattā, uposathādivinayakammakhettabhūtāya eva sīmāya idha adhippetattā . Yadi evaṃ gāmasīmasattabbhantarasīmaudakukkhepasīmāyopi taṃkhettabhūtā eva, tasmā tāpi sandhāyāti vattabbanti? Na vattabbaṃ tāsaṃ abaddhasīmattā, na te tāsaṃ sāmikā, baddhasīmāyeva bhikkhūnaṃ kiriyāya siddhattā tāsaṃyeva te sāmikā. Tena vuttaṃ “yaṃ pana sīmassāmikehi bhikkhūhī”ti. Yaṃ pana vadanti “upacārasīmāpi taṃkhettabhūtā”ti, taṃ na gahetabbaṃ, tassā tadakkhettabhāvaṃ upari sīmāvinicchayakathādīsu (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 156 ādayo) kathayissāma. Apica gāmasīmāya aññesaṃ senāsanakaraṇassa paṭisedhitumayuttattā sattabbhantaraudakukkhepasīmānañca sabbadā atiṭṭhanato baddhasīmāyeva adhippetāti viññāyatīti.
Here, one might ask: It is said in the commentary “aññesaṃ sīmāya”, and since boundaries are of many kinds, which boundary is intended? It should be understood as referring to a fixed boundary. How is this known? Because it is said in the commentary itself: “So that they do not obstruct our Uposatha and Pavāraṇā,” and in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha.ṭī. 2.85): “Shameless ones favored by royal families, who obstruct Uposatha and Pavāraṇā, are meant,” since the boundary intended here is the field for Vinaya acts like Uposatha. If so, could it also refer to a village boundary, a seven-abbhantara boundary, or a water-sprinkling boundary, as they too are fields for such acts? No, because they are unfixed boundaries; those monks are not their owners, whereas a fixed boundary is established for the monks’ activities, so they are its owners. Thus it is said: “yaṃ pana sīmassāmikehi bhikkhūhi”. Some say “a peripheral boundary is also such a field,” but this should not be accepted; we will discuss its non-status as such a field later in the discussion on boundary determinations (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 156 onwards). Moreover, it is understood that only a fixed boundary is intended, as it is improper to prohibit others from making lodgings in a village boundary, and the seven-abbhantara and water-sprinkling boundaries are not always fixed.
And here, it might be – “In the commentary, it is stated, ‘of others in the boundary.’ ‘Boundary’ is of many kinds; with respect to which boundary is it stated?” It should be understood with respect to a consecrated boundary. How is that known? Because in the commentary itself it is stated, “Lest they create an obstacle to our uposatha and pavāraṇā ceremonies,” and in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha.ṭī. 2.85) it is stated, “The shameless ones who are supported by the royal family and create obstacles to uposatha and pavāraṇā ceremonies are referred to.” Therefore, only the boundary that is the field for vinaya acts such as uposatha etc. is meant here. If so, village boundaries, boundaries of seven abbhantaras, and boundaries of water cast, are also the field for them, so, should they also be included? It should not be said, because those are not consecrated boundaries, and they do not own them. Only consecrated boundaries are established by the actions of monks; only of those are they the owners. Hence, it is stated, “yaṃ pana sīmassāmikehi bhikkhūhī”. But, as for the saying, “The upacāra boundary is also the field for them,” that should not be accepted. We will explain that the boundary is not its field later, in the discussion on determining boundaries (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 156 ādayo), etc. Moreover, because it is not appropriate to prohibit the construction of a dwelling by others in a village boundary, and because the boundaries of seven abbhantaras and of water-cast, are not permanent, it is understood that only the consecrated boundary is meant.
Here, it may be asked: “In the commentary, it is said, ‘In the boundary of others,’ but boundaries are of many kinds. Which boundary is meant?” It should be understood as referring to an established boundary. How is this known? Because it is stated in the commentary, “To avoid causing obstacles to our Uposatha and Pavāraṇā,” and in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha.ṭī. 2.85), it is said, “Shameless monks who cause obstacles to the Uposatha and Pavāraṇā, being close to the king, are called ‘rājakulūpakā.”’ Therefore, it refers to a boundary established for Vinaya acts like the Uposatha. If so, should it also apply to village boundaries, seven-house boundaries, and water-throwing boundaries, since they are also fields for such acts? It should not be said so, because those are not established boundaries, and the monks are not their owners. Established boundaries are effective for the monks’ actions, and thus they are their owners. Therefore, it is said, “But what is done by the monks who are the owners of the boundary.” Some say, “Even the proximity boundary is such a field,” but this should not be accepted, as its nature as a field will be discussed later in the section on boundary determination (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 156). Moreover, since village boundaries are not suitable for prohibiting others from constructing dwellings, and seven-house and water-throwing boundaries are always present, it should be understood that only established boundaries are intended here.
ID197
Chindāpeyya vā bhindāpeyya vā, anupavajjoti idaṃ sabbamattikāmayakuṭī viya sabbathā anupayogārahaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Yaṃ pana pañcavaṇṇasuttehi vinaddhachattādikaṃ, tattha akappiyabhāgova chinditabbo, na tadavaseso, tassa kappiyattāti chindanto upavajjova hoti. Teneva vuttaṃ “ghaṭakampi vāḷarūpampi chinditvā dhāretabba”ntiādi.
Chindāpeyya vā bhindāpeyya vā, anupavajjo—This is said regarding something entirely unusable, like a hut made wholly of clay. However, in cases like a canopy tied with five-colored threads, only the unallowable part should be cut away, not the rest, as it is allowable; thus, one who cuts it is at fault. Hence it is said: “Even a latch or a beastly figure should be cut away and retained,” and so forth.
Chindāpeyya vā bhindāpeyya vā, anupavajjo - This statement refers to something that is utterly unusable in any way, like a hut made of mud. But in case of the canopy tied with five-colored strings etc., only the unallowable part should be cut off, not the rest, because that (the remaining part) is allowable, one who is cutting it is blameworthy. Hence, it is stated “Even a pot or a fierce form should be cut off and kept,” and so forth.
“He may have it cut or broken, and he is not at fault” refers to something entirely unsuitable for use, like a hut made of clay. However, in the case of a canopy adorned with five-colored threads, only the unallowable part should be cut, not the rest, as the remainder is allowable. Therefore, it is said, “Even a pot or a water vessel may be cut and used,” etc.
ID198
Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinaya compilation,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,
Thus, in the Vinayasaṅgaha, which is adorned with the Vinayālaṅkāra,
ID199
Parikkhāravinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma
The discussion on the determination of requisites, called an ornament,
is the chapter called ‘the Ornament of the Discussion on Requisites,’
The chapter on the determination of requisites is called
ID200
Dutiyo paricchedo.
Is the second chapter.
The Second Chapter.
The second section.
ID201
ID202
15. Evaṃ parikkhāravinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni bhesajjakaraṇaparittapaṭisanthārānaṃ vinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ “bhesajjā”tiādimāha. Tattha bhisakkassa idaṃ kammaṃ bhesajjaṃ. Kiṃ taṃ? Tikicchanaṃ . Kariyate karaṇaṃ, bhesajjassa karaṇaṃ bhesajjakaraṇaṃ, vejjakammakaraṇanti vuttaṃ hoti. Parisamantato tāyati rakkhatīti parittaṃ, ārakkhāti attho. Paṭisantharaṇaṃ paṭisanthāro, attanā saddhiṃ aññesaṃ sambandhakaraṇanti attho. Tattha yo vinicchayo mātikāyaṃ “bhesajjakaraṇampi ca parittaṃ, paṭisanthāro”ti (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. ganthārambhakathā) mayā vutto , tasmiṃ samabhiniviṭṭhe bhesajjakaraṇavinicchaye. Sahadhammo etesanti sahadhammikā, tesaṃ, ekassa satthuno sāsane sahasikkhamānadhammānanti attho. Atha vā sahadhamme niyuttā sahadhammikā, tesaṃ, sahadhammasaṅkhāte sikkhāpade sikkhamānabhāvena niyuttānanti attho. Vivaṭṭanissitasīlādiyuttabhāvena samattā samasīlasaddhāpaññānaṃ. Etena dussīlānaṃ bhinnaladdhikānañca akātumpi labbhatīti dasseti.
15. Having thus explained the determination of requisites, now to discuss the determination of medicines, protective charms, and friendly interactions, it is said: “bhesajjā” and so forth. Here, bhesajja is the work of a physician. What is it? Healing. Karaṇa means “is done”; bhesajjakaraṇa—the making of medicine—means the practice of healing. Parittaṃ protects and guards all around, meaning “protection.” Paṭisanthāro means friendly interaction, the act of connecting oneself with others. The determination I stated in the outline as “bhesajjakaraṇampi ca parittaṃ, paṭisanthāro” (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. ganthārambhakathā) is fully engaged in this determination of medicines. Sahadhammikā means those with the same Dhamma, referring to those training together in the same Teacher’s dispensation. Alternatively, sahadhammikā means those engaged in the same Dhamma, training in the rules called “same Dhamma.” Samasīlasaddhāpaññānaṃ refers to those complete with virtue, faith, and wisdom aligned with renunciation. This indicates that it may also be done for those lacking virtue or holding differing views.
15. Having thus explained the determination of requisites, he now begins to explain the determination of medicines, protections, and greetings with the words “bhesajjā” etc. Therein, the work of a physician is medicine (bhesajja). What is that? It is healing. What is done is called karaṇa (doing). The doing of medicine is bhesajjakaraṇaṃ, meaning the practice of the work of a physician. Parittaṃ is what protects (tāyati) and safeguards (rakkhati) completely, meaning protection. Mutual welcoming is paṭisanthāro, meaning establishing connection of others with oneself. In that context, whatever determination, I have stated in the Mātikā: “The practice of medicine, protection and greeting as well,” (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. ganthārambhakathā) in that well-focused discussion on the determination of the practice of medicine. Sahadhammikā, are those for whom Dhamma is in common. In the teaching of one teacher, practicing the teachings taught together. Or sahadhammikā are those engaged in a common Dhamma; those, being engaged in the form of practicing the precepts known as the common Dhamma. Samasīlasaddhāpaññānaṃ, those endowed with the conditions of turning away, being furnished with virtue, etc. By this he indicates that one may even abstain from acting towards immoral ones and those of wrong views.
15. Having thus discussed the determination of requisites, now it is said, “Medicines” and so on, to discuss the determination of medicines, protective chants, and hospitality. Here, the work of a physician is called medicine. What is that? Treatment. The act of preparing is called preparing medicine, meaning the work of a physician. Protection means guarding from all around, meaning protection. Hospitality means associating oneself with others, meaning establishing a connection. Here, the determination stated in the matrix, “The preparation of medicines, protective chants, and hospitality” (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. ganthārambhakathā), is established in the determination of preparing medicines. Fellow Dhamma practitioners means those who, in the teaching of a single teacher, train together in the Dhamma. Alternatively, fellow Dhamma practitioners means those who are devoted to the Dhamma, training in the precepts called Dhamma. They are endowed with virtue, faith, and wisdom. This indicates that even the immoral and those with wrong views can achieve this.
ID203
Ñātakapavāritaṭṭhānato vāti attano vā tesaṃ vā ñātakapavāritaṭṭhānato. Na kariyitthāti akatā, ayuttavasena akatapubbā viññatti akataviññatti. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 186) pana “akataviññattiyāti na viññattiyā. Sā hi ananuññātattā katāpi akatā viyāti akataviññatti, ’vadeyyātha bhante yenattho’ti evaṃ akataṭṭhāne viññatti akataviññattīti likhita”nti vuttaṃ. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.185) “gilānassa atthāya appavāritaṭṭhānato viññattiyā anuññātattā katāpi akatā viyāti akataviññatti, ’vada bhante paccayenā’ti evaṃ akatapavāraṇaṭṭhāne ca viññatti akataviññattī”ti.
Ñātakapavāritaṭṭhānato vā—From a place invited by one’s own or their relatives. Akataviññatti means a request not previously made, not done improperly. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 186), it is said: “akataviññattiyā”—not by request; since it is unpermitted, even if made, it is as if not made, thus akataviññatti; a request in a situation where it was not made, like “Venerables, say what you need,” is akataviññatti.” In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.185), it is said: “Since a request for the sake of the sick from an uninvited place is permitted, even if made, it is as if not made, thus akataviññatti; a request in an uninvited situation, like ‘Venerable, say for what purpose,’ is akataviññatti.”
Ñātakapavāritaṭṭhānato vāti from a place where there is a known relative or one who has offered, either of oneself or of those. Not made (akatā), because of its unsuitability, means a request that was never made before: akataviññatti. However, in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 186), it says, “Akataviññattiyā”ti, by not making a request. Indeed, because it is unpermitted, even if made it is as if unmade, so it is akataviññatti, that is to say, a request made at a place that is not known or where it is not proper, like ‘Tell me, venerable sir, what you need’ should be written” it has been stated. In Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.185), “because a request for the sake of a sick person is allowed, even if it’s made to a place where one has not offered before, it’s as if unmade, so it is akataviññatti, that is to say, a request is said akataviññatti in a situation where invitation is unmade, like ‘Speak, venerable sir, about the requisite’.”
“From the place where relatives are prohibited” means from one’s own or their relatives’ prohibited place. “Not to be done” means not done, an improper action not done before, called an improper action. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 186), it is said: “An improper action” means not an action. Since it is not permitted, even if done, it is like not done. “An improper action” is written as, “Say, venerable sir, what is needed,” meaning an action in a place where it is not to be done. In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.185), it is said: “For the sake of the sick, from a place where it is not prohibited, since the action is permitted, even if done, it is like not done. “An improper action” is written as, “Say, venerable sir, for the sake of the requisites,” meaning an action in a place where it is not to be prohibited.”
ID204
16. Paṭiyādiyatīti sampādeti. Akātuṃ na vaṭṭatīti ettha dukkaṭanti vadanti, ayuttatāvasena panettha akaraṇappaṭikkhepo vutto, na āpattivasenāti gahetabbaṃ. Sabbaṃ parikammaṃ anāmasantenāti mātugāmasarīrādīnaṃ anāmāsattā vuttaṃ. Yāva ñātakā na passantīti yāva tassa ñātakā na passanti. “Titthiyabhūtānaṃ mātāpitūnaṃ sahatthā dātuṃ na vaṭṭatī”ti vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 186) vuttaṃ.
16. Paṭiyādiyati—He prepares. Akātuṃ na vaṭṭati—They say it is a dukkaṭa; however, this prohibition of not doing it is stated in terms of impropriety, not as an offense, and should be understood as such. Sabbaṃ parikammaṃ anāmasantena—All preparation is said to be without touching the body of a woman and so forth. Yāva ñātakā na passantī—Until his relatives do not see. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 186), it is said: “It is not permissible to give with one’s own hand to the mother and father who are sectarians.”
16. Paṭiyādiyatīti, he provides. Akātuṃ na vaṭṭatīti, here, they say it is a dukkaṭa. Because of its unsuitability, a prohibition of not doing it has been stated, it is not on account of a transgression, that should be understood. Sabbaṃ parikammaṃ anāmasantenāti is stated due to not touching bodies of women, etc. Yāva ñātakā na passantīti as long as his relatives do not see. “It is not proper to give with one’s own hand to parents who have become sectarians,” it has been stated in Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 186).
16. “Prepares” means completes. “Not to be done” here means it is a wrong action, but here the prohibition is stated due to impropriety, not due to an offense. “All preparations without touching” means without touching the bodies of women, etc. “Until the relatives do not see” means until the relatives of that person do not see. “It is not allowed to give directly to heretical parents” is stated in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 186).
ID205
17. Pitu bhaginī pitucchā. Mātu bhātā mātulo. Nappahontīti kātuṃ na sakkontīti ṭīkāsu vuttaṃ. “Tesaṃyeva santakaṃ bhesajjaṃ gahetvā kevalaṃ yojetvā dātabba”nti vatvā “sace pana nappahonti yācanti ca, detha no bhante, tumhākaṃ paṭidassāmā”ti vuttattā pana tesaṃ bhesajjassa appahonakattā bhesajjameva yācantīti aṭṭhakathādhippāyo dissati, vīmaṃsitabbo. Na yācantīti lajjāya na yācanti, gāravena vā. “Ābhogaṃ katvā”ti vuttattā aññathā dentassa āpattiyeva. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.18) pana “ābhogaṃ katvāti idaṃ kattabbakaraṇadassanavasena vuttaṃ, ābhogaṃ pana akatvāpi dātuṃ vaṭṭatīti tīsu gaṇṭhipadesu likhita”nti vuttaṃ. Porāṇaṭīkāyampi tadeva gahetvā likhitaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.185) pana taṃ vacanaṃ paṭikkhittaṃ. Vuttañhi tattha keci pana “ābhogaṃ akatvāpi dātuṃ vaṭṭatīti vadanti, taṃ na yuttaṃ bhesajjakaraṇassa, pāḷiyaṃ ’anāpatti bhikkhu pārājikassa, āpatti dukkaṭassā’ti evaṃ antarāpattidassanavasena sāmaññato paṭikkhittattā, aṭṭhakathāyaṃ avuttappakārena karontassa sutteneva āpattisiddhāti daṭṭhabbā. Teneva aṭṭhakathāyampi ’tesaññeva santaka’ntiādi vutta”nti.
17. Pitucchā—Father’s sister. Mātulo—Mother’s brother. Nappahonti—They say in the sub-commentaries: “They are unable to do it.” Having said: “Only their own medicine should be taken, prepared, and given,” it is then said: “But if they are unable and request, saying, ‘Venerables, give to us; we will repay you,’” thus it appears from the commentary’s intent that they request medicine because they lack it, which should be investigated. Na yācanti—They do not request due to modesty or respect. Since it says “ābhogaṃ katvā”, giving otherwise incurs an offense. In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.18), it is said: “ābhogaṃ katvā”—This is said to show what should be done; however, it is permissible to give even without consideration, as written in three glosses.” The old sub-commentary also records the same. However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.185), that statement is refuted. It is said there: “Some say ‘It is permissible to give even without consideration,’ but this is not proper for the making of medicine, because in the text, ‘A monk is not guilty of a pārājika but incurs a dukkaṭa,’ it is generally refuted by showing an intermediate offense; it should be understood that an offense is established by the text for one acting in a way not stated in the commentary. Hence, in the commentary, it says ‘only their own’ and so forth.”
17. Father’s sister is pitucchā. Mother’s brother is mātulo. Nappahontīti, are not able to do it, it is said in the subcommentaries. After saying: “Taking the medicine belonging to them only, one should simply mix it and give it”, It continues “But if they are unable, and they ask, saying, ‘Give it to us, venerable sir, we will show it to you.’”, therefore in the commentary, the view seems to be that they are actually asking for medicine because their own is insufficient. One should investigate this. Na yācantīti they do not ask due to shame or due to reverence. Because it is stated “After making consideration,” otherwise for one who gives it, there is definitely an offence. However in Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.18) It says, “Ābhogaṃ katvā”ti, this has been stated to show the way of doing the required action, but even without making consideration, it is proper to give, this has been written in three Gaṇṭhipada texts”. In the old sub-commentary, it is accepted and written same thing. However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.185) that statement is refuted. For, it is stated there, some say “It is proper to give even without making consideration,” that is not right regarding medicinal practice. Because in the Sutta, it is generally prohibited. By showing the intervening offence in such a way as ‘There is no offence for a monk in case of pārājika, there is a dukkaṭa offence’, therefore for one doing it in a way that is not stated in the Commentary, there is an offense is established by the Sutta itself. Thus it should be understood. Hence, even in the Commentary it is stated as, “Belonging to them only,’ and so on.”
17. The father’s sister is paternal aunt. The mother’s brother is maternal uncle. “Unable” means they are not able to do it, as stated in the commentaries. “Having taken the medicine belonging to them, it should be prepared and given,” but if they are unable and request, “Give it to us, venerable sir, we will return it to you,” it is understood that they are requesting the medicine due to their inability to prepare it. This is the intention of the commentary, which should be examined. “They do not request” means they do not request out of shame or respect. “Having made an effort,” it is said, but giving otherwise would be an offense. In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.18), it is said: “Having made an effort” is stated to show what should be done, but it is also written in three places that it is permissible to give without making an effort. The ancient commentaries also state the same. However, the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.185) rejects this statement. It is said there: “Some say that it is permissible to give without making an effort, but this is not proper for preparing medicine, as in the text it is said, ‘There is no pārājika offense, but there is a wrong action,’ showing an intermediate offense. Therefore, acting contrary to the commentary incurs an offense as stated in the text. Hence, the commentary says, ‘Having taken what belongs to them,’ etc.”
ID206
Ete dasa ñātake ṭhapetvāti tesaṃ puttanattādayopi tappaṭibaddhattā ñātakā evāti tepi ettheva saṅgahitā. Tena aññesanti iminā aññātakānaṃ gahaṇaṃ veditabbaṃ . Tenevāha “etesaṃ puttaparamparāyā”tiādi. Kulaparivaṭṭāti kulānaṃ paṭipāṭi, kulaparamparāti vuttaṃ hoti. Bhesajjaṃ karontassāti yathāvuttavidhinā karontassa, “tāvakālikaṃ dassāmī”ti ābhogaṃ akatvā dentassapi pana antarāpattidukkaṭaṃ vinā micchājīvanaṃ vā kuladūsanaṃ vā na hotiyeva. Tenāha “vejjakammaṃ vā kuladūsakāpatti vā na hotī”ti. Ñātakānañhi santakaṃ yācitvāpi gahetuṃ vaṭṭati, tasmā tattha kuladūsanādi na siyā. Sāratthadīpaniyampi (sārattha. ṭī. 2.185) “mayhaṃ dassanti karissantīti paccāsāya karontassapi yācitvā gahetabbaṭṭhānatāya ñātakesu vejjakammaṃ vā kuladūsakāpatti vā na hotīti vadantī”ti vuttaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 186) pana “vejjakammaṃ vā kuladūsakāpatti vā na hotīti vacanato yāva sattamo kulaparivaṭṭo, tāva bhesajjaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti vadantī”ti ettakameva vuttaṃ. Sabbapadesu vinicchayo veditabboti “cūḷamātuyā”tiādīsu sabbapadesu cūḷamātuyā sāmikotiādinā yojetvā heṭṭhā vuttanayeneva vinicchayo veditabbo.
“Excluding these ten relatives” means that their sons, grandsons, and so forth, being bound to them, are also considered relatives and are thus included here. Therefore, by “others”, it should be understood as referring to non-relatives. Hence it is said, “the lineage of their sons” and so forth. “Cycle of families” refers to the succession of families, meaning a family lineage. “For one preparing medicine” means for one doing so in the manner described, and even for one giving it without making the resolve, “I will give it temporarily,” there is no offense of wrong livelihood or corruption of a family apart from the minor offense of dukkaṭa within the rules. Hence it is said, “there is neither the act of a physician nor the offense of corrupting a family”. For it is permissible to take something belonging to relatives even by requesting it, so there would be no corruption of a family or the like in that case. In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.185), it is said, “Even for one acting with the expectation, ‘They will give to me, they will do it,’ since it must be taken by requesting from the place where it is to be taken, among relatives there is neither the act of a physician nor the offense of corrupting a family, so they say.” In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 186), however, it is merely stated, “From the statement ‘there is neither the act of a physician nor the offense of corrupting a family,’ they say that it is permissible to prepare medicine up to the seventh cycle of families.” “The decision is to be understood in all cases” means that in all instances such as “of the younger mother” and so on, the decision is to be understood in the same way as stated below, by construing it as “the husband of the younger mother” and so forth.
Ete dasa ñātake ṭhapetvāti, having excluded these ten relatives, means that their sons, grandsons, and so on, are also considered relatives because of their connection to them, and therefore they too are included here. Thus, by the term aññesanti is to be understood the inclusion of non-relatives. Therefore, it is said, “etesaṃ puttaparamparāyā”tiādi, and so forth: the lineage of the sons of these. Kulaparivaṭṭāti means the order of families, the lineage of families. Bhesajjaṃ karontassāti, to the one doing [it] according to the method described, but even to one giving [medicine] without making a mental determination, saying “I will give it temporarily”, there is still no wrong livelihood, apart from minor offenses, nor is there blame on the family. Therefore, it is said, “vejjakammaṃ vā kuladūsakāpatti vā na hotī”ti, there is no [offense of] practicing medicine or the offense that blames the family. Indeed, it is permissible to ask for and take what belongs to relatives, therefore there would be no blaming of the family, and so forth. In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.185) it is said, “They say that for one doing [it] with the expectation that ‘They will give to me, they will do [it] for me’, because it is a situation where it should be requested and taken, there is neither the practice of medicine nor an offense that blames the family among relatives.” In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 186), however, only this much is said, “Because of the statement, ‘there is no [offense of] practicing medicine or the offense that blames the family’, they say it is permissible to make medicine up to the seventh generation of the family.” Sabbapadesu vinicchayo veditabboti, the determination in all statements like, “For the younger maternal aunt,” and so forth, should be understood by connecting with “the owner is the younger maternal aunt” and so on, in the manner already stated below.
Ete dasa ñātake ṭhapetvāti: Except for these ten relatives, even their sons and grandsons, being connected to them, are considered relatives and are included here. Therefore, aññesa means that the inclusion of non-relatives should be understood. Hence, it is said, “etesaṃ puttaparamparāyā” and so on. Kulaparivaṭṭā means the succession of families, indicating a lineage. Bhesajjaṃ karontassā: For one who prepares medicine according to the prescribed method, without making the intention, “I will give it temporarily,” there is no offense of wrong livelihood or corrupting families. Therefore, it is said, “vejjakammaṃ vā kuladūsakāpatti vā na hotī”. For relatives, even if one requests and takes what belongs to them, there is no corruption of families, etc. In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.185), it is said, “Even if one prepares medicine with the hope, ‘They will give to me,’ since it is permissible to request and take from relatives, there is no offense of wrong livelihood or corrupting families.” In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Pārājika 186), it is said, “From the statement, ‘There is no offense of wrong livelihood or corrupting families,’ it is permissible to prepare medicine up to the seventh generation of a family.” Sabbapadesu vinicchayo veditabbo: In all instances, such as “Cūḷamātuyā,” the decision should be understood by applying the method explained above, such as considering Cūḷamātuyā as the owner, etc.
ID207
Upajjhāyassa āharāmāti idaṃ upajjhāyena mama ñātakānaṃ bhesajjaṃ āharathāti āṇattehi kattabbavidhidassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Iminā ca sāmaṇerādīnaṃ apaccāsāyapi parajanassa bhesajjakaraṇaṃ na vaṭṭatīti dasseti. Vuttanayeneva pariyesitvāti iminā “bhikkhācāravattena vā”tiādinā, “ñātisāmaṇerehi vā”tiādinā ca vuttamatthaṃ atidisati. Apaccāsīsantenāti (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.185) āgantukacorādīnaṃ karontenapi manussā nāma upakārakā hontīti attano tehi lābhaṃ apatthayantena, paccāsāya karontassa pana vejjakammakuladūsanādinā doso hotīti adhippāyo. Evañhi upakāre kate sāsanassa guṇaṃ ñatvā pasīdanti, saṅghassa vā upakārakā hontīti karaṇe pana doso natthi. Keci pana “apaccāsīsantena āgantukādīnaṃ paṭikkhittapuggalānampi dātuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vadanti, taṃ na yuttaṃ kattabbākattabbaṭṭhānavibhāgassa niratthakattappasaṅgato apaccāsīsantena “sabbesampi dātuṃ kātuñca vaṭṭatī”ti ettakamattasseva vattabbato. Apaccāsīsanañca micchājīvakuladūsanādidosanisedhanatthameva vuttaṃ na bhesajjakaraṇasaṅkhātāya imissā antarāpattiyā muccanatthaṃ āgantukacorādīnaṃ anuññātānaṃ dāneneva tāya āpattiyā muccanatoti gahetabbaṃ.
“Let us bring it for the preceptor” is said to show the procedure to be followed when instructed by the preceptor, “Bring medicine for my relatives.” This also indicates that it is not permissible for novices and the like to prepare medicine for others without expectation. “Having sought it in the manner stated” further explains the meaning stated by “with the conduct of alms-round” and so forth, and “by relative novices” and so forth. “Without expectation” (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.185) means that even when preparing it for strangers, thieves, and the like, since people are naturally helpful, it should be done without desiring gain from them for oneself; but for one acting with expectation, there is fault due to the act of a physician, corruption of a family, and so forth—this is the intent. For when help is given in this way, people come to know the merit of the teaching and gain faith, or they become helpers of the Sangha, so there is no fault in the action. Some, however, say, “Even without expectation, it is permissible to give to prohibited persons such as strangers and the like,” but this is not proper, as it would render the distinction between what should and should not be done meaningless, since it would simply mean “it is permissible to give and do for all without expectation.” The statement about acting without expectation is made solely to prevent faults like wrong livelihood and corruption of a family, not to exempt one from this minor offense termed “preparing medicine,” and it should be understood that exemption from that offense comes only by giving to permitted persons like strangers and thieves.
Upajjhāyassa āharāmāti, this, “Let us bring it for the preceptor,” is said to show the method to be followed by those who have been commanded by the preceptor, “Bring medicine for my relatives.” And by this, it shows that it is not permissible for novices and others to prepare medicine for strangers even without expectation [of gain]. Vuttanayeneva pariyesitvāti, by this, [the author] refers back to what was said [beginning with] “By the practice of going for alms, or” and “By novice relatives, or” and so on. Apaccāsīsantenāti (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.185) even for one who is providing [medicine] to newcomers, thieves, and so on, thinking that men are helpful, without desiring any gain for himself from them; but for one who acts with expectation [of gain], there is a fault through the practice of medicine, blaming the family and so forth. That is the meaning. Indeed, when help is given in this way, knowing the virtue of the teaching, they become confident, or become helpful to the Sangha, thus there is no fault in doing [it]. Some, however, say, “Even for excluded individuals, such as newcomers and so on, it is permissible to give when one does not have expectation,” but that is not proper, as it implies that categorizing situations as allowed and not allowed becomes meaningless, because then it would only have to be stated that when one is without expectation, “It is permissible to give and do [it] for all.” And the [statement about] non-expectation was said only to negate the fault of wrong livelihood and blaming the family and so forth, not for the sake of being released from this minor transgression related to medicine-making; it should be understood that by the mere giving to newcomers, thieves, and so on, who are permitted, one is released from that offense.
Upajjhāyassa āharāmā: This is said to show the method of action when the preceptor commands, “Bring medicine for my relatives.” This also indicates that even without expectation, it is not permissible for novices, etc., to prepare medicine for others. Vuttanayeneva pariyesitvā: This elaborates on the meaning stated earlier, such as “by the practice of alms-round” or “by the relatives or novices,” etc. Apaccāsīsantenā (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.185): Even if one acts without expectation for the benefit of strangers or thieves, people will naturally be helpful. However, if one acts with expectation, there is the fault of wrong livelihood or corrupting families. This is the intention. For when a favor is done, knowing the virtue of the teaching, they become pleased, or they become supporters of the Sangha, and there is no fault in doing so. Some say, “Even without expectation, it is permissible to give to rejected individuals such as strangers,” but this is not proper, as it leads to the futility of distinguishing what should and should not be done. Without expectation, it is only permissible to give to all, but this is said solely to prevent the faults of wrong livelihood and corrupting families, not to exempt one from the offense of preparing medicine. For strangers and thieves, it is permissible to give, thereby exempting oneself from that offense.
ID208
18. Teneva apaccāsīsantenapi akātabbaṭṭhānaṃ dassetuṃ “saddhaṃ kula”ntiādi vuttaṃ. “Bhesajjaṃ ācikkhathā”ti vuttepi “aññamaññaṃ pana kathā kātabbā”ti idaṃ pariyāyattā vaṭṭati. Evaṃ heṭṭhā vuttanayena idañcidañca gahetvā karontīti iminā pariyāyena kathentassapi nevatthi dosoti ācariyā. Pucchantīti iminā diṭṭhadiṭṭharogīnaṃ pariyāyenapi vatvā vicaraṇaṃ ayuttanti dasseti. Pucchitassapi pana paccāsīsantassa pariyāyakathāpi na vaṭṭatīti vadanti. Samullapesīti apaccāsīsanto eva aññamaññaṃ kathaṃ samuṭṭhāpesi. Ācariyabhāgoti vinayācāraṃ akopetvā bhesajjācikkhaṇena vejjācariyabhāgo ayanti atthoti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.185) vuttaṃ.
18. Therefore, to show what should not be done even without expectation, it is said, “a faithful family” and so forth. Even when told, “Explain the medicine”, it is permissible due to its indirect nature to say, “But they should discuss it among themselves”. Thus, the teachers say there is no fault even for one speaking indirectly in the manner stated below, “Take this and that and do it”. “They ask” indicates that it is improper to go about speaking indirectly even to those with diseases they have seen. They say that even for one asked, speaking indirectly with expectation is not permissible. “He initiated conversation” means he started a mutual discussion without expectation. “The role of a teacher” means this is not the role of a physician but the role of one teaching medicine without violating the disciplinary conduct, as stated in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.185).
18. Therefore, in order to show the situation that is not to be done, even by one without expectation, it is said, “saddhaṃ kula”ntiādi, “a faithful family,” and so on. Although it is said, “Bhesajjaṃ ācikkhathā”ti, “Tell [us] about medicine,” “aññamaññaṃ pana kathā kātabbā”ti, this, “but other conversation should take place,” is permissible because it is an indirect method. In this way, according to the manner stated below, even for one speaking indirectly by saying, idañcidañca gahetvā karontīti, “taking this and that, they do [it],” there is no fault, according to the teachers. By [the term] pucchantīti, “they ask,” it shows that going around speaking even indirectly to those seen and those perceived as having disease is not proper. But some say that even for one who has been asked and has expectations, indirect talk is not appropriate. Samullapesīti, he initiated other conversation himself, precisely the one not having expectation. Ācariyabhāgoti, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.185) it is said that the meaning is: “The portion of a teacher,” that is, not violating the conduct of Vinaya and teaching about medicine, the part of a medical teacher is his.
18. To show what should not be done even without expectation, it is said, “saddhaṃ kula” and so on. Even if it is said, “Bhesajjaṃ ācikkhathā”, it is permissible to say, “aññamaññaṃ pana kathā kātabbā”, as this is a circumlocution. Thus, even if one speaks in this way, taking this and that, there is no fault, according to the teachers. Pucchantī: This indicates that even if one speaks in this way to patients, it is not proper to investigate. Some say that even for one who asks with expectation, circumlocution is not permissible. Samullapesī: Without expectation, one initiates conversation with another. Ācariyabhāgo: Without violating the Vinaya, the role of a teacher is to instruct in medicine, as explained in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.185).
ID209
Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.185) pana “vinayalakkhaṇaṃ ajānantassa anācariyassa tadanurūpavohārāsambhavato īdisassa lābhassa uppatti nāma natthīti ’ācariyabhāgo nāma aya’nti vuttaṃ. Vinaye pakataññunā ācariyena labhitabbabhāgo ayanti vuttaṃ hotī”ti vuttaṃ. “Pupphapūjanatthāya dinnepi akappiyavohārena vidhānassa ayuttattā ’kappiyavasenā’ti vuttaṃ, ’pupphaṃ āharathā’tiādinā kappiyavohāravasenāti attho”ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.185) vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.185) pana “pupphapūjanatthāyapi sampaṭicchiyamānaṃ rūpiyaṃ attano santakattabhajanena nissaggiyamevāti āha ‘kappiyavasena gāhāpetvā’ti. ’Amhākaṃ rūpiyaṃ na vaṭṭati, pupphapūjanatthaṃ pupphaṃ vaṭṭatī’tiādinā paṭikkhipitvā kappiyena kammena gāhāpetvāti attho”ti vuttaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 186) pana “kappiyavasenāti amhākaṃ pupphaṃ ānethātiādinā. ’Pūjaṃ akāsī’ti vuttattā sayaṃ gahetuṃ na vaṭṭatīti vadantī”ti ettakameva vuttaṃ. Ayamettha bhesajjakaraṇavinicchayakathālaṅkāro.
In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.185), however, it is said, “For one who does not know the characteristics of the discipline, being unlearned, such gain does not arise due to the absence of appropriate conduct, so it is said, ‘This is the role of a teacher.’ It means this is the share to be obtained by a teacher skilled in the discipline.” It is also said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.185), “Even when given for flower offerings, due to the impropriety of arranging it with improper conduct, it is said ‘by proper means,’ meaning by proper conduct such as ‘Bring flowers’ and so forth.” In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.185), it is said, “Even when accepted for flower offerings, silver, being treated as one’s own possession, is subject to forfeiture, so it says, ‘Having it taken by proper means.’ ‘Silver is not permissible for us; flowers are permissible for flower offerings,’ and so forth—having it refused and taken by proper action is the meaning.” In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 186), however, it is merely stated, **“‘By proper means’** means by saying ‘Bring us flowers’ and so forth. Since it is said ‘He made an offering,’ it is not permissible to take it oneself, they say.” This is the adornment of the discussion on the decision regarding preparing medicine.
But in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.185), it is said: “Since an ignorant person, who is not a teacher of the Vinaya, cannot possibly engage in behavior that conforms to it, and since the arising of such gain is impossible, it is said, ‘This is called the portion of a teacher.’ The meaning is that this is the portion to be obtained by a teacher who is knowledgeable in the Vinaya.” “Even when given for the sake of offering flowers, since it is not proper to manage [money] in an impermissible way, it is said, ‘kappiyavasenā’ti, ‘by way of making it allowable,’ meaning, ‘by way of making it allowable through speech,’ such as saying, ‘Bring flowers,’ and so forth,” thus it is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.185). But in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.185), it is said: “‘kappiyavasena gāhāpetvā’ti, Even that which is received for the purpose of offering flowers becomes something to be forfeited because it becomes one’s own property, therefore it is said, ‘making them take it by way of making it allowable’. The meaning is: rejecting it by saying ‘We do not need money, we need flowers for offering flowers,’ and so on, making them accept it through allowable action.” In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 186), however, only this much is said: ““kappiyavasenāti by way of saying ‘Bring us flowers,’ and so on. Some say that because it says ‘He did the offering’, it is not permissible to take it oneself.” This here is the exposition of the determination concerning medicine-making.
In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.185), it is said, “For one who does not know the characteristics of the Vinaya and is not a teacher, such gain does not arise. Therefore, it is said, ‘This is the teacher’s portion.’ For a teacher skilled in the Vinaya, this is the portion to be obtained.” It is also said, “Even if given for the purpose of flower offerings, since improper conduct is not fitting, it is said, ‘by proper means,’ meaning by proper conduct, such as ‘bring flowers,’ etc.” In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.185), it is said, “Even if money is accepted for the purpose of flower offerings, it is to be forfeited as one’s own possession. Therefore, it is said, ‘kappiyavasena gāhāpetvā’. ‘We do not accept money, but flowers are permissible for flower offerings,’ etc., and thus it should be received by proper means.” In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Pārājika 186), it is said, “kappiyavasenā: ‘Bring flowers for us,’ etc. Since it is said, ‘He made offerings,’ it is not permissible to take oneself.” This is the ornament of the discussion on the decision regarding the preparation of medicine.
ID210
19. Evaṃ bhesajjakaraṇavinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni parittakaraṇavinicchayaṃ kathetumāha “paritte panā”tiādi. Tattha yadi “parittaṃ karothā”ti vutte karonti, bhesajjakaraṇaṃ viya gihikammaṃ viya ca hotīti “na kātabba”nti vuttaṃ. “Parittaṃ bhaṇathā”ti vutte pana dhammajjhesanattā anajjhiṭṭhenapi bhaṇitabbo dhammo, pageva ajjhiṭṭhenāti “kātabba”nti vuttaṃ, cāletvā suttaṃ parimajjitvāti parittaṃ karontena kātabbavidhiṃ dasseti. Cāletvā suttaṃ parimajjitvāti idaṃ vā “parittāṇaṃ ettha pavesemī”ti cittena evaṃ kate parittāṇā ettha pavesitā nāma hotīti vuttaṃ. Vihārato…pe… dukkaṭanti idaṃ aññātake gahaṭṭhe sandhāya vuttanti vadanti. Pādesu udakaṃ ākiritvāti idaṃ tasmiṃ dese cārittavasena vuttaṃ. Tattha hi pāḷiyā nisinnānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ pādesu rogavūpasamanādiatthāya udakaṃ siñcitvā parittaṃ kātuṃ suttañca ṭhapetvā “parittaṃ bhaṇathā”ti vatvā gacchanti. Evañhi kariyamāne yadi pāde apanenti, manussā taṃ “avamaṅgala”nti maññanti “rogo na vūpasamessatī”ti. Tenāha “na pādā apanetabbā”ti.
19. Having thus explained the decision on preparing medicine, now to explain the decision on protective chants, it says, “But in the case of paritta” and so forth. There, if they are told, “Perform a paritta,” and they do so, it becomes like preparing medicine or a layperson’s task, so it is said, “It should not be done.” But if they are told, “Recite a paritta,” since it is a request for the Dhamma, even one not requested should recite the Dhamma, let alone one requested, so it is said, “It should be done.” “Having shaken and rubbed the thread” shows the procedure to be followed by one performing a paritta. “Having shaken and rubbed the thread” means that when done with the thought, “I will infuse protection here,” it is said that protections are infused therein. “From the monastery… up to… dukkaṭa” is said to refer to lay non-relatives, they say. “Sprinkling water on the feet” is said according to the custom of that region. For there, after sprinkling water on the feet of seated monks for purposes like alleviating disease, they place the thread and say, “Recite a paritta,” then depart. When done this way, if they move their feet, people think it is “inauspicious” and “the disease will not subside,” so it says, “The feet should not be moved”.
19. Having thus set forth the determination concerning medicine-making, now, in order to set forth the determination concerning protective chanting, he says, “paritte panā”tiādi, “But in the case of protective [chanting],” and so on. There, if they do [it] when asked to “do protective [chanting]”, it becomes like medicine-making and like laymen’s work, therefore it is said, “It should not be done.” But when told, “Recite the protective [chanting]”, because it is a request for Dhamma, even if not requested, the Dhamma should be recited, and even more so if requested, therefore it is said, “It should be done.” cāletvā suttaṃ parimajjitvāti shows the method to be followed by one doing the protective chanting. Or cāletvā suttaṃ parimajjitvāti, this means that when this has been done in the mind, “I insert the protective suttas here”, then it is as if the protective suttas have been inserted here. Vihārato…pe… dukkaṭanti, this is said regarding householders who are not relatives. Some say that. Pādesu udakaṃ ākiritvāti, this is said according to the custom of that region. There, indeed, they sprinkle water on the feet of the monks sitting in rows, for the sake of pacifying diseases and so on, set down the text for performing protective chanting, and saying, “Recite the protective [chanting]”, they go. Indeed, if, when this is being done, they remove their feet, people think that it is “inauspicious”, that “the disease will not be pacified”. Therefore, he says, “na pādā apanetabbā”ti, “The feet should not be removed.”
19. Having discussed the decision on the preparation of medicine, now the decision on the performance of protective chants is discussed, beginning with “paritte panā”. Here, if it is said, “Perform protective chants,” and they do so, it becomes like preparing medicine or lay activities, so it is said, “It should not be done.” However, if it is said, “Recite protective chants,” since it is a request for Dhamma, the Dhamma should be recited even without being asked, let alone when asked, so it is said, “It should be done.” Cāletvā suttaṃ parimajjitvā: This shows the method to be followed when performing protective chants. Cāletvā suttaṃ parimajjitvā: This means that when one thinks, “I enter the protective chant here,” the protective chant is thereby entered. Vihārato…pe… dukkaṭa: This is said with reference to laypeople who are not relatives. Pādesu udakaṃ ākiritvā: This is said according to the custom of that region. There, water is poured on the feet of monks seated in the Pāli recitation for the purpose of pacifying illness, etc., and after placing the thread, they say, “Recite protective chants,” and depart. If, while doing so, they remove their feet, people think, “This is inauspicious,” and “The illness will not be pacified.” Therefore, it is said, “na pādā apanetabbā”.
ID211
Matasarīradassane viya kevale susānadassanepi idaṃ jātānaṃ sattānaṃ vayagamanaṭṭhānanti maraṇasaññā uppajjatīti āha “sīvathikadassane…pe… maraṇassatiṃ paṭilabhissāmāti gantuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti. Lesakappaṃ akatvā samuppannasuddhacittena “parivāratthāya āgacchantū”ti vuttepi gantuṃ vaṭṭatīti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.185) vuttaṃ. Etena asubhadassananti vacanamattena lesakappaṃ katvā evaṃ gate matassa ñātakā pasīdissanti, dānaṃ dassanti, mayaṃ lābhaṃ labhissāma, upaṭṭhākaṃ labhissāmāti asuddhacittena gantuṃ na vaṭṭatīti dasseti. Kammaṭṭhānasīsena pana “maraṇassatiṃ labhissāmā”tiādinā suddhacittena pakkositepi apakkositepi gantuṃ vaṭṭatīti dīpeti. Tālapaṇṇassa parittalekhanaṭṭhānattā parittasuttassa parittakaraṇasaññāṇattā tāni disvā amanussā parittasaññāya apakkamantīti āha “tālapaṇṇaṃ pana parittasuttaṃ vā hatthe vā pāde vā bandhitabba”nti.
Just as in seeing a corpse, even merely seeing a cemetery gives rise to the perception of death among beings as “This is the place where beings go when they perish,” it says, “In seeing a cemetery… up to… it is permissible to go to obtain mindfulness of death”. Even when told, “Come for protection,” it is permissible to go with a pure mind that has not been contrived, as stated in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.185). This shows that it is not permissible to go with an impure mind, contriving asubha contemplation merely by the word, thinking, “The relatives of the deceased will be pleased, give alms, we will gain profit, we will gain supporters.” But under the heading of meditation subjects, with a pure mind saying, “We will obtain mindfulness of death” and so forth, it is permissible to go whether invited or uninvited, it indicates. Since palm leaves are a place for writing paritta texts and are recognized as such, non-human beings, seeing them, depart due to the recognition of paritta, so it says, “But a palm leaf or paritta thread should be tied on the hand or foot”.
Just as at the sight of a dead body, even at the mere sight of a charnel ground, the perception of death arises [thinking] “this is the place of decay of born beings,” thus he says, “sīvathikadassane…pe… maraṇassatiṃ paṭilabhissāmāti gantuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti, “It is permissible to go, [thinking] ‘At the sight of a charnel ground… and so on… I will gain mindfulness of death’.” In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.185), it is said that it is permissible to go even when told, “Come for the sake of the retinue,” by one with a pure mind that has arisen without making it a pretext. By this, [with] the mere statement of seeing foulness, having made it a pretext, it shows that it is not appropriate to go with an impure mind, thinking “The relatives of the dead will be pleased, they will give a gift, we will receive gain, we will receive attendants.” But with a subject for meditation in mind, thinking, “We will gain mindfulness of death,” and so forth, with a pure mind, whether invited or not invited, it is permissible to go; this is what he indicates. Since the palm leaf is the place for writing the protective [texts], and since the protective sutta is a sign of performing protection, seeing those, non-humans depart with the perception that it is a protective [text], therefore he says, “tālapaṇṇaṃ pana parittasuttaṃ vā hatthe vā pāde vā bandhitabba”nti, “But a palm leaf or a protective sutta should be tied on the hand or the foot.”
Just as in seeing a corpse, even in merely seeing a charnel ground, the perception of death arises in beings who are born, knowing it as a place of passing away. Therefore, it is said, “sīvathikadassane…pe… maraṇassatiṃ paṭilabhissāmāti gantuṃ vaṭṭatī”. Even if it is said, “Come for the sake of the retinue,” one may go without making a show, with a pure mind, as stated in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.185). This indicates that one should not go with an impure mind, thinking, “The relatives of the deceased will be pleased, they will give gifts, we will gain offerings, we will gain attendants.” However, for one devoted to meditation, whether invited or not, one may go with a pure mind, thinking, “I will gain mindfulness of death,” etc. Because of the purpose of writing on palm leaves and the perception of protective chants, seeing these, non-humans depart with the perception of protection. Therefore, it is said, “tālapaṇṇaṃ pana parittasuttaṃ vā hatthe vā pāde vā bandhitabba”.
ID212
Ettha ca ādito paṭṭhāya yāva “āṭānāṭiyaparittaṃ (dī. ni. 3.275 ādayo) vā bhaṇitabba”nti ettakoyeva vinayaṭṭhakathābhato pāḷimuttaparittakaraṇavinicchayo, na pana tato paraṃ vutto, tasmā “idha panā”tiādiko kathāmaggo samantapāsādikāyaṃ natthi, tīsu ṭīkāsupi taṃsaṃvaṇṇanānayo natthi, tathāpi so suttaṭṭhakathāyaṃ āgatovāti taṃ dassetuṃ “idha pana āṭānāṭiyasuttassa parikammaṃ veditabba”ntiādimāha. Tattha idhāti “āṭānāṭiyaparittaṃ vā bhaṇitabba”nti vacane. Panāti visesatthe nipāto. Dīghanikāye pāthikavagge āgatassa āṭānāṭiyaparittassa parikammaṃ evaṃ veditabbanti yojanā. Yadi paṭhamameva na vattabbaṃ, atha kiṃ kātabbanti āha “mettasutta”ntiādi. Evañhi laddhāsevanaṃ hutvā atiojavantaṃ hoti.
Here, from the beginning up to “The Āṭānāṭiya-paritta (dī. ni. 3.275 and following) or should be recited” is the decision on performing paritta solely from the Vinaya commentary, without further text; beyond that, nothing is stated. Therefore, the discussion starting with “But here” and so forth is not found in the Samantapāsādikā, nor is its explanation found in the three sub-commentaries. Nevertheless, since it comes from the Sutta commentary, to show this, it says, “But here, the preliminary practice of the Āṭānāṭiya-sutta should be understood” and so forth. There, “here” refers to the statement “The Āṭānāṭiya-paritta or should be recited.” “But” is a particle indicating distinction. It should be construed as: The preliminary practice of the Āṭānāṭiya-paritta, found in the Pāthika section of the Dīgha Nikāya, should be understood thus. If it should not be recited first, then what should be done? It says, “The Metta-sutta” and so forth. For when practiced this way, it becomes swift and effective.
And here, from the beginning up to “āṭānāṭiyaparittaṃ (dī. ni. 3.275 ādayo) vā bhaṇitabba”nti, “the Āṭānāṭiya protective [discourse] (DN. 3.275, etc.) should be recited”, is only the determination on protective chanting free from the Pali, from the Vinaya commentary, but beyond that is not stated. Therefore, the section of the text beginning with, “But here,” is not in the Samantapāsādikā, and there is no explanation of it in the three ṭīkās; however, it has come down in the Sutta commentary. To show that, he says, “idha pana āṭānāṭiyasuttassa parikammaṃ veditabba”ntiādi, “But here, the preliminary practice of the Āṭānāṭiya Sutta should be understood,” and so on. There, idhāti, [means] in the statement, “the Āṭānāṭiya protective [discourse] should be recited.” Panāti is a particle in the sense of a special case. The meaning is: the preliminary practice of the Āṭānāṭiya protective [discourse], which has come down in the Pāthikavagga of the Dīgha Nikāya, should be understood thus. If it is not to be said at the very beginning, then what should be done?, he says, “mettasutta”ntiādi, “the Mettā Sutta,” and so on. Indeed, having thus gained familiarity, it becomes very potent.
Here, from the beginning up to “āṭānāṭiyaparittaṃ (Dī. Ni. 3.275 ādayo) vā bhaṇitabba”, this is the decision on the performance of protective chants as found in the Vinaya commentaries, but nothing beyond this is stated. Therefore, the discussion beginning with “idha panā” is not found in the Samantapāsādikā, nor is the method of explanation found in the three commentaries. Nevertheless, since it is found in the Sutta commentaries, to show this, it is said, “idha pana āṭānāṭiyasuttassa parikammaṃ veditabba”. Here, idhā means “in the statement, ‘āṭānāṭiyaparittaṃ vā bhaṇitabba’.” Panā is a particle indicating emphasis. The preparation of the Āṭānāṭiya Paritta, found in the Dīghanikāya’s Pāthikavagga, should be understood in this way. If it is not to be stated first, then what should be done? It is said, “mettasutta” and so on. Thus, when practiced diligently, it becomes very effective.
ID213
Piṭṭhaṃ vā maṃsaṃ vāti vā-saddo aniyamattho, tena macchakhaṇḍapūvakhajjakādayo saṅgaṇhāti. Otāraṃ labhantīti attanā piyāyitakhādanīyanibaddhavasanaṭṭhānalābhatāya avatāraṇaṃ labhanti. Haritūpalittanti allagomayalittaṃ. Idañhi porāṇakacārittaṃ bhūmivisuddhakaraṇaṃ. Parisuddhaṃ…pe… nisīditabbanti iminā parittakārakassa bhikkhuno mettākaruṇāvasena cittavisuddhipi icchitabbāti dasseti. Evañhi sati upari vakkhamānaubhayato rakkhāsaṃvidhānena sameti. Ṭīkāyaṃ (dī. ni. ṭī. 3.282) pana “sarīrasuddhipi icchitabbāti dassetī”ti vuttaṃ. Tadetaṃ vicāretabbaṃ. Na hi “kāyasuddhimattena amanussānaṃ piyo hotī”ti vuttaṃ, mettāvaseneva pana vuttaṃ. Vuttañhetaṃ bhagavatā “mettāya, bhikkhave, cetovimuttiyā…pe… ekādasānisaṃsā pāṭikaṅkhā. Katame ekādasa? Sukhaṃ supati, sukhaṃ paṭibujjhati, na pāpakaṃ supinaṃ passati, manussānaṃ piyo hoti, amanussānaṃ piyo hotī”tiādi (a. ni. 11.15; pari. 331; mi. pa. 4.4.6).
“Flour or meat”—the particle “or” is indefinite, thus including fish pieces, cakes, snacks, and the like. “They find an opportunity” means they gain an entry due to being fixed in a place desired for eating. “Smeared with fresh cow dung” refers to wet cow-dung plaster, an ancient custom for purifying the ground. “Pure… up to… should sit” shows that a monk performing a paritta should also desire mental purification through loving-kindness and compassion. For in this way, it accords with the protective arrangement from both sides, as will be stated later. In the sub-commentary (dī. ni. ṭī. 3.282), however, it says, “It shows that physical purity is also desired.” This should be considered. For it is not said, “One becomes dear to non-humans merely by physical purity,” but rather through loving-kindness. The Blessed One said, “Monks, from the liberation of mind through loving-kindness… up to… eleven benefits can be expected. What eleven? One sleeps well, wakes happily, does not see bad dreams, is dear to humans, dear to non-humans,” and so forth (a. ni. 11.15; pari. 331; mi. pa. 4.4.6).
Piṭṭhaṃ vā maṃsaṃ vāti, the word vā, “or”, has the sense of non-restriction, by that it includes fish, pieces of cake, sweetmeats, and so on. Otāraṃ labhantīti, they find an opportunity because of obtaining a place fastened to the food that they like to eat. Haritūpalittanti, smeared with fresh cow dung. Indeed, this is an ancient custom for purifying the ground. By saying, Parisuddhaṃ…pe… nisīditabbanti, “Pure… and so on… one should sit,” it shows that the purity of mind through loving-kindness and compassion is also desired of the monk performing the protective [chanting]. Indeed, when this is so, it is consistent with the arrangement of protection on both sides that will be stated below. But in the ṭīkā (dī. ni. ṭī. 3.282), it is said, “It shows that purity of body is also desired.” This should be examined. Indeed, it is not said, “By mere purity of body, one becomes dear to non-humans,” but it is said through the power of loving-kindness. Indeed, this was said by the Blessed One: “Of loving-kindness, monks, of the release of mind… and so on… eleven benefits are to be expected. What are the eleven? One sleeps well, one wakes well, one does not see bad dreams, one is dear to humans, one is dear to non-humans,” and so forth (a. ni. 11.15; pari. 331; mi. pa. 4.4.6).
Piṭṭhaṃ vā maṃsaṃ vā: The word vā indicates indefiniteness, thus including fish, cakes, sweets, etc. Otāraṃ labhantī: They gain access due to their attachment to delicious food. Haritūpalitta: Smeared with fresh cow dung. This is an ancient practice for purifying the ground. Parisuddhaṃ…pe… nisīditabba: This indicates that the monk performing the protective chant should also desire purity of mind through loving-kindness and compassion. Thus, with the above and below, the arrangement of protection is complete. In the commentary (Dī. Ni. Ṭī. 3.282), it is said, “Purity of body is also to be desired.” This should be considered. For it is not said, “By mere bodily purity, one becomes dear to non-humans,” but it is said through loving-kindness. The Blessed One said, “Monks, for one with a mind freed by loving-kindness… eleven benefits are to be expected. What are the eleven? One sleeps happily, wakes happily, sees no evil dreams, is dear to humans, is dear to non-humans,” etc. (A. Ni. 11.15; Pari. 331; Mi. Pa. 4.4.6).
ID214
Parittakārako…pe… samparivāritenāti idaṃ parittakaraṇo bāhirato ārakkhāsaṃvidhānaṃ, “metta…pe… vattabba”nti abbhantarato ārakkhāsaṃvidhānaṃ, evaṃ ubhayato rakkhāsaṃvidhānaṃ hoti. Evañhi amanussā parittakārakassa antarāyaṃ kātuṃ na visahanti. Maṅgalakathā vattabbāti amanussānaṃ tosanatthāya paṇṇākāraṃ katvā mahāmaṅgalakathā kathetabbā. Evaṃ upari vakkhamānena “tuyhaṃ paṇṇākāratthāya mahāmaṅgalakathā vuttā”ti vacanena sameti. Ṭīkāyaṃ pana “pubbupacāravasena vattabbā”ti vuttaṃ. Sabbasannipātoti tasmiṃ vihāre tasmiṃ gāmakkhette sabbesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ sannipāto ghosetabbo “cetiyaṅgaṇe sabbehi sannipatitabba”nti. Anāgantuṃnāma na labhatīti amanusso buddhāṇābhayena rājāṇābhayena anāgantuṃ na labhati catunnaṃ mahārājūnaṃ āṇāṭṭhāniyattā. Gahitakāpadesena amanussova pucchito hotīti “amanussagahitako ’tvaṃ ko nāmo’ti pucchitabbo”ti vuttaṃ. Mālāgandhādīsūti mālāgandhādipūjāsu. Āsanapūjāyāti cetiye buddhāsanapūjāya. Piṇḍapāteti bhikkhusaṅghassa piṇḍapātadāne. Evaṃ vatthuppadesena cetanā vuttā, tasmā pattidānaṃ sambhavati.
“The one performing paritta… up to… surrounded” refers to the external arrangement of protection for the one performing paritta, while “Loving-kindness… up to… should be practiced” refers to the internal arrangement of protection, thus constituting a protective arrangement from both sides. In this way, non-human beings cannot obstruct the one performing paritta. “Auspicious discourse should be given” means that for the satisfaction of non-human beings, an offering should be made and the Great Auspicious Discourse given. This accords with the later statement, “For your offering, the Great Auspicious Discourse was given”. In the sub-commentary, however, it says, “It should be given as a preliminary act.” “Complete assembly” means the gathering of all monks in that monastery or village area should be announced: “All should assemble in the shrine courtyard.” “Cannot fail to come” means a non-human cannot fail to come due to fear of the Buddha’s authority and the king’s authority, as it pertains to the command of the four great kings. Since a possessed person is questioned as a non-human, it says, “The one possessed by a non-human should be asked, ‘What is your name?’” “In garlands, scents, and so forth” refers to offerings of garlands, scents, and the like. “In seat offerings” refers to offerings of seats at the shrine for the Buddha. “In almsfood” refers to giving almsfood to the Sangha of monks. Intention is thus expressed with reference to objects, so the sharing of merit is possible.
Parittakārako…pe… samparivāritenāti, this, “The one performing the protective [chanting]… and so on… surrounded,” is the arrangement of protection from outside; “metta…pe… vattabba”nti, “loving-kindness… and so on… should be recited,” is the arrangement of protection from inside; thus, there is an arrangement of protection on both sides. Indeed, in this way, non-humans are unable to cause any harm to the one performing the protective [chanting]. Maṅgalakathā vattabbāti, in order to please the non-humans, having made it a gift, the Mahāmaṅgala discourse should be recited. Thus, it is consistent with the statement that will be stated below, “tuyhaṃ paṇṇākāratthāya mahāmaṅgalakathā vuttā”ti, “For the sake of a gift for you, the Mahāmaṅgala discourse was recited.” But in the ṭīkā, it is said, “It should be recited as a preliminary practice.” Sabbasannipātoti, the gathering of all the monks in that monastery, in that village area, ghosetabbo, “should be announced,” that “All should gather in the courtyard of the shrine.” Anāgantuṃnāma na labhatīti, a non-human is not able to not come because of fear of the Buddha’s command, fear of the king’s command, because it is a place where the command of the four great kings is established. Because a non-human is asked through a pretense, it is said, “amanussagahitako ’tvaṃ ko nāmo’ti pucchitabbo”ti, “One who is seized by a non-human should be asked, ‘Who are you by name?’” Mālāgandhādīsūti, in the offerings of garlands, perfumes, and so forth. Āsanapūjāyāti, in the offering of a seat for the Buddha at the shrine. Piṇḍapāteti, in the giving of almsfood to the community of monks. Thus, volition is stated by way of the object, therefore the dedication of merit is possible.
Parittakārako…pe… samparivāritenā: This is the external arrangement of protection for the performer of protective chants. “Metta…pe… vattabba” is the internal arrangement of protection. Thus, protection is arranged both internally and externally. In this way, non-humans cannot harm the performer of protective chants. Maṅgalakathā vattabbā: For the satisfaction of non-humans, a great auspicious discourse should be given after making a leaf offering. Thus, with the above, it is said, “tuyhaṃ paṇṇākāratthāya mahāmaṅgalakathā vuttā”. In the commentary, it is said, “It should be given as a preliminary offering.” Sabbasannipāto: The assembly of all monks in that monastery or village should be announced, ghosetabbo, “All should assemble in the courtyard of the shrine.” Anāgantuṃnāma na labhatī: A non-human cannot come due to the fear of the Buddha, the fear of kings, or the command of the Four Great Kings. Since the non-human is questioned by the one who has taken the precepts, it is said, “amanussagahitako ’tvaṃ ko nāmo’ti pucchitabbo”. Mālāgandhādīsū: In offerings of garlands and perfumes. Āsanapūjāyā: In the offering of seats to the Buddha shrine. Piṇḍapāte: In giving alms to the Sangha of monks. Thus, with the offering of requisites, the intention is stated, and therefore, the dedication of merit is possible.
ID215
Devatānanti yakkhasenāpatīnaṃ. Vuttañhi āṭānāṭiyasutte (dī. ni. 3.283, 293) “imesaṃ yakkhānaṃ mahāyakkhānaṃ senāpatīnaṃ mahāsenāpatīnaṃ ujjhāpetabba”ntiādi. Āṭāti dabbimukhasakuṇā. Te āṭā nadanti etthāti āṭānādaṃ, devanagaraṃ, āṭānāde kataṃ āṭānādiyaṃ, suttaṃ. Ṭīkāyaṃ (dī. ni. ṭī. 3.282) “parittaṃ bhaṇitabbanti etthāpi ’mettacittaṃ purecārikaṃ katvā’ti ca ’maṅgalakathā vattabbā’ti ca ’vihārassa upavane’ti ca evamādi sabbaṃ gihīnaṃ parittakaraṇe vuttaṃ parikammaṃ kātabbamevā”ti vuttaṃ, evaṃ sati aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (dī. ni. aṭṭha. 3.282) “etaṃ tāva gihīnaṃ parikamma”nti vatvā “sace pana bhikkhū”tiādinā visesatthajotakena pana-saddena saha vuccamānaṃ “idaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ parikamma”nti vacanaṃ niratthakaṃ viya hoti. Avisese hi sati bhedo kātabbo na siyā. Bhikkhūnañca yathāvuttāva bāhirārakkhā dukkarā hoti, tasmā gihīnaṃ parittakaraṇe vuttaparikamme asampajjamānepi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttanayeneva kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti no mati.
“Of the deities” refers to the commanders of the yakkha hosts. For it is said in the Āṭānāṭiya-sutta (dī. ni. 3.283, 293), “These yakkhas, great yakkhas, commanders, great commanders should be reproached,” and so forth. “Āṭā” refers to birds with spoonbill-like beaks; where they cry out is called Āṭānāda, a divine city, and the sutta composed there is “Āṭānādiya”. In the sub-commentary (dī. ni. ṭī. 3.282), it says, “‘A paritta should be recited’—here too, ‘Having made loving-kindness a preliminary practice,’ ‘An auspicious discourse should be given,’ ‘In the monastery garden,’ and so forth—all such things said regarding laypeople’s paritta performance should indeed be done as preliminary practice.” If so, the commentary’s statement (dī. ni. aṭṭha. 3.282), “This first is the preliminary practice for laypeople,” followed by “But if monks” with the distinguishing particle ‘but,’ implying “This is the preliminary practice for monks,” seems pointless. For without distinction, no differentiation would be made. Moreover, the external protection as described is difficult for monks, so even if the preliminary practice stated for laypeople’s paritta performance is not followed, it is permissible to do it according to the method stated in the commentary—this is our view.
Devatānanti, of the generals of the yakkhas. Indeed, it is said in the Āṭānāṭiya Sutta (dī. ni. 3.283, 293), “Of these yakkhas, great yakkhas, generals, great generals, one should complain,” and so forth. Āṭāti are birds with beaks like ladles. Those āṭās cry there, thus it is āṭānādaṃ, a city of the gods, that which is made in Āṭānāda is āṭānādiyaṃ, a sutta. In the ṭīkā (dī. ni. ṭī. 3.282) “parittaṃ bhaṇitabbanti, also here, ‘having made loving-kindness the forerunner’, and ‘the auspicious discourse should be spoken’, and ‘in the grove of the monastery’, and so forth, all the preliminaries stated for the protective chanting by lay people should be done” it is said, when this is so, in the commentary (dī. ni. aṭṭha. 3.282), having said “this is first of all the preliminary of the lay people” the statement “this is the preliminary of the bhikkhus,” being said with the particle “pana” which indicates a special condition in this way “but if the bhikkhus”, and so forth, seems meaningless. If there is no difference, there should be no distinction made. And for monks, the external protection as described is difficult to do, therefore, even though the preliminary stated for protective chanting by lay people is not consistent, in our opinion, it should be done in the manner stated in the commentary.
Devatāna: The commanders of the yakkha armies. It is said in the Āṭānāṭiya Sutta (Dī. Ni. 3.283, 293), “These yakkhas, great yakkhas, commanders, and great commanders should be appeased,” etc. Āṭā: The bird called Dabbimukha. They cry “āṭā,” hence the place is called Āṭānāda, the city of the gods. The sutta composed there is called āṭānādiyaṃ. In the commentary (Dī. Ni. Ṭī. 3.282), it is said, “parittaṃ bhaṇitabba: Here too, ‘having first cultivated a mind of loving-kindness,’ and ‘the auspicious discourse should be given,’ and ‘in the grove of the monastery,’ etc., all the preparations stated for laypeople in performing protective chants should be done.” Thus, in the commentary (Dī. Ni. Aṭṭha. 3.282), it is said, “This is the preparation for laypeople,” and then, “But if monks,” etc., with the word “pana” indicating a special meaning, it is said, “This is the preparation for monks,” but this statement seems pointless. For if there is no distinction, no division should be made. For monks, the external protection is difficult as stated, so even if the preparations stated for laypeople are not fully present, it is permissible to follow the method stated in the commentary.
ID216
Idaṃ pana idha āgataṃ āṭānāṭiyasuttaparikammaṃ sutvā “idaṃ suttaṃ amanussānaṃ amanāpaṃ, sajjhāyantassa parittaṃ karontassa amanussā antarāyaṃ kareyyu”nti maññamānā porāṇā catūhi mahārājehi ārocitaṃ sabbaññubuddhena desitaṃ mūlabhūtaṃ dīghanikāye āgataṃ āṭānāṭiyasuttaṃ (dī. ni. 3.275 ādayo) pahāya mūlasuttato gāthāchakkameva gahetvā avasesaṃ sabbaṃ suttaṃ ṭhapetvā aññagāthāyo pakkhipitvā “āṭānāṭiyaparitta”nti ṭhapesuṃ, tampi parittaṃ amūlabhūtattā ekenākārena dhāretuṃ asakkontā keci saṃkhittena dhārenti, keci vitthārena, keci ekaccā gāthāyo pakkhipanti, keci nikkhipanti, keci bhikkhū taṃmissakaparittampi maṅgalakaraṇakālādīsu vattumavisahantā taṃ ṭhapetvā aññasuttāniyeva bhaṇanti, sabbametaṃ ayuttaṃ viya dissati. Kasmā? Cattāropi mahārājāno imaṃ āṭānāṭiyaṃ rakkhaṃ saṃvidahamānā buddhasāsane amanussānaṃ pasādāya, catassannaṃ parisānaṃ aviheṭhanāya eva saṃvidahiṃsu , na aññena kāraṇena. Vuttañhi tattha “tattha santi uḷārā yakkhānivāsino, ye imasmiṃ bhagavato pāvacane appasannā, tesaṃ pasādāya uggaṇhātu bhante bhagavā āṭānāṭiyaṃ rakkhaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ bhikkhunīnaṃ upāsakānaṃ upāsikānaṃ guttiyā rakkhāya avihiṃsāya phāsuvihārāyā”ti (dī. ni. 3.276).
Now, having heard the preparatory section of the Āṭānāṭiya Sutta mentioned here, the ancients, thinking, “This sutta is displeasing to non-human beings; they might cause obstacles for one who recites it or uses it as a protective chant,” abandoned the original Āṭānāṭiya Sutta (Dī. Ni. 3.275 onwards) as taught by the Omniscient Buddha in the Dīgha Nikāya, which was conveyed by the four great kings. Instead, they took only the six verses from the original sutta, set aside the rest of the entire sutta, inserted other verses, and established it as the “Āṭānāṭiya Paritta.” Even this paritta, being non-original, could not be retained uniformly by some: some recite it briefly, some in detail, some insert certain verses, some omit them. Certain monks, unable to use even this mixed paritta during auspicious occasions and the like, set it aside and recite other suttas instead. All this seems improper. Why? Because all four great kings arranged this Āṭānāṭiya protection for the confidence of non-human beings in the Buddha’s teaching and for the non-harming of the four assemblies, and not for any other reason. Indeed, it is said there, “There are powerful yakṣas dwelling there who lack faith in the Blessed One’s teaching. For their confidence, may the Blessed One, Venerable Sir, learn the Āṭānāṭiya protection for the safety, protection, non-harming, and comfortable living of monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen” (Dī. Ni. 3.276).
But this which is included here, the preparation for the Āṭānāṭiya Sutta, having heard, “This sutta is unpleasant to non-humans; to one reciting and making it a protection, non-humans might cause obstacles,” the ancients, thinking thus, abandoned the original Āṭānāṭiya Sutta (Dī. Ni. 3.275, etc.) in the Dīgha Nikāya, presented to the omniscient Buddha by the four great kings, and taking only six verses from the original sutta, removing all the rest of the sutta, inserted other verses and established it as the “Āṭānāṭiya Paritta.” Since even that protection, because it is not based on the original, cannot be maintained uniformly, some maintain it in brief, some in detail, some insert certain verses, some omit them, and some monks, unable to recite even that mixed protection on occasions of auspicious ceremonies and so forth, omit it and recite other suttas. All this appears inappropriate. Why? Because all four great kings, establishing this Āṭānāṭiya protection, did so for the sake of faith of non-humans in the Buddha’s teaching, and for the non-harassment of the four assemblies, and for no other reason. It is said there, “There are eminent yakka residents there who are not pleased with this dispensation of the Blessed One. For their faith, may the Blessed One, O Lord, learn the Āṭānāṭiya protection for the good, protection, non-harming, and comfortable abiding of monks, nuns, male lay followers, and female lay followers” (Dī. Ni. 3.276).
This, however, has come here as the preparation for the Āṭānāṭiya Sutta. Hearing this sutta, the ancients thought, “This sutta is displeasing to non-humans. If one recites it or uses it as a protective chant, non-humans might cause harm.” Therefore, they abandoned the Āṭānāṭiya Sutta, which was taught by the All-Knowing Buddha, communicated by the Four Great Kings, and found in the Dīgha Nikāya as a root text (Dī. Ni. 3.275, etc.). They took only the six verses from the root sutta, discarded the rest, inserted other verses, and established it as the “Āṭānāṭiya Paritta.” However, since this paritta lacks a root, some are unable to recite it in one way, some recite it briefly, some in detail, some insert certain verses, some omit them, and some monks, unable to use even this mixed paritta during auspicious occasions, abandon it and recite other suttas instead. All this seems inappropriate. Why? The Four Great Kings, while establishing this Āṭānāṭiya protection, did so for the sake of inspiring faith in non-humans towards the Buddha’s dispensation and for the non-harming of the four assemblies, not for any other reason. As it is said there: “There are mighty yakkhas dwelling here who are not devoted to this teaching of the Blessed One. For their devotion, may the Blessed One learn the Āṭānāṭiya protection for the safety, protection, non-harming, and well-being of monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen” (Dī. Ni. 3.276).
ID217
Sammāsambuddhenapi imassa suttassa nigamane “uggaṇhātha bhikkhave āṭānāṭiyaṃ rakkhaṃ, pariyāpuṇātha bhikkhave āṭānāṭiyaṃ rakkhaṃ, dhāretha bhikkhave āṭānāṭiyaṃ rakkhaṃ, atthasaṃhitā bhikkhave āṭānāṭiyā rakkhā bhikkhūnaṃ bhikkhunīnaṃ upāsakānaṃ upāsikānaṃ guttiyā rakkhāya avihiṃsāya phāsuvihārāyā”ti (dī. ni. 3.295) bhikkhūnaṃ dhāraṇaṃ uyyojitaṃ ānisaṃsañca pakāsitaṃ. Aṭṭhakathācariyehi ca “buddhabhāsite ekakkharampi ekapadampi apanetabbaṃ nāma natthī”ti vuttaṃ , tasmā catūhi mahārājehi saṃvidahitaṃ sammāsambuddhena āhaccabhāsitaṃ tisso saṅgītiyo āruḷhaṃ pakatiāṭānāṭiyasuttameva dhāretuṃ sajjhāyituñca yuttaṃ, na bhagavatā abhāsitaṃ tisso saṅgītiyo anāruḷhaṃ missakasuttanti. Dīghanikāyaṭṭhakathāyaṃ (dī. ni. aṭṭha. 3.282) āgataṃ idaṃ āṭānāṭiyaparittaparikammaṃ pana pakatisajjhāyanavācanādiṃ sandhāya aṭṭhakathācariyehi na vuttaṃ, atha kho gahaṭṭhaṃ vā pabbajitaṃ vā amanussehi gahitakāle mocāpanatthāya lokiyehi mantaṃ viya bhaṇanaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Vuttañhi tattha “amanussagahitako tvaṃ ko nāmosīti pucchitabbo”tiādi (dī. ni. aṭṭha. 3.282).
Even the Perfectly Enlightened One, at the conclusion of this sutta, encouraged the monks to retain it, saying, “Learn, monks, the Āṭānāṭiya protection; master it, monks; retain it, monks. The Āṭānāṭiya protection is beneficial, monks, for the safety, protection, non-harming, and comfortable living of monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen” (Dī. Ni. 3.295), and he explained its benefits. The commentary teachers also stated, “Not even a single letter or word spoken by the Buddha is to be removed.” Therefore, it is proper to retain and recite only the original Āṭānāṭiya Sutta, arranged by the four great kings, spoken directly by the Perfectly Enlightened One, and included in the three councils, rather than a mixed sutta not spoken by the Blessed One nor included in the three councils. However, the preparatory section of the Āṭānāṭiya Paritta found in the Dīgha Nikāya commentary (Dī. Ni. Aṭṭha. 3.282) was not mentioned by the commentary teachers in reference to ordinary recitation or reading; rather, it was stated with regard to chanting it like a worldly mantra to free a householder or monk seized by non-human beings. Indeed, it is said there, “One seized by a non-human being should be asked, ‘Who are you?’” and so forth (Dī. Ni. Aṭṭha. 3.282).
And the Perfectly Enlightened Buddha, at the conclusion of this sutta, urged the monks to learn it, saying, “Learn, monks, the Āṭānāṭiya protection; master, monks, the Āṭānāṭiya protection; maintain, monks, the Āṭānāṭiya protection. The Āṭānāṭiya protection, monks, is beneficial for the good, protection, non-harming, and comfortable abiding of monks, nuns, male lay followers, and female lay followers” (Dī. Ni. 3.295), and declared the benefits. And the commentary authors said, “In the Buddha’s word, not even a single syllable, not even a single word should be removed.” Therefore, it is proper to maintain and recite only the original Āṭānāṭiya Sutta, established by the four great kings, directly spoken by the Perfectly Enlightened Buddha, and included in the three councils, and not the mixed sutta not spoken by the Blessed One and not included in the three councils. This preparation for the Āṭānāṭiya Paritta, which appears in the Dīgha Nikāya commentary (Dī. Ni. Aṭṭha. 3.282), was not stated by the commentary authors in reference to the original recitation and reading, etc., but rather in reference to reciting it like a mantra by worldly people for the sake of releasing a householder or a renunciant when seized by non-humans. For it is said there, “One seized by a non-human should be asked, ‘Who are you?’” and so on (Dī. Ni. Aṭṭha. 3.282).
Even the Fully Enlightened One, at the conclusion of this sutta, urged the monks: “Learn, monks, the Āṭānāṭiya protection; master it, monks, the Āṭānāṭiya protection; recite it, monks, the Āṭānāṭiya protection. This Āṭānāṭiya protection is beneficial for the safety, protection, non-harming, and well-being of monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen” (Dī. Ni. 3.295). Thus, the Buddha encouraged the monks to recite it and explained its benefits. The commentary teachers also said, “Not a single letter or word spoken by the Buddha should be omitted.” Therefore, it is proper to recite and study the original Āṭānāṭiya Sutta, which was established by the Four Great Kings, spoken by the Fully Enlightened One, and included in the three councils, not the mixed sutta not spoken by the Buddha and not included in the three councils. The preparation for the Āṭānāṭiya Paritta found in the Dīgha Nikāya commentary (Dī. Ni. Aṭṭha. 3.282) was not spoken by the commentary teachers in reference to regular recitation or study, but rather in reference to its recitation as a worldly charm for the purpose of freeing one, whether lay or monastic, seized by non-humans. As it is said there: “If one is seized by a non-human, one should ask, ‘Who are you?’” etc. (Dī. Ni. Aṭṭha. 3.282).
ID218
Āṭānāṭiyā rakkhā ca nāma na sakalasuttaṃ, atha kho “vipassissa ca namatthū”ti padaṃ ādiṃ katvā catunnaṃ mahārājūnaṃ vasena catukkhattuṃ āgataṃ “jinaṃ vandāma gotama”nti padaṃ pariyosānaṃ katvā vuttasuttekadesoyeva. Kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce? “Atha kho vessavaṇo mahārājā bhagavato adhivāsanaṃ viditvā imaṃ āṭānāṭiyaṃ rakkhaṃ abhāsī”ti ārabhitvā yathāvuttasuttekadesassa avasāne “ayaṃ kho mārisā āṭānāṭiyā rakkhā”ti niyyātitattā. Tasmā yathā nāma byagghādayo attano bhakkhaṃ vilumpantānaṃ balavaduṭṭhacittā bhavanti, evaṃ attanā gahitamanussaṃ mocāpentānaṃ amanussā paduṭṭhacittā honti. Iti tathā mocāpetuṃ āraddhakāle bhikkhūnaṃ parissayavinodanatthaṃ imaṃ āṭānāṭiyaparittaparikammaṃ aṭṭhakathācariyehi vuttanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Ayaṃ parittakaraṇavinicchayakathālaṅkāro.
The Āṭānāṭiya protection itself is not the entire sutta but rather only a portion of it, beginning with the line “To Vipassī we pay homage” and repeated four times according to the four great kings, ending with the line “We honor the Conqueror Gotama.” How is this known? Because, starting with “Then Vessavaṇa, the great king, knowing the Blessed One’s consent, recited this Āṭānāṭiya protection,” and at the end of the aforementioned portion of the sutta, it is concluded with, “This, dear sir, is the Āṭānāṭiya protection.” Thus, just as tigers and the like become hostile toward those who steal their prey, so too do non-human beings become hostile toward those who free a human seized by them. Therefore, it should be understood that the commentary teachers mentioned this preparatory section of the Āṭānāṭiya Paritta for the purpose of dispelling danger to monks when they begin such a liberation. This is the exposition adorned with the discussion on the determination of protective chants.
And the protection of Āṭānāṭiya is not the entire sutta, but rather the portion of the sutta starting with the phrase “vipassissa ca namatthu” and, according to the four great kings, repeated four times, ending with the phrase “jinaṃ vandāma gotama”. How is this known? Because, starting with “Then the great king Vessavaṇa, knowing the Blessed One’s acceptance, recited this Āṭānāṭiya protection,” it is given at the end of the aforementioned portion of the sutta as, “This, sirs, is the Āṭānāṭiya protection.” Therefore, just as tigers and other animals become fiercely angry and ill-willed towards those who plunder their prey, so non-humans become angry and ill-willed towards those who release humans seized by them. Thus, it should be understood that this preparation for the Āṭānāṭiya Paritta was stated by the commentary authors for the sake of dispelling dangers for monks at the time of starting to release them. This is the Ornament of Discourse on the Determination of Making Protection.
The Āṭānāṭiya protection is not the entire sutta but rather the section beginning with the phrase “Vipassissa ca namatthu” and ending with “Jinaṃ vandāma Gotama,” which is repeated four times in relation to the Four Great Kings. How is this known? It begins with “Then the great king Vessavaṇa, knowing the Buddha’s consent, spoke this Āṭānāṭiya protection” and concludes with “This, sirs, is the Āṭānāṭiya protection.” Therefore, just as tigers and other fierce animals become angry when their prey is taken away, so too do non-humans become hostile when one frees a person they have seized. Thus, it should be understood that the commentary teachers prescribed this Āṭānāṭiya Paritta preparation for the purpose of removing dangers from monks when they begin to free such a person. This is the ornament of the discussion on the determination of protective chants.
ID219
20. Anāmaṭṭhapiṇḍapātoti (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.185) ettha amasiyitthāti āmaṭṭho, na āmaṭṭho anāmaṭṭho. Piṇḍaṃ piṇḍaṃ hutvā patatīti piṇḍapāto. Anāmaṭṭho ca so piṇḍapāto cāti tathā, aggahitaaggo, aparibhutto piṇḍapātoti attho. Sacepi kahāpaṇagghanako hotīti iminā dāyakehi bahubyañjanena sampādetvā sakkaccaṃ dinnabhāvaṃ dīpeti. Tena vuttaṃ “saddhādeyyavinipātanaṃ natthī”ti, evaṃ sakkaccaṃ saddhāya dinnaṃ mahagghabhojanampi mātāpitūnaṃ datvā saddhādeyyavinipātanaṃ nāma na hoti, pageva appagghabhojaneti adhippāyo. Mātādipañcakaṃyeva vatvā bhesajjakaraṇe viya aparesampi dasannaṃ dātuṃ vaṭṭatīti avuttattā aññesaṃ ñātakānampi pesetvā dātuṃ na vaṭṭatīti siddhaṃ, “vihāraṃ sampattassa pana yassa kassaci āgantukassa vā”iccādivakkhamānattā vihāraṃ sampattānaṃ ñātakānampi āgantukasāmaññena dātuṃ vaṭṭatīti ca. Thālaketi saṅghike kaṃsādimaye thālake. Pattopi ettha saṅgayhati. Na vaṭṭatīti iminā dukkaṭanti dasseti. Dāmarikacorassāti rajjaṃ patthentassa pākaṭacorassa. Adīyamānepi “na dentī”ti kujjhantīti sambandho.
20. Regarding “Anāmaṭṭhapiṇḍapāto” (Vi. Vi. ṭī. 1.185), “āmaṭṭho” means touched, and “anāmaṭṭho” means not touched. “Piṇḍapāto” means almsfood, as it falls lump by lump. Thus, “anāmaṭṭho piṇḍapāto” means almsfood that is untouched, that is, not taken or consumed. Even if it is said, “kahāpaṇagghanako hoti,” this indicates that it was prepared with many dishes and offered respectfully by the donors. Hence it is said, “saddhādeyyavinipātanaṃ natthi,” meaning that even expensive food given with faith and respect, if given to one’s parents, does not constitute misappropriation of what was given in faith—let alone inexpensive food; this is the intended meaning. By mentioning only the fivefold group of mother and so forth, as in the case of preparing medicine, it is not stated that it is permissible to give to the other ten, so it is established that it is not permissible to send it to other relatives. However, due to the statement, “But to any visitor who arrives at the monastery…” and so forth, it is permissible to give to relatives who arrive at the monastery under the general category of visitors. “Thālake” refers to a communal tray made of bronze or similar material; the bowl is also included here. “Na vaṭṭati” indicates that this entails a dukkaṭa offense. “Dāmarikacorassa” refers to a notorious thief aspiring to sovereignty. The connection is that even if it is not taken, they become angry, thinking, “They do not give.”
20. Anāmaṭṭhapiṇḍapātoti (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.185) here, what is touched is āmaṭṭha; what is not touched is anāmaṭṭha. Piṇḍapāto is that which falls as alms. Thus, anāmaṭṭho ca so piṇḍapāto cāti, meaning, the almsfood that has not been received, the almsfood that has not been partaken of. Even though by the phrase kahāpaṇagghanako hotī, it indicates the fact that it was given respectfully by the donors, prepared with many dishes. Therefore, it is said, “There is no squandering of what is given in faith”, meaning that even expensive food given respectfully with faith, when given to mother and father, there is no squandering of what is given in faith, let alone inexpensive food. Having mentioned only the group of five starting with mother, like doing medicine, it is not stated that it is allowable to give to the other ten, hence it is established that it is not allowable to send and give to other relatives. But, having the statement of the upcoming point, “but one who has arrived at the monastery may give it to any visitor,” etc., implies that to relatives who have arrived at the monastery, due to the fact of coming they could be treated in similar ways, and it is allowable to give. Thālaketi in a Saṅgha’s bronze or other material bowl. Here, even a bowl is included. By na vaṭṭatī, he shows that it is a dukkaṭa. Dāmarikacorassāti to an overt robber who seeks the kingdom. Even if it is not given, the connection is that they get angry, saying, “They are not giving.”
20. Anāmaṭṭhapiṇḍapāto: Here, “āmaṭṭha” means spoiled, and “anāmaṭṭha” means not spoiled. “Piṇḍapāta” refers to food offered in alms. Thus, “anāmaṭṭhapiṇḍapāta” means food that is not spoiled and is offered in alms. It refers to food that is not accepted or consumed by others. Even if it is said, “It is worth a kahāpaṇa,” this indicates that the donors have prepared it with great care and given it respectfully. Therefore, it is said, “There is no waste of faith offerings.” Thus, even if one gives expensive food to one’s parents with faith and respect, it is not considered a waste of faith offerings, let alone inexpensive food. This is the meaning. Although the fivefold group (mother, etc.) is mentioned, it is also permissible to give to the other ten, as in the case of preparing medicine. However, it is established that one should not send food to other relatives. But if relatives come to the monastery, they can be given food under the general rule for guests. Thālaka: This refers to a communal metal bowl. Even a bowl is included here. Na vaṭṭati: This indicates a wrongdoing. Dāmarikacora: This refers to a notorious thief who seeks to overthrow the kingdom. Even if not given, they become angry, thinking, “They are not giving.”
ID220
Āmisassa dhammassa ca alābhena attano parassa ca antare sambhavantassa chiddassa vivarassa paṭisantharaṇaṃ pidahanaṃ paṭisanthāro. So pana dhammāmisavasena duvidho. Tattha āmisapaṭisanthāraṃ sandhāya “kassa kātabbo, kassa na kātabbo”ti vuttaṃ. Āgantukassa vā…pe… kātabboyevāti vuttamatthaṃ pākaṭaṃ kātuṃ “āgantukaṃ tāvā”tiādimāha. Khīṇaparibbayanti iminā agatibhāvaṃ karuṇāṭṭhānatañca dasseti. Tena ca tabbidhurānaṃ samiddhānaṃ āgantukattepi dātuṃ na vaṭṭatīti siddhaṃ hoti. “Apaccāsīsantenā”ti vatvā paccāsīsanappakāraṃ dassetuṃ “manussā nāmā”tiādi vuttaṃ. Ananuññātānaṃ pana apaccāsīsantenapi dātuṃ na vaṭṭati saddhādeyyavinipātattā, paccāsāya pana sati kuladūsanampi hoti. Ubbāsetvāti samantato tiyojanaṃ vilumpante manusse palāpetvā. Varapotthakacittattharaṇanti anekappakāraṃ itthipurisādiuttamarūpavicittaṃ attharaṇaṃ. Ayaṃ paṭisanthāravinicchayakathālaṅkāro.
“Paṭisanthāro” means the closing or covering of a gap or opening that arises between oneself and another due to the lack of material goods or Dhamma. It is of two kinds, according to material goods or Dhamma. Here, regarding material courtesy, it is said, “To whom should it be done, and to whom should it not be done?” To clarify the meaning of what was stated—“It should certainly be done for a visitor…” and so forth—the text begins with “Āgantukaṃ tāva…” and continues. “Khīṇaparibbaya” indicates a state of being without resources and a position of compassion. Thus, it is established that it is not permissible to give to those who are destitute or successful yet come as visitors. Having said “Apaccāsīsantena,” to explain the manner of expectation, it continues with “Manussā nāma…” and so forth. However, it is not permissible to give to those not permitted even without expectation, due to the misappropriation of what was given in faith; if there is expectation, it also causes corruption of the family. “Ubbāsetvā” means driving people away from a radius of three yojanas all around. “Varapotthakacittattharaṇa” refers to a covering decorated with various supreme forms of men, women, and so forth. This is the exposition adorned with the discussion on the determination of courtesy.
Paṭisanthāro is the covering, the closing of a gap, a hole, arising between oneself and another due to the non-acquisition of material things and the Dhamma. It is twofold, based on material things and Dhamma. Regarding material provision, it is said, “To whom should it be done, to whom should it not be done?” To make clear the meaning stated as “To a visitor, or… it should indeed be done,” he said, starting with “To a visitor first…”. By khīṇaparibbayanti, he shows the state of being without resources and the basis for compassion. And by that, it is established that it is not allowable to give even to prosperous visitors, if they are in such a destitute situation. Saying “without expecting anything in return,”, to show the manner of expecting something in return, it is said, “Humans indeed…” and so on. But to those who have not been permitted, it is not allowable to give even without expecting anything in return, because of the squandering of what is given in faith. But if there is expectation, there is even fault of family corruption. Ubbāsetvāti causing people within three yojanas all around to flee. Varapotthakacittattharaṇanti a spread that is beautifully decorated with various excellent images of women, men, and so on. This is the Ornament of Discourse on the Determination of Provision.
Paṭisanthāra refers to the covering or closing of a gap or hole that arises between oneself and others due to the lack of material or Dhamma. This is twofold: material and Dhamma. Here, regarding material hospitality, it is said, “For whom should it be done, and for whom should it not be done?” The meaning of “for a guest, etc., it should be done” is clear. Khīṇaparibbaya: This indicates the absence of relatives and the state of being an object of compassion. Thus, it is established that even if guests are prosperous, they should not be given food. “Apaccāsīsantenā”: After saying this, the types of expectations are explained with “human beings, etc.” However, even if one does not expect anything, it is not permissible to give to those who are not permitted, as it would be a waste of faith offerings. But if there is expectation, it can lead to the corruption of the family. Ubbāsetvā: This means driving away people who plunder within a radius of three yojanas. Varapotthakacittattharaṇa: This refers to a spread adorned with various excellent designs of men and women. This is the ornament of the discussion on the determination of hospitality.
ID221
Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary and exposition of the Vinaya collection,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is the explanation of the Vinayasaṅgaha,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is adorned with the Vinaya compendium,
ID222
Bhesajjādivinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma
This is called the exposition adorned with the discussion on the determination of medicines and so forth,
The Ornament of Discourse on the Determination of Medicines and Other Things
The ornament of the discussion on the determination of medicine, etc.,
ID223
Tatiyo paricchedo.
The third section.
The Third Chapter.
Is the third chapter.
ID224
ID225
21. Evaṃ bhesajjādivinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni viññattivinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ “viññattīti yācanā”tiādimāha. Tattha viññāpanā viññatti, “iminā no attho”ti viññāpanā, yācanāti vuttaṃ hoti. Tenāha “viññattīti yācanā”ti. Tatra viññattiyaṃ ayaṃ mayā vakkhamāno vinicchayo veditabboti yojanā. Mūlacchejjāyāti (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.342) parasantakabhāvato mocetvā attano eva santakakaraṇavasena. Evaṃ yācato aññātakaviññattidukkaṭañceva dāsapaṭiggahadukkaṭañca hoti “dāsidāsapaṭiggahaṇā paṭivirato (dī. ni. 1.10, 194) hotī”ti vacanaṃ nissāya aṭṭhakathāyaṃ paṭikkhittattā. Ñātakapavāritaṭṭhānato pana dāsaṃ mūlacchejjāya yācantassa sādiyanavaseneva dukkaṭaṃ. Sakakammanti pāṇavadhakammaṃ. Idañca pāṇātipātadosaparihārāya vuttaṃ, na viññattiparihārāya. Aniyametvāpi na yācitabbāti sāmīcidassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ, suddhacittena pana hatthakammaṃ yācantassa āpatti nāma natthi. Yadicchakaṃ kārāpetuṃ vaṭṭatīti “hatthakammaṃ yācāmi, dethā”tiādinā ayācitvāpi vaṭṭati, sakiccapasutampi evaṃ kārāpentassa viññatti natthi eva, sāmīcidassanatthaṃ pana vibhajitvā vuttaṃ.
21. Having explained the determination of medicines and so forth, now to explain the determination of requests, the text begins with “Viññattīti yācanā…” and continues. Here, “viññatti” means making known, that is, making known “We have need of this”; it is called requesting. Hence it says, “Viññattīti yācanā.” The construction is: “In this matter of viññatti, this vinicchayo (determination) that I will state should be understood.” Regarding “Mūlacchejjāya” (Vi. Vi. ṭī. 1.342), it means freeing something from being another’s property and making it one’s own. If one requests in this way, there is both the dukkaṭa of requesting from non-relatives and the dukkaṭa of accepting a slave, due to the statement “He refrains from accepting male or female slaves” (Dī. Ni. 1.10, 194), which is prohibited in the commentary. However, for one requesting a slave from the domain of relatives or those invited, by merely accepting it, there is only a dukkaṭa. “Sakakamma” refers to the act of killing a living being. This is stated to avoid the fault of killing, not to avoid requesting. “Aniyametvāpi na yācitabba” is said to indicate propriety, but there is no offense for one with a pure mind requesting manual work. “Yadicchakaṃ kārāpetuṃ vaṭṭati” means it is permissible to have something done as desired without requesting, such as saying “I request manual work; give it,” and even for one engaged in their own tasks, having it done this way does not constitute a request; it is stated with distinctions for the sake of indicating propriety.
21. Thus, having explained the determination of medicines and other things, now, to explain the determination of requesting, he said, starting with “Viññattīti yācanā.” Here, viññatti is requesting,viññāpanā, making known, “We have need of this,” meaning requesting. Therefore, he said, “Viññattīti yācanā” ti. Tatra, in that requesting, ayaṃ, this vinicchayo to be stated by me, should be known - this is the connection. Mūlacchejjāyāti (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.342), in the sense of releasing from being the property of another and making it one’s own property. Thus, to one requesting, there is both the dukkaṭa of requesting from a non-relative and the dukkaṭa of accepting a slave, because it is forbidden in the commentary, relying on the statement, “He abstains from accepting female and male slaves” (Dī. Ni. 1.10, 194). But for one requesting a slave for purchase from the place of relatives or those who have given permission, there is only a dukkaṭa due to accepting it. Sakakammanti the act of killing. And this is said for avoiding the fault of taking life, not for avoiding requesting. Aniyametvāpi na yācitabbāti this is said for the purpose of showing ownership; but for one requesting manual labor with a pure mind, there is no offense. Yadicchakaṃ kārāpetuṃ vaṭṭatīti it is allowable even without requesting with, “I request manual labor, please give,” and so on, even for one getting it done by one engaged in their own duties, there is no request, but it is explained separately for the purpose of showing ownership.
21. Having discussed the determination of medicine, etc., now the determination of requests is discussed, beginning with “A request is a solicitation.” Here, “viññatti” means making known, as in “make known to us this matter,” which is called a solicitation. Therefore, it is said, “A request is a solicitation.” There, in the case of a request, this determination explained by me should be understood. Mūlacchejjāya: This refers to freeing oneself from dependence on others and making it one’s own property. Thus, when one requests in this way, there is a wrongdoing of requesting from strangers and a wrongdoing of accepting slaves. Based on the statement, “One abstains from accepting male and female slaves” (Dī. Ni. 1.10, 194), this is rejected in the commentary. However, when requesting a slave from a relative’s prohibited place, there is a wrongdoing only if one accepts. Sakakamma: This refers to the act of killing living beings. This is said for the sake of avoiding the fault of killing, not for avoiding the fault of requesting. Aniyametvāpi na yācitabbā: This is said for the sake of showing the owner’s consent, but there is no offense for one who requests manual labor with a pure mind. Yadicchakaṃ kārāpetuṃ vaṭṭatī: Even without explicitly requesting, saying, “I request manual labor, give it,” it is permissible. If one gets it done willingly, there is no request. However, this is explained in detail for the sake of showing the owner’s consent.
ID226
Sabbakappiyabhāvadīpanatthanti sabbaso kappiyabhāvadassanatthaṃ. Mūlaṃ dethāti vattuṃ vaṭṭatīti “mūlaṃ dassāmā”ti paṭhamaṃ vuttattā viññatti vā “mūla”nti vacanassa kappiyākappiyavatthusāmaññavacanattā akappiyavacanaṃ vā niṭṭhitabhatikiccānaṃ dāpanato akappiyavatthusādiyanaṃ vā na hotīti katvā vuttaṃ. Mūlacchejjāya vāti idaṃ idha thambhādīnaṃ dāsidāsādibhāvābhāvato vuttaṃ. Anajjhāvutthakanti apariggahitaṃ, assāmikanti attho.
“Sabbakappiyabhāvadīpanattha” means for the purpose of showing complete propriety. “Mūlaṃ dethāti vattuṃ vaṭṭati” is said because, since they first say “We will give money,” it is either not a request, or because the word “mūla” is a general term for both proper and improper items, or because it does not involve accepting an improper item after completing the task, it is permissible to say it. “Mūlacchejjāya vā” is stated here with regard to pillars and the like, whether they are in the state of slaves or not. “Anajjhāvutthaka” means unclaimed, ownerless.
Sabbakappiyabhāvadīpanatthanti for the purpose of showing complete allowability. Mūlaṃ dethāti vattuṃ vaṭṭatīti it is said because, as it was first said, “We will give the root,” there is no requesting, or, as “root” is a word that commonly refers to both allowable and unallowable things, saying it to release those whose duty is finished is not a requesting. For Mūlacchejjāya vā, that is to show the root’s non-slave status and the impossibility to make them slaves, or to buy them. Anajjhāvutthakanti not taken possession of, meaning ownerless.
Sabbakappiyabhāvadīpanattha: This is for the sake of showing the permissibility in all respects. Mūlaṃ dethāti vattuṃ vaṭṭatī: Since it is first said, “We will give the roots,” the request or the word “roots” is permissible because it refers to permissible and impermissible things in general. However, it is not permissible to accept impermissible things or to give them for the sake of completing duties. Mūlacchejjāya vā: This refers to pillars, etc., in terms of the presence or absence of slaves. Anajjhāvutthaka: This means unowned, without an owner.
ID227
22. Na kevalañca…pe… cīvarādīni kārāpetukāmenātiādīsu cīvaraṃ kārāpetukāmassa aññātakaappavāritatantavāyehi hatthakammayācanavasena vāyāpane viññattipaccayā dukkaṭābhāvepi cīvaravāyāpanasikkhāpadena yathārahaṃ pācittiyadukkaṭāni hontīti veditabbaṃ. Akappiyakahāpaṇādi na dātabbanti kappiyamukhena laddhampi tattha kammakaraṇatthāya imassa kahāpaṇaṃ dehīti vatvā “dātuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ. Pubbe katakammassa dāpane kiñcāpi doso na dissati, tathāpi asāruppamevāti vadanti. Katakammatthāyapi kappiyavohārena pariyāyato bhatiṃ dāpentassa natthi doso, sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 1.342) pana “akappiyakahāpaṇādi na dātabbanti kiñcāpi akappiyakahāpaṇādiṃ asādiyantena kappiyavohārato dātuṃ vaṭṭati, tathāpi sāruppaṃ na hoti, manussā ca etassa santakaṃ kiñci atthīti viheṭhetabbaṃ maññantīti akappiyakahāpaṇādidānaṃ paṭikkhitta”nti vuttaṃ. Tatheva pācetvāti hatthakammavaseneva pācetvā. “Kiṃ bhante”ti ettakepi pucchite yadatthāya paviṭṭho, taṃ kathetuṃ labhati pucchitapañhattā.
22. In “Na kevalañca…pe… cīvarādīni kārāpetukāmenā” and so forth, for one desiring to have a robe made, even though there is no dukkaṭa due to requesting from weavers who are non-relatives or uninvited by means of asking for manual work, there are pācittiya and dukkaṭa offenses as appropriate under the training rule on robe-making; this should be understood. “Akappiyakahāpaṇādi na dātabba” means that even if obtained through a proper means, saying “Give this person a kahāpaṇa for doing the work” is permissible. Although no fault is seen in giving for work already done, they say it is still inappropriate. There is no fault in giving wages indirectly through a proper transaction for work done; however, in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. 1.342), it is said, “‘Akappiyakahāpaṇādi na dātabba’—although it is permissible to give improper kahāpaṇas and the like through a proper transaction without accepting them, it is still not appropriate, and people might think something belonging to him exists and should be harassed, so giving improper kahāpaṇas and the like is prohibited.” “Tatheva pācetvā” means having it cooked only by means of manual work. Even if asked only “What, Venerable Sir?” one may explain the purpose for which they came, as it is a response to a question.
22. Na kevalañca…pe… cīvarādīni kārāpetukāmenātiādīsu, for one desiring to have a robe made, due to requesting in the manner of asking for manual labor from unrelated and unpermitted weavers, although there is no dukkaṭa due to requesting, because of the training rule about getting a robe made, there are, as appropriate, a pācittiya or a dukkaṭa. Akappiyakahāpaṇādi na dātabbanti even though obtained by means of allowable things, saying, “Give him a kahāpaṇa” for doing the work there, it is said, “It is allowable to give.” Even if an allowance is given for work that had been done, it seems that they are not wrong, although it is said to not be suitable. Even for the work done, there is no fault for one who gives the wages indirectly through allowable means. But in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 1.342), it is said, “Akappiyakahāpaṇādi na dātabbanti although it is allowable to give by allowable means without accepting unallowable kahāpaṇas and so on, nevertheless, it is not proper, and people think, ‘He has something,’ and should be harassed, therefore the giving of unallowable kahāpaṇas and so on is prohibited.” Tatheva pācetvāti having it cooked by manual labor only. Even when asked only “What is it, venerable sir?”, he is allowed to tell the purpose for which he entered, because it is a question that has been asked.
22. Na kevalañca…pe… cīvarādīni kārāpetukāmenā: For one who wishes to have robes made, even if there is no wrongdoing in requesting manual labor from unfamiliar weavers, according to the rule on having robes made, there are pācittiya and dukkaṭa offenses as appropriate. Akappiyakahāpaṇādi na dātabba: Even if obtained through permissible means, it is not permissible to give impermissible money, etc., for the sake of work, saying, “Give me this money.” Although no fault is seen in giving for previously done work, it is still considered improper. However, there is no fault in giving wages through permissible means for the sake of completing work. In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sā. Ṭī. 1.342), it is said, “Even if one does not accept impermissible money, etc., it is permissible to give through permissible means, but it is not proper, and people think that this person has something of his own and should be troubled. Therefore, giving impermissible money, etc., is rejected.” Tatheva pācetvā: This means having it done through manual labor. Even if asked, “What is it, venerable sir?” one can explain the purpose for which one has come, having been asked.
ID228
23. Vattanti cārittaṃ, āpatti pana na hotīti adhippāyo. Kappiyaṃ kārāpetvā paṭiggahetabbānīti sākhāya makkhikabījanena paṇṇādichede bījagāmakopanassa ceva tattha laggarajādiappaṭiggahitakassa ca parihāratthāya vuttaṃ, tadubhayāsaṅkāya asati tathā akaraṇe doso natthi. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 1.342) pana “kappiyaṃ kārāpetvā paṭiggahetabbānīti sākhāya laggarajasmiṃ patte patitepi sākhaṃ chinditvā khāditukāmatāyapi sati sukhaparibhogatthaṃ vutta”nti vuttaṃ. Nadiyādīsu udakassa apariggahitattā “āharāti vattuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ. Gehato…pe… neva vaṭṭatīti pariggahitudakattā viññattiyā dukkaṭaṃ hotīti adhippāyo. “Na āhaṭaṃ paribhuñjitu”nti vacanato viññattiyā āpannaṃ dukkaṭaṃ desetvāpi taṃ vatthuṃ paribhuñjantassa paribhoge paribhoge dukkaṭameva, pañcannampi sahadhammikānaṃ na vaṭṭati.
23. “Vatta” means custom, and the implication is that there is no offense. “Kappiyaṃ kārāpetvā paṭiggahetabbāni” is said for the sake of avoiding both the destruction of plant life by cutting leaves with a bee’s nest on a branch and the non-acceptance of dust and the like stuck to it; if there is no doubt about either, there is no fault in not doing so. However, in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. 1.342), it is said, “‘Kappiyaṃ kārāpetvā paṭiggahetabbāni’—even if a leaf with dust stuck to a branch falls and one desires to cut the branch to eat it, it is said for the sake of comfortable use.” “Āharāti vattuṃ vaṭṭati” is said because water in rivers and the like is unclaimed. “Gehato…pe… neva vaṭṭati” implies that due to requesting claimed water, there is a dukkaṭa. From the statement “Na āhaṭaṃ paribhuñjitu,” even after confessing the dukkaṭa incurred by requesting, using that item incurs a dukkaṭa with each use, and it is not permissible for any of the five co-religionists.
23. Vattanti conduct, but there is no offense, is the meaning. Kappiyaṃ kārāpetvā paṭiggahetabbānīti it is said for avoiding the offense of damaging the seed of the branch and the bījagāma and not accepting, when taking an attached branch, and if one does not suspect both of those. Without that suspicion and not doing it in that way, there is no fault. In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 1.342), it is said, “Kappiyaṃ kārāpetvā paṭiggahetabbānīti even when dust fallen on a branch, even if there is a desire to cut and eat the branch, it is said for the sake of comfortable enjoyment.” Because water in rivers and so on is not taken possession of, it is said, ”Āharāti vattuṃ vaṭṭatī.” Gehato…pe… neva vaṭṭatīti because it is water that has been taken possession of, there is a dukkaṭa due to requesting, is the meaning. “Na āhaṭaṃ paribhuñjitu”nti because of the statement, even after confessing the dukkaṭa incurred due to requesting, for one partaking of that object, there is a dukkaṭa for each and every enjoyment, and it is not allowable for any of the five fellow practitioners.
23. Vatta: This means conduct, but there is no offense. Kappiyaṃ kārāpetvā paṭiggahetabbānī: This is said for the sake of avoiding harm to seeds and plants when cutting leaves with a branch, and for avoiding the acceptance of dust, etc., on the branch. If there is no such doubt, there is no fault in not doing so. In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sā. Ṭī. 1.342), it is said, “One should have it made permissible and then accept it. Even if dust falls on a leaf, if one wishes to cut the branch and eat it, it is said for the sake of comfortable consumption.” In rivers, etc., since the water is not owned, it is said, “One may say, ‘Fetch it.’” Gehato…pe… neva vaṭṭatī: Since the water is owned, there is a wrongdoing in requesting. “Na āhaṭaṃ paribhuñjitu”: From this statement, it is shown that there is a wrongdoing in requesting, but even if one consumes that item, there is a wrongdoing in each consumption. It is also not permissible for the five kinds of lawful persons.
ID229
“Alajjīhi pana bhikkhūhi vā sāmaṇerehi vā hatthakammaṃ na kāretabba”nti sāmaññato vuttattā attano atthāya yaṃ kiñci hatthakammaṃ kāretuṃ na vaṭṭati. Yaṃ pana alajjī nivāriyamānopi bījanādiṃ karoti, tattha doso natthi, cetiyakammādīni pana tehi kārāpetuṃ vaṭṭatīti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.342) vuttaṃ. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.342) pana “alajjīhi…pe… na kāretabbanti idaṃ uttaribhaṅgādhikārattā ajjhoharaṇīyaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, bāhiraparibhogesu pana alajjīhipi hatthakammaṃ kāretuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ. Ettha ca “alajjīhi sāmaṇerehī”ti vuttattā “sañcicca āpattiṃ āpajjatī”ti (pari. 359) alajjilakkhaṇaṃ ukkaṭṭhavasena upasampanne paṭicca upalakkhaṇato vuttanti taṃlakkhaṇavirahitānaṃ sāmaṇerādīnaṃ liṅgatthenagotrabhupariyosānānaṃ bhikkhupaṭiññānaṃ dussīlānampi sādhāraṇavasena alajjilakkhaṇaṃ yathāṭhapitapaṭipattiyā atiṭṭhanamevāti gahetabbaṃ.
“‘Alajjīhi pana bhikkhūhi vā sāmaṇerehi vā hatthakammaṃ na kāretabba’”—since it is stated generally, it is not permissible to have any manual work done for one’s own sake by shameless monks or novices. However, if a shameless one, though restrained, does something like sowing seeds, there is no fault in that; it is permissible to have them do tasks like monastery work, as stated in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. ṭī. 1.342). However, in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. 2.342), it is said, “‘Alajjīhi…pe… na kāretabba’—this is said with reference to ingestible items due to the context of the later section; for external uses, it is permissible to have manual work done even by the shameless.” Here, since it says “shameless monks or novices,” and the characteristic of shamelessness—“He intentionally commits an offense” (Pari. 359)—is stated with reference to fully ordained monks as the highest example, it should be understood that for novices and others lacking that characteristic, including those with gender, lineage, or clan distinctions, and even corrupt monks claiming to be monks, the characteristic of shamelessness is common and applies only to those who do not adhere to the established practice.
“Alajjīhi pana bhikkhūhi vā sāmaṇerehi vā hatthakammaṃ na kāretabba”nti because it is said generally, it is not allowable to have any manual labor done for one’s own benefit. But when a shameless one, even being prevented, does something with seeds and so on, there is no fault. But it is allowable to have them do things like cetiya work, and so on, it is said in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.342). In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.342), it is said, “alajjīhi…pe… na kāretabbanti this is said in reference to consumable things because of the context of over-eating; but in external enjoyments, it is allowable to have manual labor done even by shameless ones.” And here, because it is said, “By shameless novices,” the characteristic of a shameless one, “He knowingly commits an offense” (Pari. 359), is said in an elevated sense in reference to an ordained one as an indication, the characteristic of shamelessness for novices and others who are excluded from that characteristic, those at the conclusion of lineage, livelihood, family, those with wrong gender and name who claim monkhood and are immoral, should be taken as not adhering to the established practice.
“Alajjīhi pana bhikkhūhi vā sāmaṇerehi vā hatthakammaṃ na kāretabba”: Since this is said in general, it is not permissible for shameless monks or novices to have any manual labor done for their own benefit. However, if a shameless person, even when prevented, does something like planting seeds, there is no fault. But they may have work done for the sake of the shrine, etc. In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Ṭī. 1.342), it is said, “This is said with reference to internal consumption, but shameless persons may also have manual labor done for external use.” Here, since it is said, “by shameless novices,” the characteristic of shamelessness is explained in detail with reference to those who intentionally commit offenses (Pār. 359). However, for novices, etc., who lack the characteristic of shamelessness, it should be understood that the characteristic of shamelessness applies to those who are immoral, even if they are monks, based on their behavior.
ID230
24. Goṇaṃ pana…pe… āharāpentassa dukkaṭanti viññattikkhaṇe viññattipaccayā, paṭilābhakkhaṇe goṇānaṃ sādiyanapaccayā ca dukkaṭaṃ. Goṇañhi attano atthāya aviññattiyā laddhampi sādituṃ na vaṭṭati “hatthigavāssavaḷavapaṭiggahaṇā paṭivirato hotī”ti (dī. ni. 1.10, 194) vuttattā. Tenevāha “ñātakapavāritaṭṭhānatopi mūlacchejjāya yācituṃ na vaṭṭatī”ti. Ettha ca viññattidukkaṭābhāvepi akappiyavatthuyācanepi paṭiggahaṇepi dukkaṭameva. Rakkhitvāti corādiupaddavato rakkhitvā. Jaggitvāti tiṇaannādīhi posetvā. Na sampaṭicchitabbanti attano atthāya gosādiyanassa paṭikkhittattā vuttaṃ.
24. Goṇaṃ pana… āharāpentassa dukkaṭa: For causing oxen to be brought, there is a wrongdoing at the moment of requesting due to the request and at the moment of receiving due to accepting the oxen. For even if oxen are obtained for oneself without a request, it is not permissible to accept them, as it is said, “He abstains from accepting elephants, cattle, horses, and mares” (Dī. Ni. 1.10, 194). Hence it says, “Ñātakapavāritaṭṭhānatopi mūlacchejjāya yācituṃ na vaṭṭati,” meaning it is not permissible to request even from the domain of relatives or invited persons by uprooting. Here, even without the wrongdoing of requesting, there is still wrongdoing in requesting or accepting an improper object. Rakkhitvā means protecting from thieves or other dangers. Jaggitvā means tending with grass, grain, and so forth. Na sampaṭicchitabba is said because accepting oxen for oneself is prohibited.
24. As for an ox…etc… incurring a dukkaṭa for causing it to be brought, at the moment of requesting, a dukkaṭa offense is incurred, due to the request; at the moment of receiving, a dukkaṭa is incurred due to delighting in the oxen. Even if an ox is obtained without a request for one’s own benefit, it is not allowable to delight in it because it is said, “he abstains from accepting elephants, cattle, horses, and mares” (D.i.10, 194). Therefore, it was said, “Even from a place of known and permitted persons, it is not allowable to ask for the root-cutting.” And here, even if there is no dukkaṭa for requesting, there is still a dukkaṭa both for requesting and for accepting an unsuitable object. Protecting means safeguarding from dangers such as thieves. Tending means nurturing with grass, food, and so on. It should not be accepted is stated because delighting in an ox for one’s own purpose is prohibited.
24. Regarding the ox… the act of requesting… is a dukkaṭa offense: At the moment of making the request, the offense of dukkaṭa arises due to the act of requesting, and at the moment of receiving, the offense arises due to the oxen’s acceptance. For even if the ox is obtained without a formal request, it is not permissible to accept it, as it is stated, “He abstains from receiving elephants, cattle, and horses” (Dī. Ni. 1.10, 194). Therefore, it is said, “It is not permissible to ask for it even from a place restricted by relatives, as it would be a root offense.” Here, even if there is no offense of dukkaṭa for the request, there is still an offense of dukkaṭa for asking for or receiving unsuitable items. “Having guarded” means having protected it from thieves and other dangers. “Having tended” means having nourished it with grass and other food. “It should not be accepted” is said because accepting it for one’s own benefit is prohibited.
ID231
25. Ñātakapavāritaṭṭhāne pana vaṭṭatīti sakaṭassa sampaṭicchitabbattā mūlacchejjavasena yācituṃ vaṭṭati. Tāvakālikaṃ vaṭṭatīti ubhayatthāpi vaṭṭatīti atthoti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.342) vuttaṃ. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.342) pana “sakaṭaṃ dethāti…pe… na vaṭṭatīti mūlacchejjavasena sakaṭaṃ dethāti vattuṃ na vaṭṭati. Tāvakālikaṃ vaṭṭatīti tāvakālikaṃ katvā sabbattha yācituṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ. Vāsiādīni puggalikānipi vaṭṭantīti āha “esa nayo vāsī”tiādi. Valliādīsu ca parapariggahitesu esa nayoti yojetabbaṃ. Garubhaṇḍappahonakesuyevāti idaṃ viññattiṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, adinnādāne pana tiṇasalākaṃ upādāya parapariggahitaṃ theyyacittena gaṇhato avahāro eva, bhaṇḍagghena kāretabbo. Valliādīsūti ettha ādi-saddena pāḷiāgatānaṃ veḷumuñjapabbajatiṇamattikānaṃ saṅgaho daṭṭhabbo. Tattha ca yasmiṃ padese haritālajātihiṅgulikādi appakampi mahagghaṃ hoti, tattha taṃ tālapakkappamāṇato ūnampi garubhaṇḍameva, viññāpetuñca na vaṭṭati.
25. Ñātakapavāritaṭṭhāne pana vaṭṭati: It is permissible in the domain of relatives or invited persons, as a cart may be accepted, so requesting it by uprooting is allowed. Tāvakālikaṃ vaṭṭati means it is permissible temporarily in both cases, according to the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.342). However, in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.342), it is said, “Sakaṭaṃ dethāti… na vaṭṭati”: It is not permissible to say, “Give a cart,” by uprooting; “Tāvakālikaṃ vaṭṭati” means it is permissible to request it temporarily in all cases. It also applies to personal items like axes, so it says, “Esa nayo vāsī,” and so forth. This method applies to creepers and other things possessed by others as well. Garubhaṇḍappahonakesuyeva is said with reference to requesting; however, in the case of taking without permission, even taking a blade of grass or a stick belonging to another with a thieving mind constitutes theft, and one must make amends according to the value of the goods. Valliādīsu: The term ādi includes bamboo, muñja grass, pabbaja grass, and clay mentioned in the texts. Where substances like yellow orpiment or cinnabar are valuable even in small amounts, even less than a palm-leaf measure is considered a heavy item and may not be requested.
25. But in a place of known and permitted persons, it is allowable means it is allowable to ask in the manner of cutting the root because it is acceptable to receive the cart. In the Vimati-vinodanī (Vi.Vi.Ṭ.1.342), it is stated that “it is allowable temporarily” means it is allowable in both cases. However, in the Sārattha-dīpanī (Sārattha.Ṭ.2.342), it is stated, “Do not say ‘Give a cart’…etc… it is not allowable** to say, ‘Give a cart’ in the manner of cutting the root. It is allowable temporarily means it is allowable to ask for it everywhere having made it temporary”. He states “This method is for an axe”** etc., meaning that even axes and other personally-owned items are allowable. In the case of vines and other things appropriated by others, this method should be applied. Only in the case of those sufficient for heavy goods, this is said with reference to the request, but in the case of taking what is not given, starting from a blade of grass, whatever is taken with a thieving mind which is appropriated by another is indeed a theft, he should be made to pay the value of the goods. In the case of vines, etc. here, by the word etc., the collection of bamboo, muñja grass, pabbaja grass, and clay mentioned in the Pāḷi should be understood. And therein, in whichever place even a little bit of realgar, collyrium, etc., are of great value, there even something less than the size of a tāla leaf is indeed a heavy article, and it should not be requested.
25. However, it is permissible in a place restricted by relatives: Since it is permissible to accept a cart, it is also permissible to ask for it as a root offense. “It is permissible temporarily”: It is permissible for both purposes, as stated in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.342). However, the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.342) states, “It is not permissible to say, ‘Give a cart,’ as a root offense. It is permissible temporarily”: It is permissible to ask for it temporarily in all cases. Tools and other personal items are also permissible, as stated, “This is the method for the adze,” and so on. The same method applies to vines and other items owned by others. “Even in the case of heavy goods”: This refers to the act of requesting. However, in the case of theft, taking something like grass or a stick with the intention of stealing is considered theft, and it should be dealt with as such. “In the case of vines, etc.”: Here, the term “etc.” includes items like bamboo, reeds, grass, and clay mentioned in the Pāli texts. In places where even a small amount of items like turmeric or vermilion is highly valuable, even if it is less than the size of a palm leaf, it is considered a heavy item, and it is not permissible to request it.
ID232
26. Sāti viññatti. Parikathādīsu “senāsanaṃ sambādha”ntiādinā pariyāyena kathanaṃ parikathā nāma. Ujukameva akathetvā “bhikkhūnaṃ kiṃ pāsādo na vaṭṭatī”tiādinā adhippāyo yathā vibhūto hoti, evaṃ kathanaṃ obhāso nāma. Senāsanādiatthaṃ bhūmiparikammādikaraṇavasena paccayuppādāya nimittakaraṇaṃ nimittakammaṃ nāma. Tīsu paccayesu viññattiādayo dassitā, gilānapaccaye pana kathanti āha “gilānapaccaye panā”tiādi. Tathā uppannaṃ pana bhesajjaṃ roge vūpasante bhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati, na vaṭṭatīti? Tattha vinayadharā “bhagavatā rogasīsena paribhogassa dvāraṃ dinnaṃ, tasmā arogakālepi bhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati, āpatti na hotī”ti vadanti, suttantikā pana “kiñcāpi āpatti na hoti, ājīvaṃ pana kopeti, tasmā sallekhapaṭipattiyaṃ ṭhitassa na vaṭṭati, sallekhaṃ kopetī”ti vadantīti.
26. Sā refers to viññatti (requesting). In parikathā and so forth: Speaking indirectly, such as “The monastery is cramped,” is called parikathā. Speaking in a way that the intention becomes clear without stating it directly, such as “Doesn’t a mansion suit monks?” is called obhāso. Making a sign for the sake of resources like preparing the ground for a monastery is called nimittakamma. The three conditions—requesting and so forth—are shown, but how is it with the condition of illness? Thus, it says, “Gilānapaccaye pana,” and so forth. Regarding medicine obtained in that way, is it permissible or not to use it when the illness subsides? On this, Vinaya experts say, “The Blessed One opened the door to its use under the heading of illness; therefore, it is permissible to use it even when not ill, and there is no offense.” However, Suttanta experts say, “Although there is no offense, it disrupts livelihood; therefore, it is not permissible for one established in the practice of effacement, as it disrupts effacement.”
26. That refers to the request. In contexts such as indirect speech, speaking in a roundabout way like, “the dwelling is cramped”, is called indirect speech. Speaking in such a way that the intention is revealed, without speaking directly, such as by asking, “Why don’t the monks need a palace?” and so on, is called insinuation. Making an indication for the production of requisites by way of preparing the ground, etc., for a dwelling, is called making an indication. The requesting and other things are shown in the three requisites, but what about the requisite of medicine? He states, “But in the case of the requisite of medicine,” etc. However, is it allowable or not to consume that medicine which has arisen when the disease is pacified? There, those who uphold the Vinaya say, “The Blessed One has given an opening for consuming due to the headache of disease, therefore it is allowable to consume it even when not sick, there is no offense.” But, those upholding the Suttas say, “Although there is no offense, it corrupts livelihood, therefore for one standing in the practice of austerity it is not allowable, it corrupts the austerity.”
26. “That” refers to the act of requesting. “Discussion”: Speaking in a roundabout way, such as “the lodging is crowded,” is called “discussion.” Speaking directly, such as “Why is a monastery not permissible for the monks?” is called “illumination.” Preparing the ground for lodging or other purposes to create conditions is called “preliminary work.” The act of requesting and other methods are shown for the three types of requisites. For the sick, it is said, “For the sick, etc.” When medicine is obtained after the illness has subsided, is it permissible to consume it? Here, the Vinaya experts say, “The Buddha has opened the door for the use of medicine even after the illness has subsided, so there is no offense in consuming it when healthy.” However, the Suttanta experts say, “Although there is no offense, it affects one’s livelihood. Therefore, for one who is established in the practice of purification, it is not permissible, as it violates purification.”
ID233
Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is an exposition of the Vinaya compendium
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is the exposition of the collection of the Vinaya:
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinaya,
ID234
Viññattivinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma
This is called the ornament of the discourse on the determination of requests
The chapter called the Ornament of the Explanation of Request
the fourth chapter, called “The Ornament of the Discussion on the Determination of Requests,”
ID235
Catuttho paricchedo.
The fourth chapter.
The Fourth Chapter.
is concluded.
ID236
ID237
27. Evaṃ viññattivinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni kulasaṅgahavinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ “kulasaṅgaho”tiādimāha. Tattha saṅgaṇhanaṃ saṅgaho, kulānaṃ saṅgaho kulasaṅgaho, paccayadāyakādīnaṃ gihīnaṃ anuggahakaraṇaṃ. Anuggahattho hettha saṅgaha-saddo yathā “puttadārassa saṅgaho”ti (khu. pā. 5.6; su. ni. 265).
27. Having thus discussed the determination of requests, now to discuss the determination of family support, it begins with “Kulasaṅgaho,” and so forth. Here, “saṅgaho” means support, and “kulasaṅgaho” means the support of families—the act of assisting laypeople who provide requisites and so forth. The term “saṅgaha” here denotes assistance, as in “The support of sons and wife” (Khu. Pā. 5.6; Su. Ni. 265).
27. Having thus explained the determination of requesting, now, in order to explain the determination of the collection of families, he states “the collection of families” and so on. Here, collection is the act of collecting, the collection of families is the collection of families, the act of assisting lay people who are donors of requisites and so on. Here, the word collection has the sense of assistance, as in “the assistance of sons and wife” (Khu.Pā.5.6; Su.Ni.265).
27. Having discussed the determination of requests, now the discussion on the determination of supporting families is begun with the words, “Supporting families.” Here, “support” means to assist, and “supporting families” means to assist laypeople who offer requisites. The term “support” is used in the sense of assisting, as in “supporting one’s wife and children” (Khu. Pā. 5.6; Su. Ni. 265).
ID238
28. Tattha koṭṭananti sayaṃ chindanaṃ. Koṭṭāpananti “imaṃ chindā”ti aññesaṃ chedāpanaṃ. Āḷiyā bandhananti yathā gacchamūle udakaṃ santiṭṭhati, tathā samantato bandhanaṃ. Udakassāti akappiyaudakassa “kappiyaudakasiñcana”nti visuṃ vakkhamānattā, tañca ārāmādiatthaṃ ropane akappiyavohāresupi kappiyavohāresupi kappiyaudakasiñcanādi vaṭṭatīti vakkhamānattā idhāpi vibhāgaṃ katvā kappiyaudakasiñcanādi visuṃ dassitaṃ. Ettha ca katamaṃ akappiyaudakaṃ, katamaṃ pana kappiyaudakanti? Sappāṇakaṃ akappiyaudakaṃ, appāṇakaṃ kappiyaudakanti. Kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce, “yo pana bhikkhu jānaṃ sappāṇakaṃ udakaṃ tiṇaṃ vā mattikaṃ vā siñceyya vā siñcāpeyya vā pācittiya”nti vacanato. Yathā koṭṭanakhaṇanādikāyikakiriyāpi akappiyavohāre saṅgahitā, evaṃ mātikāujukaraṇādikappiyavohārepīti āha “sukkhamātikāya ujukaraṇa”nti. Hatthapādamukhadhovananahaānodakasiñcananti imināpi pakārantarena kappiyaudakasiñcanameva dasseti. Akappiyavohāre koṭṭanakhaṇanādivasena sayaṃ karaṇassapi kathaṃ saṅgahoti? Akappiyanti vohariyatīti akappiyavohāroti akappiyabhūtaṃ karaṇakārāpanādi sabbameva saṅgahitaṃ, na pana akappiyavacanamattanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Kappiyavohārepi eseva nayo. Sukkhamātikāya ujukaraṇanti iminā purāṇapaṇṇādīnaṃ haraṇampi saṅgahitanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Kudālādīni bhūmiyaṃ ṭhapetvā ṭhānato hatthena gahetvā ṭhānameva pākaṭataranti “obhāso”ti vuttaṃ.
28. Here, koṭṭana means cutting oneself. Koṭṭāpana means causing others to cut, saying, “Cut this.” Āḷiyā bandhana means binding all around so that water stays at the base of a plant. Udakassa: This refers to improper water, as “sprinkling with proper water” will be mentioned separately later, and since sprinkling with proper water and so forth is permissible for planting in gardens and so on, whether with improper or proper means, it is shown separately here with distinctions. What is improper water, and what is proper water? Water with living creatures is improper, and water without living creatures is proper. How is this known? From the statement, “If a monk knowingly sprinkles or causes to be sprinkled grass or clay with water containing living creatures, it is a pācittiya offense.” Just as physical actions like cutting and digging are included in improper means, so too are straightening a dry watercourse and so forth included in proper means, as it says, “Sukkhamātikāya ujukaraṇa.” Hatthapādamukhadhovananahaānodakasiñcana also shows the sprinkling of proper water in another way. How is doing it oneself included in improper means? Akappiyavohāro means something deemed improper; all actions of doing or causing to be done are included, not merely improper speech—this should be understood. The same applies to proper means. Sukkhamātikāya ujukaraṇa also includes removing old leaves and so forth. Taking a hoe or similar tool from its place by hand after placing it on the ground is more evident, so it is called “obhāso.”
28. Therein, cutting means cutting by oneself. Causing to cut means causing others to cut, saying “Cut this.” Binding at the channel means to bind it all around so that the water remains at the root of the thicket. Of water refers to unallowable water, since “sprinkling with allowable water” will be stated separately. And that is allowable even in unallowable instances of planting for the purpose of a monastery and so forth, and even in allowable instances of sprinkling with allowable water, it will be stated that it is allowable, and even here, having made a distinction, sprinkling with allowable water, and so on, is separately shown. And here, which is unallowable water, and which is allowable water? Water with living beings is unallowable water, water without living beings is allowable water. How is it known? Because of the statement, “If a monk, knowing that water contains living beings, should sprinkle it or cause it to be sprinkled on grass or clay, there is a pācittiya offense.” Just as physical actions such as cutting, digging, etc. are included in unallowable instances, so too are straightening the irrigation channel, etc. in allowable instances, he states, “Straightening of the dry irrigation channel.” With sprinkling water for washing hands, feet, and face, and for bathing, he also shows by another way the very sprinkling of allowable water. How can even doing it oneself in unallowable instances, in the manner of cutting, digging, etc., be a collection? That which is treated as unallowable is unallowable practice, all actions and causations of doing that are unallowable are included as a collection, but it is not merely unallowable speech, it should be understood. This is the same method for allowable practices. With straightening of the dry irrigation channel, the removing of old leaves, etc., is also included, it should be understood. Taking by the hand from a place where hoes and other tools are placed on the ground and making the place more apparent is what is called “insinuation.”
28. Here, “cutting” means cutting oneself. “Having cut” means having others cut by saying, “Cut this.” “Binding around the edge” means binding all around, like water settling at the base of a tree. “Water”: Since unsuitable water is mentioned separately as “suitable water for sprinkling,” and since suitable water for sprinkling is permissible for planting in the monastery and for both suitable and unsuitable purposes, here too, a distinction is made, and suitable water for sprinkling is shown separately. What is unsuitable water, and what is suitable water? Water containing living beings is unsuitable, while water without living beings is suitable. How is this known? From the statement, “If a monk knowingly sprinkles water containing living beings on grass or clay, it is a pācittiya offense.” Just as cutting and digging are included in unsuitable actions, so too are straightening dry clay and other suitable actions, as stated, “Straightening with dry clay.” “Washing hands, feet, and face with water”: This also shows the sprinkling of suitable water in a more detailed way. How is cutting and digging included in unsuitable actions? Because it is called “unsuitable action,” all actions and causing others to act are included, not just the term “unsuitable.” The same applies to suitable actions. “Straightening with dry clay”: This also includes removing old leaves and so on. Tools like the hoe are placed on the ground, and taking them by hand from their place is called “illumination.”
ID239
29. Mahāpaccarivādaṃ patiṭṭhāpetukāmo pacchā vadati. Vanatthāyāti idaṃ keci “vatatthāyā”ti paṭhanti, tesaṃ vatiatthāyāti attho. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyampi tatheva vuttaṃ, “ārāmaropā vanaropā, ye narā setukārakā”ti (saṃ. ni. 1.47) vacanato pana taṃ vicāretabbaṃ. Akappiyavohārepi ekaccaṃ vaṭṭatīti dassetuṃ “na kevalañca sesa”ntiādimāha. Yaṃ kiñci mātikanti sukkhamātikaṃ vā asukkhamātikaṃ vā. Kappiyaudakaṃ siñcitunti iminā “kappiyaudakaṃ siñcathā”ti vattumpi vaṭṭatīti dasseti. Sayaṃ ropetumpi vaṭṭatīti iminā “ropehī”ti vattumpi vaṭṭatītipi siddhaṃ.
29. Wishing to establish the Mahāpaccari view, he speaks later. Vanatthāya: Some read this as “vatatthāya,” meaning “for the sake of a fence.” This is also stated in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā, but it should be examined in light of the statement, “Those who plant gardens or forests, or build bridges” (Saṃ. Ni. 1.47). To show that some things are permissible even in improper means, it says, “Na kevalañca sesa,” and so forth. Yaṃ kiñci mātika means any watercourse, dry or wet. Kappiyaudakaṃ siñcitu indicates that it is also permissible to say, “Sprinkle proper water.” Sayaṃ ropetumpi vaṭṭati implies that it is also permissible to say, “Plant it.”
29. Wanting to establish the Mahāpaccari account, later he states. For the sake of the forest, some read this as ‘for the sake of the vow’, and for them, the meaning is for the sake of the vow. It is also stated thus in the Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā. However, because of the statement, “Monastery planters, forest planters, those men who build bridges” (Saṃ.Ni.1.47), that should be investigated. In order to show that even in unallowable practices, some things are allowable, he says “And not only the rest,” etc. Whatever irrigation channel means a dry irrigation channel or a non-dry irrigation channel. With to sprinkle allowable water, he shows that it is even allowable to say, “Sprinkle allowable water.” With It is even allowable to plant it oneself, it is also established that it is even allowable to say, “Plant it.”
29. One who wishes to establish a great boundary speaks later. “For the sake of the forest”: Some read this as “for the sake of the boundary,” meaning for the sake of the boundary. The Vajirabuddhiṭīkā also states this. However, it should be considered in light of the statement, “Planting gardens, planting forests, and those who build bridges” (Saṃ. Ni. 1.47). To show that some things are permissible even in unsuitable actions, it is said, “Not only the rest.” “Whatever clay”: Whether dry or wet clay. “To sprinkle suitable water”: This shows that it is permissible to say, “Sprinkle suitable water.” “To plant oneself”: This also establishes that it is permissible to say, “Plant.”
ID240
30. Pācittiyañceva dukkaṭañcāti pathavīkhaṇanapaccayā pācittiyaṃ, kulasaṅgahapaccayā dukkaṭaṃ. Akappiyavohārenāti “idaṃ khaṇa, idaṃ ropehī”ti akappiyavohārena. Dukkaṭamevāti kulasaṅgahapaccayā dukkaṭaṃ. Ubhayatrāti kappiyākappiyapathaviyaṃ.
30. Pācittiyañceva dukkaṭañca: A pācittiya offense due to digging the earth and a wrongdoing due to family support. Akappiyavohārena: With improper means, saying, “Dig this, plant this.” Dukkaṭameva: Only a wrongdoing due to family support. Ubhayatra: On both proper and improper ground.
30. Both a pācittiya and a dukkaṭa, a pācittiya due to digging the earth, and a dukkaṭa due to the collection of families. By unallowable practice means by unallowable practice, saying “Dig this, plant this.” Only a dukkaṭa, a dukkaṭa due to the collection of families. In both cases means in both allowable and unallowable earth.
30. “Both pācittiya and dukkaṭa”: A pācittiya offense arises due to digging the ground, and a dukkaṭa offense arises due to supporting families. “Through unsuitable action”: By saying, “Dig this, plant this,” through unsuitable action. “Only a dukkaṭa”: A dukkaṭa offense arises due to supporting families. “In both cases”: In both suitable and unsuitable ground.
ID241
Sabbatthāti kulasaṅgahaparibhogaārāmādiatthāya ropite. Dukkaṭampīti na kevalaṃ pācittiyameva. Kappiyenāti kappiyaudakena. Tesaṃyeva dvinnanti kulasaṅgahaparibhogānaṃ. Dukkaṭanti kulasaṅgahatthāya sayaṃ siñcane, kappiyavohārena vā akappiyavohārena vā siñcāpane dukkaṭaṃ, paribhogatthāya sayaṃ siñcane, akappiyavohārena siñcāpane ca dukkaṭaṃ. Payogabahulatāyāti sayaṃ karaṇe, kāyapayogassa kārāpane vacīpayogassa bahuttena. Āpattibahulatā veditabbāti ettha sayaṃ siñcane dhārāpacchedagaṇanāya āpattigaṇanā veditabbā. Siñcāpane pana punappunaṃ āṇāpentassa vācāya vācāya āpatti, sakiṃ āṇattassa bahusiñcane ekāva.
Sabbattha: For all purposes—family support, personal use, or planting for gardens and so forth. Dukkaṭampi: Not only a pācittiya. Kappiyena: With proper water. Tesaṃyeva dvinna: Of those two—family support and personal use. Dukkaṭa: A wrongdoing when sprinkling oneself for family support, or causing it to be sprinkled with either proper or improper means; also a wrongdoing when sprinkling oneself for personal use or causing it to be sprinkled with improper means. Payogabahulatāya: Due to the multiplicity of actions—physical effort in doing it oneself and verbal effort in causing it to be done. Āpattibahulatā veditabbā: The multiplicity of offenses should be understood; in sprinkling oneself, offenses are counted by the breaking of the stream; in causing it to be sprinkled, there is an offense for each verbal command if repeated, but only one if commanded once even if sprinkled multiple times.
Everywhere, in what has been planted for the purpose of the collection of families, enjoyment, monastery, and so on. Even a dukkaṭa means not only a pācittiya. With allowable means with allowable water. Of those two only, of the collection of families and enjoyment. A dukkaṭa, a dukkaṭa for sprinkling oneself for the sake of collecting families, or for causing it to be sprinkled by an allowable practice or by an unallowable practice; a dukkaṭa for sprinkling oneself for the purpose of enjoyment, and for causing it to be sprinkled by an unallowable practice. Because of the abundance of effort, in doing it oneself, there is an abundance of bodily effort; in causing it to be done, there is an abundance of verbal effort. The abundance of offenses should be understood, here the abundance of offenses should be understood by counting the offenses according to the number of breaks in the stream when sprinkling oneself. But when causing it to be sprinkled, for each repeated command, there is an offense for each utterance; if commanded once, there is only one offense for many sprinklings.
“Everywhere”: Planted for the sake of supporting families or for the use of the monastery, etc. “Also a dukkaṭa”: Not only a pācittiya offense. “With suitable”: With suitable water. “Of those two”: Of the two, supporting families and use. “Dukkaṭa”: A dukkaṭa offense arises when sprinkling oneself for the sake of supporting families, or when having others sprinkle through suitable or unsuitable actions. A dukkaṭa offense also arises when sprinkling oneself for the sake of use, or when having others sprinkle through unsuitable actions. “Due to the abundance of effort”: In doing it oneself, bodily effort is involved; in having others do it, verbal effort is abundant. “The abundance of offenses should be understood”: Here, in sprinkling oneself, the number of offenses should be counted by the number of times the stream is interrupted. In having others sprinkle, each time one gives the order, an offense is incurred; if the order is given once, but many sprinklings are done, only one offense is incurred.
ID242
Ocinane dukkaṭapācittiyānīti kulasaṅgahapaccayā dukkaṭaṃ, bhūtagāmapātabyatāya pācittiyaṃ. Aññatthāti vatthupūjādiatthāya ocinane. Sakiṃ āṇattoti akappiyavohārena āṇatto . Pācittiyamevāti akappiyavohārena āṇattattā bhūtagāmasikkhāpadena (pāci. 90-91) pācittiyaṃ. Kappiyavacanena pana vatthupūjādiatthāya ocināpentassa anāpattiyeva.
Ocinane dukkaṭapācittiyāni: A wrongdoing due to family support and a pācittiya due to harming plants. Aññattha: For other purposes like honoring a site. Sakiṃ āṇatto: Commanded once with improper means. Pācittiyameva: Only a pācittiya due to the plant-training rule (Pāci. 90-91) because it was commanded with improper means. However, there is no offense if one causes it to be gathered for honoring a site with proper speech.
Gathering involves a dukkaṭa and a pācittiya, a dukkaṭa due to collecting families, and a pācittiya due to destroying plant life. Otherwise, in gathering for the purpose of offering to an object of veneration. One who is commanded once means one who is commanded with unallowable words. Only a pācittiya, because of being commanded with unallowable words, there is a pācittiya due to the training rule concerning plant life (Pāci.90-91). But for one causing gathering for the purpose of offering to an object of veneration, with allowable words, there is no offense.
“In plucking, both dukkaṭa and pācittiya offenses”: A dukkaṭa offense arises due to supporting families, and a pācittiya offense arises due to harming plants. “For another purpose”: Plucking for the sake of worshiping a shrine, etc. “Ordered once”: Ordered through unsuitable action. “Only a pācittiya”: Since it is ordered through unsuitable action, a pācittiya offense arises under the rule on harming plants (Pāc. 90-91). However, if ordered through suitable speech for the sake of worshiping a shrine, etc., there is no offense.
ID243
31. Ganthanena nibbattaṃ dāmaṃ ganthimaṃ. Esa nayo sesesupi. Na vaṭṭatīti kulasaṅgahatthāya, vatthupūjādiatthāya vā vuttanayena karontassa kārāpentassa ca dukkaṭanti attho. Vaṭṭatīti vatthupūjādiatthāya vaṭṭati, kulasaṅgahatthāya pana kappiyavohārena kārāpentassapi dukkaṭameva. Purimanayenevāti “bhikkhussa vā”tiādinā vuttanayena. Dhammāsanavitāne baddhakaṇṭakesu pupphāni vinivijjhitvā ṭhapentīti sambandho. Uparūpari vijjhitvā chattasadisaṃ katvā āvuṇanato “chattādhichattaṃ viyā”ti vuttaṃ. “Kadalikkhandhamhī”tiādinā vuttaṃ sabbameva sandhāya “taṃ atioḷārikamevā”ti vuttaṃ, sabbattha karaṇe, akappiyavohārena kārāpane ca dukkaṭamevāti attho. Pupphavijjhanatthaṃ kaṇṭakampi bandhituṃ na vaṭṭatīti imassa upalakkhaṇattā pupphadāmolambakādiatthāya rajjubandhanādipi na vaṭṭatīti keci vadanti. Aññe pana “pupphavijjhanatthaṃ kaṇṭakanti visesitattā tadatthaṃ kaṇṭakameva bandhituṃ na vaṭṭati, tañca aṭṭhakathāpamāṇenā”ti vadanti, vīmaṃsitvā gahetabbaṃ. Pupphapaṭicchakaṃ nāma dantādīhi kataṃ pupphādhānaṃ. Etampi nāgadantakampi sachiddameva gahetabbaṃ. Asokapiṇḍiyāti asokasākhānaṃ, pupphānaṃ vā samūhe. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.431) pana “asokapiṇḍiyāti asokapupphamañjarikāyā”ti vuttaṃ. Dhammarajju nāma cetiyaṃ vā bodhiṃ vā pupphappavesanatthaṃ āvijjhitvā bandharajju. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.431) pana “dhammarajju nāma cetiyādīni parikkhipitvā tesañca rajjuyā ca antarā pupphappavesanatthāya bandharajju. Sithilavaṭṭitāya vā vaṭṭiyā abbhantare pupphappavesanatthāya evaṃ bandhātipi vadantī”ti vuttaṃ.
31. Ganthimaṃ: A garland made by weaving. The same applies to the rest. Na vaṭṭati: It is not permissible—meaning a wrongdoing for doing or causing it to be done in the manner stated for family support or honoring a site. Vaṭṭati: It is permissible for honoring a site, but even causing it to be done with proper means for family support incurs only a wrongdoing. Purimanayeneva: In the manner stated earlier with “For a monk…” and so forth. The connection is: They pierce flowers into tied thorns for a Dhamma seat canopy. “Chattādhichattaṃ viya”: Said because it is made like a parasol by piercing layer upon layer. “Taṃ atioḷārikameva”: Said with reference to all that was mentioned like “On a plantain trunk…” and so forth, meaning a wrongdoing in all cases of doing or causing it to be done with improper means. Pupphavijjhanatthaṃ kaṇṭakampi bandhituṃ na vaṭṭati: As an indication, some say it is also not permissible to bind with rope for purposes like hanging flower garlands. Others say, “Since it specifies ‘thorns for piercing flowers,’ only thorns for that purpose may not be bound, and this is based on the commentary”—this should be examined and understood. Pupphapaṭicchakaṃ: A flower receptacle made of ivory or similar, even with holes, should be understood as such. Asokapiṇḍiyā: A cluster of asoka branches or flowers. In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.431), it is said, “Asokapiṇḍiyā”: A cluster of asoka flower buds. Dhammarajju: A rope tied around a cetiya or bodhi tree for inserting flowers. In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.431), it is said, “Dhammarajju”: A rope tied around cetiyas and so forth, with flowers inserted between it and them, or a loosely woven coil for inserting flowers inside—some say it is tied thus.
31. A garland made by threading is threaded. This method is also for the rest. It is not allowable, for the sake of collecting families; but for one doing it or causing it to be done in the manner stated for the purpose of offering to an object of veneration, there is a dukkaṭa, this is the meaning. It is allowable means it is allowable for the purpose of offering to an object of veneration, but for the sake of collecting families, even for one causing it to be done with an allowable practice, there is only a dukkaṭa. Just as the previous method, as stated by the method “of a monk” etc. The flowers are placed by piercing them on the thorns bound on a dhammāsana canopy, this is the connection. It is stated “like a parasol upon a parasol” because they are pierced one above the other, made like a parasol, and threaded. All that is said with “on the trunk of a plantain tree” and so on, is what is meant by “that is exceedingly gross,” meaning that in all cases, in doing, and in causing to be done with unallowable words, there is only a dukkaṭa. It is not allowable to even bind a thorn for piercing flowers. Because of its indicative nature, some say that it is not allowable to even bind a string, etc. for the purpose of hanging flower garlands. Others, however, say, “because of the specification ‘a thorn for the sake of piercing flowers’, only a thorn is not to be bound for that purpose, and that is by the authority of the commentary,” it should be investigated and accepted. Flower holder means a flower receptacle made of ivory and so on. Even this ivory tusk should be taken as having a hole. In a cluster of asoka flowers, in a collection of asoka branches or flowers. However, in the Sārattha-dīpanī (Sārattha.Ṭ.2.431), it is stated, “In a cluster of asoka flowers,** in an asoka flower bunch.” The Dhamma string** is a string tied around a cetiya or bodhi tree by piercing it for inserting flowers. But, in the Vimati-vinodanī (Vi.Vi.Ṭ.1.431) it is stated, **“The Dhamma string** is a string tied around cetiyas, etc., and between them and the string, for the insertion of flowers. Or, some also say that it is tied in this way for inserting flowers inside a loosely woven cloth.”
31. A cord made by tying is called “knotted.” The same applies to the rest. “It is not permissible”: It is not permissible for the sake of supporting families or for the sake of worshiping a shrine, etc., as explained before. “It is permissible”: It is permissible for the sake of worshiping a shrine, etc., but for the sake of supporting families, even if ordered through suitable action, it is still a dukkaṭa offense. “As before”: As explained in the phrase, “For a monk,” etc. The connection is that flowers are removed from the thorns tied to the Dhamma seat and placed there. By piercing them layer by layer and wrapping them to make them like a canopy, it is said, “Like a canopy.” “Like a banana stem”: All of this is said to be very coarse. In all cases, doing it oneself or having others do it through unsuitable action is a dukkaṭa offense. “It is not permissible to tie a thorn for the purpose of piercing flowers”: Some say that because of this, it is not permissible to tie a cord for the purpose of hanging flower garlands, etc. Others say, “Since it is specified as a thorn for piercing flowers, it is not permissible to tie a thorn for that purpose, and this is according to the commentary.” It should be carefully considered. “A flower holder”: A container made of ivory, etc., for holding flowers. This should also be understood as including items like elephant ivory, even if they have holes. “A cluster of Aśoka flowers”: A bunch of Aśoka branches or flowers. The Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.431) states, “A cluster of Aśoka flowers”: It refers to the inflorescence of Aśoka flowers. “A Dhamma cord”: A cord tied around a shrine or Bodhi tree for the purpose of inserting flowers. The Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.431) states, “A Dhamma cord”: A cord tied around a shrine, etc., and between them for the purpose of inserting flowers. Some say it is tied loosely in a circle for the purpose of inserting flowers inside.
ID244
Matthakadāmanti dhammāsanādimatthake palambakadāmaṃ. Tesaṃyevāti uppalādīnaṃ eva. Vākena vāti pupphanāḷaṃ phāletvā pupphena ekābaddhaṭṭhitavākena daṇḍena ca ekābaddheneva. Etena pupphaṃ bījagāmasaṅgahaṃ na gacchati pañcasu bījesu apaviṭṭhattā paṇṇaṃ viya, tasmā kappiyaṃ akārāpetvāpi vikopane doso natthi. Yañca chinnassapi makuḷassa vikasanaṃ, tampi atitaruṇassa abhāvā vuḍḍhilakkhaṇaṃ na hoti, pariṇatassa pana makuḷassa pattānaṃ sinehe pariyādānaṃ gate visuṃbhāvo eva vikāso, teneva chinnamakuḷavikāso achinnamakuḷavikāsato parihīno, milātaniyutto vā dissati. Yañca milātassa udakasaññoge amilānatāpajjanaṃ, tampi tambulapaṇṇādīsu samānaṃ vuḍḍhilakkhaṇaṃ na hoti. Pāḷiaṭṭhakathāsu ca na katthaci pupphānaṃ kappiyakaraṇaṃ āgataṃ, tasmā pupphaṃ sabbathā abījamevāti viññāyati, vīmaṃsitvā gahetabbaṃ.
Matthakadāma: A garland hanging from the top of a Dhamma seat or similar. Tesaṃyeva: Of those like lotuses and so forth alone. Vākena vā: With a stem split and joined with a flower, or with a stick joined as one. This shows that a flower does not fall under the category of seeds, as it is not included among the five types of seeds, like a leaf; thus, there is no fault in damaging it even without making it proper. The blooming of a bud even after being cut is not a sign of growth due to its not being overly young; for a mature bud, the separation of petals when their stickiness is exhausted is merely blooming. Hence, the blooming of a cut bud is less than that of an uncut bud and appears wilted. The unwilting of a wilted flower upon contact with water, as with betel leaves and so forth, is also not a sign of growth. Nowhere in the Pali texts or commentaries is the making of flowers proper mentioned; thus, it is understood that flowers are entirely non-seed—this should be examined and understood.
Head garland means a garland hanging from the head of a dhammāsana, and so on. Of those very ones means of lotuses, and so on, only. Or with bast, with the stalk of a flower having been split, and with the bast tied together with the flower, and also with the stalk tied together. By this, the flower does not come under the category of seed-life, because it is detached from the five types of propagation, like a leaf, therefore it is allowable, there is no fault in disfiguring even without making it allowable. And the blossoming of even a cut bud, that is not the characteristic of growth because it does not occur in a very tender one, but the blossoming of a mature bud is only the spreading out when the moisture of the leaves has been exhausted, therefore the blossoming of a cut bud is inferior to the blossoming of an uncut bud, or it is seen to be connected with withering. And the non-withering of a withered thing by the addition of water, that is not the characteristic of growth, being similar to betel leaves and so on. And in the Pāḷi and the commentaries, the making allowable of flowers has not come up anywhere, therefore it is understood that a flower is completely non-seed, it should be investigated and accepted.
“A top garland”: A garland hanging from the top of a Dhamma seat, etc. “Of those”: Of the lotuses, etc. “With a fiber”: Splitting the flower stalk and tying the flower with a single fiber or stick. This does not count as gathering seeds, as it is not included in the five types of seeds, like a leaf. Therefore, there is no fault in damaging it without ordering it to be made suitable. The blooming of a cut bud is not a sign of growth, as it is not mature. The separation of petals from the stalk due to the sap drying up is the actual blooming. Therefore, the blooming of a cut bud is inferior to the blooming of an uncut bud, and it appears to be closing. The non-wilting of a closed bud when placed in water is not a sign of growth, as it is the same with betel leaves, etc. The Pāli commentaries do not mention anywhere that flowers are made suitable, so it should be understood that flowers are entirely seedless. It should be carefully considered.
ID245
“Pasibbake viyā”ti vuttattā pupphaṃ pasibbake vā pasibbakasadisaṃ bandhe yattha katthaci cīvare vā pakkhipituṃ vaṭṭatīti siddhaṃ. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.431) pana “khandhe ṭhapitakāsāvassāti khandhe ṭhapitasaṅghāṭiṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Tañhi tathābandhituṃ sakkā bhaveyya. Iminā ca aññampi tādisaṃ kāsāvaṃ vā vatthaṃ vā vuttanayena bandhitvā tattha pupphāni pakkhipituṃ vaṭṭatīti siddhaṃ. Aṃsabhaṇḍikapasibbake pakkhittasadisattā veṭhimaṃ nāma na jātaṃ, tasmā sithilabandhassa antarantarā pakkhipitumpi vaṭṭatīti vadantī”ti vuttaṃ. Heṭṭhā daṇḍakaṃ pana bandhituṃ na vaṭṭatīti rajjuādīhi bandhanaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, pupphasseva pana acchinnadaṇḍakehi bandhituṃ vaṭṭati eva.
“Pasibbake viya”: Since it is said, it is established that it is permissible to place flowers in a sack or something sack-like, or anywhere, even in a robe. In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.431), it is said, “Khandhe ṭhapitakāsāvassa”: This refers to a robe placed on the shoulder. It could be bound in that way. This also establishes that it is permissible to bind another such robe or cloth in the stated manner and place flowers in it. Since it resembles something placed in a shoulder bag or sack, it does not become a woven garland; thus, some say it is permissible to loosely bind and insert flowers between—this is stated. Heṭṭhā daṇḍakaṃ pana bandhituṃ na vaṭṭati: This is said with reference to binding with ropes or similar; however, it is certainly permissible to bind with the uncut stems of flowers themselves.
Because it is stated, “like in a bag,” it is established that it is allowable to put a flower in a bag or something resembling a bag, or to put it anywhere in a robe. However, in the Sārattha-dīpanī (Sārattha.Ṭ.2.431) it is stated, “Of a robe placed on the shoulder,** it is said with reference to a saṅghāṭi placed on the shoulder. For it is possible to tie it thus. And by this, it is established that it is allowable to tie any other similar robe or cloth in the stated manner and to put flowers therein. It is said that the tying around is not formed because it is similar to putting it in a shoulder-bag pouch, therefore it is even allowable to put it between the loose ties.” It is said, ”But it is not allowable to tie a stick underneath**, this is stated with reference to tying with string and so on, but it is indeed allowable to tie with the uncut stalks of the flowers themselves.
“Like a bag”: Since it is said, “Like a bag,” it is established that flowers can be placed in a bag or a bag-like container, or in a robe. The Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.431) states, “Placing on the shoulder”: This refers to the saṅghāṭi placed on the shoulder. It can be tied in such a way. This also establishes that other similar robes or cloths can be tied in the same way and flowers can be placed in them. Since it is similar to placing in a shoulder bag, it is not called a wrap. Therefore, some say that even if it is loosely tied, flowers can be placed in it here and there. “However, it is not permissible to tie a stick below”: This refers to tying with a cord, etc., but it is permissible to tie with unbroken sticks of flowers.
ID246
Pupphapaṭe ca daṭṭhabbanti pupphapaṭaṃ karontassa dīghato pupphadāmassa haraṇapaccāharaṇavasena pūraṇaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, tiriyato haraṇaṃ pana vāyimaṃ nāma hoti, na purimaṃ. “Purimaṭṭhānaṃ atikkāmetī”ti sāmaññato vuttattā purimaṃ pupphakoṭiṃ phusāpetvā vā aphusāpetvā vā parikkhipanavasena atikkāmentassa āpattiyeva. Bandhituṃ vaṭṭatīti puppharahitāya suttavākakoṭiyā bandhituṃ vaṭṭati. Ekavāraṃ haritvā parikkhipitvāti idaṃ pubbe vuttacetiyādiparikkhepaṃ pupphapaṭakaraṇañca sandhāya vuttaṃ, tasmā cetiyaṃ vā bodhiṃ vā parikkhipantena ekavāraṃ parikkhipitvā purimaṭṭhānaṃ sampatte aññassa dātabbaṃ, tenapi ekavāraṃ parikkhipitvā tatheva kātabbaṃ. Pupphapaṭaṃ karontena ca haritvā aññassa dātabbaṃ, tenapi tatheva kātabbaṃ. Sacepi dveyeva bhikkhū ubhosu passesu ṭhatvā pariyāyena haranti, vaṭṭatiyevāti vadanti.
“Pupphapaṭe ca daṭṭhabba” means that when making a flower curtain, it is said with reference to filling it lengthwise by bringing and returning a garland of flowers, while bringing it widthwise is called “vāyima” and not the former. “Purimaṭṭhānaṃ atikkāmeti” is stated generally, so there is indeed an offense for one who exceeds the previous point by encircling it, whether touching or not touching the previous flower end. “Bandhituṃ vaṭṭati” means it is allowable to bind it with the end of a thread devoid of flowers. “Ekavāraṃ haritvā parikkhipitvā” is said with reference to the previously mentioned encircling of a cetiya or similar and the making of a flower curtain; therefore, one who encircles a cetiya or bodhi tree should do so once and, upon reaching the starting point, give it to another, who should also encircle it once and do likewise. When making a flower curtain, it should be brought and given to another, who should do likewise. Even if only two bhikkhus stand on both sides and take turns bringing it, they say it is allowable.
Pupphapaṭe ca daṭṭhabbanti refers to the filling [of a flower-cloth] in terms of extending and retracting a long flower garland when making a flower-cloth, but extending it sideways is called weaving, not filling. “Purimaṭṭhānaṃ atikkāmetī”ti because it is stated in a general sense, whether touching the previous tip of the flower or not, an offence is incurred by overstepping in a encircling way. Bandhituṃ vaṭṭatīti it is permissible to tie with the end of the thread where there are no flowers. Ekavāraṃ haritvā parikkhipitvāti this is said in reference to encircling the previously mentioned cetiya, etc., and making a flower-cloth. Therefore, when encircling a cetiya or Bodhi tree, one should encircle it once and when reaching the starting point, hand it over to another. That [person] should also do likewise, encircling once. And when making a flower-cloth, one should pass it on after having encircled it and that [person] should do likewise. It is said that even if only two monks stand on opposite sides and take turns to extend it, it is permissible.
Pupphapaṭe ca daṭṭhabbanti: Regarding the flower arrangement, it is said with reference to filling the flower garland lengthwise by bringing and taking back the flowers. However, the horizontal arrangement is called “vāyimaṃ,” not “purimaṃ.” “Purimaṭṭhānaṃ atikkāmetī”ti: Since it is generally stated that one must not exceed the original position, whether one touches the tip of the flower or not while encircling, an offense is incurred. Bandhituṃ vaṭṭatīti: It is permissible to tie the end of the thread without flowers. Ekavāraṃ haritvā parikkhipitvāti: This refers to the previously mentioned encircling of a cetiya or bodhi tree and the making of a flower arrangement. Therefore, when encircling a cetiya or bodhi tree, one should encircle it once and then give it to another, who should also encircle it once in the same manner. When making a flower arrangement, one should bring it and give it to another, who should also do the same. Even if two monks stand on both sides and take turns bringing the flowers, it is permissible.
ID247
Parehi pūritanti dīghato pasāritaṃ. Vāyitunti tiriyato harituṃ, taṃ pana ekavārampi na labhati. Pupphāni ṭhapentenāti aganthitāni pākatikapupphāni aññamaññaṃ phusāpetvāpi ṭhapentena. Pupphadāmaṃ pana pūjanatthāya bhūmiyaṃ ṭhapentena phusāpetvā vā aphusāpetvā vā diguṇaṃ katvā ṭhapetuṃ na vaṭṭatīti vadanti.
“Parehi pūrita” means stretched lengthwise. “Vāyitu” means to bring widthwise, but this is not permitted even once. “Pupphāni ṭhapentena” means by one placing unstrung, natural flowers, even if they touch one another. However, they say that when placing a flower garland on the ground for veneration, it is not allowable to double it, whether touching or not touching.
Parehi pūritanti spread out lengthwise. Vāyitunti to extend it sideways, but that is not allowed even once. Pupphāni ṭhapentenāti even one placing unstrung, ordinary flowers so that they touch each other. But it is said that when placing a flower garland on the ground for the purpose of offering, it should not be doubled over, whether the flowers are touching or not.
Parehi pūritanti: Lengthwise, it is spread out. Vāyitunti: To bring horizontally, but one does not get even a single turn. Pupphāni ṭhapentenāti: Placing flowers that are not tied together, even if they touch each other. However, when placing a flower garland on the ground for worship, it is not permissible to place it by doubling it, whether the flowers touch or not.
ID248
32. Ghaṭikadāmaolambakoti heṭṭhābhāge ghaṭikākārayutto, dārughaṭikākāro vā olambako. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.431) pana “ghaṭikadāmaolambakoti ante ghaṭikākārayutto yamakadāmaolambako”ti vuttaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 431) pana “ghaṭikadāmaolambakoti yamakadāmaolambakoti likhita”nti vuttaṃ, ekekaṃ pana dāmaṃ nikkhantasuttakoṭiyāva bandhitvā olambituṃ vaṭṭati, pupphadāmadvayaṃ saṅghaṭitukāmenapi nikkhantasuttakoṭiyāva suttakoṭiṃ saṅghaṭituṃ vaṭṭati. Aḍḍhacandākārena mālāguṇaparikkhepoti aḍḍhacandākārena mālāguṇassa punappunaṃ haraṇapaccāharaṇavasena pūretvā parikkhipanaṃ, teneva taṃ purime paviṭṭhaṃ, tasmā etampi aḍḍhacandākāraṃ punappunaṃ haraṇapaccāharaṇavasena pūretuṃ na vaṭṭati. Ekavāraṃ pana aḍḍhacandākārakaraṇe mālāguṇaṃ harituṃ vaṭṭatīti vadanti. Pupphadāmakaraṇanti ettha suttakoṭiyaṃ gahetvāpi ekato kātuṃ na vaṭṭatīti vadanti. Suttamayaṃ geṇḍukaṃ nāma, geṇḍukakharapattadāmānaṃ paṭikkhittattā celādīhi katadāmampi na vaṭṭati akappiyānulomattāti vadanti. Parasantakaṃ deti, dukkaṭamevāti vissāsaggāhena parasantakaṃ gahetvā dentaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Thullaccayanti ettha bhaṇḍadeyyampi hoti.
32. “Ghaṭikadāmaolambako” refers to a hanging garland with a pot-like shape at the bottom, or a wooden pot-like hanger. In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.431), it is said: “Ghaṭikadāmaolambako” means a twin garland hanger with a pot-like shape at the end. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 431), it is said: “Ghaṭikadāmaolambako” means a twin garland hanger, as written; however, it is allowable to hang each garland by binding it with its protruding thread end alone, and even for one wishing to join two flower garlands, it is allowable to join the thread ends with the protruding thread end alone. “Aḍḍhacandākārena mālāguṇaparikkhepo” means encircling with a garland strand in a half-moon shape by repeatedly bringing and returning it to fill it; thus, it overlaps with the previous one, so this half-moon shape too should not be filled by repeatedly bringing and returning it. They say it is allowable to bring the garland strand once in a half-moon shape. “Pupphadāmakaraṇa” here means that they say it is not allowable to make it one-sided even by holding the thread end. There is something called a thread-made ball; since garlands made of bamboo strips or rough leaves are prohibited, they say a garland made of cloth or similar is also not allowable due to its conformity with the unallowable. “Parasantakaṃ deti, dukkaṭameva” is said with reference to one who takes another’s property with confidence and gives it, resulting only in a dukkaṭa offense. “Thullaccaya” here includes the offense of dealing with goods.
32. Ghaṭikadāmaolambakoti a hanging ornament with a pot-shape at the bottom, or a hanging ornament with a wooden pot-shape. In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.431), however, it is stated: “ghaṭikadāmaolambakoti a double flower-garland ornament with a pot-shape at the end”. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 431), it is stated, “ghaṭikadāmaolambakoti means a double flower-garland ornament”, but it is permissible to tie and hang each individual garland by the end of the thread that comes out; even one wishing to join two flower garlands together should join them only by the ends of their respective threads. Aḍḍhacandākārena mālāguṇaparikkhepoti encircling with a flower garland in the shape of a half-moon, by repeatedly extending and retracting it to fill [the space]. Therefore, it is included in the former, thus even this half-moon shape is not allowed to be filled by repeatedly extending and retracting. It is said that it is permissible to extend the garland to make a single half-moon shape. Pupphadāmakaraṇanti here, it is said that it is not permissible to join together even by taking hold of the end of the thread. A ball made of thread is called geṇḍuka; since balls and garlands made of kharapatta are prohibited, it is said that even a garland made of cloth, etc., is not permissible, as it is conducive to the impermissible. Parasantakaṃ deti, dukkaṭamevāti this is said with reference to giving what belongs to another after taking it through trusting acceptance. Thullaccayanti here, it is also an item for distribution.
32. Ghaṭikadāmaolambakoti: Below, it is fitted with a ghaṭikā shape, or it is a wooden ghaṭikā-shaped hanging. In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.431), it is said, “ghaṭikadāmaolambakoti: At the end, it is fitted with a ghaṭikā shape, a yamaka flower garland hanging.” In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 431), it is written, “ghaṭikadāmaolambakoti: A yamaka flower garland hanging.” However, each garland should be tied at the end of the thread and hung. Even if one wishes to combine two flower garlands, the ends of the threads should be joined. Aḍḍhacandākārena mālāguṇaparikkhepoti: The encircling of a garland in the shape of a half-moon by repeatedly filling it by bringing and taking back flowers. This is also included in the previous explanation. Therefore, it is not permissible to repeatedly fill it in the shape of a half-moon by bringing and taking back flowers. However, it is permissible to bring the garland once in the shape of a half-moon. Pupphadāmakaraṇanti: Here, it is not permissible to make it by holding the end of the thread. A ball made of thread is called “geṇḍukaṃ.” Since garlands made of geṇḍuka and kharapatta are prohibited, garlands made of cloth are also not permissible due to their unsuitability. Parasantakaṃ deti, dukkaṭamevāti: This refers to giving something belonging to another out of trust, which is an offense. Thullaccayanti: Here, even giving a vessel is an offense.
ID249
33. Tañca kho vatthupūjanatthāyāti mātāpitūnampi pupphaṃ dentena vatthupūjanatthāyeva dātabbanti dasseti. “Maṇḍanatthāya pana sivaliṅgādipūjanatthāyā”ti ettakameva vuttattā “imaṃ vikkiṇitvā jīvissantī”ti mātāpitūnaṃ vaṭṭati, sesañātakānaṃ tāvakālikameva dātuṃ vaṭṭati. Kassacipīti ñātakassa vā aññātakassa vā kassacipi. Ñātisāmaṇerehevāti tesaṃ gihiparikammamocanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Itareti aññātakā. Tehipi sāmaṇerehi ācariyupajjhāyānaṃ vattasīsena haritabbaṃ. Sampattānaṃ sāmaṇerānaṃ upaḍḍhabhāgaṃ dātuṃ vaṭṭatīti saṅghikassa lābhassa upacārasīmaṭṭhasāmaṇerānampi santakattā tesampi upaḍḍhabhāgo labbhatevāti katvā vuttaṃ. Cūḷakanti upaḍḍhabhāgatopi upaḍḍhaṃ. Catutthabhāgassetaṃ adhivacanaṃ. Sāmaṇerā…pe… ṭhapentīti idaṃ arakkhitaagopitaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ pana “vassaggena abhājanīyaṃ sandhāya vutta”nti vuttaṃ. Tattha tatthāti magge vā cetiyaṅgaṇe vā.
33. “Tañca kho vatthupūjanatthāya” indicates that even when giving flowers to parents, it should be given only for the purpose of venerating an object. “Maṇḍanatthāya pana sivaliṅgādipūjanatthāya” is stated as such, so it is allowable to give to parents with the thought, “They will live by selling this,” but for other relatives, it is allowable only temporarily. “Kassacipi” means to anyone, whether a relative or a non-relative. “Ñātisāmaṇereheva” is said for the purpose of freeing them from lay duties. “Itare” means non-relatives. Even by those sāmaṇeras, it should be brought for the sake of duty to their teachers and preceptors. “Sampattānaṃ sāmaṇerānaṃ upaḍḍhabhāgaṃ dātuṃ vaṭṭati” is said because, since the gain belongs to the Saṅgha, even sāmaṇeras within the monastery boundary are entitled to it, so they too receive half a share. “Cūḷaka” means half of that half share, which is a term for a quarter share. “Sāmaṇerā…pe… ṭhapenti” is said with reference to something unprotected or unguarded. In the Sāratthadīpanī, however, it is said: “It is stated with reference to what is not divisible by years.” “Tattha tattha” means on the path or in the cetiya courtyard.
33. Tañca kho vatthupūjanatthāyāti shows that even when giving flowers to parents, they should only be given for the purpose of venerating the object [of worship]. “Maṇḍanatthāya pana sivaliṅgādipūjanatthāyā”ti because only this much is stated, it is permissible to give to parents saying, “they will live by selling this,” but to other relatives, it should only be given temporarily. Kassacipīti to any relative or non-relative. Ñātisāmaṇerehevāti this is said in order to release them from the laymen’s duties. Itareti unrelated ones. Even those novices should carry [flowers] for their teachers and preceptors with vattasīsa (dutiful head). Sampattānaṃ sāmaṇerānaṃ upaḍḍhabhāgaṃ dātuṃ vaṭṭatīti this is said considering that even the novices residing within the boundary of shared communal property are entitled to half of the Saṅgha’s gain. Cūḷakanti half of even the half portion. This is a term for a fourth part. Sāmaṇerā…pe… ṭhapentīti this is said in reference to the unguarded and unprotected. In the Sāratthadīpanī, however, it is said, “It is said with reference to what is not to be distributed at the time of the rains retreat.” Tattha tatthāti on the road or in the courtyard of the cetiya.
33. Tañca kho vatthupūjanatthāyāti: This indicates that even when giving flowers to one’s parents, they should be given for the purpose of worship. “Maṇḍanatthāya pana sivaliṅgādipūjanatthāyā”ti: Since only this much is stated, it is permissible for parents to say, “We will sell this and live.” For other relatives, it is permissible to give temporarily. Kassacipīti: Whether it is a relative or a stranger. Ñātisāmaṇerehevāti: This is stated for the purpose of freeing them from household duties. Itareti: Strangers. Even these sāmaṇeras should bring it with the consent of their teachers or preceptors. Sampattānaṃ sāmaṇerānaṃ upaḍḍhabhāgaṃ dātuṃ vaṭṭatīti: Since the sāmaṇeras within the boundary of the monastery’s property are also entitled to a share, they too can receive half. Cūḷakanti: Even half of the half. This is a term for the fourth part. Sāmaṇerā…pe… ṭhapentīti: This refers to something unguarded and unprotected. In the Sāratthadīpanī, it is said, “This refers to what is unsuitable for use after the rains.” Tattha tatthāti: On the road or in the cetiya compound.
ID250
34. Sāmaṇerehi dāpetuṃ na labhantīti idaṃ sāmaṇerehi gihikammaṃ kāritaṃ viya hotīti vuttaṃ, na pana pupphadānaṃ hotīti sāmaṇerānampi na vaṭṭanato. Vuttañca “sayamevā”tiādi. Na hi taṃ pupphadānaṃ nāma siyā. Yadi hi tathā āgatānaṃ tesaṃ dānaṃ pupphadānaṃ nāma bhaveyya , sāmaṇerehipi dātuṃ na labbheyya. Sayamevāti sāmaṇerā sayameva. Yāgubhattādīni ādāyāti idaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ atthāya yāgubhattādisampādanaṃ sandhāya vuttattā “na vaṭṭatī”ti avisesena vuttaṃ. Avisesena vuttanti iminā sabbesampi na vaṭṭatīti dasseti.
34. “Sāmaṇerehi dāpetuṃ na labhanti” is said because it would be as if the sāmaṇeras were made to perform lay work, not because it is a giving of flowers, since it is not allowable for sāmaṇeras either. It is also said: “Sayameva” and so forth. Indeed, that would not be called a giving of flowers. If the giving to those who come in that manner were called a giving of flowers, it would not be permissible even for sāmaṇeras to give. “Sayameva” means the sāmaṇeras themselves. “Yāgubhattādīni ādāya” is said with reference to preparing gruel, rice, and so forth for the sake of bhikkhus, so “Na vaṭṭati” is stated without distinction. “Avisesena vutta” indicates by this that it is not allowable for anyone without distinction.
34. Sāmaṇerehi dāpetuṃ na labhantīti this is said because it is as if novices are made to perform laymen’s duties, but not because it is a gift of flowers, it not being permissible for even novices. And it has been stated “sayamevā”ti, etc. It would not be considered a gift of flowers. If giving to them in such a way were to be considered a gift of flowers, it would not be allowed to be given even by the novices. Sayamevāti the novices themselves. Yāgubhattādīni ādāyāti this is said in reference to preparing gruel, meals, etc., for the sake of the monks. “Na vaṭṭatī”ti avisesena vuttaṃ. It is stated without distinction. Avisesena vuttanti by this it shows it is not allowable to all.
34. Sāmaṇerehi dāpetuṃ na labhantīti: This means that it is like having sāmaṇeras perform household tasks, but it is not giving flowers. Therefore, even sāmaṇeras are not permitted. It is also stated, “sayamevā”ti: The sāmaṇeras themselves. Yāgubhattādīni ādāyāti: This refers to preparing rice gruel or food for the monks, and it is stated, “na vaṭṭatī”ti: It is not permissible. Avisesena vuttanti: This indicates that it is not permissible for all.
ID251
35. Vuttanayenevāti “mātāpitūnaṃ tāva haritvāpi harāpetvāpi pakkositvāpi pakkosāpetvāpi dātuṃ vaṭṭati, sesañātakānaṃ pakkosāpetvāva. Mātāpitūnañca harāpentena ñātisāmaṇereheva harāpetabbaṃ. Itare pana yadi sayameva icchanti, vaṭṭatī”ti imaṃ pupphadāne vuttanayaṃ phaladānepi atidisati, tasmā phalampi mātāpitūnaṃ haraṇaharāpanādinā dātuṃ vaṭṭati, sesañātīnaṃ pakkosāpetvāva. Idāni “yo haritvā vā harāpetvā vā…pe… issaravatāya dadato thullaccaya”nti (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.436-437) imaṃ pupphadāne vuttanayaṃ phaladāne saṅkhipitvā dassento “kulasaṅgahatthāya panā”tiādimāha. Khīṇaparibbayānanti āgantuke sandhāya vuttaṃ. Phalaparicchedenāti “ettakāni phalāni dātabbānī”ti evaṃ phalaparicchedena vā. Rukkhaparicchedena vāti “imehi rukkhehi dātabbānī”ti evaṃ rukkhaparicchedena vā. Paricchinnesupi pana rukkhesu “idha phalāni sundarāni, ito gaṇhathā”ti vadantena kulasaṅgaho kato nāma hotīti āha “evaṃ pana na vattabba”nti. Rukkhacchallīti rukkhattaco, sā “bhājanīyabhaṇḍa”nti vuttā. Vuttanayenāti pupphaphalādīsu vuttanayena kulasaṅgaho hotīti dasseti.
35. “Vuttanayeneva” extends the method stated for giving flowers—namely, “It is allowable to give to parents by bringing, having it brought, summoning, or having them summoned, but for other relatives, only by having them summoned. When having it brought for parents, it should be done only by relative sāmaṇeras. For others, if they wish it themselves, it is allowable”—to the giving of fruit as well; thus, it is allowable to give fruit to parents by bringing or having it brought, but to other relatives, only by having them summoned. Now, summarizing the method stated in the giving of flowers, “For one who brings or has it brought… with the authority of ownership, there is a thullaccaya” (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.436-437), he says: “Kulasaṅgahatthāya pana” and so forth. “Khīṇaparibbayāna” is said with reference to visitors. “Phalaparicchedena” means by specifying the amount of fruit, such as “This many fruits should be given.” “Rukkhaparicchedena vā” means by specifying the trees, such as “It should be given from these trees.” Even with specified trees, saying, “The fruits here are beautiful, take them from here,” is considered fostering clan support, so he says: “Evaṃ pana na vattabba”. “Rukkhacchallī” means tree bark, which is called “bhājanīyabhaṇḍa.” “Vuttanayena” indicates that fostering clan support is done by the method stated for flowers, fruits, and so forth.
35. Vuttanayenevāti “It is permissible to give to parents after fetching, having fetched for, after calling, having called for [them]; to other relatives, only after calling them. And when having [it] fetched for parents, it should be fetched only by related novices. But as for others, if they desire it themselves, it is permissible”. Here it extends the method mentioned in the gift of flowers to the gift of fruit as well. Therefore, fruit can also be given to parents by fetching, having fetched, etc., but to other relatives, only after calling them. Now, to show a summary of method stated for the gift of fruit as said in the case of gift of flower, he says “kulasaṅgahatthāya panā”ti, etc. stating “But, for the sake of family support…”. Khīṇaparibbayānanti is stated concerning a visitor. Phalaparicchedenāti by specifying the fruits, saying, “So many fruits should be given”. Rukkhaparicchedena vāti or by specifying the trees, saying, “from these trees they should be given”. But he says “evaṃ pana na vattabba”nti, Even on designated trees, saying, “The fruits here are beautiful, take them from here,” is considered as family support. Rukkhacchallīti tree bark; it is mentioned as “distributable goods”. Vuttanayenāti it shows that family support happens in the same way as stated regarding flowers, fruits, etc.
35. Vuttanayenevāti: The method stated for giving flowers applies to giving fruits as well. Therefore, fruits can also be given to parents by bringing or having them brought, etc., but for other relatives, they must be summoned. For parents, sāmaṇeras who are relatives should be the ones to bring it. However, if others wish to do so themselves, it is permissible. Now, the method stated for giving flowers is summarized for giving fruits: “kulasaṅgahatthāya panā”ti: For the sake of supporting the family. Khīṇaparibbayānanti: This refers to newcomers. Phalaparicchedenāti: Determining the amount of fruits to be given. Rukkhaparicchedena vāti: Determining the trees from which fruits are to be given. Even when trees are specified, saying, “The fruits here are beautiful, take from here,” is considered supporting the family. Rukkhacchallīti: Tree bark, which is considered a vessel. Vuttanayenāti: Supporting the family in the manner stated for flowers and fruits.
ID252
36. Tesaṃ tesaṃ gihīnaṃ gāmantaradesantarādīsu sāsanapaṭisāsanaharaṇaṃ jaṅghapesaniyaṃ. Tenāha “gihīnaṃ dūteyyaṃ sāsanaharaṇakamma”nti. Dūtassa kammaṃ dūteyyaṃ. Paṭhamaṃ sāsanaṃ aggahetvāpi…pe… pade pade dukkaṭanti idaṃ “tassa sāsanaṃ ārocessāmī”ti iminā adhippāyena gamanaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Tassa pana sāsanaṃ paṭikkhipitvā sayameva kāruññe ṭhito gantvā attano patirūpaṃ sāsanaṃ āroceti, anāpatti. Gihīnañca kappiyasāsanaṃ harituṃ vaṭṭatīti sambandho. Imehi pana aṭṭhahi kuladūsakakammehīti pupphadānaṃ phaladānaṃ cuṇṇadānaṃ mattikadānaṃ dantakaṭṭhadānaṃ veḷudānaṃ paṇṇadānaṃ jaṅghapesanikanti imehi yathāvuttehi. Pabbājanīyakammakatoti kuladūsanapaccayā katapabbājanīyakammo.
36. Carrying messages or counter-messages for various laypeople to other villages or regions is “errand-running”. Hence, he says: “The task of carrying messages for laypeople.” The task of a messenger is “messengership.” “Even without first taking the message … a dukkaṭa at every step” refers to going with the intention “I will report his message.” However, if one refuses that message and goes out of compassion to report a suitable message of one’s own, there is no offense. It is permissible to carry allowable messages for laypeople, as the connection implies. “With these eight family-corrupting actions” refers to giving flowers, giving fruit, giving powder, giving clay, giving tooth-sticks, giving bamboo, giving leaves, and errand-running, as stated. “Subject to an act of banishment” means one subjected to an act of banishment due to family corruption.
36. The carrying of messages and replies for those various householders to other villages, other regions, etc., is jaṅghapesaniyaṃ. Therefore, he says, “gihīnaṃ dūteyyaṃ sāsanaharaṇakamma”nti. The act of a messenger is dūteyyaṃ. Even without accepting the message first…pe… for each step, a dukkaṭa.** This is said in reference to going with the intention, “I will deliver his message.” But having refused his message, established in compassion, going and delivering an appropriate message of one’s own, there is no offense. And the connection is it is appropriate to carry a proper message of the householders. Imehi pana aṭṭhahi kuladūsakakammehīti by these aforementioned eight acts that corrupt families, namely: giving flowers, giving fruits, giving powder, giving clay, giving tooth-cleaning sticks, giving bamboo, giving leaves, and acting as a foot-messenger. Pabbājanīyakammakatoti one who has been subjected to the act of expulsion due to corrupting families.
36. The task of conveying the Dhamma to laypeople in distant villages is called jaṅghapesaniyaṃ. Therefore, it is said, “gihīnaṃ dūteyyaṃ sāsanaharaṇakamma”nti: The task of conveying the Dhamma to laypeople. The task of a messenger is dūteyyaṃ. Paṭhamaṃ sāsanaṃ aggahetvāpi…pe… pade pade dukkaṭanti: This refers to going with the intention of conveying the Dhamma. However, if one goes out of compassion without conveying the Dhamma and instead conveys what is suitable for oneself, there is no offense. It is also permissible to convey suitable Dhamma to laypeople. Imehi pana aṭṭhahi kuladūsakakammehīti: These are the eight actions that corrupt families: giving flowers, giving fruits, giving powder, giving clay, giving toothwood, giving bamboo, giving leaves, and jaṅghapesanika. Pabbājanīyakammakatoti: One who has been expelled due to corrupting families.
ID253
37. Sekkhabhūmiyaṃ vāti iminā jhānabhūmimpi saṅgaṇhāti. Tiṇṇaṃ vivekānanti kāyacittaupadhivivekabhūtānaṃ tiṇṇaṃ vivekānaṃ. Piṇḍāya caraṇassa bhojanapariyosānattā vuttaṃ “yāva bhojanapariyosāna”nti. Bhutvā āgacchantassapi puna vuttanayeneva paṇidhāya cīvarasaṇṭhāpanādīni karontassa dukkaṭamevāti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
37. “On the training ground” includes the meditative ground as well. “Of the three seclusions” refers to the three seclusions of body, mind, and material existence. “Until the end of the meal” is said because one wanders for alms until the meal is finished. For one returning after eating, performing tasks like arranging robes with intent in the stated manner incurs only a dukkaṭa, it should be understood.
37. Sekkhabhūmiyaṃ vāti by this, he also includes the jhāna-state. Tiṇṇaṃ vivekānanti of the three seclusions, which are the seclusions of body, mind, and substrate. Because going for alms is completed at the end of the meal, it is said, “yāva bhojanapariyosāna”nti. It should be understood that, for one who comes after eating and is arranging robes, etc., with a resolution as stated before, it is only a dukkaṭa.
37. Sekkhabhūmiyaṃ vāti: This includes the jhāna stage. Tiṇṇaṃ vivekānanti: The three types of seclusion: bodily, mental, and seclusion from attachments. Since the almsround ends with the meal, it is said, “yāva bhojanapariyosāna”nti: Until the end of the meal. Even if one returns after eating, one should prepare robes, etc., in the same manner, and it is an offense.
ID254
Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinaya collection
Thus in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinaya.
ID255
Kulasaṅgahavinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma
The discourse on the determination of family welfare
The chapter called the Ornament of the Discussion on Family Support
The fifth chapter is called Kulasaṅgahavinicchayakathālaṅkāro.
ID256
Pañcamo paricchedo.
The fifth chapter.
The Fifth Chapter.
The fifth section.
ID257
ID258
38. Evaṃ kulasaṅgahavinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni macchamaṃsavinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ “macchamaṃsesu panā”tiādi vuttaṃ. Tattha thale ṭhapitamatte marati, kevaṭṭādīhi vā māriyatīti maccho. Macchassa idanti macchaṃ, masiyate āmasiyateti maṃsaṃ, macchañca maṃsañca macchamaṃsāni, tesu. Macchamaṃsesu pana vinicchayo evaṃ veditabboti yojanā. Macchaggahaṇenāti ettha niddhāraṇaṃ na kātabbaṃ. Pana-saddo pakkhantarattho, divāseyyādīsu vinicchayato aparo macchamaṃsesu vinicchayo veditabboti attho. Gayhate anenāti gahaṇaṃ. Kiṃ taṃ? Saddo, macchaiti gahaṇaṃ macchaggahaṇaṃ, tena macchaggahaṇena, macchasaddenāti attho. Maṃsesu pana…pe… akappiyānīti ettha manussamaṃsaṃ samānajātimaṃsato paṭikkhittaṃ. Hatthiassānaṃ maṃsāni rājaṅgato, sunakhaahīnaṃ jegucchabhāvato, sesānaṃ vāḷamigattā bhikkhūnaṃ paribandhavimocanatthaṃ paṭikkhittanti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
38. Having discussed the determination of family welfare, now to discuss the determination of fish and meat, it is said: “But in regard to fish and meat” and so forth. Therein, what dies when placed on land or is killed by fishermen and the like is a fish. “This belongs to a fish” means fish; “it is touched, it is handled” means meat; fish and meat are “fish and meat,” regarding them. The determination regarding fish and meat should be understood thus, as the construction implies. “By taking fish”—here, specification should not be made. The word “but” indicates a different aspect; apart from the determination in daytime rest and so forth, another determination regarding fish and meat should be understood. “It is taken by this” means taking; what is that? Sound; “fish” as taking is “taking fish,” meaning by the sound “fish.” “But in regard to meat … unallowable”—here, human meat is prohibited as being of the same kind, elephant and horse meat due to royal status, dog and snake meat due to repulsiveness, and the rest as wild animals, prohibited for monks to free them from hindrances, it should be understood.
38. Having thus set forth the determination of family support, now to set forth the determination of fish and meat, it is stated, “macchamaṃsesu panā”ti, etc. Herein, what dies as soon as it is placed on dry land, or is killed by fishermen, etc., is maccha (fish). What belongs to fish is macchaṃ, and what is smeared, touched, is maṃsaṃ (meat); Fish and meat are macchamaṃsāni, concerning those. The determination in regard to fish and meat should be understood in this way. Macchaggahaṇenāti specification should not be made here. The word pana indicates another alternative; another determination concerning fish and meat should be understood, apart from the determination regarding sleeping during the day, etc. What is grasped by this is ‘grasping’. What is that? Sound; grasping by means of ‘fish’ is macchaggahaṇa, by that macchaggahaṇena, by the word ‘fish’, is the meaning. Maṃsesu pana…pe… akappiyānīti here, human flesh is prohibited as being of the same species. The flesh of elephants and horses is prohibited because it is royal property; that of dogs and snakes because they are disgusting; that of the rest, because they are wild animals and for releasing monks from difficulties [when traveling].
38. Having discussed the determination regarding supporting families, now the determination regarding fish and meat is discussed with “macchamaṃsesu panā”ti: Regarding fish and meat. There, a fish dies simply by being placed on land, or it is killed by fishermen, etc. The flesh of a fish is called “maṃsaṃ.” Fish and flesh are macchamaṃsāni. The determination regarding fish and meat should be understood as follows. Macchaggahaṇenāti: Here, no exception is to be made. Pana-saddo: The word “pana” indicates a different context. The determination regarding fish and meat should be understood separately from the determination regarding daytime resting, etc. Gayhate anenāti: What is grasped? The word “maccha” is grasped. Thus, macchaggahaṇena: by the word “maccha.” Maṃsesu pana…pe… akappiyānīti: Here, human flesh is prohibited as it is of the same category. The flesh of elephants and horses is prohibited due to royal association, the flesh of dogs and snakes due to their repulsiveness, and the flesh of other wild animals is prohibited to free monks from entanglement.
ID259
Tikoṭiparisuddhanti diṭṭhasutaparisaṅkitasaṅkhātāhi tīhi koṭīhi tīhi ākārehi tīhi kāraṇehi parisuddhaṃ, vimuttanti attho. Tattha adiṭṭhaasutāni cakkhuviññāṇasotaviññāṇānaṃ anārammaṇabhāvato jānitabbāni. Aparisaṅkitaṃ pana kathaṃ jānitabbanti āha “aparisaṅkitaṃ panā”tiādi, tīṇi parisaṅkitāni ñatvā tesaṃ paṭipakkhavasena aparisaṅkitaṃ jānitabbanti attho. Idāni tāni tīṇi parisaṅkitāni ca evaṃ parisaṅkite sati bhikkhūhi kattabbavidhiñca tena vidhinā aparisaṅkite sati kattabbabhāvañca vitthārato dassetuṃ “katha”ntiādimāha . Tattha disvā parisaṅkitaṃ diṭṭhaparisaṅkitaṃ nāma. Sutvā parisaṅkitaṃ sutaparisaṅkitaṃ nāma. Adisvā asutvā takkena anumānena parisaṅkitaṃ tadubhayavinimuttaparisaṅkitaṃ nāma. Taṃ tividhampi parisaṅkitasāmaññena ekā koṭi hoti, tato vimuttaṃ aparisaṅkitaṃ nāma. Evaṃ adiṭṭhaṃ asutaṃ aparisaṅkitaṃ macchamaṃsaṃ tikoṭiparisuddhaṃ hoti.
“Pure in three aspects” means pure in the three aspects called seen, heard, and suspected—pure in three ways, three reasons, meaning free. Therein, the unseen and unheard are to be known as not being objects of eye-consciousness or ear-consciousness. But how is the unsuspected to be known? He says: “But the unsuspected” and so forth; by knowing the three suspected aspects, the unsuspected is to be known by their opposites, is the meaning. Now, to explain in detail these three suspected aspects, what monks should do when there is suspicion, and what should be done when there is no suspicion by that method, he says: “How” and so forth. Therein, suspected after seeing is called “suspected by sight.” Suspected after hearing is called “suspected by hearing.” Suspected by reasoning or inference without seeing or hearing is called “suspected apart from both.” These three are collectively one aspect as suspected; what is free from that is called “unsuspected.” Thus, fish and meat that are unseen, unheard, and unsuspected are pure in three aspects.
Tikoṭiparisuddhanti pure, released, by three aspects, three ways, three reasons, namely: seen, heard, and suspected. Herein, the unseen and unheard should be known as not being objects of eye-consciousness and ear-consciousness. But how is the unsuspected to be known? He says, “aparisaṅkitaṃ panā”ti, etc., knowing the three suspected, the unsuspected should be known as their opposite. Now, to show in detail those three kinds of suspicion, and the procedure to be followed by monks when there is such suspicion, and the state of permissibility when there is no such suspicion according to that procedure, he says, “katha”nti, etc. Therein, what is suspected after seeing is called diṭṭhaparisaṅkitaṃ. What is suspected after hearing is called sutaparisaṅkitaṃ. What is suspected by inference and reasoning without seeing or hearing is called tadubhayavinimuttaparisaṅkitaṃ. All three types together, by the generality of suspicion, become one category, what is free from that is called aparisaṅkitaṃ. Thus, fish and meat that are unseen, unheard, and unsuspected are pure in three aspects.
Tikoṭiparisuddhanti: Purified through three criteria: seen, heard, and suspected. Thus, it is freed. There, what is not seen or heard is to be understood as not being the object of eye-consciousness or ear-consciousness. How is the unsuspected to be known? It is said, “aparisaṅkitaṃ panā”ti: Knowing the three suspicions, the unsuspected is to be known by their opposite. Now, to explain in detail the three suspicions and the procedure to be followed by monks when they are suspected, and the procedure when they are not suspected, it is said, “katha”nti: How? There, what is suspected by seeing is called diṭṭhaparisaṅkitaṃ. What is suspected by hearing is called sutaparisaṅkitaṃ. What is suspected by inference without seeing or hearing is called tadubhayavinimuttaparisaṅkitaṃ. These three types of suspicion form one category, and what is free from them is called aparisaṅkitaṃ. Thus, fish and meat that are not seen, heard, or suspected are purified through the three criteria.
ID260
Jālaṃ macchabandhanaṃ. Vāgurā migabandhinī. Kappatīti yadi tesaṃ vacanena saṅkā nivattati, vaṭṭati, na taṃ vacanaṃ lesakappaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Teneva vakkhati “yattha ca nibbematiko hoti, taṃ sabbaṃ kappatī”ti. Pavattamaṃsanti āpaṇādīsu pavattaṃ vikkāyikaṃ vā matamaṃsaṃ vā. Maṅgalādīnanti ādi-saddena āhunapāhunādike saṅgaṇhāti. Bhikkhūnaṃyeva atthāya akatanti ettha aṭṭhānappayutto eva-saddo, bhikkhūnaṃ atthāya akatamevāti sambandhitabbaṃ, tasmā bhikkhūnañca maṅgalādīnañcāti missetvā katampi na vattatīti veditabbaṃ. Keci pana “yathāṭhitavasena avadhāraṇaṃ gahetvā vaṭṭatī”ti vadanti, taṃ na sundaraṃ. Yattha ca nibbematiko hotīti bhikkhūnaṃ atthāya katepi sabbena sabbaṃ parisaṅkitābhāvamāha.
“A net” is for catching fish. “A trap” is for catching animals. “It is allowable”—if their statement removes doubt, it is permissible; it is not allowable to treat that statement as a mere pretext. Hence, he will say: “And where there is no doubt, all is allowable.” “Available meat” means meat available in shops or dead meat for sale. “For auspicious occasions and the like”—the word “and the like” includes offerings and such. “Not made solely for the sake of monks”—here, the word “solely” is used emphatically; it should be connected as “made not solely for the sake of monks,” so even if made jointly for monks and auspicious occasions, it is not permissible, it should be understood. Some say, “Taking it as it stands and determining it as allowable,” but that is not proper. “And where there is no doubt” refers to the complete absence of suspicion even if made for the sake of monks.
Jālaṃ a fish trap. Vāgurā a net for trapping animals. Kappatīti if doubt is dispelled by their statement, it is allowable, it is not permissible to take that statement as a pretext. Therefore, he will state, “And whatever is without doubt, all that is permissible.” Pavattamaṃsanti available meat for sale in shops, etc., or the meat of a dead animal. Maṅgalādīnanti by the word ādi, he includes auspicious offerings, etc. Bhikkhūnaṃyeva atthāya akatanti Here, the word eva, used improperly, should be connected as akataṃ eva (only not done), for the monks alone. Therefore, it should be understood that even what is prepared by mixing for monks and for festive occasions, is not allowable. Some, however, say, “Taking the determination as it stands, it is permissible,” but that is not good. Yattha ca nibbematiko hotīti he states the complete absence of suspicion, even in what is prepared for the sake of monks.
Jālaṃ: A net for catching fish. Vāgurā: A trap for catching animals. Kappatīti: If their words remove doubt, it is permissible, but their words cannot be used to make a minor allowance. Therefore, it is said, “Where one is certain, all is permissible.” Pavattamaṃsanti: Meat sold in shops or dead meat. Maṅgalādīnanti: The word ādi includes offerings, etc. Bhikkhūnaṃyeva atthāya akatanti: Here, the word eva is used emphatically, meaning it is done solely for the monks. Therefore, it should be understood that even if combined with offerings, it is not permissible. Some say, “It is permissible to take it as it is,” but this is not proper. Yattha ca nibbematiko hotīti: Even if done for the monks, it is entirely free from suspicion.
ID261
39. Tamevatthaṃ āvikātuṃ “sace panā”tiādi vuttaṃ. Itaresaṃ vaṭṭatīti ajānantānaṃ vaṭṭati, jānatovettha āpatti hotīti. Teyevāti ye uddissa kataṃ, teyeva. Uddissa katamaṃsaparibhogato akappiyamaṃsaparibhoge visesaṃ dassetuṃ “akappiyamaṃsaṃ panā”tiādi vuttaṃ. Purimasmiṃ sacittakāpatti, itarasmiṃ acittakā. Tenāha “akappiyamaṃsaṃ ajānitvā bhuñjantassapi āpattiyevā”ti. “Paribhogakāle pucchitvā paribhuñjissāmīti vā gahetvā pucchitvāva paribhuñjitabba”nti (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 39) vacanato akappiyamaṃsaṃ ajānitvā paṭiggaṇhantassa paṭiggahaṇe anāpatti siddhā. Ajānitvā paribhuñjantasseva hi āpatti vuttā. Vattanti vadantīti iminā āpatti natthīti dasseti.
39. To clarify this meaning, it is said: “But if” and so forth. “It is permissible for others” means it is permissible for those unaware; for one who knows, there is an offense here, indeed. “Those alone” means those for whom it was intended, those alone. To show the difference between consuming meat intended for someone and consuming unallowable meat, it is said: “But unallowable meat” and so forth. In the former, the offense involves intent; in the latter, it does not. Hence, he says: “Even for one eating unallowable meat unknowingly, there is an offense.” From the statement “At the time of consumption, I will ask and consume, or it should be consumed only after asking” (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 39), it is established that there is no offense in accepting unallowable meat unknowingly; indeed, the offense is stated only for consuming it unknowingly. “They say it is permissible” indicates there is no offense, he shows.
39. To clarify that very meaning, it is stated, “sace panā”ti, etc. Itaresaṃ vaṭṭatīti it is permissible for those who are unaware; for one who knows, there is an offense here. Teyevāti those very ones for whom it was prepared. To show the difference between consuming meat prepared for someone and consuming impermissible meat, it is stated, “akappiyamaṃsaṃ panā”ti, etc. In the former, there is an offense involving consciousness; in the latter, it is without consciousness. Therefore, he says, “akappiyamaṃsaṃ ajānitvā bhuñjantassapi āpattiyevā”ti. Because it is stated, “I will inquire at the time of consumption and then consume, or, having received, I will consume only after inquiring,” (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 39) for one who receives impermissible meat without knowing, there is no offense in the reception, it is established. Indeed, the offense is stated only for one who consumes without knowing. Vattanti vadantīti by this he shows that there is no offense.
39. To explain this, it is said, “sace panā”ti: If. Itaresaṃ vaṭṭatīti: It is permissible for those who do not know, but for those who know, it is an offense. Teyevāti: Those for whom it was intended. To distinguish between consuming meat intended for one and consuming unsuitable meat, it is said, “akappiyamaṃsaṃ panā”ti: Unsuitable meat. In the former case, it is an offense with intention; in the latter, without intention. Therefore, it is said, “akappiyamaṃsaṃ ajānitvā bhuñjantassapi āpattiyevā”ti: Even if one eats unsuitable meat unknowingly, it is an offense. According to the statement, “One should ask at the time of consumption and then consume,” there is no offense in receiving unsuitable meat unknowingly, but there is an offense in consuming it unknowingly. Vattanti vadantīti: This indicates that there is no offense.
ID262
Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinaya collection
Thus in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinaya.
ID263
Macchamaṃsavinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma
The discourse on the determination of fish and meat
The chapter called the Ornament of the Discussion on Fish and Meat
The sixth chapter is called Macchamaṃsavinicchayakathālaṅkāro.
ID264
Chaṭṭho paricchedo.
The sixth chapter.
The Sixth Chapter.
The sixth section.
ID265
ID266
40. Evaṃ macchamaṃsavinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni anāmāsavinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ “anāmāsa”ntiādimāha. Tattha āmasiyateti āmāsaṃ, na āmāsaṃ anāmāsaṃ, aparāmasitabbanti attho. Pāripanthikāti vikuppanikā, antarāyikāti vuttaṃ hoti. Nadīsotena vuyhamānaṃ mātaranti etaṃ ukkaṭṭhaparicchedadassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Aññāsu pana itthīsu kāruññādhippāyena mātari vuttanayena paṭipajjantassa nevatthi dosoti vadanti. “Mātara”nti vuttattā aññāsu na vaṭṭatīti vadantāpi atthi. Ettha gaṇhāhīti na vattabbāti gehassitapemena kāyappaṭibaddhena phusane dukkaṭaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Kāruññena pana vatthādiṃ gahetuṃ asakkontiṃ “gaṇhāhī”ti vadantassapi avasabhāvappattito udake nimujjantiṃ kāruññena sahasā anāmāsanti acintetvā kesādīsu gahetvā mokkhādhippāyena ākaḍḍhatopi anāpattiyeva. Na hi mīyamānaṃ mātaraṃ upekkhituṃ vaṭṭati. Aññātikāya itthiyāpi eseva nayo. Ukkaṭṭhāya mātuyāpi āmāso na vaṭṭatīti dassanatthaṃ “mātara”nti vuttaṃ. Tassa kātabbaṃ pana aññāsampi itthīnaṃ karontassapi anāpattiyeva anāmāsatte visesābhāvā.
40. Having thus explained the determination regarding fish and meat, now to explain the determination regarding what is not to be touched, he says: “Anāmāsa” and so forth. Here, what is touched is “āmāsaṃ”; what is not to be touched is “anāmāsaṃ”, meaning it should not be handled. “Pāripanthikā” means disruptive, that is, obstructive. “Nadīsotena vuyhamānaṃ mātara” is stated to show the highest limit of distinction. However, they say that for other women, there is no fault in acting as with a mother out of compassion. Some also say that because it says “mātara”, it is not allowable for others. “Ettha gaṇhāhīti na vattabba” is said with reference to the dukkaṭa offense of touching something connected to the body out of affection tied to the house; however, even saying “Take it” to one unable to take cloth or the like out of compassion, or suddenly touching a drowning woman out of compassion without deliberation by grasping her hair or the like with the intent to save her, there is no offense. Indeed, it is not allowable to neglect a dying mother. The same applies to an unrelated woman. “Mātara” is said to show that even for the highest case of a mother, touching is not allowable; yet, there is no offense in doing so for other women either, as there is no distinction in not touching.
40. Having thus explained the determination of fish and meat, now, in order to explain the determination of what is not to be touched, he begins with “anāmāsa” (what is not to be touched). Here, what is touched is āmāsaṃ; what is not āmāsaṃ is anāmāsaṃ, meaning what is not to be grasped. Pāripanthikāti means sellers, those who cause obstruction. Nadīsotena vuyhamānaṃ mātaranti (a mother being carried away by the current of a river) this is said to show the highest limit. Others say, however, that in the case of other women, acting with compassion, following the method described for the mother, there is no fault. Some also say that since it is “the mother”, it is not applicable to others. Ettha gaṇhāhīti na vattabbāti (Here, you should not say “take it”) this is said in reference to the fault of touching when bound by sensual desire and attachment to a householder. However, if out of compassion for someone who is unable to grasp a cloth or other item, one says “take it”, or even, if one, out of compassion, without thinking of touching, grasps her by the hair or other parts out of a quick wish to save her from drowning in the water due to inability, there is no offense. For it is not proper to neglect a dying mother. The same principle applies to a female relative. “Mother” is said to show that it is not allowed to be touched even in the case of one’s most respected mother. But if someone does what needs to be done even for other women, there is no offense, as there is no difference in that not being allowed to touch them.
40. Having thus explained the determination regarding fish and meat, now to explain the determination regarding non-contact, he begins with “anāmāsa” (non-contact). Herein, “āmāsa” means to be touched, and “anāmāsa” means not to be touched, that is, not to be grasped. Pāripanthikā means obstructive, causing disturbance, or creating hindrance. “Nadīsotena vuyhamānaṃ mātaraṃ” (a mother being carried away by a river current) is said to illustrate the case of extreme urgency. However, regarding other women, it is said that there is no fault for one who acts out of compassion, following the same method as with a mother. Some say that since “mother” is mentioned, it does not apply to others. “Ettha gaṇhāhīti na vattabbā” (here, one should not say, “Take hold of her”) refers to the offense of touching with bodily contact due to attachment to household life. However, out of compassion, if one says, “Take hold of her,” to a woman who is unable to grasp cloth, etc., and if one, without considering the non-contact rule, grabs her by the hair, etc., with the intention of rescuing her from drowning, there is no offense. For it is not proper to remain indifferent to a dying mother. The same applies to an unrelated woman. The mention of “mother” is to illustrate that even in the case of an esteemed mother, contact is not allowed. However, if one does the same for other women, there is no offense, as there is no difference in the non-contact rule.
ID267
Tiṇaṇḍupakanti hiriverādimūlehi kesālaṅkāratthāya katacumbaṭakaṃ. Tālapaṇṇamuddikanti tālapaṇṇehi kataṃ aṅgulimuddikaṃ. Tena tālapaṇṇādimayaṃ kaṭisuttakaṇṇapiḷandhanādi sabbaṃ na vaṭṭatīti siddhaṃ. Parivattetvāti attano nivāsanapārupanabhāvato apanetvā, cīvaratthāya pariṇāmetvāti vuttaṃ hoti. Cīvaratthāya pādamūle ṭhapetīti idaṃ nidassanamattaṃ. Paccattharaṇavitānādiatthampi vaṭṭatiyeva, pūjādiatthaṃ tāvakālikampi āmasituṃ vaṭṭati. Sīsapasādhanadantasūcīti idaṃ sīsālaṅkāratthāya paṭapilotikāhi katasīsapasādhanakañceva dantasūciādi cāti dve tayo. Sīsapasādhanaṃ sipāṭikopakaraṇatthāya ceva dantasūciṃ sūciupakaraṇatthāya ca gahetabbanti yathākkamaṃ atthaṃ dasseti. Kesakalāpaṃ bandhitvā tattha tiriyaṃ pavesanatthāya katā sūci eva sīsapasādhanakadantasūcīti ekameva katvā sipāṭikāya pakkhipitvā pariharitabbasūciyeva tassa tassa kiccassa upakaraṇanti sipāṭikasūciupakaraṇaṃ, evaṃ vā yojanā kātabbā.
“Tiṇaṇḍupaka” refers to a small bundle made from the roots of hirivera or similar for adorning the hair. “Tālapaṇṇamuddika” refers to a finger ring made of palm leaves. Thus, it is established that all waistbands, ear ornaments, and so forth made of palm leaves or similar are not allowable. “Parivattetvā” means removing it from being one’s own garment or covering and adapting it for the purpose of a robe. “Cīvaratthāya pādamūle ṭhapeti” is merely an example; it is allowable also for the purpose of a mat, canopy, or similar, and even temporarily touching it for veneration or similar is allowable. “Sīsapasādhanadantasūcī” refers to two or three items: a head ornament made of scraps of cloth for adorning the head, and a tooth needle or similar. It indicates that the head ornament should be taken for the sake of a sewing kit, and the tooth needle for the sake of a needle tool, showing their respective purposes. A needle made for binding a bundle of hair and inserting it sideways is indeed a single “sīsapasādhanadantasūcī,” which should be kept in a sewing kit as a needle for various tasks; alternatively, it can be construed as a tool for the sewing kit and needle.
Tiṇaṇḍupakanti (grass-ring) a small round pad made of grass, roots, etc., for adorning the hair. Tālapaṇṇamuddikanti (palm-leaf ring) a finger-ring made of palm leaves. By that, it is established that everything made of palm leaves, such as waist-strings and ear ornaments, is not allowed. Parivattetvāti (having changed) having removed it from being one’s own lower or upper robe, meaning having transformed it for the purpose of a robe. Cīvaratthāya pādamūle ṭhapetīti (places it at the feet for the purpose of a robe) this is just an example. It is also permissible for the purpose of a spread, canopy, etc.; for the purpose of offerings, etc., it is even permissible to touch it temporarily. Sīsapasādhanadantasūcīti (hair-ornament and tooth-pick) this means two or three things, namely, a hair-ornament made of cloth or cotton for adorning the hair, and a tooth-pick, etc. He shows the meaning in order: hair-ornament for the equipment of the needle-case, and tooth-pick for the equipment of needle. Creating only a hair-ornamenting toothpick, it is a needle that is designed for tying up the lock of hair and inserting horizontally into it, and it is a needle case accessory to be carried inside a needle case, this accessory is used for any respective purpose; thus should be connected.
Tiṇaṇḍupaka refers to a bundle made from the roots of plants like hiriverādi, used for decorating the hair. Tālapaṇṇamuddika refers to a finger-stall made from palm leaves. From this, it is established that anything made from palm leaves, such as waistbands, ear coverings, etc., is not permissible. Parivattetvā means removing it from its use as a lower garment or upper robe and converting it for use as a robe. “Cīvaratthāya pādamūle ṭhapetī” (placing it at the foot for the purpose of a robe) is merely an illustration. It also applies to purposes like spreading, covering, etc., and for temporary use in worship, touching is allowed. Sīsapasādhanadantasūcī refers to two or three items: a head ornament made from rags and a toothpick, etc., for decorating the head. The head ornament is for the purpose of a hairpin, and the toothpick is for the purpose of a needle. After tying a bundle of hair, a needle is inserted horizontally for this purpose, and this is the head ornament and toothpick combined into one. It should be carried in a needle case and used as a tool for various tasks. This is how it should be understood.
ID268
Potthakarūpanti sudhādīhi kataṃ pārājikavatthubhūtānaṃ tiracchānagatitthīnaṃ saṇṭhānena katampi anāmāsameva . Itthirūpāni dassetvā kataṃ vatthubhittiādiñca itthirūpaṃ anāmasitvā vaḷañjetuṃ vaṭṭati. Evarūpe hi anāmāse kāyasaṃsaggarāge asati kāyappaṭibaddhena āmasato doso natthi. Bhinditvāti ettha hatthena aggahetvāva kenaci daṇḍādinā bhinditabbaṃ. Ettha ca anāmāsampi daṇḍapāsāṇādīhi bhedanassa aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttattā, pāḷiyampi āpadāsu mokkhādhippāyassa āmasanepi anāpattiyā vuttattā ca sappiniādivāḷamigīhi gahitapāṇakānaṃ mocanatthāya taṃ taṃ sappiniādivatthuṃ daṇḍādīhi paṭikkhipitvā gahetuṃ, mātuādiṃ udake mīyamānaṃ vatthādīhi gahetuṃ, asakkontiṃ kesādīsu gahetvā kāruññena ukkhipituñca vaṭṭatīti ayamattho gahetabbova. “Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘na tveva āmasitabbā’ti idaṃ pana vacanaṃ amīyamānaṃ vatthuṃ sandhāya vuttanti ayaṃ amhākaṃ khantī”ti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.281) vuttaṃ.
“Potthakarūpa” refers to something made of plaster or similar, even if fashioned in the form of female animals that are objects of pārājika offenses, and it remains not to be touched. Figures of women depicted on cloth, walls, or similar can also be decorated without touching the female forms. Indeed, in such cases of not touching, when there is no bodily contact or attachment, there is no fault in touching something connected to the body. “Bhinditvā” means it should be broken with a stick or something else without taking it in hand. Here, since breaking even what is not to be touched with a stick, stone, or similar is stated in the commentary, and since in the Pali there is no offense in touching with the intent to save in emergencies, it is allowable to use a stick or similar to remove ghee or other items taken by snakes or wild animals to free creatures, to take a mother or similar drowning in water with cloth or similar, or to lift her by the hair or similar out of compassion when she is unable; this meaning should indeed be understood. In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.281), it is said: “In the commentary, ‘Na tveva āmasitabbā’ is stated with reference to an object that is not dying; this is our understanding.”
Potthakarūpanti (plaster figures) even those made in the form of female animals among the objects of defeat, made of plaster, etc., are not to be touched. Images of women represented on cloth, walls etc., these images of women should be used withouth touching them. When there is no lustful physical contact with such things that are not to be touched, there is no fault in touching with physical attachment. Bhinditvāti (having broken) here, it should be broken with some stick, etc., without taking it with the hand. And here, since the commentary mentions the breaking of even untouchable things with sticks, stones, etc., and since the Pāḷi also mentions the absence of an offense even in touching when one is motivated by the desire to be released from danger, it is permissible to take away the snake or other harmful creature by pushing it away with a stick, etc., in order to release a person seized by a snake or other harmful creature, or to take hold of a mother, etc., who is drowning in water, with a cloth, etc., or, if she is unable, to lift her out with compassion by grasping her hair, etc. This meaning should be accepted. “In the commentary, ‘na tveva āmasitabbā’ti (it should not be touched at all), this statement, however, is said in reference to an object that is not dying; this is our understanding,” it is said in the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.281).
Potthakarūpa refers to images made of plaster, etc., in the form of female animals that are subject to the pārājika offense. Even if such images are made in the form of women, they are still considered non-contact. It is permissible to display female forms and to use them as wall decorations, etc., without touching them. In such cases, since there is no lust arising from bodily contact, there is no fault in touching them with bodily contact. Bhinditvā means breaking them after grasping them with the hand, using a stick, etc. Here, even non-contact items like sticks and stones are mentioned in the commentary as permissible to break. In the Pāli texts, it is also stated that there is no offense in touching with the intention of rescuing in emergencies. Therefore, it is permissible to use sticks, etc., to push away female animals like snakes, etc., that have caught prey, and to grasp a drowning mother, etc., by the hair out of compassion. This meaning should be understood. The commentary states, “na tveva āmasitabbā” (indeed, they should not be touched), but this refers to cases where the object is not dying. This is our understanding, as stated in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.281).
ID269
41. Maggaṃ adhiṭṭhāyāti “maggo aya”nti maggasaññaṃ uppādetvāti attho. Paññapetvā dentīti idaṃ sāmīcivasena vuttaṃ, tehi pana “āsanaṃ paññapetvāva nisīdathā”ti vutte sayameva paññapetvā nisīdituṃ vaṭṭati. Tattha jātakānīti acchinditvā bhūtagāmabhāveneva ṭhitāni. “Kīḷantenā”ti vuttattā sati paccaye āmasantassa anāpatti, idañca gihisantakaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, bhikkhusantakaṃ pana paribhogārahaṃ sabbathā āmasituṃ na vaṭṭati durūpaciṇṇattā. Tālapanasādīnīti cettha ādi-saddena nāḷikeralabujatipusaalābukumbhaṇḍapussaphalaeḷālukaphalānaṃ saṅgaho daṭṭhabbo. “Yathāvuttaphalānaṃyeva cettha kīḷādhippāyena āmasanaṃ na vaṭṭatī”ti vuttattā pāsāṇasakkharādīni kīḷādhippāyenapi āmasituṃ vaṭṭati. Anupasampannānaṃ dassāmīti idaṃ apaṭiggahetvā gahaṇaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Attanopi atthāya paṭiggahetvā gahaṇe doso natthi anāmāsattābhāvā.
41. “Maggaṃ adhiṭṭhāya” means generating the perception “This is a path.” “Paññapetvā denti” is said as a matter of propriety; however, when they say, “Prepare a seat and sit,” it is allowable to prepare it oneself and sit. “Tattha jātakāni” refers to those growing there without being cut, remaining as living plants. Because it says “Kīḷantena”, there is no offense in touching it with a reason present; this is said with reference to what belongs to laypeople, but what belongs to bhikkhus is not allowable to touch at all for use, as it is difficult to manage properly. “Tālapanasādīni” here, with the term “ādi”, includes coconut, jackfruit, breadfruit, pumpkin, cucumber, and melon fruits. Because it says, “Touching only the aforementioned fruits with the intent of play is not allowable,” it is allowable to touch stones, gravel, or similar even with the intent of play. “Anupasampannānaṃ dassāmi” is said with reference to taking without receiving it; there is no fault in receiving it for one’s own purpose, as it is not a matter of not touching.
41. Maggaṃ adhiṭṭhāyāti (having determined the path) meaning, having produced the perception of a path, thinking “this is the path”. Paññapetvā dentīti (having spread it, they give) this is said by way of courtesy; however, when they are told, “having spread a seat, sit down,” it is permissible to spread it themselves and sit down. Tattha jātakānīti (those grown there) those that have remained without being cut, in the state of being vegetation. “Kīḷantenā”ti (while playing), because it is said “while playing”, if there is a reason, there is no offense in touching; and this is said in reference to a householder’s property; however, what belongs to a bhikkhu, that is fit for use, is not to be touched in any way, because it is improper conduct. Tālapanasādīnīti (palm, jackfruit, etc.) here, by the word ādi (etc.), the inclusion of coconut, labuja, gourd, cucumber, kumbhaṇḍa, pussaphala, and eḷāluka fruits should be understood. Because it is said that “only the aforementioned fruits are not to be touched here with the intention of playing,” it is permissible to touch stones, pebbles, etc., even with the intention of playing. Anupasampannānaṃ dassāmīti (I will give to those who are not fully ordained) this is said in reference to taking without having received it. There is no fault in taking it after receiving it for one’s own benefit, because it is not something not to be touched.
41. “Maggaṃ adhiṭṭhāyā” (having determined the path) means generating the perception that “this is the path.” “Paññapetvā dentī” (having prepared, they give) refers to the manner of the Sāmīcī. When they say, “Prepare a seat and sit,” it is permissible to prepare it oneself and sit. “Tattha jātakānī” (there, the plants) remain in their natural state after being uprooted. “Kīḷantenā” (while playing) implies that there is no offense in touching when there is a reason, and this refers to laypeople’s belongings. However, monastic belongings, being worthy of use, should not be touched at all due to improper conduct. “Tālapanasādīnī” includes, by the word “ādi”, coconuts, bananas, jackfruits, gourds, pumpkins, and other fruits. It is stated that touching for the purpose of play is not allowed for the aforementioned fruits, but it is permissible to touch stones, gravel, etc., for play. “Anupasampannānaṃ dassāmī” (I will show it to the unordained) refers to taking without receiving. There is no fault in taking for one’s own purpose after receiving, as there is no non-contact rule.
ID270
42. Muttāti (ma. ni. ṭī. 1.2 pathavīvāravaṇṇanā; sārattha. ṭī. 2.281) hatthikumbhajātikā aṭṭhavidhā muttā. Tathā hi hatthikumbhaṃ, varāhadāṭhaṃ, bhujagasīsaṃ, valāhakaṃ, veḷu, macchasiro, saṅkho, sippīti aṭṭha muttāyoniyo. Tattha hatthikumbhajā pītavaṇṇā pabhāhīnā. Varāhadāṭhā varāhadāṭhāvaṇṇāva. Bhujagasīsajā nīlādivaṇṇā suvisuddhā vaṭṭalā ca. Valāhakajā bhāsurā dubbibhāgā rattibhāge andhakāraṃ vidhamentiyo tiṭṭhanti, devūpabhogā eva ca honti. Veḷujā karakaphalasamānavaṇṇā na bhāsurā, te ca veḷū amanussagocareyeva padese jāyanti . Macchasirajā pāṭhīnapiṭṭhisamānavaṇṇā vaṭṭalā laghavo ca tejavantā honti pabhāvihīnā ca, te ca macchā samuddamajjheyeva jāyanti. Saṅkhajā saṅkhaudaracchavivaṇṇā kolaphalappamāṇāpi honti pabhāvihīnāva. Sippijā pabhāvisesayuttā honti nānāsaṇṭhānā. Evaṃ jātito aṭṭhavidhāsu muttāsu yā macchasaṅkhasippijā, tā sāmuddikā. Bhujagajāpi kāci sāmuddikā honti, itarā asāmuddikā. Yasmā bahulaṃ sāmuddikāva muttā loke dissanti, tatthāpi sippijāva, itarā kadāci kāci, tasmā sammohavinodaniyaṃ (vibha. aṭṭha. 173) “muttāti sāmuddikā muttā”ti vuttaṃ.
42. “Muttā” (ma. ni. ṭī. 1.2 pathavīvāravaṇṇanā; sārattha. ṭī. 2.281) refers to eight types of pearls born from elephant trunks and so forth. Indeed, there are eight sources of pearls: elephant trunk, boar tusk, snake head, cloud, bamboo, fish head, conch, and oyster. Among them, “hatthikumbhajā” are yellow and lack luster. “Varāhadāṭhā” resemble the color of boar tusks. “Bhujagasīsajā” are blue or similar, very pure, and round. “Valāhakajā” are radiant, indistinct, dispel darkness at night, and are used by devas. “Veḷujā” resemble the color of hailstones, are not radiant, and those bamboos grow only in nonhuman realms. “Macchasirajā” resemble the back of a pāṭhīna fish, are round, light, and lustrous but lack radiance; those fish are born only in the middle of the ocean. “Saṅkhajā” resemble the belly skin of a conch, may be the size of a kolaphala, and lack radiance. “Sippijā” possess exceptional luster and various shapes. Among these eight types of pearls by origin, those from fish, conch, and oysters are oceanic. Some snake-born ones are also oceanic, while others are not. Since pearls are mostly seen in the world as oceanic, especially oyster-born ones, with others being rare, it is said in the Sammohavinodanī (vibha. aṭṭha. 173): “Muttā” means oceanic pearls.
42. Muttāti (pearls) (ma. ni. ṭī. 1.2 pathavīvāravaṇṇanā; sārattha. ṭī. 2.281) the eight kinds of pearls originating from the frontal globes of elephants. Thus, there are eight sources of pearls: the frontal globe of an elephant, the tusk of a boar, the head of a snake, a cloud, bamboo, the head of a fish, a conch, and a shell. Of these, hatthikumbhajā (those born from the frontal globe of an elephant) are yellow in color and without luster. Varāhadāṭhā (those born from the tusk of a boar) are of the color of a boar’s tusk. Bhujagasīsajā (those born from the head of a snake) are of blue and other colors, very pure, and round. Valāhakajā (those born from a cloud) are radiant, indistinct, and remain dispelling darkness at night; and they are only for the enjoyment of the gods. Veḷujā (those born from bamboo) are of the color of hail, not radiant, and these bamboos grow only in places inaccessible to humans. Macchasirajā are of the color of the back of a pāṭhīna fish, round, light, bright, and without luster; and these fish are born only in the middle of the ocean. Saṅkhajā (those born from a conch) are of the color of the inside of a conch, and some are the size of a kola fruit, but without luster. Sippijā (those born from a shell) have a special luster and are of various shapes. Among these eight kinds of pearls classified by origin, those born from fish, conch, and shell are marine. Some born from snakes are also marine; the others are non-marine. Since mostly marine pearls are seen in the world, and among them, mostly those from shells, and the others occasionally, therefore, in the Sammohavinodani (vibha. aṭṭha. 173), it is said, “Pearls are marine pearls.”
42. “Muttā” (pearls) refers to eight types of pearls from the elephant’s frontal globe, etc. These are: elephant’s frontal globe, boar’s tusk, serpent’s head, cloud, bamboo, fish head, conch, and oyster. Among these, hatthikumbhajā (elephant’s frontal globe) is yellow and lacks luster. Varāhadāṭhā (boar’s tusk) is of the color of a boar’s tusk. Bhujagasīsajā (serpent’s head) is of various colors like blue, very pure, and round. Valāhakajā (cloud) is radiant, difficult to distinguish, and dispels darkness at night; they are for the enjoyment of devas. Veḷujā (bamboo) is of the color of a karaka fruit, not radiant, and grows in places inaccessible to humans. Macchasirajā (fish head) is of the color of a fish’s back, round, light, and radiant but lacks luster; they grow in the middle of the ocean. Saṅkhajā (conch) is of the color of a conch’s interior, the size of a jujube fruit, and lacks luster. Sippijā (oyster) possesses special radiance and comes in various shapes. Among these eight types of pearls, those from fish, conch, and oyster are oceanic. Some serpent pearls are also oceanic, while others are not. Since oceanic pearls are commonly seen in the world, and among them, oyster pearls are the most common, while others are rare, therefore, in the Sammohavinodanī (vibha. aṭṭha. 173), it is said, “muttāti sāmuddikā muttā” (pearls mean oceanic pearls).
ID271
Maṇīti veḷuriyādito añño jotirasādibhedo sabbo maṇi. Veḷuriyoti allaveḷuvaṇṇo maṇi, “majjārakkhimaṇḍalavaṇṇo”tipi vadanti. Saṅkhoti sāmuddikasaṅkho. Silāti muggavaṇṇā atisiniddhā kāḷasilā. Maṇivohāraṃ agatā rattasetādivaṇṇā sumaṭṭhāpi silā anāmāsā evāti vadanti. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.281) pana “saṅkhoti sāmuddikasaṅkho. Silāti kāḷasilāpaṇḍusilāsetasilādibhedā sabbāpi silā”ti vuttaṃ. Pavāḷaṃ samuddato jātanātirattamaṇi. Rajatanti kahāpaṇamāsādibhedaṃ jatumāsādiṃ upādāya sabbaṃ vuttāvasesarūpiyaṃ gahitaṃ. Jātarūpanti suvaṇṇaṃ. Lohitaṅkoti rattamaṇi. Masāragallanti kabaravaṇṇo maṇi. “Marakata”ntipi vadanti.
“Maṇī” refers to all gems apart from veḷuriya and so forth, distinguished by their brilliance or taste. “Veḷuriyo” is a gem with a moist bamboo color; some say it resembles the circle around a cat’s eye. “Saṅkho” is an oceanic conch. “Silā” is a mung-bean-colored, very smooth black stone. They say that stones of red, white, or other colors, even if well-polished, are not used in gem trade and are thus not to be touched. In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.281), it is said: “Saṅkho” means oceanic conch; “silā” includes all stones such as black, yellow, white, and so forth. “Pavāḷaṃ” is a very red gem born from the ocean. “Rajata” includes all remaining silver apart from coins and small weights, taken in relation to what is produced. “Jātarūpa” is gold. “Lohitaṅko” is a red gem. “Masāragalla” is a speckled-colored gem; some call it “marakata.”
Maṇīti (gem) all gems, other than veḷuriya, etc., categorized as jotirasa, etc. Veḷuriyoti (beryl) a gem of the color of fresh bamboo; it is also said to be “of the color of the pupil of a cat’s eye.” Saṅkhoti (conch) a marine conch. Silāti (stone) very smooth black stone of the color of a mung bean. It is said that even well-polished stones of red, white, and other colors, which are not used in the trade of gems, are not to be touched. However, in the Sāratthadīpani (sārattha. ṭī. 2.281), it is said, “Saṅkhoti (conch) a marine conch. Silāti (stone) all kinds of stones, classified as black stone, yellow stone, white stone, etc.” Pavāḷaṃ (coral) a not-too-red gem born from the ocean. Rajatanti (silver) includes all the remaining mentioned rūpiya (money), including kahāpaṇa, māsa, etc., up to jatumāsa, etc. Jātarūpanti (gold) refined gold. Lohitaṅkoti (ruby) a red gem. Masāragallanti (cat’s eye) a gem of variegated color. It is also called “Marakata”.
“Maṇī” (gems) refers to all types of gems, including veḷuriya, etc., apart from jewels. “Veḷuriyo” is a gem of the color of fresh bamboo; some say it is of the color of a cat’s eye. “Saṅkho” is an oceanic conch. “Silā” is a very smooth black stone of the color of mung beans. Stones of other colors, such as white, etc., even if well-polished, are considered non-contact. However, in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.281), it is said, “saṅkho” is an oceanic conch, and “silā” includes all types of stones, such as black stone, yellow stone, white stone, etc. “Pavāḷaṃ” is a red gem born from the ocean. “Rajata” includes all types of silver, such as coins, etc. “Jātarūpa” is gold. “Lohitaṅko” is a red gem. “Masāragalla” is a gem of the color of a pigeon; some call it “emerald.”
ID272
Bhaṇḍamūlatthāyāti pattacīvarādimūlatthāya. Kuṭṭharogassāti nidassanamattaṃ. Tāya vūpasametabbassa yassa kassaci rogassa atthāya vaṭṭatiyeva. “Bhesajjatthañca aviddhāyeva muttā vaṭṭatī”ti tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu vuttā. Bhesajjatthāya pisitvā yojitānaṃ muttānaṃ ratanabhāvavijahanato gahaṇakkhaṇepi ratanākārena apekkhābhāvā “bhesajjatthāya pana vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ. Yāva pana tā muttā ratanarūpena tiṭṭhanti, tāva āmasituṃ na vaṭṭanti. Evaṃ aññampi ratanapāsāṇaṃ pisitvā bhesajje yojanatthāya gahetuṃ vaṭṭati eva. Jātarūparajataṃ pana missetvā yojanabhesajjatthāyapi sampaṭicchituṃ na vaṭṭati. Gahaṭṭhehi yojetvā dinnampi yadi bhesajje suvaṇṇādirūpena tiṭṭhati, viyojetuñca sakkā, tādisaṃ bhesajjampi na vaṭṭati. Taṃ abbohārikattagatañce vaṭṭati. “Jātiphalikaṃ upādāyā”ti vuttattā sūriyakantacandakantādikaṃ jātipāsāṇaṃ maṇimhi eva saṅgahitanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Ākaramuttoti ākarato muttamatto. Bhaṇḍamūlatthaṃ sampaṭicchituṃ vaṭṭatīti imināva āmasitumpi vaṭṭatīti dasseti. Pacitvā katoti kācakārehi pacitvā kato.
“Bhaṇḍamūlatthāya” means for the sake of the basis of requisites like bowls and robes. “Kuṭṭharogassa” is merely an example; it is allowable for the sake of any disease that can be alleviated by it. In all three sections of the texts, it is said: “For medicinal purposes, undamaged pearls are allowable.” “Bhesajjatthāya pana vaṭṭati” is said because pearls ground and used for medicine lose their status as gems, and at the moment of taking, there is no expectation of them as gems. As long as those pearls remain in the form of gems, they are not to be touched. Similarly, it is allowable to take other gemstones when ground for use in medicine. However, gold and silver, even when mixed and used for medicine, are not allowable to accept. Even if given by laypeople after being mixed, if gold or similar remains in the medicine and can be separated, such medicine is not allowable. If it becomes unusable as currency, it is allowable. Because it says “Jātiphalikaṃ upādāya”, gems like sunstone and moonstone are included among gems. “Ākaramutto” means something merely freed from the mine. “Bhaṇḍamūlatthaṃ sampaṭicchituṃ vaṭṭati” indicates by this that it is also allowable to touch it. “Pacitvā kato” means made by glassmakers after heating.
Bhaṇḍamūlatthāyāti (for the price of goods) for the price of robes, bowls, etc. Kuṭṭharogassāti (for leprosy) this is just an example. It is permissible for any disease that can be cured by it. “For medicinal purposes, only unbroken pearls are permissible,” it is said in all three gaṇṭhipadas. Because the state of being a jewel of pearls ground and used for medicinal purposes is abandoned, even at the time of taking, there is no expectation in the form of a jewel, therefore, it is said, “bhesajjatthāya pana vaṭṭatīti (however, it is permissible for medicinal purposes).” As long as these pearls remain in the form of jewels, they are not to be touched. In this way, it is also permissible to take any other jewel or stone, grind it, and use it for medicine. However, it is not permissible to accept gold and silver, even if they are mixed and used for medicinal purposes. Even if it is given after being mixed by householders, if it remains in the form of gold, etc., in the medicine, and it can be separated, such medicine is also not permissible. If it has become non-extractable, it is permissible. Since it is said, “Jātiphalikaṃ upādāyā”ti (starting with natural fruit), it should be understood that natural stones such as sunstone, moonstone, etc., are included in the category of gems. Ākaramuttoti (released from the mine) merely released from the mine. Bhaṇḍamūlatthaṃ sampaṭicchituṃ vaṭṭatīti (it is permissible to accept for the price of goods) by this, it shows that it is also permissible to touch it. Pacitvā katoti (made by cooking) made by glassmakers by cooking.
“Bhaṇḍamūlatthāya” (for the purpose of requisites) refers to the purpose of robes, bowls, etc. “Kuṭṭharogassā” is merely an illustration. It applies to any disease that can be pacified by it. It is stated in the three sections that pearls are permissible for medicinal purposes. However, when pearls are ground and used as medicine, their gem-like nature is destroyed, and at the moment of taking, they are not regarded as gems. Therefore, it is said, “bhesajjatthāya pana vaṭṭatī” (they are permissible for medicinal purposes). As long as the pearls remain in their gem-like form, they should not be touched. Similarly, other gemstones may be ground and used for medicinal purposes. However, gold and silver mixed together for medicinal purposes should not be accepted. Even if laypeople prepare such medicine and give it, if it remains in the form of gold, etc., it should not be used. Such medicine is considered insignificant. “Jātiphalikaṃ upādāyā” implies that gems like sūriyakanta and candakanta are included under gems. “Ākaramutto” means pearls taken directly from the mine. “Bhaṇḍamūlatthaṃ sampaṭicchituṃ vaṭṭatī” indicates that even touching is permissible. “Pacitvā kato” means made by glassmakers after melting.
ID273
Dhamanasaṅkho ca dhotaviddho ca ratanamisso cāti yojetabbaṃ. Viddhotiādibhāvena katachiddo. Ratanamissoti kañcanalatādivicitto muttādiratanakhacito ca. Etena dhamanasaṅkhato añño ratanasammisso anāmāsoti dasseti. Silāyampi eseva nayo. Pānīyasaṅkhoti iminā thālakādiākārena katasaṅkhamayabhājanāni bhikkhūnaṃ sampaṭicchituṃ vaṭṭantīti siddhaṃ. Sesanti ratanamissaṃ ṭhapetvā avasesaṃ. Muggavaṇṇaṃyeva ratanasammissaṃ karonti, na aññanti āha “muggavaṇṇāvā”ti, muggavaṇṇā ratanasammissāva na vaṭṭatīti vuttaṃ hoti. Sesāti ratanasammissaṃ ṭhapetvā avasesā silā.
A blowing conch, a pierced one, and one mixed with gems should be understood as follows: “Viddho” means pierced in some manner; “ratanamisso” means adorned with gold tendrils or similar or encrusted with pearls or other gems. This indicates that apart from a blowing conch, anything mixed with gems is not to be touched. The same applies to stones. “Pānīyasaṅkho” establishes that vessels made of conch in the shape of a bowl or similar are allowable for bhikkhus to accept. “Sesa” means the remainder apart from what is mixed with gems. They say only mung-bean-colored ones are mixed with gems, not others, so he says: “Muggavaṇṇāvā”, meaning only mung-bean-colored ones mixed with gems are not allowable. “Sesā” means the remaining stones apart from those mixed with gems.
And a conch for blowing, one that is polished and pierced, and one mixed with jewels should be connected. Viddhoti (pierced) having a hole made by the aforementioned method. Ratanamissoti (mixed with jewels) decorated with gold creepers, etc., and studded with pearls and other jewels. By this, it shows that a conch other than one for blowing, mixed with jewels, is not to be touched. The same principle applies to stone. Pānīyasaṅkhoti (water conch) by this, it is established that vessels made of conch, made in the shape of plates, etc., are permissible for bhikkhus to accept. Sesānti (the rest) excluding those mixed with jewels, the remaining. They make only those of the color of mung beans mixed with jewels, not others, he says “muggavaṇṇāvā”ti (only those of the color of mung beans), meaning that only those of the color of mung beans, mixed with jewels, are not permissible. Sesāti (the rest) excluding those mixed with jewels, the remaining stones.
Dhamanasaṅkho (a conch with a vein), dhotaviddho (a pierced and washed conch), and ratanamisso (a gem-encrusted conch) should be understood accordingly. “Viddho” means pierced. “Ratanamisso” refers to a conch adorned with gold leaves, etc., and encrusted with pearls and other gems. This indicates that other gem-encrusted items are also non-contact. The same applies to stones. “Pānīyasaṅkho” (a water conch) establishes that conch-made vessels in the form of bowls, etc., are permissible for monks to accept. “Sesa” refers to the remainder, excluding gem-encrusted items. They make gem-encrusted items only in the color of mung beans, not others. Therefore, it is said, “muggavaṇṇāvā” (of the color of mung beans), meaning gem-encrusted items of mung bean color are not permissible. “Sesā” refers to the remaining stones, excluding gem-encrusted ones.
ID274
Bījato paṭṭhāyāti dhātupāsāṇato paṭṭhāya. Suvaṇṇacetiyanti dhātukaraṇḍakaṃ. Paṭikkhipīti “dhātuṭṭhapanatthāya gaṇhathā”ti avatvā “tumhākaṃ gaṇhathā”ti pesitattā paṭikkhipi. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.281) pana “paṭikkhipīti suvaṇṇamayassa dhātukaraṇḍakassa buddhādirūpassa ca attano santakakaraṇe nissaggiyattā vutta”nti vuttaṃ. Suvaṇṇabubbuḷakanti suvaṇṇatārakaṃ. “Rūpiyachaḍḍakaṭṭhāne”ti vuttattā rūpiyachaḍḍakassa jātarūparajataṃ āmasitvā chaḍḍetuṃ vaṭṭatīti vuttaṃ. Keḷāpayitunti āmasitvā ito cito ca sañcāretuṃ. Vuttanti mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ. Kacavarameva harituṃ vaṭṭatīti gopakā vā hontu aññe vā, hatthenapi puñchitvā kacavaraṃ apanetuṃ vaṭṭati, “malampi pamajjituṃ vaṭṭatiyevā”ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.281) vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.281) pana “kacavarameva harituṃ vaṭṭatīti gopakā vā hontu aññe vā, hatthenapi puñchitvā kacavaraṃ apanetuṃ vaṭṭati, malampi majjituṃ vaṭṭati evāti vadanti, taṃ aṭṭhakathāya na sameti keḷāyanasadisattā”ti vuttaṃ. Kathaṃ na sameti? Mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ cetiyagharagopakā rūpiyachaḍḍakaṭṭhāne ṭhitāti tesaṃyeva keḷāyanaṃ anuññātaṃ, na aññesaṃ, tasmā “gopakā vā hontu aññe vā”ti vacanaṃ mahāaṭṭhakathāya na sameti.
“Bījato paṭṭhāyā” means starting from the seed or mineral stone. “Suvaṇṇacetiya” refers to a relic casket made of gold. “Paṭikkhipi” means he rejected it, not saying “Take it for placing relics” but because it was sent with “Take it for yourselves.” In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.281), it is said: “Paṭikkhipi” means it was stated due to the nissaggiya offense of it being a gold relic casket or an image of the Buddha or similar belonging to oneself. “Suvaṇṇabubbuḷaka” means a golden bubble or star. Because it says “Rūpiyachaḍḍakaṭṭhāne”, it is stated that it is allowable to touch and discard gold and silver in the place where silver is discarded. “Keḷāpayitu” means to move it here and there by touching. “Vutta” means stated in the great commentary. “Kacavarameva harituṃ vaṭṭati” means it is allowable to remove rubbish, whether by cowherds or others, even by wiping it with the hand; in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.281), it is said: “It is certainly allowable to wipe away dirt too.” In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.281), it is said: “Kacavarameva harituṃ vaṭṭati” means it is allowable to remove rubbish, whether by cowherds or others, even by wiping it with the hand, and it is allowable to wipe away dirt too, they say; but this does not align with the commentary because it resembles playing.” How does it not align? In the great commentary, it is stated that cowherds at the cetiya house are at the place where silver is discarded, and playing is permitted only for them, not others; thus, the statement “whether by cowherds or others” does not align with the great commentary.
Bījato paṭṭhāyāti (starting from the seed) starting from the relic stone. Suvaṇṇacetiyanti (golden shrine) the relic casket. Paṭikkhipīti (he refused) he refused because he was sent with the words “take it for yourselves,” not with the words “take it for the purpose of placing the relics.” However, in the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.281), it is said, “Paṭikkhipīti (he refused) it is said because the golden relic casket and the image of the Buddha, etc., are subject to forfeiture if made for oneself.” Suvaṇṇabubbuḷakanti (golden bubble) a golden star. Since it is said, “Rūpiyachaḍḍakaṭṭhāne”ti (in the place where rūpiya is discarded), it is said that it is permissible to touch gold and silver that is to be discarded and throw it away. Keḷāpayitunti (to play with) to touch and move it here and there. Vuttanti (said) it is said in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā. Kacavarameva harituṃ vaṭṭatīti (it is only permissible to remove rubbish) whether they are caretakers or others, it is permissible to wipe away rubbish even with the hand; “it is even permissible to wipe away dirt,” it is said in the Sāratthadīpani (sārattha. ṭī. 2.281). However, in the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.281), it is said, “Kacavarameva harituṃ vaṭṭatīti (it is only permissible to remove rubbish) whether they are caretakers or others, it is permissible to wipe away rubbish even with the hand; it is said that it is even permissible to wipe away dirt, but that does not agree with the commentary because it is similar to playing.” How does it not agree? In the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, it is stated that the caretakers of the shrine are standing in the place where rūpiya is discarded; only their playing is permitted, not that of others; therefore, the statement “whether they are caretakers or others” does not agree with the Mahāaṭṭhakathā.
“Bījato paṭṭhāyā” (starting from the seed) means starting from the mineral stone. “Suvaṇṇacetiya” is a reliquary made of gold. “Paṭikkhipī” means rejecting, as they were sent without being told, “Take it for enshrining the relic.” However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.281), it is said, “paṭikkhipī” refers to the rejection of a gold reliquary and Buddha images, etc., made of gold, due to their being personal belongings. “Suvaṇṇabubbuḷaka” is a gold star. “Rūpiyachaḍḍakaṭṭhāne” implies that it is permissible to touch and discard gold and silver in the place for discarding silver. “Keḷāpayitu” means to touch and move it here and there. “Vutta” is as stated in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā. “Kacavarameva harituṃ vaṭṭatī” means that whether they are cowherds or others, it is permissible to wipe and remove dirt with the hand, and it is also permissible to clean stains, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.281). However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.281), it is said, “kacavarameva harituṃ vaṭṭatī” means that whether they are cowherds or others, it is permissible to wipe and remove dirt with the hand, and it is also permissible to clean stains, but this does not agree with the commentary, as it resembles play. How does it not agree? In the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā, it is stated that the shrine attendants are stationed at the place for discarding silver, and only they are allowed to play, not others. Therefore, the statement, “whether they are cowherds or others,” does not agree with the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā.
ID275
Kurundiyaṃ pana tampi paṭikkhittaṃ, suvaṇṇacetiye kacavarameva harituṃ vaṭṭatīti ettakameva anuññātaṃ, tasmā sāvadhāraṇaṃ katvā vuttattā “hatthenapi puñchitvā”ti ca “malampi pamajjituṃ vaṭṭati evā”ti ca vacanaṃ kurundaṭṭhakathāya na sameti, tasmā vicāretabbametanti. Ārakūṭalohanti suvaṇṇavaṇṇo kittimalohaviseso. Tividhañhi kittimalohaṃ – kaṃsalohaṃ vaṭṭalohaṃ ārakūṭalohanti. Tattha tiputambe missetvā kataṃ kaṃsalohaṃ nāma, sīsatambe missetvā kataṃ vaṭṭalohaṃ, rasatutthehi rañjitaṃ tambaṃ ārakūṭalohaṃ nāma. “Pakatirasatambe missetvā kataṃ ārakūṭa”nti ca sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.281) vuttaṃ. Taṃ pana “jātarūpagatika”nti vuttattā uggaṇhato nissaggiyampi hotīti keci vadanti, rūpiyesu pana agaṇitattā nissaggiyaṃ na hoti, āmasane sampaṭicchane ca dukkaṭamevāti veditabbaṃ. Sabbopi kappiyoti yathāvuttasuvaṇṇādimayānaṃ senāsanaparikkhārānaṃ āmasanagopanādivasena paribhogo sabbathā kappiyoti adhippāyo. Tenāha “tasmā”tiādi. “Bhikkhūnaṃ dhammavinayavaṇṇanaṭṭhāne”ti vuttattā saṅghikameva suvaṇṇādimayaṃ senāsanaṃ senāsanaparikkhārā ca vaṭṭanti, na puggalikānīti gahetabbaṃ. Paṭijaggituṃ vaṭṭantīti senāsanapaṭibandhato vuttaṃ.
In the Kurundī, however, that too is prohibited; it is permitted only to carry away rubbish at a golden shrine—this much alone is allowed, therefore, since it is stated with a restriction, the statements “even wiping with the hand” and “it is permissible to clean dirt too” do not align with the Kurundī commentary, and thus this should be examined. Ārakūṭaloha refers to a special type of artificial metal with a golden hue. There are three types of artificial metal: kaṃsaloha, vaṭṭaloha, and ārakūṭaloha. Among these, kaṃsaloha is that made by mixing tin and copper, vaṭṭaloha is made by mixing lead and copper, and ārakūṭaloha is copper colored with chemical substances. It is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.281) that “ārakūṭa is made by mixing natural copper with chemicals.” However, because it is described as “similar to gold,” some say it becomes subject to forfeiture when taken, but since it is not counted among silver items, it is not subject to forfeiture; it should be understood that only a dukkaṭa offense occurs in touching or accepting it. All are permissible means that the use of monastic requisites made of gold and so forth, as mentioned, by touching, storing, or otherwise, is entirely allowable—this is the intent. Hence it says “therefore” and so on. Since it is said “at a place for expounding the Dhamma and Vinaya for monks,” it should be understood that only communal monastic dwellings and requisites made of gold and so forth are permissible, not individual ones. It is permissible to maintain is stated in connection with the upkeep of monastic dwellings.
In Kurundi, however, even that was prohibited; only gathering refuse at the Suvaṇṇacetiya was allowed, therefore, because it was stated with a definitive restriction, and because of the statements “even wiping with the hand” and “it is indeed allowable to even clean off dirt,” it does not align with the Kurundi commentary, therefore, this should be investigated. Ārakūṭaloha means a type of artificial metal with a golden color. There are three types of artificial metal – bronze, vaṭṭaloha, and ārakūṭaloha. Of these, what is made by mixing tin and copper is called kaṃsaloha (bronze), what is made by mixing lead and copper is called vaṭṭaloha, and copper that has been colored with rasatuttha is called ārakūṭaloha. It is also stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.281) that, “Ārakūṭa is made by mixing it with natural liquid copper.” Some say, however, that because it is stated to be ‘of the nature of refined gold’, when acquired, it also becomes a nissaggiya (requiring forfeiture). But because it is not counted among rūpiya (money), it does not become nissaggiya; it should be understood that touching and accepting it only incurs a dukkaṭa (offense of wrongdoing). All are allowable means that the use of dwelling requisites, etc., made of gold, etc., as mentioned, is allowable in every way through touching, guarding, etc. Therefore, he said, “therefore,” and so forth. Because it is stated, “in a place where the Dhamma and Vinaya of monks are described,” it should be understood that dwelling and dwelling requisites made of gold, etc., belonging to the Sangha, are allowable, but not those belonging to individuals. It is allowable to maintain them is stated in relation to maintaining a dwelling.
However, at Kurundī, even that was prohibited, and it was only allowed to take the golden covering at the Suvaṇṇa Cetiya. Therefore, since it was stated with caution, the phrases “even wiping with the hand” and “it is permissible to remove the dirt in this way” do not align with the Kurundī commentary. Hence, this should be carefully considered. Ārakūṭaloha refers to a type of reddish metal with a golden hue. There are three types of reddish metals: kaṃsaloha, vaṭṭaloha, and ārakūṭaloha. Among them, kaṃsaloha is made by mixing with tiputamba, vaṭṭaloha is made by mixing with sīsatamba, and ārakūṭaloha is copper colored with rasatuttha. The Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.281) states that ārakūṭa is made by mixing with natural rasatamba. However, some say that since it is said to be “similar to gold,” it becomes forfeited if one takes it, but since it is not counted among silver, it is not forfeited. It should be understood that touching or accepting it is only a minor offense. All are allowable means that the use of gold-covered monastery furnishings, such as beds and seats, for touching or protecting is entirely allowable. Therefore, it is said, “thus” and so on. Since it is stated as “for the purpose of explaining the Dhamma and Vinaya for the monks,” it should be understood that only communal gold-covered monastery furnishings and their accessories are permissible, not personal ones. It is permissible to maintain refers to the maintenance of monastery furnishings.
ID276
43. Sāmikānaṃ pesetabbanti sāmikānaṃ sāsanaṃ pesetabbaṃ. Bhinditvāti paṭhamameva anāmasitvā pāsāṇādinā kiñcimattaṃ bhedaṃ katvā pacchā kappiyabhaṇḍatthāya adhiṭṭhahitvā hatthena gahetuṃ vaṭṭati. Tenāha “kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ karissāmīti sampaṭicchituṃ vaṭṭatī”ti. Etthāpi tañca viyojetvā āmasitabbaṃ. Phalakajālikādīnīti ettha saraparittāṇāya hatthena gahetabbaṃ. Kiṭikāphalakaṃ akkhirakkhaṇatthāya ayalohādīhi jālākārena katvā sīsādīsu paṭimuñcitabbaṃ jālikaṃ nāma. Ādi-saddena kavacādikaṃ saṅgaṇhāti. Anāmāsānīti macchajālādiparūparodhaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, na saraparittāṇaṃ tassa āvudhabhaṇḍattābhāvā. Tena vakkhati “parūparodhanivāraṇañhī”tiādi (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 43). Āsanassāti cetiyassasamantā kataparibhaṇḍassa. Bandhissāmīti kākādīnaṃ adūsanatthāya bandhissāmi.
43. Should be sent to the owners means a message should be sent to the owners. Breaking it means breaking it slightly with a stone or something else without touching it first, and afterward determining it for permissible goods, it is allowable to take it by hand. Hence it says “it is permissible to accept it with the intention ‘I will make it permissible goods’”. Here too, it should be touched after separating it. Boards, lattices, and so forth—here, it should be taken by hand for bodily protection. A protective board for insects and a lattice made of iron or similar material in a net-like form to be worn on the head or elsewhere for eye protection are called phalakajālikā. The word ādi includes armor and such. Untouched is said with reference to obstructing fishnets or traps, not bodily protection, as that is not a weapon or tool. Thus it will say “for the prevention of obstruction” and so forth (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 43). For the seat refers to the surrounding structure made for the shrine. I will bind it means I will bind it to prevent defilement by crows and so forth.
43. Send to the owners means a message should be sent to the owners. Having broken means that, at first, without touching it, having broken it a little bit with a stone or something, afterwards, having determined it for the purpose of allowable requisites, it is allowable to take it with the hand. Therefore, he said, “it is allowable to accept, thinking, ‘I will make an allowable requisite’.” Here, too, one should touch it after separating it. Nets for windows, etc. here, it should be taken by hand for self-protection. Kiṭikāphalaka is a net-like thing to be worn on the head, etc., made of iron or other metals in the form of a net for protecting the eyes. By the word etc., armor and so forth are included. Not to be touched is stated in reference to a fish trap or a net for blocking others, not for self-protection, because that is not considered a weapon. Therefore, he will say, “because it is for preventing the obstruction of others,” and so forth (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 43). Of the seat means of the bench made around the cetiya. I will tie means I will tie it to prevent crows, etc., from defiling it.
43. Should be sent to the owners means the instruction should be sent to the owners. Breaking it means first not touching it, then breaking it slightly with a stone or similar tool, and afterward determining it as an allowable item, after which it is permissible to take it by hand. Therefore, it is said, “It is permissible to accept it with the intention of making it an allowable item.” Here too, after separating it, it should be touched. Phalakajālikādīni refers to items like a shield, which should be taken by hand for protection. A kiṭikāphalaka is a shield made of iron or similar materials in a net-like pattern to protect the eyes, to be worn on the head, etc., called a jālika. The word ādi includes armor and the like. Non-touchable items refer to things like fish nets, which are meant to obstruct, not shields, as they are not weapons. Therefore, it is said, “for the purpose of preventing obstruction.” Āsanassa refers to the surrounding area of a shrine. I will bind means I will bind it to prevent harm from crows and the like.
ID277
“Bherisaṅghāṭoti saṅghaṭitacammabherī. Vīṇāsaṅghāṭoti saṅghaṭitacammavīṇā”ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.281) vuttaṃ. “Cammavinaddhā vīṇābheriādīnī”ti mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttavacanato visesābhāvā “kurundiyaṃ panā”tiādinā tato visesassa vattumāraddhattā ca bheriādīnaṃ vinaddhopakaraṇasamūho bherivīṇāsaṅghāṭoti veditabbo “saṅghaṭitabboti saṅghāṭo”ti katvā. Tucchapokkharanti avinaddhacammabherivīṇānaṃ pokkharaṃ. Āropitacammanti pubbe āropitaṃ hutvā pacchā tato apanetvā visuṃ ṭhapitamukhacammamattaṃ, na sesopakaraṇasahitaṃ, taṃ pana saṅghātoti ayaṃ viseso. Onahitunti bheripokkharādīni cammaṃ āropetvā cammavaddhiādīhi sabbehi upakaraṇehi vinandhituṃ. Onahāpetunti tatheva aññehi vinandhāpetuṃ.
“Bherisaṅghāṭo** means a drum with stretched leather. Vīṇāsaṅghāṭo means a vīṇā with stretched leather,” as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.281). Since the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā states “vīṇās, drums, and so forth bound with leather” without distinction, and because it begins to specify a difference with ”but in the Kurundī”** and so on, it should be understood that bherivīṇāsaṅghāṭo refers to a collection of instruments like drums and vīṇās bound together, interpreting “saṅghaṭitabba” as “saṅghāṭo.” Tucchapokkhara refers to the surface of drums or vīṇās without stretched leather. Āropitacamma means leather that was previously attached and later removed and placed separately, just the drumhead leather, not with the rest of the equipment—this is the distinction from saṅghāṭo. To bind means to attach leather to drums or similar items and bind them with leather straps and all equipment. To have bound means to have others bind them in the same way.
“Bherisaṅghāṭo** means a drum covered with assembled leather. Vīṇāsaṅghāṭo means a vīṇā covered with assembled leather” is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.281). Because there is no specification from the statement in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā, “Vīṇā, drums, etc., covered with leather,” and because it begins with ”but in Kurundi”, etc., to state a specification from that, the collection of coverings, etc. for drums, etc. is to be understood as bherivīṇāsaṅghāṭa, taking it as “what is to be assembled is a saṅghāṭa.” Tucchapokkhara** means the body of a drum or a vīṇā that is not covered with leather. Āropitacamma means only the face-leather that was previously attached and later removed and kept separately, not together with other accessories; but that is the saṅghāṭa, this is the distinction. To cover means to cover the drum bodies, etc., with leather and tie them with all accessories such as leather straps. To have it covered means to have others tie it in the same way.
“Bherisaṅghāṭo** refers to a drum made of joined leather. Vīṇāsaṅghāṭo refers to a lute made of joined leather,” as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.281). Since the Mahāaṭṭhakathā states, “drums and lutes made of leather,” and since the distinction is made here with “however, at Kurundī”** and so on, it should be understood that the collection of drum and lute accessories made of leather is called bherivīṇāsaṅghāṭo, meaning “to be joined together.” Tucchapokkhara refers to the bowl of a drum or lute not made of leather. Āropitacamma refers to leather previously attached and later removed, leaving only the mouth-covering leather, without the rest of the accessories. This is called a saṅghāṭa. Onahitu means to attach the leather to the drum bowl and fasten it with all the accessories, such as leather straps. Onahāpetu means to have others fasten it in the same way.
ID278
Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is an exposition of the Vinaya-saṅgaha,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinaya compendium,
ID279
Anāmāsavinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma
This is called the Adornment of the Discussion on the Determination of Untouched Items,
the chapter on the determination of what is not to be touched
The seventh chapter, named “The Adornment of the Discussion on Non-Touchable Items,”
ID280
Sattamo paricchedo.
The seventh chapter.
is the seventh chapter.
Is concluded.
ID281
ID282
44. Evaṃ anāmāsavinicchayakathaṃ kathetvā idāni adhiṭṭhānavikappanavinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ “adhiṭṭhānavikappanesu panā”tiādimāha. Tattha adhiṭṭhiyate adhiṭṭhānaṃ, gahaṇaṃ sallakkhaṇanti attho. Vikappiyate vikappanā, saṅkappanaṃ cintananti attho. Tattha “ticīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhātunti nāmaṃ vatvā adhiṭṭhātuṃ. Na vikappetunti nāmaṃ vatvā na vikappetuṃ. Esa nayo sabbattha. Tasmā ticīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhahantena ’imaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ adhiṭṭhāmī’tiādinā nāmaṃ vatvā adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ. Vikappentena pana ’imaṃ saṅghāṭi’ntiādinā tassa tassa cīvarassa nāmaṃ aggahetvāva ’imaṃ cīvaraṃ tuyhaṃ vikappemī’ti vikappetabbaṃ. Ticīvaraṃ vā hotu aññaṃ vā, yadi taṃ taṃ nāmaṃ gahetvā vikappeti , avikappitaṃ hoti, atirekacīvaraṭṭhāne tiṭṭhatī”ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.469) vuttaṃ.
44. Having explained the discussion on untouched items, now to explain the determination and assignment, it begins with “but in determination and assignment” and so forth. Here, adhiṭṭhāna means it is determined, that is, grasped or noted—such is the meaning. Vikappanā means it is assigned, that is, intended or considered—such is the meaning. Thus, “to determine the triple robe” means to determine it by stating its name. “Not to assign” means not to assign it by stating its name. This method applies everywhere. Therefore, one determining the triple robe should determine it by saying, “I determine this as my saṅghāṭi” and so forth, stating the name. But one assigning it should assign it by saying, “I assign this robe to you,” without taking the name of that particular robe like “this is a saṅghāṭi” and so forth. Whether it is the triple robe or something else, if one assigns it by taking its specific name, it remains unassigned and stays in the status of an extra robe—this is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.469).
44. Having thus discussed the determination of things that should not be touched, now, in order to discuss the determination of resolution and formal leaving, he begins with “In resolution and formal leaving, however.” Here, what is resolved is adhiṭṭhāna, meaning taking hold of, understanding. What is formally left is vikappanā, meaning intention, thought. Of these, to resolve the triple robe means to resolve by stating the name. Not to formally leave means not to formally leave by stating the name. This method applies everywhere. Therefore, one who resolves the triple robe should resolve it by stating the name, such as ‘I resolve this outer robe (saṅghāṭi)’. But one formally leaving should formally leave it by stating, ‘I formally leave this robe to you’ without mentioning the name of each particular robe, such as ‘this outer robe’. Whether it is the triple robe or another, if one formally leaves it after grasping its particular name, it is not formally left, it remains in the place of an extra robe,” thus is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.469).
44. Having discussed the determination of non-touchable items, now the discussion on the determination of resolutions is begun with “in the determination of resolutions” and so on. Here, adhiṭṭhāna means to resolve, to grasp, or to discern. Vikappana means to modify, to intend, or to think. Here, “to resolve the three robes” means to resolve by naming them. “Not to modify” means not to modify after naming them. This is the method in all cases. Therefore, when resolving the three robes, one should resolve by saying, “I resolve this upper robe,” and so on. When modifying, one should modify by saying, “I modify this robe for you,” without naming each robe. Whether it is the three robes or another, if one modifies after naming it, it remains unmodified and stays in the category of extra robes, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.469).
ID283
Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.469) pana “ticīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhātunti saṅghāṭiādināmena adhiṭṭhātuṃ. Na vikappetunti iminā nāmena na vikappetuṃ, etena vikappitaticīvaro tecīvariko na hoti, tassa tasmiṃ adhiṭṭhitaticīvare viya avippavāsādinā kātabbavidhi na kātabboti dasseti, na pana vikappane doso”ti vuttaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 469) pana “ticīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhātunti ettha ticīvaraṃ ticīvarādhiṭṭhānena adhiṭṭhātabbayuttakaṃ, yaṃ vā ticīvarādhiṭṭhānena adhiṭṭhātuṃ na vikappetuṃ anujānāmi, tassa adhiṭṭhānakālaparicchedābhāvato sabbakālaṃ icchantassa adhiṭṭhātuṃyeva anujānāmi, taṃ kālaparicchedaṃ katvā vikappetuṃ nānujānāmi, sati pana paccaye yadā tadā vā paccuddharitvā vikappetuṃ vaṭṭatīti ’anāpatti antodasāhaṃ adhiṭṭheti vikappetī’ti vacanato siddhaṃ hotī”ti vuttaṃ.
In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.469), however, it says “to determine the triple robe” means to determine it by the names saṅghāṭi and so forth. “Not to assign” means not to assign it by this name, indicating that one who assigns the triple robe does not become a triple-robe wearer; he need not follow the duties like non-separation as with a determined triple robe, but there is no fault in assigning—this is shown. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 469), however, it says “to determine the triple robe”—here, the triple robe is suitable to be determined by the determination of the triple robe; I allow it to be determined, not assigned, without a time limit for determination, permitting it to be determined at all times if desired, but I do not allow it to be assigned with a time limit. However, when there is a reason, it is permissible to retract and assign it at that time, as proven by the statement “there is no offense if one determines or assigns within ten days.”
In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.469), however, “to resolve the triple robe” means to resolve by the name, such as saṅghāṭi. “Not to formally leave” means not to formally leave by this name, thereby showing that a tecīvarika (a person with three robes) who has formally left [a robe] in this way is not a tecīvarika, and that he should not perform the procedures that should be performed, such as non-absence, as with the triple robe that he has resolved; however, it is not stated that there is a fault in the formal leaving. In the Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 469), however, “to resolve the triple robe” here, the triple robe is what should be resolved by the resolution of the triple robe, or that which I allow to be resolved by the resolution of the triple robe, and not to be formally left. Since there is no time limit for its resolution, I only allow it to be resolved at any time by the one who desires it. I do not allow it to be formally left after making a time limit. But if there is a reason, it is allowable to withdraw the resolution whenever and then formally leave it; it is established by the statement, “There is no offense if he resolves and formally leaves it within ten days”.
The Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.469) states, “to resolve the three robes” means to resolve by naming the upper robe and so on. “Not to modify” means not to modify by that name. This shows that one who modifies the three robes is not a triple-robed monk, and the procedures like non-separation do not apply to him as they do to one who has resolved the three robes. However, there is no fault in modifying. The Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Pārājika 469) states, “to resolve the three robes” means that the three robes should be resolved by the resolution of the three robes, or that I allow resolving by the resolution of the three robes but not modifying. Since there is no time limit for resolution, I allow resolving at any time as one wishes, but I do not allow modifying after setting a time limit. However, when there is a reason, it is permissible to withdraw and modify, as stated in the phrase “there is no offense if one resolves or modifies within ten days.”
ID284
Imesu pana tīsu ṭīkāvādesu tatiyavādo yuttataro viya dissati. Kasmā? Pāḷiyā aṭṭhakathāya ca saṃsandanato. Kathaṃ? Pāḷiyañhi kataparicchedāsuyeva dvīsu vassikasāṭikakaṇḍupaṭicchādīsu tato paraṃ vikappetunti vuttaṃ, tato aññesu na vikappetuṃ icceva, tasmā tesu asati paccaye niccaṃ adhiṭṭhātabbameva hoti, na vikappetabbanti ayaṃ pāḷiyā adhippāyo dissati, itarāsu pana dvīsu anuññātakāleyeva adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ, “tato paraṃ vikappetu”nti evaṃ pāḷiyā saṃsandati, aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ticīvaraṃ ticīvarasaṅkhepena pariharato adhiṭṭhātumeva anujānāmi, na vikappetuṃ. Vassikasāṭikaṃ pana cātumāsato paraṃ vikappetumeva, na adhiṭṭhātuṃ, evañca sati yo ticīvare ekena cīvarena vippavasitukāmo hoti, tassa cīvarādhiṭṭhānaṃ paccuddharitvā vippavāsasukhatthaṃ vikappanāya okāso dinno hotīti.
Among these three subcommentarial statements, the third seems more reasonable. Why? Because it aligns with the Pāli text and commentary. How so? In the Pāli, it is said that only in the case of the rain cloth and itch-covering cloth, which have a fixed time limit, should they be assigned afterward, not otherwise; thus, without a reason, they must always be determined, not assigned—this appears to be the intent of the Pāli. In the other two, it aligns with the Pāli that they should be determined only at the permitted time and assigned afterward. In the commentary, it says, “I allow the triple robe to be determined, not assigned, for one using it briefly as a triple robe; but for the rain cloth, after four months, it should only be assigned, not determined.” Thus, for one wishing to be apart from one of the triple robes, space is given for assignment for the sake of ease in separation by retracting the robe’s determination.
Of these three ṭīkā interpretations, the third interpretation seems more reasonable. Why? Because of consistency with the Pāḷi and the aṭṭhakathā. How so? In the Pāḷi, it is stated that in the case of the two [robes], vassikasāṭika (bathing cloth) and kaṇḍupaṭicchādi (itch-covering cloth), for which a time limit has been set, after that [time limit] they are to be formally left, and not only that, but concerning other [robes], just not to formally leave them, therefore, concerning them, in the absence of a reason, they should always be resolved only, and not formally left; this appears to be the intention of the Pāḷi. But in the other two [cases], what is allowed should be resolved only at the allowed time. Thus, it is consistent with the Pāḷi, “after that, to formally leave.” In the aṭṭhakathā, I only allow the triple robe to be resolved by one who manages it with the designation of the triple robe, not to be formally left. But as for the bathing cloth, after the four months, it is only to be formally left, not to be resolved. And in this way, for someone who wants to be absent with one robe among the triple robes, the opportunity is given to formally leave it, after withdrawing the resolution of the robe, for the ease of being absent.
Among these three commentaries, the third view seems more reasonable. Why? Because it aligns with the Pāli and the commentaries. How? In the Pāli, it is stated that after the time limit for the rainy-season robe and the sitting cloth, one may modify, but not in other cases. Therefore, in those cases, one should always resolve, not modify. This is the intention of the Pāli. In the commentaries, it is stated that I allow resolving the three robes by summarizing them, but not modifying. However, the rainy-season robe should be modified after four months, not resolved. Thus, if someone wishes to go away with one robe, they are given the opportunity to modify for the sake of comfort after withdrawing the resolution of the robe.
ID285
Paṭhamavāde “na vikappetu”nti nāmaṃ vatvā “na vikappetu”nti attho vutto, evaṃ sante “tato paraṃ vikappetu”nti ettha tato paraṃ nāmaṃ vatvā vikappetunti attho bhaveyya, so ca attho vikappanādhikārena vutto, “nāmaṃ vatvā”ti ca visesane kattabbe sati “na vikappetu”nti ca “tato paraṃ vikappetu”nti ca bhedavacanaṃ na siyā, sabbesupi cīvaresu nāmaṃ avatvāva vikappetabbato, dutiyavāde ca “na vikappetu”nti iminā nāmena na vikappetunti vuttaṃ, na anujānāmīti pāṭhaseso. Paṭhame ca “ticīvaraṃ vā hotu aññaṃ vā, yadi taṃ taṃ nāmaṃ gahetvā vikappeti, avikappitaṃ hoti, atirekacīvaraṭṭhāne tiṭṭhatī”ti. Dutiye ca “na pana vikappane doso”ti, tañca aññamaññaviruddhaṃ viya dissati, tasmā vicāretabbametaṃ.
In the first statement, “not to assign” is explained as “not to assign by stating the name,” so in “assign afterward,” it would mean “assign by stating the name afterward,” which would pertain to the method of assignment. If “by stating the name” were a specific condition, there would be no distinction between “not to assign” and “assign afterward,” since in all robes assignment should be done without stating the name. In the second statement, “not to assign” means “not to assign by this name,” with the remaining text implying “I do not allow.” In the first, it says, “Whether it is the triple robe or another, if one assigns it by taking its specific name, it remains unassigned and stays as an extra robe.” In the second, it says, “But there is no fault in assigning,” which seems mutually contradictory, so this should be examined.
In the first interpretation, the meaning of “not to formally leave” is stated as “not to formally leave” by stating the name. If this is the case, then in “after that, to formally leave,” the meaning would be to formally leave after stating the name after that. And that meaning is stated under the authority of formal leaving. If it were necessary to make a specification such as “by stating the name,” then there would not be the distinction between the statements, “not to formally leave” and “after that, to formally leave,” because in all robes, it is to be formally left without stating the name. And in the second interpretation, it is stated, “not to formally leave” means not to formally leave by this name; the remainder of the passage is “I do not allow”. And in the first, it is stated: “Whether it is the triple robe or another, if one formally leaves it after grasping its particular name, it is not formally left, it remains in the place of an extra robe.” And in the second, “however, there is no fault in the formal leaving”; and that seems mutually contradictory. Therefore, this should be investigated.
In the first view, “not to modify” means not to modify after naming, so “after that, modify” would mean to modify after naming. This meaning is stated in the context of modification, and since the distinction between “not to modify” and “after that, modify” cannot be made when the specification “after naming” is applied, it is not possible. In the second view, “not to modify” means not to modify by that name, and the rest of the text means “I do not allow.” In the first view, it is stated, “whether it is the three robes or another, if one modifies after naming it, it remains unmodified and stays in the category of extra robes.” In the second view, it is stated, “there is no fault in modifying.” These seem contradictory, so this should be carefully considered.
ID286
Tato paraṃ vikappetunti cātumāsato paraṃ vikappetvā paribhuñjitunti tīsu gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. Keci pana “tato paraṃ vikappetvā yāva āgāmisaṃvacchare vassānaṃ cātumāsaṃ, tāva ṭhapetuṃ anuññāta”ntipi vadanti. “Tato paraṃ vikappetuṃ anujānāmīti ettāvatā vassikasāṭikaṃ kaṇḍupaṭicchādiñca taṃ taṃ nāmaṃ gahetvā vikappetuṃ anuññātanti evamattho na gahetabbo. Tato paraṃ vassikasāṭikādināmasseva abhāvato, kasmā tato paraṃ vikappentenapi nāmaṃ gahetvā na vikappetabbaṃ. Ubhinnampi tato paraṃ vikappetvā paribhogassa anuññātattā tathāvikappitaṃ aññanāmena adhiṭṭhahitvā paribhuñjitabbanti tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu vutta”nti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.469) vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyampi (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.469) “tato paranti cātumāsato paraṃ vikappetvā paribhuñjituṃ anuññātanti keci vadanti. Aññe pana ’vikappetvā yāva āgāmivassānaṃ tāva ṭhapetuṃ vaṭṭatī’ti vadanti. Apare pana ’vikappane na doso, tathā vikappitaṃ parikkhārādināmena adhiṭṭhahitvā paribhuñjitabba’nti vadantī”ti vuttaṃ.
“Assign afterward” means to assign and use it after four months, as stated in the three glosses. Some, however, say, “It is permitted to assign it and keep it until the next rainy season, for the four months of the rains.” It should not be understood that “I allow it to be assigned afterward” means the rain cloth and itch-covering cloth are permitted to be assigned by taking their specific names. Since their names cease to apply afterward, why should one assigning them afterward not take their names? Since both are permitted to be assigned and used afterward, it is stated in the three glosses that what is so assigned should be determined and used under another name—this is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.469). In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.469), it says “afterward”—some say it is permitted to assign and use it after four months; others say, “It is permissible to assign and keep it until the next rains”; still others say, “There is no fault in assigning, and what is so assigned should be determined and used under the name of requisites or such.”
After that to formally leave means to formally leave and use it after the four months; it is stated thus in three gaṇṭhipada. Some, however, say, “After that, having formally left it, it is allowed to keep it until the four months of the rainy season in the coming year.” “With just ‘I allow you to formally leave it after that,’ it should not be understood thus, that the bathing cloth and the itch-covering cloth are allowed to be formally left by grasping that particular name. Because after that, there is no name such as bathing cloth, etc. Why? Because after that, even one who formally leaves should not formally leave it after grasping the name. Because using both after formally leaving them is allowed, it is stated in all three gaṇṭhipada that having thus formally left it, one should use it after resolving it with another name,” it is thus stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.469). In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.469) also, “after that” means some say that after the four months, it is allowed to formally leave and use it. Others say, ‘It is allowable to keep it after formally leaving it, until the next rainy season’. But others say, ‘There is no fault in the formal leaving; having thus formally left it, it should be used after resolving it with the name of a requisite, etc.’,” it is thus stated.
“After that, modify” means to modify after four months and use it, as stated in the three commentarial positions. Some say, “after that, modify and keep it until the next rainy season.” However, the meaning should not be taken as allowing the rainy-season robe and sitting cloth to be modified by naming them after that. Since after that, the names of the rainy-season robe and the like no longer exist, why should one not modify by naming them after that? Since both are allowed to be used after modification, it is stated in the three commentarial positions that after modifying, one should resolve under another name and use it, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.469). The Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.469) also states, “after that” means to modify after four months and use it, as some say. Others say, “it is permissible to keep it until the next rainy season.” Still others say, “there is no fault in modifying, and after modifying, one should resolve under the name of the accessory and use it.”
ID287
Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 469) pana “vassikasāṭikaṃ tato paraṃ vikappetuṃyeva, nādhiṭṭhātuṃ. Vatthañhi katapariyositaṃ antocātumāse vassānadivasaṃ ādiṃ katvā antodasāhe adhiṭṭhātuṃ anujānāmi, cātumāsato uddhaṃ attano santakaṃ katvā ṭhapetukāmena vikappetuṃ anujānāmīti attho”ti vuttaṃ. Idhāpi pacchimavādo pasatthataroti dissati, kasmā? Suviññeyyattā, purimesu pana ācariyānaṃ adhippāyoyeva duviññeyyo hoti nānāvādasseva kathitattā. Muṭṭhipañcakanti muṭṭhiyā upalakkhitaṃ pañcakaṃ muṭṭhipañcakaṃ, catuhatthe minitvā pañcamaṃ hatthamuṭṭhiṃ katvā minitabbanti adhippāyo. Keci pana “muṭṭhihatthānaṃ pañcakaṃ muṭṭhipañcakaṃ. Pañcapi hatthā muṭṭhī katvāva minitabbā”ti vadanti. Muṭṭhittikanti etthāpi eseva nayo. Dvihatthena antaravāsakena timaṇḍalaṃ paṭicchādetuṃ sakkāti āha “pārupanenapī”tiādi. Atirekanti sugatacīvarato atirekaṃ. Ūnakanti muṭṭhipañcakādito ūnakaṃ. Tena ca tesu ticīvarādhiṭṭhānaṃ na ruhatīti dasseti.
In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 469), it says, “The rain cloth should only be assigned afterward, not determined. For a finished cloth, I allow it to be determined within ten days starting from the day of the rains, and after four months, one wishing to keep it as his own may assign it—this is the meaning.” Here too, the last statement seems more commendable. Why? Because it is easier to understand, whereas in the earlier ones, the teachers’ intent is harder to discern due to the variety of opinions expressed. Muṭṭhipañcaka means a set of five marked by the fist; it is measured as four hands, with the fifth being a fist—such is the intent. Some, however, say, “Muṭṭhipañcaka is a set of five fist-hands; all five hands should be measured as fists.” Muṭṭhittika follows the same method. He says “even with covering” and so forth because a two-hand inner robe can cover the three circles. Excess means exceeding the Sugata robe measure. Deficient means less than the muṭṭhipañcaka and so forth, indicating that determination of the triple robe does not hold in such cases.
In the Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 469), however, “The bathing cloth, after that, is only to be formally left, not to be resolved. For I allow a cloth that has been completed within the four months, taking the rainy season day as the beginning, to be resolved within ten days. I allow it to be formally left by one who wishes to keep it as his own after the four months; this is the meaning,” it is thus stated. Here, too, the last interpretation seems more commendable. Why? Because it is easily understood. But in the previous ones, the intentions of the teachers are difficult to understand because various interpretations are presented. Muṭṭhipañcaka means a group of five measured by the fist, muṭṭhipañcaka; it means measuring four hattha and making the fifth a fistful while measuring. Some, however, say, “muṭṭhipañcaka is a fivefold of fist-lengths. All five hattha should be measured by making fists.” Muṭṭhittika – here, too, the same method applies. Because one can cover the three circles with a lower robe of two hattha, he says “even by wearing,” etc. Excess means excess over the proper robe of the Buddha. Less means less than the muṭṭhipañcaka, etc. And by that, he shows that in those, the resolution of the triple robe does not apply.
The Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Pārājika 469) states, “the rainy-season robe should be modified after that, not resolved. For cloth, the time limit is within the four months of the rainy season, starting from the first day, and I allow resolving within ten days. After four months, if one wishes to keep it as one’s own, I allow modifying it, meaning one should modify it.” Here, the latter view seems more precise. Why? Because it is easily understandable, while the intentions of the earlier teachers are difficult to understand due to the various views expressed. Muṭṭhipañcaka refers to a measurement marked by the fist, meaning one should measure with four fingers and make the fifth a fist. Some say, “the measurement of five fists is called muṭṭhipañcaka. One should measure with five fists.” Muṭṭhittika follows the same method. It is possible to cover three circles with the lower robe using both hands, as stated in “with the lower robe” and so on. Excess means more than the Buddha’s robe. Deficient means less than the muṭṭhipañcaka. This shows that the resolution of the three robes does not apply to these.
ID288
Imaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ paccuddharāmīti imaṃ saṅghāṭiadhiṭṭhānaṃ ukkhipāmi, pariccajāmīti attho. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.469) pana “paccuddharāmīti ṭhapemi, pariccajāmīti vā attho”icceva vuttaṃ. Kāyavikāraṃ karontenāti hatthena cīvaraṃ parāmasantena, cālentena vā. Vācāya adhiṭṭhātabbāti ettha kāyenapi cāletvā vācampi bhinditvā kāyavācāhi adhiṭṭhānampi saṅgahitanti veditabbaṃ, “kāyena aphusitvā”ti vattabbattā ahatthapāsahatthapāsavasena duvidhaṃ adhiṭṭhānaṃ. Tattha “hatthapāso nāma aḍḍhateyyahattho vuccati. ’Dvādasahattha’nti keci vadanti, taṃ idha na sametī”ti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.469) vuttaṃ. “Idāni sammukhāparammukhābhedena duvidhaṃ adhiṭṭhānaṃ dassetuṃ “sace hatthapāsetiādi vuttaṃ. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.469) pana “hatthapāseti ca idaṃ dvādasahatthaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, tasmā dvādasahatthabbhantare ṭhitaṃ ’ima’nti vatvā adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ, tato paraṃ ’eta’nti vatvā adhiṭṭhātabbanti keci vadanti, gaṇṭhipadesu panettha na kiñci vuttaṃ, pāḷiyaṃ aṭṭhakathāyañca sabbattha ’hatthapāso’ti aḍḍhateyyahattho vuccati, tasmā idha visesavikappanāya kāraṇaṃ gavesitabba”nti vuttaṃ. Evaṃ pāḷiyaṭṭhakathāsupi aḍḍhateyyahatthameva hatthapāso vutto, ṭīkācariyehi ca tadeva sampaṭicchito, tasmā aḍḍhateyyahatthabbhantare ṭhitaṃ cīvaraṃ “ima”nti, tato bahibhūtaṃ “eta”nti vatvā adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ.
“I retract this saṅghāṭi” means I lift or relinquish this saṅghāṭi determination—this is the meaning. In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.469), however, it says “I retract” means I set aside or relinquish—this is the meaning. By one altering the body means by one touching or moving the robe with the hand. Should be determined verbally—here, it should be understood that determination by both body and speech, by moving it with the body and breaking speech, is included, since it says “without touching with the body.” Determination is twofold: within hand’s reach and beyond hand’s reach. Here, “hand’s reach” is said to be two and a half hands. Some say “twelve hands,” but that does not fit here—this is stated in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.469). To show the twofold determination—face-to-face and not face-to-face—it says “if within hand’s reach” and so forth. In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.469), it says, “Within hand’s reach refers to twelve hands; thus, what is within twelve hands should be determined by saying ‘this,’ and beyond that by saying ‘that,’ some say; but nothing is said about this in the glosses. In the Pāli and commentary, ‘hand’s reach’ is always two and a half hands everywhere, so a reason for this specific distinction should be sought.” Thus, in the Pāli and commentaries, hand’s reach is stated as two and a half hands, accepted by the subcommentators, so a robe within two and a half hands should be determined as “this,” and one beyond it as “that.”
I withdraw the resolution of this outer robe means I lift up, I give up, this resolution of the outer robe. In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.469), however, it is only stated “I withdraw” means I set aside, or I give up. By making a bodily action means by touching the robe with the hand, or by moving it. Resolution should be made through speech – here, it should be understood that resolution through both body and speech, by moving with the body and also breaking forth in speech, is also included. Because it is stated, “without touching with the body,” resolution is twofold, according to whether it is within or beyond arm’s length. Of these, “arm’s length” is said to be two and a half hattha. Some say ‘twelve hattha’, but that does not fit here,” it is stated in Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.469). Now, in order to show the twofold resolution according to presence and absence, it is stated, “If within arm’s length,” etc. In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.469), however, “And this ‘within arm’s length’ is stated in reference to twelve hattha; therefore, some say that what is situated within twelve hattha should be resolved by saying ‘this’, and what is beyond that should be resolved by saying ‘that’; but in the gaṇṭhipada, nothing is stated about this; in the Pāḷi and the aṭṭhakathā, everywhere, ‘arm’s length’ is said to be two and a half hattha; therefore, the reason for the specific option here should be sought,” it is thus stated. Thus, in the Pāḷi and aṭṭhakathā, only two and a half hattha is stated as arm’s length, and it is accepted as such by the ṭīkā teachers; therefore, a robe situated within two and a half hattha should be resolved by saying “this,” and what is outside of that, by saying “that.”
“I withdraw this upper robe” means I set aside this resolution of the upper robe, I relinquish it. The Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.469) states, “I withdraw” means I set aside, or I relinquish. “While making a bodily movement” means touching the robe with the hand or moving it. “Should be resolved by speech” means that even if one moves it with the body, one should also break it with speech, so the resolution is included in both body and speech. Since it is said, “without touching with the body,” there are two types of resolution: with the hand and without the hand. Here, “hatthapāso” refers to a distance of one and a half cubits. Some say it is twelve cubits, but that does not apply here, as stated in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.469). Now, to show the two types of resolution, face-to-face and not face-to-face, it is said, “if within the hatthapāso” and so on. The Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.469) states, “hatthapāso refers to twelve cubits, so one should resolve by saying ‘this’ within twelve cubits, and beyond that by saying ‘that.’ However, the commentaries do not mention this, and in the Pāli and commentaries, ‘hatthapāso’ always refers to one and a half cubits. Therefore, one should resolve by saying ‘this’ within one and a half cubits and ‘that’ beyond that.
ID289
“Sāmantavihāreti idaṃ ṭhapitaṭṭhānasallakkhaṇayogge ṭhitaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, tato dūre ṭhitampi ṭhapitaṭṭhānaṃ sallakkhentena adhiṭṭhātabbameva. Tatthāpi cīvarassa ṭhapitabhāvasallakkhaṇameva pamāṇaṃ. Na hi sakkā niccassa ṭhānaṃ sallakkhetuṃ, ekasmiṃ vihāre ṭhapetvā tato aññasmiṃ ṭhapitanti adhiṭṭhātuṃ na vaṭṭati. Keci pana ’tathāpi adhiṭṭhite na doso’ti vadanti, taṃ aṭṭhakathāya na sameti, vīmaṃsitabba”nti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.469) vuttaṃ. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.469) pana “sāmantavihāro nāma yattha tadaheva gantvā nivattetuṃ sakkā. Sāmantavihāreti idaṃ desanāsīsamattaṃ, tasmā ṭhapitaṭṭhānaṃ sallakkhetvā dūre ṭhitampi adhiṭṭhātabbanti vadanti. Ṭhapitaṭṭhānaṃ sallakkhetvāti ca idaṃ ṭhapitaṭṭhānasallakkhaṇaṃ anucchavikanti katvā vuttaṃ, cīvarasallakkhaṇamevettha pamāṇa”nti vuttaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyañca (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 469) “saṅghāṭi uttarāsaṅgo antaravāsakanti adhiṭṭhitānadhiṭṭhitānaṃ samānameva nāmaṃ. ’Ayaṃ saṅghāṭī’tiādīsu anadhiṭṭhitā vuttā. ’Ticīvarena vippavaseyyā’ti ettha adhiṭṭhitā vuttā. Sāmantavihāreti gocaragāmato vihāreti dhammasiritthero. Dūratarepi labbhatevāti ācariyā. Anugaṇṭhipadepi ’sāmantavihāreti desanāsīsamattaṃ, tasmā ṭhapitaṭṭhānaṃ sallakkhetvā dūre ṭhitampi adhiṭṭhātabba’nti vuttaṃ. Sāmantavihāro nāma yattha tadaheva gantvā nivattituṃ sakkā. Rattivippavāsaṃ rakkhantena tato dūre ṭhitaṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ na vaṭṭati, evaṃ kira mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttanti. Keci ’cīvaravaṃse ṭhapitaṃ añño parivattetvā nāgadante ṭhapeti, taṃ ajānitvā adhiṭṭhahantassapi ruhati cīvarassa sallakkhitattā’ti vadantī”ti, tasmā ācariyānaṃ matabhedaṃ saṃsanditvā gahetabbaṃ.
“In a neighboring monastery” is said with reference to something standing in a place suitable for noting its location; even if it is far off, it should be determined by noting the place where it is kept. Here too, the measure is noting the state of the robe being kept. It is not possible to note a permanent place; it is not permissible to determine it as “kept in one monastery and then in another.” Some say, “Even so, there is no fault in determining it,” but that does not align with the commentary and should be investigated—this is stated in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.469). In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.469), it says, “A neighboring monastery” is one where one can go and return on the same day. “In a neighboring monastery” is just a heading for the teaching; thus, they say it should be determined by noting the place where it is kept, even if far off. “Noting the place where it is kept” is said to mean noting its placement is not improper; the measure here is noting the robe itself. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 469), it says, “Saṅghāṭi, upper robe, and inner robe—the names are the same for both determined and undetermined. In ‘this is a saṅghāṭi’ and so forth, undetermined ones are meant; in ‘one may be apart with the triple robe,’ determined ones are meant. In a neighboring monastery—Dhammasiri Thera says it is a monastery within the alms-round village; teachers say it can be obtained even farther off. In the sub-glosses too, it says, ‘In a neighboring monastery is just a teaching heading; thus, it should be determined by noting the place where it is kept, even if far off.’ A neighboring monastery is one where one can go and return on the same day. One guarding against separation at night should not determine something far off—this is said in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā. Some say, ‘If a robe kept on a robe-line is moved to a peg by another without one’s knowledge, determining it still holds because the robe is noted.’” Thus, it should be understood by reconciling the differing opinions of the teachers.
“Sāmantavihāre”ti (in a nearby monastery) - this is said with reference to a place suitable for determining the designated place; even if it is far from that, one should still determine the designated place by considering it. And even there, the mere consideration of the robe’s having been deposited is the measure. For it is not possible to constantly take note of a place; if having deposited [it] in one monastery, one then says ‘I determine it as deposited in another’, it is not allowable. However, some say ‘even if one determines [it] thus, there is no fault’. That does not accord with the commentary; it should be investigated,” it is said in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.469). But in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.469) it is said: “Sāmantavihāro (nearby monastery) is the name of a place where one can go and return on that very day. ‘Sāmantavihāre’ti - this is only a way of teaching. Therefore, having considered the designated place, even if it is far away, one should still determine it, they say. And this “Ṭhapitaṭṭhānaṃ sallakkhetvāti (having considered the designated place)” is said considering that the consideration of the designated place is suitable. In this case, the mere consideration of the robe is the measure”. And in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 469) it says, “The names ’outer robe’, ‘upper robe’ and ‘lower robe’ are the same for those that are determined and those that are not determined. In ‘this outer robe, etc.’, those not determined are mentioned. In ‘he may travel with three robes’, those determined are mentioned. Sāmantavihāreti (in a nearby monastery) means from the village of alms round to the monastery, says the elder Dhammasiri. In a place even further, it is still obtainable, say the teachers. In the Anugaṇṭhipada it is also said, ‘sāmantavihāreti is just a way of teaching; therefore, having considered the designated place, one should still determine it, even if one is far away’. Sāmantavihāro (a nearby monastery) is the name for a place where one can go and return that very day. One protecting against spending a night away should not determine a place further than that. It is said that in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā it is stated thus. Some say: ‘If someone changes the robe deposited in a robe-line and places it on a peg, even for one who is unaware of this and determines it, it is alright, because the robe has been taken note of.’ Therefore, one should understand the differing opinions of the teachers by comparing them.
“Sāmantavihāreti** refers to a place nearby, and this is said with reference to a location that has been designated for observation. Even if one is standing far from that place, one should still determine it by observing the designated location. In this case, the observation of the robe’s designated place is the measure. It is not possible to constantly observe a fixed place, nor is it permissible to determine a robe as designated in one monastery and then designate it in another. Some say, ‘Even if it is determined in such a way, there is no fault,’ but this does not agree with the commentary and should be examined, as stated in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.469). The Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.469) states, “sāmantavihāro means a place where one can go and return on the same day. The phrase sāmantavihāre refers to the extent of teaching, and thus even if one is far away, one should determine the robe after observing the designated place. The phrase ṭhapitaṭṭhānaṃ sallakkhetvā means observing the designated place appropriately, and here the observation of the robe is the measure.” The Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 469) states, “The terms saṅghāṭi, uttarāsaṅga, and antaravāsaka apply equally to both determined and undetermined robes. In phrases like ‘this is a saṅghāṭi,’ undetermined robes are referred to. In the phrase ‘one should dwell apart from the three robes,’ determined robes are referred to. Sāmantavihāre means dwelling within the range of the village, as explained by Dhammasiri Thera. Even if it is far away, it is still permissible, according to the teachers. In the Anugaṇṭhipada, it is said, ‘sāmantavihāre** refers to the extent of teaching, and thus even if one is far away, one should determine the robe after observing the designated place.’ Sāmantavihāro** means a place where one can go and return on the same day. One who guards against spending the night away should not determine a robe that is far away, as stated in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā. Some say, ‘If someone places a robe on a robe rack and another moves it to an elephant tusk, and one determines it without knowing, it is still valid because the robe has been observed.’ Therefore, one should consider the differences among the teachers and accept accordingly.
ID290
Adhiṭṭhahitvā ṭhapitavatthehīti parikkhāracoḷanāmena adhiṭṭhahitvā ṭhapitavatthehi. Teneva “imaṃ paccuddharāmī”ti parikkhāracoḷassa paccuddhāraṃ dasseti, etena ca tecīvarikadhutaṅgaṃ pariharantena paṃsukūlādivasena laddhaṃ vatthaṃ dasāhabbhantare katvā rajitvā pārupitumasakkontena parikkhāracoḷavasena adhiṭṭhahitvāva dasāhamatikkamāpetabbaṃ, itarathā nissaggiyaṃ hotīti dasseti, teneva “rajitakālato pana paṭṭhāya nikkhipituṃ na vaṭṭati, dhutaṅgacoro nāma hotī”ti visuddhimagge (visuddhi. 1.25) vuttaṃ. Puna adhiṭṭhātabbānīti idañca saṅghāṭiāditicīvaranāmena adhiṭṭhahitvā paribhuñjitukāmassa vasena vuttaṃ, itarassa pana purimādhiṭṭhānameva alanti veditabbaṃ. Puna adhiṭṭhātabbanti iminā kappabindupi dātabbanti dasseti. Adhiṭṭhānakiccaṃ natthīti iminā kappabindudānakiccampi natthīti dasseti, mahantataramevātiādi sabbādhiṭṭhānasādhāraṇalakkhaṇaṃ. Tattha puna adhiṭṭhātabbanti anadhiṭṭhitacīvarassa ekadesabhūtattā anadhiṭṭhitañce, adhiṭṭhitassa appabhāvena ekadesabhūtaṃ adhiṭṭhitasaṅkhameva gacchati, tathā adhiṭṭhitañce, anadhiṭṭhitassa ekadesabhūtaṃ anadhiṭṭhitasaṅkhaṃ gacchatīti lakkhaṇaṃ. Na kevalañcettha dutiyapaṭṭameva, atha kho tatiyapaṭṭādikampi. Yathāha “anujānāmi bhikkhave…pe… utuddhaṭānaṃ dussānaṃ catugguṇaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ…pe… paṃsukūle yāvadattha”nti (mahāva. 348).
“Having determined” “with kept cloths” means with cloths kept after determining them as requisite rags. Hence, “I retract this” shows the retraction of requisite rags, indicating that one practicing the triple-robe austerity, unable to dye and wear a cloth obtained as a rag within ten days, must determine it as a requisite rag and let ten days pass; otherwise, it becomes subject to forfeiture. Thus, it says in the Visuddhimagga (visuddhi. 1.25), “From the time of dyeing, it is not permissible to store it; he becomes a thief of the austerity.” “Should be determined again” is said with regard to one wishing to determine and use it as a saṅghāṭi or other triple-robe item; for another, the prior determination suffices—this should be understood. “Should be determined again” indicates that a binding mark should also be given. “There is no need for determination” indicates there is no need for the act of giving a binding mark—these are general characteristics of all determinations. Here, “should be determined again” means that if an undetermined robe is part of it, it becomes undetermined; if a determined robe is part of it by a lesser portion, it is reckoned as determined; if determined, an undetermined part is reckoned as undetermined—such is the characteristic. Not only the second piece but also the third piece and so forth are included, as it says, “I allow, monks… up to fourfold saṅghāṭis of discarded cloths… as much as needed” (mahāva. 348).
Adhiṭṭhahitvā ṭhapitavatthehīti (having determined, with deposited cloths) - with cloths deposited after having determined them under the designation of requisites-cloth. Therefore, he shows the withdrawal of the requisites-cloth with “I withdraw this”; and with this, one who is avoiding the triple-robed dhutaṅga practice, having obtained cloth through rags from a dust heap etc., and is unable to make and dye and wear it within ten days, should determine it as a requisites-cloth and allow the ten days to pass, otherwise it becomes subject to forfeiture. Therefore, it is said in the Visuddhimagga (visuddhi. 1.25): “From the time of dyeing, it should not be laid aside. He becomes a thief of the dhutaṅga practice.” Puna adhiṭṭhātabbānīti (they must be determined again) - this is said with reference to one who desires to use, having determined [them] with the names of the triple robes such as the outer robe, etc. But for another, the prior determination itself is enough, it should be understood. With Puna adhiṭṭhātabbati (must be determined again), it shows that even a kappabindu should be made. With Adhiṭṭhānakiccaṃ natthīti (there is no need for determination), it shows that there is no need for making a kappabindu either. Mahantataramevāti, etc. is a characteristic common to all determinations. In that case, ‘puna adhiṭṭhātabba’ti’ - if it is undetermined, because it is a part of the undetermined robe, it becomes ‘undetermined’; if it is determined, with a small amount of determined [cloth], one part of it goes as ‘determined’; similarly, if it is determined, one part of the undetermined goes as ‘undetermined’. This is the characteristic. And it is not only the second piece here, but also the third piece, etc. As he says, “I allow, monks,…etc… for threadbare cloth, an outer robe of four layers…etc… from rags, as much as needed” (mahāva. 348).
Adhiṭṭhahitvā ṭhapitavatthehīti means determining with the robe placed aside as a parikkhāra cloth. This shows the removal of the parikkhāra cloth by saying, ‘I remove this.’ For one who practices the tecīvarika dhutaṅga, if a robe obtained through rag-robes or other means cannot be dyed and worn within ten days, it should be determined as a parikkhāra cloth and kept beyond the ten days; otherwise, it becomes an offense requiring forfeiture. As stated in the Visuddhimagga (visuddhi. 1.25), “From the time of dyeing, it is not permissible to put it aside; one who does so commits a theft of the dhutaṅga.” Puna adhiṭṭhātabbānīti refers to determining the saṅghāṭi and other robes by name for the purpose of using them, while for others, the previous determination remains valid. Puna adhiṭṭhātabbanti indicates that a kappabindu should also be given. Adhiṭṭhānakiccaṃ natthīti shows that there is no duty to give a kappabindu, and mahantataramevātiādi refers to the general characteristics of all determinations. Here, puna adhiṭṭhātabbanti means that an undetermined robe, being part of the whole, becomes determined if the determined part is small, and if the determined part is large, the undetermined part becomes determined. This is the characteristic. Not only the second and first, but also the third and so on. As it is said, “I allow, monks, a fourfold saṅghāṭi made from discarded cloth… as much as needed” (mahāva. 348).
ID291
Muṭṭhipañcakāditicīvarappamāṇayuttaṃ sandhāya “ticīvaraṃ panā”tiādi vuttaṃ. Parikkhāracoḷaṃ adhiṭṭhātunti parikkhāracoḷaṃ katvā adhiṭṭhātuṃ. Avasesā bhikkhūti vakkhamānakāle nisinnā bhikkhū. Tasmā vaṭṭatīti yathā “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, ticīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ, na vikappetu”nti (mahāva. 358) vuttaṃ, evaṃ parikkhāracoḷampi vuttaṃ, na cassa ukkaṭṭhaparicchedo vutto, na ca saṅkhāparicchedo, tasmā tīṇipi cīvarāni paccuddharitvā imāni cīvarāni parikkhāracoḷāni adhiṭṭhahitvā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatīti attho. Nidhānamukhametanti etaṃ parikkhāracoḷādhiṭṭhānaṃ nidhānamukhaṃ ṭhapanamukhaṃ, atirekacīvaraṭṭhapanakāraṇanti attho. Kathaṃ ñāyatīti ce, tena kho pana samayena bhikkhūnaṃ paripuṇṇaṃ hoti ticīvaraṃ, attho ca hoti parissāvanehipi thavikāhipi. Etasmiṃ vatthusmiṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, parikkhāracoḷaka”nti anuññātattā bhikkhūnañca ekameva parissāvanaṃ, thavikā vā vaṭṭati, na dve vā tīṇi vāti paṭikkhepābhāvato vikappanūpagapacchimappamāṇāni, atirekappamāṇāni vā parissāvanādīni parikkhārāni kappantīti siddhaṃ. Paṭhamaṃ ticīvarādhiṭṭhānena adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ, puna pariharituṃ asakkontena paccuddharitvā parikkhāracoḷaṃ adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ , na tveva āditova idaṃ vuttaṃ. Baddhasīmāya avippavāsasīmāsammutisambhavato cīvaravippavāse nevatthi dosoti na tattha dupparihāroti āha “abaddhasīmāya dupparihāra”nti.
Referring to measurements suitable for the triple robe like muṭṭhipañcaka, it says “but the triple robe” and so forth. “To determine as requisite rags” means to determine it as requisite rags. “The remaining monks” refers to the monks seated at the time to be mentioned. “Thus it is permissible”—just as it says, “I allow, monks, the triple robe to be determined, not assigned” (mahāva. 358), so too with requisite rags; no maximum limit or numerical limit is stated, so it is permissible to retract all three robes and determine them as requisite rags and use them—this is the meaning. “This is a gateway to storage” means this determination of requisite rags is a gateway to storage, a cause for keeping extra robes—this is the meaning. How is this known? At that time, the monks’ triple robes were complete, and they also needed strainers and bags. In this case, because it was allowed with “I allow, monks, requisite rags,” and since there is no prohibition that monks may have only one strainer or bag, not two or three, it is established that strainers and so forth, whether suitable for assignment or exceeding the measure, are permissible as requisites. First, it should be determined by the triple-robe determination; if unable to use it further, it should be retracted and determined as requisite rags—not initially stated as such. Since there is no fault in separation due to the possibility of an agreed boundary for non-separation, there is no difficulty in use there; thus, it says “difficult to use without an agreed boundary”.
With reference to [a robe] which is the size of the three robes, such as a hand-span etc., it is said, “ticīvaraṃ panā”ti, etc. Parikkhāracoḷaṃ adhiṭṭhātunti (to determine it as a requisites-cloth) - to determine it having made it a requisites-cloth. Avasesā bhikkhūti (the remaining monks) - monks seated at the time about to be spoken. Tasmā vaṭṭatīti (therefore, it is allowable) – just as it is said, “I allow, monks, to determine the three robes, not to make them subject to shared ownership” (mahāva. 358), so too is the requisites-cloth mentioned. And no maximum limit of its [size] is stated, nor is a limit of quantity. Therefore, having withdrawn the three robes, it is allowable to use these robes, having determined them as requisites-cloths. This is the meaning. Nidhānamukhametanti (this is an opening for deposit) – this determination of a requisites-cloth is an opening for deposit, a cause for setting aside extra robes. This is the meaning. If it is asked, how is it known, at that time, the monks had complete three robes, and they also had need of water strainers and bags. In this case, because it is allowed by, “I allow, monks, a requisites-cloth,” and because for monks only one water-strainer or bag is allowable, and because there is no prohibition of two or three, the last of the robes not subject to shared ownership, or extra strainers, etc. of allowable size are suitable as requisites. First, one must determine with the determination of the three robes, then, if one is unable to keep them, one should withdraw them and determine a requisites-cloth. But this is not said at the very beginning. Because of the possibility of a bounded sīmā becoming a sīmā where one may live apart, in living apart from a robe there is no fault; so it is not difficult to avoid there; he says “abaddhasīmāya dupparihāra”nti (in an unbounded sīmā, it is difficult to avoid).
Referring to the measure of robes like the Muṭṭhipañcaka, “ticīvaraṃ panā”tiādi is said. Parikkhāracoḷaṃ adhiṭṭhātunti means determining the parikkhāra cloth after making it. Avasesā bhikkhūti refers to the monks seated at the time of instruction. Tasmā vaṭṭatīti means, as it is said, “I allow, monks, to determine the three robes, not to exchange them” (mahāva. 358), and similarly, the parikkhāra cloth is also allowed. There is no distinction of higher or lower, nor a numerical limit, so it is permissible to remove the three robes and determine them as parikkhāra cloths for use. Nidhānamukhametanti means this determination of the parikkhāra cloth is a method of storage, a means of placing extra robes. How is this known? At that time, the monks had a complete set of three robes, and there was a need for bags and covers. In this context, “I allow, monks, the parikkhāra cloth,” and thus monks are allowed only one bag or cover, not two or three. This is established by the absence of prohibition and the allowance of extra items like covers. First, the three robes should be determined, and if one cannot maintain them, they should be removed and determined as parikkhāra cloths, but this is not stated from the beginning. In a fixed boundary, there is no offense for being apart from the robe, but in an unfixed boundary, it is difficult to maintain, hence it is said, “abaddhasīmāya dupparihāra”nti.
ID292
45. Atirittappamāṇāya chedanakaṃ pācittiyanti āha “anatirittappamāṇā”ti. Tato paraṃ paccuddharitvā vikappetabbāti vassikamāsato paraṃ adhiṭṭhānaṃ paccuddharitvā vikappetabbā, iminā catunnaṃ vassikamāsānaṃ upari adhiṭṭhānaṃ tiṭṭhatīti viññāyati, asato paccuddharāyogā, yañca mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) “vassikasāṭikā vassānamāsātikkamenāpi kaṇḍupaṭicchādi ābādhavūpasamenāpi adhiṭṭhānaṃ vijahantī”ti vuttaṃ, taṃ samantapāsādikāyaṃ natthi, parivāraṭṭhakathāyañca “atthāpatti hemante āpajjati, no gimhe”ti ettha na taṃ vuttaṃ, kattikapuṇṇamāsiyā pacchime pāṭipadadivase vikappetvā ṭhapitaṃ vassikasāṭikaṃ nivāsento hemante āpajjati. Kurundiyaṃ pana “kattikapuṇṇamadivase apaccuddharitvā hemante āpajjatī”ti vuttaṃ, tampi suvuttaṃ. “Cātumāsaṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ, tato paraṃ vikappetu”nti hi vuttaṃ. Tattha mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ nivāsanapaccayā dukkaṭaṃ vuttaṃ, kurundaṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana apaccuddhārapaccayā, tasmā kurundiyaṃ vuttanayenapi vassikasāṭikā vassānātikkamepi adhiṭṭhānaṃ na vijahatīti paññāyati. Adhiṭṭhānavijahanesu ca vassānamāsaābādhānaṃ vigame vijahanaṃ mātikāṭṭhakathāyampi na uddhaṭaṃ, tasmā samantapāsādikāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.469) āgatanayena yāva paccuddhārā adhiṭṭhānaṃ tiṭṭhatīti gahetabbaṃ.
45. Cutting an oversize piece incurs a pācittiya offense, so it says “not oversize”. “Afterward, retract and assign” means retracting the determination after the rainy months and assigning it; this indicates that the determination persists beyond the four rainy months, as retraction is not possible without it. What is said in the Mātikā-aṭṭhakathā (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), “The rain cloth abandons determination even after the rainy months pass, and the itch-covering cloth with the cessation of illness,” is not found in the Samantapāsādikā. In the Parivāra-aṭṭhakathā, it says, “An offense occurs in winter, not summer,” but that is not stated there. Wearing a rain cloth assigned and kept after the last day of the Kattika full moon incurs an offense in winter. In the Kurundī, however, it says, “Not retracting it on the Kattika full moon day incurs an offense in winter,” which is well said. It says, “Determine for four months, assign afterward.” In the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā, a dukkaṭa offense is stated for wearing it; in the Kurundī commentary, it is for not retracting. Thus, according to the Kurundī, the rain cloth does not abandon determination even after the rainy months pass. In cases of abandoning determination, the abandoning due to the passing of the rainy months or illness is not cited in the Mātikā-aṭṭhakathā either; thus, it should be understood as per the Samantapāsādikā (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.469) that determination persists until retraction.
45. For a cutting-off pācittiya that is larger than the allowable size, he says “anatirittappamāṇā”ti (not exceeding the allowable size). Tato paraṃ paccuddharitvā vikappetabbāti (after that, one should withdraw it and make it subject to shared ownership) - after the rainy season month, having withdrawn the determination, one should make it subject to shared ownership. By this, it is known that the determination lasts for the four months of the rainy season, because withdrawal is not possible if it doesn’t exist. And in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), it is said, “Rain-cloth, even if it exceeds the rainy season month, or by pacification of affliction such as itches and so on, loses its determination.” That is not in the Samantapāsādikā, and in the Parivāraṭṭhakathā, in “he incurs an offense in the winter, not in the summer,” that is not stated. Having made subject to shared ownership and put aside a rain-cloth on the first day after the full moon of Kattika, one wearing it incurs an offense in the winter. But in the Kurundī, it is said, “Without withdrawing it on the full moon day of Kattika, he incurs an offense in the winter.” That is well said. For it is said, “Determine it for four months; after that, make it subject to shared ownership”. There, in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā, a dukkaṭa is stated because of wearing it. But in the Kurundaṭṭhakathā, because of not withdrawing it. Therefore, even according to the method stated in the Kurundī, it is evident that the rain-cloth does not lose its determination even if the rainy season is exceeded. And among the ways of losing determination, the losing of the determination due to expiry of the rainy season month and of illness is not raised even in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā. Therefore, according to the method found in the Samantapāsādikā (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.469), it should be understood that the determination remains until the withdrawal.
45. Atirittappamāṇāya chedanakaṃ pācittiyanti is said as “anatirittappamāṇā”ti. Tato paraṃ paccuddharitvā vikappetabbāti means that after the rainy season, the determination should be removed and reassigned. This indicates that the determination lasts for the four months of the rainy season. If there is no removal, it is not connected to the removal. As stated in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī Aṭṭhakathā (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), “The rainy-season robe is relinquished even after the rainy season, or when the illness requiring it has subsided.” This is not found in the Samantapāsādikā, and in the Parivāra Aṭṭhakathā, it is said, “An offense is committed in winter, not in summer.” Here, it is not stated that the rainy-season robe, assigned after the full moon of Kattika, is worn in winter. In the Kurundī, it is said, “If not removed by the full moon of Kattika, an offense is committed in winter,” and this is well said. “One should determine for four months, and after that, reassign it.” In the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, a dukkaṭa offense is stated for wearing it beyond the time, while in the Kurundī Aṭṭhakathā, it is stated for not removing it. Therefore, according to the Kurundī, the rainy-season robe does not relinquish its determination even after the rainy season. In cases of relinquishing the determination, the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī Aṭṭhakathā does not mention relinquishing due to the end of the rainy season or the subsiding of illness. Therefore, according to the Samantapāsādikā (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.469), the determination lasts until the removal.
ID293
Nahānatthāya anuññātattā “vaṇṇabhedamattarattāpi cesā vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ. Dve pana na vaṭṭantīti iminā saṅghāṭiādīsupi dutiyaadhiṭṭhānaṃ na ruhati, taṃ atirekacīvaraṃ hotīti dasseti. Mahāpaccariyaṃ cīvaravasena paribhogakiccassa abhāvaṃ sandhāya “anāpattī”ti vuttā senāsanaparibhogatthāya dinnapaccattharaṇe viya. Yaṃ pana “paccattharaṇampi adhiṭṭhātabba”nti vuttaṃ, taṃ senāsanatthāyevāti niyamitaṃ na hoti navasu cīvaresu gahitattā, tasmā attano nāmena adhiṭṭhahitvā nidahitvā parikkhāracoḷaṃ viya yathā tathā viniyujjitamevāti gahetabbaṃ, pāvārokojavoti imesampi paccattharaṇādinā lokepi voharaṇato senāsanaparikkhāratthāya dinnapaccattharaṇato visuṃ gahaṇaṃ kataṃ. Sace avasāne aparāvassikasāṭikā uppannā hoti, purimavassikasāṭikaṃ paccuddharitvā vikappetvā adhiṭṭhātabbāti vadanti.
Since it is allowed for bathing, it says “even if it is only a difference in color, it is permissible”. “But two are not permissible” indicates that a second determination does not hold even for the saṅghāṭi and so forth; it becomes an extra robe—this is shown. In the Mahāpaccarī, “no offense” is said with reference to the absence of use as a robe, like a mat given for dwelling use. What is said, “A mat too should be determined,” is specified for dwelling use, not necessarily limited, as it is included among the nine robes; thus, it should be understood that determining it under one’s own name and storing it can be used as requisite rags in any way. Since pāvāraka and ojavaka are also used popularly with mats and so forth, they are distinguished from mats given for dwelling requisites. If another rain cloth arises at the end, they say the earlier rain cloth should be retracted, assigned, and determined.
Because it is allowed for bathing, it is said, “vaṇṇabhedamattarattāpi cesā vaṭṭatī”ti (even if it is only discolored and dyed, it is allowable). With Dve pana na vaṭṭantīti (but two are not allowable), it shows that even in the case of the outer robe, etc., a second determination is not appropriate; it becomes an extra robe. In the Mahāpaccari, with reference to absence of the duty of using it as a robe, it is said ‘there is no offence’, like in the case of a spread given for the use of lodgings. But what is said, “Even a spread should be determined” is not restricted to lodgings only, because it is included among the nine robes; therefore, having determined it in one’s own name and kept it, like a requisites-cloth, it should be understood that it is used in whatever way is appropriate. Pāvārokojavoti (cloak and rug) - because these are also commonly called by names like ‘spread’ etc., a distinction is made from a spread given for the use of lodging requisites. If another rain-cloth arises at the end, it is said that one should withdraw the previous rain-cloth, make it subject to shared ownership, and determine [the new one].
Because bathing is allowed, “vaṇṇabhedamattarattāpi cesā vaṭṭatī”ti is said. Dve pana na vaṭṭantīti means that a second determination does not apply to the saṅghāṭi and other robes, indicating that it becomes an extra robe. The Mahāpaccarī states that there is no offense for using robes not intended for personal use, like a mat given for the use of a dwelling. The statement “paccattharaṇampi adhiṭṭhātabba”nti is not restricted to the use of dwellings, as it is included among the nine robes. Therefore, one should determine it in one’s own name and store it like a parikkhāra cloth, using it as needed. Pāvārokojavoti refers to the common usage of mats and other items for the purpose of dwelling accessories, separate from those given for the dwelling. If an additional rainy-season robe arises at the end, some say that the previous rainy-season robe should be removed, reassigned, and determined.
ID294
Nisīdanamhi pamāṇayuttanti “dīghato sugatavidatthiyā dve vidatthiyo, vitthārato diyaḍḍhaṃ, dasā vidatthī”tiiminā pamāṇena yuttaṃ, taṃ pana majjhimapurisahatthasaṅkhātena vaḍḍhakīhatthena dīghato tihatthaṃ hoti, vitthārato chaḷaṅgulādhikadvihatthaṃ, dasā vidatthādhikahatthaṃ, idāni manussānaṃ pakatihatthena dīghato vidatthādhikacatuhatthaṃ hoti, vitthārato navaṅgulādhikatihatthaṃ, dasā chaḷaṅgulādhikadvihatthā, tato ūnaṃ vaṭṭati, na adhikaṃ “taṃ atikkāmayato chedanakaṃ pācittiya”nti (pāci. 533) vuttattā. Kaṇḍupaṭicchādiyā pamāṇikāti “dīghato catasso vidatthiyo sugatavidatthiyā, tiriyaṃ dve vidatthiyo”ti (pāci. 538) vuttattā evaṃ vuttappamāṇayuttā, sā pana vaḍḍhakīhatthena dīghato chahatthā hoti, vitthārato tihatthā, idāni pakatihatthena pana dīghato navahatthā hoti, tiriyato vidatthādhikacatuhatthāti veditabbā. Vikappanūpagapacchimacīvarappamāṇaṃ parikkhāracoḷanti ettha pana vikappanūpagapacchimacīvarappamāṇaṃ nāma sugataṅgulena dīghato aṭṭhaṅgulaṃ hoti, tiriyato caturaṅgulaṃ, vaḍḍhakīhatthena dīghato ekahatthaṃ hoti, tiriyato vidatthippamāṇaṃ, idāni pakatihatthena pana dīghato vidatthādhikahatthaṃ hoti, tiriyato chaḷaṅgulādhikavidatthippamāṇaṃ. Tenāha “tassa pamāṇa”ntiādi.
For a sitting cloth, “of proper measure” means suited to the measure “two Sugata spans in length, one and a half in width, with a border of one span,” which, by the carpenter’s hand reckoned as a middling man’s hand, is three hands long, two hands and six fingers wide, and a hand plus a border; now, by an ordinary man’s hand, it is four hands plus a span long, three hands plus nine fingers wide, and two hands plus six fingers for the border—less than this is permissible, not more, as it says, “Exceeding that incurs a pācittiya offense for cutting” (pāci. 533). For an itch-covering cloth, “of standard measure” means suited to the measure stated as “four Sugata spans in length, two spans across” (pāci. 538); by the carpenter’s hand, it is six hands long, three hands wide; now, by an ordinary hand, it is nine hands long, four hands plus a span across—this should be understood. “Requisite rags of the last robe suitable for assignment”—here, the measure of the last robe suitable for assignment is eight Sugata fingers long, four fingers wide; by the carpenter’s hand, it is one hand long, a span wide; now, by an ordinary hand, it is one hand plus a span long, a span plus six fingers wide. Hence it says “its measure” and so forth.
In the case of the sitting cloth, pamāṇayuttanti (having a size) - being endowed with the measure of “two vidatthi of the Sugata-vidatthi in length, one and a half in breadth, a border of a vidatthi”. But that is three hands in length, by the carpenter’s hand, which is known as the average man’s hand, two hands and six fingers in breadth, the border one hand. Nowadays, with the natural hand of men, it is four hands and a vidatthi in length, three hands and nine fingers in breadth, the border two hands and six fingers. Less than that is allowable, but not more, because it is said, “if he exceeds that, there is a cutting-off pācittiya” (pāci. 533). The itch-covering cloth etc., are pamāṇikāti (of proper size) - because it is said, “four vidatthi in length of the Sugata-vidatthi, two vidatthi across” (pāci. 538), endowed with the measure thus stated. But that is six hands in length by the carpenter’s hand, three hands in breadth. Nowadays, with the natural hand, it is nine hands in length, four hands and a vidatthi across, it should be understood. Vikappanūpagapacchimacīvarappamāṇaṃ parikkhāracoḷanti (a requisites-cloth which is the minimum size of a robe that can be subject to shared ownership), but here the minimum size of a robe that can be subject to shared ownership is eight fingers in length of the Sugata-finger, four fingers across. By the carpenter’s hand, it is one hand in length, a vidatthi in breadth. Nowadays, with the natural hand, it is a hand and a vidatthi in length, a vidatthi and six fingers in breadth. Therefore, he says “tassa pamāṇa”nti, etc.
In the case of the sitting cloth, pamāṇayuttanti means “lengthwise, two sugata spans; widthwise, one and a half spans; ten spans in total.” This measure is equivalent to the middle-sized man’s hand, being three cubits in length, two and a half cubits in width, and ten spans in total. Nowadays, for ordinary people, it is four spans and a bit in length, three spans and nine inches in width, and two spans and six inches in total. Exceeding this is not allowed, as stated, “Exceeding this incurs a pācittiya offense” (pāci. 533). For the kaṇḍupaṭicchādi, pamāṇikāti means “lengthwise, four sugata spans; widthwise, two spans” (pāci. 538). This measure is six cubits in length and three cubits in width for a carpenter’s hand, but for an ordinary person, it is nine cubits in length and four spans and a bit in width. Vikappanūpagapacchimacīvarappamāṇaṃ parikkhāracoḷanti refers to a measure of eight sugata inches in length and four inches in width, equivalent to one cubit in length and one span in width for a carpenter’s hand, but for an ordinary person, it is one span and a bit in length and one span and six inches in width. Hence, it is said, “tassa pamāṇa”ntiādi.
ID295
Bhesajjatthāyātiādīsu attano santakabhāvato mocetvā ṭhapitaṃ sandhāya “anadhiṭṭhitepi natthi āpattī”ti vuttaṃ, “idaṃ bhesajjatthāya, idaṃ mātuyā”ti vibhajitvā sakasantakabhāvato mocetvā ṭhapentena adhiṭṭhānakiccaṃ natthīti adhippāyo. “Iminā bhesajjaṃ cetāpessāmi, idaṃ mātuyā dassāmī”ti ṭhapentena pana adhiṭṭhātabbamevāti vadanti. Senāsanaparikkhāratthāya dinnapaccattharaṇeti ettha anivāsetvā apārupitvā kevalaṃ mañcapīṭhesuyeva attharitvā paribhuñjiyamānaṃ paccattharaṇaṃ attano santakampi anadhiṭṭhātuṃ vaṭṭatīti vadanti, heṭṭhā pana paccattharaṇampi adhiṭṭhātabbamevāti avisesena vuttattā attano santakaṃ adhiṭṭhātabbamevāti amhākaṃ khanti, vīmaṃsitvā gahetabbaṃ. Tante ṭhitaṃyeva adhiṭṭhātabbanti ettha pacchā vītaṭṭhānaṃ adhiṭṭhitameva hoti, puna adhiṭṭhānakiccaṃ natthi. Sace pana paricchedaṃ dassetvā antarantarā vītaṃ hoti, puna adhiṭṭhātabbanti vadanti. Eseva nayoti vikappanūpagappamāṇamatte vīte tante ṭhitaṃyeva adhiṭṭhātabbanti attho.
In “for medicine” and so forth, referring to something set aside free from ownership, it says “even if undetermined, there is no offense”, meaning there is no need for determination when setting it aside, distinguishing it as “this is for medicine, this is for the mother,” free from personal ownership—this is the intent. But they say it must be determined if set aside with “I will procure medicine with this, I will give this to the mother.” “A mat given for dwelling requisites”—they say it is permissible not to determine a mat used only by spreading it on a bed or seat without wearing or covering, even if it is one’s own; but since it was stated generally below that a mat too must be determined, we prefer that one’s own must be determined—this should be investigated and understood. “It should be determined while still on the loom”—here, what is woven afterward is considered determined; there is no further need for determination. But if it is woven with sections marked in between, they say it must be determined again. “The same method” means it should be determined while still on the loom only for the measure suitable for assignment—this is the meaning.
In Bhesajjatthāyāti, etc., with reference to what has been set aside having released it from one’s possession, it is said, “anadhiṭṭhitepi natthi āpattī”ti (even if it is not determined, there is no offense). The meaning is that there is no need for determination by one who sets it aside having divided it and released it from his possession, saying “This is for medicine, this is for my mother”. But it is said that one should determine it if he sets it aside, saying “With this, I will buy medicine; this, I will give to my mother.” Senāsanaparikkhāratthāya dinnapaccattharaṇeti (in the case of a spread given for the use of lodging requisites) - here, it is said that even a spread which one owns, and which is being used only as a spread on beds and chairs, without being worn or clothed, it is allowable not to determine. But below, because it is generally stated that even a spread should be determined, our inclination is that one’s own property should be determined. One should understand after investigating. Tante ṭhitaṃyeva adhiṭṭhātabbanti (while it is still on the loom it should be determined) - here, what is woven afterwards is already determined; there is no need for a further determination. But if, having shown the extent, it is woven intermittently, it is said that one must determine it again. Eseva nayoti (the same method) - the meaning is that even if only the size of the [minimum] amount subject to shared ownership is woven, one should determine it while it is still on the loom.
Bhesajjatthāyātiādīsu refers to setting aside something for medicine, and thus “anadhiṭṭhitepi natthi āpattī”ti is said. The intention is that there is no duty to determine something set aside for medicine or for one’s mother after relinquishing ownership. However, if one sets aside something with the intention, “I will use this for medicine,” or “I will give this to my mother,” it must be determined. Senāsanaparikkhāratthāya dinnapaccattharaṇeti refers to a mat used for dwelling accessories without being worn or used as clothing, but simply spread on a bed or seat. Some say that even one’s own property need not be determined in this case, but earlier it was stated generally that a mat must be determined, so we hold that one’s own property must be determined. Tante ṭhitaṃyeva adhiṭṭhātabbanti means that if it is later relinquished, it is already determined, and there is no need to determine it again. However, if it is relinquished intermittently, it must be determined again. Eseva nayoti means that if it is relinquished within the measure of vikappanūpaga, it must be determined again.
ID296
46. “Hīnāyāvattanenāti ’sikkhaṃ appaccakkhāya gihibhāvūpagamanenā’ti tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ, taṃ yuttaṃ aññassa dāne viya cīvare nirālayabhāveneva pariccattattā. Keci pana ’hīnāyāvattanenāti bhikkhuniyā gihibhāvūpagamanenevāti etamatthaṃ gahetvā bhikkhu pana vibbhamantopi yāva sikkhaṃ na paccakkhāti, tāva bhikkhuyevāti adhiṭṭhānaṃ na vijahatī’ti vadanti, taṃ na gahetabbaṃ ’bhikkhuniyā hīnāyāvattanenā’ti visesetvā avuttattā. Bhikkhuniyā hi gihibhāvūpagamanena adhiṭṭhānavijahanaṃ visuṃ vattabbaṃ natthi tassā vibbhamaneneva assamaṇībhāvato. Sikkhāpaccakkhānenāti pana idaṃ sace bhikkhuliṅge ṭhitova sikkhaṃ paccakkhāti, tassa kāyalaggampi cīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhānaṃ vijahatīti dassanatthaṃ vutta”nti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.469) vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.469) pana “hīnāyāvattanenāti idaṃ antimavatthuṃ ajjhāpajjitvā bhikkhupaṭiññāya ṭhitassa ceva titthiyapakkantassa ca bhikkhuniyā ca bhikkhunibhāve nirapekkhatāya gihiliṅgatitthiyaliṅgaggahaṇaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Sikkhaṃ appaccakkhāya gihibhāvūpagamanaṃ sandhāya vuttanti keci vadanti, taṃ na yuttaṃ, tadāpi tassa upasampannattā cīvarassa ca tassa santakattā vijahanato”ti vuttaṃ, iti imāni dve vacanāni aññamaññaviruddhāni hutvā dissanti.
46. “By hīnāyāvattana” means “by going to the lay state without renouncing the training,” as stated in all three knotty passages, which is reasonable, just as in the giving of another’s property, since the robe is relinquished due to its state of non-attachment. However, some say, “Hīnāyāvattana means only a bhikkhunī’s going to the lay state,” taking this meaning and asserting, “Even if a bhikkhu falls away, as long as he does not renounce the training, he remains a bhikkhu and does not abandon the determination (adhiṭṭhāna).” This should not be accepted, as it is not stated with the qualification “by a bhikkhunī’s hīnāyāvattana.” For a bhikkhunī, there is no need to separately state the abandonment of determination through going to the lay state, since she becomes a non-ascetic simply by falling away. “By sikkhāpaccakkhāna,” however, is said to show that if one renounces the training while still bearing the bhikkhu’s mark, even the robe attached to the body abandons its determination, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.469). In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.469), however, it is said: “Hīnāyāvattana refers to one who, after committing the final offense, remains under the bhikkhu’s claim, or one who has gone over to the sectarians, or a bhikkhunī who, without attachment to her bhikkhunī state, takes up the lay or sectarian mark. Some say it refers to going to the lay state without renouncing the training, but this is not fitting, since even then he remains fully ordained and the robe remains his property, thus there is abandonment.” Thus, these two statements appear contradictory to each other.
46. “By reverting to the lower state” means ‘by not giving up the training and becoming a layman,’ as stated in all three gaṇṭhipadas. This is appropriate, as it’s like giving away something else, there is a relinquishment of the robe due to the very absence of attachment. Some, however, taking the meaning to be “by a bhikkhuni reverting to the lower state,” that is to say by a bhikkhuni adopting the status of a layperson, say, “As for a bhikkhu, even if he wanders, as long as he does not disavow the training, he does not abandon the precept, for he remains a bhikkhu.” This should not be accepted, for it does not say that the case of a bhikkhuni’s reversion is specified. There is no need to speak separately about the abandoning of a precept by a bhikkhuni becoming a layperson, because by the very act of wandering off, she becomes a non-ascetic. “By disavowing the training,” this is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. 2.469) to show that if one disavows the training while still in the guise of a bhikkhu, the robe that is attached to the body abandons the determination. But in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. ṭī. 1.469) it is said, “by reverting to the lower state,” This is said in reference to one in the guise of a bhikkhu, who claims to be a bhikkhu, and one who has gone over to another sect after committing a final offense, and regarding a bhikkhuni’s lack of concern for the status of a bhikkhuni and taking on the guise of a layperson or one of another sect. Some say this statement refers to abandoning the precepts without disavowing the training, and becoming a householder. This is not correct, because, even in that case, he is fully ordained, and since the robe belongs to him, it is abandoned.” Thus, these two statements seem to contradict each other.
46. “Hīnāyāvattanenāti** means ‘by reverting to a lower state without renouncing the training,’ as stated in the three sections of the Vinaya. This is appropriate because, like giving away a robe, it is relinquished without attachment. Some, however, say, ‘Hīnāyāvattanenā means a bhikkhunī reverting to the householder state, and even if a bhikkhu disrobes, as long as he does not renounce the training, he remains a bhikkhu,’ but this should not be accepted because it is not specifically stated that ‘hīnāyāvattanenā’ applies only to a bhikkhunī. For a bhikkhunī, reverting to the householder state inherently means abandoning her status, as she ceases to be a monastic by disrobing. Sikkhāpaccakkhānenā means that if a bhikkhu renounces the training while still in the state of a bhikkhu, even the robe he is wearing is relinquished, as explained in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.469). The Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.469) states, “Hīnāyāvattanenā refers to one who, after committing the final offense, remains a bhikkhu or a bhikkhunī who has no regard for her status as a bhikkhunī and adopts the appearance of a householder or a sectarian. Some say it refers to reverting to the householder state without renouncing the training, but this is not correct, as even then, being ordained, the robe is relinquished due to its ownership.’ Thus, these two statements appear contradictory.
ID297
Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana “hīnāyāvattanena sikkhāpaccakkhānenā”ti (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.469) visuṃ vuttattā hīnāyāvattante sati sikkhaṃ appaccakkhantepi cīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhānaṃ vijahati, sikkhaṃ paccakkhante sati hīnāya anāvattantepīti adhippāyo dissati, tasmā sikkhaṃ appaccakkhāya kevalaṃ gihibhāvaṃ upagacchantassa kiñcāpi bhikkhubhāvo atthi, cīvarassa ca tassa santakattā vijahanaṃ, tathāpi “hīnāyāvattanenā”ti vuttattā gihibhāvūpagamaneneva adhiṭṭhānavijahanaṃ siyā yathā taṃ liṅgaparivattanena. Gihibhāvaṃ anupagantvā ca kevalaṃ sikkhāpaccakkhānaṃ karontassa kiñcāpi bhikkhuliṅgaṃ atthi, cīvarassa ca tassa santakattā vijahanaṃ, tathāpi “sikkhāpaccakkhānenā”ti vuttattā sikkhāpaccakkhāneneva adhiṭṭhānavijahanaṃ siyā yathā taṃ paccuddharaṇe, tasmā bhikkhu vā hotu bhikkhunī vā, hīnāyāvattissāmīti cittena gihiliṅgaggahaṇena cīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhānaṃ vijahati. Sikkhāpaccakkhānena pana bhikkhusseva cīvaraṃ bhikkhuniyā sikkhāpaccakkhānābhāvāti ayamamhākaṃ khanti. Antimavatthuajjhāpannakatitthiyapakkantakānaṃ pana cīvarassa adhiṭṭhānavijahanaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ anāgatattā tesañca hīnāyāvattānavohārābhāvā vicāretabbaṃ.
In the Aṭṭhakathā, however, since “by hīnāyāvattana and by sikkhāpaccakkhāna” (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.469) are stated separately, it seems the intent is that when there is hīnāyāvattana, the robe abandons its determination even without renouncing the training, and when there is renouncing of the training, it does so even without hīnāyāvattana. Therefore, for one who merely goes to the lay state without renouncing the training, although the bhikkhu state remains and the robe is still his property, causing abandonment, nevertheless, since it is said “by hīnāyāvattana,” the abandonment of determination may occur simply by going to the lay state, as in the case of changing one’s mark. For one who renounces the training without going to the lay state, although the bhikkhu mark remains and the robe is still his property, causing abandonment, nevertheless, since it is said “by sikkhāpaccakkhāna,” the abandonment of determination may occur simply by renouncing the training, as in the case of revocation (paccuddharaṇa). Thus, whether it be a bhikkhu or a bhikkhunī, with the thought “I will return to the lower state” and by taking up the lay mark, the robe abandons its determination. By sikkhāpaccakkhāna, however, it is only the bhikkhu’s robe, as there is no sikkhāpaccakkhāna for a bhikkhunī—this is our preference. For those who commit the final offense or go over to the sectarians, the abandonment of the robe’s determination is not mentioned in the Aṭṭhakathā, and since there is no conventional term hīnāyāvattana for them, it should be considered.
However, in the commentary, it says separately, “By reverting to the lower state, and by disavowing the training” (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.469), so the meaning seems to be that when there is a reversion to the lower state, the robe abandons the precept even if one has not disavowed the training, and if the training is disavowed, even if the robe does not revert to the lower state. Therefore, even though a person who has only become a layperson without disavowing the training may still have the status of a bhikkhu and abandonment can occur because the robe belongs to him, still, because it says, “by reverting to the lower state,” the abandonment of the precept can occur just by becoming a layperson, as if by changing that status. And even if one who merely disavows the training without becoming a layperson may still have the outward form of a bhikkhu and abandonment can occur because the robe belongs to him, still, because it says, “by disavowing the training,” the abandonment of the precept can occur by the very disavowal of the training, as if by retracting it. Therefore, whether it is a bhikkhu or a bhikkhuni, if one takes on the guise of a layperson with the intention ‘I will revert to the lower state,’ the robe abandons the precept. But the disavowal of training is only relevant for a bhikkhu’s robe because a bhikkhuni cannot disavow the training, this is our understanding. The commentary does not mention the abandonment of determination of the robes for those who have committed a final offense or have gone over to another sect, and because there is no discussion about the abandonment of the precepts in the lower state for them, it should be investigated.
In the commentary, “hīnāyāvattanena sikkhāpaccakkhānenā” (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.469) is stated separately, indicating that when one reverts to a lower state, even without renouncing the training, the robe is relinquished, and when one renounces the training, even without reverting to a lower state, the robe is relinquished. Therefore, even if one becomes a householder without renouncing the training, the robe is relinquished due to ownership, but “hīnāyāvattanenā” specifically refers to relinquishing the status by adopting the householder state, as in changing one’s appearance. Similarly, if one renounces the training without becoming a householder, the robe is relinquished due to ownership, but “sikkhāpaccakkhānenā” specifically refers to relinquishing the status by renouncing the training, as in withdrawing. Thus, whether a bhikkhu or a bhikkhunī, if one resolves to revert to a lower state and adopts the appearance of a householder, the robe is relinquished. However, for a bhikkhu, the robe is relinquished by renouncing the training, but not for a bhikkhunī, as she does not renounce the training. This is our understanding. For those who have committed the final offense or have left the sect, the relinquishment of the robe is not mentioned in the commentary, so it should be considered separately, as they are not referred to as reverting to a lower state.
ID298
Kaniṭṭhaṅgulinakhavasenāti heṭṭhimaparicchedaṃ dasseti. Orato paratoti ettha ca “orato chiddaṃ adhiṭṭhānaṃ bhindati, parato na bhindatī”ti vuttaṃ. Kathaṃ oraparabhāvo veditabboti? Yathā nadīparicchinne padese manussānaṃ vasanadisābhāge tīraṃ orimaṃ nāma hoti, itaradisābhāge tīraṃ pārimaṃ nāma, tathā bhikkhūnaṃ nivāsanapārupanaṭṭhānabhūtaṃ cīvarassa majjhaṭṭhānaṃ yathāvuttavidatthiādippamāṇassa padesassa oraṃ nāma, cīvarapariyantaṭṭhānaṃ paraṃ nāma, iti lokato vā yathā ca orato bhogaṃ parato antaṃ katvā cīvaraṃ ṭhapetabbanti vutte bhikkhuno abhimukhaṭṭhānaṃ oraṃ nāma, itaraṭṭhānaṃ paraṃ nāma, evaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ nivāsanapārupanaṭṭhānaṃ oraṃ nāma, itaraṃ paraṃ nāma. Evaṃ sāsanato vā oraparabhāvo veditabbo. Teneva yo pana dubbalaṭṭhāne paṭhamaṃ aggaḷaṃ datvā pacchā dubbalaṭṭhānaṃ chinditvā apaneti, adhiṭṭhānaṃ na bhijjati. Maṇḍalaparivattanepi eseva nayoti sakalasmiṃ cīvare adhiṭṭhānabhijjanābhijjanabhāvo dassito. Tena vuttaṃ vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.469) “esa nayoti iminā pamāṇayuttesu yattha katthaci chidde adhiṭṭhānaṃ vijahatītiādiatthaṃ saṅgaṇhātī”ti.
“By the edge of the smallest fingernail” indicates the lower limit. Regarding “from the inside or outside,” it is said: “A hole from the inside breaks the determination (adhiṭṭhāna), but from the outside it does not.” How should the distinction between inside and outside be understood? Just as in a region defined by a river, the shore on the side where people live is called the near shore (orima), and the shore on the other side is called the far shore (pārima), so too the middle part of the robe, which is the place where bhikkhus wear or cover themselves, measured as stated (e.g., a handspan), is called the inside (ora), while the edge of the robe is called the outside (para). Alternatively, in worldly terms, or as when it is said that the robe should be placed with the fold inward and the edge outward, the part facing the bhikkhu is the inside (ora), and the other part is the outside (para). Thus, the bhikkhus’ place of wearing or covering is the inside (ora), and the rest is the outside (para). This is how the distinction between inside and outside should be understood, either from the teaching or otherwise. Therefore, it is said: “If one first attaches a latch at the weak point and later cuts away the weak point and removes it, the determination is not broken. The same applies in the case of turning a circle.” This shows the state of breaking or not breaking the determination throughout the entire robe. Thus, it is said in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.469): “This method includes the meaning that in any hole within the measured portions, the determination is abandoned.”
“By way of the fingernail on the little finger,” this is a way to indicate the lower limit. In “on this side, on that side,” it is stated: “A hole on this side breaks the determination, on that side it does not break it.” How is the difference between this side and that side to be understood? Just as in a region divided by a river, the shore on the side where people live is called the near shore, and the shore on the other side is called the far shore, so too the central part of the robe, which is the place where bhikkhus dwell and wrap themselves, the area up to the aforementioned vidatthi measurement is called the ‘near side’; the area at the edge of the robe is called the ‘far side’. Or, in terms of the world, just as when it is said, “arrange the robe placing the folds on this side and the edge on that side,” the area in front of the bhikkhu is called ‘this side’ and the other area is called ‘that side’, so too the place where bhikkhus dwell and wrap themselves is called ‘this side’, and the other is called ‘that side.’ Thus, the distinction between the near side and the far side should be understood according to the dispensation. Therefore, “If one first places a fastener in a weak spot, and then afterwards cuts and removes the weak spot, the determination is not broken. The same principle applies to changing the circle,” thus is shown the breaking and non-breaking of the determination in the entire robe. Therefore, the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. ṭī. 1.469) states, “By this principle,” that is, the meaning is comprehended that wherever there is a hole in the robes that are of the right size, the determination is abandoned.”
Kaniṭṭhaṅgulinakhavasenāti indicates the lower boundary. Orato paratoti here means “orato chiddaṃ adhiṭṭhānaṃ bhindati, parato na bhindatī” (the determination is broken on the near side, not on the far side). How is the distinction between near and far to be understood? Just as, in a riverbank area, the near bank is called the near side and the far bank is called the far side, so too, for a bhikkhu’s robe, the middle part of the robe, where the measurements such as length and width are determined, is called the near side, and the edge of the robe is called the far side. Alternatively, from the perspective of the world, the near side is where the bhikkhu faces, and the far side is the opposite. Thus, for bhikkhus, the near side is where they wear the robe, and the far side is the opposite. This is how the distinction between near and far is understood from the perspective of the teaching. Therefore, “if one first places a fastening on a weak part and later cuts the weak part, the determination is not broken. The same applies to turning a circle”—this shows how the determination is broken or not broken throughout the robe. Thus, the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.469) states, “this principle” includes the meaning that the determination is relinquished wherever there is a hole, etc.
ID299
Khuddakaṃ cīvaranti muṭṭhipañcakādibhedappamāṇato anūnameva khuddakacīvaraṃ. Mahantaṃ vā khuddakaṃ karotīti ettha tiṇṇaṃ cīvarānaṃ catūsu passesu yasmiṃ padese chiddaṃ adhiṭṭhānaṃ na vijahati, tasmiṃ padese samantato chinditvā khuddakaṃ karontassa adhiṭṭhānaṃ na vijahatīti adhippāyo. Vimativinodaniyaṃ pana vuttaṃ “mahantaṃ vā khuddakaṃ vā karotīti ettha atimahantaṃ cīvaraṃ muṭṭhipañcakādipacchimappamāṇayuttaṃ katvā samantato chindanenapi vicchindanakāle chijjamānaṭṭhānaṃ chiddasaṅkhaṃ na gacchati, adhiṭṭhānaṃ na vijahati evāti sijjhati, ’ghaṭetvā chindati na bhijjatī’ti vacanena ca sameti. Parikkhāracoḷaṃ pana vikappanūpagapacchimappamāṇato ūnaṃ katvā chiddaṃ adhiṭṭhānaṃ vijahati adhiṭṭhānassa anissayattā, tāni puna baddhāni ghaṭitāni puna adhiṭṭhātabbamevāti veditabbaṃ. Keci pana ’vassikasāṭikacīvare dvidhā chinne yadipi ekekaṃ khaṇḍaṃ pacchimappamāṇaṃ hoti, ekasmiṃyeva khaṇḍe adhiṭṭhānaṃ tiṭṭhati, na itarasmiṃ, dve pana na vaṭṭantī’ti vuttattā nisīdanakaṇḍupaṭicchādīsupi eseva nayoti vadantī”ti.
“A small robe” refers to a robe smaller than the measure of five handfuls or other divisions. “Making it large or small” means that for any of the three robes, in the region of the four sides where a hole does not cause the determination to be abandoned, if one cuts all around that region to make it small, the determination is not abandoned—this is the intent. In the Vimativinodanī, however, it is said: “Regarding ‘making it large or small,’ even if an overly large robe is made to conform to the final measure of five handfuls and cut all around, the part being cut at the time of cutting does not count as a hole, and the determination is not abandoned. This is consistent with the statement ‘if it is joined and cut, it is not broken.’ However, for an accessory cloth smaller than the final measure suitable for designation, a hole causes the determination to be abandoned due to the lack of support for the determination. If they are joined again, they must be re-determined. Some say, ‘If a rains robe is cut in two, even though each piece meets the final measure, the determination remains in only one piece, not the other, and two are not valid.’ Thus, the same applies to a sitting cloth or a cover.”
“Small robe” refers only to a robe that is no smaller than five handfuls and so forth. In “makes a large one or a small one,” the intention is that one who shortens a robe on all four sides by cutting off the sections where a hole does not nullify the determination, the determination of the robe is not broken. However, the Vimativinodanī states “makes a large one or a small one,” in this instance, even if one makes a very large robe into one with the final dimensions of five handfuls, etc., by cutting around it, at the time of cutting, the area being cut does not count as a hole, and the determination is not abandoned. This is also consistent with the statement, “if he joins and cuts it, it is not broken.” As for a parikkhāracoḷa (a cloth for general use), by making it smaller than the final dimensions which cannot be formally shared, a hole abandons the determination, because it is not suitable for determination. Those which are fastened again and joined should be determined again. Some say that “when a rains-bathing cloth is cut in two, even though each piece is of the final allowable size, the determination remains only in one piece, not in the other, and two are not allowed”, so the same applies for sitting cloths, cloths for wiping the body, and so on.
Khuddakaṃ cīvaranti refers to a small robe, such as one measuring a fistful or five finger-widths. Mahantaṃ vā khuddakaṃ karotīti means that if one cuts a large robe into a small one by cutting around the edges where the determination is not relinquished, the determination is not relinquished. The Vimativinodanī states, “mahantaṃ vā khuddakaṃ vā karotīti means that even if one cuts an excessively large robe into a fistful or five finger-widths by cutting around the edges, the place where it is cut does not count as a hole, and the determination is not relinquished. This is consistent with the statement, ‘if one cuts after joining, it is not broken.’ However, if one reduces a parikkhāra robe below the minimum measurement, the determination is relinquished due to the lack of support for the determination, but those pieces must be reattached and redetermined. Some say, ‘if a rains-bathing robe is cut in two, and each piece meets the minimum measurement, the determination remains on one piece but not the other, and two pieces are not valid.’ The same applies to sitting cloths and coverings.
ID300
47. Sammukhe pavattā sammukhāti paccattavacanaṃ, tañca vikappanāvisesanaṃ, tasmā “sammukhe”ti bhummatthe nissakkavacanaṃ katvāpi atthaṃ vadanti, abhimukheti attho. Atha vā sammukhena attano vācāya eva vikappanā sammukhāvikappanā. Parammukhena vikappanā parammukhāvikappanāti karaṇatthenapi attho daṭṭhabbo. Ayameva pāḷiyā sameti. Sannihitāsannihitabhāvanti āsannadūrabhāvaṃ. Ettāvatā nidhetuṃ vaṭṭatīti ettakeneva vikappanākiccassa niṭṭhitattā atirekacīvaraṃ na hotīti dasāhātikkame nissaggiyaṃ na janetīti adhippāyo. Paribhuñjituṃ…pe… na vaṭṭatīti sayaṃ apaccuddhāraṇaparibhuñjane pācittiyaṃ, adhiṭṭhahane paresaṃ vissajjane ca dukkaṭañca sandhāya vuttaṃ. Paribhogādayopi vaṭṭantīti paribhogavissajjanaadhiṭṭhānāni vaṭṭanti. Api-saddena nidhetumpi vaṭṭatīti attho. Etena paccuddhārepi kate cīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhātukāmena vikappitacīvarameva hoti, na atirekacīvaraṃ, taṃ pana ticīvarādināmena adhiṭṭhātukāmena adhiṭṭhahitabbaṃ, itarena vikappitacīvarameva katvā paribhuñjitabbanti dasseti.
47. “In the presence” (sammukhā) is in the nominative case, qualifying designation (vikappanā), so some explain the meaning by taking “in the presence” (sammukhe) as a locative in the sense of a base. Alternatively, sammukhāvikappanā means designation by one’s own speech in the presence, and parammukhāvikappanā means designation in absence, which can also be understood in the instrumental sense. This aligns with the Pali text. “Proximity or non-proximity” refers to being near or far. “To this extent it is allowable to store” means that with this alone, the task of designation is completed, so it does not become an extra robe, and thus does not incur a nissaggiya offense after ten days—this is the intent. “It is not allowable to use, etc.” refers to a pācittiya offense for using it oneself without revocation, and a dukkaṭa offense for determining or giving it to others. “Use and so forth are allowable” means using, giving away, and determining are permissible. The word api implies that storing is also allowable. This shows that even after revocation, one desiring to determine the robe makes it a designated robe, not an extra robe, but if desiring to determine it under the name of the three robes or otherwise, it must be determined accordingly; otherwise, it should be used as a merely designated robe.
47. “Existing in front” is sammukhā, this is a present participle, which qualifies ‘sharing.’ Therefore, they also say, “‘in front of’ means ‘in the presence of,’ taking it as an ablative in the sense of the locative.” The meaning is ‘facing’. Or, sharing with one’s own words is sammukhāvikappanā. Sharing when not face-to-face is parammukhāvikappanā; it should be understood as an instrumental case. This conforms to the Pāḷi. “The state of being near and far,” refers to the condition of being close or distant. “It is allowable to deposit for this long,” means that since the act of sharing is accomplished with just this much, it is not an extra robe, and therefore, it does not become liable to forfeiture after ten days have passed. “It is not allowable to use…” refers to the pācittiya offense for using it oneself without retracting the sharing, and a dukkaṭa offense for giving it away to others, if it has been determined. “Use and so forth are allowable,” use, giving away, and determination are allowable. The word “api” (also) means that it is also allowable to deposit it. This shows that even when the retraction of sharing has been done, a robe that a person intends to determine should be shared, but it is not an extra robe. However, if one intends to determine it with the name of one of the three robes, it should be determined. Otherwise, one should only share it and then use it.
47. Sammukhe pavattā sammukhāti is a personal declaration, and it is a specification for determination. Therefore, even if one uses the locative case “sammukhe” to indicate the ground, the meaning is ‘facing.’ Alternatively, determination made by one’s own words is sammukhāvikappanā, and determination made by another’s words is parammukhāvikappanā. This is the meaning to be understood from the perspective of the action. This is consistent with the Pāli. Sannihitāsannihitabhāvanti refers to proximity or distance. Ettāvatā nidhetuṃ vaṭṭatīti means that since the act of determination is completed with this much, there is no excess robe, and thus no offense of nissaggiya is incurred beyond ten days. Paribhuñjituṃ…pe… na vaṭṭatīti refers to the offense of pācittiya for using the robe without withdrawing the determination, and the offense of dukkaṭa for determining or giving it to another. Paribhogādayopi vaṭṭantīti means that use, giving, and determination are valid. Api-saddena indicates that it is also valid to store. This shows that even if the robe is withdrawn, one should determine the robe that has been determined, not an excess robe. If one wishes to determine it under the name of the three robes, it should be determined as such, but otherwise, one should use the robe after determining it.
ID301
Keci pana “yaṃ vikappitacīvaraṃ, taṃ yāva paribhogakālā apaccuddharāpetvā nidahetabbaṃ, paribhogakāle pana sampatte paccuddharāpetvā adhiṭṭhahitvā paribhuñjitabbaṃ. Yadi hi tato pubbepi paccuddharāpeyya, paccuddhāreneva vikappanāya vigatattā atirekacīvaraṃ nāma hoti, dasāhātikkame patteva nissaggiyaṃ, tasmā yaṃ aparibhuñjitvā ṭhapetabbaṃ, tadeva vikappetabbaṃ. Paccuddhāre ca kate antodasāheyeva adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ. Yañca aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.469) ’tato paraṃ paribhogādi vaṭṭatī’tiādi vuttaṃ, taṃ pāḷiyā virujjhatī”ti vadanti, taṃ tesaṃ matimattameva. Pāḷiyañhi “antodasāhaṃ adhiṭṭheti vikappetī”ti (pārā. 469) ca “sāmaṃ cīvaraṃ vikappetvā apaccuddhāraṇaṃ paribhuñjeyya pācittiya”nti (pāci. 373) ca “anāpatti so vā deti, tassa vā vissāsanto paribhuñjatī”ti (pāci. 376) ca sāmaññato vuttattā, aṭṭhakathāyañca (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.469) “imaṃ cīvaraṃ vā vikappanaṃ vā paccuddharāmī”tiādinā paccuddhāraṃ adassetvā “mayhaṃ santakaṃ paribhuñja vā vissajjehi vā yathāpaccayaṃ karohī”ti evaṃ attano santakattaṃ amocetvāva paribhogādivasena paccuddhārassa vuttattā, “tato pabhuti paribhogādayopi vaṭṭantī”ti adhiṭṭhānaṃ vināpi visuṃ paribhogassa nidhānassa ca vuttattā vikappanānantarameva paccuddharāpetvā anadhiṭṭhahitvā eva ca ticīvararahitaṃ vikappanārahaṃ cīvaraṃ paribhuñjituñca nidahituñca idaṃ pāṭekkaṃ vinayakammanti khāyati. Apica bahūnaṃ pattānaṃ vikappetuṃ paccuddharetuñca vuttattā paccuddhāre tesaṃ atirekapattatā dassitāti sijjhati tesu ekasseva adhiṭṭhātabbato, tasmā aṭṭhakathāyaṃ āgatanayeneva gahetabbaṃ.
Some, however, say: “A designated robe must be stored without being revoked until the time of use; when the time of use arrives, it should be revoked, determined, and used. If it is revoked before that, since the designation ceases with revocation, it becomes an extra robe, incurring a nissaggiya offense after ten days. Thus, only what is to be kept without use should be designated. After revocation, it must be determined within ten days. What is said in the Aṭṭhakathā (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.469), ‘thereafter use and so forth are allowable,’ contradicts the Pali text.” This is merely their opinion. For in the Pali, it says generally: “Within ten days he determines or designates” (pārā. 469), “If he himself designates a robe and uses it without revocation, it is a pācittiya” (pāci. 373), and “There is no offense if he gives it or uses it trustingly” (pāci. 376). In the Aṭṭhakathā (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.469), without specifying revocation as “I revoke this robe or designation” and so forth, it is said, “Use it as my property, give it away, or do as appropriate,” thus stating use and so forth without relinquishing ownership. Since it says, “From then on, use and so forth are allowable,” use and storage are stated separately without determination, it seems that immediately after designation, even without determining, a robe lacking the three-robe status but suitable for designation can be used or stored as a distinct disciplinary act. Moreover, since it is said that many bowls can be designated or revoked, it is shown that after revocation they become extra bowls, yet only one should be determined, so the method given in the Aṭṭhakathā should be accepted.
Some, however, say, “A shared robe should be deposited until the time of use, without being retracted. When the time of use arrives, it should be retracted, determined, and then used. If it were retracted before that, the sharing would be undone by the very retraction, and it would become an extra robe, and as soon as ten days have passed, it would become liable to forfeiture. Therefore, only that which is to be kept without being used should be shared. And when the retraction has been made, it should be determined within ten days. And what is said in the commentary (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.469), ‘after that, use and so forth are allowable’ and so on, contradicts the Pāḷi.” This is only their opinion. For in the Pāḷi it is stated generally, “within ten days, he determines it or shares it” (Pārā. 469), and “if he himself, having shared a robe, uses it without retracting the sharing, it is a pācittiya” (Pāci. 373), and “there is no offense if he himself gives it, or if one uses it trusting him” (Pāci. 376). And in the commentary (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.469), without showing the retraction with “I retract this robe or this sharing” and so on, it speaks of retraction in terms of use etc. without releasing ownership, saying, “use what belongs to me, or give it away, or do as you please,” and “from that time on, use and so forth are also allowable,” it speaks of using and depositing it separately without determination. It is clear that this is a distinct vinaya procedure for using and depositing a robe which is devoid of the three robes and suitable for sharing, right after sharing and without determining it. Moreover, since it is stated that many bowls can be shared and retracted, it is clear that in retracting them, they have the status of extra bowls, as only one of them can be determined. Therefore, one should accept only the way that comes in the commentary.
Some say, ‘a determined robe should be stored until the time of use without withdrawing the determination, but when the time of use arrives, it should be withdrawn and determined before use. If one withdraws it before that, since the determination is withdrawn, it becomes an excess robe, and if ten days pass, it incurs the offense of nissaggiya. Therefore, only what is to be stored without use should be determined. When withdrawn, it should be determined within ten days. What is stated in the commentary (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.469), ‘after that, use, etc., is valid,’ contradicts the Pāli.’ This is merely their opinion. For the Pāli states, ‘one should determine within ten days’ (Pārā. 469), ‘if one uses a robe after determining it without withdrawing it, it is pācittiya’ (Pāci. 373), and ‘there is no offense if he gives it or uses it with confidence’ (Pāci. 376). The commentary (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.469) states, ‘withdrawing the determination by saying, “I withdraw this robe or determination,” and then releasing ownership by saying, “use my possession or give it as you see fit,”’ and after that, use, etc., is valid. Thus, it is clear that after determination, one should withdraw and determine the robe, and then use or store it. This is a separate Vinaya procedure. Moreover, since it is stated that one should determine and withdraw many robes, it is clear that one should determine only one robe at a time. Therefore, the commentary’s method should be followed.
ID302
Mittoti daḷhamitto. Sandiṭṭhoti diṭṭhamatto, na daḷhamitto. Paññattikovido na hotīti evaṃ vikappite anantarameva evaṃ paccuddharitabbanti vinayakammaṃ na jānāti. Tenāha “na jānāti paccuddharitu”nti. Imināpi cetaṃ veditabbaṃ “vikappanāsamanantarameva paccuddhāro kātabbo”ti. Vikappitavikappanā nāmesā vaṭṭatīti adhiṭṭhitaadhiṭṭhānaṃ viyāti adhippāyo.
“Friend” (mitto) means a firm friend. “Acquaintance” (sandiṭṭho) means one merely seen, not a firm friend. “Not skilled in designation” means he does not know the disciplinary act of how to revoke it immediately after designating it thus. Hence it says, “He does not know how to revoke.” This also indicates that revocation should be done immediately after designation. “This designation of a designated robe is allowable” means it is like determining a determined robe—this is the intent.
“Friend” means a close friend. “Acquaintance” is one who has only been seen, not a close friend. “He is not skilled in the precepts” means that he does not know the vinaya procedure, such as retracting the sharing immediately after it has been shared in this way. Therefore, he says, “he does not know how to retract it.” By this, it should be understood that “the retraction should be made immediately after the sharing.” “This is called sharing after sharing, and it is permissible,” the intention is like the case of determination after determination.
Mittoti means a close friend. Sandiṭṭhoti means one who is merely seen, not a close friend. Paññattikovido na hotīti means that one does not know the Vinaya procedure of how to withdraw after determination. Therefore, it is said, “na jānāti paccuddharitu”nti (he does not know how to withdraw). This also indicates that withdrawal should be done immediately after determination. Vikappitavikappanā nāmesā vaṭṭatīti means that determination is like determination.
ID303
48. Evaṃ cīvare adhiṭṭhānavikappanānayaṃ dassetvā idāni patte adhiṭṭhānavikappanānayaṃ dassento “patte panā”tiādimāha. Tattha patati piṇḍapāto etthāti patto, jinasāsanabhāvo bhikkhābhājanaviseso. Vuttañhi “pattaṃ pakkhe dale patto, bhājane so gate tisū”ti, tasmiṃ patte. Panāti pakkhantaratthe nipāto. Nayoti adhiṭṭhānavikappanānayo. Cīvare vuttaadhiṭṭhānavikappanānayato aññabhūto ayaṃ vakkhamāno patte adhiṭṭhānavikappanānayo veditabboti yojanā. Pattaṃ adhiṭṭhahantena pamāṇayuttova adhiṭṭhātabbo, na appamāṇayuttoti sambandho. Tena pamāṇato ūnādhike patte adhiṭṭhānaṃ na ruhati, tasmā tādisaṃ pattaṃ bhājanaparibhogena paribhuñjitabbanti dasseti. Vakkhati hi “ete bhājanaparibhogena paribhuñjitabbā, na adhiṭṭhānūpagā na vikappanūpagā”ti.
48. Having shown the method of determination and designation for robes, now showing the method of determination and designation for bowls, he says, “But in the case of a bowl” and so forth. Therein, a bowl (patta) is that in which almsfood falls, a special vessel in the Conqueror’s teaching. It is said, “A bowl is so called from falling, splitting, or a vessel in three senses.” In that bowl (patte), pana is a particle meaning a different category. “Method” (nayo) means the method of determination and designation. This method of determination and designation for a bowl, which will be explained, should be understood as distinct from the method of determination and designation stated for robes—this is the connection. One determining a bowl must determine only one that conforms to the measure, not one that does not—this is the relation. Thus, determination does not take effect for a bowl smaller or larger than the measure, so such a bowl should be used as a utensil—this is shown. For he will say, “These should be used as utensils, not suitable for determination or designation.”
48. Having thus shown the method of determination and sharing with regard to robes, now, showing the method of determination and sharing regarding bowls, he says “But in the case of bowls,” etc. Herein, that in which almsfood falls (patati) is a bowl (patta), a special type of bowl and feature of the Conqueror’s dispensation. For it is said, “A patta is a leaf of a palm tree, a bowl; in the case of going, it is threefold,” concerning that bowl (patte). Panā is a particle in the sense of ‘on the other hand’. Nayo means the way or method for determination and sharing. This forthcoming method for determination and sharing should be understood to be different from the determination and sharing method with respect to the robe. When determining a bowl, one should only determine one that is of the right size, not one that is not of the right size. Therefore, the determination does not apply to bowls that are smaller or larger than the standard size. Therefore, such a bowl should be used for ordinary eating purposes. He will say, “These should be used for ordinary eating purposes, they are not subject to determination or sharing.”
48. Having explained the method of determining and relinquishing robes, now explaining the method of determining and relinquishing bowls, it is said, “patte panā”ti. Here, ‘patta’ is a bowl, a special vessel for alms in the Buddha’s dispensation. It is said, ‘a bowl is called “patta” when it has two sides, and when it is a vessel, it is called “patta” in three cases.’ Panāti is a particle indicating a transition. Nayoti means the method of determining and relinquishing. This method for bowls is different from that for robes, as will be explained. When determining a bowl, one should determine it according to the proper measurement, not an improper one. Therefore, a bowl that is too small or too large cannot be determined, and such a bowl should be used as a vessel. It is said, ‘these should be used as vessels, not for determination or relinquishment.’
ID304
Dve magadhanāḷiyoti ettha magadhanāḷi nāma yā māgadhikāya tulāya aḍḍhaterasapalaparimitaṃ udakaṃ gaṇhāti. Sīhaḷadīpe pakatināḷito khuddakā hoti, damiḷanāḷito pana mahantā. Vuttañhetaṃ samantapāsādikāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.602) “magadhanāḷi nāma aḍḍhaterasapalā hotīti andhakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ. Sīhaḷadīpe pakatināḷi mahantā, damiḷanāḷi khuddakā, magadhanāḷipamāṇayuttā, tāya magadhanāḷiyā diyaḍḍhanāḷi ekā sīhaḷanāḷi hotīti mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vutta”nti. Atha vā magadhanāḷi nāma yā pañca kuḍuvāni ekañca muṭṭhiṃ ekāya ca muṭṭhiyā tatiyabhāgaṃ gaṇhāti. Vuttañhetaṃ sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.598-602) “magadhanāḷi nāma chapasatā nāḷīti keci. ’Aṭṭhapasatā’ti apare. Tattha purimānaṃ matena tipasatāya nāḷiyā dve nāḷiyo ekā magadhanāḷi hoti. Pacchimānaṃ catupasatāya nāḷiyā dve nāḷiyo ekā magadhanāḷi. Ācariyadhammapālattherena pana pakatiyā catumuṭṭhikaṃ kuḍuvaṃ, catukuḍuvaṃ nāḷikaṃ, tāya nāḷiyā soḷasa nāḷiyo doṇaṃ, taṃ pana magadhanāḷiyā dvādasa nāḷiyo hontīti vuttaṃ, tasmā tena nayena magadhanāḷi nāma pañca kuḍuvāni ekañca muṭṭhiṃ ekāya muṭṭhiyā tatiyabhāgañca gaṇhātīti veditabba”nti. Tattha kuḍuvoti pasato. Vuttañhi abhidhānappadīpikāyaṃ –
“Two Magadhan measures” (dve magadhanāḷiyo)—here, a Magadhan measure (magadhanāḷi) is that which holds water measured at twelve and a half palas by the Magadhan scale. In Sri Lanka, it is smaller than the standard measure but larger than the Tamil measure. This is stated in the Samantapāsādikā (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.602): “A Magadhan measure is said to be twelve and a half palas in the Andhaka commentary. In Sri Lanka, the standard measure is large, the Tamil measure is small, and one conforming to the Magadhan measure—one and a half of such a Magadhan measure is one Sri Lankan measure, as stated in the Great Commentary.” Alternatively, a Magadhan measure is that which holds five kuḍuva, one handful (muṭṭhi), and a third of a handful. This is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.598-602): “A Magadhan measure is six hundred measures, say some; ‘eight hundred,’ say others. According to the former, two measures of three hundred make one Magadhan measure; according to the latter, two measures of four hundred. But the teacher Dhammapāla says a standard kuḍuva is four handfuls, a measure (nāḷika) is four kuḍuva, sixteen such measures make a doṇa, and that is twelve Magadhan measures. Thus, by this method, a Magadhan measure holds five kuḍuva, one handful, and a third of a handful.” Here, kuḍuva means a prastha. For it is said in the Abhidhānappadīpikā—
“Two Magadhan measures (nāḷiyo)” Here, a Magadhan nāḷi is that which holds aḍḍhaterasapala weight of water according to the Magadhan scale. In Sri Lanka, the standard nāḷi is smaller, and the Dravidian nāḷi is larger. It is said in the Samantapāsādikā (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.602), “A Magadhan nāḷi is thirteen and a half palas, as stated in the Andhaka commentary. In Sri Lanka, the standard nāḷi is large, the Dravidian nāḷi is small, conforming to the Magadhan nāḷi measurement. One and a half nāḷis of that Magadhan nāḷi are equal to one Sri Lankan nāḷi, as stated in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā.” Or, a Magadhan nāḷi is that which contains five kuḍavas, one handful, and one-third of a handful. It is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. 2.598-602), “Some say that a Magadhan nāḷi is six hundred nāḷīs. Others say ‘eight hundred.’ According to the former opinion, two nāḷīs of three hundred nāḷīs make one Magadhan nāḷi. According to the latter, two nāḷīs of four hundred nāḷīs make one Magadhan nāḷi. However, the venerable teacher, Dhammapāla Thera, said that a kuḍuva is four handfuls, four kuḍuvas are a nāḷika, and of that nāḷika, sixteen nāḷis are a doṇa, but that is twelve nāḷis by the Magadhan nāḷi. Therefore, according to that method, a Magadhan nāḷi should be understood to contain five kuḍavas, one handful, and one-third of a handful.” Here, kuḍuva means pasata. As it says in the Abhidhānappadīpikā:
Dve magadhanāḷiyoti refers to the Magadhan measure, which is the amount of water held by the Magadhan scale, equivalent to thirteen and a half palas. In Sri Lanka, the natural measure is smaller, while the Tamil measure is larger. It is stated in the Samantapāsādikā (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.602), ‘the Magadhan measure is thirteen and a half palas, as stated in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā. In Sri Lanka, the natural measure is larger, the Tamil measure is smaller, and the Magadhan measure is appropriate. One and a half Magadhan measures equal one Sinhalese measure, as stated in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā.’ Alternatively, the Magadhan measure is five kuḍuvas and one-third of a fistful. It is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.598-602), ‘the Magadhan measure is six hundred nāḷīs according to some, or eight hundred nāḷīs according to others. According to the former, two nāḷīs make one Magadhan measure, and according to the latter, two nāḷīs make one Magadhan measure. The elder Dhammapāla states that four fistfuls make one kuḍuva, four kuḍuvas make one nāḷī, sixteen nāḷīs make one doṇa, and twelve nāḷīs make one Magadhan measure. Therefore, the Magadhan measure is five kuḍuvas and one-third of a fistful.’ Here, ‘kuḍuva’ means a measure. It is stated in the Abhidhānappadīpikā—
ID305
“Kuḍuvo pasato eko; Pattho te caturo siyuṃ; Āḷhako caturo patthā; Doṇaṃ vā caturāḷhaka”nti.
“A kuḍuva is one prastha; a pattha is four of these; an āḷhaka is four pattha; a doṇa is four āḷhaka.”
“One kuḍuva is a pasata; Four of those are a pattha; Four patthas are an āḷhaka; Four āḷhakas are a doṇa.”
“Kuḍuvo pasato eko; Pattho te caturo siyuṃ; Āḷhako caturo patthā; Doṇaṃ vā caturāḷhaka”nti (One kuḍuva is a measure; four patthas make one āḷhaka; four āḷhakas make one doṇa).
ID306
Atha vā magadhanāḷi nāma yā catukuḍuvāya nāḷiyā catasso nāḷiyo gaṇhāti. Vuttañhetaṃ vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.602) “damiḷanāḷīti purāṇakanāḷiṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Sā ca catumuṭṭhikehi kuḍuvehi aṭṭhakuḍuvā, tāya nāḷiyā dve nāḷiyo magadhanāḷi gaṇhāti, purāṇā pana sīhaḷanāḷi tisso nāḷiyo gaṇhātīti vadanti, tesaṃ matena magadhanāḷi idāni vattamānāya catukuḍuvāya damiḷanāḷiyā catunāḷikā hoti, tato magadhanāḷito upaḍḍhañca purāṇadamiḷanāḷisaṅkhātaṃ patthaṃ nāma hoti, etena ca omako nāma patto patthodanaṃ gaṇhātīti pāḷivacanaṃ sameti. Lokiyehipi –
Alternatively, a Magadhan measure (magadhanāḷi) is that which holds four measures of a four-kuḍuva measure (nāḷi). This is stated in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.602): “Damiḷanāḷi refers to the ancient measure. It is eight kuḍuva of four-handful kuḍuva, and two such measures make a Magadhan measure. They say the ancient Sri Lankan measure holds three measures. According to their view, a Magadhan measure now is four measures of the current four-kuḍuva Tamil measure. Thus, half a Magadhan measure plus the ancient Tamil measure is called a pattha. This aligns with the Pali statement that an omaka bowl holds a patthodana.” In worldly terms too—
Alternatively, the measure of Magadhan nāḷi is that which holds four nāḷis, with one nāḷi being four kuḍavas. This is stated in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.602): “Damiḷanāḷī” refers to the ancient nāḷi. And that is eight kuḍavas, with four muṭṭhis per kuḍava. Two of those nāḷis constitute a Magadhan nāḷi. But some say the ancient Sinhalese nāḷi held three nāḷis. According to their opinion, a Magadhan nāḷi is four nāḷis of the currently used Damiḷa nāḷi of four kuḍavas. Therefore, one-half of the Magadhan nāḷi is what is known as a pattha, which is equivalent to the ancient Damiḷa nāḷi. And with this, the statement in the Pāli, “The smaller bowl is called pattha, which holds a pattha of cooked rice” is consistent. In worldly usage also –
Alternatively, the Magadha nāḷi refers to a measure that takes four nāḷis from a four-kuḍuva nāḷi. This is stated in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.602): “Damiḷanāḷī” refers to an ancient nāḷi. That nāḷi, with four muṭṭhis per kuḍuva, amounts to eight kuḍuvas. The Magadha nāḷi takes two nāḷis from that nāḷi, while the ancient Sinhala nāḷi takes three nāḷis, according to some. Thus, according to their view, the current four-kuḍuva Damiḷa nāḷi is equivalent to four nāḷis, and half of that is called a pattha, which is recognized as the ancient Damiḷa nāḷi measure. This aligns with the Pāli statement that a small bowl called omaka takes a pattha of rice. Even in the world—
ID307
’Lokiyaṃ magadhañceti, patthadvayamudāhaṭaṃ; Lokiyaṃ soḷasapalaṃ, māgadhaṃ diguṇaṃ mata’nti. (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.602) –
“In worldly terms, Magadhan and so forth, two pattha are mentioned; a worldly one is sixteen palas, a Magadhan one is considered double.” (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.602)—
‘The worldly and the Magadhan, are said to be two patthas; The worldly is sixteen palas, the Magadhan is considered double.’ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.602) –
‘The worldly measure and the Magadha measure are both recognized; the worldly measure is sixteen palas, and the Magadha measure is double that.’ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.602)—
ID308
Evaṃ loke nāḷiyā magadhanāḷi diguṇāti dassitā. Evañca gayhamāne omakapattassa ca yāpanamattodanagāhikā ca siddhā hoti. Na hi sakkā aṭṭhakuḍuvato ūnodanagāhinā pattena athūpīkataṃ piṇḍapātaṃ pariyesitvā yāpetuṃ. Teneva vuttaṃ verañjakaṇḍaṭṭhakathāyaṃ ’pattho nāma nāḷimattaṃ hoti, ekassa purisassa alaṃ yāpanāyā’ti”. Vuttampi hetaṃ jātakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ (jā. aṭṭha. 5.21.192) “patthodano nālamayaṃ duvinna”nti, “ekassa dinnaṃ dvinnaṃ tiṇṇaṃ pahotī”ti ca, tasmā idha vuttanayānusārena gahetabbanti. Ālopassa ālopassa anurūpanti odanassa catubhāgamattaṃ. Vuttañhetaṃ majjhimanikāye brahmāyusuttasaṃvaṇṇanāyaṃ (ma. ni. aṭṭha. 2.387) “byañjanassa mattā nāma odanacatutthabhāgo”ti. Odanagatikānīti odanassa gati gati yesaṃ tāni odanagatikāni. Gatīti ca okāso odanassa antopavisanasīlattā odanassa okāsoyeva tesaṃ okāso hoti, na aññaṃ attano okāsaṃ gavesantīti attho. Bhājanaparibhogenāti udakāharaṇādinā bhājanaparibhogena.
Thus, in the world, a Magadhan measure is shown as double a measure. When taken this way, both an omaka bowl and one capable of holding just enough rice for sustenance are established. For it is not possible to sustain oneself by seeking alms with a bowl holding less than eight kuḍuva of rice without excess. Hence it is said in the Verañjakaṇḍaṭṭhakathā, “A pattha is about a measure, sufficient for one man’s sustenance.” It is also said in the Jātakaṭṭhakathā (jā. aṭṭha. 5.21.192): “A patthodana of bamboo is not enough for two,” and “Given to one, it suffices for two or three.” Thus, it should be accepted according to the method stated here. “Suitable for each morsel” (ālopassa ālopassa anurūpa) means about a quarter portion of rice. This is stated in the Majjhima Nikāya commentary on the Brahmāyusutta (ma. ni. aṭṭha. 2.387): “The measure of a side dish is a fourth of the rice.” “Rice-based” (odanagatikāni) means those whose basis (gati) is rice—gati being the place, since they enter the rice, their place is the rice itself, not seeking another place for themselves—this is the meaning. “By use as a utensil” (bhājanaparibhogena) means use as a utensil, such as fetching water.
Thus, in the world, the Magadhan nāḷi is shown to be double the nāḷi. If this is accepted, then it is established that the smaller bowl can hold just enough food for sustenance. For it is not possible to seek alms with a bowl that holds less than eight kuḍavas of cooked rice, heaped up, and sustain oneself. Therefore, it is said in the commentary to the Verañjakaṇḍa, ‘The bowl is said to be the measure of a nāḷi, it is enough for the sustenance of one man’. It is also said in the Jātaka commentary (jā. aṭṭha. 5.21.192), “A pattha of cooked rice is not enough for two”, and “What is given to one is sufficient for two or three”. Therefore, it should be taken according to the method stated here. Ālopassa ālopassa anurūpa means the amount of one-fourth of the cooked rice. This is stated in the commentary to the Brahmāyu Sutta of the Majjhima Nikāya (ma. ni. aṭṭha. 2.387), “The measure of the side dish is one-fourth of the cooked rice.” Odanagatikānī means those that have the cooked rice as their destination. Gati means occasion. Since cooked rice has the nature of entering within, the occasion of cooked rice is indeed their occasion, they do not seek any other occasion for themselves. Bhājanaparibhogenā means by the use of the bowl for drawing water, etc.
Thus, in the world, the Magadha nāḷi is shown to be double the ordinary nāḷi. When this is accepted, the small bowl’s capacity to hold rice sufficient for sustenance is established. It is not possible for a bowl that takes less than eight kuḍuvas of rice to sustain someone by seeking alms after the meal has been prepared. Therefore, it is stated in the Verañjakaṇḍaṭṭhakathā: ‘A pattha is the measure of a nāḷi, sufficient to sustain one person.’ This is also mentioned in the Jātakaṭṭhakathā (jā. aṭṭha. 5.21.192): ‘A pattha of rice is not enough for two,’ and ‘What is given to one can suffice for two or three.’ Therefore, it should be understood according to the method stated here. Ālopassa ālopassa anurūpa means a quarter portion of rice. This is stated in the commentary on the Brahmāyu Sutta in the Majjhima Nikāya (ma. ni. aṭṭha. 2.387): ‘The measure of the side dish is a quarter portion of rice.’ Odanagatikānī refers to the portions of rice that are distributed. Gatī means the space where the rice is placed, as the rice naturally settles into its space. Thus, the rice’s space is their space; they do not seek another space for themselves. Bhājanaparibhogenā means through the use of vessels such as water containers.
ID309
Evaṃ pamāṇato adhiṭṭhānūpagavikappanūpagapattaṃ dassetvā idāni pākato mūlato ca taṃ dassetuṃ “pamāṇayuttānampī”tiādimāha. Tattha ayopatto pañcahi pākehi pattoti kammārapakkaṃyeva anadhiṭṭhahitvā samaṇasāruppanīlavaṇṇakaraṇatthāya punappunaṃ nānāsambhārehi pacitabbo, ayopattassa atikakkhaḷattā kammārapākena saddhiṃ pañcavārapakkoyeva samaṇasāruppanīlavaṇṇo hoti. Mattikāpatto dvīhi pākehi pakkoti etthāpi eseva nayo. Tassa pana mudukattā kumbhakārakapākena saddhiṃ dvivārapakkopi samaṇasāruppanīlavaṇṇo hoti. Evaṃ katoyeva hi patto adhiṭṭhānūpago vikappanūpago ca hoti, nākato. Tena vakkhati “pāke ca mūle ca suniṭṭhiteyeva adhiṭṭhānūpago hoti. Yo adhiṭṭhānūpago, sveva vikappanūpago”ti (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 48). So hatthaṃ āgatopi anāgatopi adhiṭṭhātabbo vikappetabboti etena dūre ṭhitampi adhiṭṭhātuṃ vikappetuñca labhati, ṭhapitaṭṭhānasallakkhaṇameva pamāṇanti dasseti. Idāni tamevatthaṃ vitthāretumāha “yadi hī”tiādi. Hi-saddo vitthārajotako. Tattha pacitvā ṭhapessāmīti kāḷavaṇṇapākaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ.
Having shown a bowl suitable for determination and designation by measure, now to show it by preparation and origin, he says, “Even those of proper measure” and so forth. Therein, “An iron bowl prepared with five firings” (ayopatto pañcahi pākehi patto) means one fired only by a smith, which must be repeatedly fired with various materials to make it suitable for an ascetic and give it a proper color, because an iron bowl is too hard and, with the smith’s firing, five firings make it suitable and colored for an ascetic. “A clay bowl prepared with two firings” (mattikāpatto dvīhi pākehi pakko) follows the same method. Due to its softness, with the potter’s firing, two firings make it suitable and colored for an ascetic. Only when so prepared is a bowl suitable for determination and designation, not otherwise. Hence he will say, “Only when fully prepared in firing and origin is it suitable for determination. That which is suitable for determination is also suitable for designation” (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 48). “Whether it comes to hand or not, it may be determined or designated” means one can determine or designate it even if it is far away, showing that observing its location is the measure. Now he elaborates this meaning, saying, “For if” and so forth. The word hi indicates elaboration. Therein, “I will prepare and place it” refers to firing for a black color.
Thus, having shown the bowl that can be determined and formally accepted, according to measure, now, to show that in terms of firing and origin, he says “pamāṇayuttānampī” etc. Therein, ayopatto pañcahi pākehi patto, a iron bowl becomes a bowl by being heated five times, only, it is heated repeatedly with various materials to make it a suitable dark color for a recluse, apart from the first firing. Because of the excessive hardness of the iron bowl, only firing it five times, along with the blacksmith’s firing, will result in a dark color suitable for a recluse. Mattikāpatto dvīhi pākehi pakko, the same principle applies here as well. But because of its softness, even firing it twice along with the potter’s firing, it will result in a dark color suitable for a recluse. Indeed, a bowl made in this way is one that can be determined and formally accepted, not one that is not made. Therefore, he will say, “Only when the firing and the origin are well-established does it become determinable. What is determinable is also formally acceptable.” (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 48). So hatthaṃ āgatopi anāgatopi adhiṭṭhātabbo vikappetabbo, by this, he shows that even if it is placed far away, one can determine and formally accept it; it’s only the identifying the place is important. Now, he says “yadi hī” etc. to elaborate on the same matter. The word Hi indicates elaboration. Therein, pacitvā ṭhapessāmī is said with reference to the black-colored firing.
Having thus explained the bowl in terms of measure, adhiṭṭhāna, and vikappana, now it is said “pamāṇayuttānampī” to explain it in terms of its origin and preparation. Here, ayopatto pañcahi pākehi patto means an iron bowl must be repeatedly heated with various materials to achieve a color suitable for a monk, without being consecrated by the blacksmith’s final heating. Due to the extreme hardness of the iron bowl, it requires five heatings to achieve the appropriate color. Mattikāpatto dvīhi pākehi pakko follows the same principle. However, because of its softness, an earthen bowl requires only two heatings with the potter’s final heating to achieve the suitable color. Thus, only a properly made bowl is suitable for adhiṭṭhāna and vikappana, not an improperly made one. Therefore, it is said: ‘Only when the heating and origin are properly completed does it become suitable for adhiṭṭhāna. What is suitable for adhiṭṭhāna is also suitable for vikappana.’ (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 48). So hatthaṃ āgatopi anāgatopi adhiṭṭhātabbo vikappetabbo means that even if the bowl is far away, it can still be consecrated or designated, as the act of placing it in a specific location is the measure. Now, to elaborate on this meaning, it is said “yadi hī”. The word hi serves to elaborate. Here, pacitvā ṭhapessāmī refers to heating until it turns black.
ID310
Idāni pattādhiṭṭhānaṃ dassetumāha “tattha dve pattassa adhiṭṭhānā”tiādi. Tattha sāmantavihāreti idaṃ upalakkhaṇavasena vuttaṃ, tato dūre ṭhitampi adhiṭṭhātabbameva. Ṭhapitaṭṭhānaṃ sallakkhetvāti idampi upacāramattaṃ, pattasallakkhaṇamevettha pamāṇaṃ.
Now to show the determination of a bowl, he says, “Therein, there are two determinations of a bowl” and so forth. Therein, “In a neighboring monastery” (sāmantavihāre) is said by way of example, meaning even one far away must be determined. “Observing the place where it is placed” (ṭhapitaṭṭhānaṃ sallakkhetvā) is also figurative; the observation of the bowl itself is the measure here.
Now, to show the determination of the bowl, he says “tattha dve pattassa adhiṭṭhānā” etc. Therein, sāmantavihāre is said by way of indication, even if it is placed far away, it should still be determined. Ṭhapitaṭṭhānaṃ sallakkhetvā, this too is only a general vicinity, what is important here is the identification of the bowl.
Now, to explain the consecration of the bowl, it is said “tattha dve pattassa adhiṭṭhānā”. Here, sāmantavihāre is said by way of example; even if it is far away, it can still be consecrated. Ṭhapitaṭṭhānaṃ sallakkhetvā is also a mere approximation; the measure here is the recognition of the bowl.
ID311
Idāni adhiṭṭhānavijahanaṃ dassetuṃ “evaṃ appamattassa”tyādimāha. Tattha patte vā chiddaṃ hotīti mukhavaṭṭito heṭṭhā dvaṅgulamattokāsato paṭṭhāya yattha katthaci chiddaṃ hoti.
Now to show the abandonment of determination, he says, “For one not negligent” and so forth. Therein, “Or if there is a hole in the bowl” (patte vā chiddaṃ hoti) means a hole anywhere from two finger-widths below the rim downward.
Now, to show the relinquishment of determination, he says “evaṃ appamattassa” etc. Therein, patte vā chiddaṃ hotī means there is a hole anywhere starting from a space of about two fingerbreadths below the rim.
Now, to explain the abandonment of adhiṭṭhāna, it is said “evaṃ appamattassa”. Here, patte vā chiddaṃ hotī means a hole in the bowl, starting from the rim down to a space of two fingerbreadths.
ID312
Sattannaṃ dhaññānanti –
“Of the seven grains” (sattannaṃ dhaññānaṃ)—
Sattannaṃ dhaññānanti –
Sattannaṃ dhaññāna means—
ID313
“Sāli vīhi ca kudrūso; Godhūmo varako yavo; Kaṅgūti satta dhaññāni; Nīvārādī tu tabbhidā”ti. –
“Rice, paddy, and kudrūsa; wheat, varaka, barley, and kaṅgu—these are the seven grains; nīvāra and others are their variants.”—
“Rice, paddy, and millet; Wheat, varaka, barley; And kaṅgu are the seven grains; Wild rice and others are their varieties.” –
‘Rice, barley, millet, wheat, beans, sesame, and kaṅgu are the seven grains; Nīvāra and others are excluded.’—
ID314
Vuttānaṃ sattavidhānaṃ dhaññānaṃ.
Of the seven kinds of grains mentioned.
Of the seven kinds of grains mentioned.
These are the seven kinds of grains.
ID315
49. Evaṃ pattādhiṭṭhānaṃ dassetvā idāni pattavikappanaṃ dassetuṃ “vikappane panā”tiādimāha. Taṃ cīvaravikappane vuttanayeneva veditabbaṃ.
49. Having shown the determination of a bowl, now to show its designation, he says, “But in designation” and so forth. This should be understood by the method stated for robe designation.
49. Thus, having shown the determination of the bowl, now, to show the formal acceptance of the bowl, he says “vikappane panā” etc. This should be understood in the same way as stated in the formal acceptance of robes.
49. Having explained the consecration of the bowl, now to explain the designation of the bowl, it is said “vikappane panā”. This should be understood in the same way as the designation of robes.
ID316
50. Evaṃ vikappanānayaṃ dassetvā idāni patte bhinne kattabbavidhiṃ dassetumāha “evaṃ adhiṭṭhahitvā”iccādi. Tattha apattoti iminā adhiṭṭhānavijahanampi dasseti. Pañcabandhanepi patte aparipuṇṇapāke patte viya adhiṭṭhānaṃ na ruhati. “Tipupaṭṭena vā”ti vuttattā tambalohādikappiyalohehi ayopattassa chiddaṃ chādetuṃ vaṭṭati. Teneva “lohamaṇḍalakenā”ti vuttaṃ. Suddhehi…pe… na vaṭṭatīti idaṃ uṇhabhojane pakkhitte vilīyamānattā vuttaṃ. Phāṇitaṃ jhāpetvā pāsāṇacuṇṇena bandhituṃ vaṭṭatīti pāsāṇacuṇṇena saddhiṃ phāṇitaṃ pacitvā tathāpakkena pāsāṇacuṇṇena bandhituṃ vaṭṭati. Aparibhogenāti ayuttaparibhogena. “Anujānāmi bhikkhave ādhāraka”nti vuttattā mañcapīṭhādīsu yattha katthaci ādhārakaṃ ṭhapetvā tattha pattaṃ ṭhapetuṃ vaṭṭati ādhārakaṭṭhapanokāsassa aniyamitattāti vadanti.
50. Having shown the method of designation, now to show the procedure when a bowl is broken, he says, “Having determined it thus” and so forth. Therein, “Not a bowl” (apatto) also indicates the abandonment of determination. Even with five bindings, determination does not take effect in a bowl with incomplete firing, just as in a bowl. Since it says, “Or with a tripod,” it is allowable to cover the hole of an iron bowl with permissible metals like copper. Hence it says, “With a metal disc.” “Not with pure ones, etc.” is said because they melt when placed in hot food. “It is allowable to bind with molasses and stone powder” means it is allowable to cook molasses with stone powder and bind it with that cooked mixture. “By improper use” (aparibhogena) means by unsuitable use. Since it says, “I allow, bhikkhus, a stand” (anujānāmi bhikkhave ādhāraka), they say it is allowable to place a stand anywhere—on a bench, chair, or the like—and place the bowl there, as the place for the stand is not fixed.
50. Thus, having shown the method of formal acceptance, now, to show the procedure to be followed when the bowl is broken, he says “evaṃ adhiṭṭhahitvā” etc. Therein, apatto, by this, he also shows the relinquishment of determination. Even with five patches on a bowl, determination does not arise, it is just like a bowl that not fully heated. Because it is said “tipupaṭṭena vā”, it is allowable to cover the hole of an iron bowl with suitable metals such as tin, lead, etc. Therefore, it is said “lohamaṇḍalakenā”. Suddhehi…pe… na vaṭṭatī, this is said because they melt when hot food is put in. Phāṇitaṃ jhāpetvā pāsāṇacuṇṇena bandhituṃ vaṭṭatī, it is permissible to heat molasses with stone powder and then use the cooked stone powder for patching. Aparibhogenā means by improper use. Because it is said, “Anujānāmi bhikkhave ādhāraka”, it is said that it is allowable to place a stand anywhere, such as on a bench or seat, and place the bowl on it, since the place for placing the stand is not fixed.
50. Having explained the method of designation, now to explain the procedure when the bowl is broken, it is said “evaṃ adhiṭṭhahitvā”. Here, apatto indicates the abandonment of adhiṭṭhāna. Even if the bowl is bound with five bands, if it is not fully heated, the adhiṭṭhāna does not hold. “Tipupaṭṭena vā” means it is permissible to cover the hole in an iron bowl with copper or other suitable metals. Therefore, “lohamaṇḍalakenā” is said. Suddhehi…pe… na vaṭṭatī means it is not permissible to use it for hot food because it would dissolve. Phāṇitaṃ jhāpetvā pāsāṇacuṇṇena bandhituṃ vaṭṭatī means it is permissible to heat the molasses with stone powder and bind it with the same heated stone powder. Aparibhogenā means improper use. “Anujānāmi bhikkhave ādhāraka” means it is permissible to place the bowl on a support such as a bed or chair, as the placement of the support is not restricted.
ID317
Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,
Thus in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,
Thus, in the Vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanā, which is part of the Vinayālaṅkāra,
ID318
Adhiṭṭhānavikappanavinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma
The discussion on the determination and designation decision, named an ornament,
The chapter called the Ornament of the Discourse on the Determination and Formal Acceptance,
The eighth chapter, called Adhiṭṭhānavikappanavinicchayakathālaṅkāro,
ID319
Aṭṭhamo paricchedo.
Is the eighth chapter.
The Eighth Chapter.
Is concluded.
ID320
ID321
51. Evaṃ adhiṭṭhānavikappanavinicchayakathaṃ dassetvā idāni cīvarena vināvāsavinicchayakaraṇaṃ dassetuṃ “cīvarenavināvāso”tyādimāha. Tattha cīyatīti cīvaraṃ, cayaṃ sañcayaṃ karīyatīti attho, ariyaddhajo vatthaviseso. Idha pana ticīvarādhiṭṭhānena adhiṭṭhahitvā dhāritaṃ cīvarattayameva. Vināti vajjanatthe nipāto. Vasanaṃ vāso, vinā vāso vināvāso, cīvarena vināvāso cīvaravināvāso, “cīvaravippavāso”ti vattabbe vatticchāvasena, gāthāpādapūraṇatthāya vā aluttasamāsaṃ katvā evaṃ vuttanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Tathā ca vakkhati “ticīvarādhiṭṭhānena…pe… vippavāso”ti, “imaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ adhiṭṭhāmi, imaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ adhiṭṭhāmi, imaṃ antaravāsakaṃ adhiṭṭhāmī”ti evaṃ nāmena adhiṭṭhitānaṃ tiṇṇaṃ cīvarānaṃ ekekena vippavāsoti attho, ekenapi vinā vasituṃ na vaṭṭati, vasantassa bhikkhuno saha aruṇuggamanā cīvaraṃ nissaggiyaṃ hoti, pācittiyañca āpajjatīti sambandho. Vasitabbanti ettha vasanakiriyā catuiriyāpathasādhāraṇā, tasmā kāyalaggaṃ vā hotu alaggaṃ vā, aḍḍhateyyaratanassa padesassa anto katvā tiṭṭhantopi carantopi nisinnopi nipannopi hatthapāse katvā vasanto nāma hoti.
51. Having shown the discussion on the decision regarding determination and designation, now to show the decision regarding living apart from robes, he says, “Living apart from robes” and so forth. Therein, a robe (cīvara) is that which is gathered, meaning accumulation is made—this is a special cloth, a noble flag. Here, however, it refers only to the triple robe determined and worn by determination as ticīvara. “Apart” (vinā) is a particle meaning separation. Living is vāsa, apart from living is vināvāsa, living apart from a robe is cīvaravināvāsa—though it should be cīvaravippavāsa, it is stated thus either by desire to speak or to fill a verse line with an elided compound. Accordingly, he will say, “By determination as ticīvara … separation,” meaning separation from any one of the three robes determined by name thus: “I determine this outer robe (saṅghāṭi), I determine this upper robe (uttarāsaṅga), I determine this inner robe (antaravāsaka).” The meaning is that one may not live apart from even one of them; for a bhikkhu living apart, with the rising of dawn, the robe becomes subject to forfeiture (nissaggiya), and he commits a pācittiya offense—this is the connection. “Must live” (vasitabba)—here, the act of living applies to all four postures, so whether attached to the body or not, staying within a region of two and a half cubits—whether standing, walking, sitting, or lying down—with it within arm’s reach is called living.
51. Thus, having shown the discourse on the determination and formal acceptance, now, to show the explanation of not dwelling with robes, he says “cīvarenavināvāso” etc. Therein, that which is accumulated is a cīvara, meaning an accumulation, the making of a collection, a special kind of cloth, the noble banner. But here, it is only the set of three robes that has been determined by the determination of the three robes and is worn. Vinā is a particle meaning ‘without’. Dwelling is vāsa, without dwelling is vināvāso, without dwelling with robes is cīvaravināvāso, it should be understood that it is said this way, instead of saying “cīvaravippavāso”, for the sake of brevity, or for the sake of completing the verse by making it a non-elided compound. Similarly, he will say, “by the determination of the three robes…etc.… dwelling apart,” meaning dwelling apart from each of the three robes that have been determined by name, saying “I determine this outer robe, I determine this upper robe, I determine this inner robe”. It is not permissible to dwell without even one of them. For a monk who dwells so, with the rising of the dawn, the robe becomes forfeit, and he incurs a pācittiya offense. That is the connection. Vasitabba here, the act of dwelling is common to the four postures, therefore whether the robe is touching the body or not, a monk dwelling within an area of two and a half cubits, whether standing, walking, sitting, or lying down, placing the robes at arm’s length, is said to be dwelling.
51. Having explained the discussion on adhiṭṭhāna and vikappana, now to explain the determination of dwelling without robes, it is said “cīvarenavināvāso”. Here, cīvara means what is woven, i.e., a special cloth, the banner of the noble ones. In this context, it refers specifically to the three robes that have been consecrated and worn. Vinā is a particle meaning exclusion. Dwelling is staying; dwelling without is dwelling without robes, cīvaravināvāso, which should be called “cīvaravippavāso”, but for the sake of filling the verse, it is expressed as an uncompounded term. Thus, it is said: ‘By consecrating the three robes… dwelling without,’ meaning, ‘I consecrate this saṅghāṭi, I consecrate this upper robe, I consecrate this lower robe.’ The absence of even one of these three robes means dwelling without, and it is not permissible to dwell without any of them. If a monk dwells without them, the robe becomes forfeited at dawn, and he incurs a pācittiya offense. Vasitabba here refers to the act of dwelling, which is common to the four postures. Therefore, whether the body is in contact or not, as long as one is within the boundary of a half-yojana, standing, walking, sitting, or lying down, one is considered to be dwelling if the robe is within arm’s reach.
ID322
Evaṃ sāmaññato avippavāsalakkhaṇaṃ dassetvā idāni gāmādipannarasokāsavasena visesato dassetumāha “gāmi”ccādi. Tattha gāmanivesanāni pākaṭāneva. Udosito nāma yānādīnaṃ bhaṇḍānaṃ sālā. Aṭṭo nāma paṭirājādipaṭibāhanatthaṃ iṭṭhakāhi kato bahalabhittiko catupañcabhūmiko patissayaviseso. Māḷo nāma ekakūṭasaṅgahito caturassapāsādo. Pāsādo nāma dīghapāsādo. Hammiyaṃ nāma muṇḍacchadanapāsādo, muṇḍacchadanapāsādoti ca candikaṅgaṇayutto pāsādoti vuccati. Sattho nāma jaṅghasattho vā sakaṭasattho vā. Khettaṃ nāma pubbaṇṇāparaṇṇānaṃ viruhanaṭṭhānaṃ. Dhaññakaraṇaṃ nāma khalamaṇḍalaṃ. Ārāmo nāma pupphārāmo phalārāmo. Vihārādayo pākaṭā eva. Tattha nivesanādīni gāmato bahi sanniviṭṭhāni gahitānīti veditabbaṃ. Antogāme ṭhitānañhi gāmaggahaṇena gahitattā gāmaparihāroyevāti. Gāmaggahaṇena ca nigamanagarānipi gahitāneva honti.
Having shown the general characteristic of non-separation, now to show it specifically by way of fifteen locations like a village, he says, “Village” and so forth. Therein, village settlements (gāmanivesanāni) are well known. A storehouse (udosita) is a hall for goods like vehicles. A tower (aṭṭa) is a thick-walled, four- or five-storied structure made of bricks to repel rival kings or the like, a special residence. A mansion (māḷa) is a square palace including a single peak. A palace (pāsāda) is a long palace. A peaked building (hammiya) is a palace with a flat roof—a flat-roofed palace is one with a courtyard and moonstone. A caravan (sattha) is a foot caravan or cart caravan. A field (khetta) is a place for growing early or late crops. A threshing floor (dhaññakaraṇa) is a circular threshing area. A garden (ārāma) is a flower garden or fruit garden. Monasteries (vihārā) and so forth are well known. Therein, settlements and the like located outside the village are included, as those within the village are covered by the term “village” and thus excluded from this context. The term “village” also includes towns and cities.
Thus, having shown the general characteristic of non-separation, now, to show it specifically according to the fifteen types of places, such as villages, etc., he says “gāmi” etc. Therein, gāmanivesanāni are well-known. Udosito is a hall for merchandise, such as vehicles, etc. Aṭṭo is a special kind of dwelling made of bricks with thick walls, four or five stories high, for the purpose of repelling enemies, etc. Māḷo is a square palace with a single peak. Pāsādo is a long palace. Hammiyaṃ is a palace with a flat roof, and muṇḍacchadanapāsādo is said to be a palace with a terrace. Sattho is either a caravan of people or a caravan of carts. Khettaṃ is a place where grains and other crops grow. Dhaññakaraṇaṃ is a threshing floor. Ārāmo is a flower garden or a fruit garden. Vihārā and others are well-known. Therein, dwellings and others situated outside the village should be understood as included. Since those situated inside the village are included by the term “village”, the perimeter is same as village. And by the term “village”, settlements and cities are also included.
Having thus explained the general characteristics of dwelling without separation, now to explain it specifically in terms of villages and other locations, it is said “gāmi”. Here, gāmanivesanāni are well-known. Udosito refers to a hall for vehicles and goods. Aṭṭo is a strong-walled, four- or five-story structure built with bricks for defense against enemy kings. Māḷo is a single-spired, square palace. Pāsādo is a long palace. Hammiyaṃ is a palace with a flat roof, also called muṇḍacchadanapāsādo, a palace with a flat roof and a moonstone. Sattho refers to a caravan of animals or carts. Khettaṃ is a field where crops grow. Dhaññakaraṇaṃ is a threshing floor. Ārāmo is a flower or fruit garden. Vihārā and others are well-known. Here, dwellings and such are understood to be located outside the village. Those located within the village are included in the village boundary. The village boundary also includes market towns.
ID323
Parikhāya vā parikkhittoti iminā samantā nadītaḷākādiudakena parikkhittopi parikkhittoyevāti dasseti. Taṃ pamāṇaṃ atikkamitvāti gharassa upari ākāse aḍḍhateyyaratanappamāṇaṃ atikkamitvā. Sabhāye vā vatthabbanti iminā sabhāsaddassa pariyāyo sabhāyasaddo napuṃsakaliṅgo atthīti dasseti. Sabhāsaddo hi itthiliṅgo, sabhāyasaddo napuṃsakaliṅgoti. Dvāramūle vāti nagarassa dvāramūle vā. Tesanti sabhāyanagaradvāramūlānaṃ. Tassā vīthiyā sabhāyadvārānaṃ gahaṇeneva tattha sabbānipi gehāni, sā ca antaravīthi gahitāyeva hoti. Ettha ca dvāravīthigharesu vasantena gāmappavesanasahaseyyādidosaṃ pariharitvā suppaṭicchannatādiyutteneva bhavitabbaṃ. Sabhā pana yadi sabbesaṃ vasanatthāya papāsadisā katā, antarārāme viya yathāsukhaṃ vasituṃ vaṭṭatīti veditabbaṃ. Atiharitvā ghare nikkhipatīti vīthiṃ muñcitvā ṭhite aññasmiṃ ghare nikkhipati. Tenāha “vīthihatthapāso na rakkhatī”ti. Purato vā pacchato vā hatthapāseti gharassa hatthapāsaṃ sandhāya vadati.
“Enclosed by a moat or the like” indicates that one entirely surrounded by water like a river or lake is also enclosed. “Passing beyond that measure” means passing beyond two and a half cubits above the house in the air. “Or in an assembly hall” indicates that the term sabhāya is a synonym of sabhā, neuter in gender. For sabhā is feminine, while sabhāya is neuter. “Or at the gate” means at the gate of the city. “Of these” refers to the assembly hall, city, and gate. By including the assembly hall and gate of that street, all houses therein and the inner street are also included. Here, one living in the gate, street, or houses must avoid faults like sleeping together upon entering the village, and it must be well-covered and so forth. But if an assembly hall is made like a shelter for all to live in, it is allowable to live there at ease, as in an inner garden—this should be understood. “Taking it out and placing it in a house” means placing it in another house apart from the street. Hence he says, “The arm’s reach of the street does not protect.” “In front or behind within arm’s reach” refers to the arm’s reach of the house.
Parikhāya vā parikkhitto, by this, he shows that even if it is surrounded by water from a river, lake, etc. all around, it is still considered to be surrounded. Taṃ pamāṇaṃ atikkamitvā, exceeding the measure of two and a half cubits in the air above the house. Sabhāye vā vatthabba, by this, he shows that the word ‘sabhāya’, a synonym of the word ‘sabhā’, is neuter gender. For ‘sabhā’ is feminine gender, and ‘sabhāya’ is neuter gender. Dvāramūle vā, or at the base of the city gate. Tesanti, of the sabhāya, city gates, and their bases. By including that street, sabhāya, and the gates, all the houses there, and that inner street are also included. And here, for one dwelling in the gate, street, or houses, one should be endowed with proper seclusion, etc., avoiding the faults of entering the village at night, co-sleeping, etc. But if the sabhā is made like a rest house for everyone to dwell in, it should be understood that it is permissible to dwell as one pleases, like in an inner monastery. Atiharitvā ghare nikkhipatī, places it in another house located beyond the street. Therefore, he says, “vīthihatthapāso na rakkhatī”. Purato vā pacchato vā hatthapāse, he is speaking with reference to the arm’s length of the house.
Parikhāya vā parikkhitto means that even if surrounded by water such as a river or lake, it is still considered enclosed. Taṃ pamāṇaṃ atikkamitvā means exceeding the measure of half a yojana in the sky above a house. Sabhāye vā vatthabba means that the term sabhāya is a neuter synonym for sabhā, which is feminine. Dvāramūle vā means at the gate of a city. Tesa refers to the city gates and streets. By including the streets and gates, all the houses and the inner streets are included. Here, when dwelling in gate-street houses, one must avoid the faults of entering the village at the wrong time and ensure proper concealment. If a hall is built for everyone to dwell in, like a pavilion, it is permissible to dwell there freely, as in a monastery. Atiharitvā ghare nikkhipatī means leaving the street and placing it in another house. Therefore, it is said: “vīthihatthapāso na rakkhatī”. Purato vā pacchato vā hatthapāse refers to the area around the house.
ID324
Evaṃ gāmavasena vippavāsāvippavāsaṃ dassetvā idāni nivesanavasena dassento “sace ekakulassa santakaṃ nivesanaṃ hotī”tiādimāha. Tattha ovarako nāma gabbhassa abbhantare añño gabbhoti vadanti, gabbhassa vā pariyāyavacanametaṃ. Idāni udositādivasena dassento “udositi”ccādimāha. Tattha vuttanayenevāti “ekakulassa santako udosito hoti parikkhitto cā”tiādinā nivesane vuttanayena. Eva-saddo visesanivatti attho. Tena viseso natthīti dasseti.
Having shown separation and non-separation by way of a village, now showing it by way of a settlement, he says, “If it is a settlement belonging to one family” and so forth. Therein, an inner room (ovaraka) is said to be a room within a chamber, or it is a synonym for a chamber. Now showing it by way of a storehouse and so forth, he says, “A storehouse” and so forth. Therein, “By the method stated” means by the method stated for a settlement, such as “A storehouse belonging to one family, enclosed, and so forth.” The word eva negates distinction, showing there is no difference.
Thus, having shown separation and non-separation with reference to the village, now, showing it with reference to the dwelling, he says “sace ekakulassa santakaṃ nivesanaṃ hotī” etc. Therein, ovarako some say it is another room within the inner chamber, or it is a synonym for the inner chamber. Now, showing it with reference to the udosita, etc., he says “udositi” etc. Therein, vuttanayenevā, according to the method stated in the case of the dwelling, “If a udosita belongs to one family and is enclosed,” etc. The word Eva is used to exclude specific, means there is no any special difference. By that, he shows that there is no difference.
Having thus explained dwelling with and without separation in terms of villages, now to explain it in terms of dwellings, it is said “sace ekakulassa santakaṃ nivesanaṃ hotī”. Here, ovarako refers to an inner room within a room, or it is a synonym for a room. Now, to explain in terms of halls and such, it is said “udositi”. Here, vuttanayenevā means ‘a hall belonging to a single family is enclosed,’ as explained in the section on dwellings. The word eva indicates that there is no distinction. Thus, it is shown that there is no difference.
ID325
Idāni yesu viseso atthi, te dassento “sace ekakulassa nāvā”tiādimāha. Tattha pariyādiyitvāti vinivijjhitvā, ajjhottharitvā vā. Vuttamevatthaṃ vibhāveti “antopaviṭṭhenā”tiādinā. Tattha antopaviṭṭhenāti gāmassa, nadiyā vā antopaviṭṭhena. “Satthenā”ti pāṭhaseso. Nadīparihāro labbhatīti ettha “visuṃ nadīparihārassa avuttattā gāmādīhi aññattha viya cīvarahatthapāsoyeva nadīparihāro”ti tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. Aññe pana “iminā aṭṭhakathāvacanena nadīparihāropi visuṃ siddhoti nadīhatthapāso na vijahitabbo”ti vadanti. Yathā pana ajjhokāse sattabbhantaravasena araññaparihāro labbhati, evaṃ nadiyaṃ udakukkhepavasena nadīparihāro labbhatīti katvā aṭṭhakathāyaṃ nadīparihāro visuṃ avutto siyā sattabbhantaraudakukkhepasīmānaṃ araññanadīsu abaddhasīmāvasena labbhamānattā. Evañca sati samuddajātassaresupi parihāro avuttasiddho hoti nadiyā samānalakkhaṇattā, nadīhatthapāso na vijahitabboti pana atthe sati nadiyā ativitthārattā bahusādhāraṇattā ca antonadiyaṃ cīvaraṃ ṭhapetvā nadīhatthapāse ṭhitena cīvarassa pavattiṃ jānituṃ na sakkā bhaveyya. Esa nayo samuddajātassaresupi. Antoudakukkhepe vā tassa hatthapāse vā ṭhitena pana sakkāti ayaṃ amhākaṃ attanomati, vicāretvā gahetabbaṃ. Vihārasīmanti avippavāsasīmaṃ sandhāyāha. Ettha ca vihārassa nānākulasantakabhāvepi avippavāsasīmāparicchedabbhantare sabbattha cīvaraavippavāsasambhavato padhānattā tattha satthaparihāro na labbhatīti “vihāraṃ gantvā vasitabba”nti vuttaṃ. Satthasamīpeti idaṃ yathāvuttaabbhantaraparicchedavasena vuttaṃ.
Now showing those with a distinction, he says, “If it is a boat of one family” and so forth. Therein, “Having pierced through” (pariyādiyitvā) means having penetrated or overwhelmed. He clarifies this meaning with “By one entering within” and so forth. Therein, “By one entering within” (antopaviṭṭhena) means within the village or river. The reading includes “With a caravan.” “River exclusion is obtained” (nadīparihāro labbhatī)—here, it is stated in all three knotty passages: “Since river exclusion is not stated separately, just as with a village and so forth elsewhere, only the arm’s reach of the robe is the river exclusion.” Others say, “By this Aṭṭhakathā statement, river exclusion is established separately, so the arm’s reach of the river should not be abandoned.” Just as in open space an exclusion is obtained in a forest by seven abbhantara, so in a river, river exclusion may be obtained by a water-throw; thus, it may be that river exclusion is not stated separately in the Aṭṭhakathā because the boundaries of seven abbhantara or a water-throw are obtained in forest and river as unbound limits. In that case, exclusion in oceans and lakes is also established implicitly due to their similarity to a river, and the arm’s reach of the river should not be abandoned. But given the meaning, due to the river’s great width and common use, one standing within the river’s arm’s reach with the robe placed inside the river could not know its condition. The same applies to oceans and lakes. But one standing within a water-throw or its arm’s reach could—this is our opinion, to be considered and accepted. “Monastery boundary” (vihārasīma) refers to the boundary of non-separation. Here, even if the monastery belongs to many families, since non-separation of the robe is possible everywhere within the boundary of the non-separation limit, due to its primacy, caravan exclusion is not obtained there; hence it says, “One must go to the monastery and live.” “Near the caravan” refers to this by way of the internal boundary stated.
Now, showing those in which there is a difference, he says “sace ekakulassa nāvā” etc. Therein, pariyādiyitvā, having pierced through, or having spread over. He clarifies the meaning of the statement with “antopaviṭṭhenā” etc. Therein, antopaviṭṭhenā, by one who has entered inside the village, or the river. The remainder of the sentence is “by the caravan.” Nadīparihāro labbhatī, here, it is said in all three gaṇṭhipadas, “Since the river perimeter is not specifically mentioned, it is like elsewhere, other than villages, etc., the river perimeter is only the arm’s length of the robe.” But others say, “By this statement of the commentary, the river perimeter is also specifically established, therefore the arm’s length of the river should not be abandoned.” Just as the forest perimeter is obtained in the open air according to the seven-abbhantara rule, in the same way, the river perimeter is obtained in the river according to the water-lifting rule. Therefore, the commentary might not have specifically mentioned the river perimeter, since the boundaries of the seven-abbhantara and water-lifting are obtained as unbounded boundaries in forests and rivers. And if this is so, the perimeter is also implicitly established for oceans and natural lakes, since they have the same characteristics as a river. But if the meaning is that the arm’s length of the river should not be abandoned, then because the river is very wide and shared by many, it might not be possible to know the whereabouts of the robe if one places the robe inside the river and stands within the arm’s length of the river. This principle applies to oceans and natural lakes as well. But it is possible if one stands within the water-lifting area or within its arm’s length. This is our own opinion, it should be considered and accepted. Vihārasīma, he is speaking with reference to the non-separation boundary. And here, even if the monastery belongs to various families, since it is possible to not be separated from the robe anywhere within the boundary of the non-separation boundary, because of its primary importance, the caravan perimeter is not obtained there, therefore it is said, “vihāraṃ gantvā vasitabba”. Satthasamīpe, this is said with reference to the aforementioned boundary.
Now, to explain where there is a distinction, it is said “sace ekakulassa nāvā”. Here, pariyādiyitvā means occupying or covering. The meaning is further clarified by “antopaviṭṭhenā”. Here, antopaviṭṭhenā means within the village or within the river. “Satthenā” is the remainder of the text. Nadīparihāro labbhatī means that since the river’s boundary is not separately stated, the robe’s hand-reach is the river’s boundary, as in the case of villages. Others, however, say that the river’s boundary is separately established, and the river’s hand-reach should not be abandoned. Just as in the open air, the forest boundary is established within seven abbhantaras, similarly, the river’s boundary is established by the water’s reach. Thus, the river’s boundary is not separately stated in the commentary, as the boundaries of the forest and river are established without fixed limits. Therefore, the boundary for seas and lakes is also not separately stated, as they share the same characteristics as rivers. However, since rivers are vast and common, it is not possible to know the robe’s status if placed within the river without keeping it within hand-reach. The same applies to seas and lakes. It is possible if one stands within the water’s reach or within hand-reach. This is our opinion; it should be carefully considered. Vihārasīma refers to the boundary of non-separation. Here, even if the monastery belongs to multiple families, since the boundary of non-separation is within the monastery’s limits, the robe’s non-separation is possible everywhere, and thus the caravan’s boundary is not applicable. Therefore, it is said: “vihāraṃ gantvā vasitabba”. Satthasamīpe is said according to the previously explained boundary limits.
ID326
Yasmā “nānākulassa parikkhitte khette cīvaraṃ nikkhipitvā khettadvāramūle vā tassa hatthapāse vā vatthabba”nti vuttaṃ, tasmā dvāramūlato aññattha khettepi vasantena cīvaraṃ nikkhipitvā hatthapāse katvāyeva vasitabbaṃ.
Since it is said, “Having placed the robe in an enclosed field belonging to many families, one must live at the gate of the field or within its arm’s reach,” therefore, even elsewhere in the field, one living must place the robe and keep it within arm’s reach.
Because it is said, “In an enclosed field belonging to various families, having placed the robe, one should dwell at the base of the field gate or within its arm’s length”, therefore, even for one dwelling in the field elsewhere than at the base of the gate, one should dwell placing the robe within arm’s length.
Since it is said: ‘In a field belonging to multiple families, after placing the robe in the field, one should dwell at the field’s gate or within hand-reach,’ therefore, even when dwelling elsewhere in the field, one should place the robe within hand-reach and dwell there.
ID327
Vihāro nāma saparikkhitto vā aparikkhitto vā sakalo āvāsoti vadanti. Yasmiṃ vihāreti ettha pana ekagehameva vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.491-494) pana “vihāro nāma upacārasīmā. Yasmiṃ vihāreti tassa antopariveṇādiṃ sandhāya vutta”nti vuttaṃ. Ekakulādisantakatā cettha kārāpakānaṃ vasena veditabbā.
Vihāra means a dwelling, whether enclosed or unenclosed, the entire residence, they say. But here in “yasmiṃ vihāre”, only a single house is meant. However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.491-494), it is said: **“Vihāra** means the boundary of the surrounding area (upacārasīmā). ‘Yasmiṃ vihāre’ is said with reference to its inner precincts or surroundings.” Ownership by a single family or others should here be understood in terms of the builders.
Vihāro (Monastery) means the entire dwelling, whether enclosed or unenclosed, they say. But here, in the phrase Yasmiṃ vihāre (in which monastery), only a single dwelling is indicated. In the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.491-494), however, it is said: “Vihāro means the boundary of the surrounding area. Yasmiṃ vihāre is said with reference to its inner courtyard, etc.” Here, the ownership of a single family, etc., should be understood according to the clients who commissioned construction.
Vihāro means an entire residence, whether enclosed or unenclosed. Yasmiṃ vihāre refers here to a single dwelling. However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.491-494), it is said: “Vihāro means the boundary of the surrounding area. Yasmiṃ vihāre refers to the inner courtyard, etc., of that residence.” Here, the ownership by a single family, etc., should be understood through the actions of the builders.
ID328
Yaṃ majjhanhike kāle samantā chāyā pharatīti yadā mahāvīthiyaṃ ujukameva gacchantaṃ sūriyamaṇḍalaṃ majjhanhikaṃ pāpuṇāti, tadā yaṃ okāsaṃ chāyā pharati, taṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ pana “chāyāya phuṭṭhokāsassāti ujukaṃ avikkhittaleḍḍupātabbhantaraṃ sandhāya vadatī”ti vuttaṃ. Agamanapatheti tadaheva gantvā nivattetuṃ asakkuṇeyyake samuddamajjhe ye dīpakā, tesūti yojanā. Itarasminti puratthimadisāya cīvare.
“Yaṃ majjhanhike kāle samantā chāyā pharati” means that when the sun’s orb reaches midday while moving straight along the main road, the place where the shadow spreads is what is referred to. However, in the Vimativinodanī, it is said: “‘Chāyāya phuṭṭhokāsassa’** refers to the area within the straight, undisturbed range of a clod’s throw.” “Agamanapathe”** is construed as referring to islands in the middle of the ocean, where one cannot go and return on the same day. “Itarasmiṃ” refers to the robe in the eastern direction.
Yaṃ majjhanhike kāle samantā chāyā pharatī (When the shadow spreads all around at midday) is said with reference to the spot where the shadow extends when the sun’s orb, moving straight along the main street, reaches the midday point. But in the Vimativinodani, it’s stated “With respect to the space covered by shadow, speaking with regard to straightness, the area inside the unscattered stone’s throw”, is said. Agamanapathe (on the path of no return): The idea is to those islands in the middle of the ocean where one cannot go and return on the same day. Itarasmi (In the other): In the robe [placed] in the easterly direction.
Yaṃ majjhanhike kāle samantā chāyā pharatī means that when the sun’s disk reaches midday while moving straight along the great road, the shadow spreads over a certain area, and this is what is being referred to. However, in the Vimativinodanī, it is said: “Chāyāya phuṭṭhokāsassā refers to a straight path without obstacles like stones or clods.” Agamanapathe means that on that very day, one should not be able to go and return, such as those who are in the middle of the ocean. Itarasmi refers to the robe in the eastern direction.
ID329
52. Nadiṃ otaratīti hatthapāsaṃ muñcitvā otarati. Nāpajjatīti paribhogapaccayā dukkaṭaṃ nāpajjati. Tenāha “so hī”tiādi. Aparibhogārahattāti iminā nissaggiyacīvaraṃ anissajjitvā paribhuñjantassa dukkaṭaṃ acittakanti siddhaṃ. Ekaṃ pārupitvā ekaṃ aṃsakūṭe ṭhapetvā gantabbanti idaṃ bahūnaṃ sañcaraṇaṭṭhāne evaṃ akatvā gamanaṃ na sāruppanti katvā vuttaṃ, na āpattiaṅgattā. Bahigāme ṭhapetvāpi apārupitabbatāya vuttaṃ “vinayakammaṃ kātabba”nti. Atha vā vihāre sabhāgaṃ bhikkhuṃ na passati, evaṃ sati āsanasālaṃ gantvā vinayakammaṃ kātabbanti yojanā. Āsanasālaṃ gacchantena kiṃ tīhi cīvarehi gantabbanti āha “santaruttarenā”ti naṭṭhacīvarassa santaruttarasādiyanato. Saṅghāṭi pana kiṃ kātabbāti āha “saṅghāṭiṃ bahigāme ṭhapetvā”ti. Uttarāsaṅge ca bahigāme ṭhapitasaṅghāṭiyañca paṭhamaṃ vinayakammaṃ katvā pacchā uttarāsaṅgaṃ nivāsetvā antaravāsake kātabbaṃ. Ettha ca bahigāme ṭhapitassapi vinayakammavacanato parammukhāpi ṭhitaṃ nissajjituṃ, nissaṭṭhaṃ dātuñca vaṭṭatīti veditabbaṃ.
52. “Nadiṃ otarati” means he crosses the river after releasing it from hand’s reach. “Nāpajjati” means he does not incur a dukkaṭa offense due to use. Hence it says “so hī” and so forth. “Aparibhogārahattā” establishes that for one who uses a nissaggiya robe without relinquishing it, a dukkaṭa offense arises without intent. “Ekaṃ pārupitvā ekaṃ aṃsakūṭe ṭhapetvā gantabbaṃ” means one should go wearing one robe and placing another on the shoulder ridge; this is said because going otherwise in a place frequented by many is improper, not because it constitutes an offense. It is also said “vinayakammaṃ kātabbaṃ” even if left outside the village, as it need not be worn. Alternatively, if he does not see a like-minded bhikkhu in the vihāra, he should go to the assembly hall and perform the vinaya act. When going to the assembly hall, should one go with all three robes? It says “santaruttarena”, due to the acceptance of santaruttara by one whose robe is lost. And what of the saṅghāṭi? It says “saṅghāṭiṃ bahigāme ṭhapetvā”. After first performing the vinaya act with the uttarāsaṅga and the saṅghāṭi left outside the village, later the uttarāsaṅga should be worn and the antaravāsaka used. Here, even what is left outside the village may be relinquished or given away despite being out of sight, as per the vinaya act’s wording.
52. Nadiṃ otaratīti (Descends into the river): Descends after letting go of arm’s reach. Nāpajjatīti (Does not incur): Does not incur a dukkaṭa offense due to usage. Therefore, he said, “so hī” (because he), etc. Aparibhogārahattā (Due to not being suitable for use): By this, it is established that using a nissaggiya robe without relinquishing it is a dukkaṭa [offense] that is acittaka (unintentional). Ekaṃ pārupitvā ekaṃ aṃsakūṭe ṭhapetvā gantabba (Having covered [oneself] with one, placing one on the shoulder, one should go): This is said because it is not proper to go in this manner in a place where many are traveling, not as a factor of the offense. Because it is said that it should also be placed outside the village without wearing it, he said “vinayakammaṃ kātabba” (The disciplinary action should be done). Or, he does not see a monk of the same group in the monastery; in this case, the idea is that having gone to the assembly hall, the disciplinary action should be done. “Why should he go with three robes when going to the assembly hall?” he said. Therefore, he said, “santaruttarenā” (with the inner and outer robes): Because the monk whose robe was lost is wearing an inner and an outer robe. But, what should be done with the saṅghāṭi? Therefore, he said, “saṅghāṭiṃ bahigāme ṭhapetvā” (having placed the saṅghāṭi outside the village). After first performing the disciplinary act for both the outer robe and the saṅghāṭi placed outside the village, one should then put on the outer robe and the disciplinary act for the inner cloth should be performed. And here, because the disciplinary act is mentioned even for that which is placed outside the village, it should be understood that it is permissible to relinquish what is even placed beyond reach, and to give what has been relinquished.
52. Nadiṃ otaratī means crossing the river after releasing the hand and foot. Nāpajjatī means no offense of wrongdoing arises due to use. Therefore, it is said: “So hī” etc. Aparibhogārahattā means that if one uses a robe that should be forfeited without forfeiting it, the offense is not intentional. Ekaṃ pārupitvā ekaṃ aṃsakūṭe ṭhapetvā gantabba means that this is said for places where many people move about, and it is not appropriate to go without doing so, but there is no offense if not done. It is also said that one should place it outside the village and not wear it, “vinayakammaṃ kātabba”. Alternatively, if one does not see a fellow monk in the monastery, one should go to the assembly hall and perform the Vinaya action. When going to the assembly hall, one should go with the three robes, as stated: “santaruttarenā”, because one takes the inner robe when the outer robe is lost. As for the saṅghāṭi, it is said: “saṅghāṭiṃ bahigāme ṭhapetvā”. First, perform the Vinaya action for the upper robe and the saṅghāṭi placed outside the village, then wear the upper robe and perform the action for the lower robe. Here, even if the saṅghāṭi is placed outside the village, according to the Vinaya action, it is understood that one can relinquish it even if it is placed in front of others, and it is permissible to give it away after relinquishing it.
ID330
Daharānaṃ gamane saussāhattā “nissayo pana na paṭippassambhatī”ti vuttaṃ. Muhuttaṃ…pe… paṭippassambhatīti saussāhatte gamanassa upacchinnattā vuttaṃ, tesaṃ pana purāruṇā uṭṭhahitvā saussāhena gacchantānaṃ aruṇe antarā uṭṭhitepi na paṭippassambhati “yāva aruṇuggamanā sayantī”ti vuttattā. Teneva “gāmaṃ pavisitvā…pe… na paṭippassambhatī”ti vuttaṃ. Aññamaññassa vacanaṃ aggahetvātiādimhi saussāhattā gamanakkhaṇe paṭippassaddhi na vuttā. Dhenubhayenāti taruṇavacchagāvīnaṃ ādhāvitvā siṅgena paharaṇabhayena. Nissayo ca paṭippassambhatīti ettha dhenubhayādīhi ṭhitānaṃ yāva bhayavūpasamā ṭhātabbato “antoaruṇeyeva gamissāmī”ti niyametuṃ asakkuṇeyyattā vuttaṃ. Yattha pana evaṃ niyametuṃ sakkā, tattha antarā aruṇe uggatepi nissayo na paṭippassambhati bhesajjatthāya gāmaṃ paviṭṭhadaharānaṃ viya.
Due to the eagerness of young monks to travel, it is said “nissayo pana na paṭippassambhati”. “Muhuttaṃ…pe… paṭippassambhati” is said because travel due to eagerness is interrupted, but for those who rise before dawn and travel eagerly, the nissaya does not lapse even if dawn arises midway, as it is said “they lie down until dawn rises.” Hence it says “gāmaṃ pavisitvā…pe… na paṭippassambhati”. In “aññamaññassa vacanaṃ aggahetvā” and so forth, the cessation at the moment of eager travel is not mentioned. “Dhenubhayena” means due to the fear of young cows with calves rushing and striking with their horns. “Nissayo ca paṭippassambhati” is said here because, for those standing due to fear of cows and so forth, they cannot resolve “I will go before dawn” until the fear subsides. But where such a resolution is possible, the nissaya does not lapse even if dawn arises midway, as with young monks entering a village for medicine.
Because of the anxiousness in the going of novices, it is said “nissayo pana na paṭippassambhatī” (But dependence is not ceased). Muhuttaṃ…pe… paṭippassambhatī (For a moment… etc… is ceased) is said because the anxious going has been interrupted. But for those, having gotten up before dawn and going with anxiousness, it does not cease even if dawn arises in the meantime, because it is said, “sleeping until the rising of dawn”. Therefore, it is said, “gāmaṃ pavisitvā…pe… na paṭippassambhatī” (Having entered the village… etc… it does not cease). In “Aññamaññassa vacanaṃ aggahetvā” (without accepting each other’s words) etc., the cessation [of dependence] is not mentioned at the moment of going due to anxiousness. Dhenubhayenāti (Because of the fear of cows): Due to the fear of being struck by the horns of young cows running here and there. Nissayo ca paṭippassambhatī (And dependence ceases): Here, because those who have stopped due to fear of cows, etc., have to stay until the fear subsides, it is said because it is impossible to determine, “I will go only within the dawn.” But where it is possible to determine thus, dependence does not cease even if dawn rises in the meantime, like the novices who entered the village for medicine.
For young monks going with haste, it is said: “nissayo pana na paṭippassambhatī”. Muhuttaṃ…pe… paṭippassambhatī means that because the journey with haste is interrupted, it is said. However, for those who rise before dawn and go with haste, even if dawn breaks during the journey, the permission does not lapse, as it is said: “until the sun rises, they may sleep.” Therefore, it is said: “gāmaṃ pavisitvā…pe… na paṭippassambhatī”. Aññamaññassa vacanaṃ aggahetvā means that at the moment of going with haste, the permission is not mentioned. Dhenubhayenā refers to the fear of being struck by the horns of young cows running with their calves. Nissayo ca paṭippassambhatī means that for those who stay due to fear of cows, etc., until the fear subsides, it is said that one cannot determine, “I will go only after dawn.” Where it is possible to determine, even if dawn breaks during the journey, the permission does not lapse, like young monks entering the village for medicine.
ID331
Antosīmāyaṃ gāmanti avippavāsasīmāsammutito pacchā patiṭṭhāpitagāmaṃ sandhāya vadati gāmañca gāmūpacārañca ṭhapetvā sammannitabbato. Paviṭṭhānanti ācariyantevāsikānaṃ visuṃ visuṃ gatānaṃ avippavāsasīmattā neva cīvarāni nissaggiyāni honti, saussāhatāya na nissayo paṭippassambhati. Antarāmaggeti dhammaṃ sutvā āgacchantānaṃ antarāmagge.
“Antosīmāyaṃ gāma” refers to a village established later within the boundary of non-separation (avippavāsasīmā), excluding the village and its environs from the designation. “Paviṭṭhānaṃ” means that for teacher and pupil who go separately, due to the non-separation boundary, “neva cīvarāni nissaggiyāni honti”, and due to eagerness, “na nissayo paṭippassambhati”. “Antarāmagge” refers to those returning after hearing the Dhamma on the way between villages.
Antosīmāyaṃ gāma (village within the boundary): He speaks with reference to a village established after the agreement of a non-absence boundary, because the village and village environs must be agreed upon after their removal. Because the teachers and pupils, having gone separately, are within the boundary of non-absence Paviṭṭhāna (of those who entered), neva cīvarāni nissaggiyāni honti, (the robes do not become nissaggiya), and because of anxiousness, na nissayo paṭippassambhati (dependence does not cease). Antarāmaggeti (on the road in between): of those coming after listening to the Dhamma on the road in between.
Antosīmāyaṃ gāma refers to a village established later within the boundary of non-separation. Paviṭṭhāna means that for teachers and pupils who have gone separately, within the boundary of non-separation, neither the robes become forfeitable, nor does the permission lapse due to haste. Antarāmagge refers to those who are returning after hearing the Dhamma on the way.
ID332
Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is an exposition of the vinaya compendium,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,
Thus, in the Vinayasaṅgaha, adorned with the Vinayālaṅkāra,
ID333
Cīvaravippavāsavinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma
the section named Cīvaravippavāsavinicchayakathālaṅkāra
The chapter named the Exposition of the Determination of Absence from Robes
the chapter on the determination of robe separation is named.
ID334
Navamo paricchedo.
is the ninth chapter.
The Ninth Chapter.
The ninth chapter.
ID335
ID336
53. Evaṃ cīvaravippavāsavinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni bhaṇḍapaṭisāmanavinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ “bhaṇḍassa paṭisāmana”ntiādimāha. Tattha bhaḍitabbaṃ bhājetabbanti bhaṇḍaṃ, bhaḍitabbaṃ icchitabbanti vā bhaṇḍaṃ, bhaṇḍanti paribhaṇḍanti sattā etenāti vā bhaṇḍaṃ, mūladhanaṃ, parikkhāro vā. Vuttañhi abhidhānappadīpikāyaṃ –
53. Having explained the determination of robe separation, now to explain the determination of safeguarding goods, it says “bhaṇḍassa paṭisāmanaṃ” and so forth. Here, bhaṇḍaṃ means what is to be divided or distributed, or what is desired to be divided, or that by which beings adorn themselves—capital wealth or requisites. For it is said in the Abhidhānappadīpikā:
53. Having thus determined absence from robes, now, in order to explain the determination of taking care of goods, he begins with “bhaṇḍassa paṭisāmana” (the taking care of goods), etc. Here, bhaṇḍaṃ (goods) is what should be argued over, that is, divided; or bhaṇḍaṃ is what should be argued over, that is, desired; or bhaṇḍaṃ is because living beings argue, that is, quarrel over it, is capital, or equipment. For it is said in the Abhidhānappadīpikā:
53. Having discussed the determination of robe separation, now the determination of the return of goods is discussed, beginning with “bhaṇḍassa paṭisāmana”. Here, bhaṇḍaṃ means what is to be divided or distributed, or what is to be desired, or what is to be carried by beings, or wealth, or requisites. As stated in the Abhidhānappadīpikā:
ID337
“Bhājanādiparikkhāre, bhaṇḍaṃ mūladhanepi cā”ti.
“Bhaṇḍaṃ is used for requisites like vessels, and also for capital wealth.”
“Bhaṇḍaṃ is equipment such as vessels, and also capital.”
“Bhājanādiparikkhāre, bhaṇḍaṃ mūladhanepi cā”ti.
ID338
Tassa bhaṇḍassa, paṭisāmiyate paṭisāmanaṃ, rakkhaṇaṃ gopananti attho. Tenāha “paresaṃ bhaṇḍassa gopana”nti. Mātu kaṇṇapiḷandhanaṃ tālapaṇṇampīti pi-saddo sambhāvanattho. Tena pageva aññātakānaṃ santakanti dasseti. Gihisantakanti iminā pañcannaṃ sahadhammikānaṃ santakaṃ paṭisāmetuṃ vaṭṭatīti dīpeti. Bhaṇḍāgārikasīsenāti etena vissāsaggāhādinā gahetvā paṭisāmentassa anāpattīti dasseti. Tena vakkhati “attano atthāya gahetvā paṭisāmetabba”nti. Chandenapi bhayenapīti vaḍḍhakīādīsu chandena , rājavallabhādīsu bhayena balakkārena pātetvā gatesu ca paṭisāmetuṃ vaṭṭatīti yojetabbaṃ.
Of that bhaṇḍa, paṭisāmanaṃ means safeguarding, protection, or concealment. Hence it says “paresaṃ bhaṇḍassa gopanaṃ”. “Mātu kaṇṇapiḷandhanaṃ tālapaṇṇampi”—the particle pi implies possibility, indicating even the property of unrelated persons. “Gihisantakaṃ” shows that it is permissible to safeguard the property of the five co-religionists. “Bhaṇḍāgārikasīsena” indicates that there is no offense for one who takes it with trust and safeguards it. Hence it will say “it must be safeguarded for one’s own benefit.” “Chandenapi bhayenapi” means it is permissible to safeguard it out of desire in the case of carpenters and out of fear in the case of royal favorites, forcibly taken and gone.
Paṭisāmanaṃ (Taking care of) that Bhaṇḍassa (of the goods): Safeguarding, protecting, is the meaning. Therefore, he said, “paresaṃ bhaṇḍassa gopana” (the protection of others’ goods). Mātu kaṇṇapiḷandhanaṃ tālapaṇṇampīti (Even a mother’s earring or a palm leaf): The word pi (even) signifies possibility. Thus, he shows that it is even more so the property of strangers. Gihisantaka (The property of a householder): By this, he indicates that it is permissible to take care of the property of the five co-religionists. Bhaṇḍāgārikasīsenā (by means of the storekeeper): By this, he shows that there is no offense for one who takes care of [goods] after taking them by means of securing trust, and so forth. Therefore, he will say, “One should take care of [them] after taking them for one’s own sake”. Chandenapi bhayenapī (Through desire or fear): It is appropriate to state that is it permissible to safeguard possessions in the case of carpenters by desire, and of royal favorites by fear or when they have left something behind by force.
The paṭisāmanaṃ of that bhaṇḍaṃ means guarding and protecting. Therefore, it is said: “paresaṃ bhaṇḍassa gopana”. Mātu kaṇṇapiḷandhanaṃ tālapaṇṇampī means the particle “pi” indicates possibility. Thus, it shows that even the belongings of strangers are included. Gihisantaka indicates that it is permissible for the five kinds of lay followers to return their belongings. Bhaṇḍāgārikasīsenā shows that there is no offense for one who takes it with trust, etc., and returns it. Therefore, it is said: “it should be returned for one’s own purpose.” Chandenapi bhayenapī means that it is permissible to return it even if taken by force by carpenters, etc., or out of fear of royal favorites, etc.
ID339
Saṅgopanatthāya attano hatthe nikkhittassa bhaṇḍassa guttaṭṭhāne paṭisāmanapayogaṃ vinā “nāhaṃ gaṇhāmī”tiādinā aññasmiṃ payoge akate rajjasaṅkhobhādikāle “na dāni tassa dassāmi, na mayhaṃ dāni dassatī”ti ubhohipi sakasakaṭṭhāne nisīditvā dhuranikkhepe katepi avahāro natthi. Keci panettha “pārājikameva paṭisāmanapayogassa katattā”ti vadanti, taṃ tesaṃ matimattaṃ, na sārato paccetabbaṃ. Paṭisāmanakāle hissa theyyacittaṃ natthi, “na dāni tassa dassāmī”ti theyyacittuppattikkhaṇe ca sāmino dhuranikkhepacittappavattiyā hetubhūto kāyavacīpayogo natthi, yena so āpattiṃ āpajjeyya. Na hi akiriyasamuṭṭhānā ayaṃ āpattīti. Dāne saussāho, rakkhati tāvāti avahāraṃ sandhāya avuttattā “nāhaṃ gaṇhāmī”tiādinā musāvādakaraṇe pācittiyameva hoti, na dukkaṭaṃ theyyacittābhāvena sahapayogassapi abhāvatoti gahetabbaṃ.
For goods placed in one’s hand for safekeeping, without effort to safeguard them in a secure place, saying “I do not take it” or similar, if no other action is taken and at a time of royal disturbance both parties sit in their respective places thinking “I won’t give it now” or “he won’t give it to me now,” and abandon responsibility, there is no misappropriation. Some say here “it is a pārājika offense because the effort to safeguard was made,” but that is mere opinion, not to be accepted essentially. At the time of safeguarding, there is no intent to steal; and when the intent to steal arises with “I won’t give it now,” there is no bodily or verbal action prompted by the owner’s abandonment of responsibility that would lead to an offense. This offense does not arise without action. “Dāne saussāho, rakkhati tāva”, since misappropriation is not mentioned, saying “I do not take it” or similar results only in a pācittiya offense for lying, not a dukkaṭa, due to the absence of intent to steal and concurrent action.
Even if there is no taking-care action in a secure place of the goods deposited in one’s own hand for the purpose of safekeeping, if no other action such as saying “I do not take it” is done, and during a time of disturbance to the kingdom etc. if both parties sit in their respective places and abandon their responsibility saying, “Now I won’t give it to him,” “Now he won’t give it to me,” there is still no theft. Some say here, “It is a pārājika offense because the action of taking care has already been done.” That is merely their opinion, it should not be accepted as valid. For at the time of taking care, there is no thieving mind in him; and at the moment the thieving mind arises with, “Now I won’t give it to him,” there is no physical or verbal action that is the cause for the owner’s mental state of abandoning his responsibility, by which he would incur that offense. For this offense is not one that arises without action. Dāne saussāho, rakkhati tāvāti (While he is anxious about giving, he keeps it): Because he did not speak with reference to theft, if he commits falsehood by saying “I don’t take it”, etc., it is only a pācittiya, not a dukkaṭa, because of the absence of a thieving mind along with the absence of an action done with it. This is how it should be understood.
For the purpose of safeguarding, if one places the goods in one’s own hands and does not use the method of returning it, saying, “I do not take it,” etc., even in times of disturbance, etc., one may say, “I will not give it now, nor will I give it to you now,” and both may sit in their respective places, and even if the burden is relinquished, there is no offense. Some say that there is a pārājika offense due to the act of returning, but this is merely their opinion and should not be accepted as correct. At the time of returning, there is no intention to steal, and at the moment of arising the intention to steal, there is no bodily or verbal action by the owner that causes the relinquishment of the burden, which would lead to an offense. This offense does not arise from inaction. Dāne saussāho, rakkhati tāvā refers to the act of taking, and since it is not stated, saying, “I do not take it,” etc., results only in a pācittiya offense for false speech, not a dukkaṭa, due to the absence of the intention to steal and the absence of the act of taking.
ID340
Yadipi mukhena dassāmīti vadati…pe… pārājikanti ettha katarapayogena āpatti, na tāva paṭhamena bhaṇḍapaṭisāmanapayogena tadā theyyacittabhāvā, nāpi “dassāmī”ti kathanapayogena tadā theyyacitte vijjamānepi payogassa kappiyattāti? Vuccate – sāminā “dehī”ti bahuso yāciyamānopi adatvā yena payogena attano adātukāmataṃ sāmikassa ñāpesi, yena ca so adātukāmo ayaṃ vikkhipatīti ñatvā dhuraṃ nikkhipati, teneva payogenassa āpatti. Na hettha upanikkhittabhaṇḍe pariyāyena mutti atthi. Adātukāmatāya hi “kadā te dinnaṃ, kattha te dinna”ntiādipariyāyavacanenapi sāmikassa dhurenikkhipāpite āpattiyeva. Teneva aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ “kiṃ tumhe bhaṇatha…pe… ubhinnaṃ dhuranikkhepena bhikkhuno pārājika”nti. Parasantakassa parehi gaṇhāpane eva hi pariyāyato mutti, na sabbatthāti gahetabbaṃ. Attano hatthe nikkhittattāti ettha attano hatthe sāminā dinnatāya bhaṇḍāgārikaṭṭhāne ṭhitattā ca ṭhānācāvanepi natthi avahāro, theyyacittena pana gahaṇe dukkaṭato na muccatīti veditabbaṃ. Eseva nayoti avahāro natthi, bhaṇḍadeyyaṃ pana hotīti adhippāyo.
“Yadipi mukhena dassāmīti vadati…pe… pārājika”—by which action does the offense arise? Not by the initial effort to safeguard the goods, as there was no intent to steal then, nor by saying “I will give,” as even with intent to steal the action is permissible. It is said: When the owner repeatedly demands “Give it,” and he does not give, the offense arises by the action through which he conveys his unwillingness to give to the owner, and by which the owner, knowing his unwillingness, abandons responsibility. Here, there is no escape by indirect means for goods entrusted. Even by indirect statements like “When was it given to you? Where was it given?” if the owner abandons responsibility due to unwillingness to give, there is an offense. Hence the commentary says “What do you say… with both abandoning responsibility, the bhikkhu incurs a pārājika.” For another’s property, escape comes only through others taking it indirectly, not in all cases. “Attano hatthe nikkhittattā”—since it was placed in his hand by the owner and stands as a storekeeper’s duty, there is no misappropriation even if removed from the place, but he is not free from a dukkaṭa if taken with intent to steal.
Yadipi mukhena dassāmīti vadati…pe… pārājika (Even if he says with his mouth, “I will give”… etc… pārājika): Here, by what action does the offense occur? Not by the initial action of safeguarding the goods, because there was no thieving mind at that time; nor by the action of saying “I will give,” because even though a thieving mind exists at that time, the action is allowable. It is said: by whatever action he showed the owner his unwillingness to give, by which he understood this action to be frivolous unwillingness to give, and by which he abandons the responsibility and by that very action, the offence is caused in him. There is no release here through an alternative regarding deposited goods. For due to the unwillingness to give, even by speaking in an alternative way such as “When was it given to you? Where was it given to you?” if the responsibility is abandoned by the owner, it is still an offense. Therefore, it is said in the commentary, “What are you saying… etc… by the abandonment of responsibility by both, the monk [incurs] a pārājika.” For there is release from an alternative only when others take possession of another’s property, but not in all cases. This should be understood. Attano hatthe nikkhittattā (Because it was deposited in his own hand): Here, because it was given by the owner into his own hand, and because he stands in the position of a storekeeper, there is no theft even in moving it from its place; but it should be understood that he is not released from a dukkaṭa if he takes it with a thieving mind. Eseva nayoti (The same reasoning applies): There is no theft, but the idea is that it becomes something to be given.
Yadipi mukhena dassāmīti vadati…pe… pārājika means here, by which act is the offense incurred? Not by the first act of returning the goods, as there is no intention to steal at that time, nor by the act of saying, “I will give it,” as the act is permissible even if the intention to steal is present. It is said: when the owner repeatedly requests, “give it,” and one does not give it, and by that act one informs the owner of one’s unwillingness to give, and knowing that the owner is unwilling, one relinquishes the burden, by that act the offense is incurred. There is no exemption here for goods that have been handed over. Due to the unwillingness to give, even if one says, “when was it given to you, where was it given to you,” etc., and causes the owner to relinquish the burden, the offense is still incurred. Therefore, it is said in the commentary: “what are you saying…pe… by the relinquishment of the burden by both, the monk incurs a pārājika.” Exemption is only possible in the case of others taking the belongings of another, not in all cases. Attano hatthe nikkhittattā means that since the goods are placed in one’s own hands by the owner, and one is standing in the place of the storekeeper, there is no offense of taking, but if one takes it with the intention to steal, one is not free from the dukkaṭa offense. Eseva nayo means there is no offense of taking, but the goods are to be given.
ID341
54. Pañcannaṃ sahadhammikānanti bhikkhubhikkhunīsikkhamānasāmaṇerasāmaṇerīnaṃ. Etena na kevalaṃ gihīnaṃ eva, atha kho tāpasaparibbājakādīnampi santakaṃ paṭisāmetuṃ na vaṭṭatīti dasseti. Naṭṭhepi gīvā na hoti, kasmā? Asampaṭicchāpitattāti attho. Dutiye eseva nayoti gīvā na hoti, kasmā? Ajānitattā. Tatiye ca eseva nayoti gīvā na hoti, kasmā? Paṭikkhipitattā. Ettha ca kāyena vā vācāya vā cittena vā paṭikkhittopi paṭikkhittoyeva nāma hoti.
54. “Pañcannaṃ sahadhammikānaṃ” refers to bhikkhus, bhikkhunīs, sikkhamānās, sāmaṇeras, and sāmaṇerīs. This shows that it is not permissible to safeguard the property not only of laypeople but also of ascetics and wanderers. “Naṭṭhepi gīvā na hoti”—why? Because it was not accepted. In the second case, “eseva nayo”—there is no liability, why? Because it was unknown. In the third case, “eseva nayo”—there is no liability, why? Because it was refused. Here, refusal by body, speech, or mind counts as refusal.
54. Pañcannaṃ sahadhammikāna (Of the five co-religionists): Of monks, nuns, female probationers, novice monks, and novice nuns. By this, he shows that it is not permissible to take care of the property not only of householders, but also of ascetics, wanderers, etc. Naṭṭhepi gīvā na hoti, (Even if it is lost, there is no liability) Why? Because it was not accepted. In the second [case], eseva nayo (The same reasoning applies): there is no liability. Why? Because it was not known. And in the third [case], eseva nayo (The same reasoning applies): there is no liability. Why? Because it was rejected. And here, even if it is rejected physically, verbally, or mentally, it is still considered rejected.
54. Pañcannaṃ sahadhammikāna means monks, nuns, female probationers, male novices, and female novices. This shows that it is not only permissible for laypeople, but also for ascetics and wanderers, etc., to return their belongings. Naṭṭhepi gīvā na hoti, why? Because it has not been accepted. In the second case, eseva nayo means the neck is not there, why? Because it is not known. In the third case, eseva nayo means the neck is not there, why? Because it has been rejected. Here, whether rejected by body, speech, or mind, it is still called rejected.
ID342
Tasseva gīvā hoti, na sesabhikkhūnaṃ, kasmā? Tasseva bhaṇḍāgārikassa bhaṇḍāgāre issarabhāvato. Bhaṇḍāgārikassa gīvā na hoti alasajātikasseva pamādena haritattā. Dutiye bhaṇḍāgārikassa gīvā na hoti tassa anārocitattā. Naṭṭhe tassa gīvā tena ṭhapitattā. Tasseva gīvā, na aññesaṃ tena bhaṇḍāgārikena sampaṭicchitattā ṭhapitattā ca. Natthi gīvā tena paṭikkhipitattā. Naṭṭhaṃ sunaṭṭhameva bhaṇḍāgārikassa asampaṭicchāpanato. Naṭṭhe gīvā tena ṭhapitattā. Sabbaṃ tassa gīvā tassa bhaṇḍāgārikassa pamādena haraṇato. Tattheva upacāre vijjamāneti bhaṇḍāgārikassa samīpeyeva uccārapassāvaṭṭhāne vijjamāne.
“Tasseva gīvā hoti”—it is his liability alone, not other bhikkhus’, why? Because the storekeeper has authority over the store. “Bhaṇḍāgārikassa gīvā na hoti”—there is no liability for the storekeeper if taken due to laziness. In the second case, “bhaṇḍāgārikassa gīvā na hoti”—no liability because he was not informed. “Naṭṭhe tassa gīvā”—no liability because it was placed by him. “Tasseva gīvā”—his alone, not others’, because it was accepted and placed by that storekeeper. “Natthi gīvā”—no liability because it was refused by him. “Naṭṭhaṃ sunaṭṭhameva”—what is lost is simply lost due to the storekeeper’s non-acceptance. “Naṭṭhe gīvā”—no liability because it was placed by him. “Sabbaṃ tassa gīvā”—all is his liability due to the storekeeper’s negligence in taking. “Tattheva upacāre vijjamāne”—when the privy or latrine is present right in the storekeeper’s vicinity.
Tasseva gīvā hoti, (He alone is liable), not the remaining monks. Why? Because that storekeeper alone is in charge of the storehouse. Bhaṇḍāgārikassa gīvā na hoti (The storekeeper is not liable) because it was taken away due to the negligence of one who is by nature lazy. In the second [case], bhaṇḍāgārikassa gīvā na hoti (The storekeeper is not liable) because he was not informed. Naṭṭhe tassa gīvā (If it is lost, he is liable) because it was placed by him. Tasseva gīvā, (He alone is liable) not others, because it was accepted and placed by that storekeeper. Natthi gīvā (There is no liability) because it was rejected by him. Naṭṭhaṃ sunaṭṭhameva (If lost, it is completely lost) because the storekeeper did not accept it. Naṭṭhe gīvā (If lost, there is liability) because it was placed by him. Sabbaṃ tassa gīvā (All of it is his liability) because it was taken away due to the negligence of that storekeeper. Tattheva upacāre vijjamāneti (While remaining in the same vicinity): While the place for excrement and urine is very near the storekeeper.
Tasseva gīvā hoti, not for other monks, why? Because he is the storekeeper and has authority over the storehouse. Bhaṇḍāgārikassa gīvā na hoti because he is lazy and careless. In the second case, bhaṇḍāgārikassa gīvā na hoti because he has not been informed. Naṭṭhe tassa gīvā because it has been placed by him. Tasseva gīvā, not for others, because it has been accepted and placed by the storekeeper. Natthi gīvā because it has been rejected. Naṭṭhaṃ sunaṭṭhameva because it has not been accepted by the storekeeper. Naṭṭhe gīvā because it has been placed by him. Sabbaṃ tassa gīvā because it has been taken due to the storekeeper’s carelessness. Tattheva upacāre vijjamāne means that the storekeeper is nearby in the place of excretion.
ID343
55. Mayi ca mate saṅghassa ca senāsane vinaṭṭheti ettha kevalaṃ saṅghassa senāsanaṃ mā vinassīti iminā adhippāyena vivaritumpi vaṭṭatiyevāti vadanti. “Taṃ māressāmī”ti ettake vuttepi vivarituṃ vaṭṭati “gilānapakkhe ṭhitattā avisayo”ti vuttattā. Maraṇato hi paraṃ gelaññaṃ avisayattañca natthi. “Dvāraṃ chinditvā harissāmā”ti ettake vuttepi vivarituṃ vaṭṭatiyeva. Sahāyehi bhavitabbanti tehipi bhikkhācārādīhi pariyesitvā attano santakampi kiñci kiñci dātabbanti vuttaṃ hoti. Ayañhi sāmīcīti bhaṇḍāgāre vasantānaṃ idaṃ vattaṃ. Lolamahātheroti mando momūho ākiṇṇavihārī sadā kīḷāpasuto vā mahāthero.
55. “Mayi ca mate saṅghassa ca senāsane vinaṭṭhe”—some say it is permissible to distribute it even with the intent “May the Saṅgha’s lodging not be destroyed.” Even if only “I will kill him” is said, “vivarituṃ vaṭṭati” because it is said “he stands on the side of the sick, beyond reach.” After death, sickness and inaccessibility do not persist. Even if “We will break the door and take it” is said, it is permissible to distribute. “Sahāyehi bhavitabbaṃ”—it is said that companions should seek alms or such and give something of their own. “Ayañhi sāmīcī”—this is the duty of those dwelling in the storehouse. “Lolamahāthero”—a great elder who is fickle, dull, always dwelling amidst crowds, or fond of play.
55. Mayi ca mate saṅghassa ca senāsane vinaṭṭheti (If I die and the Sangha’s dwelling is destroyed): Here, they say that it is even permissible to open it only with the intention, “Let not the Sangha’s dwelling be destroyed.” Even if only “I will kill him” is said, vivarituṃ vaṭṭati (it is permissible to open it) because it is said, “being on the side of the sick, he is not in a position [to take care of it]”. For after death, there is no sickness or non-position. Even if only “We will break down the door and take it” is said, it is still permissible to open it. Sahāyehi bhavitabbanti (One should have helpers): It is said that they also, having searched for alms, etc., should give some of their own property, little by little. Ayañhi sāmīcīti (For this is the proper conduct): This is the duty of those dwelling in the storehouse. Lolamahātheroti (The greedy elder): The dull, foolish elder who lives in a crowded monastery, or who is always engaged in play.
55. Mayi ca mate saṅghassa ca senāsane vinaṭṭhe means here, it is permissible to explain even with the intention that the monastery’s dwelling should not be destroyed. Even if one says, “I will kill him,” it is permissible to explain, “because he is on the side of the sick and it is not appropriate.” After death, there is no further sickness or inappropriateness. Even if one says, “I will break the door and take it,” it is permissible to explain. Sahāyehi bhavitabba means that they should also search for alms, etc., and give some of their own belongings. Ayañhi sāmīcī means this is the duty of those living in the storehouse. Lolamahāthero means a lazy, foolish, always playful, and indulgent elder.
ID344
56. Itarehīti tasmiṃyeva gabbhe vasantehi bhikkhūhi. Vihārarakkhaṇavāre niyutto vihāravāriko, vuḍḍhapaṭipāṭiyā attano vāre vihārarakkhaṇako. Nivāpanti bhattavetanaṃ. Corānaṃ paṭipathaṃ gatesūti corānaṃ āgamanaṃ ñatvā “paṭhamataraṃyeva gantvā saddaṃ karissāmā”ti corānaṃ abhimukhaṃ gatesu. “Corehi haṭabhaṇḍaṃ āharissāmā”ti tesaṃ anupathaṃ gatesupi eseva nayo. Nibaddhaṃ katvāti “asukakule yāgubhattaṃ vihāravārikānaṃyevā”ti evaṃ niyamanaṃ katvā. Dve tisso yāgusalākā ca cattāri pañca salākabhattāni ca labhamānovāti idaṃ nidassanamattaṃ, tato ūnaṃ vā hotu adhikaṃ vā, attano ca veyyāvaccakarassa ca yāpanamattaṃ labhanameva pamāṇanti gahetabbaṃ. Nissitake jaggāpentīti attano attano nissitake bhikkhācariyāya posentā nissitakehi vihāraṃ jaggāpenti. Asahāyassāti sahāyarahitassa. “Asahāyassa adutiyassā”ti pāṭho yutto. Pacchimaṃ purimasseva vevacanaṃ. Asahāyassa vā attadutiyassa vāti imasmiṃ pana pāṭhe ekena ānītaṃ dvinnaṃ nappahotīti attadutiyassapi vāro nivāritoti vadanti, taṃ “yassa sabhāgo bhikkhu bhattaṃ ānetvā dātā natthī”ti iminā na sameti, vīmaṃsitabbaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.112) pana “attadutiyassāti appicchassa. Attāsarīrameva dutiyo, na aññoti hi attadutiyo, tadubhayassapi atthassa vibhāvanaṃ ’yassā’tiādi. Etena sabbena ekekassa vāro na pāpetabboti dassetī”ti vuttaṃ.
56. “Itarehi”—by the bhikkhus dwelling in that same room. Appointed to the duty of guarding the vihāra, “vihāravāriko” guards the vihāra in turn by seniority. “Nivāpaṃ” means food wages. “Corānaṃ paṭipathaṃ gatesu”—knowing the thieves’ approach, they go toward them first, making noise. Even if they follow the thieves to retrieve stolen goods, the same applies. “Nibaddhaṃ katvā”—designating it as “Yāgu and rice in such a family only for vihāra guardians.” “Dve tisso yāgusalākā ca cattāri pañca salākabhattāni ca labhamāno vā”—this is just an example; whether less or more, obtaining enough to sustain oneself and one’s attendant is the measure. “Nissitake jaggāpenti”—they support their dependents by alms rounds, and the dependents maintain the vihāra. “Asahāyassa”—of one without companions. The reading “asahāyassa adutiyassa” is fitting; the latter is a synonym of the former. Alternatively, “of one without companions or with himself as companion”—in this reading, some say that what one brings is insufficient for two, thus barring the turn of one with himself as companion, but this does not align with “if there is no like-minded bhikkhu to bring and give food,” and should be examined. In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.112), it is said: **“‘Attadutiyassa’** means one with few wishes. Having only his own body as a companion, not another, is attadutiya; both meanings are clarified by ‘yassa’ and so forth, showing that each one’s turn should not be arranged.”
56. Itarehīti (By the others): By the monks residing in that same chamber. Vihāravāriko, (The monastery guard) Appointed for the turn of guarding the monastery: The one who guards the monastery on his turn, according to seniority. Nivāpanti (Fixed allowance): The food allowance. Corānaṃ paṭipathaṃ gatesūti (Having gone on the opposite path of the thieves): Having known of the thieves’ arrival, and having gone towards the thieves with the thought, “We will go earlier and make a noise.” The same reasoning applies if they have gone on the path behind them with the thought, “We will take back the goods stolen by the thieves”. Nibaddhaṃ katvāti (Having made it fixed): Having made it a rule, “Gruel and food in such-and-such a family are only for the monastery guards”. Dve tisso yāgusalākā ca cattāri pañca salākabhattāni ca labhamānovāti (whether he receives two or three portions of gruel or four or five portions of food): This is only an example; whether it is less or more than that, one should take as the standard only the amount sufficient for the sustenance of oneself and one’s attendant. Nissitake jaggāpentīti (making their dependents guard): those who support their dependents with the teaching support dependents guarding the vihāra. Asahāyassāti (Of one without a helper). The reading “Asahāyassa adutiyassāti (Of one without a helper, of one without a companion)” is appropriate. The latter is just another word for the former. Or, in this reading, “Asahāyassa vā attadutiyassa vāti (Of one without a helper, or of one with himself as a second)” they say that the turn is prohibited even for one with himself as a companion, because what is brought by one is not enough for two, it does not agree with what is stated, “For whom there is no fellow monk to bring and give food”, one should examine it carefully. In the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.112), however, it is said: “attadutiyassāti (of one with himself as a companion) of one with few desires. For one whose self, the body, is second, not another, is called attadutiyo(self as a companion), the explanation of both these is the meaning of ‘yassā’(whose) etc. By all this, he shows that one by one, the turn should not be made to fall.”
56. Itarehī means by the monks living in the same cell. The vihāravāriko is appointed to guard the monastery, and the elder in order of seniority is the one who guards the monastery in his turn. Nivāpa means food wages. Corānaṃ paṭipathaṃ gatesū means knowing the arrival of thieves, “we will go first and make a noise,” facing the thieves. “We will take the goods stolen by the thieves,” following their path, the same applies. Nibaddhaṃ katvā means making a rule, “such and such a family will provide rice gruel and food only for the monastery guards.” Dve tisso yāgusalākā ca cattāri pañca salākabhattāni ca labhamānovā means this is just an example, whether less or more, it is only the amount sufficient for oneself and one’s attendant. Nissitake jaggāpentī means supporting their dependents by alms-seeking and guarding the monastery with their dependents. Asahāyassā means without a companion. “Asahāyassa adutiyassā” is the appropriate reading. The latter is synonymous with the former. For one without a companion or a second, in this reading, one cannot bring enough for two, so the turn of the second is also excluded. However, this does not match with “for whom there is no fellow monk to bring and give food,” so it should be examined. In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.112), it is said: “attadutiyassā means one who is content with little. The self alone is the second, not another, thus the attadutiya, and the clarification of the meaning of both is shown by “for whom,” etc. This shows that the turn of each should not be assigned.”
ID345
Pākavattatthāyāti niccaṃ pacitabbayāgubhattasaṅkhātavattatthāya. Ṭhapentīti dāyakā ṭhapenti. Taṃ gahetvāti taṃ ārāmikādīhi dīyamānaṃ bhāgaṃ gahetvā. Upajīvantena ṭhātabbanti abbhokāsikarukkhamūlikenapi pākavattaṃ upanissāya jīvantena attano pattacīvararakkhaṇatthāya vihāravāre sampatte ṭhātabbaṃ. Na gāhāpetabboti ettha yassa abbhokāsikassapi attano adhikaparikkhāro ce ṭhapito atthi, cīvarādisaṅghikabhāgepi ālayo atthi, sopi gāhāpetabbo . Paripucchanti pucchitapañhavissajjanaṃ, aṭṭhakathaṃ vā. Diguṇanti aññehi labbhamānato dviguṇaṃ. Pakkhavārenāti aḍḍhamāsavārena.
“Pākavattatthāya”—for the sake of regular cooking of yāgu and rice. “Ṭhapenti”—donors provide it. “Taṃ gahetvā”—taking the portion given by attendants or such. “Upajīvantena ṭhātabbaṃ”—even one living in the open or at a tree root, relying on cooking duties, must stand in the vihāra duty when it comes, for the sake of protecting his bowl and robes. “Na gāhāpetabbo”—here, even one in the open who has stored extra requisites or has attachment to the Saṅgha’s share of robes should be made to take it. “Paripuccha”—answering questions asked or the commentary. “Diguṇa”—double what others receive. “Pakkhavārena”—by fortnightly turns.
Pākavattatthāyāti (For the sake of the regular duty): For the sake of the duty of always cooking gruel and food. Ṭhapentīti (They place): The donors place. Taṃ gahetvāti (Having taken that): Having taken that portion given by the workers of the monastery, etc. Upajīvantena ṭhātabbanti (One should live depending on): Even one who is living in the open air or at the foot of a tree, living in dependence on the regular duty, should stand on his turn for guarding the monastery for the sake of protecting his own bowl and robes when his turn comes. Na gāhāpetabboti (He should not be made to take): Here, if any open-air dweller has his extra requisites placed, and if he has a desire for a share in the robes, etc., of the Sangha, he too should be made to take. Paripucchanti (Questioning): Answering questions asked, or the commentary. Diguṇanti (Double): Double what is received by others. Pakkhavārenāti (By the half-month turn): By the turn of half a month.
Pākavattatthāyā means for the purpose of constantly cooking rice gruel and food. Ṭhapentī means the donors establish it. Taṃ gahetvā means taking the portion given by the monastery workers, etc. Upajīvantena ṭhātabba means one should stay relying on the cooking duties, even if living in the open air or at the foot of a tree, for the purpose of guarding one’s bowl and robe when the monastery duty arrives. Na gāhāpetabbo means here, even if an open-air dweller has his own extra requisites, and has attachment to the communal robe, etc., he should not be made to take it. Paripuccha means answering questions or explaining the commentary. Diguṇa means double what others receive. Pakkhavārenā means every half-month.
ID346
Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is an exposition of the vinaya compendium,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,
Thus, in the Vinayasaṅgaha, adorned with the Vinayālaṅkāra,
ID347
Bhaṇḍapaṭisāmanavinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma
the section named Bhaṇḍapaṭisāmanavinicchayakathālaṅkāra
This is the ornament of the discussion on the determination of the storage of goods,
The ornament of the discourse on the settlement of goods and requisites is the tenth chapter.
ID348
Dasamo paricchedo.
is the tenth chapter.
The tenth chapter.
The tenth section.
ID349
ID350
57. Evaṃ bhaṇḍapaṭisāmanavinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni kayavikkayavinicchayaṃ kathento “kayavikkayasamāpattī”tiādimāha. Tattha kayanaṃ kayo, parabhaṇḍassa gahaṇaṃ, vikkayanaṃ vikkayo, sakabhaṇḍassa dānaṃ, kayo ca vikkayo ca kayavikkayaṃ. Samāpajjanaṃ samāpatti, tassa duvidhassa kiriyassa karaṇaṃ. Tassarūpaṃ dasseti “iminā”tiādinā.
57. Having explained the determination of safeguarding goods, now discussing the determination of buying and selling, it says “kayavikkayasamāpatti” and so forth. Here, buying (kayanaṃ) is kayo, taking another’s goods; selling (vikkayanaṃ) is vikkayo, giving one’s own goods; buying and selling together is kayavikkayaṃ. Engaging in it is samāpatti, the performance of that twofold action. Its form is shown by “iminā” and so forth.
57. Having thus established the determination of the storage of goods, now, beginning to explain the determination of buying and selling, he says, “kayavikkayasamāpattī” and so forth. Herein, buying is kaya, the taking of another’s goods; selling is vikaya, the giving of one’s own goods; buying and selling is kayavikkaya. Undertaking (samāpajjanaṃ) is samāpatti, the doing of that two-fold action. He shows its nature with “iminā” and so forth.
57. Having thus discussed the settlement of goods and requisites, now, while explaining the settlement of barter, he begins with “the engagement in barter” (kayavikkayasamāpatti). Herein, “kaya” means acquiring, the taking of another’s goods; “vikkaya” means selling, the giving of one’s own goods. The combination of “kaya” and “vikkaya” is “kayavikkaya” (barter). The act of engaging is “samāpatti” (engagement), the performance of these two kinds of actions. Its nature is shown by the phrase “with this” and so on.
ID351
Sesañātakesu saddhādeyyavinipātasambhavato tadabhāvaṭṭhānampi dassetuṃ “mātaraṃ vā pana pitaraṃ vā”tiādi vuttaṃ. Tena viññattisaddhādeyyavinipātanañca na hoti “iminā idaṃ dehī”ti vadantoti dasseti, kayavikkayaṃ pana āpajjati “iminā idaṃ dehī”ti vadantoti dasseti. Iminā ca upari aññātakantyādinā ca sesañātakaṃ “imaṃ dehī”ti vadato viññatti na hoti, “imaṃ gaṇhāhī”ti pana dadato saddhādeyyavinipātanaṃ, “iminā imaṃ dehī”ti kayavikkayaṃ āpajjato nissaggiyanti ayampi attho dassito hoti migapadavalañjananyāyena. Tasmāiccādikepi “mātāpitūhi saddhiṃ kayavikkayaṃ, sesañātakehi saddhiṃ dve āpattiyo, aññātakehi saddhiṃ tisso āpattiyo”ti vattabbe teneva nyāyena ñātuṃ sakkāti katvā na vuttanti daṭṭhabbaṃ, aññathā abyāpitadoso siyā.
To show that among unrelated persons there is loss of faith-given gifts and also where it does not occur, it says “mātaraṃ vā pana pitaraṃ vā” and so forth. This indicates that there is neither prompting nor loss of faith-given gifts when saying “Give this for this” to them, but kayavikkaya is incurred. By this and the later mention of unrelated persons, it is shown that saying “Give this” to other relatives incurs no prompting, saying “Take this” incurs loss of faith-given gifts, and saying “Give this for this” incurs a nissaggiya offense—understood via the deer-track simile. In “tasmā” and so forth, though it might be said “kayavikkaya with parents, two offenses with other relatives, three with unrelated persons,” it is not stated, as it can be understood by that simile, otherwise there would be a fault of omission.
To show the absence of that [wrong livelihood] with other relatives and the possibility of its occurrence in the giving of a gift with faithful intention toward those other relatives, “mātaraṃ vā pana pitaraṃ vā” etc., is said. By that, he shows that he does not occasion an invitation or giving away based on faithful intention, saying “give this with that”; but he indicates that he falls into the offense of buying and selling, saying “Give this for this”. And by this, and later by aññātakantyādinā, he has shown the following meaning through the example of spotting a deer’s footprint: To say, “Give this” to other relatives does not constitute an invitation. But giving with the words, “Take this,” occasions the giving away based on faithful intention, and one who with the words “Give this for that” engages in buying and selling incurs a nissaggiya. The statements beginning Tasmā should be understood as having been unsaid as they can be deduced through the same principle, that is as: “buying and selling with mother and father, two offenses with other relatives, and three offenses with non-relatives”. Otherwise, the fault of incompleteness would have been occurred.
To show that even in the case of relatives, there is no violation of faith-given offerings due to their absence, the phrase “with the mother or father” and so on is stated. By this, it is shown that there is no verbal intimation when saying, “Give this with that,” but barter is committed when saying, “Give this with that.” By this and the above-mentioned cases of non-relatives and so on, it is shown that when saying, “Give this,” there is no verbal intimation, but when giving, saying, “Take this,” there is a violation of faith-given offerings, and when engaging in barter, saying, “Give this with that,” it becomes an offense requiring relinquishment. This meaning is also shown through the simile of the deer’s footprint and the antelope’s horn. Therefore, even in the cases of barter with parents, two offenses with relatives, and three offenses with non-relatives, it should be understood in the same way, and it is not stated to avoid the fault of incompleteness.
ID352
“Idaṃ bhattaṃ bhuñjitvā idaṃ karothā”ti vutte pubbāparasambandhāya kiriyāya vuttattā “iminā idaṃ dehī”ti vuttasadisaṃ hoti. Idaṃ bhattaṃ bhuñja, idaṃ nāma karohī”ti vā, “idaṃ bhattaṃ bhuttosi, idaṃ nāma karohi, idaṃ bhattaṃ bhuñjissasi, idaṃ nāma karohī”ti pana vutte asambandhāya kiriyāya vuttattā kayavikkayo na hoti. Vighāsādānaṃ bhattadāne ca anapekkhattā saddhādeyyavinipātanaṃ na hoti, kārāpane hatthakammamattattā viññatti na hoti, tasmā vaṭṭati. “Ettha cā”tiādinā asatipi nissaggiyavatthumhi pācittiyaṃ desetabbanti dasseti.
When it is said “Having eaten this rice, do this,” due to the connection of prior and subsequent actions, it is like saying “Give this for this.” But if said separately as “Eat this rice, do this,” or “You ate this rice, do this,” or “You will eat this rice, do this,” there is no kayavikkaya due to unconnected actions. In giving leftover food without expectation, there is no loss of faith-given gifts; due to mere handiwork in employing, there is no prompting, so it is permissible. “Ettha ca” and so forth shows that a pācittiya must be confessed even without a nissaggiya item.
When it is said, “After eating this meal, do this,” because of the sequential relationship of the actions mentioned, it is similar to saying, “Give this for that.” But when, “Eat this meal, do this,” or, “You have eaten this meal, do this,” or “you will eat this meal, do this,” there is no buying and selling as the activities are unrelated. Because there is no expectation regarding the food offerings by the garbage eaters or the givers of food, there is no giving away based on faithful intention; because requesting (kārāpana) merely concerns manual work, there is no invitation; therefore, it is permissible. With “Ettha cā” and so forth, he shows that even in the absence of an object requiring relinquishment, he should confess a pācittiya.
When it is said, “Having eaten this meal, do this,” because the action is connected sequentially, it is similar to saying, “Give this with that.” But when it is said, “Eat this meal, do this,” or “Having eaten this meal, do this,” or “You will eat this meal, do this,” because the action is not connected, there is no barter. Since there is no expectation of receiving leftovers or food, there is no violation of faith-given offerings, and because it is merely a manual action, there is no verbal intimation; thus, it is permissible. “Here also” and so on show that even in the absence of an offense requiring relinquishment, a pācittiya offense should be declared.
ID353
Agghaṃ pucchituṃ vaṭṭati, ettāvatā kayavikkayo na hotīti attho. Gaṇhituṃ vaṭṭatīti “iminā idaṃ dehī”ti avuttattā kayavikkayo na hoti, mūlassa atthitāya viññattipi na hoti. Patto na gahetabbo parabhaṇḍassa mahagghatāya. Evaṃ sati kathaṃ kātabboti āha “mama vatthu appagghanti ācikkhitabba”nti. Bhaṇḍaṃ agghāpetvā kāretabbataṃ āpajjati theyyāvahārasambhavato, ūnamāsakaṃ ce agghati, dukkaṭaṃ. Māsakato paṭṭhāya yāva ūnapañcamāsakaṃ ce agghati, thullaccayaṃ. Pañcamāsakaṃ ce agghati, pārājikanti vuttaṃ hoti. Deti, vaṭṭati puññatthāya dinnattā adhikassa. Kappiyakārakassa pana…pe… vaṭṭati ubhato kappiyabhaṇḍattā. Ekato ubhato vā ce akappiyabhaṇḍaṃ hoti, na vaṭṭati. “Mā gaṇhāhī”ti vattabbo, kasmā? Kappiyakārakassa achekattā.
“Agghaṃ pucchituṃ vaṭṭati”—this means asking the value does not constitute kayavikkaya. “Gaṇhituṃ vaṭṭati”—taking is permissible because “Give this for this” is not said, and there is no prompting due to the price’s existence. “Patto na gahetabbo”—a bowl must not be taken due to the high value of another’s goods. If so, how should it be done? It says “mama vatthu appagghanti ācikkhitabbaṃ”—one should declare “My item is of little value.” “Bhaṇḍaṃ agghāpetvā kāretabbataṃ āpajjati”—having goods appraised and made incurs misappropriation; if less than a māsaka, a dukkaṭa; from a māsaka up to less than five māsakas, a thullaccaya; if five māsakas, a pārājika, it is said. “Deti, vaṭṭati”—giving is permissible due to being given for merit’s sake beyond obligation. “Kappiyakārakassa pana…pe… vaṭṭati”—for a kappiyakāraka, it is permissible if both items are allowable; if one or both are unallowable, it is not permissible. “Mā gaṇhāhīti vattabbo”—he should be told “Do not take,” why? Due to the kappiyakāraka’s lack of skill.
It is permissible to ask the price, meaning that by doing so, there is no buying and selling. It is permissible to take because buying and selling does not occur in the absence of stating “Give this by that.”; there is also no invitation because of the existence of a price. The bowl should not be taken, because another’s goods are of high value. When this is so, he asks, “How should it be done?” and answers, “My goods are of little value, should be stated.” He incurs the need to have the goods appraised, because of the possibility of theft; if it is worth less than a māsaka, there is a dukkaṭa. From a māsaka up to less than five māsakas, a thullaccaya. If it is worth five māsakas, it is said to be a pārājika. He gives, it is permissible, because of being given for the sake of merit. But for a requisites-steward … it is permissible, because the goods are allowable on both sides. If the goods are unallowable on one or both sides, it is not permissible. He should be told, “Do not take it,” why? Because of the requisites-steward’s lack of skill.
It is permissible to ask the price, but up to this point, there is no barter. It is permissible to take, but since it is not said, “Give this with that,” there is no barter, and because the root cause is present, there is also no verbal intimation. The bowl should not be taken due to the high value of another’s goods. In such a case, what should be done? It is said, “One should inform them that my item is of little value.” Committing to have the item priced incurs an offense because it leads to theft-like transactions. If it is worth less than a māsaka, it is a dukkaṭa offense. From one māsaka up to less than five māsakas, it is a thullaccaya offense. If it is worth five māsakas, it is a pārājika offense, as stated. It is permissible to give because it is given for the sake of merit. For the kappiyakāraka, it is permissible because the goods are permissible on both sides. If the goods are impermissible on one or both sides, it is not permissible. One should say, “Do not take it,” why? Because the kappiyakāraka is not present.
ID354
Aññena appaṭiggahitena attho, kasmā? Sattāhakālikattā telassa. Paṭiggahitatelaṃ sattāhaparamaṃ eva ṭhapetabbaṃ, tasmā tato paraṃ ṭhapitukāmassa appaṭiggahitatelena attho hoti. Appaṭiggahitaṃ dūseyya, aniyamitakālaṃ appaṭiggahitatelaṃ nāḷiyaṃ avasiṭṭhapaṭiggahitatelaṃ attano kālaṃ vattāpeyya.
“Aññena appaṭiggahitena attho”—there is need for unaccepted oil, why? Because oil is allowable for seven days. Accepted oil can be kept only up to seven days; thus, one wishing to keep it longer needs unaccepted oil. “Appaṭiggahitaṃ dūseyya”—unaccepted oil of unspecified duration could affect the remaining accepted oil in a vessel for its own duration.
He needs other oil that has not been accepted, why? Because oil is a seven-day-allowance. Accepted oil should be kept for a maximum of seven days; therefore, one who wishes to keep it beyond that needs oil that has not been accepted. He would spoil that which has not been accepted, he would cause accepted oil that is left in the container to last for its own time limit, oil that has not been accepted with an unspecified time limit.
The purpose of not accepting it with another, why? Because the oil is only for seven days. Accepted oil should be kept for a maximum of seven days; therefore, for one who wishes to keep it beyond that, the purpose is to use unaccepted oil. Unaccepted oil may spoil, as unaccepted oil kept in a container for an indefinite period may cause the remaining accepted oil to spoil over time.
ID355
58. Idaṃ pattacatukkaṃ veditabbanti akappiyapattacatukkaṃ vuttaṃ, pañcamo pana kappiyo. Tena vakkhati “ayaṃ patto sabbakappiyo buddhānampi paribhogāraho”ti. Ayaṃ patto mahāakappiyo nāma, kasmā? Rūpiyaṃ uggaṇhitvā ayabījaṃ samuṭṭhāpetvā tena lohena pattassa kāritattā, evaṃ bījato paṭṭhāya dūsitattā. Yathā ca tatiyapārājikavisaye thāvarapayogesu pāsasūlādīsu mūlato paṭṭhāya kāritesu kismiñci daṇḍamatte vā vākamatte vā avasiṭṭhe sati na muccati, sabbasmiṃ naṭṭheyeva muccati, evamidhāpi bījato paṭṭhāya katattā tasmiṃ patte kismiñci patte avasiṭṭhepi kappiyo bhavituṃ na sakkā. Tathā ca vakkhati “sacepi taṃ vināsetvā thālakaṃ kāreti, tampi akappiya”ntyādi. Evaṃ santepi dutiyapatte viya mūle ca mūlassāmikānaṃ, patte ca pattassāmikānaṃ dinne kappiyo kātuṃ sakkā bhaveyya nu khoti āsaṅkāyamāha “na sakkā kenaci upāyena kappiyo kātu”nti. Tassattho – dutiyapattaṃ rūpiyaṃ paṭiggaṇhitvā gihīhi pariniṭṭhāpitameva kiṇāti, na bījato paṭṭhāya dūseti, tasmā dutiyapatto kappiyo kātuṃ sakkā, idha pana bījato paṭṭhāya dūsitattā tena bhikkhunā taṃ pattaṃ puna ayapāsāṇabījaṃ kātuṃ asakkuṇeyyattā, paṭiggahitarūpiyassa ca vaḷañjitattā puna sāmikānaṃ dātuṃ asakkuṇeyyattā na sakkā kenaci upāyena kappiyo kātunti.
58. “Idaṃ pattacatukkaṃ veditabbaṃ”—this quartet of bowls should be understood as unallowable; the fifth, however, is allowable. Hence it will say “This bowl is fully allowable, suitable even for the Buddhas’ use.” “Ayaṃ patto mahāakappiyo nāma”—why? Because silver (rūpiya) was accepted, iron ore was extracted with it, and the bowl was made with that metal, thus tainted from the source. Just as in the third pārājika case, with fixed implements like snares or stakes, if made from the source and any part—whether a stick or fragment—remains, one is not free; only when all is lost is one free—so here, made from the source, even if part of the bowl remains, it cannot be allowable. Hence it will say “Even if it is destroyed and made into a plate, that too is unallowable” and so forth. Even so, could it be made allowable like the second bowl by giving the source to its owners and the bowl to its owners? Addressing this doubt, it says “na sakkā kenaci upāyena kappiyo kātu”—it cannot be made allowable by any means. The meaning is: The second bowl, bought after accepting silver and completed by laypeople, does not taint from the source, so it can be made allowable; but here, tainted from the source, that bhikkhu cannot turn it back into iron ore, and since the accepted silver has been used up, it cannot be returned to the owners, thus it cannot be made allowable by any means.
58. This set of four bowls should be understood, the set of four unallowable bowls has been stated, but the fifth is allowable. Therefore, he will say, “This bowl is entirely allowable, worthy of use even by Buddhas.” This bowl is called very unallowable, why? Because, having obtained money, and having caused the iron ore to be produced, the bowl was made with that iron; thus, it is spoiled from the very beginning, from the ore. And just as in the case of the third pārājika, in permanent devices like traps and stakes, if even a small amount of wood or bark remains from what was originally made, one is not released; one is released only when all of it has been destroyed, so too here, because it was made from the very beginning, from the ore, even if a small amount of that bowl remains, it cannot become allowable. And thus, he will say, “Even if he destroys it and makes a plate, even that is unallowable,” and so forth. Even so, one might wonder whether it could be made allowable by giving the original price to the original owners and the bowl to the bowl’s owners, as in the case of the second bowl, he says, “It cannot be made allowable by any means.” The meaning of that is – the second bowl is bought only after being completely made by laypeople through the acceptance of money; it is not spoiled from the very beginning, from the ore. Therefore, the second bowl can be made allowable. But here, because it is spoiled from the very beginning, from the ore, that bowl cannot be made into iron ore again by that monk, and because the accepted money has been spent, it cannot be given back to the owners; therefore, it cannot be made allowable by any means.
58. This set of four bowls should be understood as the set of four impermissible bowls, but the fifth is permissible. Therefore, it is said, “This bowl is entirely permissible and worthy of use even by the Buddhas.” This bowl is called the greatly impermissible bowl, why? Because silver was taken, iron ore was produced, and the bowl was made from that metal, thus being tainted from the source. Just as in the case of the third pārājika offense, in the case of fixed implements like traps and spikes, if even a small portion remains, one is not freed from the offense until the entire thing is destroyed, so here too, because it is made from the source, even if a portion of the bowl remains, it cannot be made permissible. Thus, it is said, “Even if one destroys it and makes a plate, that too is impermissible.” Even so, like the second bowl, if the source and the owners of the source, and the bowl and the owners of the bowl are given, it could be made permissible, but here it is said, “It cannot be made permissible by any means.” The meaning is that the second bowl is bought after the silver has been fully processed by laypeople, not tainted from the source, thus the second bowl can be made permissible. But here, because it is tainted from the source, the monk cannot again make iron ore from that bowl, and because the accepted silver is entangled, it cannot be given back to the owners; thus, it cannot be made permissible by any means.
ID356
Idāni taṃ asakkuṇeyyattaṃ aññena pakārena vitthāretuṃ “sacepī”tiādimāha. Iminā kiñcipi ayavatthumhi avasiṭṭhe sati akappiyova hotīti dasseti. Tena vuttaṃ vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.591) “rūpiyaṃ uggaṇhitvāti idaṃ ukkaṭṭhavasena vuttaṃ, muttādidukkaṭavatthumpi uggaṇhitvā kāritampi pañcannaṃ na vaṭṭati eva. Samuṭṭhāpetīti sayaṃ gantvā vā ’imaṃ kahāpaṇādiṃ kammakārānaṃ datvā bījaṃ samuṭṭhāpehī’ti aññaṃ āṇāpetvā vā samuṭṭhāpeti. Mahāakappiyoti attanāva bījato paṭṭhāya dūsitattā aññassa mūlassāmikassa abhāvato vuttaṃ. So hi corehi acchinnopi puna laddho jānantassa kassacīpi na vaṭṭati. Yadi hi vaṭṭeyya, taḷākādīsu viya ’acchinno vaṭṭatī’ti ācariyā vadeyyuṃ. Na sakkā kenaci upāyenāti saṅghassa vissajjanena corādiacchindanenapi kappiyo kātuṃ na sakkā, idañca tena rūpena ṭhitaṃ tammūlakena vatthamuttādirūpena ṭhitañca sandhāya vuttaṃ. Dukkaṭavatthumpi hi tammūlakakappiyavatthu ca na sakkā kenaci tena rūpena kappiyaṃ kātuṃ. Yadi pana so bhikkhu tena kappiyavatthunā, dukkaṭavatthunā vā puna rūpiyaṃ cetāpeyya, taṃ rūpiyaṃ nissajjāpetvā aññesaṃ kappiyaṃ kātumpi sakkā bhaveyyāti daṭṭhabba”nti. Yaṃ pana sāratthadīpaniyaṃ papañcitaṃ, yañca tameva gahetvā porāṇaṭīkāyaṃ papañcitaṃ, taṃ vitthāretvā vuccamānaṃ ativitthāritañca bhavissati, sotūnañca dubbiññeyyaṃ, tasmā ettakameva vadimha, atthikehi pana tesu tesu pakaraṇesu oloketvā gahetabbanti.
Now, to elaborate further on this impossibility, it says “sacepi” and so forth. This shows that if any iron object remains, it is unallowable. Hence it is said in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.591): **“‘Rūpiyaṃ uggaṇhitvā’** is said in the highest sense; even if made by accepting items like pearls, a dukkaṭa object, it is still not permissible for the five. ‘Samuṭṭhāpeti’—he extracts it himself or has another extract it by saying ‘Give this kahāpaṇa or such to the workers and extract the ore.’ ‘Mahāakappiyo’—it is said so because it is tainted by himself from the source, with no other owner of the source. Even if stolen by thieves and recovered, it is not permissible for anyone knowing it. If it were permissible, teachers would say ‘If stolen, it is allowable,’ like ponds. ‘Na sakkā kenaci upāyena’—it cannot be made allowable by relinquishing it to the Saṅgha or by thieves stealing it; this refers to what remains in that form or in forms like cloth or pearls derived from it. Even a dukkaṭa object or allowable item derived from it cannot be made allowable in that form. But if that bhikkhu were to exchange it again for silver with an allowable or dukkaṭa item, it could be relinquished and made allowable for others.” What is elaborated in the Sāratthadīpanī and the old commentary based on it, if fully explained, would be too extensive and hard for listeners to grasp, so we say only this much; those interested should consult those texts.
Now, to further elaborate on that impossibility by another method, he says, “sacepī” and so forth. By this, he shows that even if the slightest bit of iron remains, it is still unallowable. Therefore, it is said in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.591): “Having obtained money” this is stated from the highest perspective. Even if it were made having obtained even an object for a dukkaṭa such as pearls, it is not allowable for any of the five. He causes to be produced he himself goes or instructs another, saying ‘Give this kahāpaṇa to the workers and have them produce the ore’. Very Unallowable it is stated because, he spoiled it himself from the beginning, and there is no other owner of the original price. Even if recovered after being stolen by thieves, it is not allowable for anyone who knows [its history]. If it were allowable, the teachers would say, ‘What has been stolen is allowable,’ as in the case of reservoirs and so forth. It cannot be made allowable by any means it cannot be made allowable even by giving it to the Sangha or by a thief stealing it. And this is said with reference to that which remains in that form and that which remains in the form of cloth, pearls, and so forth, which are worth that original price. Even an object entailing a dukkaṭa and an allowable object worth the original price of that cannot be made allowable in that form by any means. But if that monk were to acquire money again with that allowable object or object entailing a dukkaṭa, that money should be relinquished, and it could be made allowable for others, it should be understood.” But what has been elaborated in the Sāratthadīpanī, and what has been elaborated in the Porāṇaṭīkā taking that very same text, will become too extensive if further elaborated, and it will be difficult for the listeners to understand; therefore, we say only this much. Those who seek understanding should look at and grasp the various texts.
Now, to elaborate on that impossibility in another way, he begins with “even if” and so on. This shows that even if a portion of the iron remains, it is still impermissible. Therefore, it is said in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.591): “Taking silver” is stated in an elevated sense; even if pearls and other dukkaṭa items are taken and made, they are not permissible. “Producing” means going oneself or instructing another, saying, “Give this coin to the workers and produce the ore.” “Greatly impermissible” is said because it is tainted from the source by oneself, and there is no other owner of the source. Even if stolen by thieves and later recovered, it is not permissible for anyone who knows. If it were permissible, the teachers would say, “The stolen item is permissible,” as in the case of ponds and so on. “It cannot be made permissible by any means” means that even by relinquishing to the Sangha or by theft and so on, it cannot be made permissible, and this is stated with reference to the form in which it exists and the form of cloth, pearls, etc., connected to that source. Even dukkaṭa items and items permissible from the source cannot be made permissible by any means in that form. However, if that monk again exchanges that permissible item or dukkaṭa item for silver, that silver should be relinquished, and other permissible items can be made, as should be understood. What is elaborated in the Sāratthadīpanī and what is similarly elaborated in the ancient commentary, if further elaborated here, would become too lengthy and difficult for listeners to understand, so we have said only this much. Those interested should examine and take from those respective texts.
ID357
Dutiyapatte pañcannampi sahadhammikānaṃ na kappatīti rūpiyassa paṭiggahitattā, kayavikkayassa ca katattā. Sakkā pana kappiyo kātunti gihīhi pariniṭṭhāpitapattasseva kiṇitattā , bījato paṭṭhāya adūsitattā, mūlamūlassāmikānañca pattapattassāmikānañca vijjamānattā. Yathā pana sakkā hoti, taṃ dassetuṃ “mūle”tiādimāha.
In the second bowl, “pañcannampi sahadhammikānaṃ na kappati”—because silver was accepted and kayavikkaya was performed. “Sakkā pana kappiyo kātu”—it can be made allowable because it was bought completed by laypeople, not tainted from the source, and both the source’s owners and bowl’s owners exist. To show how, it says “mūle” and so forth.
In the case of the second bowl, it is not allowable for any of the five fellow practitioners, because money has been accepted and buying and selling has taken place. But it can be made allowable, because only a bowl completely made by laypeople has been purchased, it is not spoiled from the very beginning, from the ore, and the original owners of the original price and the bowl’s owners are present. To show how it can be made allowable, he says, “mūle” and so forth.
Regarding the second bowl, “it is not permissible for any of the five” because silver has been accepted and barter has been conducted. “But it can be made permissible” because the bowl is bought after being fully processed by laypeople, not tainted from the source, and because the source and the owners of the source, and the bowl and the owners of the bowl, are present. To show how it can be made permissible, he begins with “the source” and so on.
ID358
Tatiyapatte sadisoyevāti “pañcannampi sahadhammikānaṃ na vaṭṭati, sakkā pana kappiyo kātu”nti imaṃ nayaṃ niddisati. Nanu tatiyapatto kappiyavohārena gahito, atha kasmā akappiyoti codanaṃ sandhāyāha “kappiyavohārena gahitopi dutiyapattasadisoyeva, mūlassa sampaṭicchitattā akappiyo”ti. Dutiyacodanaṃ pana sayameva vadati. Ettha ca “dutiyapattasadisoyevā”ti vuttattā mūle ca mūlassāmikānaṃ, patte ca pattassāmikānaṃ dinne kappiyo hoti, kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ datvā gahetvā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatīti daṭṭhabbo. Mūlassa anissaṭṭhattāti yena uggahitamūlena patto kīto, tassa mūlassa saṅghamajjhe anissaṭṭhattā. Etena rūpiyameva nissajjitabbaṃ, na tammūlakaṃ arūpiyanti dasseti. Yadi hi tena sampaṭicchitamūlaṃ saṅghamajjhe nissaṭṭhaṃ siyā, tena kappiyena kammena ārāmikādīhi gahetvā dinnapatto rūpiyapaṭiggāhakaṃ ṭhapetvā sesānaṃ vaṭṭeyya.
In the third bowl, “sadisoyeva”—it specifies this method: “It is not permissible for the five co-religionists, but it can be made allowable.” Though bought with an allowable transaction, why is it unallowable? Addressing this, it says “kappiyavohārena gahitopi dutiyapattasadisoyeva, mūlassa sampaṭicchitattā akappiyo”—even if taken with an allowable transaction, it is like the second bowl, unallowable because the source was accepted. It raises and answers its own second objection. Since it says “like the second bowl,” it is allowable when the source is given to its owners and the bowl to its owners; it is permissible to take and use it by giving an allowable item.
In the case of the third bowl, it is just the same, he indicates this principle, “It is not allowable for any of the five fellow practitioners, but it can be made allowable.” Surely the third bowl was taken through allowable means. Then why is it unallowable? He answers this question by saying, “Even though taken through allowable means, it is just like the second bowl, because the price has been accepted, it is unallowable.” He himself states the second question. And here, because it is said, “It is just like the second bowl,” it becomes allowable when the original price is given to the original owners and the bowl is given to the bowl’s owners; it is allowable to take and use it having given allowable goods. Because the price has not been relinquished, because the price with which the bowl was bought has not been relinquished in the midst of the Sangha. By this, he shows that only the money should be relinquished, not the non-monetary goods worth that price. For if the price accepted by him were relinquished in the midst of the Sangha, then the bowl taken and given by ārāmikas and others through that allowable transaction would be allowable for those other than the one who accepted the money.
Regarding the third bowl, “it is similar” means “it is not permissible for any of the five, but it can be made permissible,” indicating this method. But the third bowl is taken in a permissible manner, so why is it impermissible? To address this question, it is said, “Though taken in a permissible manner, it is similar to the second bowl, and because the source has been accepted, it is impermissible.” The second objection is stated by itself. Here, because it is said, “similar to the second bowl,” if the source and the owners of the source, and the bowl and the owners of the bowl, are given, it becomes permissible, and it is permissible to take and use the permissible goods. “Because the source has not been relinquished” means that the source by which the bowl was bought has not been relinquished in the midst of the Sangha. This shows that only the silver should be relinquished, not the non-silver connected to the source. If that accepted source had been relinquished in the midst of the Sangha, then the bowl given by the monastery workers and so on, except for the one who accepted the silver, would be permissible for the rest.
ID359
Catutthapatte dubbicāritattāti “ime kahāpaṇe datvā idaṃ dehī”ti gahitattā gihisantakānaṃ kahāpaṇānaṃ duṭṭhuvicāritattā etassa vicāraṇakassa bhikkhuno eva na vaṭṭatīti attho. Mūlassa asampaṭicchitattāti etena mūlassa gihisantakattaṃ dasseti, teneva pattassa rūpiyasaṃvohārena anuppannatañca dasseti, tena ca tassa pattassa nissajjiyābhāvaṃ, bhikkhussa ca pācittiyābhāvaṃ dīpeti, tena ca dubbicāritamattena dukkaṭamattabhāvaṃ pakāseti. Nissajjīti idañca dānavasena vuttaṃ, na vinayakammavasena. Teneva ca “sappissa pūrāpetvā”ti vuttaṃ.
In the fourth bowl, “dubbicāritattā”—because it was taken saying “Give these kahāpaṇas and give this,” due to the wrongful consideration of lay-owned kahāpaṇas, it is not permissible for that bhikkhu who considered it. “Mūlassa asampaṭicchitattā”—this shows the source belongs to laypeople, indicating the bowl was not obtained through silver transaction, thus it has no nissaggiya status, and the bhikkhu has no pācittiya, only a dukkaṭa due to wrongful consideration. “Nissajjī”—this is said regarding giving, not a vinaya act. Hence it says “sappissa pūrāpetvā”.
In the case of the fourth bowl, because of having handled it improperly, because it was taken saying, “Give this having given these kahāpaṇas,” because of the kahāpaṇas belonging to the laypeople having been handled improperly, it is not allowable for this monk who is the handler. Because the price has not been accepted, by this, he shows that the price belongs to the laypeople; by that very reason, he also shows that the bowl was not produced through a transaction involving money; and by that, he indicates the absence of the need for that bowl to be relinquished and the absence of a pācittiya for the monk; and by that, he reveals that it is only a dukkaṭa simply because of the improper handling. Nissajjī and this is stated in the sense of giving, not in the sense of a Vinaya procedure. Therefore, it is said, “having filled it with ghee.”
Regarding the fourth bowl, “due to improper conduct” means that because it was taken by saying, “Give this in exchange for these coins,” and because the coins of the laypeople were improperly handled, it is not permissible for this monk who conducted the transaction. “Because the source has not been accepted” shows that the source belongs to the laypeople, and thus the bowl has not arisen through silver transactions, and therefore there is no need to relinquish the bowl, and the monk incurs no pācittiya offense. This also shows that due to mere improper conduct, it is only a dukkaṭa offense. “Relinquishment” is stated in the sense of giving, not in the sense of a disciplinary action. Thus, “filled with ghee” is also stated.
ID360
Pañcamapatte sabbakappiyoti attano ca pañcannaṃ sahadhammikānañca buddhapaccekabuddhānañca kappiyo. Tenāha “buddhānampi paribhogāraho”ti.
In the fifth bowl, “sabbakappiyo”—fully allowable for oneself, the five co-religionists, Buddhas, and Paccekabuddhas. Hence it says “buddhānampi paribhogāraho”.
In the case of the fifth bowl, entirely allowable, it is allowable for oneself, for the five fellow practitioners, for Buddhas, and for Paccekabuddhas. Therefore, he says, “worthy of use even by Buddhas.”
Regarding the fifth bowl, “entirely permissible” means permissible for oneself and the five kinds of righteous persons, as well as the Buddhas and Paccekabuddhas. Therefore, it is said, **“worthy of use even by the Buddhas.”
ID361
Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is an exposition of the vinaya compendium,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is an explanation of the collection of the Vinaya,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is adorned with the essence of the Vinaya,
ID362
Kayavikkayasamāpattivinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma
the section named Kayavikkayasamāpattivinicchayakathālaṅkāra
the ornament of the discussion on the determination of the offenses of buying and selling
The ornament of the discourse on the settlement of engaging in barter is the eleventh chapter.
ID363
Ekādasamo paricchedo.
is the eleventh chapter.
The eleventh chapter.
The eleventh section.
ID364
ID365
59. Evaṃ kayavikkayasamāpattivinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni rūpiyādipaṭiggahaṇavinicchayaṃ kathento “rūpiyādipaṭiggaho”tiādimāha. Tattha saññāṇatthāya kataṃ rūpaṃ ettha atthīti rūpiyaṃ, yaṃ kiñci vohārūpagaṃ dhanaṃ. Tena vuttaṃ samantapāsādikāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.583-584) “idha pana yaṃ kiñci vohāragamanīyaṃ kahāpaṇādi adhippeta”nti. Paṭhamaṃ ādīyatītiādi, kiṃ taṃ? Rūpiyaṃ, rūpiyaṃ ādi yesaṃ teti rūpiyādayo, dāsidāsakhettavatthuādayo, paṭiggahaṇaṃ paṭiggaho, sampaṭicchananti attho. Rūpiyādīnaṃ paṭiggaho rūpiyādipaṭiggaho. Jātasamaye uppannaṃ rūpameva rūpaṃ assa bhavati, na vikāramāpajjatīti jātarūpaṃ, suvaṇṇaṃ. Dhavalasabhāvatāya sattehi rañjiyateti rajataṃ, sajjhu. Jātarūpena kato māsako jātarūpamāsako. Rajatena kato māsako rajatamāsakoti idaṃ catubbidhameva nissaggiyavatthu hoti, na lohamāsakādayoti āha “tambalohādīhi…pe… saṅgahito”ti. Tambalohādīhīti ādi-saddena kaṃsalohavaṭṭalohatipusīsādīhi katopi lohamāsakoyevāti dasseti. Kiṃ idameva nissaggiyavatthu hoti, udāhu muttādayopīti āha “muttā…pe… dukkaṭavatthū”ti. Imesaṃ dvinnaṃ vatthūnaṃ ko visesoti āha “tattha nissaggiyavatthuṃ…pe… dukkaṭamevā”ti. Tattha nissaggiyavatthu attano atthāya nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ, sesānaṃ atthāya dukkaṭaṃ, dukkaṭavatthu sabbesaṃ atthāya dukkaṭamevāti yojanā.
59. Having explained the determination of buying and selling, now discussing the determination of accepting silver and so forth, it says “rūpiyādipaṭiggaho” and so forth. Here, rūpiyaṃ means that which has form (rūpa) made for recognition, any wealth used in transactions. Thus it is said in the Samantapāsādikā (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.583-584): “Here, whatever is usable in transactions, like kahāpaṇas, is intended.” That which is taken first is the beginning (ādi)—what is it? Rūpiyaṃ; those beginning with rūpiyaṃ are rūpiyādayo—slaves, fields, and so forth; accepting is paṭiggaho, meaning reception. The acceptance of rūpiyaṃ and so forth is rūpiyādipaṭiggaho. That whose form arises at birth and does not change is jātarūpaṃ, gold. That which delights beings due to its white nature is rajataṃ, silver. A māsaka made of jātarūpa is jātarūpamāsako; a māsaka made of rajata is rajatamāsako—these four alone are nissaggiya items, not copper māsakas and such, hence it says “tambalohādīhi…pe… saṅgahito”. “Tambalohādīhi”—with ādi including bronze, brass, lead, and so forth, it means only a lohamāsako made of these. Is this alone a nissaggiya item, or pearls and such too? It says “muttā…pe… dukkaṭavatthu”. What is the difference between these two items? It says “tattha nissaggiyavatthuṃ…pe… dukkaṭameva”—there, a nissaggiya item for oneself is nissaggiya pācittiya, for others a dukkaṭa; a dukkaṭa item is a dukkaṭa for all.
59. Having thus explained the determination of the offenses of buying and selling, now, beginning to explain the determination of the acceptance of money and so on, he says “rūpiyādipaṭiggaho” and so forth. Therein, rūpiyaṃ is that in which there is a form (rūpa) made for the purpose of recognition, any wealth that has entered into circulation. Therefore, it is said in the Samantapāsādikā (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.583-584), “Here, however, whatever kahāpaṇa and so on that is acceptable in circulation is intended.” That which is first taken (ādīyatī) is ādi; what is that? Money (rūpiyaṃ); rūpiyādayo are those of whom money is the first, such as female and male slaves, fields, and lands; acceptance (paṭiggahaṇaṃ) is paṭiggaho, meaning acceptance (sampaṭicchananti). The acceptance of money and so on is rūpiyādipaṭiggaho. The form (rūpa) that arises at the time of birth remains its form (rūpa); it does not undergo change; therefore, it is jātarūpaṃ, gold. Because of its white nature, it is called rajataṃ, silver, because it delights beings. A māsaka made of jātarūpa is a jātarūpamāsako. A māsaka made of rajata is a rajatamāsako; only these four kinds are objects requiring relinquishment, not lohamāsakas and so on; he says, “tambalohādīhi…pe… saṅgahito.” By tambalohādīhi, with the word ādi, he shows that even what is made of bronze, brass, bell metal, tin, and lead is also a lohamāsakoyeva. Is only this an object requiring relinquishment, or are pearls and so on also? He says, “muttā…pe… dukkaṭavatthū.” What is the difference between these two types of objects? He says, “tattha nissaggiyavatthuṃ…pe… dukkaṭamevā.” Therein, an object requiring relinquishment is a nissaggiya pācittiya for one’s own sake, a dukkaṭa for the sake of others; an object entailing a dukkaṭa is only a dukkaṭa for everyone’s sake – this is the explanation.
59. Having thus discussed the settlement of engaging in barter, now, while explaining the settlement of accepting money and so on, he begins with “the acceptance of money” (rūpiyādipaṭiggaha). Herein, “rūpa” means form, and here it refers to money, any wealth that is used in transactions. Therefore, it is said in the Samantapāsādikā (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.583-584): “Here, whatever is used in transactions, such as coins, is intended.” First, it is taken, etc., what is that? Money, money is the first among these, such as slaves, fields, and so on; the act of accepting is “paṭiggaha,” meaning to receive. The acceptance of money and so on is “rūpiyādipaṭiggaha” (acceptance of money). What is born as form remains as form and does not change, thus “jātarūpa” (gold). Due to its pure nature, it is pleasing to beings, thus “rajata” (silver). A māsaka made of gold is “jātarūpamāsaka” (gold māsaka). A māsaka made of silver is “rajatamāsaka” (silver māsaka). These four are the grounds for offenses requiring relinquishment, not copper māsakas and so on, as stated: “with copper and so on… included.” “With copper and so on” means that with the word “ādi” (and so on), māsakas made of bronze, iron, lead, and so on are also included, showing that they are “lohamāsakas” (metal māsakas). Is this the only ground for offenses requiring relinquishment, or are pearls and so on also included? It is said: “pearls… are grounds for dukkaṭa offenses.” What is the distinction between these two grounds? It is said: “Here, the ground for offenses requiring relinquishment… is only a dukkaṭa.” Herein, the ground for offenses requiring relinquishment is a pācittiya offense requiring relinquishment for one’s own benefit, but a dukkaṭa offense for the benefit of others. The ground for dukkaṭa offenses is only a dukkaṭa offense for all purposes, thus the explanation.
ID366
Idāni tesu vatthūsu kappiyākappiyavinicchayaṃ vitthārato dassetuṃ āha “tatrāyaṃ vinicchayo”ti. Tattha sampaṭicchituṃ na vaṭṭati, kasmā? “Idaṃ saṅghassa dammī”ti akappiyavohārena dinnattā. Datvā pakkamati, vaṭṭati, kasmā? Saṅghassa hatthe adatvā vaḍḍhakīādīnaṃ hatthe dinnattā. Evampi vaṭṭati gihīnaṃ hatthe ṭhapitattā. Paṭikkhipituṃ na vaṭṭati saṅghagaṇapuggalānaṃ anāmasitattā. “Na vaṭṭatī”ti paṭikkhipitabbaṃ “tumhe gahetvā ṭhapethā”ti vuttattā. Paṭiggahaṇepi paribhogepi āpattīti “saṅghassa dammī”ti vuttattā paṭiggahaṇe pācittiyaṃ, paribhoge dukkaṭaṃ. Sveva sāpattikoti dukkaṭāpattiṃ sandhāya vadati. Vadati, vaṭṭati “tumhe paccaye paribhuñjathā”ti kappiyavohārena vuttattā. Cīvaratthāya dinnaṃ cīvareyeva upanetabbaṃ, kasmā? Yathā dāyakā vadanti, tathā paṭipajjitabbattā. Senāsanapaccayassa itarapaccayattayato visesaṃ dassento “senāsanatthāyā”tiādimāha. Iminā avissajjiyaavebhaṅgiyabhāvaṃ dasseti. Evaṃ santepi āpadāsu kattabbavidhiṃ dassento “sace panā”tiādimāha.
Now, to explain in detail the determination of allowable and unallowable among these items, it says “tatrāyaṃ vinicchayo”. There, “sampaṭicchituṃ na vaṭṭati”—why? Because it was given with an unallowable transaction, “I give this to the Saṅgha.” “Datvā pakkamati, vaṭṭati”—why? Because it was given to carpenters and such, not the Saṅgha’s hands. “Evampi vaṭṭati”—because it was placed in laypeople’s hands. “Paṭikkhipituṃ na vaṭṭati”—because it was not offered to the Saṅgha, group, or individual. “’Na vaṭṭati’ti paṭikkhipitabbaṃ”—because it was said “You take and keep it.” “Paṭiggahaṇepi paribhogepi āpatti”—because it was said “I give to the Saṅgha,” a pācittiya in accepting, a dukkaṭa in using. “Sveva sāpattiko”—he is with offense the next day, referring to a dukkaṭa. “Vadati, vaṭṭati”—because it was said with an allowable transaction, “You use it for requisites.” “Cīvaratthāya dinnaṃ cīvareyeva upanetabbaṃ”—why? Because it must be used as the donors specify. Showing the distinction of lodging requisites from the other three, it says “senāsanatthāya” and so forth. This indicates their non-relinquishable, indivisible nature. Even so, showing the procedure in emergencies, it says “sace pana” and so forth.
Now, to show the determination of what is allowable and unallowable among those objects in detail, he says, “tatrāyaṃ vinicchayo.” Therein, it should not be accepted, why? Because it was given with an unallowable expression, “I give this to the Sangha.” He gives and departs, it is permissible, why? Because it was not given into the hands of the Sangha but into the hands of carpenters and so forth. Even in this way, it is permissible, because it has been placed in the hands of laypeople. It should not be refused, because it has not been offered directly to the Sangha, the group, or individuals. “It is not allowable” should be rejected, because it was said, “You take it and keep it.” In acceptance and in use, there is an offense, because it was said, “I give it to the Sangha,” there is a pācittiya in acceptance, a dukkaṭa in use. Tomorrow he is still subject to an offence, he speaks with reference to the dukkaṭa offense. He speaks, it is permissible, because it was said with an allowable expression, “You use it for your needs.” What is given for robes should be used only for robes, why? Because one should act as the donors say. Showing the difference between the requisites for dwelling and the other three requisites, he says, “senāsanatthāyā” and so forth. By this, he shows that it is not to be distributed without being released. Even so, showing the way to act in times of need, he says, “sace panā” and so forth.
Now, to elaborate on the distinction between permissible and impermissible in these cases, he begins with “here is the distinction” and so on. Herein, “it is not permissible to accept,” why? Because it is given in an impermissible manner, saying, “This is for the Sangha.” “Having given, one may depart, it is permissible,” why? Because it is given into the hands of carpenters and so on, not into the hands of the Sangha. “Even so, it is permissible” because it is placed in the hands of laypeople. “It is not permissible to refuse” because the Sangha or individuals have not been consulted. “It should be refused by saying, ‘It is not permissible’” because it is said, “You take it and keep it.” “There is an offense in both accepting and using” because it is said, “This is for the Sangha,” thus there is a pācittiya offense in accepting and a dukkaṭa offense in using. “He is still an offender” refers to the dukkaṭa offense. “It is permissible to say” because it is said in a permissible manner, “You use the requisites.” “What is given for robes should be used only for robes,” why? Because one should act according to the donors’ instructions. Showing the distinction between the lodging requisites and the other three requisites, he begins with “for the lodging” and so on. This shows the nature of what is not to be relinquished and what is to be divided. Even so, to show the procedure to be followed in emergencies, he begins with “if, however” and so on.
ID367
60. Evaṃ nissaggiyavatthūsu kattabbavidhiṃ dassetvā idāni dukkaṭavatthūsu kattabbavidhiṃ dassento “sace koci mayha”ntyādimāha. Ettha pana paṭiggahaṇepi paribhogepi āpattīti dukkaṭameva sandhāya vuttaṃ. Taḷākassapi khettasaṅgahitattā tassa paṭiggahaṇepi āpatti vuttā. “Cattāro paccaye paribhuñjathāti detīti ettha ’bhikkhusaṅghassa cattāro paccaye paribhuñjituṃ taḷākaṃ dammī’ti vā ’catupaccayaparibhogatthaṃ taḷākaṃ dammī’ti vā vadati, vaṭṭatiyeva. ’Ito taḷākato uppanne paccaye dammī’ti vutte pana vattabbameva natthī”ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.537-539) vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyampi (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.538-539) tatheva vatvā “idañca saṅghassa dīyamānaññeva sandhāya vuttaṃ, puggalassa pana evampi dinnaṃ taḷākakhettādi na vaṭṭati. Suddhacittassa pana udakaparibhogatthaṃ kūpapokkharaṇiādayo vaṭṭanti. ’Saṅghassa taḷākaṃ atthi, taṃ katha’nti hi ādinā sabbattha saṅghavaseneva vutta”nti vuttaṃ. Hatthe bhavissatīti vase bhavissati.
60. Having thus shown the procedure to be followed regarding items subject to forfeiture, now, to show the procedure to be followed regarding items entailing a dukkaṭa offense, he says, “If someone gives to me” and so forth. Here, however, “an offense arises both in receiving and in using” refers specifically to a dukkaṭa offense. An offense is stated to arise in receiving a pond as well, since it is included under fields. “He gives, saying, ‘Make use of the four requisites’”—here, if he says, “I give this pond to the community of monks to use for the four requisites,” or “I give this pond for the purpose of using the four requisites,” it is indeed permissible. But if he says, “I give the requisites that arise from this pond,” there is nothing further to be said—this is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.537-539). The Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.538-539) also states the same and adds, “This is said only with reference to what is given to the Saṅgha; however, even if given in this way to an individual, a pond, field, or the like is not permissible. But for a person with a pure mind, a well, a lotus pond, or similar things are permissible for the use of water. Indeed, it is stated everywhere with reference only to the authority of the Saṅgha, as in, ‘The Saṅgha has a pond; how is it?’” “It will be in the hand” means it will be under control.
60. Having thus shown the procedure to be followed in cases requiring forfeiture, he now speaks, beginning with “If someone gives to me,” to show the procedure to be followed in cases of wrong-doing (dukkaṭa). Here, however, “offence both in accepting and in using” is said with reference only to a wrong-doing. Because a reservoir is included as a field, an offence is stated even in accepting it. In the statement, “he gives it, saying, ‘Use the four requisites,’”, he either says ‘I give the reservoir to the Sangha of monks to use the four requisites,’ or he says ‘I give the reservoir for the purpose of using the four requisites’—either is permissible. But if he says ‘I give the requisites that arise from this reservoir,’ there is nothing more to say,” it is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.537-539). In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.538-539) also, it is said, after stating likewise, “And this has been said with reference to giving to the Sangha; to an individual, however, even if a reservoir, a field, etc., are given in this way, it is not permissible. But for one of pure intention, wells, ponds, etc., for the purpose of using the water, are permissible. Because it is said everywhere, such as ‘The Sangha has a reservoir; how is it?’ etc., with reference to Sangha-owned things only.” It will be in his hand means it will be in his control.
60. Having thus shown the procedure to be followed in the case of nissaggiya offenses, now, to explain the procedure to be followed in the case of dukkaṭa offenses, he begins with “if anyone of me” and so on. Here, however, “offense in both receiving and using” refers solely to the dukkaṭa offense. Even in the case of a pond, since it is included within the field, an offense is stated for receiving it. “He gives, saying, ‘Use the four requisites’”—here, whether one says, “I give this pond to the Sangha of monks for the use of the four requisites,” or “I give this pond for the purpose of using the four requisites,” it is valid. But if one says, “I will give the requisites produced from this pond,” then it is not valid. This is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.537-539). The Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.538-539) also states similarly, “This is said with reference to what is given to the Sangha. However, even if given to an individual, a pond or field, etc., is not valid. But for one with a pure mind, wells, ponds, etc., for the purpose of using water are valid. ‘The Sangha has a pond; how is it?’—this is said everywhere with reference to the Sangha.” “Will be in hand” means it will be under control.
ID368
Kappiyakārakaṃ ṭhapethāti vutteti sāmīcivasena vuttaṃ, avuttepi ṭhapentassa na doso atthi. Tenāha “udakaṃ vāretuṃ labbhatī”ti. Yasmā parasantakaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ nāsetuṃ na vaṭṭati, tasmā “na sassakāle”ti vuttaṃ. Sassakālepi tāsetvā muñcituṃ vaṭṭati, amuñcato pana bhaṇḍadeyyaṃ. Janapadassa sāmikoti imināva yo taṃ janapadaṃ vicāreti, tenapi acchinditvā dinnaṃ vaṭṭatiyevāti vadanti. Puna detīti acchinditvā puna deti, evampi vaṭṭatīti sambandho. Iminā yena kenaci issarena “pariccattamidaṃ bhikkhūhi assāmika”nti saññāya attano gahetvā dinnaṃ vaṭṭatīti dasseti. Udakavāhakanti udakamātikaṃ. Kappiyavohārepi vinicchayaṃ vakkhāmīti pāṭhaseso. Udakavasenāti udakaparibhogatthaṃ. Suddhacittānanti udakaparibhogatthameva. Idaṃ sahatthena ca akappiyavohārena ca karonte sandhāya vuttaṃ. “Sassasampādanattha”nti evaṃ asuddhacittānampi pana sayaṃ akatvā kappiyavohārena āṇāpetuṃ vaṭṭati eva. Kappiyakārakaṃ ṭhapetuṃ na vaṭṭatīti idaṃ sahatthādinā katataḷākattā assāruppanti vuttaṃ. Ṭhapentassa pana taṃ paccayaṃ paribhuñjantassa vā saṅghassa āpatti na paññāyati, aṭṭhakathāpamāṇena vā ettha āpatti gahetabbā. Alajjinā kārāpite vattabbameva natthīti āha “lajjibhikkhunā”ti, mattikuddharaṇādīsu kārāpitesūti adhippāyo.
“When it is said, ‘Appoint a monastery attendant’”—this is stated conventionally; even if it is not said, there is no fault in appointing one. Hence, he says, “It is allowable to regulate the water.” Since it is not permissible for monks to destroy what belongs to others, it is said, “Not during the crop season.” Even during the crop season, it is permissible to dry it out and release it, but if one does not release it, it becomes a fineable item. “The owner of the region”—by this, it is said that even what is given without being severed by one who governs that region is indeed permissible. “He gives again” means he gives again after severing it; this too is permissible—this is the connection. By this, it is shown that what is given by any owner, who takes it for himself thinking, “This has been relinquished by the monks and is ownerless,” is permissible. “Water channel” refers to a water conduit. The remaining text implies he will explain the decision even in permissible transactions. “By means of water” means for the use of water. “For those with pure minds” means solely for the use of water. This is said with reference to those who act with their own hands or through impermissible transactions. However, even for those with impure minds thinking, “For the sake of obtaining crops,” it is indeed permissible to command it through permissible transactions without doing it themselves. “It is not permissible to appoint a monastery attendant”—this is said because a pond made by such means is considered unsuitable. However, no offense is evident for the Saṅgha in appointing one or using that requisite, or it should be understood as an offense based on the authority of the commentary. There is nothing to be said if an unprincipled person has it done; thus, he says, “By a principled monk,” meaning one who has it done in activities like digging clay.
If he says, “Appoint a steward,” he has said this as an act of respect; there is no fault for the one who appoints even without being told. Therefore, he said, “it is permissible to prevent the water”. Because it is not proper to destroy what belongs to others, he said, “not at the time of crops”. Even at the time of crops, it is permissible to cause the water to flow out and then release it; but for one who does not release it, he should give the price. The owner of the district: By this very term, it is said that even by one who manages that district, if it is given without being seized, it is indeed permissible. He gives it again: He gives it again without seizing it; even this is permissible. In this way, he shows that it is proper for anyone in authority to take and give, having considered it to be, “This has been relinquished by the monks, it has no owner.” Water carrier means irrigation ditch. The remainder of the passage means, “I will also explain the decision even in the proper transaction.” By way of water means for the purpose of using water. For those of pure mind means only for the purpose of using water. This is said with reference to doing it with one’s own hand and with an improper transaction. But even for those of impure mind, who think, “for the purpose of producing crops,” it is permissible to order it to be done through proper means, not doing it oneself. It is not proper to appoint a steward: This is said, because it is a reservoir made by one’s own hand, etc. with an incorrect intention. But for the Sangha using that requisite, or for one who appoints, no offense is stated; or an offense should be considered here based on the authority of the commentary. As to what should be done when ordered by shameless persons, he says, “by a virtuous monk,” meaning, ordered in cases such as removing earth, etc.
“When it is said, ‘Appoint a kappiyakāraka,’** it is said with the owner’s consent. Even if not said, there is no fault in appointing one. Therefore, it is stated, ‘It is permissible to stop the water.’ Since it is not permissible for monks to destroy what belongs to others, it is said, ‘Not during the harvest season.’ Even during the harvest season, it is permissible to release it after holding it back, but if not released, it becomes a forfeitable item. “The owner of the region”—by this, it is said that even one who administers that region can seize and give it, and it is valid. “He gives again”—he seizes and gives again, and even this is valid. This shows that if any authority, thinking, “This has been relinquished by the monks and is ownerless,” takes it and gives it, it is valid. “Water channel”** means a water source. The remaining text will explain the decision regarding kappiya transactions. “For the purpose of water” means for the use of water. “For those with pure minds” means solely for the purpose of using water. This is said with reference to one who does it himself or through improper kappiya transactions. “For the purpose of producing crops”—even for those with impure minds, it is permissible to order through a kappiyakāraka without doing it oneself. “It is not permissible to appoint a kappiyakāraka”—this is said because doing it oneself is improper. However, for one who appoints or for the Sangha using the requisites, no offense is discernible, or an offense should be taken according to the commentary. For one without shame, it should not be done. Therefore, it is said, “by a conscientious monk,” meaning it should be done by one who is not ashamed, such as in the case of digging clay, etc.
ID369
61. Navasasseti akatapubbe kedāre. Kahāpaṇeti iminā dhaññuṭṭhāpane tasseva akappiyanti dasseti. Aparicchinnabhāgeti “ettake bhūmibhāge ettako bhāgo dātabbo”ti evaṃ aparicchinnabhāge. Dhaññuṭṭhāpane kasati, payogepi dukkaṭameva, na kahāpaṇuṭṭhāpane viya. “Kasatha vapathā”ti vacanena sabbesampi akappiyaṃ siyāti āha “avatvā”ti. Ettako nāma bhāgoti ettha ettako kahāpaṇoti idampi sandhāya vadati. Tathāvuttepi hi tadā kahāpaṇānaṃ avijjamānattā āyatiṃ uppajjamānaṃ aññesaṃ vaṭṭati eva. Tenāha “tasseva taṃ akappiya”nti. Tassa pana sabbapayogesu paribhoge ca dukkaṭaṃ. Keci pana dhaññaparibhoge eva āpatti, na pubbabhāgeti vadanti, taṃ na yuttaṃ, yena minanarakkhaṇādinā payogena pacchā dhaññaparibhoge āpatti hoti tassa payogassa karaṇe anāpattiyā ayuttattā. Pariyāyakathāya pana sabbattha anāpatti. Teneva “ettakehi vīhīhi idañcidañca āharathā”ti niyamavacane akappiyaṃ vuttaṃ. Kahāpaṇavicāraṇepi eseva nayo. “Vatthu ca evarūpaṃ nāma saṃvijjati, kappiyakārako natthīti vattabba”ntiādivacanañcettha sādhakaṃ. Rajjuyā vā daṇḍena vāti ettha “pādehipi minituṃ na vaṭṭatī”ti vadanti. Khale vā ṭhatvā rakkhatīti ettha pana thenetvā gaṇhante disvā “mā gaṇhathā”ti nivārento rakkhati nāma, sace pana avicāretvā kevalaṃ tuṇhībhūtova rakkhaṇatthāya olokento tiṭṭhati, vaṭṭati. “Sacepi tasmiṃ tuṇhībhūte corikāya haranti, ’mayaṃ bhikkhusaṅghassa ārocessāmā’ti evaṃ vattumpi vaṭṭatī”ti vadanti. Nīharāpeti paṭisāmetīti etthāpi “sace pariyāyena vadati, vaṭṭatī”ti vadanti. Apubbassa anuppāditattā aññesaṃ vaṭṭatīti āha “tassevetaṃ akappiya”nti.
61. “New crops” refers to a field not previously worked. “With money”—by this, it is shown that raising grain with it is impermissible only for him. “In an undetermined portion” means in a portion not specified as, “This much portion should be given for this much land.” In raising grain, even the effort entails only a dukkaṭa, not like raising money. Lest it be thought that the statement “Plow and sow” makes it impermissible for all, he says, “Without saying.” “This much portion”—here, he also means “this much money.” Even if said so, since money does not exist at that time, what arises later is permissible for others. Hence, he says, “It is impermissible only for him.” For him, there is a dukkaṭa in all efforts and uses. Some say the offense is only in using the grain, not in preliminary actions, but this is not reasonable, as it is illogical that there be no offense in efforts like measuring or guarding, which lead to an offense in using the grain later. However, in indirect speech, there is no offense anywhere. Thus, it is stated that specifying, “Bring this or that with this much rice,” is impermissible. The same applies to dealing with money. The statement, “There is such a thing, but no monastery attendant—it should be said,” and so forth, supports this here. “With a rope or a stick”—here, they say, “It is not permissible to measure even with feet.” “Standing in the threshing floor, he guards”—here, guarding means seeing thieves taking it and saying, “Do not take it,” to stop them; but if he stands silently, merely watching for the sake of guarding without intervening, it is permissible. They say, “Even if thieves take it while he is silent, it is permissible to say, ‘We will report this to the Saṅgha.’” “He has it removed or stored”—here too, they say, “If he speaks indirectly, it is permissible.” Since it has not been produced before, it is permissible for others; thus, he says, “It is impermissible only for him.”
61. In new crops means in a field not previously cultivated. With kahāpaṇas: By this, he shows that it is improper in respect of the establishment of paddy. In an undefined portion: In an undefined portion, such as, “In so much land area, so much portion must be given”. Even in the act of ploughing the land on which paddy has been established there is only a dukkaṭa (offense of wrong-doing), not like in establishing kahāpaṇas (coins). As by the statement “Plough, sow”, it could be improper for everyone, he says, “without saying”. Such and such a portion: here, he also speaks referring to, “So many kahāpaṇas”. For even when it is stated in that way, since kahāpaṇas were not available at that time, what arises in the future is indeed proper for others. Therefore, he said, “that is improper for him alone.” But for him, there is an offense of wrong-doing (dukkaṭa) in all acts and in the use. Some, however, say that the offense is only in using the paddy, not the earlier portion; but that is not correct, because it is illogical that there should be no offense in performing that act by which measurement, protection, etc., the offense later arises in using the paddy. But in a figurative expression, there is no offense in all cases. Therefore, it is stated that it is improper in the specific statement, “Bring this and that with so many measures of rice.” The same principle applies to the handling of kahāpaṇas. The statement, “There is indeed such a thing, but it is to say that there is no steward,” etc., is a proof here. With a rope or with a stick: here, they say, “It is not proper to measure even with the feet.” Or he guards, standing in the threshing floor: here, however, seeing someone taking it by theft, he guards by preventing them, saying, “Do not take it;” but if, without investigating, he simply remains silent and stands looking on for the sake of protection, it is permissible. They say, “Even if, while he is silent, they take it by theft, it is permissible to say, ‘We will inform the community of monks.’” He causes it to be taken out, he puts it away: Here also, they say, “If he speaks figuratively, it is permissible.” Since what was not previously acquired has not been brought into existence, he says that it is proper for others, “it is improper for him alone.”
61. “New crop” refers to a field not previously cultivated. “Kahāpaṇa”—by this, it is shown that even in the case of storing grain, it is improper. “Undivided portion” means a portion of land where it is said, “In this portion of land, this much is to be given.” In storing grain, plowing is done, and even the effort is a dukkaṭa offense, not like storing kahāpaṇas. By saying, “Plow and sow,” even if not said, it could be improper for all. Therefore, it is said, “without saying.” “This much portion”—here, it also refers to this much in kahāpaṇas. Even if said thus, since kahāpaṇas were not available at that time, it is valid for others in the future. Therefore, it is said, “this is improper for him.” However, for him, in all efforts and uses, it is a dukkaṭa offense. Some say that the offense is only in using the grain, not in the earlier portion, but this is not correct, because if there is an offense in later use of grain due to efforts like guarding the field, etc., then there should be no offense in making such efforts, which is unreasonable. However, in the case of indirect speech, there is no offense. Therefore, “bring this much rice and such and such”—in such a definitive statement, it is said to be improper. The same applies to the consideration of kahāpaṇas. “With a rope or stick”—here, it is said, “It is not permissible to measure with the feet.” “Standing on the threshing floor and guarding”—here, if one sees thieves taking and says, “Do not take,” and prevents them, that is called guarding. But if one remains silent without investigating, merely watching for the purpose of guarding, it is permissible. “Even if thieves take while one remains silent, it is permissible to say, ‘We will inform the Sangha of monks.’” “Causes to remove or put away”—here too, it is said, “If one speaks indirectly, it is permissible.” Since it is not previously produced, it is valid for others. Therefore, it is said, “this is improper for him.”
ID370
Sabbesaṃ akappiyaṃ, kasmā? Kahāpaṇānaṃ vicāritattāti ettha sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.537-539) evaṃ vicāraṇā katā – nanu ca dubbicāritamattena tassevetaṃ akappiyaṃ, na sabbesaṃ rūpiyasaṃvohāre catutthapatto viya. Vuttañhi tattha (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.589) “yo pana rūpiyaṃ asampaṭicchitvā ’therassa pattaṃ kiṇitvā dehī’ti pahitakappiyakārakena saddhiṃ kammārakulaṃ gantvā pattaṃ disvā ’ime kahāpaṇe gahetvā imaṃ dehī’ti kahāpaṇe dāpetvā gahito, ayaṃ patto etasseva bhikkhuno na vaṭṭati dubbicāritattā , aññesaṃ pana vaṭṭati mūlassa asampaṭicchitattā”ti, tasmā yaṃ te āharanti, sabbesaṃ akappiyaṃ. Kasmā? Kahāpaṇānaṃ vicāritattāti idaṃ kasmā vuttanti? Ettha keci vadanti “kahāpaṇe sādiyitvā vicāritaṃ sandhāya evaṃ vutta”nti, saṅghikattā ca nissajjituṃ na sakkā, tasmā sabbesaṃ na kappatīti tesaṃ adhippāyo. Keci pana “asādiyitvāpi kahāpaṇānaṃ vicāritattā rūpiyasaṃvohāro kato hoti, saṅghikattā ca nissajjituṃ na sakkā, tasmā sabbesaṃ na kappatī”ti vadanti. Gaṇṭhipadesu pana tīsupi idaṃ vuttaṃ “catutthapatto gihisantakānaṃyeva kahāpaṇānaṃ vicāritattā aññesaṃ kappati, idha pana saṅghikānaṃ vicāritattā sabbesaṃ na kappatī”ti. Sabbesampi vādo tena tena pariyāyena yuttoyevāti.
It is impermissible for all—why? Because of dealing with money. Here, the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.537-539) explains as follows: Is it not that, due merely to improper dealing, it is impermissible only for him, not for all, like the fourth bowl in a transaction with silver? For it is said there (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.589), “But one who, without accepting silver himself, goes with a monastery attendant sent, saying, ‘Buy and give a bowl to the elder,’ to a smith’s workshop, and seeing the bowl says, ‘Take these coins and give this,’ and has the coins given and taken—this bowl is not permissible for that monk due to improper dealing, but it is permissible for others since the original amount was not accepted.” Therefore, what they bring is impermissible for all. Why? Because of dealing with money—why is this said? Some say, “It is said with reference to dealing with money after accepting it,” and since it belongs to the Saṅgha, it cannot be relinquished, so it is not permissible for all—this is their view. Others say, “Even without accepting it, a transaction with silver occurs due to dealing with money, and since it belongs to the Saṅgha, it cannot be relinquished, so it is not permissible for all.” But in all three sub-commentaries, it is stated, “The fourth bowl is permissible for others because it involves dealing with money belonging to laypeople, but here, since it involves dealing with money belonging to the Saṅgha, it is not permissible for all.” All views are reasonable in their respective ways.
It is improper for everyone. Why? Because the kahāpaṇas have been handled.” Here, in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.537-539), this consideration is made: “Well, is it not improper for him alone, by the mere fact of its being wrongly handled, not for everyone, like the fourth bowl in the case of dealing with coined money? For it is stated there (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.589), ‘But the bowl which is obtained, after a steward, who was sent with, ’having bought a bowl for the elder, give it,’ has gone to the smith’s shop together with him without accepting the coined money and having seen the bowl, caused the kahāpaṇas to be given, saying, ‘Taking these kahāpaṇas, give this,’ this bowl is not proper for that monk alone because of its being wrongly handled, but it is proper for others, because the price has not been accepted.’ Therefore, what they bring to you, is improper for everyone. Why? Because the kahāpaṇas have been handled. Why is this said?” Here, some say, “It is said thus with reference to the handling of kahāpaṇas after having enjoyed them;” and it is not possible to forfeit them because they are Sangha-owned, therefore, it is not proper for everyone: such is their opinion. But some say, “Even without having enjoyed them, because of the handling of kahāpaṇas, a transaction with coined money has been performed; and it is not possible to forfeit them because they are Sangha-owned; therefore, it is not proper for everyone.” But in the Gaṇṭhipadas, it is stated concerning all three (opinions): “The fourth bowl is proper for others, because the kahāpaṇas belonging to householders have been handled; but here, it is not proper for everyone, because Sangha-owned ones have been handled.” Or all the views are indeed justified, each according to its own reasoning.
Improper for all, why? Because of the consideration of kahāpaṇas. Here, the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.537-539) considers thus: Is it not that merely by improper consideration, it is improper for him, not like the fourth bowl in the case of monetary transactions? For it is said there (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.589), “If one, without accepting money, says, ‘Buy a bowl for the elder and give it,’ and goes with the appointed kappiyakāraka to the potter’s house, sees the bowl, and says, ‘Take these kahāpaṇas and give this,’ and the bowl is taken after giving the kahāpaṇas, this bowl is not valid for that monk due to improper consideration, but it is valid for others because the root was not accepted.” Therefore, “what they bring is improper for all.” Why? Because of the consideration of kahāpaṇas. Why is this said? Here, some say, “It is said with reference to the consideration of kahāpaṇas after accepting them,” and because it is Sangha property, it cannot be relinquished, therefore it is improper for all—this is their meaning. Others say, “Even without accepting, the consideration of kahāpaṇas constitutes a monetary transaction, and because it is Sangha property, it cannot be relinquished, therefore it is improper for all.” In the Gaṇṭhipada, however, it is said in three places, “The fourth bowl is valid for others because it is the consideration of kahāpaṇas belonging to laypeople, but here, because it is the consideration of Sangha property, it is improper for all.” The opinion of all is reasonable in its own way.
ID371
62. Catusāladvāreti bhojanasālaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ.
62. “At the four-halled door”—this is said with reference to a dining hall.
62. At the four-sided gate: This is said with reference to the dining hall.
62. “Four-doored hall” refers to the dining hall.
ID372
63. “Vanaṃ dammi, araññaṃ dammī”ti vutte pana vaṭṭatīti ettha nivāsaṭṭhānattā puggalassapi suddhacittena gahetuṃ vaṭṭati. Sīmaṃ demāti vihārasīmādisādhāraṇavacanena vuttattā “vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ. Pariyāyena kathitattāti “gaṇhāhī”ti avatvā “sīmā gatā”ti pariyāyena kathitattā. Pakatibhūmikaraṇatthaṃ “heṭṭhā gahitaṃ paṃsu”ntiādi vuttaṃ. Dāsaṃ dammīti ettha “manussaṃ dammīti vutte vaṭṭatī”ti vadanti. Veyyāvaccakarantiādinā vutte puggalassapi dāsaṃ gahetuṃ vaṭṭati “anujānāmi bhikkhave ārāmika”nti visesetvā anuññātattā. Tañca kho pilindavacchena gahitaparibhuttakkamena, na gahaṭṭhānaṃ dāsaparibhogakkamena. Khettādayo pana sabbe saṅghasseva vaṭṭanti pāḷiyaṃ puggalikavasena gahetuṃ ananuññātattāti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Kukkuṭasūkare…pe… vaṭṭatīti ettha kukkuṭasūkaresu dīyamānesu “imehi amhākaṃ attho natthi, sukhaṃ jīvantu, araññe vissajjethā”ti vattuṃ vaṭṭati . Vihārassa demāti saṅghikavihāraṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. “Khettavatthupaṭiggahaṇā paṭivirato hotī”tiādinā (dī. ni. 1.10, 194) suttantesu āgatapaṭikkhepo bhagavatā āpattiyāpi hetubhāvena katoti bhagavato adhippāyaṃ jānantehi saṅgītikārakamahātherehi khettapaṭiggahaṇādinissito ayaṃ sabbopi pāḷimuttavinicchayo vuttoti gahetabbo.
63. “But if he says, ‘I give a forest, I give a wilderness,’ it is permissible”—here, since it is a dwelling place, it is permissible even for an individual to accept it with a pure mind. “We give a boundary”—since it is stated with a general term like a monastery boundary, it is said, “It is permissible.” “Because it is spoken indirectly”—because it is said indirectly as “The boundary is established,” rather than “Take it.” For leveling the natural ground, “The soil taken from below” and so forth is stated. “I give a slave”—here, they say, “If he says, ‘I give a human,’ it is permissible.” “One who performs services” and so forth—if said thus, it is permissible even for an individual to accept a slave, since it is specifically allowed with, “I allow, monks, a monastery attendant.” But this is according to the manner taken and used by Pilindavaccha, not the manner of use by householders. Fields and so forth, however, are permissible only for the Saṅgha, as it is not allowed in the texts for an individual to accept them—this should be understood. “Cocks, pigs… it is permissible”—here, when cocks or pigs are given, it is permissible to say, “We have no use for these; let them live happily, release them into the wilderness.” “We give for the monastery”—this is said with reference to a monastery belonging to the Saṅgha. The rejection stated in the discourses, such as “He abstains from accepting fields and lands” (dī. ni. 1.10, 194), was made by the Blessed One as a basis for an offense, and this entire textual decision beyond the Pāli, related to accepting fields and so forth, was stated by the great elders who compiled the canon, knowing the Blessed One’s intention—this should be understood.
63. But if it is said, ‘I give a forest, I give a grove,’ it is permissible: Here, because it is a place of dwelling, it is permissible even for an individual to take it with a pure mind. “We give the boundary”: Because it is stated with the general term of a monastic boundary, etc., it is said, “it is permissible.” Because it is expressed figuratively: Because it is expressed figuratively, saying, “The boundary has been taken,” without saying “Take it.” “The soil taken from below”, etc., is said for the purpose of making a natural ground level. I give a slave: Here, they say, “If he says, ‘I give a person,’ it is permissible.” It is permissible even for an individual to take a slave, by saying, “attendant,” etc., because it is specifically allowed, “I allow, monks, a monastery attendant.” And that is to be done according to the way Pilindavaccha took and used it, not according to the householder’s way of using a slave. But all fields, etc., are permissible only for the Sangha; it should be understood that it is not allowed in the Pāḷi to take them individually. Cocks and pigs…pe…it is permissible: Here, if cocks and pigs are being given, it is permissible to say, “We have no need of these; may they live happily; release them in the forest.” “We give to the monastery”: It is said with reference to a Sangha-owned monastery. The rejection that has come in the Suttas, such as, “He abstains from accepting fields and lands” (dī. ni. 1.10, 194), has been made by the Blessed One even as a cause of an offence; knowing the Blessed One’s intention, the Great Elders who were the compilers of the texts, have stated all this un-canonical decision, determined by the acceptance of fields, etc. This should be borne in mind.
63. “If one says, ‘I give a forest, I give a wilderness,’ it is valid”—here, since it is a dwelling place, even an individual with a pure mind can accept it. “We give a boundary”—since it is said with the common term for monastery boundaries, etc., it is said to be valid. “Because it is said indirectly”—not saying, “Take it,” but saying, “The boundary has been reached,” is indirect speech. For the purpose of making it ordinary ground, “the dust taken below” and so on is said. “I give a slave”—here, it is said, “If one says, ‘I give a person,’ it is valid.” “Servant” and so on—even if said thus, an individual can accept a slave, because it is specifically permitted by the Buddha, “I allow, monks, monastery workers.” However, this is by the example of Pilindavaccha, who accepted and used a slave, not by the example of household slave usage. Fields, etc., however, are valid only for the Sangha, as in the Pāli, individual acceptance is not permitted. “Chickens, pigs… it is valid”—here, when chickens and pigs are given, it is permissible to say, “We have no use for these, let them live happily, release them in the forest.” “We give a monastery”—this refers to a Sangha monastery. The prohibition found in the suttas (Dī. Ni. 1.10, 194), “He abstains from accepting fields and land,” etc., was made by the Buddha as a cause for an offense. The compilers of the texts, understanding the Buddha’s intention, stated that all these decisions based on the acceptance of fields, etc., should be taken as such.
ID373
64. Cīvaracetāpannanti cīvaramūlaṃ. Pahiṇeyyāti peseyya. Cetāpetvāti parivattetvā. Acchādehīti vohāravacanametaṃ, itthannāmassa bhikkhuno dehīti ayaṃ panettha attho. Ābhatanti ānītaṃ.
64. “Robe-requisite” means the basis for a robe. “Should be sent” means he should send. “Having exchanged” means having traded. “Clothe him”—this is a transactional term; the meaning here is “Give it to the monk named so-and-so.” “Brought” means it has been brought.
64. Cīvaracetāpanna means the price of a robe. He should send means he should dispatch. Having exchanged means having bartered. Acchādehī this is a term of transaction, the meaning here is: Give to the monk named so-and-so. Ābhata means brought.
64. “Robe fund” means the source of robes. “Should send” means to dispatch. “Having exchanged” means having converted. “Clothe” is a conventional term, meaning “give to such and such a monk.” “Brought” means brought.
ID374
Imasmiṃ ṭhāne sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.528-531) evaṃ vicāraṇā katā – ettha ca yaṃ vuttaṃ mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. rājasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) “iminā cīvaracetāpannena cīvaraṃ cetāpetvā itthannāmaṃ bhikkhuṃ cīvarena acchādehīti idaṃ āgamanasuddhiṃ dassetuṃ vuttaṃ. Sace hi ’idaṃ itthannāmassa bhikkhuno dehī’ti peseyya, āgamanassa asuddhattā akappiyavatthuṃ ārabbha bhikkhunā kappiyakārakopi niddisitabbo na bhaveyyā”ti, tattha āgamanassa suddhiyā vā asuddhiyā vā visesappayojanaṃ na dissati. Satipi hi āgamanassa asuddhabhāve dūto attano kusalatāya kappiyavohārena vadati, kappiyakārako na niddisitabboti idaṃ natthi, na ca dūtena kappiyavohāravasena vutte dāyakena “idaṃ kathaṃ pesita”nti īdisī vicāraṇā upalabbhati, avicāretvā ca taṃ na sakkā jānituṃ. Yadi pana āgamanassa asuddhattā kappiyakārako niddisitabbo na bhaveyya, cīvarānaṃ atthāya dūtassa hatthe akappiyavatthumhi pesite sabbattha dāyakena kathaṃ pesitanti pucchitvāva kappiyakārako niddisitabbo bhaveyya, tasmā asatipi āgamanasuddhiyaṃ sace so dūto attano kusalatāya kappiyavohāravasena vadati, dūtasseva vacanaṃ gahetabbaṃ. Yadi hi āgamanasuddhiyevettha pamāṇaṃ, mūlassāmikena kappiyavohāravasena pesitassa dūtassa akappiyavohāravasena vadatopi kappiyakārako niddisitabbo bhaveyya, tasmā sabbattha dūtavacanameva pamāṇanti gahetabbaṃ. Iminā cīvaracetāpannenātiādinā pana imamatthaṃ dasseti “kappiyavasena ābhatampi cīvaramūlaṃ īdisena dūtavacanena akappiyaṃ hoti, tasmā taṃ paṭikkhipitabba”nti. Tenevāha “tena bhikkhunā so dūto evamassa vacanīyotiādī”ti.
At this point, the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.528-531) analyzes as follows: What is said in the commentary on the outline (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. rājasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), “With this robe-requisite, having exchanged it for a robe, clothe the monk named so-and-so—this is said to show the purity of the approach. For if he sent it saying, ‘Give this to the monk named so-and-so,’ due to the impurity of the approach, even a monastery attendant should not be designated by a monk regarding an impermissible item,”—here, no specific benefit is seen in the purity or impurity of the approach. Even if the approach is impure, a messenger, due to his own skill, speaks in a permissible transaction, and there is no rule that a monastery attendant should not be designated. Nor is there any indication that a donor questions, “How was this sent?” when the messenger speaks in a permissible transaction, and without inquiry, it cannot be known. But if a monastery attendant should not be designated due to the impurity of the approach, then in all cases where an impermissible item is sent for robes through a messenger, the donor would have to ask how it was sent before designating a monastery attendant. Thus, even without the purity of the approach, if the messenger speaks in a permissible transaction due to his own skill, his word should be accepted. For if the purity of the approach were the sole criterion here, even if the owner of the original amount sent it in a permissible transaction, a monastery attendant should be designated if the messenger spoke in an impermissible transaction. Therefore, in all cases, the messenger’s word alone should be taken as the standard. But by saying, “With this robe-requisite” and so forth, it shows this meaning: “Even an amount brought permissibly becomes impermissible due to such a messenger’s statement, and thus it should be refused.” Hence, he says, “That monk should say to that messenger thus…” and so forth.
At this point, in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.528-531), this consideration is made: And here, what is said in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. rājasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), “Having exchanged this price of a robe for a robe, give the robe to the monk named so-and-so:’ this is said to show the purity of arrival. For if he were to send (a message), saying, ‘Give this to the monk named so-and-so,’ because of the impurity of arrival, even a steward would not have to be designated by the monk with reference to the improper object,” there does not appear to be any particular purpose in the purity or impurity of arrival. For even if there is impurity of arrival, if the messenger, because of his own skill, speaks with proper terminology, a steward does not have to be designated; and if the messenger speaks with proper terminology, such an inquiry as, “How was this sent?” is not found on the part of the donor; and without inquiry, it is not possible to know it. But if, because of the impurity of arrival, a steward would not have to be designated, in every case when an improper object has been sent in the hand of a messenger for the purpose of robes, a steward would have to be designated only after inquiring of the donor, “How was it sent?” Therefore, even if there is no purity of arrival, if that messenger, because of his own skill, speaks with proper terminology, the words of the messenger alone should be accepted. For if the purity of arrival were indeed the standard here, even when a messenger sent by the owner of the price with proper terminology speaks with improper terminology, a steward would have to be designated; therefore, in all cases, the words of the messenger alone should be accepted as the standard. But by the statement, “With this price of a robe,” etc., he shows this meaning, “Even the price of a robe brought in a proper way becomes improper by such words of the messenger, therefore it should be rejected.” Therefore, he said, “That monk should speak thus to that messenger, etc.”
In this context, the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.528-531) considers thus: Here, what is stated in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Rājasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), “This robe fund is to be exchanged for a robe and given to such and such a monk to show the purity of the source. If one sends it saying, ‘Give this to such and such a monk,’ because the source is impure, the monk must not appoint a kappiyakāraka for an improper matter.” Here, no special purpose is seen for the purity or impurity of the source. Even if the source is impure, the messenger speaks properly through kappiya transactions, and a kappiyakāraka need not be appointed—this is not the case. Nor is there any investigation by the donor as to how it was sent when the messenger speaks through kappiya transactions, and without investigation, it cannot be known. If, due to the impurity of the source, a kappiyakāraka should not be appointed, then when an improper matter is sent in the messenger’s hand for the purpose of robes, the donor must inquire how it was sent before appointing a kappiyakāraka. Therefore, even if the source is impure, if the messenger speaks properly through kappiya transactions, the messenger’s words should be taken. If the purity of the source were the standard here, then even if the root owner sends through kappiya transactions and the messenger speaks improperly, a kappiyakāraka should be appointed. Therefore, in all cases, the messenger’s words should be taken as the standard. “With this robe fund” and so on—this shows the meaning, “Even if the source of the robe is brought through kappiya transactions, it becomes improper due to such a messenger’s words, therefore it should be rejected.” Therefore, it is said, “that monk should tell the messenger thus” and so on.
ID375
Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.538-539) pana evaṃ vuttaṃ – yaṃ vuttaṃ mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. rājasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) “iminā cīvaracetāpannena cīvaraṃ cetāpetvā itthannāmaṃ bhikkhuṃ cīvarena acchādehīti idaṃ āgamanasuddhiṃ dassetuṃ vuttaṃ. Sace hi ’idaṃ itthannāmassa bhikkhuno dehī’ti peseyya, āgamanassa asuddhattā akappiyavatthuṃ ārabbha bhikkhunā kappiyakārakopi niddisitabbo na bhaveyyā”ti, taṃ nissaggiyavatthudukkaṭavatthubhūtaṃ akappiyacīvaracetāpannaṃ “asukassa bhikkhuno dehī”ti evaṃ āgamanasuddhiyā asati, sikkhāpade āgatanayena dūtavacane ca asuddhe sabbathā paṭikkhepoyeva kātuṃ vaṭṭati, na pana “cīvarañca kho mayaṃ paṭiggaṇhāmā”ti vattuṃ, tadanusārena veyyāvaccakarañca niddisituṃ āgamanadūtavacanānaṃ ubhinnaṃ asuddhattā, pāḷiyaṃ āgatanayena pana āgamanasuddhiyā sati dūtavacane asuddhepi sikkhāpade āgatanayena sabbaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti dassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Tena ca yathā dūtavacanāsuddhiyampi āgamane suddhe veyyāvaccakaraṃ niddisituṃ vaṭṭati, evaṃ āgamanāsuddhiyampi dūtavacane suddhe vaṭṭati evāti ayamattho atthato siddhova hoti. Ubhayasuddhiyaṃ vattabbameva natthīti ubhayāsuddhipakkhameva sandhāya mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. rājasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) “kappiyakārakopi niddisitabbo na bhaveyyā”ti vuttanti veditabbaṃ.
In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.538-539), however, it is stated as follows: What is said in the commentary on the outline (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. rājasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), “With this robe-requisite, having exchanged it for a robe, clothe the monk named so-and-so—this is said to show the purity of the approach. For if he sent it saying, ‘Give this to the monk named so-and-so,’ due to the impurity of the approach, even a monastery attendant should not be designated by a monk regarding an impermissible item”—this refers to an impermissible robe-requisite, whether subject to forfeiture or entailing a dukkaṭa offense. When there is no purity of approach, such as saying, “Give it to this monk,” and both the training rule and the messenger’s statement are impure, it is entirely appropriate to refuse it, and it is not proper to say, “We accept the robe,” nor to designate a service attendant accordingly, due to the impurity of both the approach and the messenger’s statement. But when there is purity of approach according to the method stated in the text, even if the messenger’s statement is impure, it is permissible to act fully according to the method in the training rule—this is said to clarify this. Thus, just as it is permissible to designate a service attendant when the approach is pure despite an impure messenger’s statement, so too it is permissible when the approach is impure but the messenger’s statement is pure—this meaning is implicitly established. When both are impure, there is nothing to be said—this refers only to the side where both are impure, and thus it is said in the commentary on the outline (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. rājasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), “Even a monastery attendant should not be designated.”
But in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.538-539), it is said thus: What is said in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. rājasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), “‘Having exchanged this price of a robe for a robe, give the robe to the monk named so-and-so’: this is said to show the purity of arrival. For if he were to send (a message), saying, ‘Give this to the monk named so-and-so,’ because of the impurity of arrival, even a steward would not have to be designated by the monk with reference to the improper object,”— that improper robe-price which constitutes an object of forfeiture or of wrong-doing, when there is no purity of arrival such as, “Give it to the monk so-and-so”, if both the way stated in the rule and the words of the messenger are impure, rejection alone should be made, but it is not proper to say “But we accept the robe”, nor to designate a steward according to that, because of the impurity of both the arrival and the messenger’s words; but in the way stated in the Pāḷi, when there is purity of arrival, even if the messenger’s words are impure, everything is permissible to be done, according to the way mentioned in the rule, this has been said for the purpose of showing this. And thereby, just as, even when there is impurity in the messenger’s words, if the arrival is pure, it is permissible to designate a steward, in the same way, even when there is impurity in the arrival, if the messenger’s words are pure, it is indeed permissible: this meaning becomes established in effect. There is nothing to say when both are pure. Therefore, it should be understood that it is with reference to the case where both are impure that it is stated in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. rājasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), “even a steward would not have to be designated.”
The Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. �ī. 1.538-539) states thus: What is stated in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Rājasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), “This robe fund is to be exchanged for a robe and given to such and such a monk to show the purity of the source. If one sends it saying, ‘Give this to such and such a monk,’ because the source is impure, the monk must not appoint a kappiyakāraka for an improper matter,” refers to an improper robe fund that is nissaggiya or dukkaṭa. When there is no purity of the source and the messenger’s words are impure, it is entirely to be rejected according to the rule, but it is not permissible to say, “We accept the robe,” and accordingly, a servant should not be appointed. Because both the source and the messenger’s words are impure, but in the Pāli, when the source is pure, even if the messenger’s words are impure, it is permissible to do everything according to the rule. This is stated to show that even if the messenger’s words are impure, when the source is pure, a servant can be appointed, and similarly, even if the source is impure, when the messenger’s words are pure, it is permissible. This meaning is thus established. “Nothing is to be said in both cases of purity”—this refers to both cases of impurity in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Rājasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), “A kappiyakāraka should not be appointed.”
ID376
Yaṃ panettha sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.237-539) “āgamanassa suddhiyā vā asuddhiyā vā visesappayojanaṃ na dissatī”tiādi vuttaṃ, taṃ mātikāṭṭhakathāvacanassa adhippāyaṃ asallakkhetvā vuttaṃ yathāvuttanayena āgamanasuddhiādinā sappayojanattā. Yo panettha “mūlassāmikena kappiyavohāravasena, pesitadūtassa akappiyavohārena vadatopi kappiyakārako niddisitabbo bhaveyyā”ti aniṭṭhappasaṅgo vutto, so aniṭṭhappasaṅgo eva na hoti abhimatattā. Tathā hi sikkhāpade eva “paṭiggaṇhatu āyasmā cīvaracetāpanna”nti akappiyavohārena vadato dūtassa kappiyena kammena veyyāvaccakaro niddisitabbo vutto āgamanassa suddhattā, āgamanassapi asuddhiyaṃ pana kappiyenapi kammena veyyāvaccakaro na niddisitabbovāti attheva āgamanassa suddhiasuddhiyā payojanaṃ. Kathaṃ pana dūtavacanena āgamanasuddhi viññāyatīti? Nāyaṃ bhāro. Dūtena hi akappiyavohārena vutte eva āgamanasuddhi gavesitabbā, na itarattha. Tattha ca tassa vacanakkamena pucchitvā ca yuttiādīhi ca sakkā viññātuṃ. Idhāpi hi sikkhāpade “cīvaracetāpannaṃ ābhata”nti dūtavacaneneva cīvaraṃ kiṇitvā dātuṃ pesitabhāvo viññāyati. Yadi hi sabbathā āgamanasuddhi na viññāyati, paṭikkhepo eva kattabboti.
What is said here in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.237-539), “No specific benefit is seen in the purity or impurity of the approach,” and so forth, is stated without discerning the intent of the commentary on the outline, as the purity of the approach and so forth has a purpose according to the method explained. The unwanted implication stated here, “Even if the owner of the original amount sent it in a permissible transaction, a monastery attendant should be designated if the messenger spoke in an impermissible transaction,” is not an unwanted implication, as it is intended. For in the training rule itself, it is said that a service attendant should be designated for a messenger who speaks in an impermissible transaction, saying, “Let the venerable one accept the robe-requisite,” due to the purity of the approach; but when the approach is also impure, even with a permissible act, a service attendant should not be designated—thus, the purity or impurity of the approach has a purpose. How, then, is the purity of the approach known through the messenger’s statement? This is not a burden. When the messenger speaks in an impermissible transaction, the purity of the approach must be sought, not otherwise. It can be known by questioning his manner of speech and through reasoning and so forth. Here too, in the training rule, it is understood through the messenger’s statement, “A robe-requisite has been brought,” that it was sent to buy and give a robe. If the purity of the approach is not known at all, only refusal should be done.
What was said here in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.237-539), starting with, “No specific purpose is seen for the purity or impurity of the source,” was said without considering the meaning of the words of the Mātikāṭṭhakathā, because, as previously explained, there is a purpose served by the purity and so forth of the source. The undesirable consequence stated here, that “a designated kappiyakāraka (one who makes things allowable) should be pointed out even when speaking with an owner using allowable terminology, and a messenger using unallowable terminology,” is not an undesirable consequence at all, because it is desired. For in the training rule itself, it is stated “Let the venerable sir accept the funds for a robe,” and a veyyāvaccakara (attendant) is designated by means of an allowable action with a messenger speaking with unallowable terminology, due to the purity of the source; however, when the source is impure, the veyyāvaccakara should not be indicated even with an allowable action, hence the purity and impurity of the source does indeed serve a purpose. But how is the purity of the source known through the messenger’s words? This is no burden. For when the messenger speaks with unallowable terminology, only then should the purity of the source be investigated, not otherwise. And there, it can be known by the sequence of his words and by questioning, and also by applying logical principles, and so forth. Indeed, in this training rule, with the mere words of the messenger, “Funds for a robe have been brought”, it is known that he has been sent to purchase a robe and give it. If the purity of the source is not known at all, then a refusal should be made.
Regarding what is stated here in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.237-539): “No specific purpose is seen for the purity or impurity of the arrival,” etc., this was said without considering the intention of the Mātikāṭṭhakathā. According to the aforementioned method, since the purity of arrival, etc., has a purpose, it is meaningful. However, the undesirable implication stated here—“If the owner of the root property speaks in an improper manner, or if a messenger speaks in an improper manner, the one who makes it proper should be indicated”—is not an undesirable implication because it is not intended. For in the training rule, it is said that when a messenger speaks in an improper manner, the one who performs the service should be indicated as the one who makes it proper, due to the purity of the arrival. But if the arrival is impure, even if the service is performed properly, the one who performs the service should not be indicated. Thus, there is indeed a purpose for the purity or impurity of the arrival. But how is the purity of the arrival to be understood through the messenger’s words? This is not a burden. For when the messenger speaks in an improper manner, the purity of the arrival should be sought only in that, not in anything else. There, by questioning the sequence of his words and through reasoning, etc., it can be understood. Here too, in the training rule, the fact that the robe was bought and sent to be given is understood merely through the messenger’s words, “The robe-fund has been brought.” If the purity of the arrival is not understood at all, rejection should be made.
ID377
Suvaṇṇaṃ rajataṃ kahāpaṇo māsakoti imāni hi cattāri nissaggiyavatthūni, muttā maṇi veḷuriyo saṅkho silā pavāḷaṃ lohitaṅko masāragallaṃ satta dhaññāni dāsidāsaṃ khettaṃ vatthu pupphārāmaphalārāmādayoti imāni dukkaṭavatthūni ca attano vā cetiyasaṅghagaṇapuggalānaṃ vā atthāya sampaṭicchituṃ na vaṭṭanti, tasmā taṃ sādituṃ na vaṭṭatīti dassanatthaṃ “na kho mayaṃ āvuso cīvaracetāpannaṃ paṭiggaṇhāmā”ti vuttaṃ. Cīvarañca kho mayaṃ paṭiggaṇhāmā”tiādi dūtavacanassa akappiyattepi āgamanasuddhiyā paṭipajjanavidhidassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Kālena kappiyanti yuttapattakālena yadā no attho hoti, tadā kappiyaṃ cīvaraṃ paṭiggaṇhāmāti attho. Veyyāvaccakaroti kiccakaro, kappiyakārakoti attho. “Veyyāvaccakaro niddisitabbo”ti idaṃ “atthi panāyasmato koci veyyāvaccakaro”ti kappiyavacanena vuttattā anuññātaṃ. Sace pana dūto “ko imaṃ gaṇhāti, kassa vā demī”ti vadati, na niddisitabbo. Ārāmiko vā upāsako vāti idaṃ sāruppatāya vuttaṃ, ṭhapetvā pana pañca sahadhammike yo koci kappiyakārako vaṭṭati. Eso kho āvuso bhikkhūnaṃ veyyāvaccakaroti idaṃ dūtena “atthi panāyasmato koci veyyāvaccakaro”ti pucchitattā pucchāsabhāgena bhikkhussa kappiyavacanadassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Evameva hi bhikkhunā vattabbaṃ, na vattabbaṃ “tassa dehī”tiādi. Teneva pāḷiyaṃ “na vattabbo tassa dehī”tiādimāha. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.538-539) pana “eso kho…pe… na vattabbo tassa dehītiādi akappiyavatthusādiyanaparimocanatthaṃ vutta”nti vuttaṃ.
Gold, silver, coins, and small coins—these four are items subject to forfeiture; pearls, gems, beryl, conch, coral, copper, red arsenic, seven kinds of grain, male and female slaves, fields, lands, flower gardens, fruit gardens, and so forth—these are items entailing a dukkaṭa offense and should not be accepted for oneself or for the sake of a shrine, the Saṅgha, a group, or an individual; thus, it is not permissible to accept them—this is shown by saying, “Friends, we do not accept a robe-requisite.” “But we accept a robe” and so forth is said to show the procedure to be followed when the approach is pure, even if the messenger’s statement is impermissible. “Timely and permissible” means we accept a permissible robe at the time when we need it, suitable for the bowl. “Service attendant” means a task-doer, a monastery attendant. “A service attendant should be designated”—this is permitted because it is said with the permissible statement, “Does the venerable one have any service attendant?” But if the messenger says, “Who takes this, or to whom shall I give it?” he should not be designated. “A monastery worker or a lay follower”—this is said for suitability, but apart from the five co-religionists, anyone as a monastery attendant is permissible. “This, friend, is the service attendant of the monks”—this is said to show the monk’s permissible statement in response to the messenger’s question, “Does the venerable one have any service attendant?” as appropriate to the question. Indeed, this is how a monk should speak, and he should not say, “Give it to him” and so forth. Hence, in the text, it says, “He should not say, ‘Give it to him,’” and so forth. In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.538-539), it is said, “This, friend… he should not say, ‘Give it to him,’ and so forth is stated to avoid accepting an impermissible item.”
Gold, silver, kahāpaṇa coins, and māsaka coins — these four are grounds for forfeiture. Pearls, gems, beryl, conch shells, crystal, coral, rubies, masāragalla gems, the seven grains, female and male slaves, fields, building sites, flower gardens, fruit gardens, and so on — these are grounds for a dukkaṭa (offense of wrong-doing) and it is not proper to accept them for oneself or for the sake of a cetiya, the Saṅgha, a group, or individuals; therefore, it is not proper to consent to them. For this reason, to convey this, it is said, “We do not, friend, accept funds for a robe.” “But we do accept a robe,” and so on, were said to show the method of proceeding with the purity of the source even though the messenger’s statement is unallowable. Kālena kappiya means, “We accept an allowable robe at the appropriate time, when we have need of it.” Veyyāvaccakaro means a doer of tasks, a kappiyakāraka. “Veyyāvaccakaro niddisitabbo” — this is permitted because it is stated with allowable words as, “Does the venerable sir have any veyyāvaccakara?” If, however, the messenger says, “Who will take this? Or to whom shall I give it?” he should not be pointed out. Ārāmiko vā upāsako vā — this is said for appropriateness, but excluding the five sahadhammikas (fellow monastics), any kappiyakāraka is suitable. Eso kho āvuso bhikkhūnaṃ veyyāvaccakaro — this is said to show the allowable words of the monk in response to the messenger’s question, “Does the venerable sir have any veyyāvaccakaro?”, as a question with the same nature. For the monk must speak in this way and must not say, “Give it to him,” and so forth. Therefore in the Pāḷi, it states: “It should not be said, ‘Give it to him,’” and so on. However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.538-539), it is said, “This, ‘that is indeed…’ etc…‘It should not be said, give it to him’ and so forth is said for removing the fault of consenting to what is unallowable.”
Gold, silver, kahāpaṇa coins, and māsaka coins—these are the four grounds for offenses entailing relinquishment. Pearls, gems, lapis lazuli, conch shells, crystal, coral, rubies, cat’s-eye gems, the seven kinds of grains, male and female slaves, fields, land, flower gardens, fruit orchards, etc.—these are grounds for offenses of wrong conduct. They are not to be accepted for one’s own benefit or for the benefit of the shrine, the Sangha, a group, or individuals. Therefore, it is not permissible to accept them. To illustrate this, it is said, “Friend, we do not accept the robe-fund,” but “We do accept the robe.” This is stated to show the method of practicing purity of arrival even when the messenger’s words are improper. At the proper time, what is proper means that when there is a need, it is proper to accept the robe at that time. The one who performs the service means the one who does the work, the one who makes it proper. “The one who performs the service should be indicated”—this is permitted because it is said with proper words, “Is there anyone, venerable, who performs the service for you?” But if the messenger says, “Who will take this? To whom should I give it?” he should not be indicated. A monastery worker or a lay follower—this is said to indicate suitability, but apart from the five kinds of fellow Dhamma practitioners, anyone who makes it proper is acceptable. “This, friend, is the one who performs the service for the monks”—this is said to show the proper words of the monk when asked by the messenger, “Is there anyone, venerable, who performs the service for you?” Similarly, the monk should speak thus, but he should not say, “Give it to him,” etc. Therefore, in the Pāli text, it is said, “He should not say, ‘Give it to him,’” etc. In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.538-539), however, it is said, “This… should not say, ‘Give it to him,’ etc., is stated to free one from accepting improper matters.”
ID378
Āṇatto so mayāti yathā tumhākaṃ cīvarena atthe sati cīvaraṃ dassati, evaṃ vuttoti attho. Vimativinodaniyaṃ pana “saññattotiādi evaṃ dūtena puna vutte eva codetuṃ vaṭṭati, na itarathāti dassanatthaṃ vutta”nti vuttaṃ. Ettha pana pāḷiyaṃ “saññatto so mayā”ti āgatattā evaṃ vutto, purimavākye pana vinayasaṅgahappakaraṇe (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 64) “āṇatto so mayā”ti pariyāyavacanena parivattitvā ṭhapitattā tathā vutto, tena ca kappiyakārakassa saññāpitabhāve dūtena bhikkhussa puna ārocite eva bhikkhunā kappiyakārako codetabbo hoti, na anārociteti dasseti.
“He is instructed by me” means it was said so that he will give a robe when you need it—this is the meaning. In the Vimativinodanī, however, it is said, “When the messenger says again, ‘He is instructed,’ and so forth, it is permissible to prompt him only then, not otherwise—this is said to clarify this.” Here, in the text, it comes as “He is instructed by me,” but in the earlier sentence, in the Vinayasaṅgahapakaraṇa (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 64), it is rendered with the synonymous term “He is commanded by me” and placed thus; thereby, it shows that when the monastery attendant’s instruction is announced and the messenger informs the monk again, only then should the monk prompt the monastery attendant, not if it is not announced.
Āṇatto so mayā means, “I have instructed him thus: ‘When you have need of a robe, he will give you a robe’.” However, in the Vimativinodanī, it is said, “‘Instructed’ and so on, are said to show that it is only proper to prompt if it is said again by the messenger, not otherwise.” But here, since in the Pāḷi it states, “I have instructed him,” that is said; however, in the Vinayasaṅgahappakaraṇa (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 64), in the previous statement, it is established by substituting the synonymous word as “I have commanded him,” therefore, it is stated like that. By this, it is shown that only when the messenger informs the monk again about the fact that the kappiyakāraka has been instructed, must the monk prompt the kappiyakāraka, not when he has not informed him.
“He has been appointed by me” means that just as when you have a need for robes, he will give the robe, so it is said. In the Vimativinodanī, however, it is said, “When the messenger says again, ‘He has been persuaded,’ etc., it is proper to accuse him only then, not otherwise,” to show this. Here, however, in the Pāli text, it is said, “He has been persuaded by me,” because it appears thus in the text. But in the earlier statement in the Vinayasaṅgaha (Vi. Saṅga. Aṭṭha. 64), it is said, “He has been appointed by me,” using a paraphrased expression, and thus it is stated. Therefore, when the one who makes it proper has been persuaded, and the messenger informs the monk again, the monk should accuse the one who makes it proper only when informed, not otherwise.
ID379
Attho me āvuso cīvarenāti codanālakkhaṇanidassanametaṃ. Idaṃ vā hi vacanaṃ vattabbaṃ, tassa vā attho yāya kāyaci bhāsāya vattabbo. Dehi me cīvarantiādīni pana na vattabbākāradassanatthaṃ vuttāni. Etāni hi vacanāni, etesaṃ vā attho yāya kāyaci bhāsāya na vattabbo. “Evaṃ vadanto ca paṭikkhittattā vattabhede dukkaṭaṃ āpajjati, codanā pana hotiyevā”ti mahāgaṇṭhipade majjhimagaṇṭhipade ca vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.538-539) pana “na vattabbo ’dehi me cīvaraṃ…pe… cetāpehi me cīvara’nti idaṃ dūtenābhatarūpiyaṃ paṭiggahetuṃ attanā niddiṭṭhakappiyakārakattāva ’dehi me cīvaraṃ…pe… cetāpehi me cīvara’nti vadanto rūpiyassa pakatattā tena rūpiyena parivattetvā ’dehi cetāpehī’ti rūpiyasaṃvohāraṃ samāpajjanto nāma hotīti taṃ dosaṃ dūrato parivajjetuṃ vuttaṃ rūpiyapaṭiggāhakena saṅghamajjhe nissaṭṭharūpiye viya. Vuttañhi tattha ’na vattabbo imaṃ vā imaṃ vā āharā’ti (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.583-584), tasmā na idaṃ viññattidose parivajjetuṃ vuttanti veditabbaṃ ’attho me āvuso cīvarenā’tipi avattabbatāppasaṅgato. Teneva dūtaniddiṭṭhesu rūpiyasaṃvohārasaṅkābhāvato aññaṃ kappiyakārakaṃ ṭhapetvāpi āharāpetabba”nti vuttaṃ. Tatthāpi “dūtena ṭhapitarūpiyena cetāpetvā cīvaraṃ āharāpehī”ti avatvā kevalaṃ “cīvaraṃ āharāpehī”ti evaṃ āharāpetabbanti adhippāyo gahetabboti vuttaṃ.
“I need a robe, friend”—this is an example of the characteristic of prompting. Either this statement should be said, or its meaning should be expressed in any language. “Give me a robe” and so forth are stated to show what should not be said. These statements, or their meaning, should not be expressed in any language. “By saying so, due to the prohibition, he incurs a dukkaṭa offense for the variation in speech, but prompting still occurs”—this is stated in both the major and middle sub-commentaries. In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.538-539), however, it is said, “He should not say, ‘Give me a robe… exchange it for a robe for me’—this is said to avoid the fault of engaging in a silver transaction by saying, ‘Give me a robe… exchange it for a robe for me,’ regarding silver brought by a messenger, since he himself designated the monastery attendant and it remains silver by nature, as if it were silver relinquished in the midst of the Saṅgha by one who accepts silver. For it is said there (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.583-584), ‘He should not say, “Bring this or that,”’ and thus it should be understood that this is not said to avoid the fault of solicitation, as it would imply that ‘I need a robe, friend’ should also not be said. Hence, since there is no suspicion of a silver transaction with items designated by the messenger, it may be brought even by appointing another monastery attendant.” There too, it is said that it should be understood as, “Have a robe brought,” not “Having exchanged the silver placed by the messenger, have a robe brought.”
Attho me āvuso cīvarenā — this is an illustration of the characteristic of prompting. Either this statement must be made, or its meaning must be expressed in some language. But “Give me a robe” and so on, are stated to show the manner of speaking that is not to be used. These statements, or their meaning, must not be expressed in any language. “Speaking thus, and because of having refused, he incurs a dukkaṭa for the variation in speech, but the prompting is still valid,” it is said in the Mahāgaṇṭhipada and in the Majjhimagaṇṭhipada. In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.538-539), however, it is said, “‘It should not be said, ’Give me the robe…etc…have the robe purchased for me,’ this is said for completely avoiding that fault, because the messenger brought the money and it is to be accepted since the designated kappiyakāraka said, ‘give me the robe…etc…have the robe purchased for me.’ Saying those words is ‘completing the transaction of money’ because money has been brought and by using that money for exchange saying ‘give’, ‘have it bought’ . As it has been said ‘It should not be said, ’Bring this or this’’ (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.583-584), like the money left in the middle of the Saṅgha by one who accepts money, this is not stated in order to avoid the fault of solicitation. Because, if it were so then it would be unacceptable to say, ‘I have need of a robe, friend.’ Therefore, it is also said that after appointing another kappiyakāraka, because there is no suspicion of transacting in money for the one indicated by the messenger, it should be obtained.” There, it is also said that the intention should be understood as having him obtain it by saying only, “Have a robe obtained,” and not by saying, “Have a robe obtained by having it purchased with the money placed by the messenger.”
“I have a need for a robe, friend”—this is a characteristic of accusation. This statement should be made, or the meaning should be expressed in any manner of speech. “Give me a robe,” etc., however, should not be said, as stated to show the improper manner. These statements, or their meanings, should not be expressed in any manner of speech. “For by speaking thus, one incurs an offense of wrong conduct due to rejection, but the accusation is still valid,” as stated in the Mahāgaṇṭhipada and Majjhimagaṇṭhipada. In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.538-539), however, it is said, “One should not say, ‘Give me a robe… prepare a robe for me,’ because when the messenger has brought the money, and the one who makes it proper has been indicated by oneself, saying, ‘Give me a robe… prepare a robe for me,’ one engages in monetary exchange by converting that money and saying, ‘Give, prepare,’ thus avoiding the fault from afar, like money relinquished in the midst of the Sangha by one who has accepted money. For it is said there, ‘One should not say, “Bring this or that”’ (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.583-584), therefore, this is not stated to avoid the fault of requesting. Thus, even the statement, ‘I have a need for a robe, friend,’ should not be made due to the implication of impropriety. Therefore, since there is no suspicion of monetary exchange in the case of the messenger’s indication, even if another person who makes it proper is appointed, the robe should be requested.” There, too, the intention is that one should not say, “Prepare a robe with the money appointed by the messenger,” but simply, “Prepare a robe,” and thus it should be requested.
ID380
Iccetaṃ kusalanti evaṃ yāvatatiyaṃ codento taṃ cīvaraṃ abhinipphādetuṃ sakkoti attano paṭilābhavasena, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ sādhu suṭṭhu sundaraṃ. Catukkhattuṃ pañcakkhattuṃ chakkhattuparamaṃ tuṇhībhūtena uddissa ṭhātabbanti ṭhānalakkhaṇanidassanametaṃ. Chakkhattuparamanti ca bhāvanapuṃsakavacanametaṃ. Chakkhattuparamanti etena cīvaraṃ uddissa tuṇhībhūteneva ṭhātabbaṃ, na aññaṃ kiñci kātabbanti idaṃ ṭhānalakkhaṇaṃ. Teneva “na āsanetiādī”ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ. Saddasatthe pana –
“This is skillful” means by prompting up to three times, he can cause that robe to be produced for his own acquisition—this is skillful, good, well done, excellent. “He should stand silently up to six times at most, designating it”—this is an example of the characteristic of standing. “Up to six times at most” is a neuter expression in the abstract. “Up to six times at most”—by this, he should stand silently designating the robe, and nothing else should be done—this is the characteristic of standing. Hence, in the commentary, it is said, “Not sitting…” and so forth. In grammar, however—
Iccetaṃ kusalati — thus, if he is able to bring about that robe by prompting up to three times, by his own receipt, that is good, that is proper, very good, excellent. Catukkhattuṃ pañcakkhattuṃ chakkhattuparamaṃ tuṇhībhūtena uddissa ṭhātabbati — this is an illustration of the characteristic of standing. Chakkhattuparamati — this is an indeclinable word in the neuter gender that indicates an action (bhāvanapuṃsaka). Chakkhattuparamati — by this, the characteristic of standing is that one should stand silently for the purpose of the robe, and nothing else should be done. Therefore, “Na āsanetiādī” — “Not on a seat, and so on” — it is said in the commentary. And in the grammar: –
“This is wholesome”—thus, by accusing up to three times, one can succeed in obtaining the robe through one’s own effort. This is wholesome, good, and excellent. “One should stand silently, dedicating it up to four, five, or six times”—this is a characteristic of standing. “Up to six times” is a term in the passive voice. “Up to six times” means that one should stand silently dedicating the robe, and nothing else should be done. This is the characteristic of standing. Therefore, in the commentary, it is said, “One should not sit,” etc. In the Saddasattha, however—
ID381
“Kiriyāvisesanaṃ satthe, vuttaṃ dhātuvisesanaṃ; Bhāvanapuṃsakantyeva, sāsane samudīrita”nti. –
“In grammar, it is said to be an adverb, stated as qualifying a verb; In the teaching, it is expressed only with a neuter ending in the abstract.”
“An adverb, in grammar, is said to be a qualifier of the verb; it is said to be indeclinable in the neuter that indicates an action in the teaching.” –
“In the grammar, the distinction of action is stated, and the distinction of roots is also stated; in the teaching, the passive voice is proclaimed.”—
ID382
Vacanato kiriyāvisesanameva sāsanavohārena bhāvanapuṃsakaṃ nāma jātaṃ; “Muduṃ pacatiiccatra, pacanaṃ bhavatīti ca; Sukhaṃ sayatiiccatra, karoti sayananti cā”ti. –
From this statement, in the language of the teaching, an adverb becomes what is called a neuter in the abstract; “He cooks softly—here, it means cooking occurs; He sleeps comfortably—here, it means he performs sleeping.”
Because of this statement, an adverb, by common usage in the teaching, is of the nature of an indeclinable neuter that indicates an action. “He cooks gently (Muduṃ pacati), here the word (pacanaṃ cooking) is used. He sleeps comfortably (Sukhaṃ sayati), here he does (karoti) sleeping (sayananti).” –
From the statement, the distinction of action is called the passive voice in the teaching; “Soft cooks,” here cooking occurs; “Happily sleeps,” here sleeping occurs.—
ID383
Vacanato kiriyāvisesanapadena tulyādhikaraṇabhūtaṃ kiriyāvisesyapadaṃ akammakampi sakammakampi bhūdhātukaradhātūhi sambandhitabbaṃ hotīti iminā ñāyena chakkhattuparamaṃ ṭhānaṃ bhavitabbaṃ, chakkhattuparamaṃ ṭhānaṃ kātabbanti attho. Etena chakkhattuparamaṃ evaṃ ṭhānaṃ bhavitabbaṃ, na tato adhikaṃ , chakkhattuparamaṃ eva ṭhānaṃ kātabbaṃ, na tato uddhanti imamatthaṃ dasseti. Na āsane nisīditabbanti “idha bhante nisīdathā”ti vuttepi na nisīditabbaṃ. Na āmisaṃ paṭiggahetabbanti “yāgukhajjakādibhedaṃ kiñci āmisaṃ gaṇhatha bhante”ti yāciyamānenapi na gaṇhitabbaṃ. Na dhammo bhāsitabboti “maṅgalaṃ vā anumodanaṃ vā bhāsathā”ti yāciyamānenapi kiñci na bhāsitabbaṃ, kevalaṃ “kiṃkāraṇā āgatosī”ti pucchiyamānena “jānāhi āvuso”ti vattabbo.
From this statement, by the method that an adverbial word, being in apposition with the verb it qualifies, should be connected with verbs of being or doing, whether transitive or intransitive, it means standing should occur up to six times at most, or standing should be done up to six times at most. By this, it shows the meaning that standing should occur only up to six times, not more, and standing should be done only up to six times, not beyond. “He should not sit on a seat”—even if invited with, “Venerable sir, sit here,” he should not sit. “He should not accept alms”—even if requested with, “Venerable sir, take some porridge, solid food, or the like,” he should not take it. “He should not speak Dhamma”—even if requested with, “Speak a blessing or a thanksgiving,” he should not speak anything; if asked, “Why have you come?” he should only say, “Know it, friend.”
According to this statement, a word that is an adverb and in apposition with it, the word that is qualified by the adverb and expresses an action, whether having an agent or not, should be connected with the verbal roots bhū (to be) and kara (to do); by this principle, the standing should be up to six times (chakkhattuparamaṃ ṭhānaṃ bhavitabbaṃ), the standing should be done up to six times (chakkhattuparamaṃ ṭhānaṃ kātabbaṃ) – this is the meaning. By this, it shows this meaning: thus the standing should be for up to six times, not more than that; the standing should be done for up to six times, not beyond that. Na āsanetiādī — “Not on a seat should one sit.” Even if one is told, “Sit here, venerable sir,” one should not sit. Na āmisaṃ paṭiggahetabbati — Even if begged, “Please accept, venerable sir, some āmisa (food), such as gruel, solid food, and so forth,” one should not accept it. Na dhammo bhāsitabboti — Even if begged, “Please speak a blessing or an appreciation,” one should not speak anything. Only if asked, “For what reason have you come?” should one say, “Know, friend.”
From the statement, the term “distinction of action” refers to a word that is the object of the action, whether it is intransitive or transitive, and should be connected with the root or the causative verb. Thus, the standing should be up to six times, and the standing should be done up to six times, meaning that the standing should be up to six times, not more, and the standing should be done up to six times, not beyond. This explains the meaning. “One should not sit on the seat”—even if it is said, “Venerable, sit here,” one should not sit. “One should not accept food”—even if asked, “Venerable, take some rice gruel or hard food,” one should not take it. “One should not teach the Dhamma”—even if asked, “Please give a blessing or a thanksgiving,” one should not say anything, but only, “Friend, do you know?” should be said when asked, “Why have you come?”
ID384
Ṭhānaṃ bhañjatīti āgatakāraṇaṃ bhañjati kopeti. Ṭhānanti ṭhitiyā ca kāraṇassa ca nāmaṃ, tasmā āsane nisīdanena ṭhānaṃ kuppati, āgatakāraṇampi, āmisapaṭiggahaṇādīsu pana āgatakāraṇameva bhañjati, na ṭhānaṃ. Tenāha “āgatakāraṇaṃ bhañjatī”ti. Keci pana “āmisapaṭiggahaṇādinā ṭhānampi bhañjatī”ti vadanti, taṃ aṭṭhakathāya na sameti, ṭīkāyampi nānāvāde dassetvā ṭhānabhañjanaṃ vuttaṃ, taṃ aṭṭhakathāvacanena asaṃsandanato ganthagarubhayena na vadimha. Idāni yā tisso codanā, cha ca ṭhānāni vuttāni, tattha vuddhihāniṃ dassento “sace catukkhattuṃ codetī”tiādimāha. Yasmā ca ekacodanāvuddhiyā dvinnaṃ ṭhānānaṃ hāni vuttā, tasmā codanā dviguṇaṃ ṭhānanti lakkhaṇaṃ dassitaṃ hoti. Iti iminā lakkhaṇena tikkhattuṃ codetvā chakkhattuṃ ṭhātabbaṃ, dvikkhattuṃ codetvā aṭṭhakkhattuṃ ṭhātabbaṃ, sakiṃ codetvā dasakkhattuṃ ṭhātabbaṃ.
“He disrupts the standing”—he disrupts or angers the reason for coming. “Standing” is a term for both staying and the reason; thus, by sitting on a seat, the standing is disturbed, as is the reason for coming; but in accepting alms and so forth, only the reason for coming is disrupted, not the standing. Hence, he says, “It disrupts the reason for coming.” Some say, “By accepting alms and so forth, the standing is also disrupted,” but this does not align with the commentary; in the sub-commentary too, after showing various views, disrupting the standing is mentioned, but we do not say this due to its inconsistency with the commentary’s statement and the weight of textual authority. Now, to show the increase or decrease regarding the three promptings and six standings mentioned, he says, “If he prompts four times” and so forth. Since a decrease of two standings is stated for an increase of one prompting, it shows the characteristic that promptings are twice the standings. Thus, by this characteristic, one should prompt three times and stand six times, prompt twice and stand eight times, or prompt once and stand ten times.
Ṭhānaṃ bhañjatīti — one breaks, agitates, the reason for coming. Ṭhānanti — is the name for both the standing and the reason; therefore, by sitting on a seat, the standing is disturbed, and also the reason for coming. But in accepting āmisa, and so on, only the reason for coming is broken, not the standing. Therefore, he said, “The reason for coming is broken.” Some, however, say, “By accepting āmisa and so forth, the standing is also broken.” This does not agree with the commentary. In the ṭīkā (subcommentary), it is mentioned after showing different opinions. We don’t say it, for fear of contradicting the commentary. Now, concerning the three promptings and the six standings that have been mentioned, showing the increase and decrease in them, he says, “Sace catukkhattuṃ codetī”tiādi, and so on. And since with the increase of one prompting, the decrease of two standings is stated, the characteristic is shown that the prompting is twice the standing. Thus, by this characteristic, one should prompt three times and stand six times, prompt twice and stand eight times, prompt once and stand ten times.
“Breaks the standing”—disturbs the reason for coming. “Standing” is a term for both the position and the reason; therefore, by sitting on the seat, the standing is disturbed, as is the reason for coming. But in the case of accepting food, etc., only the reason for coming is disturbed, not the standing. Therefore, it is said, “Disturbs the reason for coming.” Some, however, say, “By accepting food, etc., the standing is also disturbed,” but this does not agree with the commentary, and in the sub-commentary, various opinions are shown, and the breaking of the standing is stated, but since it does not align with the commentary, we do not say it due to the weight of the text. Now, the three accusations and the six standings have been stated. To show the increase and decrease, it is said, “If one accuses four times,” etc. Since the increase of one accusation results in the decrease of two standings, it is shown that the accusation is double the standing. Thus, by this characteristic, one should accuse three times and stand six times, accuse twice and stand eight times, or accuse once and stand ten times.
ID385
Tatra tatra ṭhāne tiṭṭhatīti idaṃ codakassa ṭhitaṭṭhānato apakkamma tatra tatra uddissa ṭhānaṃyeva sandhāya vuttaṃ. Ko pana vādo nānādivasesūti nānādivasesu evaṃ karontassa ko pana vādo, vattabbameva natthīti adhippāyo. “Sāmaṃ vā gantabbaṃ, dūto vā pāhetabboti idaṃ sabhāvato codetuṃ anicchantenapi kātabbamevā”ti vadanti. Na taṃ tassa bhikkhuno kiñci atthaṃ anubhotīti taṃ cīvaracetāpannaṃ assa bhikkhuno kiñci appamattakampi kammaṃ na nipphādeti. Yuñjantāyasmanto sakanti āyasmanto attano santakaṃ dhanaṃ pāpuṇantu. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.538-539) pana “yatassa cīvaracetāpannantiādi yena attanā veyyāvaccakaro niddiṭṭho, cīvarañca anipphāditaṃ, tassa kattabbadassanaṃ. Evaṃ bhikkhunā vatthusāmikānaṃ vutte codetvā denti, vaṭṭati ’sāmikā codetvā dentī’ti (pārā. 541) anāpattiyaṃ vuttattā. Teneva so sayaṃ acodetvā upāsakādīhi pariyāyena vatvā codāpeti , tesu satakkhattumpi codetvā cīvaraṃ dāpentesu tassa anāpatti siddhā hoti sikkhāpadassa anāṇattikattā”ti vuttaṃ.
“He stands here and there”—this is said with reference only to standing designating it, moving away from the place where the one prompting stands. “What more in various days?”—what more need be said of one doing so on various days? Nothing need be said—this is the intent. “He should go himself or send a messenger”—they say, “This must be done even by one who naturally does not wish to prompt.” “It does not benefit that monk in any way”—that robe-requisite does not accomplish even the slightest task for that monk. “May the venerables obtain their own”—may the venerables obtain their own wealth. In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.538-539), however, “For whom this robe-requisite…” and so forth shows what should be done by one who has designated a service attendant himself and the robe is not produced. When a monk speaks thus to the owners of the item and they give it after prompting, it is permissible, as it is stated in “The owners give after prompting” (pārā. 541) with no offense. Hence, if he does not prompt himself but has lay followers or others indirectly prompt, and they prompt even a hundred times and have the robe given, there is no offense for him, as the training rule is not prescriptive—this is established.
Tatra tatra ṭhāne tiṭṭhatīti — this is said with reference to the standing for the purpose in that place and that place, after moving away from the place where the prompter stood. Ko pana vādo nānādivasesūti — as for doing thus on different days, what is there to say? The meaning is that it is not even worth mentioning. “Sāmaṃ vā gantabbaṃ, dūto vā pāhetabbo”ti — “Either one should go oneself, or a messenger should be sent,” this should definitely be done even by one who does not wish to prompt by nature, they say. Na taṃ tassa bhikkhuno kiñci atthaṃ anubhotīti — that fund for a robe does not accomplish any task, even a small one, for that monk. Yuñjantāyasmanto sakanti — let the venerable sirs obtain their own wealth. In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.538-539), however, it is said, **“Yatassa** cīvaracetāpanna”ntiādi — This is a showing of what should be done by the person by whom the veyyāvaccakara was indicated and the robe was not produced. Thus, when the monk says this to the owners of the property, they prompt him and give it, and that is proper, because it is stated in the section on non-offense that, ‘the owners, having prompted, give it’ (pārā. 541). Therefore, he himself, without prompting, speaks indirectly with lay devotees and so forth and has them prompt; if, after they have prompted up to seven times, they give the robe, he incurs no offense, because the training rule was not commanded.”
“Stands here and there”—this is said with reference to the standing of the accuser, having left his place, standing here and there. “What need is there to speak of different days?”—for one who acts thus on different days, what need is there to speak? It means there is nothing to be said. “One should go oneself or send a messenger”—this is said to mean that even if one does not wish to accuse, it must be done. “That monk does not benefit in any way”—that robe-fund does not produce even the slightest result for that monk. “Let the venerables apply themselves to their own”—let the venerables attain their own wealth. In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.538-539), however, “For that robe-fund”—this is the instruction for the one who has indicated the service provider by himself, but the robe has not been produced. Thus, when the owners of the property say so, the monk should accuse and they will give. It is permissible, as stated in the non-offense, “The owners accuse and give” (Pārā. 541). Therefore, he himself does not accuse but speaks indirectly through lay followers, etc., and when they accuse up to a hundred times and give the robe, his non-offense is established because the training rule is not authoritative.
ID386
65. Kenaci aniddiṭṭho attano mukheneva byāvaṭabhāvaṃ veyyāvaccakarattaṃ patto mukhavevaṭiko, avicāretukāmatāyāti iminā vijjamānampi dātuṃ anicchantā ariyāpi vañcanādhippāyaṃ vinā vohārato natthīti vadantīti dasseti. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.537-539) pana “avicāretukāmatāyāti imasmiṃ pakkhe ’natthamhākaṃ kappiyakārako’ti idaṃ tādisaṃ karonto kappiyakārako natthīti iminā adhippāyena vutta”nti vuttaṃ. Bhesajjakkhandhake meṇḍakaseṭṭhivatthumhi (mahāva. 299) vuttaṃ “santi bhikkhave”tiādivacanameva meṇḍakasikkhāpadaṃ nāma. Tattha hi meṇḍakena nāma seṭṭhinā “santi hi bhante maggā kantārā appodakā appabhakkhā na sukarā apātheyyena gantuṃ, sādhu bhante bhagavā bhikkhūnaṃ pātheyyaṃ anujānātū”ti yācitena bhagavatā “anujānāmi bhikkhave pātheyyaṃ pariyesituṃ. Taṇḍulo taṇḍulatthikena, muggo muggatthikena, māso māsatthikena, loṇaṃ loṇatthikena, guḷo guḷatthikena, telaṃ telatthikena, sappi sappitthikenā”ti vatvā idaṃ vuttaṃ “santi, bhikkhave, manussā saddhā pasannā, te kappiyakārakānaṃ hatthe hiraññaṃ upanikkhipanti ’iminā yaṃ ayyassa kappiyaṃ, taṃ dethā’ti. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, yaṃ tato kappiyaṃ, taṃ sādituṃ, na tvevāhaṃ, bhikkhave, kenaci pariyāyena jātarūparajataṃ sāditabbaṃ pariyesitabbanti vadāmī”ti. “Kappiyakārakānaṃ hatthe hiraññaṃ nikkhipantī”ti etthāpi bhikkhussa ārocanaṃ atthiyeva, aññathā aniddiṭṭhakappiyakārakapakkhaṃ bhajatīti na codetabbo siyā, idaṃ pana dūtena niddiṭṭhakappiyakārake sandhāya vuttaṃ, na pana bhikkhunā niddiṭṭhe vā aniddiṭṭhe vā. Tenevāha “ettha codanāya parimāṇaṃ natthī”tiādi. Yadi mūlaṃ sandhāya codeti, taṃ sāditameva siyāti āha “mūlaṃ asādiyantenā”ti.
65. One who, without being designated by anyone, becomes a service attendant by his own mouth alone, “a mouth-only one, due to not wishing to deliberate”—by this, it shows that even noble ones, without intent to deceive, say “there is none” in a transactional sense when they do not wish to give despite having it. In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.537-539), however, “Due to not wishing to deliberate”—in this case, “We have no monastery attendant” is said with the intent that there is no one acting as such. In the Bhesajjakkhandhaka, in the story of Meṇḍaka the millionaire (mahāva. 299), it is stated as the Meṇḍakasikkhāpada. There, when Meṇḍaka the millionaire requested, “Venerable sirs, there are roads and wildernesses with little water and food, not easy to travel without provisions; please, venerable sirs, may the Blessed One allow provisions for the monks,” the Blessed One said, “I allow, monks, to seek provisions. Rice for one needing rice, beans for one needing beans, black gram for one needing black gram, salt for one needing salt, molasses for one needing molasses, oil for one needing oil, ghee for one needing ghee,” and then said, “There are, monks, people with faith and confidence who place gold in the hands of monastery attendants, saying, ‘With this, give what is permissible to the noble one.’ I allow, monks, to accept what is permissible from that; but I do not say, monks, that gold or silver should be accepted or sought in any way.” “They place gold in the hands of monastery attendants”—here too, informing the monk is necessary; otherwise, it would fall under the category of an undesignated monastery attendant, and he might not be prompted. This, however, is said with reference to a monastery attendant designated by the messenger, not one designated or undesignated by the monk. Hence, he says, “There is no limit to prompting here” and so forth. If he prompts regarding the original amount, it would be as if accepting it; thus, he says, “Without accepting the original amount.”
65. One who, without being appointed by anyone, by his own initiative has taken on the role of a veyyāvaccakara, acting on his own, is called a mukhavevaṭiko. Avicāretukāmatāyāti — by this, it is shown that even noble ones, not wishing to give what they possess, without intending to deceive, say that they are not obligated to do so by any transaction. However, in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.537-539), it is said, “Avicāretukāmatāyā”ti — in this case, ‘We have no kappiyakāraka’ — this is said with the intention that there is no kappiyakāraka doing such a thing.” The statement beginning with “There are, monks,” mentioned in the Meṇḍakaseṭṭhi story in the Bhesajjakkhandhaka (mahāva. 299) is called the Meṇḍakasikkhāpadaṃ. For there, by the merchant named Meṇḍaka, after being requested, “Venerable sir, there are roads that are dangerous, with little water and little food, not easy to traverse without provisions; it would be good, venerable sir, if the Blessed One would allow provisions for the monks,” the Blessed One said, “I allow, monks, the seeking of provisions. Rice for one who needs rice, beans for one who needs beans, māsa beans for one who needs māsa beans, salt for one who needs salt, sugar for one who needs sugar, oil for one who needs oil, ghee for one who needs ghee,” and then said, “There are, monks, people who are faithful and devoted; they deposit gold in the hands of kappiyakārakas, saying, ‘With this, give what is allowable to the noble sir.’ I allow, monks, that what is allowable from that be accepted; but I do not say, monks, that under any circumstances should gold and silver be accepted or sought.” In the statement, “They deposit gold in the hands of kappiyakārakas,” the monk’s informing is still present, otherwise, it would fall under the category of a non-designated kappiyakāraka, and he should not be prompted. However, this is said with reference to a kappiyakāraka designated by a messenger, and not one designated or not designated by a monk. Therefore, he says, “Ettha codanāya parimāṇaṃ natthi,”tiādi — “Here, there is no limit to the prompting,” and so on. If he prompts with reference to the principal, that would be accepting it; therefore, he says, “Mūlaṃ asādiyantenā,”ti — “By one who does not accept the principal.”
65. If someone is not indicated by anyone, but by his own mouth attains the state of being engaged in service, “One who is mouth-bound, due to the desire not to investigate”—this shows that even noble ones, without the intention to deceive, do not engage in such speech. In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.537-539), however, “Due to the desire not to investigate”—in this case, “We have no one who makes it proper,” this is said with the intention that such a person does not exist. In the Bhesajjakkhandhaka, in the story of Meṇḍaka the merchant (Mahāva. 299), it is said, “There are, monks,” etc., this is called the Meṇḍaka training rule. There, Meṇḍaka the merchant requested the Blessed One, “Venerable, there are roads that are difficult to travel, with little water and little food, not easy to travel without provisions. Please, Venerable, let the Blessed One allow the monks to seek provisions.” The Blessed One said, “I allow, monks, to seek provisions. Rice for the purpose of rice, beans for the purpose of beans, sesame for the purpose of sesame, salt for the purpose of salt, molasses for the purpose of molasses, oil for the purpose of oil, ghee for the purpose of ghee.” Then he said, “There are, monks, faithful and devoted people who place gold in the hands of those who make it proper, saying, ‘Give what is proper for the venerable with this.’ I allow, monks, to accept what is proper from that, but I do not say that gold and silver should be accepted or sought in any way.” “They place gold in the hands of those who make it proper”—here too, the monk must inform, otherwise it would fall under the case of not indicating the one who makes it proper, and he should not be accused. This, however, is said with reference to the one who makes it proper indicated by the messenger, not by the monk, whether indicated or not. Therefore, it is said, “There is no limit to the accusation here,” etc. If one accuses with reference to the root, it should be accepted, thus it is said, “Without accepting the root.”
ID387
Aññātakaappavāritesu viya paṭipajjitabbanti idaṃ attanā codanāṭṭhānañca na kātabbanti dassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Piṇḍapātādīnaṃ atthāyāti iminā cīvaratthāyeva na hotīti dasseti. Eseva nayoti iminā vatthusāminā niddiṭṭhakappiyakārakesupi piṇḍapātādīnampi atthāya dinne ca ṭhānacodanādisabbaṃ heṭṭhā vuttanayeneva kātabbanti dasseti.
“It should be acted upon as with uninvited relatives”—this is said to show that he should not make a place for prompting himself. “For the sake of alms and so forth”—by this, it shows it is not only for the sake of a robe. “The same method”—by this, it shows that for monastery attendants designated by the owner of the item, even when given for alms and so forth, all matters of standing, prompting, and so forth should be done according to the method stated earlier.
Aññātakaappavāritesu viya paṭipajjitabbanti — this is said to show that prompting and standing should not be done by oneself. Piṇḍapātādīnaṃ atthāyāti — by this, it is shown that it is not only for the purpose of robes. Eseva nayoti — by this, it is shown that even in the case of a kappiyakāraka designated by the owner of the property, and also when something has been given for the purpose of almsfood and so on, all the standing, prompting, and so on, should be done in the manner stated above.
“One should act as in the case of unknown and uninvited donors”—this is said to show that one should not perform the act of accusing oneself. “For the sake of almsfood, etc.”—this shows that it is not for the sake of robes. “This is the method”—this shows that even in the case of the one who makes it proper indicated by the owner of the property, and even when almsfood, etc., are given, all the standings, accusations, etc., should be done as stated above.
ID388
66. Upanikkhittasādiyane panātiādīsu “idaṃ ayyassa hotū”ti evaṃ sammukhā vā “amukasmiṃ nāma ṭhāne mama hiraññasuvaṇṇaṃ atthi, taṃ tuyhaṃ hotū”ti evaṃ parammukhā vā ṭhitassa kevalaṃ vācāya vā hatthamuddāya vā “tuyha”nti vatvā pariccattassa kāyavācāhi appaṭikkhipitvā cittena sādiyanaṃ upanikkhittasādiyanaṃ nāma. Sādiyatīti vuttamevatthaṃ vibhāveti “gaṇhitukāmo hotī”ti.
66. In the phrases such as “upanikkhittasādiyane pana,” when someone says face-to-face, “May this belong to the venerable,” or indirectly, “In such-and-such a place there is my gold and silver; may it be yours,” or simply states “yours” by speech alone or by hand gesture to someone present, and relinquishes it without rejecting it through body or speech but accepts it with the mind, this is called upanikkhittasādiyana (acceptance of what is offered). “Sādiyati” clarifies the same meaning as stated with “gaṇhitukāmo hoti” (he wishes to take).
66. In the case of delighting in what has been deposited, such as, “May this belong to the venerable sir,” thus, whether face-to-face, or, “I have gold and silver in such and such a place, may that be yours,” thus, when out of sight, a person has relinquished something just by stating “It is yours” verbally or through a hand gesture and, without rejection by deed or speech, delights in it mentally, this is called ‘delighting in a deposit’. He delights, the meaning is explained as “He desires to take it”.
66. Upanikkhittasādiyane panātiādīsu “idaṃ ayyassa hotū”ti evaṃ sammukhā vā “amukasmiṃ nāma ṭhāne mama hiraññasuvaṇṇaṃ atthi, taṃ tuyhaṃ hotū”ti evaṃ parammukhā vā ṭhitassa kevalaṃ vācāya vā hatthamuddāya vā “tuyha”nti vatvā pariccattassa kāyavācāhi appaṭikkhipitvā cittena sādiyanaṃ upanikkhittasādiyanaṃ nāma. Sādiyatīti vuttamevatthaṃ vibhāveti “gaṇhitukāmo hotī”ti.
ID389
Idaṃ guttaṭṭhānanti ācikkhitabbanti paccayaparibhogaṃyeva sandhāya ācikkhitabbaṃ. “Idha nikkhipā”ti vutte “uggaṇhāpeyya vā”ti vuttalakkhaṇena nissaggiyaṃ hotīti āha “idha nikkhipāhīti na vattabba”nti. Atha vā “idaṃ guttaṭṭhāna”nti ācikkhanto ṭhānassa guttabhāvameva dasseti, na vatthuṃ parāmasati, tasmā ācikkhitabbaṃ. “Idha nikkhipāhī”ti pana vadanto nikkhipitabbaṃ vatthuṃ nikkhipāhīti vatthuṃ parāmasati nāma, tasmā na vattabbaṃ. Parato idaṃ gaṇhāti etthāpi eseva nayo. Kappiyañca akappiyañca nissāya ṭhitaṃ hotīti yasmā tato uppannapaccayaparibhogo kappati, tasmā kappiyaṃ nissāya ṭhitaṃ, yasmā pana dubbicāraṇāya tato uppannapaccayaparibhogo na kappati, tasmā akappiyaṃ nissāya ṭhitanti veditabbaṃ. Atha vā idaṃ dhanaṃ yasmā “nayidaṃ kappatī”ti paṭikkhittaṃ, tasmā kappiyaṃ nissāya ṭhitaṃ, yasmā pana sabbaso avissajjitaṃ, tasmā akappiyaṃ nissāya ṭhitaṃ. Atha vā taṃ dhanaṃ yasmā pacchā suṭṭhuvicāraṇāya satiyā kappiyaṃ bhavissati, dubbicāraṇāya satiyā akappiyaṃ bhavissati, tasmā kappiyañca akappiyañca nissāya ṭhitaṃ hotīti. Vimativinodaniyaṃ pana “eko sataṃ vā sahassaṃ vātiādi rūpiye heṭṭhimakoṭiyā pavattanākāraṃ dassetuṃ vutta”nti ca “na pana evaṃ paṭipajjitabbamevāti dassetuṃ, ’idha nikkhipāhī’ti vutte uggaṇhāpanaṃ hotīti āha ’idha nikkhipāhī’ti na vattabba”nti ca “kappiyañca…pe… hotīti yasmā asāditattā tato uppannapaccayā vaṭṭanti, tasmā kappiyaṃ nissāya ṭhitaṃ, yasmā pana dubbicāraṇāya sati tato uppannaṃ na kappati, tasmā akappiyaṃ nissāya ṭhitanti veditabba”nti ca vuttaṃ.
“Idaṃ guttaṭṭhānanti ācikkhitabba” means it should be indicated with reference only to the use of requisites. When it is said, “Put it here,” it becomes a nissaggiya (an offense requiring forfeiture) according to the characteristic stated as “uggaṇhāpeyya vā,” so it is said, “idha nikkhipāhīti na vattabba” (it should not be said, “Put it here”). Alternatively, when indicating “idaṃ guttaṭṭhāna” (this is a secure place), one merely points out the security of the place without handling the object, so it may be indicated. However, by saying “idha nikkhipāhī” (put it here), one handles the object to be placed, which is why it should not be said. The same applies later to “idaṃ gaṇhā” (take this). “Kappiyañca akappiyañca nissāya ṭhitaṃ hoti” means that since the use of requisites arising from it is permissible, it is considered to stand in dependence on what is allowable (kappiya); but since the use of requisites arising from it is not permissible due to improper consideration, it is to be understood as standing in dependence on what is unallowable (akappiya). Alternatively, since this wealth is rejected as “this is not allowable,” it stands in dependence on what is allowable; but since it is not entirely relinquished, it stands in dependence on what is unallowable. Or, since that wealth, when later properly considered, will be allowable, and when improperly considered, will be unallowable, it stands in dependence on both what is allowable and unallowable. In the Vimativinodani, it is stated: “’eko sataṃ vā sahassaṃ vā’tiādi” is said to show the manner of operation with the lowest limit regarding silver, and “to show that it should not necessarily be practiced thus, it is said that if one says ‘idha nikkhipāhī,’ it amounts to having it accepted, so ‘idha nikkhipāhīti na vattabba’”; and “kappiyañca…pe… hotīti, since the requisites arising from it are acceptable because they are not taken, it stands in dependence on what is allowable; but since, when improperly considered, what arises from it is not permissible, it is to be understood as standing in dependence on what is unallowable.”
It should be declared that this is a guarded place, should be said with reference to the use of requisites. When someone says “Deposit it here” it becomes an object to be relinquished defined as “one should have them take it up”. That is why “Do not say ‘Deposit it here’” is stated. Or, one declaring, “This is a secure place,” merely indicates the security of the location and does not touch on the object. Therefore, it should be declared. By contrast, one who says, “Deposit it here,” touches on the item to be deposited, prompting, “Deposit the object to be deposited.” Therefore, it is not to be said. Further on, the same principle applies in “Take this.” It rests on both what is allowable and what is unallowable because from that, appropriate use of the requisites arises, and so, it depends on what is allowable. Since the subsequent improper use of requisites arising from that is not allowable due to misapplication, it is also understood to depend on what is unallowable. Or, this wealth is considered resting on the allowable because it has been rejected as ‘this is not allowable’, but, because it hasn’t been entirely released, it is considered resting on the unallowable. Or else, that wealth will be allowable if, later, it is well used and unallowable if it is misused; therefore, it stands reliant on both what is allowable and what is unallowable. However, in the Vimativinodanī, “One hundred or one thousand,” etc., has been said to demonstrate the mode of operating in the lower limit regarding monetary coins, and, to show that one should not necessarily follow this method “If one says, ‘deposit it here’ it constitutes having them pick it up”. Therefore, the statement “One should not say ‘Deposit it here’” has been uttered and “It rests on… etc., what is allowable” because, as one has not delighted in it, the resulting requisites are proper, so it rests on what is allowable; however, because the resulting requisites are not allowable if there is misapplication, it is to be understood that it rests on what is unallowable.
Idaṃ guttaṭṭhānanti ācikkhitabbanti paccayaparibhogaṃyeva sandhāya ācikkhitabbaṃ. “Idha nikkhipā”ti vutte “uggaṇhāpeyya vā”ti vuttalakkhaṇena nissaggiyaṃ hotīti āha “idha nikkhipāhīti na vattabba”nti. Atha vā “idaṃ guttaṭṭhāna”nti ācikkhanto ṭhānassa guttabhāvameva dasseti, na vatthuṃ parāmasati, tasmā ācikkhitabbaṃ. “Idha nikkhipāhī”ti pana vadanto nikkhipitabbaṃ vatthuṃ nikkhipāhīti vatthuṃ parāmasati nāma, tasmā na vattabbaṃ. Parato idaṃ gaṇhāti etthāpi eseva nayo. Kappiyañca akappiyañca nissāya ṭhitaṃ hotīti yasmā tato uppannapaccayaparibhogo kappati, tasmā kappiyaṃ nissāya ṭhitaṃ, yasmā pana dubbicāraṇāya tato uppannapaccayaparibhogo na kappati, tasmā akappiyaṃ nissāya ṭhitanti veditabbaṃ. Atha vā idaṃ dhanaṃ yasmā “nayidaṃ kappatī”ti paṭikkhittaṃ, tasmā kappiyaṃ nissāya ṭhitaṃ, yasmā pana sabbaso avissajjitaṃ, tasmā akappiyaṃ nissāya ṭhitaṃ. Atha vā taṃ dhanaṃ yasmā pacchā suṭṭhuvicāraṇāya satiyā kappiyaṃ bhavissati, dubbicāraṇāya satiyā akappiyaṃ bhavissati, tasmā kappiyañca akappiyañca nissāya ṭhitaṃ hotīti. Vimativinodaniyaṃ pana “eko sataṃ vā sahassaṃ vātiādi rūpiye heṭṭhimakoṭiyā pavattanākāraṃ dassetuṃ vutta”nti ca “na pana evaṃ paṭipajjitabbamevāti dassetuṃ, ’idha nikkhipāhī’ti vutte uggaṇhāpanaṃ hotīti āha ’idha nikkhipāhī’ti na vattabba”nti ca “kappiyañca…pe… hotīti yasmā asāditattā tato uppannapaccayā vaṭṭanti, tasmā kappiyaṃ nissāya ṭhitaṃ, yasmā pana dubbicāraṇāya sati tato uppannaṃ na kappati, tasmā akappiyaṃ nissāya ṭhitanti veditabba”nti ca vuttaṃ.
ID390
67. Saṅghamajjhe nissajjitabbanti yasmā rūpiyaṃ nāma akappiyaṃ, tasmā saṅghassa vā gaṇassa vā puggalassa vā nissajjitabbanti na vuttaṃ. Yasmā pana taṃ paṭiggahitamattameva hoti, na tena kiñci kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ cetāpitaṃ, tasmā upāyena paribhogadassanatthaṃ “saṅghamajjhe nissajjitabba”nti (pārā. 584) vuttaṃ. Na tena kiñci kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ cetāpitanti iminā cetāpitañce, natthi paribhogūpāyo uggahetvā anissaṭṭharūpiyena cetāpitattā. Īdisañhi saṅghamajjhe nissajjanaṃ katvāva chaḍḍetvā pācittiyaṃ desāpetabbanti dasseti. Keci pana “yasmā nissaggiyavatthuṃ paṭiggahetvāpi cetāpitaṃ kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ saṅghe nissaṭṭhaṃ kappiyakārakehi nissaṭṭharūpiyena parivattetvā ānītakappiyabhaṇḍasadisaṃ hoti, tasmā vināva upāyaṃ bhājetvā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vadanti, taṃ pattacatukkādikathāya na sameti. Tattha hi rūpiyena parivattitapattassa aparibhogova dassito, na nissajjanavicāroti. Kappiyaṃ ācikkhitabbanti pabbajitānaṃ sappi vā telaṃ vā vaṭṭati upāsakāti evaṃ ācikkhitabbaṃ.
67. “Saṅghamajjhe nissajjitabba” means that since silver (rūpiya) is unallowable (akappiya), it is not said that it should be relinquished to the Sangha, a group, or an individual. However, since it is merely received and not used to procure any allowable goods, it is stated as “saṅghamajjhe nissajjitabba” (to be relinquished in the midst of the Sangha) (pārā. 584) for the purpose of showing a means of use. “Na tena kiñci kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ cetāpita” indicates that if it were used to procure something, there would be no means of use because allowable goods procured with silver that has been taken and not relinquished would be so. It shows that after relinquishing such an item in the midst of the Sangha and discarding it, a pācittiya offense must be confessed. Some, however, say, “Even after receiving an item requiring forfeiture, allowable goods procured and relinquished to the Sangha, exchanged by allowable agents with relinquished silver, become like allowable goods brought in, so it is permissible to divide and use them without any means,” but this does not align with the discussion of the bowl and four items, where only the non-use of a bowl exchanged with silver is shown, not a consideration of relinquishment. “Kappiyaṃ ācikkhitabba” means that it should be indicated to the ordained as “Ghee or oil is suitable for a layperson.”
67. It should be relinquished in the midst of the Sangha, since money is indeed unallowable, it is not said that it should be relinquished to the Sangha, a group, or an individual. However, because it has only been received, and no allowable goods have been purchased with it, therefore, for the sake of showing appropriate usage, it is said, “it should be relinquished in the midst of the Sangha” (pārā. 584). No allowable goods have been purchased with it With this statement, it is shown that if something has been acquired, there is no way to use it appropriately, because it has been acquired with money that has not been relinquished after taking it up. Indeed, a relinquishment of this sort done in the midst of the Sangha, after throwing away the money a Pācittiya offense is to be confessed. Some, however, say, “Because even allowable goods acquired after receiving a relinquishment-required object, when relinquished to the Sangha, are similar to allowable goods brought after being exchanged with money relinquished by those performing allowable actions. Therefore, without resorting to a method, it is allowable to use after distributing,” but this doesn’t align with the discussion on bowls, etc. Here, indeed, it’s the non-usability of a bowl exchanged for money that is shown, not the discussion about its relinquishment. The allowable should be declared, it should be declared thus: “Ghee or oil is allowable for recluses, lay-follower”.
67. Saṅghamajjhe nissajjitabbanti yasmā rūpiyaṃ nāma akappiyaṃ, tasmā saṅghassa vā gaṇassa vā puggalassa vā nissajjitabbanti na vuttaṃ. Yasmā pana taṃ paṭiggahitamattameva hoti, na tena kiñci kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ cetāpitaṃ, tasmā upāyena paribhogadassanatthaṃ “saṅghamajjhe nissajjitabba”nti (pārā. 584) vuttaṃ. Na tena kiñci kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ cetāpitanti iminā cetāpitañce, natthi paribhogūpāyo uggahetvā anissaṭṭharūpiyena cetāpitattā. Īdisañhi saṅghamajjhe nissajjanaṃ katvāva chaḍḍetvā pācittiyaṃ desāpetabbanti dasseti. Keci pana “yasmā nissaggiyavatthuṃ paṭiggahetvāpi cetāpitaṃ kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ saṅghe nissaṭṭhaṃ kappiyakārakehi nissaṭṭharūpiyena parivattetvā ānītakappiyabhaṇḍasadisaṃ hoti, tasmā vināva upāyaṃ bhājetvā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vadanti, taṃ pattacatukkādikathāya na sameti. Tattha hi rūpiyena parivattitapattassa aparibhogova dassito, na nissajjanavicāroti. Kappiyaṃ ācikkhitabbanti pabbajitānaṃ sappi vā telaṃ vā vaṭṭati upāsakāti evaṃ ācikkhitabbaṃ.
ID391
Ārāmikānaṃ vā pattabhāganti idaṃ gihīnaṃ hatthagatopi soyeva bhāgoti katvā vuttaṃ. Sace pana tena aññaṃ parivattetvā ārāmikā denti, paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatīti majjhimagaṇṭhipade cūḷagaṇṭhipade ca vuttaṃ. Tato haritvāti aññesaṃ pattabhāgato haritvā. Kasiṇaparikammanti ālokakasiṇaparikammaṃ. Mañcapīṭhādīni vāti ettha tato gahitamañcapīṭhādīni parivattetvā aññaṃ ce gahitaṃ, vaṭṭatīti vadanti. Chāyāpīti bhojanasālādīnaṃ chāyāpi. Paricchedātikkantāti gehaparicchedaṃ atikkantā, chāyāya gatagataṭṭhānaṃ gehaṃ na hotīti adhippāyo. Maggenapīti ettha sace añño maggo natthi, maggaṃ adhiṭṭhahitvā gantuṃ vaṭṭatīti vadanti. Kītāyāti tena vatthunā kītāya. Upanikkhepaṃ ṭhapetvā saṅgho paccaye paribhuñjatīti sace upāsako “atibahu etaṃ hiraññaṃ, idaṃ bhante ajjeva na vināsetabba”nti vatvā sayaṃ upanikkhepaṃ ṭhapeti, aññena vā ṭhapāpeti, evaṃ upanikkhepaṃ ṭhapetvā tato uppannapaccayaṃ paribhuñjanto saṅgho paccaye paribhuñjati, tena vatthunā gahitattā “akappiya”nti vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.583-584) pana “upanikkhepaṃ ṭhapetvāti kappiyakārakehi vaḍḍhiyā payojanaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Akappiyanti tena vatthunā gahitattā vutta”nti vuttaṃ.
“Ārāmikānaṃ vā pattabhāga” means this is said considering that it is the same portion even when held by laypeople. However, if they exchange it for something else and the monastery attendants give it, it is permissible to use, as stated in the Majjhimagaṇṭhipada and Cūḷagaṇṭhipada. “Tato haritvā” means taking it from the portion of others. “Kasiṇaparikamma” refers to the preparation of the light kasiṇa. “Mañcapīṭhādīni vā” means that if beds, seats, etc., taken from there are exchanged for something else, it is said to be permissible. “Chāyāpī” includes the shade of dining halls, etc. “Paricchedātikkantā” means beyond the boundary of a house, intending that the place reached by the shade is not a house. “Maggenapī” means that if there is no other path, it is permissible to resolve to go by that path, they say. “Kītāyā” means bought with that object. “Upanikkhepaṃ ṭhapetvā saṅgho paccaye paribhuñjatīti” means that if a layperson says, “This gold is too much; venerable sirs, it should not be destroyed today,” and either places it in trust himself or has it placed by another, and the Sangha uses the requisites arising from it after it has been placed in trust, it is called “akappiya” (unallowable) because it was taken with that object. In the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.583-584), it is said: “‘upanikkhepaṃ ṭhapetvā’ is said with reference to the purpose of increase by allowable agents. ‘Akappiya’ is said because it was taken with that object.”
Or the share of the monastery workers, this has been said because it is that same share, even when it is in the possession of lay people. However, if the monastery workers give something else in exchange, it is permissible to use it, it has been stated in the Majjhima-ganthi and Cūḷagaṇṭhi-pada. Having taken from that having taken from the share of others. The whole preparatory work, the preliminary practice of the light kasiṇa. Or a couch, a seat, etc, In this context, if another is taken having changed the couch, seat and so on, it is permissible, they say. Even the shade, even the shade of the dining hall, etc. Beyond the boundary, beyond the boundary of the house, the place where the shade falls is not the house, that is the intention. Even by the path, in this context, if there is no other path, it is permissible to determine a path and go, they say. Acquired by that, acquired by means of that object. The Sangha, having established a deposit, uses the requisites If a lay supporter says, “This is too much gold; Venerable Sirs, this should not be spent today,” and he himself sets up a deposit or has another set it up; thus, having established a deposit, the Sangha using the arising requisites from that deposit, uses the requisites, because it was obtained with that object, it is called “unallowable”. However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.583-584) it is stated: “Having established a deposit” refers to that which has been stated by those who do what is allowable with the purpose of interest. Unallowable, It has been spoken because it has been acquired using that object.
Ārāmikānaṃ vā pattabhāganti idaṃ gihīnaṃ hatthagatopi soyeva bhāgoti katvā vuttaṃ. Sace pana tena aññaṃ parivattetvā ārāmikā denti, paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatīti majjhimagaṇṭhipade cūḷagaṇṭhipade ca vuttaṃ. Tato haritvāti aññesaṃ pattabhāgato haritvā. Kasiṇaparikammanti ālokakasiṇaparikammaṃ. Mañcapīṭhādīni vāti ettha tato gahitamañcapīṭhādīni parivattetvā aññaṃ ce gahitaṃ, vaṭṭatīti vadanti. Chāyāpīti bhojanasālādīnaṃ chāyāpi. Paricchedātikkantāti gehaparicchedaṃ atikkantā, chāyāya gatagataṭṭhānaṃ gehaṃ na hotīti adhippāyo. Maggenapīti ettha sace añño maggo natthi, maggaṃ adhiṭṭhahitvā gantuṃ vaṭṭatīti vadanti. Kītāyāti tena vatthunā kītāya. Upanikkhepaṃ ṭhapetvā saṅgho paccaye paribhuñjatīti sace upāsako “atibahu etaṃ hiraññaṃ, idaṃ bhante ajjeva na vināsetabba”nti vatvā sayaṃ upanikkhepaṃ ṭhapeti, aññena vā ṭhapāpeti, evaṃ upanikkhepaṃ ṭhapetvā tato uppannapaccayaṃ paribhuñjanto saṅgho paccaye paribhuñjati, tena vatthunā gahitattā “akappiya”nti vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.583-584) pana “upanikkhepaṃ ṭhapetvāti kappiyakārakehi vaḍḍhiyā payojanaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Akappiyanti tena vatthunā gahitattā vutta”nti vuttaṃ.
ID392
Sace so chaḍḍetīti yattha katthaci khipati, athāpi na chaḍḍeti, sayaṃ gahetvā gacchati, na vāretabbo. No ce chaḍḍetīti atha neva gahetvā gacchati, na chaḍḍeti, “kiṃ mayhaṃ iminā byāpārenā”ti yenakāmaṃ pakkamati, tato yathāvuttalakkhaṇo rūpiyachaḍḍako samannitabbo. Yo na chandāgatintiādīsu lobhavasena taṃ vatthuṃ attano vā karonto attānaṃ vā ukkaṃsento chandāgatiṃ nāma gacchati. Dosavasena “nevāyaṃ mātikaṃ jānāti, na vinaya”nti paraṃ apasādento dosāgatiṃ nāma gacchati. Mohavasena pamuṭṭho pamuṭṭhassatibhāvaṃ āpajjanto mohāgatiṃ nāma gacchati. Rūpiyapaṭiggāhakassa bhayena chaḍḍetuṃ avisahanto bhayāgatiṃ nāma gacchati. Evaṃ akaronto na chandāgatiṃ gacchati, na dosāgatiṃ gacchati, na mohāgatiṃ gacchati, na bhayāgatiṃ gacchati nāmāti veditabbo.
“Sace so chaḍḍeti” means if he throws it anywhere, or even if he does not throw it but takes it himself and goes, he should not be prevented. “No ce chaḍḍeti” means if he neither takes it and goes nor throws it, saying, “What use is this trouble to me?” and departs as he pleases, then a silver-discarder should be appointed according to the characteristics described. In “yo na chandāgati” and so forth, one who, out of greed, takes that object for himself or exalts himself goes by chandāgati (bias of desire). One who, out of aversion, disparages another, saying, “He knows neither the text nor the Vinaya,” goes by dosāgati (bias of aversion). One who, out of delusion, becomes forgetful and falls into a state of absent mindfulness goes by mohāgati (bias of delusion). One who, out of fear of the silver-receiver, is unable to discard it goes by bhayāgati (bias of fear). One who does not act thus is to be understood as not going by chandāgati, dosāgati, mohāgati, or bhayāgati.
If he discards it, he throws it wherever, even if he does not throw it and, taking it himself, goes away, he should not be prevented. If he does not discard it, If he neither takes it nor throws it away, and he goes wherever he pleases saying “What is my business with this?” then one should find someone who discards money with the aforementioned characteristics. He who does not go to partiality, and so on, one who, out of greed, makes that object his own or praises himself, goes to partiality. One who, out of aversion, disparages another by saying, “This one does not know the texts or the discipline,” goes to partiality based on aversion. One who, due to delusion, is confused and falls into a state of confused mindfulness, goes to partiality based on delusion. One who does not dare to discard due to fear of the money-receiver goes to partiality based on fear. Doing thus, he does not go to partiality; he does not go to partiality based on aversion; he does not go to partiality based on delusion; he does not go to partiality based on fear. Thus should it be known.
Sace so chaḍḍetīti yattha katthaci khipati, athāpi na chaḍḍeti, sayaṃ gahetvā gacchati, na vāretabbo. No ce chaḍḍetīti atha neva gahetvā gacchati, na chaḍḍeti, “kiṃ mayhaṃ iminā byāpārenā”ti yenakāmaṃ pakkamati, tato yathāvuttalakkhaṇo rūpiyachaḍḍako samannitabbo. Yo na chandāgatintiādīsu lobhavasena taṃ vatthuṃ attano vā karonto attānaṃ vā ukkaṃsento chandāgatiṃ nāma gacchati. Dosavasena “nevāyaṃ mātikaṃ jānāti, na vinaya”nti paraṃ apasādento dosāgatiṃ nāma gacchati. Mohavasena pamuṭṭho pamuṭṭhassatibhāvaṃ āpajjanto mohāgatiṃ nāma gacchati. Rūpiyapaṭiggāhakassa bhayena chaḍḍetuṃ avisahanto bhayāgatiṃ nāma gacchati. Evaṃ akaronto na chandāgatiṃ gacchati, na dosāgatiṃ gacchati, na mohāgatiṃ gacchati, na bhayāgatiṃ gacchati nāmāti veditabbo.
ID393
68. Patitokāsaṃ asamannārahantena chaḍḍetabbanti idaṃ nirapekkhabhāvadassanaparanti veditabbaṃ, tasmā patitaṭṭhāne ñātepi tassa gūthaṃ chaḍḍentassa viya nirapekkhabhāvoyevettha pamāṇanti veditabbaṃ. Asantasambhāvanāyāti attani avijjamānauttarimanussadhammārocanaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Theyyaparibhogo nāma anarahassa paribhogo. Bhagavatā hi attano sāsane sīlavato paccayā anuññātā, na dussīlassa. Dāyakānampi sīlavato eva pariccāgo, na dussīlassa attano kārānaṃ mahapphalabhāvassa paccāsīsanato. Iti satthārā ananuññātattā dāyakehi ca apariccattattā dussīlassa paribhogo theyyaparibhogo. Iṇavasena paribhogo iṇaparibhogo, paṭiggāhakato dakkhiṇāvisuddhiyā abhāvato iṇaṃ gahetvā paribhogo viyāti attho. Tasmāti “sīlavato”tiādinā vuttamevatthaṃ kāraṇabhāvena paccāmasati. Cīvaraṃ paribhoge paribhogeti kāyato mocetvā paribhoge paribhoge. Purebhatta…pe… pacchimayāmesu paccavekkhitabbanti sambandho. Tathā asakkontena yathāvuttakālavisesavasena ekasmiṃ divase catukkhattuṃ tikkhattuṃ dvikkhattuṃ sakiṃyeva vā paccavekkhitabbaṃ.
68. “Patitokāsaṃ asamannārahantena chaḍḍetabba” is to be understood as demonstrating a state of non-attachment, so even if the place where it falls is known, the measure here is the state of non-attachment, like one throwing away excrement. “Asantasambhāvanāyā” is said with reference to proclaiming a superhuman quality not present in oneself. “Theyyaparibhogo” is the use by one who is unworthy. For the Blessed One permitted requisites in his teaching for the virtuous, not for the unvirtuous. Donors, too, give only to the virtuous, expecting great fruit from their actions, not to the unvirtuous. Thus, since it is not permitted by the Teacher and not given by donors, the use by the unvirtuous is theyyaparibhogo (thievish use). Use as if in debt is “iṇaparibhogo,” meaning it is like use after taking a debt due to the absence of purification of the offering from the receiver’s side. “Tasmā” refers back to the meaning stated earlier with “sīlavato” and so on as the reason. “Cīvaraṃ paribhoge paribhoge” means at each use after removing it from the body. The connection is that it should be reflected upon before meals… up to the last watch [of the night]. If one is unable to do so, it should be reflected upon four times, three times, twice, or once a day according to the specified times as described.
68. It should be thrown by one who does not consider where it has fallen, this should be understood as an indication of the state of detachment, therefore, even if one knows where it has fallen, detachment itself, just as when one discards excrement, is the measure in this context. This should be understood. Due to the non-declaration, has been uttered in reference to declaring the non-existent attainments of the superior human states. The use by a thief is the use by a non-worthy one. For, by the Blessed One, requisites were allowed for those virtuous in his dispensation, not for the immoral. The offering of donors is also only for the virtuous, not for the immoral, out of the expectation of the great fruitfulness of their actions. Thus, because it is not permitted by the Teacher and because it is not bestowed by the donors, the use by an immoral person is the use by a thief. Debtor-usage, because of the lack of purification of the gift from the receiver, it is like taking a loan and using. Therefore, This statement, “By the virtuous,” etc. re-examines the matter with reasoning. Each time the robe is used, each time it is removed from the body and used. In the morning…etc…one should reflect in the last watch of the night is the connection. If one is unable to do so, one should reflect at least four times, three times, twice, or once a day according to the aforementioned time divisions.
68. Patitokāsaṃ asamannārahantena chaḍḍetabbanti idaṃ nirapekkhabhāvadassanaparanti veditabbaṃ, tasmā patitaṭṭhāne ñātepi tassa gūthaṃ chaḍḍentassa viya nirapekkhabhāvoyevettha pamāṇanti veditabbaṃ. Asantasambhāvanāyāti attani avijjamānauttarimanussadhammārocanaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Theyyaparibhogo nāma anarahassa paribhogo. Bhagavatā hi attano sāsane sīlavato paccayā anuññātā, na dussīlassa. Dāyakānampi sīlavato eva pariccāgo, na dussīlassa attano kārānaṃ mahapphalabhāvassa paccāsīsanato. Iti satthārā ananuññātattā dāyakehi ca apariccattattā dussīlassa paribhogo theyyaparibhogo. Iṇavasena paribhogo iṇaparibhogo, paṭiggāhakato dakkhiṇāvisuddhiyā abhāvato iṇaṃ gahetvā paribhogo viyāti attho. Tasmāti “sīlavato”tiādinā vuttamevatthaṃ kāraṇabhāvena paccāmasati. Cīvaraṃ paribhoge paribhogeti kāyato mocetvā paribhoge paribhoge. Purebhatta…pe… pacchimayāmesu paccavekkhitabbanti sambandho. Tathā asakkontena yathāvuttakālavisesavasena ekasmiṃ divase catukkhattuṃ tikkhattuṃ dvikkhattuṃ sakiṃyeva vā paccavekkhitabbaṃ.
ID394
Sacassa appaccavekkhatova aruṇo uggacchati, iṇaparibhogaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhatīti ettha hiyyo yaṃ mayā cīvaraṃ paribhuttaṃ, taṃ yāvadeva sītassa paṭighātāya…pe… hirikopinapaṭicchādanatthaṃ. Hiyyo yo mayā piṇḍapāto paribhutto, so neva davāyātiādinā sace atītaparibhogapaccavekkhaṇaṃ na kareyya, iṇaparibhogaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhatīti vadanti, taṃ vīmaṃsitabbaṃ. Senāsanampi paribhoge paribhogeti pavese pavese. Evaṃ pana asakkontena purebhattādīsu paccavekkhitabbaṃ, taṃ heṭṭhā vuttanayeneva sakkā viññātunti idha visuṃ na vuttaṃ. Satipaccayatāti satiyā paccayabhāvo. Paṭiggahaṇassa paribhogassa ca paccavekkhaṇasatiyā paccayabhāvo yujjati, paccavekkhitvāva paṭiggahetabbaṃ paribhuñjitabbañcāti attho. Tenevāha “satiṃ katvā”tiādi. Evaṃ santepīti yadipi dvīsupi ṭhānesu paccavekkhaṇā yuttā, evaṃ santepi . Apare panāhu “satipaccayatāti sati bhesajjaparibhogassa paccayabhāve, paccayeti attho. Evaṃ santepīti paccaye satipī”ti, taṃ tesaṃ matimattaṃ. Tathā hi paccayasannissitasīlaṃ paccavekkhaṇāya visujjhati, na paccayasabbhāvamattena.
“Sacassa appaccavekkhatova aruṇo uggacchati, iṇaparibhogaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhati” means that if dawn rises without reflection, it remains in the state of use as if in debt. Here, they say that if one does not reflect on past use with “Yesterday, the robe I used was only for protection from cold… up to covering shame,” it remains in the state of use as if in debt, but this should be examined. “Senāsanampi paribhoge paribhoge” means at each entry into the lodging. If one is unable to do so, it should be reflected upon before meals and so forth, which can be understood as explained earlier and is not separately stated here. “Satipaccayatā” means the conditionality of mindfulness. The conditionality of receiving and using through the mindfulness of reflection is appropriate, meaning it should be received and used only after reflection. Hence it says “satiṃ katvā” and so forth. “Evaṃ santepi” means even though reflection is appropriate in both instances. Others, however, say, “‘satipaccayatā’ means mindfulness as the condition for the use of medicine, i.e., it conditions,” but this is merely their opinion. For the virtue dependent on requisites is purified by reflection, not merely by the presence of requisites.
If dawn arises on him without him having reflected, he stands in the place of debtor-usage, In this context, if one does not make the reflection of past use by saying, “Yesterday, the robe that I used was just for warding off cold…etc… for the purpose of covering shame”. “Yesterday the alms-food I consumed was not for amusement” and so on, he remains in the position of using as a debtor, they say; this should be considered. Even a dwelling in each use, in each entering. However, one who is unable to do so, should reflect in the morning, etc. This is possible to understand by the method previously mentioned, and therefore, it is not specifically stated here. Dependence of mindfulness, the state of being dependent on mindfulness. It is appropriate that both receiving and using are dependent on the mindfulness of reflection, one should receive and use only after having reflected, is the meaning. Therefore, he said, “Having established mindfulness,” and so on. Even though this is so, Even though reflection is appropriate in both instances, even though this is so. But others say “The dependence on mindfulness” means ‘when the requisite is present’, it is being a cause for the use of medicine due to mindfulness. Even though this is so, Even though the requisite is present,” this is merely their opinion. Thus, the Paccayasannissita-sīla purifies through reflection on the requisite, not merely through the presence of the requisite.
Sacassa appaccavekkhatova aruṇo uggacchati, iṇaparibhogaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhatīti ettha hiyyo yaṃ mayā cīvaraṃ paribhuttaṃ, taṃ yāvadeva sītassa paṭighātāya…pe… hirikopinapaṭicchādanatthaṃ. Hiyyo yo mayā piṇḍapāto paribhutto, so neva davāyātiādinā sace atītaparibhogapaccavekkhaṇaṃ na kareyya, iṇaparibhogaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhatīti vadanti, taṃ vīmaṃsitabbaṃ. Senāsanampi paribhoge paribhogeti pavese pavese. Evaṃ pana asakkontena purebhattādīsu paccavekkhitabbaṃ, taṃ heṭṭhā vuttanayeneva sakkā viññātunti idha visuṃ na vuttaṃ. Satipaccayatāti satiyā paccayabhāvo. Paṭiggahaṇassa paribhogassa ca paccavekkhaṇasatiyā paccayabhāvo yujjati, paccavekkhitvāva paṭiggahetabbaṃ paribhuñjitabbañcāti attho. Tenevāha “satiṃ katvā”tiādi. Evaṃ santepīti yadipi dvīsupi ṭhānesu paccavekkhaṇā yuttā, evaṃ santepi . Apare panāhu “satipaccayatāti sati bhesajjaparibhogassa paccayabhāve, paccayeti attho. Evaṃ santepīti paccaye satipī”ti, taṃ tesaṃ matimattaṃ. Tathā hi paccayasannissitasīlaṃ paccavekkhaṇāya visujjhati, na paccayasabbhāvamattena.
ID395
Nanu ca “paribhoge karontassa anāpattī”ti iminā pātimokkhasaṃvarasīlaṃ vuttaṃ, tasmā paccayasannissitasīlassa pātimokkhasaṃvarasīlassa ca ko visesoti? Vuccate – purimesu tāva tīsu paccayesu viseso pākaṭoyeva, gilānapaccaye pana yathā vatiṃ katvā rukkhamūle gopite tassa phalānipi rakkhitāneva honti, evameva paccavekkhaṇāya paccayasannissitasīle rakkhite tappaṭibaddhaṃ pātimokkhasaṃvarasīlampi nipphannaṃ nāma hoti. Gilānapaccayaṃ appaccavekkhitvā paribhuñjantassa sīlaṃ bhijjamānaṃ pātimokkhasaṃvarasīlameva bhijjati, paccayasannissitasīlaṃ pana pacchābhattapurimayāmādīsu yāva aruṇuggamanā appaccavekkhantasseva bhijjati. Purebhattañhi appaccavekkhitvāpi gilānapaccayaṃ paribhuñjantassa anāpatti, idametesaṃ nānākaraṇanti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.585) āgataṃ.
But isn’t it said with “‘paribhoge karontassa anāpatti’” that the virtue of restraint according to the Pātimokkha is meant, so what is the difference between the virtue dependent on requisites and the virtue of Pātimokkha restraint? It is said: The distinction is clear in the first three requisites, but with medicinal requisites, just as when a tree’s roots are protected by fencing, its fruits are also protected, so when the virtue dependent on requisites is guarded by reflection, the virtue of Pātimokkha restraint connected to it is also fulfilled. For one who uses medicinal requisites without reflection, the breaking of virtue is indeed the breaking of Pātimokkha restraint, whereas the virtue dependent on requisites breaks only for one who does not reflect from after meals or the early watch until dawn. For there is no offense in using medicinal requisites without reflection before meals; this is their distinction, as found in the Sāratthadīpani (sārattha. ṭī. 2.585).
Now, with “There is no offense for one who is using”, Pātimokkhasaṃvara-sīla has been declared, therefore what is the difference between Paccayasannissita-sīla and Pātimokkhasaṃvara-sīla? It is said - In the first three requisites, the difference is quite clear, however, in the case of requisites for the sick, just as when a vow is made and guarded at the root of a tree, its fruits are also protected, in the same way, when Paccayasannissita-sīla is protected by reflection, the Pātimokkhasaṃvara-sīla connected to it is also fulfilled. For one using the requisites for the sick without reflection, the sīla that is broken is the Pātimokkhasaṃvara-sīla. However, the Paccayasannissita-sīla is broken for one who does not reflect in the periods after the meal, the first watch and so on until dawn. Even if one does not reflect in the forenoon, there is no offense for one using requisites for the sick. This is their distinction, it has come in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.585).
Nanu ca “paribhoge karontassa anāpattī”ti iminā pātimokkhasaṃvarasīlaṃ vuttaṃ, tasmā paccayasannissitasīlassa pātimokkhasaṃvarasīlassa ca ko visesoti? Vuccate – purimesu tāva tīsu paccayesu viseso pākaṭoyeva, gilānapaccaye pana yathā vatiṃ katvā rukkhamūle gopite tassa phalānipi rakkhitāneva honti, evameva paccavekkhaṇāya paccayasannissitasīle rakkhite tappaṭibaddhaṃ pātimokkhasaṃvarasīlampi nipphannaṃ nāma hoti. Gilānapaccayaṃ appaccavekkhitvā paribhuñjantassa sīlaṃ bhijjamānaṃ pātimokkhasaṃvarasīlameva bhijjati, paccayasannissitasīlaṃ pana pacchābhattapurimayāmādīsu yāva aruṇuggamanā appaccavekkhantasseva bhijjati. Purebhattañhi appaccavekkhitvāpi gilānapaccayaṃ paribhuñjantassa anāpatti, idametesaṃ nānākaraṇanti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.585) āgataṃ.
ID396
Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.585) pana “theyyaparibhogoti paccayassāminā bhagavatā ananuññātattā vuttaṃ. Iṇaparibhogoti bhagavatā anuññātampi kattabbaṃ akatvā paribhuñjanato vuttaṃ. Tena ca paccayasannissitasīlaṃ vipajjatīti dasseti. Paribhoge paribhogeti kāyato mocetvā mocetvā paribhoge. Pacchimayāmesu paccavekkhitabbanti yojanā. Iṇaparibhogaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhatīti ettha ’hiyyo yaṃ mayā cīvaraṃ paribhutta’ntiādināpi atītapaccavekkhaṇā vaṭṭatīti vadanti. Paribhoge paribhogeti udakapatanaṭṭhānato antopavesanesu nisīdanasayanesu ca. Satipaccayatā vaṭṭatīti paccavekkhaṇasatiyā paccayattaṃ laddhuṃ vaṭṭati. Paṭiggahaṇe ca paribhoge ca paccavekkhaṇāsati avassaṃ laddhabbāti dasseti. Tenāha ‘satiṃ katvā’tiādi. Keci pana ’satipaccayatā paccaye sati bhesajjaparibhogassa kāraṇe satī’ti evampi atthaṃ vadanti, tesampi paccaye satīti paccayasabbhāvasallakkhaṇe satīti evamattho gahetabbo paccayasabbhāvamattena sīlassa asujjhanato. Paribhoge akarontasseva āpattīti iminā pātimokkhasaṃvarasīlassa bhedo dassito, na paccayasannissitasīlassa tassa atītapaccavekkhaṇāya visujjhanato. Etasmiṃ pana sesapaccayesu ca iṇaparibhogādivacanena paccayasannissitasīlasseva bhedoti evamimesaṃ nānākaraṇaṃ veditabba”nti āgataṃ.
In the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.585), however, it is said: “‘Theyyaparibhogo’ is said because it is not permitted by the Lord of requisites, the Blessed One. ‘Iṇaparibhogo’ is said because it is used without doing what should be done though permitted by the Blessed One, showing that the virtue dependent on requisites fails thereby. ‘Paribhoge paribhoge’ means at each use after removing it from the body. It should be reflected upon in the last watch, as the construction. ‘Iṇaparibhogaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhati’ means here that reflection on the past with ‘Yesterday, the robe I used’ and so forth is also permissible, they say. ‘Paribhoge paribhoge’ means at entering inside from the water-dropping place, sitting, and lying down. ‘Satipaccayatā vaṭṭati’ means it is permissible to attain the conditionality of requisites through the mindfulness of reflection. It shows that the mindfulness of reflection must absolutely be attained in receiving and using. Hence it says ‘satiṃ katvā’ and so forth. Some say the meaning is ‘satipaccayatā means when there is mindfulness as the cause of using medicine,’ but their meaning should be taken as ‘when there is mindfulness in observing the presence of requisites,’ since virtue is not purified merely by the presence of requisites. ‘Paribhoge akarontasseva āpatti’ shows the breaking of the virtue of Pātimokkha restraint, not the virtue dependent on requisites, since it is purified by reflection on the past. But with this and the other requisites, the breaking is only of the virtue dependent on requisites by terms like use as if in debt, and thus their distinction should be understood.”
However, in Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.585) it is stated “Use as a thief” because it is not allowed by the Blessed One, who is the owner of the requisites. “Debtor-usage” because even what is allowed by the Blessed One is used without doing what should be done. And with that, he shows that the Paccayasannissita-sīla is ruined. Each time the robe is used, each time it is removed and removed from the body. The connection is with “In the last watch of the night, one should reflect”. He stands in the place of debtor-usage, In this case, they say that even past reflection is proper with ‘The robe that I used yesterday’ and so on. Each time it is used, When water falls, in the inner dwellings, and during sitting and lying down. Dependence of mindfulness is appropriate, It is appropriate to obtain the dependence on the mindfulness of reflection. He shows that in both receiving and using, the mindfulness of reflection must necessarily be obtained. Therefore, he said, “Having made mindfulness” and so on. But some also interpret the meaning as “Dependence on mindfulness, when the requisite is present, when there is a reason for the use of medicine,” even for them, the meaning should be taken as “when the requisite is present,” when the existence of the requisite is perceived, because the sīla is not purified merely by the presence of the requisite. There is only an offense for one who does not use, with this, the breaking of the Pātimokkhasaṃvara-sīla is shown, not that of the Paccayasannissita-sīla, because that is purified by past reflection. However, in this and in the other requisites, by the words “debtor-usage” etc., it is the Paccayasannissita-sīla that is broken. Thus, their distinction should be understood.
Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.585) pana “theyyaparibhogoti paccayassāminā bhagavatā ananuññātattā vuttaṃ. Iṇaparibhogoti bhagavatā anuññātampi kattabbaṃ akatvā paribhuñjanato vuttaṃ. Tena ca paccayasannissitasīlaṃ vipajjatīti dasseti. Paribhoge paribhogeti kāyato mocetvā mocetvā paribhoge. Pacchimayāmesu paccavekkhitabbanti yojanā. Iṇaparibhogaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhatīti ettha ’hiyyo yaṃ mayā cīvaraṃ paribhutta’ntiādināpi atītapaccavekkhaṇā vaṭṭatīti vadanti. Paribhoge paribhogeti udakapatanaṭṭhānato antopavesanesu nisīdanasayanesu ca. Satipaccayatā vaṭṭatīti paccavekkhaṇasatiyā paccayattaṃ laddhuṃ vaṭṭati. Paṭiggahaṇe ca paribhoge ca paccavekkhaṇāsati avassaṃ laddhabbāti dasseti. Tenāha ‘satiṃ katvā’tiādi. Keci pana ’satipaccayatā paccaye sati bhesajjaparibhogassa kāraṇe satī’ti evampi atthaṃ vadanti, tesampi paccaye satīti paccayasabbhāvasallakkhaṇe satīti evamattho gahetabbo paccayasabbhāvamattena sīlassa asujjhanato. Paribhoge akarontasseva āpattīti iminā pātimokkhasaṃvarasīlassa bhedo dassito, na paccayasannissitasīlassa tassa atītapaccavekkhaṇāya visujjhanato. Etasmiṃ pana sesapaccayesu ca iṇaparibhogādivacanena paccayasannissitasīlasseva bhedoti evamimesaṃ nānākaraṇaṃ veditabba”nti āgataṃ.
ID397
Etesu dvīsu pakaraṇesu “iṇaparibhogaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhatī”ti ettha hiyyo yaṃ mayā cīvaraṃ paribhuttanti…pe… vadantīti āgataṃ. Imaṃ pana nayaṃ nissāya idāni ekacce paṇḍitā “ajjapāto paribhuttaṃ sāyaṃ paccavekkhantena ajja yaṃ mayā cīvaraṃ paribhuttantiādinā atītavasena paccavekkhaṇā kātabbā”ti vadanti. Keci “hiyyo paribhuttameva atītavasena paccavekkhaṇā kātabbā, na ajja paribhuttaṃ, taṃ pana paccuppannavasena paccavekkhaṇāyevā”ti vadanti. Tattha mūlavacane evaṃ vicāraṇā kātabbā. Kathaṃ? Idaṃ hiyyotyādivacanaṃ suttaṃ vā suttānulomaṃ vā ācariyavādo vā attanomati vāti. Tattha na tāva suttaṃ hoti “suttaṃ nāma sakale vinayapiṭake pāḷī”ti vuttattā imassa ca vacanassa na pāḷibhūtattā. Na ca suttānulomaṃ “suttānulomaṃ nāma cattāro mahāpadesā”ti (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.45) vuttattā imassa ca mahāpadesabhāvābhāvato. Na ca ācariyavādo “ācariyavādo nāma dhammasaṅgāhakehi pañcahi arahantasatehi ṭhapitā pāḷivinimuttā okkantavinicchayappavattā aṭṭhakathātantī”ti vacanato imassa ca aṭṭhakathāpāṭhabhāvābhāvato. Na ca attanomati “attanomati nāma suttasuttānulomaācariyavāde muñcitvā anumānena attano buddhiyā nayaggāhena upaṭṭhitākārakathanaṃ, apica suttantābhidhammavinayaṭṭhakathāsu āgato sabbopi theravādo attanomati nāmā”ti vuttattā imassa ca aṭṭhakathāsu āgatattheravādabhāvābhāvato.
In these two sections, regarding “iṇaparibhogaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhati,” it is stated that they say, “Yesterday, the robe I used…” and so forth. Based on this method, some scholars now say, “When reflecting in the evening on what was used this morning, reflection should be done in the past tense with ‘Today, the robe I used’ and so forth.” Others say, “Only what was used yesterday should be reflected upon in the past tense, not what was used today, which should only be reflected upon in the present tense.” Here, the original statement should be examined thus: Is this statement of “yesterday” and so forth a sutta, in line with the sutta, a teacher’s opinion, or a personal view? It is not a sutta, for “sutta means the text in the entire Vinaya Piṭaka,” and this statement is not part of the text. Nor is it in line with the sutta, for “suttānuloma means the four great authorities” (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.45), and this lacks the nature of the great authorities. Nor is it a teacher’s opinion, for “ācariyavādo means the commentary tradition established by the five hundred arahants who compiled the Dhamma, apart from the text, determining decisions,” and this is not part of the commentary text. Nor is it a personal view, for “attanomati means reasoning apart from sutta, suttānuloma, and ācariyavāda, stating a form arising by one’s own intellect, and also all Theravāda opinions in the Sutta, Abhidhamma, Vinaya, and commentaries are called attanomati,” and this lacks the nature of Theravāda opinions found in the commentaries.
In these two texts, regarding the phrase “tiṭṭhatī’ti iṇaparibhogaṭṭhāne” (stands in the place of debt-usage), it is stated, “The robe that was used by me yesterday…etc… they say.” Based on this method, some scholars now say, “When reflecting in the evening on what was used today, one should reflect with the past tense, saying ‘The robe that was used by me today,’ and so on.” Some say, “Only what was used yesterday should be reflected upon in the past tense, not what was used today; that should be reflected upon in the present tense.” In this matter, an investigation should be made based on the root text itself. How? Is this statement – “yesterday, etc.” – a sutta, something conforming to a sutta, a statement of an আচার্য (ācariya), or one’s own opinion? It is not a sutta, because “sutta is said to be the Pāḷi in the entire Vinaya Piṭaka,” and this statement is not part of the Pāḷi. Nor is it something conforming to a sutta, because “conforming to a sutta is said to be the four great standards (mahāpadesā)” (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.45), and this does not have the nature of a great standard. Nor is it the statement of an ācariya, because “the statement of an ācariya is the commentary tradition (aṭṭhakathātantī) which, excluding the Pāḷi, explains the decisions that have arisen, established by the five hundred arahants who were the compilers of the Dhamma,” and this is not a statement found in the commentary. Nor is it one’s own opinion, because “one’s own opinion, excluding sutta, what conforms to sutta, and the statements of the ācariyas, is stating what arises based on inference and the grasp of one’s own intellect; and, all the opinions of the elders found in the suttas, Abhidhamma, Vinaya and commentaries are also called one’s own opinion.”, and this is not the opinion of an elder who is included within the commentaries.
In these two sections, the phrase “stands in the place of using what is borrowed” has been mentioned. Here, the statement “yesterday, I used the robe” has come up. Now, some scholars, relying on this method, say, “In the evening, one should reflect on what was used in the morning, thinking, ‘Today, I used the robe,’ and so on, reflecting on the past.” Others say, “Only what was used yesterday should be reflected upon as past, not what was used today; that should be reflected upon as present.” In this regard, one should investigate according to the original text. How? One should consider whether this statement “yesterday” is a sutta, sutta-conforming, a teacher’s statement, or one’s own opinion. Here, it is not a sutta because “sutta refers to the entire Vinaya Piṭaka in Pali,” and this statement is not in the Pali. Nor is it sutta-conforming because “sutta-conforming refers to the four great references,” and this statement does not qualify as such. Nor is it a teacher’s statement because “a teacher’s statement refers to the commentaries established by the five hundred arahants who compiled the Dhamma, which are free from Pali and deal with intricate legal decisions,” and this statement does not appear in the commentaries. Nor is it one’s own opinion because “one’s own opinion refers to reasoning based on inference, setting aside sutta, sutta-conforming, and teacher’s statements, and relying on one’s own intellect to establish a position,” and this statement does not appear in the commentaries as a Theravāda opinion.
ID398
Iti –
Thus –
Thus –
Thus—
ID399
“Catubbidhañhi vinayaṃ, mahātherā mahiddhikā; Nīharitvā pakāsesuṃ, dhammasaṅgāhakā purā”ti. (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.45) –
“The great elders of great power brought forth and expounded the fourfold Vinaya in the Dhamma compilation of old” (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.45) –
“The great elders of great psychic power, having extracted and illuminated the fourfold Vinaya, compiled the Dhamma in former times.” (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.45) –
“The Vinaya, in four parts, was extracted and expounded by the great elders of great power, the compilers of the Dhamma in ancient times.” (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.45)—
ID400
Vuttesu catubbidhavinayesu anantogadhattā idaṃ vacanaṃ vicāretabbaṃ. Tena vuttaṃ sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.585) ṭīkācariyena “taṃ vīmaṃsitabba”nti. Atha vā “nayaggāhena upaṭṭhitākārakathana”nti iminā lakkhaṇena tesaṃ tesaṃ ācariyānaṃ upaṭṭhitākāravasena kathanaṃ attanomati siyā, evampi vicāretabbameva. “Attanomati ācariyavāde otāretabbā. Sace tattha otarati ceva sameti ca, gahetabbā. Sace neva otarati na sameti, na gahetabbā. Ayañhi attanomati nāma sabbadubbalā”ti (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.45) vacanato imassa ca vacanassa aṭṭhakathāvacane anotaraṇato appavisanato. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ “sacassa appaccavekkhatova aruṇo uggacchati, iṇaparibhogaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhatī”ti.
Since it is included among the fourfold Vinaya as stated, this statement should be examined. Hence, the commentary teacher in the Sāratthadīpani (sārattha. ṭī. 2.585) said, “taṃ vīmaṃsitabba” (it should be investigated). Alternatively, by the characteristic of “stating a form arising by reasoning,” it could be a personal view expressed by various teachers based on the form that occurred to them, and even so, it should be examined. “Attanomati should be incorporated into ācariyavāda. If it fits and agrees with it, it should be accepted. If it neither fits nor agrees, it should not be accepted. For this attanomati is the weakest of all” (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.45), and since this statement does not fit into the commentary statements, it does not enter them. For it is said in the commentary, “sacassa appaccavekkhatova aruṇo uggacchati, iṇaparibhogaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhati” (if dawn rises without reflection, it remains in the state of use as if in debt).
This statement should be investigated since it does not fall among the aforementioned fourfold Vinayas. Therefore, the author of the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.585) commentary said, “That should be examined.” Or, “stating what arises based on the grasp of method,” by this definition, the statements of those various teachers based on what has presented itself to them might be considered one’s own opinion; even so, it should still be investigated. Because it is said, “One’s own opinion should be brought down to the level of the statements of the ācariyas. If it comes down to that level and agrees, it should be accepted. If it neither comes down nor agrees, it should not be accepted. For this ‘one’s own opinion’ is the weakest of all” (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.45), and because this statement does not conform to the commentary’s statement, it is not inclusive. For it is stated in the commentary, “If dawn arises while he has not reflected, he stands in the place of debt-usage.”
In these fourfold Vinaya texts, due to their profound nature, this statement should be investigated. Therefore, it is said in the Sāratthadīpanī Ṭīkā (sārattha. ṭī. 2.585) by the Ṭīkā teacher, “This should be examined.” Alternatively, “the statement established by reasoning” may be considered as the opinion of certain teachers, and thus it should be investigated. “One’s own opinion should be compared with the teacher’s statement. If it aligns and agrees, it should be accepted. If it does not align or agree, it should not be accepted. For one’s own opinion is generally weak.” (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.45) This statement does not align with the commentary, nor does it fit well. It is said in the commentary, “If one does not reflect, the dawn arises, and one stands in the place of using what is borrowed.”
ID401
Aparo nayo – kiṃ idaṃ vacanaṃ pāḷivacanaṃ vā aṭṭhakathāvacanaṃ vā ṭīkāvacanaṃ vā ganthantaravacanaṃ vāti. Tattha na tāva pāḷivacanaṃ, na aṭṭhakathāvacanaṃ, na ganthantaravacanaṃ, atha kho ṭīkāvacananti. Hotu ṭīkāvacanaṃ, sakavacanaṃ vā paravacanaṃ vā adhippetavacanaṃ vā anadhippetavacanaṃ vāti. Tattha na sakavacanaṃ hoti, atha kho paravacanaṃ. Tenāha “vadantī”ti. Na ṭīkācariyena adhippetavacanaṃ hoti, atha kho anadhippetavacanaṃ. Tenāha “taṃ vīmaṃsitabba”nti. Tehi pana ācariyehi atītaparibhogapaccavekkhaṇāti idaṃ atītapaabhogavasena paccavekkhaṇā atītaparibhogapaccavekkhaṇāti parikappetvā atītavācakena saddena yojetvā kataṃ bhaveyya. Atīte paribhogo atītaparibhogo, atītaparibhogassa paccavekkhaṇā atītaparibhogapaccavekkhaṇāti evaṃ pana kate atītaparibhogassa paccuppannasamīpattā paccuppannavācakena saddena kathanaṃ hoti yathā taṃ nagarato āgantvā nisinnaṃ purisaṃ “kuto āgacchasī”ti vutte “nagarato āgacchāmī”ti paccuppannavācakasaddena kathanaṃ.
Another method – Is this statement a textual statement, a commentary statement, a sub-commentary statement, or a statement from another work? It is not a textual statement, nor a commentary statement, nor a statement from another work, but rather a sub-commentary statement. Let it be a sub-commentary statement; is it the speaker’s own statement, another’s statement, an intended statement, or an unintended statement? It is not the speaker’s own statement but another’s statement. Hence it says “vadanti” (they say). It is not a statement intended by the sub-commentary teacher but an unintended one. Hence it says “taṃ vīmaṃsitabba” (it should be investigated). Those teachers might have formulated it by considering “reflection on past use” as reflection based on past use, connecting it with a past tense word. Past use is atītaparibhogo; reflection on past use is atītaparibhogapaccavekkhaṇā. When done thus, since it is close to the present, it is expressed with a present tense word, just as when a person who has come from the city and is sitting is asked, “Where did you come from?” he says, “I come from the city,” using a present tense word.
Another approach: Is this statement a Pāḷi statement, a commentary statement, a sub-commentary (ṭīkā) statement, or a statement from another text? It is not a Pāḷi statement, nor a commentary statement, nor a statement from another text, but it is a ṭīkā statement. Granted it is a ṭīkā statement, is it one’s own statement, another’s statement, an intended statement, or an unintended statement? It is not one’s own statement, but another’s statement. Therefore, he said, “they say.” It is not a statement intended by the ṭīkā author, but an unintended statement. Therefore, he said, “That should be examined.” But those teachers, having construed “reflection on past use” as reflection based on the past mode of use, may have made it by joining it with a word expressing the past tense. Past use is ‘atītaparibhoga’; reflection on past use is ‘atītaparibhogapaccavekkhaṇā’. But when it is formulated in this way, because of the proximity of past use to the present, the statement becomes one made with words that signify the present tense, just as when a man who has come from the city and is sitting down is asked, “Where are you coming from?” and replies, “I am coming from the city,” the statement is made with a word signifying present tense.
Another method—Is this statement a Pali statement, a commentary statement, a ṭīkā statement, or a statement from another text? Here, it is not a Pali statement, nor a commentary statement, nor a statement from another text, but rather a ṭīkā statement. Whether it is one’s own statement, another’s statement, an intended statement, or an unintended statement, here it is not one’s own statement but another’s statement. Hence, it is said, “they say.” It is not a statement intended by the ṭīkā teacher but an unintended statement. Hence, it is said, “this should be examined.” Those teachers, having formulated the reflection on past use as “reflecting on past use,” connected it with the past tense. Past use is “past use,” and reflecting on past use is “reflecting on past use.” If this is done, then due to the proximity of the past to the present, the present tense is used, just as when a person sitting after coming from the city is asked, “Where do you come from?” and he replies, “I come from the city,” using the present tense.
ID402
Vinayasuttantavisuddhimaggādīsu (ma. ni. 1.23; visuddhi. 1.18) ca “paṭisaṅkhā yoniso cīvaraṃ paṭisevatī”ti vattamānavacaneneva pāṭho hoti, na atītavacanena, atītaparibhogoti ca imasmiṃyeva divase pacchābhattādikālaṃ upādāya purebhattādīsu paribhogo icchitabbo, na hiyyo paribhogo. Kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce? Aṭṭhakathāpamāṇena. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.585) “piṇḍapāto ālope ālope, tathā asakkontena purebhattapacchābhattapurimayāmapacchimayāmesu. Sacassa appaccavekkhatova aruṇo uggacchati, iṇaparibhogaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhatī”ti. Etena piṇḍapātaṃ ālope ālope paccavekkhanto bhojanakiriyāya apariniṭṭhitattā mukhyato paccuppannapaccavekkhaṇā hoti, purebhattādīsu catūsu koṭṭhāsesu paccavekkhanto bhojanakiriyāya pariniṭṭhitattā atītapaccavekkhaṇā hotīti dasseti. Sā pana paccuppannasamīpattā vattamānavacanena vidhīyati. Yadi hi hiyyo paribhuttāni atītapaccavekkhaṇena paccavekkhitabbāni siyuṃ, atītadutiyadivasatatiyadivasādimāsasaṃvaccharādiparibhuttānipi paccavekkhitabbāni siyuṃ, evañca sati yathāvuttaaṭṭhakathāvacanaṃ niratthakaṃ siyā, tasmā aṭṭhakathāvacanameva pamāṇaṃ kātabbaṃ. Yathāha –
In the Vinaya Sutta, Visuddhimagga, and so forth (ma. ni. 1.23; visuddhi. 1.18), “paṭisaṅkhā yoniso cīvaraṃ paṭisevati” is stated only in the present tense, not the past tense, and “past use” (atītaparibhogo) means use earlier on this very day, such as after meals, referring to before meals and so forth, not yesterday’s use. How is this known? By the authority of the commentary. For it is said in the commentary (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.585), “piṇḍapāto ālope ālope, and if unable, before meals, after meals, in the early watch, in the last watch. If dawn rises without reflection, it remains in the state of use as if in debt.” This shows that reflecting on almsfood at each morsel, since the act of eating is not yet complete, is primarily present reflection, while reflecting in the four periods—before meals and so forth—since the act of eating is complete, is past reflection. Yet, being close to the present, it is prescribed with a present tense word. If what was used yesterday were to be reflected upon with past reflection, then what was used two days ago, three days ago, months ago, or years ago would also have to be reflected upon, and if so, the commentary statement as mentioned would become meaningless. Therefore, the commentary statement alone should be taken as the authority. As it is said –
And in the Vinaya, Suttanta, Visuddhimagga, etc. (ma. ni. 1.23; visuddhi. 1.18), the reading is, “Paṭisaṅkhā yoniso cīvaraṃ paṭisevatī,” with a present tense verb, not a past tense verb. And in “atītaparibhoga” (past use), use within this very day, starting from the time after the meal, should be understood as previous to the time before the meal, etc., not the use of yesterday. How is this known? By the standard of the commentary. For it is said in the commentary (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.585), “Almsfood, mouthful by mouthful; and for one unable to do so, in the time before the meal, after the meal, the first watch, and the last watch. If dawn arises while he has not reflected, he stands in the place of debt-usage.” This shows that reflecting on almsfood mouthful by mouthful, because the action of eating is not yet completed, is primarily present reflection; reflecting in the four divisions, such as before the meal, etc., because the action of eating is completed, is past reflection. However, because of its proximity to the present, it is authorized with a present tense verb. If indeed the things used yesterday were to be reflected upon with past reflection, then things used on the second, third days, months, and years, etc., in the past would also have to be reflected upon. And if that were the case, the aforementioned commentary statement would be meaningless; therefore, the commentary statement alone should be taken as the standard. As it is said –
In the Vinaya, Suttanta, and Visuddhimagga (ma. ni. 1.23; visuddhi. 1.18), the phrase “reflects wisely and uses the robe” is in the present tense, not the past tense. “Past use” here refers to use on the same day, after the meal, etc., and not to use yesterday. How is this understood? By the authority of the commentary. It is said in the commentary (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.585), “One should reflect on alms food piece by piece, and similarly if one is unable to do so before the meal, after the meal, in the first watch, or in the last watch. If one does not reflect, the dawn arises, and one stands in the place of using what is borrowed.” This shows that reflecting on alms food piece by piece, since the act of eating is not yet completed, is primarily present reflection, while reflecting in the four periods before the meal, etc., since the act of eating is completed, is past reflection. This is established by the present tense. If what was used yesterday should be reflected upon as past, then what was used two days ago, three days ago, months ago, or a year ago should also be reflected upon, and if so, the commentary statement would be meaningless. Therefore, the commentary statement should be taken as authoritative. As it is said—
ID403
“Buddhena dhammo vinayo ca vutto; Yo tassa puttehi tatheva ñāto; So yehi tesaṃ matimaccajantā; Yasmā pure aṭṭhakathā akaṃsu.
“The Dhamma and Vinaya were taught by the Buddha; known as such by his sons; since the elders, surpassing their opinions, made the commentaries in the past.
“The Dhamma and Vinaya were spoken by the Buddha; that was known in the same way by his sons; those who, abandoning their opinions, compiled the commentary in former times.
“The Dhamma and Vinaya were taught by the Buddha; known thus by his sons; those who, setting aside their own views, made the commentaries in ancient times.”
ID404
“Tasmā hi yaṃ aṭṭhakathāsu vuttaṃ; Taṃ vajjayitvāna pamādalekhaṃ; Sabbampi sikkhāsu sagāravānaṃ; Yasmā pamāṇaṃ idha paṇḍitāna”nti. (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.ganthārambhakathā);
“Therefore, what is said in the commentaries, avoiding the errors of negligence, is the authority here for all the respectful learned in the training rules” (pārā. aṭtha. 1.ganthārambhakathā).
“Therefore, whatever is stated in the commentaries, disregarding careless writings, is indeed the standard for scholars here who are respectful of all the trainings.” (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.ganthārambhakathā);
“Therefore, whatever is stated in the commentaries, setting aside careless writing, should be taken as authoritative by the wise in all training rules.” (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.ganthārambhakathā);
ID405
Yasmā ca sabbāsavasuttādīsu (ma. ni. 1.23) bhagavatā desitakāle bhikkhukattukattā nāmayogattā vattamānapaṭhamapurisavasena “paṭisaṅkhā yoniso cīvaraṃ paṭisevatī”ti desitā, tadanukaraṇena bhikkhūnaṃ paccavekkhaṇakāle attakattukattā amhayogattā vattamānauttamapurisavasena “paṭisaṅkhā yoniso cīvaraṃ paṭisevāmī”ti paccavekkhitabbā hoti, “sītassa paṭighātāyā”tiādīni tadatthasampadānapadāni ca “paṭisevati, paṭisevāmī”ti vuttapaṭisevanakiriyāyameva sambandhitabbāni honti, tāni ca kiriyāpadāni paccuppannavasena vā paccuppannasamīpaatītavasena vā vattamānavibhattiyuttāni honti, tasmā paccuppannaparibhuttānaṃ vā atītaparibhuttānaṃ vā paccayānaṃ paccavekkhaṇakāle “paṭisevāmī”ti vacanaṃ bhagavato vacanassa anugatattā upapannamevāti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
Since in the Sabbāsava Sutta and so forth (ma. ni. 1.23), at the time of the Blessed One’s teaching, due to the monks as the agents and the general applicability, it was taught in the present tense, first person, as “paṭisaṅkhā yoniso cīvaraṃ paṭisevati,” and in imitation of that, at the time of reflection by monks, due to themselves as agents and the self-referential applicability, it should be reflected upon in the present tense, third person, as “paṭisaṅkhā yoniso cīvaraṃ paṭisevāmi.” The phrases “sītassa paṭighātāya” and so forth, which fulfill that purpose, should be connected only to the action of use stated as “paṭisevati, paṭisevāmi,” and those action words, conjugated with the present tense, apply either to the present or to the near-past close to the present. Therefore, at the time of reflecting on requisites used in the present or the past, the word “paṭisevāmi” is appropriate as it follows the Blessed One’s statement.
And because in the Sabbāsavasutta, etc. (ma. ni. 1.23), at the time of the Blessed One’s teaching, it was taught as “Paṭisaṅkhā yoniso cīvaraṃ paṭisevatī” in the present, first-person form, due to the monk being the agent and due to the connection of the word, therefore, in imitation of that, at the time of reflection for monks, because they are the agents and due to the connection of ‘we’, it should be reflected upon as “Paṭisaṅkhā yoniso cīvaraṃ paṭisevāmī,” in the present, first-person form. And the words “sītassa paṭighātāyā” (for warding off cold) and so on, which express the purpose of that, should be connected only to the action of using expressed by “paṭisevati, paṭisevāmī.” And those verb forms, whether in the present tense or in the past tense close to the present, are conjugated in the present tense. Therefore, the statement “paṭisevāmī” at the time of reflecting on requisites that have been used in the present or that have been used in the past is to be seen as appropriate because it is in accordance with the Blessed One’s statement.
Since in the Sabbāsava Sutta (ma. ni. 1.23) and others, the Buddha taught at the time of the monks’ actions, using the first person present tense, “reflects wisely and uses the robe,” in imitation of this, at the time of reflection, the monks, acting for themselves, should reflect using the first person present tense, “I reflect wisely and use the robe.” The phrases “for the protection against cold,” etc., should be connected with the act of using, “uses, I use,” and these action phrases are in the present tense or the near past tense. Therefore, at the time of reflecting on what was used in the present or the past, the statement “I use” is appropriate, being in accordance with the Buddha’s teaching.
ID406
Anuvacanepi evaṃ vicāraṇā kātabbā – “ajja pāto paribhuttaṃ sāyaṃ paccavekkhantena ajja yaṃ mayā cīvaraṃ paribhuttantiādinā atītavasena paccavekkhaṇā kātabbā”ti ye vadanti, te evaṃ pucchitabbā – kiṃ bhavanto bhagavatā atītaparibhuttesu atītavasena paccavekkhaṇā desitāti? Na desitā. Kathaṃ desitāti? “Paccavekkhatī”ti paccuppannavaseneva desitāti. Kiṃ bhonto bhagavato kāle atītaparibhuttesu paccavekkhaṇā natthīti? Atthi. Atha kasmā bhagavatā paccuppannavaseneva paccavekkhaṇā desitāti? Paccuppannasamīpavasena vā sāmaññavasena vā desitāti. Evaṃ sante bhagavato anukaraṇena idānipi atītaparibhuttānaṃ paccayānaṃ paccuppannavasena paccavekkhaṇā kātabbāti. Ye pana evaṃ vadanti “hiyyo paribhuttānameva atītapaccavekkhaṇā kātabbā, na ajja paribhuttānaṃ, tesaṃ pana paccuppannapaccavekkhaṇāyevā”ti, te evaṃ vattabbā – kiṃ bhonto yathā tumhe vadanti, evaṃ pāḷiyaṃ atthīti? Natthi. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ atthīti? Natthi. Evaṃ sante sāṭṭhakathesu tepiṭakesu buddhavacanesu asaṃvijjamānaṃ tumhākaṃ vacanaṃ kathaṃ paccetabbanti? Ācariyaparamparāvasena. Hotu tumhākaṃ ācariyaladdhivasena kathanaṃ, kālo nāma tividho atīto anāgato paccuppannoti. Tattha pariniṭṭhitakiriyā atīto nāma, abhimukhakiriyā anāgato nāma, āraddhaaniṭṭhitakiriyā paccuppanno nāma. Tenāhu porāṇā –
This examination should also be applied to the counterargument – Those who say, “When reflecting in the evening on what was used this morning, reflection should be done in the past tense with ‘Today, the robe I used’ and so forth,” should be asked thus: Do you say that the Blessed One taught reflection on past use in the past tense? No, it was not taught so. How was it taught? It was taught only in the present tense as “paccavekkhati.” Did reflection on past use not exist at the time of the Blessed One? It did. Then why did the Blessed One teach reflection only in the present tense? It was taught either as close to the present or in a general sense. If so, even now, in imitation of the Blessed One, reflection on past-used requisites should be done in the present tense. Those who say, “Only what was used yesterday should be reflected upon with past reflection, not what was used today, which should only be with present reflection,” should be told thus: Do you say that what you assert is in the text? It is not. Is it in the commentary? It is not. If so, how can your statement, not found in the text, commentaries, or the three Piṭakas of the Buddha’s words, be accepted? By the tradition of teachers. Let it be your statement based on the tradition of teachers; time is threefold: past, future, and present. Therein, a completed action is called past, an impending action is called future, and a begun but uncompleted action is called present. Hence the ancients said –
In the repetition of the words, this investigation should be made: those who say, “When reflecting in the evening on what was used today, one should reflect with the past tense, saying ‘The robe that was used by me today,’ and so on,” should be asked thus: “Do you believe that the Blessed One taught reflection on things used in the past with the past tense?” He did not teach it. How did he teach it? “He taught it with the present tense, as ‘paccavekkhatī’ (reflects).” Do you think that at the time of the Blessed One, there was no reflection on things used in the past? There was. Then why did the Blessed One teach reflection only in the present tense? He taught it based on proximity to the present, or based on generality. This being the case, in imitation of the Blessed One, now also reflection on requisites used in the past should be done in the present tense. But those who say, “Only things used yesterday should be reflected upon with past reflection, not things used today; for those, however, it is present reflection only,” should be told thus: “Is what you say found in the Pāḷi?” It is not. Is it found in the commentary? It is not. This being the case, how can your statement, which is not found in the Buddha’s words in the Tipiṭaka together with the commentaries, be accepted? “By the lineage of teachers.” Let your statement be based on the tradition of your teachers, time is threefold: past, future, and present. Therein, completed action is called past; action that is imminent is called future; action that has begun but is not completed is called present. Therefore the ancient ones said –
In further explanation, this should be investigated—Those who say, “In the evening, one should reflect on what was used in the morning, thinking, ‘Today, I used the robe,’ and so on, reflecting on the past,” should be asked: Did the Buddha teach reflection on past use in the past tense? He did not. How did he teach it? He taught it in the present tense, “reflects.” Did the Buddha not have reflection on past use in his time? He did. Then why did the Buddha teach reflection in the present tense? He taught it in the near present or general sense. Therefore, in imitation of the Buddha, even now, reflection on what was used in the past should be done in the present tense. Those who say, “Only what was used yesterday should be reflected upon as past, not what was used today; that should be reflected upon as present,” should be asked: Is there such a teaching in the Pali? There is not. Is there such a teaching in the commentary? There is not. Since your statement is not found in the three Piṭakas of the Buddha’s words, how should it be accepted? Through the tradition of teachers. Let it be your statement based on your teachers’ tradition. Time is threefold: past, future, and present. Here, completed action is called past, impending action is called future, and action begun but not completed is called present. As the ancients said—
ID407
“Āraddhāniṭṭhito bhāvo, paccuppanno suniṭṭhito; Atītānāgatuppāda-mappattābhimukhā kiriyā”ti.
“A begun but uncompleted state is surely present; past and future arise as completed or impending actions.”
“A state that has begun but is not completed, is well established in the present; action in the past and future, is that not yet attained and about to happen.”
“Action begun but not completed is present, well-completed is past; the arising of past and future is impending action.”
ID408
Tattha ajja vā hotu hiyyo vā tato pubbe vā, paribhuttapaccayo supariniṭṭhitabhuñjanakiriyattā atīto nāma. Tattha hiyyo vā tato pubbe vā paribhuttapaccayo atikkantaaruṇuggamanattā na paccavekkhaṇāraho, paccavekkhitopi appaccavekkhitoyeva hoti, iṇaparibhogaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhati. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ “sacassa appaccavekkhatova aruṇo uggacchati, iṇaparibhogaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhatī”ti. Ajjeva pana cīvarañca senāsanañca paribhoge paribhoge, piṇḍapātaṃ ālope ālope, bhesajjaṃ paṭiggahaṇe paribhoge ca paccavekkhato apariniṭṭhitabhuñjanakiriyattā paccuppannaparibhuttapaccavekkhaṇā nāma hoti. Pure paribhuttaṃ tato pacchā catūsu koṭṭhāsesu paccavekkhato supariniṭṭhitabhuñjanakiriyattā atītaparibhuttapaccavekkhaṇā nāma hoti. Ettakaṃ paccavekkhaṇāya khettaṃ, na tato pubbe pacchā vā. Yathāha aṭṭhakathāyaṃ “sīlavato appaccavekkhitaparibhogo iṇaparibhogo nāma. Tasmā cīvaraṃ paribhoge paribhoge…pe… bhesajjassa paṭiggahaṇepi paribhogepi satipaccayatā vaṭṭatī”ti, tasmā hiyyo paribhuttassa iṇaparibhogattā taṃ anāmasitvā ajja paribhuttesu atītapaccuppannesu bhagavato vacanassa anukaraṇena vattamānavibhattiyuttena “paṭisevāmī”ti kiriyāpadena paccavekkhaṇā sūpapannā hotīti daṭṭhabbā. Īdisapaccavekkhaṇameva sandhāya vimativinodaniyādīsu (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.585) “paccayasannissitasīlassa atītapaccavekkhaṇāya visujjhanato”ti vuttaṃ.
Therein, whether today, yesterday, or before that, a used requisite is called past because the act of using is fully completed. Therein, a requisite used yesterday or before that, since dawn has passed, is not suitable for reflection; even if reflected upon, it is as if unreflected, remaining in the state of use as if in debt. For it is said in the commentary, “sacassa appaccavekkhatova aruṇo uggacchati, iṇaparibhogaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhati” (if dawn rises without reflection, it remains in the state of use as if in debt). But today, reflecting on the robe and lodging at each use, almsfood at each morsel, and medicine at receiving and use, since the act of using is not yet complete, is called reflection on presently used requisites. Reflecting on what was used earlier in the four periods after that, since the act of using is fully completed, is called reflection on past-used requisites. This is the field of reflection, not before or after that. As it is said in the commentary, “For the virtuous, use without reflection is called use as if in debt. Therefore, the robe at each use… up to the conditionality of mindfulness is appropriate for receiving and using medicine,” thus, without touching what was used yesterday due to its state of use as if in debt, reflection on what was used today, whether past or present, with the action word “paṭisevāmi” in the present tense in imitation of the Blessed One’s statement, is well-established. It should be seen that such reflection is meant when it is said in the Vimativinodani and so forth (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.585), “since the virtue dependent on requisites is purified by reflection on the past.”
Therein, whether it is today, yesterday, or before that, a requisite that has been used is called past because the action of using is completely finished. Therein, whether it is yesterday or before that, a requisite that has been used is not fit for reflection because the dawn has passed; even if reflected upon, it is as if not reflected upon; he stands in the place of debt-usage. It is stated in the commentary, “If dawn arises while he has not reflected, he stands in the place of debt-usage.” But reflecting on a robe and dwelling at the time of each use, on almsfood mouthful by mouthful, and on medicine at the time of acceptance and use on this very day, because the action of using is not yet completed, is called present reflection on requisites that have been used. Reflecting on what was used previously, afterwards, in the four divisions, because the action of using is completely finished, is called past reflection on requisites that have been used. This much is the field for reflection, not before or after that. As it is stated in the commentary, “For one who is virtuous, the unreflected upon use is called debt-usage. Therefore, for the robe at the time of each use…etc… for medicine, even at the time of acceptance and use, mindfulness regarding requisites is appropriate.” Therefore, because what was used yesterday is debt-usage, without touching upon that, the reflection on things used today, past and present, with the verb form “paṭisevāmī,” which is conjugated in the present tense in imitation of the Blessed One’s statement, is to be seen as well-established. It is with reference to this very kind of reflection that it is stated in the Vimativinodanī and other texts (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.585), “because of the purification of the restraint dependent on requisites through past reflection.”
Here, whether today, yesterday, or before that, the use of requisites, being a well-completed act of consumption, is called past. Here, what was used yesterday or before that, being beyond the rising of dawn, is not worthy of reflection; even if reflected upon, it is as if not reflected upon, and one stands in the place of using what is borrowed. It is said in the commentary, “If one does not reflect, the dawn arises, and one stands in the place of using what is borrowed.” But today, reflecting on the robe, dwelling, alms food piece by piece, and medicine at the time of receiving and using, since the act of consumption is not yet completed, is called present reflection on use. Reflecting on what was used earlier in the four periods, since the act of consumption is well-completed, is called past reflection on use. This is the field of reflection, not before or after that. As it is said in the commentary, “For a virtuous person, unreflected use is called using what is borrowed. Therefore, one should reflect on the robe at the time of use… and on medicine at the time of receiving and using, with mindfulness as the condition.” Therefore, since what was used yesterday is using what is borrowed, disregarding that, and reflecting on what was used today, whether past or present, in accordance with the Buddha’s teaching, using the present tense, the reflection “I use” is well-established. This kind of reflection is referred to in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.585) as “purification through reflection on past requisites for one whose virtue depends on requisites.”
ID409
Evaṃ paccayasannissitasīlassa suddhiṃ dassetvā idāni teneva pasaṅgena sabbāpi suddhiyo dassetuṃ “catubbidhā hi suddhī”tiādimāha. Tattha sujjhati etāyāti suddhi, yathādhammaṃ desanāva suddhi desanāsuddhi. Vuṭṭhānassapi cettha desanāya eva saṅgaho daṭṭhabbo. Chinnamūlāpattīnaṃ pana abhikkhutāpaṭiññāyeva desanā. Adhiṭṭhānavisiṭṭho saṃvarova suddhi saṃvarasuddhi. Dhammena samena paccayānaṃ pariyeṭṭhi eva suddhi pariyeṭṭhisuddhi. Catūsu paccayesu vuttavidhinā paccavekkhaṇāva suddhi paccavekkhaṇasuddhi. Esa tāva suddhīsu samāsanayo. Suddhimantesu sīlesu pana desanā suddhi etassāti desanāsuddhi. Sesesupi eseva nayo. Na punevaṃ karissāmīti ettha evanti saṃvarabhedaṃ sandhāyāha. Pahāyāti vajjetvā, akatvāti attho. Vimativinodaniyaṃ pana “sujjhati desanādīhi, sodhīyatīti vā suddhi, catubbidhasīlaṃ. Tenāha ‘desanāya sujjhanato’tiādi. Ettha desanāggahaṇena vuṭṭhānampi chinnamūlānaṃ abhikkhutāpaṭiññāpi saṅgahitā. Chinnamūlāpattīnampi hi pārājikāpattivuṭṭhānena heṭṭhāparirakkhitaṃ bhikkhusīlaṃ visuddhaṃ nāma hoti. Tena tesaṃ maggapaṭilābhopi sampajjatī”ti vuttaṃ.
Having thus shown the purity of the virtue dependent on requisites, now, by that same context, to show all purities, it says “catubbidhā hi suddhī” and so forth. Therein, that by which one is purified is suddhi (purity); teaching in accordance with the Dhamma is purity, desanāsuddhi (purity of teaching). Emergence is also included here under teaching. However, for offenses with severed roots, the declaration of non-monastic status is the teaching. Restraint distinguished by resolution is purity, saṃvarasuddhi (purity of restraint). Seeking requisites rightfully and evenly is purity, pariyeṭṭhisuddhi (purity of seeking). Reflection on the four requisites as prescribed is purity, paccavekkhaṇasuddhi (purity of reflection). This is a brief method among the purities. Among the virtues leading to purity, that which has teaching as its purity is desanāsuddhi. The same applies to the others. “Na punevaṃ karissāmi” (I will not do so again), here “evaṃ” refers to the type of restraint. “Pahāya” means abandoning, i.e., not doing. In the Vimativinodani, it is said, “It is purified by teaching and so forth, or it is cleansed, hence suddhi, the fourfold virtue. Hence it says ‘desanāya sujjhanato’ and so forth. Here, by including teaching, emergence and the declaration of non-monastic status for offenses with severed roots are also encompassed. For even with offenses with severed roots, through emergence from a pārājika offense, the monk’s virtue previously guarded below becomes purified, enabling even the attainment of the path.”
Having thus shown the purity of the restraint dependent on requisites, now, in connection with that, in order to show all the purities, he says, “catubbidhā hi suddhī” (fourfold, indeed, is purity), and so on. Therein, “sujjhati etāyāti suddhi,” purification is that by which one is purified, the purification of declaration according to the Dhamma is desanāsuddhi (purification by declaration). The gathering even of the arising here by declaration should be seen. But for offenses with a cut-off root, the declaration of non-monkhood itself is the declaration. Restraint, distinct by undertaking, is indeed purity, saṃvarasuddhi (purification by restraint). The search for requisites with Dhamma, with what is proper, is indeed purity, pariyeṭṭhisuddhi (purification by search). Reflection in the prescribed manner on the four requisites is indeed purity, paccavekkhaṇasuddhi (purification by reflection). This, then, is the summary of the purities. But among those who are pure, among the precepts, declaration is purity for this one, desanāsuddhi. The same approach applies to the remaining ones. Na punevaṃ karissāmīti (I will not do this again), here evanti (thus), he says this with reference to breaking of restraint. Pahāyāti (having abandoned), meaning having avoided, having not done. But in Vimativinodaniyaṃ it is mentioned, “One is purified by declaration and so on, or is cleansed, is purity, the fourfold precept. Therefore, he said, ‘desanāya sujjhanato’tiādi (Because of being purified by declaration). Here, by the term ‘declaration,’ arising and also the declaration of non-monkhood for those with cut-off roots are included. For even for offences with a cut-off root, by arising from a pārājika offence, the lower-protected monk’s precept becomes purified. Thus, even the attainment of the path comes about for them”.
Having thus shown the purification of one whose virtue depends on requisites, now, by the same connection, to show all purifications, it is said, “There are four kinds of purification.” Here, purification is that by which one is purified; the proper teaching is purification, teaching purification. Here, even the emergence should be understood as included in the teaching. For those whose roots are cut off, the confession is the teaching. The restraint distinguished by determination is purification, restraint purification. The proper search for requisites is purification, search purification. The reflection on the four requisites according to the prescribed method is purification, reflection purification. This is the summary of the purifications. Among the purification terms, the teaching is purification, hence teaching purification. The same applies to the rest. “I will not do this again” here refers to the breach of restraint. “Having abandoned” means avoiding, not doing. In the Vimativinodanī, it is said, “One is purified by the teaching, etc., or purified, hence purification, the fourfold virtue. Therefore, it is said, ‘purified by the teaching,’ etc. Here, the teaching includes even the emergence and the repeated confession of those whose roots are cut off. For even those whose roots are cut off, having emerged from a pārājika offense, the lower and upper guarded bhikkhu virtue is called purified. Therefore, they also attain the path.”
ID410
Tattha desīyati uccārīyatīti desanā, disī uccāraṇeti dhātu, desīyati ñāpīyati etāyāti vā desanā, disa pekkhaneti dhātu. Ubhayathāpi viratipadhānakusalacittasamuṭṭhito desanāvacībhedasaddo. Saṃvaraṇaṃ saṃvaro, saṃ-pubba vara saṃvaraṇeti dhātu, satipadhāno cittuppādo. Pariyesanā pariyeṭṭhi, pari-pubba isa pariyesaneti dhātu, vīriyapadhāno cittuppādo. Paṭi punappunaṃ ogāhetvā ikkhanā paccavekkhaṇā, paṭi-pubba ava-pubba ikkha dassanaṅkesūti dhātu, paññāpadhāno cittuppādo. Tesu desanāya vacībhedasaddabhāvato vacībhedaṃ kātuṃ asakkontassa ca dutiyakaṃ alabhantassa ca na sampajjati, sesā pana cittuppādamattabhāvato vacībhedaṃ kātuṃ asakkontassapi dutiyakaṃ alabhantassapi sampajjanti eva, tasmā gilānādikālesu paccavekkhaṇāpāṭhaṃ paṭhitumasakkontenapi atthaṃ manasi katvā citteneva paccavekkhaṇā kātabbāti.
Therein, it is taught or uttered, hence desanā (teaching), from the root dis- meaning to utter, or it is taught or made known by this, hence desanā, from dis- meaning to see. In both cases, it is a verbal expression arising from a wholesome mind rooted in abstinence. Restraining is saṃvaro (restraint), from the root vara- with the prefix saṃ- meaning to restrain, a mental arising rooted in mindfulness. Seeking is pariyeṭṭhi (seeking), from the root isa- with the prefix pari- meaning to seek, a mental arising rooted in effort. Repeatedly entering and observing is paccavekkhaṇā (reflection), from the roots paṭi-, ava-, and ikkha- meaning to see or consider, a mental arising rooted in wisdom. Among these, since teaching involves verbal expression, it does not succeed for one unable to make a verbal expression or lacking a second person, but the others, being merely mental arisings, succeed even for one unable to make a verbal expression or lacking a second person. Therefore, in times of illness and so forth, even if one cannot recite the reflection text, reflection should be done mentally by focusing on the meaning.
Therein, desīyati uccārīyatīti desanā, declaration is that which is declared or recited, the root is ‘disī uccāraṇe’ (to declare, to recite). Or, desīyati ñāpīyati etāyāti desanā, declaration is that by which something is made known or understood, the root is ‘disa pekkhaṇe’ (to see, to observe). In either case, it is the sound that is the differentiation of speech of declaration, produced by a wholesome thought based on refraining. Saṃvaraṇaṃ saṃvaro, restraint is restricting, the root is ‘saṃ-pubba vara saṃvaraṇe’ (to restrain, with the prefix ‘saṃ’), a thought based on mindfulness. Pariyesanā pariyeṭṭhi, searching is searching around, the root is ‘pari-pubba isa pariyesaneti’ (to search around, with the prefix ‘pari’), a thought based on energy. Paṭi punappunaṃ ogāhetvā ikkhanā paccavekkhaṇā, reflection is looking into again and again, the root is ‘paṭi-pubba ava-pubba ikkha dassanaṅkesūti’ (to see, with the prefixes ‘paṭi’ and ‘ava’), a thought based on wisdom. Among these, declaration, because it is a differentiation of speech by its very nature, does not occur for one unable to make a differentiation of speech and for one who does not obtain a second person. But the remaining, because they are merely thought by nature, do occur even for one unable to make a differentiation of speech and for one who does not obtain a second person. Therefore, at times of sickness and so on, even one who is unable to recite the reflection passage should reflect mentally, having brought the meaning to mind.
Here, teaching is what is declared or uttered; the root is “to declare” or “to utter.” Alternatively, teaching is what is made known; the root is “to see.” In both cases, it is a term for verbal expression arising from a mind skilled in the foundation of abstinence. Restraint is guarding; the root is “to guard,” a mental process arising from the foundation of mindfulness. Search is seeking; the root is “to seek,” a mental process arising from the foundation of effort. Reflection is repeatedly entering and examining; the root is “to see,” a mental process arising from the foundation of wisdom. Among these, since teaching is a term for verbal expression, if one is unable to make a verbal expression or does not obtain a second chance, it is not accomplished. The rest, being mere mental processes, are accomplished even if one is unable to make a verbal expression or does not obtain a second chance. Therefore, even if one is unable to recite the reflection text due to illness, etc., one should reflect mentally, having understood the meaning.
ID411
Dātabbaṭṭhena dāyaṃ, taṃ ādiyantīti dāyādā, ananuññātesu sabbena sabbaṃ paribhogābhāvato anuññātesuyeva ca paribhogasabbhāvabhāvato bhikkhūhi paribhuñjitabbapaccayā bhagavato santakā. Dhammadāyādasuttañcettha sādhakanti “dhammadāyādā me, bhikkhave, bhavatha, mā āmisadāyādā , atthi me tumhesu anukampā, kinti me sāvakā dhammadāyādā bhaveyyuṃ, no āmisadāyādā”ti evaṃ pavattaṃ dhammadāyādasuttañca (ma. ni. 1.29) ettha etasmiṃ atthe sādhakaṃ. Avītarāgānaṃ taṇhāvasīkatāya paccayaparibhoge sāmibhāvo natthi, tadabhāvena vītarāgānaṃ tattha sāmibhāvo yathāruci paribhogasabbhāvato. Tathā hi te paṭikūlampi appaṭikūlākārena appaṭikūlampi paṭikūlākārena tadubhayampi vajjetvā ajjhupekkhaṇākārena paccaye paribhuñjanti, dāyakānañca manorathaṃ paripūrenti. Tenāha “te hi taṇhāya dāsabyaṃ atītattā sāmino hutvā paribhuñjantī”ti. Yo panāyaṃ sīlavato puthujjanassa paccavekkhitaparibhogo, so iṇaparibhogassa paccanīkattā ānaṇyaparibhogo nāma hoti. Yathā pana iṇāyiko attano ruciyā icchitaṃ desaṃ gantuṃ na labhati, evaṃ iṇaparibhogayutto lokato nissarituṃ na labhatīti tappaṭipakkhattā sīlavato paccavekkhitaparibhogo ānaṇyaparibhogoti vuccati, tasmā nippariyāyato catuparibhogavinimutto visuṃyevāyaṃ paribhogoti veditabbo, so idha visuṃ na vutto, dāyajjaparibhogeyeva vā saṅgahaṃ gacchatīti. Sīlavāpi hi imāya sikkhāya samannāgatattā sekkhotveva vuccati.
That which is to be given is dāyaṃ; those who take it are dāyādā, because there is no complete enjoyment of unpermitted things and complete enjoyment exists only in permitted things; thus, the requisites to be enjoyed by monks are the property of the Blessed One. The Dhammadāyādasutta is evidence here, as it states: “Be my heirs in the Dhamma, monks, not heirs in material things; I have compassion for you, wishing that my disciples be heirs in the Dhamma, not in material things” (ma. ni. 1.29), and this Dhammadāyādasutta is evidence for this meaning. For those not free from lust, due to being swayed by craving, there is no ownership in the enjoyment of requisites; due to its absence, those free from lust have ownership there because of their ability to enjoy at will. Indeed, they enjoy requisites—whether disagreeable as if agreeable, agreeable as if disagreeable, or avoiding both—with an attitude of equanimity, fulfilling the donors’ wishes. Hence it is said: “For they, having transcended slavery to craving, become masters and enjoy”. However, the mindful enjoyment of a virtuous ordinary person is called ānaṇyaparibhogo (debt-free enjoyment) because it opposes enjoyment with debt. Just as a debtor cannot go to a desired place at will, so one bound by debt-enjoyment cannot escape the world; thus, the mindful enjoyment of a virtuous person is called ānaṇyaparibhogo due to its opposition to that. Therefore, it should be understood that this enjoyment, distinct from the four types of enjoyment, is separate and not explicitly mentioned here, or it is included in dāyajjaparibhoga (heir-enjoyment). Even a virtuous person, being endowed with this training, is still called a trainee.
“Dāya” is due to what should be given; those who receive it are dāyādā, heirs. Because requisites should be used by monks, and, not being fully permitted everything is not fully usable, when fully permitted, it becomes fully usable, they are the property of the Blessed One. The Dhammadāyādasutta is evidence here, that is “Monks, be my heirs in Dhamma, not heirs in material things. I have compassion for you, thinking, ‘How can my disciples become heirs in Dhamma, not heirs in material things?’” Thus, the Dhammadāyādasutta (ma. ni. 1.29) that was taught in this way is evidence in this matter. Those who are not free from lust, because they are under the control of craving, do not have ownership in the use of requisites; by the absence of that, those free from lust have ownership therein because they can fully use them as they wish. Thus, they use the requisites, even what is repulsive as unrepulsive, what is unrepulsive as repulsive, and avoiding both, they use the requisites with equanimity, fulfilling the wishes of the donors. Therefore, it is said, “Because they have overcome the state of slavery to craving, they use [requisites] as masters.” But this reflection and use of requisites by a virtuous ordinary person, it is called blameless usage as an opposing factor to debted usage. Just as a debtor cannot go to the place he desires at his own will, so one engaged in debted usage cannot escape from the world; because of opposition to that, the virtuous person’s reflective usage is called blameless usage, therefore it should be understood that only this is truly distinct usage, totally free from the four usages, but it is not mentioned separately here, or it is included within the usage of inheritance. Indeed, even a virtuous person is called a trainee because of being endowed with this training.
By the meaning of “to be given,” it is called dāyāda (heir), as it is taken by those who receive it. Since there is no complete use of things not permitted, and because the nature of use is fully present only in what is permitted, the requisites are to be used by the bhikkhus as the possessions of the Blessed One. The Dhammadāyāda Sutta is relevant here, as it states: “Bhikkhus, be my heirs in the Dhamma, not in material things. I have compassion for you, thinking, ‘How can my disciples become heirs in the Dhamma, not in material things?’” Thus, the Dhammadāyāda Sutta (MN 1.29) is applicable here for this meaning. For those not free from lust, there is no ownership over the use of requisites due to being under the control of craving. However, for those free from lust, there is ownership over them, and they use them as they wish, according to the nature of use. Indeed, they use requisites by avoiding what is disagreeable as if it were agreeable and what is agreeable as if it were disagreeable, remaining equanimous, and they fulfill the wishes of the donors. Therefore, it is said, “They, having transcended the slavery of craving, become owners and use them.” As for the mindful use of requisites by a virtuous ordinary person, it is called “debt-free use” because it is contrary to the use of debt. Just as a debtor cannot go to a desired place as they wish, so too one bound by the use of debt cannot escape from the world. Thus, the mindful use of requisites by a virtuous person is called “debt-free use” because it counteracts that. Therefore, it should be understood as distinct from the four kinds of use, being free from them. It is not separately mentioned here but is included under the use of inheritance. Even a virtuous person, being endowed with this training, is called a “trainee.”
ID412
Sabbesanti ariyānaṃ puthujjanānañca. Kathaṃ puthujjanānaṃ ime paribhogā sambhavantīti? Upacāravasena. Yo hi puthujjanassapi sallekhapaṭipattiyaṃ ṭhitassa paccayagedhaṃ pahāya tattha anupalittena cittena paribhogo, so sāmiparibhogo viya hoti. Sīlavato pana paccavekkhitaparibhogo dāyajjaparibhogo viya hoti dāyakānaṃ manorathassāvirādhanato. Tena vuttaṃ “dāyajjaparibhogeyeva vā saṅgahaṃ gacchatī”ti. Kalyāṇaputhujjanassa paribhoge vattabbameva natthi tassa sekkhasaṅgahato. Sekkhasutta ñhetassa (a. ni. 3.86) atthassa sādhakaṃ.
“Of all” refers to both noble ones and ordinary people. How do these enjoyments apply to ordinary people? By way of approximation. For an ordinary person established in the practice of effacement who enjoys requisites with a mind untainted by greed for them, it resembles sāmiparibhoga (master-enjoyment). But the mindful enjoyment of a virtuous person resembles dāyajjaparibhoga because it does not obstruct the donors’ wishes. Hence it is said: “Or it is included in dāyajjaparibhoga”. There is nothing to be said about the enjoyment of a good ordinary person, as they are included among trainees. The Sekkhasutta (a. ni. 3.86) is evidence for this meaning.
Of all, means of noble ones and ordinary persons. How can these usages occur for ordinary persons? By way of proximity. For even an ordinary person who is established in the practice of effacement, having abandoned attachment to requisites, his usage, with a mind unattached to them, is like the usage of a master. But the virtuous one’s reflective usage is like the usage of inheritance, because it does not frustrate the donors’ wishes. Therefore it was said, “Or it is included within the usage of inheritance”. There is nothing to be said about the use by an ordinary person of good conduct as he is to be catagorised a sekkha. The Sekkhasutta (a. ni. 3.86) is evidence of this matter.
“All” refers to both noble ones and ordinary people. How do these uses apply to ordinary people? By way of approximation. For even an ordinary person who has abandoned greed for requisites and uses them with an untainted mind while engaged in ascetic practice, their use resembles that of an owner. The mindful use of requisites by a virtuous person resembles the use of inheritance because it fulfills the wishes of the donors. Therefore, it is said, “It is included under the use of inheritance.” There is nothing to be said about the use of requisites by a virtuous ordinary person, as they are included among the trainees. The Sekkha Sutta (AN 3.86) is relevant here for this meaning.
ID413
Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.585) pana “dātabbaṭṭhena dāyaṃ, taṃ ādiyantīti dāyādā. Sattannaṃ sekkhānanti ettha kalyāṇaputhujjanāpi saṅgahitā tesaṃ ānaṇyaparibhogassa dāyajjaparibhoge saṅgahitattāti veditabbaṃ. Dhammadāyādasuttanti “dhammadāyādā me, bhikkhave, bhavatha, mā āmisadāyādā”tiādinā pavattaṃ suttaṃ (ma. ni. 1.29). Tattha “mā me āmisadāyādāti evaṃ me-saddaṃ ānetvā attho veditabbo. Evañhi yathāvuttatthasādhakaṃ hotī”ti vuttaṃ. Tattha me mama āmisadāyādā catupaccayabhuñjakāti bhagavato sambandhabhūtassa sambandhībhūtā paccayā vuttā, tasmā dāyakehi dinnāpi paccayā bhagavatā anuññātattā bhagavato paccayāyeva hontīti etassa atthassa dhammadāyādasuttaṃ sādhakaṃ hotīti atthoti vuttaṃ.
In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.585), it is said: “That which is to be given is dāyaṃ; those who take it are dāyādā. Of the seven trainees includes good ordinary people, as their ānaṇyaparibhoga is included in dāyajjaparibhoga.” The Dhammadāyādasutta states: “Be my heirs in the Dhamma, monks, not heirs in material things” (ma. ni. 1.29). There, the phrase “not my heirs in material things” should be understood by bringing in the “me” pronoun, making it evidence for the aforementioned meaning. There, “not my heirs in material things” refers to those enjoying the four requisites connected to the Blessed One; thus, even requisites given by donors are the Blessed One’s because they are permitted by him. This is the meaning for which the Dhammadāyādasutta serves as evidence.
But in the Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.585) it is said, “Dāya is due to that should be given; those who receive it are dāyādā. Of the seven trainees, here the good ordinary people are also included; their blameless usage is to be known as being included in the usage of inheritance”. Dhammadāyādasutta refers to the sutta that was taught (ma. ni. 1.29), beginning with “Monks, be my heirs in Dhamma, not heirs in material things.” Therein, the meaning should be understood by bringing in the word ‘me,’ thus ‘not my heirs to material things’. It is said “For thus is the proof of what has been stated.” Therein, the statement “my heirs in material things, users of the four requisites” refers to the relationship to the Blessed One, the related requisites; therefore it is said that the Dhammadāyādasutta is evidence for the meaning that, because they have been permitted by the Blessed One, even though the requisites were given by donors, they are truly the requisites of the Blessed One.
In the Vimativinodanī (Vin. Ṭī. 1.585), it is explained: **“By the meaning of ‘to be given,’ it is called dāyāda (heir).** ‘Of the seven trainees’—here, virtuous ordinary people are also included, as their debt-free use is included under the use of inheritance. The Dhammadāyāda Sutta states:”Bhikkhus, be my heirs in the Dhamma, not in material things” (MN 1.29). Here, the word “me” should be understood as “my material heirs.” Thus, it supports the meaning as explained. There, the requisites, though given by donors, are permitted by the Blessed One and thus belong to him. Therefore, the Dhammadāyāda Sutta supports this meaning.
ID414
Lajjinā saddhiṃ paribhogo nāma lajjissa santakaṃ gahetvā paribhogo. Alajjinā saddhinti etthāpi eseva nayo. Ādito paṭṭhāya hi alajjī nāma natthīti iminā diṭṭhadiṭṭhesuyeva āsaṅkā na kātabbāti dasseti. Attano bhārabhūtā saddhivihārikādayo. Tepi nivāretabbāti yo passati, tena nivāretabbāti pāṭho. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana “yopi attano bhārabhūtena alajjinā saddhiṃ paribhogaṃ karoti, sopi nivāretabbo”ti pāṭho dissati, tathāpi atthato ubhayathāpi yujjati. Attano saddhivihārikādayopi alajjibhāvato nivāretabbā. Alajjīhi saddhivihārikādīhi ekasambhogaṃ karontā aññepi nivāretabbāva. Sace na oramati, ayampi alajjīyeva hotīti ettha evaṃ nivārito so puggalo alajjinā saddhiṃ paribhogato oramati viramati, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ. No ce oramati, ayampi alajjīyeva hoti, tena saddhiṃ paribhogaṃ karonto sopi alajjīyeva hotīti attho. Tena vuttaṃ “evaṃ eko alajjī alajjisatampi karotī”ti. Adhammiyoti anesanādīhi uppanno. Dhammiyoti bhikkhācariyādīhi uppanno. Saṅghasseva detīti bhattaṃ aggahetvā attanā laddhasalākaṃyeva deti.
“Enjoyment with the conscientious” means enjoying what belongs to the conscientious. “With the unconscientious” follows the same principle. “From the beginning, there is no one called unconscientious” indicates that no suspicion should be held toward those seen and observed. “Those who are a burden to oneself” refers to co-residents and the like. They too should be restrained; the one who sees this should restrain them, according to the text. However, in the commentary, it reads: “Even one who enjoys with an unconscientious person who is a burden to oneself should be restrained”, and this fits both ways in meaning. One’s co-residents and the like should be restrained from unconscientiousness. Others who share enjoyment with unconscientious co-residents should also be restrained. “If he does not desist, he too becomes unconscientious” means: if such a person, when restrained, desists from enjoyment with the unconscientious, that is good; if not, he too becomes unconscientious, and one who enjoys with him also becomes unconscientious. Hence it is said: “Thus, one unconscientious person makes even a hundred unconscientious”. “Unrighteous” means obtained through improper means like searching. “Righteous” means obtained through proper means like alms rounds. “He gives only to the Sangha” means he gives the meal-ticket he received himself without taking food.
Communion with the conscientious means taking what belongs to a conscientious person and using it. With the unconscientious, the same principle applies here. From the beginning there is no one called unconscientious, by this, it is shown that one should not be suspicious in cases where the issue is clearly visible. Those who are his responsibility, such as co-residents. It has been stated “He should be prevented by one who sees he should be prevented”. In the commentary, however, the reading is, “Whoever uses things together with an unconscientious person who is his own responsibility, he too should be prevented,” even so, in meaning, it is appropriate either way. One’s own co-residents, etc., should be prevented because of their unconscientiousness. Others, having communion with unconscientious co-residents, etc., should also be prevented. If he does not desist, this one also becomes unconscientious, here, the person so prevented desists, refrains from using things together with the unconscientious; this is skillful. But if he does not desist, this one also becomes unconscientious; the one using things together with him also becomes unconscientious. Therefore, it is said, “Thus, one unconscientious person makes even a hundred unconscientious.” Unrighteous means that it arises through improper searching, and so on. Righteous means that it arises through ভিক্ষācariyā (alms-round), and so on. He gives to the Saṅgha itself, means that without taking the food, he gives only the ticket he has received.
Use together with a conscientious person refers to using what belongs to a conscientious person. Use together with a shameless person—here, the same principle applies. “From the beginning, there is no shameless person”—this indicates that suspicion should not be aroused even in what is seen or heard. Those who are a burden to oneself, such as one’s own pupils, should be restrained. If one sees them, they should be restrained. In the commentary, however, “Even one who uses requisites together with a shameless person who is a burden to oneself should be restrained” is found as a reading. Nevertheless, both interpretations are valid. Even one’s own pupils, if they are shameless, should be restrained. Those who share requisites with shameless pupils should also be restrained. If one does not refrain, they too become shameless—here, if such a person refrains from using requisites with a shameless person, it is good. If they do not refrain, they too become shameless, and by using requisites with them, they also become shameless. Therefore, it is said, “Thus, one shameless person makes many shameless.” Illegitimate refers to what arises through improper means. Legitimate refers to what arises through proper means, such as alms. “Gives to the Sangha” means giving without accepting food, but giving what one has obtained through one’s own ticket.
ID415
Vimativinodaniyaṃ pana “lajjinā saddhiṃ paribhogoti dhammāmisavasena missībhāvo. Alajjinā saddhinti etthāpi eseva nayo. Ādito paṭṭhāya hi alajjī nāma natthīti iminā diṭṭhadiṭṭhesu āsaṅkā nāma na kātabbā, diṭṭhasutādikāraṇe sati eva kātabbāti dasseti. Attano bhārabhūtā saddhivihārikādayo. Sace na oramatīti agatigamanavasena dhammāmisaparibhogato na oramati. Āpatti nāma natthīti idaṃ alajjīnaṃ dhammenuppannapaccayaṃ dhammakammañca sandhāya vuttaṃ. Tesampi hi kuladūsanādisamuppannaṃ paccayaṃ paribhuñjantānaṃ vaggakammādīni karontānañca āpatti eva. ‘Dhammiyādhammiyaparibhogo paccayavaseneva veditabbo’ti vuttattā heṭṭhā lajjiparibhogālajjiparibhogā paccayavasena ekakammādivasena ca vuttā evāti veditabbaṃ. Teneva duṭṭhadosasikkhāpadaṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.385-386) codakacuditakabhāve ṭhitā dve alajjino dhammaparibhogampi sandhāya ’ekasambhogaparibhogā hutvā jīvathā’ti vuttā tesaṃ aññamaññaṃ dhammāmisāparibhoge virodhābhāvā. Lajjīnameva hi alajjinā saha tadubhayaparibhogo na vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ.
In the Vimativinodanī, “Enjoyment with the conscientious” means a mixture of righteous and material aspects. “With the unconscientious” follows the same principle. “From the beginning, there is no one called unconscientious” indicates that suspicion should not arise regarding those seen and heard unless there is a reason like seeing or hearing. “Those who are a burden to oneself” refers to co-residents and the like. “If he does not desist” means he does not refrain from enjoyment of righteous and material things due to wrong conduct. “There is no offense” refers to the righteous requisites and actions of the unconscientious, for even they incur an offense if they enjoy requisites arising from corrupting families or perform collective actions. Since it is said: “Righteous and unrighteous enjoyment should be understood only in terms of requisites”, the earlier mention of enjoyment with the conscientious and unconscientious refers to requisites and collective actions. Thus, in the commentary to the Duṭṭhadosasikkhāpada (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.385-386), two unconscientious persons—one accusing, one accused—are said to “live by sharing enjoyment,” including righteous enjoyment, as there is no contradiction in their mutual enjoyment of righteous and material things. It is only for the conscientious that enjoyment of both with the unconscientious is not allowed.
But in the Vimativinodaniyaṃ, communion with the conscientious means being mixed together through material things connected with the Dhamma. With the unconscientious, the same principle applies here. From the beginning there is no one called unconscientious, by this, it is shown that one should not be suspicious in cases where the issue is clearly visible; one should only be suspicious when there is reason, such as having seen or heard something. Those who are his responsibility, co-residents, etc. If he does not desist, means if he does not desist from the usage of material things of Dhamma by reason of wrong livelihood. There is no offense, this is said concerning the unconscientious obtaining requisites in accordance with the Dhamma and performing legal acts of the Saṅgha. Even for them, using requisites arising from misbehavior such as family corruption, and so on, and performing divided actions, and so on, it is indeed an offense. Because it is said, ‘Righteous and unrighteous usage should be understood only in terms of requisites,’ it should be understood that the conscientious and unconscientious usages mentioned below were stated in terms of requisites and in terms of single actions, and so on. Therefore, in the commentary on the Dutthadosasikkhāpada (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.385-386), in the context of two unconscientious individuals in a situation of accuser and accused, concerning even the usage of Dhamma, it is said, ‘live in communion through shared use,’ because there is no contradiction for them in using each other’s material things of the Dhamma. For only the conscientious, cohabitation with the unconscientious in both of these types of usages is not appropriate,” it is said.
In the Vimativinodanī, “Use together with a conscientious person” refers to mixing with them through Dhamma and material things. “Use together with a shameless person”—here, the same principle applies. “From the beginning, there is no shameless person”—this indicates that suspicion should not be aroused even in what is seen or heard, unless there is a reason based on what is seen or heard. “If one does not refrain”—this means not refraining from using Dhamma and material things due to going to improper places. “There is no offense”—this refers to the legitimate requisites and Dhamma activities of shameless persons. Even for them, using requisites acquired through defaming families or performing factional actions incurs offenses. “Legitimate and illegitimate use should be understood based on requisites”—this means that the earlier discussion of use with conscientious and shameless persons is based on requisites and single actions, etc. Therefore, in the commentary on the Dutthadosa Sikkhāpada (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.385-386), it is said that two shameless persons, even in legitimate use, live together sharing use, as there is no conflict between their Dhamma and material use. Indeed, a conscientious person cannot use requisites together with a shameless person.
ID416
Sace pana lajjī alajjiṃ paggaṇhāti…pe… antaradhāpetīti ettha kevalaṃ paggaṇhitukāmatāya evaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭati, dhammassa pana sāsanassa sotūnañca anuggahatthāya vaṭṭatīti veditabbaṃ. Purimanayena “so āpattiyā kāretabbo”ti vuttattā imassa āpattiyevāti vadanti. Uddesaggahaṇādinā dhammassa paribhogo dhammaparibhogo. Dhammānuggahena gaṇhantassa āpattiyā abhāvepi thero tassa alajjibhāvaṃyeva sandhāya “pāpo kirāya”ntiādimāha. Tassa pana santiketi mahārakkhitattherassa santike.
“If, however, a conscientious person supports an unconscientious one… causing him to disappear” means it is not permissible to do so merely out of desire to support, but it is permissible for the sake of protecting the Dhamma, the teaching, and its adherents. Due to the earlier statement “he should be made to incur an offense”, some say this entails an offense. Enjoyment of the Dhamma through recitation or learning is dhammaparibhoga. Even if there is no offense for one who supports with Dhamma, the elder, referring to his unconscientiousness, said: “It seems he is evil”. “In his presence” means in the presence of the elder Mahārakkhita.
But if a conscientious person supports an unconscientious one… etc… he causes the disappearance, here, it should be understood that it is not appropriate to do so merely out of a desire to support; but it is appropriate for the sake of supporting the Dhamma, the Dispensation, and those who listen. As it was stated in the former method, “he should be made to do it by means of an offense,” some say that for this one, it is indeed an offense. Partaking of the Dhamma through receiving teaching, and so on, is dhammaparibhoga. Even though there is no offense for the one taking it as a supporter of the Dhamma, the elder, referring only to his unconscientious nature, said, “It is said that he is wicked,” and so on. In his presence, means in the presence of Mahārakkhitatthera.
“If a conscientious person supports a shameless person… until they disappear”—here, it is not permissible to do so merely out of a desire to support, but it is permissible for the sake of supporting the Dhamma and the disciples. As stated earlier, “They should be charged with an offense”—this refers to the offense here. The use of Dhamma through recitation, etc., is Dhamma use. Even if there is no offense in accepting through Dhamma, the elder, considering their shamelessness, says, “He is indeed wicked.” “In his presence” refers to the presence of the great elder Mahārakkhita.
ID417
Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.585) pana imasmiṃ ṭhāne vitthārato vinicchitaṃ. Kathaṃ? Dhammaparibhogoti “ekakammaṃ ekuddeso”tiādinā vuttasaṃvāso ceva nissayaggahaṇādiko sabbo nirāmisaparibhogo ca veditabbo. “Na so āpattiyā kāretabbo”ti vuttattā lajjino alajjipaggahe āpattīti veditabbaṃ. Itaropīti lajjīpi. Tassāpi attānaṃ paggaṇhantassa alajjino, iminā ca lajjino vaṇṇabhaṇanādilābhaṃ paṭicca āmisagarukatāya vā gehassitapemena vā taṃ alajjiṃ paggaṇhanto lajjī sāsanaṃ antaradhāpeti nāmāti dasseti. Evaṃ gahaṭṭhādīsu upatthambhito alajjī balaṃ labhitvā pesale abhibhavitvā na cirasseva sāsanaṃ uddhammaṃ ubbinayaṃ karotīti.
In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.585), this matter is explained in detail. How? “Dhammaparibhoga” refers to cohabitation as stated in “one action, one recitation,” as well as all non-material enjoyment like giving dependence. Since it is said: “He should not be made to incur an offense”, it should be understood that supporting an unconscientious person by a conscientious one entails an offense. “The other too” means even a conscientious person. It shows that a conscientious person who supports himself or an unconscientious one—out of desire for gain through praise or due to attachment to householders—causes the teaching to disappear. Thus, an unconscientious person supported by laypeople gains strength, overpowers the virtuous, and soon renders the teaching unrighteous and undisciplined.
But in the Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.585), this point is analyzed in detail. How? Dhammaparibhoga should be understood as both the communion stated in “a single [legal] act, a single recitation,” and so on, and all usage without material things, such as receiving dependence. Because it is said, “He should not be made to do it by means of an offense,” it should be understood as an offense for a conscientious person to support an unconscientious one. The other one also, also the conscientious one. For that unconscientious person who is supporting himself, and by this the conscientious person who is supporting that unconscientious one, out of attachment to material things due to receiving praise for his virtues, and so on, from that conscientious one, or out of worldly affection, he is said to cause the disappearance of the Dispensation. In this way, an unconscientious one supported by a householder, and so on, gaining strength, overpowering the virtuous, soon makes the Dispensation opposed to Dhamma, opposed to Vinaya.
In the Vimativinodanī (Vin. Ṭī. 1.585), this matter is discussed in detail. How? “Dhamma use” refers to communal living through single actions, recitation, etc., and all non-material use, including taking dependence. “They should not be charged with an offense”—this means that there is an offense in a conscientious person supporting a shameless person. “The other too”—this refers to a conscientious person. Even if a conscientious person supports a shameless person for the sake of gaining praise, etc., or out of attachment to their family, they destroy the Dispensation. Thus, a shameless person, supported by householders, etc., gains strength, overpowers the virtuous, and soon causes the Dispensation to decline. Therefore, even a single shameless person can make many shameless, as stated in the commentary (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.585). If they are not restrained, they will cause disputes in the Sangha, hinder communal acts like the Uposatha, make life difficult for the virtuous, and, like Devadatta and the followers of the Son, soon split the Sangha and cause the Dispensation to decline. However, if they are restrained by the Sangha through expulsion, etc., all these troubles are avoided. As it is said, “When immoral persons are supported, the Uposatha does not stand, the Pavāraṇā does not stand, Sangha acts do not proceed, there is no harmony… but when immoral persons are restrained, all these troubles are avoided, and the virtuous bhikkhus live comfortably.” Therefore, even Dhamma use through single actions, etc., should be done with extreme avoidance of shameless persons, as it causes the decline of the true Dhamma.
ID418
Dhammaparibhogopi tattha vaṭṭatīti iminā āmisaparibhogato dhammaparibhogova garuko, tasmā ativiya alajjīvivekena kātabboti dasseti. “Dhammānuggahena uggaṇhituṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vuttattā alajjussannatāyasāsane osakkante, lajjīsu ca appahontesu alajjiṃ pakatattaṃ gaṇapūrakaṃ gahetvā upasampadādikaraṇena ceva keci alajjino dhammāmisaparibhogena saṅgahetvā sesālajjigaṇassa niggahena ca sāsanaṃ paggaṇhitumpi vaṭṭati eva.
“Even righteous enjoyment is permissible there” indicates that righteous enjoyment is weightier than material enjoyment, so it must be done with great discernment regarding the unconscientious. Since it is said: “It is permissible to learn with the support of the Dhamma,” when the teaching declines due to the prevalence of the unconscientious and the virtuous are insufficient, it is permissible to support the teaching by taking an unconscientious person as a natural member or group-completer for ordination, integrating some unconscientious ones through righteous and material enjoyment, and suppressing the rest of the unconscientious group.
By saying, Even dhammaparibhoga is appropriate there, it is shown that dhammaparibhoga is more important than āmisaparibhoga; therefore, one should be very separate from the unconscientious. Because it is said, “It is appropriate to learn by supporting the Dhamma,” when the Dispensation is declining due to the unconscientious, and when the conscientious are few, it is indeed appropriate to support the Dispensation, by taking an unconscientious person who is of proper behavior as a quorum-filler, and performing ordination, and so on, and by gathering some unconscientious ones together through the usage of material things of the Dhamma, and by restraining the remaining group of unconscientious ones.
“Dhamma use is permissible here”—this indicates that Dhamma use is more important than material use, and thus it should be done with extreme avoidance of shameless persons. “It is permissible to accept through Dhamma”—this means that when the Dispensation declines due to the rise of shameless persons and the inability to abandon conscientious persons, it is permissible to accept shameless persons as full members of the community through ordination, etc., and to restrain the rest of the shameless group, thereby supporting the Dispensation.
ID419
Keci pana “koṭiyaṃ ṭhito ganthoti vuttattā ganthapariyāpuṇanameva dhammaparibhogo, na ekakammādi, tasmā alajjīhi saddhiṃ uposathādikaṃ kammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati, āpatti natthī”ti vadanti, taṃ na yuttaṃ, ekakammādīsu bahūsu dhammaparibhogesu alajjināpi saddhiṃ kattabbāvatthāyattaṃ dhammaparibhogaṃ dassetuṃ idha nidassanavasena ganthasseva samuddhaṭattā. Na hi ekakammādiko vidhi dhammaparibhogo na hotīti sakkā vattuṃ anāmisattā dhammāmisesu apariyāpannassa ca kassaci abhāvā. Teneva aṭṭhasāliniyaṃ dhammapaṭisanthārakathāyaṃ (dha. sa. aṭṭha. 1351) “kammaṭṭhānaṃ kathetabbaṃ, dhammo vācetabbo…pe… abbhānavuṭṭhānamānattaparivāsā dātabbā, pabbajjāraho pabbājetabbo, upasampadāraho upasampādetabbo…pe… ayaṃ dhammapaṭisanthāro nāmā”ti evaṃ saṅghakammādipi dhammakoṭṭhāse dassitaṃ. Tesu pana dhammakoṭṭhāsesu yaṃ gaṇapūrakādivasena alajjino apekkhitvā uposathādi vā tesaṃ santikā dhammuggahaṇanissayaggahaṇādi vā karīyati, taṃ dhammo ceva paribhogo cāti dhammaparibhogoti vuccati, etaṃ tathārūpapaccayaṃ vinā kātuṃ na vaṭṭati, karontassa alajjiparibhogo ca hoti dukkaṭañca. Yaṃ pana alajjisataṃ anapekkhitvā tajjanīyādiniggahakammaṃ vā parivāsādiupakārakammaṃ vā uggahaparipucchādānādi vā karīyati, taṃ dhammo eva, no paribhogo, etaṃ anurūpānaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati, āmisadāne viya āpatti natthi. Nissayadānampi terasasammutidānādi ca vattapaṭipattisādiyanādiparibhogassapi hetuttā na vaṭṭati.
Some say: “Since it is said ‘one established in learning,’ righteous enjoyment refers only to studying texts, not collective actions, so it is permissible to perform Uposatha and other actions with the unconscientious without offense.” This is not correct, as among the many righteous enjoyments like collective actions, the mention of learning here is merely an example to show what can be done with the unconscientious in certain cases. It cannot be said that procedures like collective actions are not righteous enjoyment, as they are non-material and not included among material things. Thus, in the Aṭṭhasālinī’s discussion on righteous hospitality (dha. sa. aṭṭha. 1351), it is said: “Meditation subjects should be taught, the Dhamma recited… rehabilitation, probation, ordination for the worthy, and higher ordination for the qualified… this is called righteous hospitality,” showing that Sangha actions are part of the righteous category. Among these, what is done with the unconscientious as group-completers—like Uposatha—or learning and dependence from them, is called dhammaparibhoga (righteous enjoyment). This should not be done without such conditions; doing so constitutes enjoyment with the unconscientious and incurs a dukkaṭa offense. However, actions like censure, probation, or learning and questioning done without relying on a group of unconscientious persons are purely Dhamma, not enjoyment, and can be done with suitable persons without offense, like giving material gifts. Giving dependence or the thirteen authorizations also should not be done, as they lead to enjoyment through compliance.
But some say, “Because it is said, ‘the book that is placed at the end,’ learning the texts is dhammaparibhoga, not single acts, and so on; therefore, it is appropriate to perform the Uposatha ceremony, and so on, together with the unconscientious; there is no offense,” this is not correct, because among the many dhammaparibhogas, such as single acts, and so on, to show the dhammaparibhoga that depends on the situation of having to be performed even together with the unconscientious, only the book has been extracted here by way of example. Indeed, it cannot be said that a single act, and so on, is not dhammaparibhoga, because it is without material things, and because there is nothing that is not included among material things of the Dhamma. Therefore, in the Atthasālini, in the section on hospitality through the Dhamma (dha. sa. aṭṭha. 1351), it is said, “A meditation subject should be taught, the Dhamma should be recited… etc… restoration after emerging from abbhāna, mānattā, and parivāsa should be given; one worthy of going forth should be given the going forth; one worthy of higher ordination should be given higher ordination… etc… this is called hospitality through the Dhamma,” thus, even Saṅgha acts, and so on, are shown as portions of the Dhamma. But among those portions of the Dhamma, that which is performed, whether it be the Uposatha ceremony, and so on, by way of a quorum-filler, etc., without expecting the unconscientious, or receiving the Dhamma, receiving dependence, and so on, from them, that is called ‘Dhamma and usage’ (dhammaparibhoga); it is not appropriate to perform this without such a reason; for one who does so, there is unconscientious usage and a dukkaṭa. But that which is performed without expecting a hundred unconscientious ones, whether it be a legal act of censure, and so on, or a beneficial legal act of parivāsa, and so on, or receiving learning, questioning, and so on, that is only Dhamma, not usage; it is appropriate for suitable ones to perform this; there is no offense, as in the giving of material things. Giving dependence, and giving the thirteen acceptances, etc., are also not appropriate, because they are causes of even the usages such as proper behavior and fulfilling one’s duties.
Some say, “Since it is said that one standing at the end of the line is a text, Dhamma use refers only to mastering texts, not single actions, etc. Therefore, it is permissible to perform acts like the Uposatha with shameless persons, and there is no offense.” This is incorrect, as there are many instances of Dhamma use, such as single actions, etc., where it is permissible to perform them with shameless persons. Here, the text is cited as an example to show that Dhamma use includes such actions. It cannot be said that single actions, etc., are not Dhamma use, as they are non-material and not included in material things. Therefore, in the Aṭṭhasālinī (DhsA. 1351), in the discussion on Dhamma hospitality, it is said: “Meditation subjects should be taught, the Dhamma should be recited… probation, rehabilitation, and penance should be given, one worthy of ordination should be ordained, one worthy of higher ordination should be given higher ordination… this is called Dhamma hospitality.” Thus, even Sangha acts are included under Dhamma. In these Dhamma matters, when the Uposatha, etc., is performed for the sake of shameless persons, or when Dhamma instruction, dependence, etc., is given in their presence, it is both Dhamma and use, and is called Dhamma use. This cannot be done without such conditions, and doing so incurs both shameless use and a wrongdoing. However, when acts of censure, etc., are performed without regard for shameless persons, or when helpful acts like probation are performed, or when instruction, questioning, etc., is given, it is Dhamma only, not use. This is permissible to do, like giving material things, and there is no offense. Giving dependence, the thirteen agreements, etc., and accepting the practice of proper conduct are also not permissible, as they involve use.
ID420
Yo pana mahāalajjī uddhammaṃ ubbinayaṃ satthusāsanaṃ karoti, tassa saddhivihārikādīnaṃ upasampadādi upakārakammampi uggahaparipucchādānādi ca kātuṃ na vaṭṭati, āpatti eva hoti, niggahakammameva kātabbaṃ. Teneva alajjipaggahopi paṭikkhitto. Dhammāmisaparibhogavivajjanenapi hi dummaṅkūnaṃ puggalānaṃ niggahova adhippeto, so ca pesalānaṃ phāsuvihārasaddhammaṭṭhitivinayānuggahādiatthāya etadatthattā sikkhāpadapaññattiyā, tasmā yaṃ yaṃ dummaṅkūnaṃ upatthambhāya, pesalānaṃ aphāsuvihārāya, saddhammaparihānādiatthāya hoti, taṃ sabbampi paribhogo vā hotu aparibhogo vā kātuṃ na vaṭṭati, evaṃ karontā sāsanaṃ antaradhāpenti, āpattiñca āpajjanti, dhammāmisaparibhogesu cettha alajjīhi ekakammādidhammaparibhogo eva pesalānaṃ aphāsuvihārāya saddhammaparihānādiatthāya hoti, na tathā āmisaparibhogo. Na hi alajjīnaṃ paccayaparibhogamattena pesalānaṃ aphāsuvihārādi hoti, yathāvuttadhammaparibhogena pana hoti. Tapparivajjanena ca phāsuvihārādayo. Tathā hi katasikkhāpadavītikkamā alajjipuggalā uposathādīsu paviṭṭhā “tumhe kāyadvāre ceva vacīdvāre ca vītikkamaṃ karothā”tiādinā bhikkhūhi vattabbā honti. Yathā vinayañca atiṭṭhantā saṅghato bahikaraṇādivasena suṭṭhu niggahetabbā, tathā akatvā tehi saha saṃvasantāpi alajjinova honti “ekopi alajjī alajjisatampi karotī”tiādivacanato (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.585). Yadi hi te evaṃ aniggahitā siyuṃ, saṅghe kalahādiṃ vaḍḍhetvā uposathādisāmaggikammapaṭibāhanādinā pesalānaṃ aphāsuṃ katvā kamena te devadattavajjiputtakādayo viya parisaṃ vaḍḍhetvā attano vippaṭipattiṃ dhammato vinayato dīpentā saṅghabhedādimpi katvā na cirasseva sāsanaṃ antaradhāpeyyuṃ. Tesu pana saṅghato bahikaraṇādivasena niggahitesu sabbopi ayaṃ upaddavo na hoti. Vuttañhi “dussīlapuggale nissāya uposatho na tiṭṭhati, pavāraṇā na tiṭṭhati, saṅghakammāni na pavattanti, sāmaggī na hoti…pe… dussīlesu pana niggahitesu sabbopi ayaṃ upaddavo na hoti, tato pesalā bhikkhū phāsu viharantī”ti, tasmā ekakammādidhammaparibhogova āmisaparibhogatopi ativiya alajjīvivekena kātabbo, āpattikaro ca saddhammaparihānihetuttāti veditabbaṃ.
One who is greatly unconscientious, acting unrighteously and undisciplinedly against the Teacher’s instruction, should not be given higher ordination or assistance like learning and questioning by his co-residents; doing so incurs an offense, and only censure should be applied. Thus, supporting the unconscientious is prohibited. Avoiding righteous and material enjoyment with them aims at censuring intractable persons for the sake of the virtuous’ comfortable living, the establishment of the true Dhamma, and the support of the Vinaya—this is the purpose of establishing training rules. Therefore, anything that supports the intractable, causes discomfort to the virtuous, or leads to the decline of the true Dhamma—whether enjoyment or not—should not be done. Those who do so cause the teaching to disappear and incur an offense. Among righteous and material enjoyments, collective actions with the unconscientious particularly cause discomfort to the virtuous and the decline of the true Dhamma, unlike material enjoyment. The mere enjoyment of requisites by the unconscientious does not cause discomfort to the virtuous, but righteous enjoyment as described does. Avoiding it leads to comfort and so forth. Thus, when training rules are transgressed, monks must address unconscientious persons entering Uposatha and similar events, saying: “You transgress with body and speech.” If they do not abide by the Vinaya, they should be thoroughly censured by expulsion from the Sangha; otherwise, those living with them become unconscientious too, as it is said: “One unconscientious person makes even a hundred unconscientious” (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.585). If they were not censured, they would increase discord in the Sangha, obstruct harmonious actions like Uposatha, discomfort the virtuous, and, like Devadatta or the Vajjiputtakas, gradually expand their following, misrepresent their misconduct as Dhamma and Vinaya, cause schism, and soon make the teaching disappear. But when they are censured by expulsion from the Sangha, all this trouble ceases. It is said: “Living dependent on an immoral person, Uposatha does not stand, Invitation does not stand, Sangha actions do not proceed, harmony is not achieved… but when the immoral are censured, all this trouble ceases, and the virtuous monks live comfortably.” Thus, righteous enjoyment like collective actions must be done with even greater discernment regarding the unconscientious than material enjoyment, as it incurs offenses and causes the decline of the true Dhamma.
But as for one who is exceedingly shameless, doing what is opposed to Dhamma, opposed to Vinaya, what is opposed to the teaching of the teacher, it is not appropriate to perform even helpful legal acts of ordination, etc., or of giving learning and questioning, for his co-residents, and so on; it is indeed an offense; only an act of censure should be performed. Therefore even support of the shameless is rejected. Indeed, the censure of poorly behaved individuals is intended, even through avoiding material and dhammic communion; that is for the purpose of the comfortable abiding of the virtuous, the stability of the true Dhamma, and the support of Vinaya, and so on; and for this purpose, the training rules have been laid down. Therefore, whatever is for the support of the poorly behaved, for the uncomfortable abiding of the virtuous, and for the decline of the true Dhamma, and so on, all that, whether it be usage or not usage, is not appropriate to do; those who do so cause the disappearance of the Dispensation, and they incur an offense. Here among the usages of the Dhamma and material, only the dhammaparibhoga of a single action, and so on, together with the unconscientious, is for the uncomfortable abiding of the virtuous and for the decline of the true Dhamma, and so on, not so the āmisaparibhoga. Indeed, the uncomfortable abiding, and so on, of the virtuous does not occur merely through the use of requisites by the unconscientious, but it does occur through the aforementioned dhammaparibhoga. And by avoiding that, comfortable abiding, and so on, occur. Thus, unconscientious individuals who have transgressed the laid-down training rules, having entered the Uposatha ceremony, and so on, should be addressed by the monks, saying, “You are transgressing through both body and speech,” and so on. Just as they are not abiding according to Vinaya, they should be well censured, by way of being expelled from the Saṅgha, and so on; not doing so, those living in communion with them also become unconscientious, due to the statement, “Even one unconscientious person makes even a hundred unconscientious” (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.585). For if they are not censured in this way, increasing quarrels, and so on, in the Saṅgha, and hindering the harmonious legal act of the Uposatha, and so on, having made it uncomfortable for the virtuous, gradually, like Devadatta, the Vajjiputtakas, and so on, they would increase their company, proclaiming their wrong practice as from the Dhamma and Vinaya, and performing schism in the Saṅgha, and so on, they would soon cause the disappearance of the Dispensation. But when they are censured, by way of being expelled from the Saṅgha, and so on, all this trouble does not occur. Indeed, it has been said, “Based on a poorly behaved individual, the Uposatha does not stand, the Pavāraṇā does not stand, legal acts of the Saṅgha do not proceed, harmony does not occur… etc… but when the poorly behaved are censured, all this trouble does not occur; then the virtuous monks abide comfortably,” therefore, dhammaparibhoga of a single act, and so on, even more than āmisaparibhoga, should be performed with very great separation from the unconscientious; and it is what causes an offense, and it is the cause of the decline of the true Dhamma; this should be understood.
When a greatly shameless person causes the Dispensation to decline, it is not permissible to perform helpful acts like higher ordination for their pupils, or to give instruction, questioning, etc. There is an offense, and only acts of censure should be done. Therefore, even supporting shameless persons is prohibited. Indeed, the intention behind avoiding Dhamma and material use with shameless persons is to restrain immoral individuals, and this is for the sake of the comfort, stability of the true Dhamma, and discipline of the virtuous. Therefore, whatever supports immoral persons, causes discomfort to the virtuous, or leads to the decline of the true Dhamma, whether it involves use or not, should not be done. Doing so causes the Dispensation to decline and incurs offenses. In Dhamma and material use, even Dhamma use through single actions, etc., with shameless persons causes discomfort to the virtuous and the decline of the true Dhamma, but not material use. For the mere use of requisites by shameless persons does not cause discomfort to the virtuous, but the aforementioned Dhamma use does. By avoiding it, comfort, etc., is achieved. Indeed, shameless individuals who have violated training rules should be well-restrained by the Sangha through expulsion, etc., when they enter the Uposatha, etc., and the bhikkhus should admonish them, saying, “You violate bodily and verbal conduct.” If they do not follow the discipline, they should be well-restrained by the Sangha through expulsion, etc. If not, even living with them makes one shameless, as stated: “Even one shameless person makes many shameless” (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.585). If they are not restrained in this way, they will cause disputes in the Sangha, hinder communal acts like the Uposatha, make life difficult for the virtuous, and, like Devadatta and the followers of the Son, soon split the Sangha and cause the Dispensation to decline. However, if they are restrained by the Sangha through expulsion, etc., all these troubles are avoided. As it is said, “When immoral persons are supported, the Uposatha does not stand, the Pavāraṇā does not stand, Sangha acts do not proceed, there is no harmony… but when immoral persons are restrained, all these troubles are avoided, and the virtuous bhikkhus live comfortably.” Therefore, even Dhamma use through single actions, etc., should be done with extreme avoidance of shameless persons, as it causes the decline of the true Dhamma.
ID421
Apica “uposatho na tiṭṭhati, pavāraṇā na tiṭṭhati, saṅghakammāni na pavattantī”ti evaṃ alajjīhi saddhiṃ saṅghakammākaraṇassa aṭṭhakathāyaṃ pakāsitattāpi cetaṃ sijjhati. Tathā parivattaliṅgassa bhikkhuno bhikkhunupassayaṃ gacchantassa paṭipattikathāyaṃ “ārādhikā ca honti saṅgāhikā lajjiniyo, tā kopetvā aññattha na gantabbaṃ. Gacchati ce, gāmantaranadīpārarattivippavāsagaṇamhā ohīyanāpattīhi na muccati…pe… alajjiniyo honti, saṅgahaṃ pana karonti, tāpi pariccajitvā aññattha gantuṃ labhatī”ti evaṃ alajjinīsu dutiyikāgahaṇādīsu saṃvāsāpattiparihārāya nadīpārāgamanādigarukāpattiṭṭhānānaṃ anuññātattā tatopi alajjisaṃvāsāpatti eva saddhammaparihāniyā hetubhūto garukatarāti viññāyati. Na hi lahukāpattiṭṭhānaṃ vā anāpattiṭṭhānaṃ vā pariharituṃ garukāpattiṭṭhānavītikkamaṃ ācariyā anujānanti. Tathā asaṃvāsapadassa aṭṭhakathāyaṃ “sabbehipi lajjipuggalehi samaṃ sikkhitabbabhāvato samasikkhātā nāma. Ettha yasmā sabbepi lajjino etesu kammādīsu saha vasanti, na ekopi tato bahiddhā sandissati, tasmā tāni sabbānipi gahetvā eso saṃvāso nāmā”ti evaṃ lajjīheva ekakammādisaṃvāso vaṭṭatīti pakāsito.
Moreover, since the commentary states: “Uposatha does not stand, Invitation does not stand, Sangha actions do not proceed” regarding not performing Sangha actions with the unconscientious, this is established. Similarly, in the discussion on the conduct of a monk with reversed gender visiting a nunnery, it says: “If they are successful, harmonious, and conscientious, they should not be angered and one should not go elsewhere. If one goes, one is not free from offenses like staying overnight in a village, crossing a river, or being apart from the group… But if they are unconscientious yet provide support, one may leave them and go elsewhere.” Thus, to avoid cohabitation offenses with unconscientious nuns in cases like taking a second nun, serious offenses like crossing a river are permitted, showing that cohabitation with the unconscientious is a graver cause of the decline of the true Dhamma. Teachers do not permit transgressing serious offense conditions to avoid minor offenses or non-offense conditions. Likewise, in the commentary on “non-cohabitation,” it says: “They are called co-trainees because they should train together with all conscientious persons. Since all conscientious ones live together in these actions and none are excluded, this is called cohabitation,” indicating that cohabitation in collective actions is proper only with the conscientious.
Moreover, it is also confirmed because in the commentary, it is explained that refraining from performing communal acts with shameless ones is due to the fact that “the uposatha is not observed, the pavāraṇā is not observed, communal acts are not carried out.” Similarly, in the explanation of the conduct of a bhikkhu who has changed sex while going to a bhikkhuni’s residence, it is stated: “They become supportive and helpful, those conscientious ones; one should not anger them and go elsewhere. If one goes, one is not freed from the offenses of going to another village, crossing a river, spending the night apart, and falling away from the group…[etc.]… they are shameless, but they do provide support; one may, however, abandon even them and go elsewhere.” Thus, because in the cases of accepting a second [nun] and so forth from shameless ones, the transgressions of going across a river, etc., are permitted in order to avoid the offense of living in association, therefore, the offense of living in association with shameless ones is understood to be even more serious, as it is a cause of the decline of the true Dhamma. The teachers do not permit the transgression of a serious offense to avoid a minor offense or to avoid a situation where there is no offense. Similarly, in the commentary on the word ‘non-association’, “Because one should be trained equally with all conscientious individuals, it is called ‘equal training’. Here, since all conscientious ones live together in these acts and so on, and not a single one is seen outside of that, therefore, taking all of those, this is called ‘association’,” thus it is explained that association in a single act and so forth is appropriate only with conscientious ones.
Furthermore, because it is explained in the commentary that “the Uposatha does not stand, the Pavāraṇā does not stand, and Saṅgha transactions do not proceed” when performed with shameless individuals, this also succeeds. Similarly, in the discussion of the conduct of a monk who changes his appearance and goes to a nunnery, it is said, “There are those who are respectful and restrained, and they should not be provoked to go elsewhere. If one goes, one is not free from offenses such as crossing beyond the village boundary, river, or spending the night away… but if they are shameless and yet engage in restraint, even after abandoning them, one is allowed to go elsewhere.” Thus, due to the allowance of living together with shameless individuals in situations like accepting a second meal, etc., for the sake of avoiding offenses related to crossing rivers and other grave offenses, it is understood that the offense of associating with the shameless is a more serious cause for the decline of the true Dhamma. For the teachers do not permit the avoidance of grave offenses by committing minor offenses or non-offenses. Similarly, in the commentary on the Asaṃvāsa rule, it is explained, “Since all respectful individuals train equally, they are called ‘equal in training.’ Here, because all respectful individuals live together in these matters such as legal procedures, not even one is seen outside of it. Therefore, taking all these together, this is called ‘living together.’” Thus, it is shown that only the respectful live together in a single legal procedure, etc.
ID422
Yadi evaṃ kasmā asaṃvāsikesu alajjī na gahitoti? Nāyaṃ virodho, ye gaṇapūrake katvā kataṃ kammaṃ kuppati, tesaṃ pārājikādiapakatattānaññeva asaṃvāsikattena gahitattā. Alajjino pana pakatattabhūtāpi santi, te ce gaṇapūrakā hutvā kammaṃ sādhenti, kevalaṃ katvā agatigamanena karontānaṃ āpattikarā honti sabhāgāpattiāpannā viya aññamaññaṃ. Yasmā alajjitañca lajjitañca puthujjanānaṃ cittakkhaṇapaṭibaddhaṃ, na sabbakālikaṃ. Sañcicca hi vītikkamacitte uppanne alajjino “na puna īdisaṃ karissāmī”ti cittena lajjino honti.
If so, why are the unconscientious not included among those with whom cohabitation is impossible? There is no contradiction, as those whose actions are invalid when done with group-completers are included as non-cohabitants due to their natural state, like having committed a pārājika offense. But some unconscientious ones are in a natural state; if they complete a group and perform an action, they merely cause an offense for those acting with wrong conduct, like those sharing a common offense. For unconscientiousness and conscientiousness in ordinary people are tied to momentary states of mind, not permanent. When a transgressive mind arises intentionally, they are unconscientious, but with the thought “I will not do this again,” they become conscientious.
If so, why is the shameless one not included among those with whom one should not associate? This is not a contradiction, because those who, having become quorum-fillers, cause a properly performed act to be invalid are themselves considered non-associable, as they have not committed an offense requiring expulsion, etc. But there are also shameless ones who have not committed such offenses, and if they become quorum-fillers, they enable the act; they only cause an offense for those who are acting, by partaking in improper behavior, like those who incur a similar offense to each other. Because shamelessness and conscientiousness are connected to the mind-moment of ordinary people, they are not constant. For when a mind bent on intentional transgression arises, shameless ones become conscientious with the thought, “I will not do such a thing again.”
If this is so, why are shameless individuals not included among those who are expelled (asaṃvāsika)? There is no contradiction here. Those who, after completing a legal procedure with a full assembly, have their legal act annulled, are included among the expelled because they have committed offenses such as Pārājika, etc. However, there are also those who are naturally shameless, and if they complete a legal procedure with a full assembly, they are merely committing offenses by going to improper places, like those who commit offenses together. For shamelessness and shame are connected to the momentary states of mind of ordinary people, not constant. When a mind intending to transgress arises, even the shameless may feel shame, thinking, “I will not do such a thing again.”
ID423
Tesu ca ye pesalehi ovadiyamānāpi na oramanti, punappunaṃ karonti, te eva asaṃvasitabbā, na itare lajjidhamme okkantattā, tasmāpi alajjino asaṃvāsikesu agaṇetvā tapparivajjanatthaṃ sodhetvāva uposathādikaraṇaṃ anaññātaṃ. Tathā hi “pārisuddhiṃ āyasmanto ārocetha, pātimokkhaṃ uddisissāmī”tiādinā (mahāva. 134) aparisuddhāya parisāya uposathakaraṇassa ayuttatā pakāsitā, “yassa siyā āpatti, so āvikareyya…pe… phāsu hotī”ti (mahāva. 134) evaṃ alajjimpi lajjidhamme patiṭṭhāpetvā uposathakaraṇappakāro ca vutto, “kaccittha parisuddhā…pe… parisuddhetthāyasmanto”ti (pārā. 233) ca pārisuddhiuposathe “parisuddho ahaṃ, bhante, parisuddhoti maṃ dhārethā”ti (mahāva. 168) ca evaṃ uposathaṃ karontānaṃ parisuddhatā ca pakāsitā, vacanamattena anoramantānañca uposathapavāraṇaṭṭhapanavidhi ca vutto, sabbathā lajjidhammaṃ anokkamantehi saṃvāsassa ayuttatāya nissayadānaggahaṇapaṭikkhepo, tajjanīyādiniggahakammakaraṇaukkhepanīyakammakaraṇena sānuvattakaparisassa alajjissa asaṃvāsikattapāpanavidhi ca vutto, tasmā yathāvuttehi suttantanayehi, aṭṭhakathāvacanehi ca pakatattehipi apakatattehipi sabbehi alajjīhi ekakammādisaṃvāso na vaṭṭati, karontānaṃ āpatti eva dummaṅkūnaṃ puggalānaṃ niggahatthāyeva sabbasikkhāpadānaṃ paññattattāti niṭṭhamettha gantabbaṃ. Teneva dutiyasaṅgītiyaṃ pakatattāpi alajjino vajjiputtakā yasattherādīhi mahantena vāyāmena saṅghato viyojitā. Na hi tesu pārājikādiasaṃvāsikāpatti atthi, tehi dīpitānaṃ dasannaṃ vatthūnaṃ lahukāpattivisayattāti vuttaṃ.
Among them, those who, despite being admonished by the virtuous, do not desist and repeat their actions should not be cohabited with, unlike others who step into the quality of conscientiousness. Thus, the unconscientious are not counted among non-cohabitants, and to avoid them, Uposatha and similar actions should be performed only after purification, as is well-known. Indeed, “Declare your purity, venerables, I will recite the Pātimokkha” (mahāva. 134) shows the impropriety of performing Uposatha with an impure assembly. “Let him who has an offense declare it… it becomes comfortable” (mahāva. 134) describes how even the unconscientious are established in conscientiousness for Uposatha. “Is the assembly pure here… you are pure, venerables” (pārā. 233) and “I am pure, sir, regard me as pure” (mahāva. 168) declare the purity of those performing Uposatha. A method for suspending Uposatha and Invitation for those who do not desist verbally is stated, as is the prohibition of giving dependence or cohabitation with those wholly unstepping into conscientiousness, along with methods for censuring them through actions like censure or suspension, leading the compliant assembly to deem the unconscientious as non-cohabitants. Thus, by the methods of the discourses, commentaries, and both natural and unnatural unconscientious persons, cohabitation in collective actions is not permissible; doing so incurs an offense, as all training rules are established to censure intractable persons.
And among them, only those who, even when advised by those of good character, do not desist, and repeatedly commit [offenses], are to be unassociated with, not others, because of their inclining to the state of conscientiousness; therefore, without including shameless ones among those with whom association is forbidden, performing the uposatha and so forth after purifying [the assembly] for the purpose of excluding them is permitted. Thus, by stating, “Venerable sirs, announce your purity, I will recite the Pātimokkha” (mahāva. 134), the impropriety of performing the uposatha with an impure assembly is revealed. And the method of performing the uposatha, establishing even a shameless one in the state of conscientiousness, is stated, “If anyone has an offense, he should declare it…[etc.]… it is proper” (mahāva. 134). And in the purity-uposatha, by stating, “Are you pure in this?…[etc.]… Venerable sirs, you are pure in this” (pārā. 233), and “I am pure, venerable sir, consider me as pure” (mahāva. 168), the purity of those performing the uposatha is revealed. And for those who do not desist merely by words, the procedure for suspending the uposatha and pavāraṇā is stated. Because association with those who do not incline to the state of conscientiousness in any way is improper, the prohibition of giving or taking requisites is stated; the method of causing the non-associability of a shameless one with his retinue, by performing the acts of censure, such as the act of demotion, and the act of suspension, is stated. Therefore, according to the aforementioned Suttanta methods and commentary statements, association in a single act and so on is not appropriate with any shameless ones, whether they have committed an offense or not, since all the precepts are established for the sake of restraining unmanageable individuals; this is the conclusion to be reached here. For this very reason, during the Second Council, the shameless Vajjiputtakas, though they had not committed an offense, were separated from the Saṅgha by the elders, such as Yasa, with great effort. For they had no offense of expulsion or other associable offenses; it has been stated that the ten points they presented were related to minor offenses.
Among them, those who, even when advised by the virtuous, do not refrain and repeatedly commit offenses, are the ones who should not be allowed to live together. Others, who have entered into the nature of shame, are not included. Therefore, even shameless individuals are not included among the expelled, but they should be purified by avoiding them for the sake of distancing oneself from them, and then the Uposatha, etc., should be performed. For it is shown that performing the Uposatha in an impure assembly is improper, as stated, “Venerable ones, declare your purity; I will recite the Pātimokkha,” etc. (Mahāvagga 134). It is also said, “Whoever has an offense should confess it… so that he may be at ease” (Mahāvagga 134). Thus, even the shameless are established in the nature of shame, and the method of performing the Uposatha is explained. In the Pārisuddhi Uposatha, it is said, “Is the assembly pure?… The assembly is pure, venerable ones” (Pārā. 233), and “I am pure, venerable one; consider me pure” (Mahāvagga 168). Thus, the purity of those performing the Uposatha is shown. The procedure for stopping the Uposatha and Pavāraṇā for those who do not refrain even after being spoken to is also explained. In all cases, it is improper to live together with those who do not enter into the nature of shame. The refusal to give dependence, the performance of Tajjanīya, etc., legal procedures, and the suspension of legal procedures are explained as methods for making the shameless expelled from the Saṅgha. Therefore, according to the Suttanta method and the commentary, even naturally shameless individuals, like the expelled, do not live together in a single legal procedure, etc. For those who commit offenses, it is for the sake of restraining wicked individuals that all training rules are laid down. This should be understood as the conclusion here. Thus, even naturally shameless individuals, like the Vajjiputtakas, were expelled from the Saṅgha by the great effort of elders like Yasa. For they did not have offenses such as Pārājika that would make them expelled, but because of the ten light offenses they committed, it is said.
ID424
Tassa santiketi mahārakkhitattherassa santike.
“In his presence” means in the presence of the elder Mahārakkhita.
Tassa santiketi means in the presence of Elder Mahārakkhita.
In his presence means in the presence of the Elder Mahārakkhita.
ID425
Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, a commentary on the Vinaya collection,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is an explanation of the collection of the Vinaya,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,
ID426
Rūpiyādipaṭiggahaṇavinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma
The discussion on the determination regarding the acceptance of silver and so forth is called
is the chapter called the Explanation of the Determination of Accepting Gold and Silver, etc.,
The twelfth chapter, named “The Discussion on the Determination of Accepting Money, etc.”
ID427
Dvādasamo paricchedo.
The twelfth chapter.
the Twelfth Chapter.
Is concluded.
ID428
ID429
69. Evaṃ rūpiyādipaṭiggahaṇavinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni dānavissāsaggāhalābhapariṇāmanavinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ “dānavissāsaggāhehī”tiādimāha. Tattha dīyate dānaṃ, cīvarādivatthuṃ ārammaṇaṃ katvā pavatto alobhappadhāno kāmāvacarakusalakiriyacittuppādo. Sasanaṃ sāso, sasu hiṃsāyanti dhātu, hiṃsananti attho, vigato sāso etasmā gāhāti vissāso. Gahaṇaṃ gāho, vissāsena gāho vissāsaggāho. Visesane cettha karaṇavacanaṃ, vissāsavasena gāho, na theyyacittavasenāti attho. Lacchateti lābho, cīvarādivatthu, tassa lābhassa. Pariṇamiyate pariṇāmanaṃ, aññesaṃ atthāya pariṇatassa attano, aññassa vā pariṇāmanaṃ, dāpananti attho. Dānavissāsaggāhehi lābhassa pariṇāmananti ettha uddese samabhiniviṭṭhassa “dāna”nti padassa atthavinicchayo tāva paṭhamaṃ evaṃ veditabboti yojanā. Attano santakassa cīvarādiparikkhārassa dānanti sambandho. Yassa kassacīti sampadānaniddeso, yassa kassaci paṭiggāhakassāti attho.
69. Having explained the determination regarding the acceptance of silver and so forth, now to explain the determination regarding giving, trust-taking, and redirection of gains, it begins: “With giving, trust-taking”. Therein, what is given is dānaṃ, a wholesome volitional consciousness of the sense sphere, rooted in non-greed, arising with robes and other items as its object. Sāsa means instruction; the root “sas” means to harm, i.e., harming; freedom from harm in taking is vissāso (trust). Taking is gāho; taking with trust is vissāsaggāho (trust-taking). Here, the instrumental case is specific, meaning taking with trust, not with a thieving mind. Gain is lābho, robes and other items; its redirection is pariṇāmanaṃ, redirecting it for others’ benefit or giving it to oneself or another. “With giving, trust-taking, the redirection of gains”—in this enumeration, the meaning of the word “dāna” entered into should first be understood thus. The connection is: giving one’s own robes and requisites. “To anyone” is a dative specification, meaning to any recipient.
69. Having thus explained the determination of accepting gold and silver, etc., now, in order to explain the determination of giving, confident acceptance, gain, and dedication, he states, starting with “dānavissāsaggāhehī”. Therein, what is given is dāna, the arising of wholesome volitional kamma-bound consciousness, primarily characterized by non-greed, taking the object of robe-material, etc. Command is sāsa, the root is ‘sasu’, meaning to injure, injury is the meaning, departed from this acceptance is the injury, thus vissāsa. Taking is gāha, confident taking is vissāsaggāha. Here, the instrumental word is used in the sense of an explanation; taking based on trust, not based on a mind of theft, is the meaning. What is obtained is gain, robe-material, etc., of this gain. Dedication is pariṇāmanaṃ, transferring one’s own, which has been dedicated for the sake of others, to another, meaning giving. In Dānavissāsaggāhehi lābhassa pariṇāmana the word “dāna,” found centrally in the statement, its determination in meaning should first be thus known, this is the connection. The giving of one’s own robe-material requisites, that is the relation. Yassa kassacīti indicates recipient, to any recipient at all is the meaning.
69. Having discussed the determination of accepting money, etc., now to discuss the determination of giving, trust, acceptance, and transfer of gain, it begins with “by giving, trust, and acceptance.” Here, giving (dāna) is the act of giving, having as its object requisites such as robes, etc., and is a kāmāvacara wholesome consciousness rooted in non-greed. Trust (vissāsa) is explained as follows: the root “sāsa” means to harm, but here it means the absence of harm. Acceptance (gāha) is the act of taking, and trust-acceptance (vissāsaggāha) is taking with trust. Here, the instrumental case is used to indicate that it is taking with trust, not with a thieving mind. Gain (lābha) refers to requisites such as robes, etc. Transfer (pariṇāmana) means transferring for the sake of others, either one’s own or another’s. Thus, in the phrase “by giving, trust, and acceptance, the transfer of gain,” the meaning of the word “giving” should first be understood as follows: the connection is with the giving of one’s own requisites such as robes, etc. “To whomever” is an explanation of the recipient, meaning to whichever recipient.
ID430
Yadidaṃ “dāna”nti vuttaṃ, tattha kiṃ lakkhaṇanti āha “tatridaṃ dānalakkhaṇa”nti. “Idaṃ tuyhaṃ demī”ti vadatīti idaṃ tivaṅgasampannaṃ dānalakkhaṇaṃ hotīti yojanā. Tattha idanti deyyadhammanidassanaṃ. Tuyhanti paṭiggāhakanidassanaṃ. Demīti dāyakanidassanaṃ. Dadāmītiādīni pana pariyāyavacanāni. Vuttañhi “deyyadāyakapaṭiggāhakā viya dānassā”ti, “tiṇṇaṃ sammukhībhāvā kusalaṃ hotī”ti ca. “Vatthupariccāgalakkhaṇattā dānassā”ti idaṃ pana ekadesalakkhaṇakathanameva, kiṃ evaṃ dīyamānaṃ sammukhāyeva dinnaṃ hoti, udāhu parammukhāpīti āha “sammukhāpi parammukhāpi dinnaṃyeva hotī”ti. Tuyhaṃ gaṇhāhītiādīsu ayamattho – “gaṇhāhī”ti vutte “demī”ti vuttasadisaṃ hoti, tasmā mukhyato dinnattā sudinnaṃ hoti, “gaṇhāmī”ti ca vutte mukhyato gahaṇaṃ hoti, tasmā suggahitaṃ hoti. “Tuyhaṃ mayha”nti imāni pana paṭiggāhakapaṭibandhatākaraṇe vacanāni. Tava santakaṃ karohītiādīni pana pariyāyato dānaggahaṇāni, tasmā dudinnaṃ duggahitañca hoti. Loke hi apariccajitukāmāpi puna gaṇhitukāmāpi “tava santakaṃ hotū”ti niyyātenti yathā taṃ kusarañño mātu rajjaniyyātanaṃ. Tenāha “neva dātā dātuṃ jānāti, na itaro gahetu”nti. Sace panātiādīsu pana dāyakena paññattiyaṃ akovidatāya pariyāyavacane vuttepi paṭiggāhako attano paññattiyaṃ kovidatāya mukhyavacanena gaṇhāti, tasmā “suggahita”nti vuttaṃ.
Regarding what is called “dāna”, what is its characteristic? It says: “Here is the characteristic of giving”. “I give this to you” involves the characteristic of giving complete with three factors. Therein, “this” indicates the object to be given, “to you” the recipient, and “I give” the giver. “I am giving” and so forth are synonymous expressions. It is said: “Like the object, giver, and recipient of giving,” and “With the presence of all three, it becomes wholesome.” “Due to the characteristic of relinquishing the object” is merely a partial characteristic. Is what is thus given only given in person, or also remotely? It says: “It is given whether in person or remotely”. In phrases like “Take it for yourself”, the meaning is: when “take” is said, it is like saying “I give,” so it is primarily given and thus well-given; when “I take” is said, it is primarily taken and thus well-taken. “For you, for me” are terms linking to the recipient. “Make it your own” and so forth are secondary expressions of giving and taking, so it is poorly given and poorly taken. In the world, even those unwilling to relinquish or take back say: “Let it be yours,” like King Kusa’s mother relinquishing her kingdom. Hence it says: “Neither does the giver know how to give, nor the other to take”. In “If, however” and so forth, even if the giver, unskilled in designation, uses a secondary term, the recipient, skilled in designation, takes it with a primary term, so it is said: “well-taken”.
Concerning this which has been stated as “dāna,” what is the characteristic? he states “tatridaṃ dānalakkhaṇa”nti. “I give this to you”, in stating this, the characteristic of giving, complete with three factors, exists, that is the connection. Herein, idanti indicates the object to be given. Tuyhanti indicates the recipient. Demīti indicates the giver. But Dadāmīti and so on are synonymous expressions. For it has been said, “Like the thing to be given, the giver, and the recipient, so is giving,” and “Wholesomeness arises from the presence of the three.” However, stating that “giving has the characteristic of relinquishing an object” is only stating a partial characteristic. As it is being given thus, is it given only when face to face, or is it also given when not face to face?, he says “sammukhāpi parammukhāpi dinnaṃyeva hotī”ti. In Tuyhaṃ gaṇhāhīti etc., this is the meaning – when “take it” is stated, it is equivalent to stating “I give,” therefore, because it is principally given, it is well-given, and when “I take it” is stated, taking principally occurs, therefore it is well-taken. But Tuyhaṃ mayhanti these are statements in making the recipient-bound [object]. But, Tava santakaṃ karohīti etc., are secondarily giving and taking, therefore it is poorly-given and poorly-taken. For in the world, even those unwilling to relinquish, and even those wishing to take back, transfer [ownership] by stating, “May it be yours,” just like that gift of the kingdom to his mother by King Kusarañña. Therefore, he said, “neva dātā dātuṃ jānāti, na itaro gahetu”nti. But in Sace panāti etc., although the giver, due to lack of skill in conventional expression, speaks in a secondary expression, the recipient, due to his skill in conventional expression, takes with a primary expression; therefore, it is said “suggahita”nti.
When it is said “giving,” what is its characteristic? It is explained as “the characteristic of giving.” The phrase “I give this to you” constitutes the threefold characteristic of giving. Here, “this” indicates the object to be given. “To you” indicates the recipient. “I give” indicates the giver. “I give,” etc., are synonymous expressions. It is said, “Like the object, giver, and recipient, giving is wholesome when the three are present.” “Whether given in person or not, it is still given.” In expressions like “take it,” the meaning is that when “take” is said, it is similar to saying “I give,” and thus it is “well-given.” When “I take” is said, it primarily means taking, and thus it is “well-taken.” Expressions like “yours” and “mine” are used to indicate the recipient’s connection. “Make it yours” etc., are indirect ways of accepting gifts, and thus they are “poorly given and poorly taken.” In the world, even those who do not wish to relinquish or wish to take back say, “Let it be yours,” like a king giving his mother the kingdom. Thus, it is said, “Neither the giver knows how to give, nor the other how to take.” “But if” etc., indicates that even if the giver uses indirect expressions due to lack of skill in formulation, the recipient, being skilled, takes it with a direct expression, and thus it is said to be “well-taken.”
ID431
Sace pana ekotiādīsu pana dāyako mukhyavacanena deti, paṭiggāhakopi mukhyavacanena paṭikkhipati, tasmā dāyakassa pubbe adhiṭṭhitampi cīvaraṃ dānavasena adhiṭṭhānaṃ vijahati, pariccattattā attano asantakattā atirekacīvarampi na hoti, tasmā dasāhātikkamepi āpatti na hoti. Paṭiggāhakassapi na paṭikkhipitattā attano santakaṃ na hoti, tasmā atirekacīvaraṃ na hotīti dasāhātikkamepi āpatti natthi. Yassa pana ruccatīti ettha pana imassa cīvarassa assāmikattā paṃsukūlaṭṭhāne ṭhitattā yassa ruccati, tena paṃsukūlabhāvena gahetvā paribhuñjitabbaṃ, paribhuñjantena pana dāyakena pubbaadhiṭṭhitampi dānavasena adhiṭṭhānassa vijahitattā puna adhiṭṭhahitvā paribhuñjitabbaṃ itarena pubbe anadhiṭṭhitattāti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
“If, however, one” and so forth: if the giver gives with a primary term and the recipient refuses with a primary term, the robe previously determined by the giver loses its determination through giving; being relinquished, it is not his own, nor an extra robe, so no offense arises even after ten days. For the recipient, since it is not refused, it does not become his own, so it is not an extra robe, and no offense arises after ten days. “For whoever desires it”: since this robe, being ownerless, stands as refuse-rags, whoever desires it may take it as refuse-rags and use it. The user, even if it was previously determined by the giver, must determine it again due to the determination being lost through giving; the other uses it without prior determination.
But in Sace pana ekoti etc., the giver gives with a primary expression, but the recipient refuses with a primary expression; therefore, even the robe that was previously designated by the giver relinquishes its designation as a gift, due to being relinquished, not being one’s own, it is not even an extra robe; therefore, even when ten days have passed, there is no offense. And because the recipient has not refused it, it does not become his own; therefore, it is not an extra robe, and so even when ten days have passed, there is no offense. In Yassa pana ruccatīti, however, because this robe is ownerless, as it stands in the place of a dust-heap robe, whoever desires it should take it as a dust-heap robe and use it. But while using it, because the designation as a gift, even though previously designated by the giver, has been relinquished, it should be designated again and used; by the other one because it was not previously designated, this should be understood.
“But if one” etc., indicates that if the giver gives with a direct expression and the recipient refuses with a direct expression, then the giver’s earlier determination to give the robe as a gift is abandoned, and since it is relinquished, it is no longer his own, and thus even if the extra robe is kept beyond ten days, there is no offense. Since the recipient did not refuse, it is not his own, and thus even if the extra robe is kept beyond ten days, there is no offense. “To whomever it pleases” indicates that since this robe has no owner and is in the state of being a rag, whoever wishes may take it as a rag and use it. However, since the giver’s earlier determination to give it as a gift is abandoned, it should be determined again before using it, as it was not determined earlier by the other.
ID432
Itthannāmassa dehītiādīsu pana āṇatyatthe pavattāya pañcamīvibhattiyā vuttattā āṇattena paṭiggāhakassa dinnakāleyeva paṭiggāhakassa santakaṃ hoti, na tato pubbe, pubbe pana āṇāpakasseva, tasmā “yo pahiṇati, tasseva santaka”nti vuttaṃ. Itthannāmassa dammīti pana paccuppannatthe pavattāya vattamānavibhattiyā vuttattā tato paṭṭhāya paṭiggāhakasseva santakaṃ hoti, tasmā “yassa pahīyati, tassa santaka”nti vuttaṃ. Tasmāti iminā āyasmatā revatattherena āyasmato sāriputtassa cīvarapesanavatthusmiṃ bhagavatā desitesu adhiṭṭhānesu idha vuttalakkhaṇena asammohato jānitabbanti dasseti.
In “Give it to so-and-so” and so forth, since it is stated in the fifth case implying command, it becomes the recipient’s property only at the time of giving through command, not before, when it belongs to the commander. Thus it says: “It belongs to the one who sends it”. In “I give it to so-and-so”, stated in the present tense, it becomes the recipient’s property from that point, so it says: “It belongs to the one for whom it is sent”. “Therefore” indicates that this should be understood without confusion based on the determinations taught by the Blessed One in the case of Venerable Revata sending a robe to Venerable Sāriputta.
But in Itthannāmassa dehīti etc., because it is stated with the fifth case-ending functioning in the sense of a command, the recipient’s ownership occurs only when it is given by the person ordered, not before; but before that, it belongs to the one who issued the command; therefore, it is stated, “yo pahiṇati, tasseva santaka”nti. But Itthannāmassa dammīti is stated with the present tense case-ending functioning in the sense of the present time, from that time onwards it belongs only to the recipient; therefore, it is stated, “yassa pahīyati, tassa santaka”nti. By stating Tasmāti, he shows that in the story of Venerable Revata sending a robe to Venerable Sāriputta, among the designations taught by the Blessed One, he knew without confusion according to the characteristics stated here.
“Give it to so-and-so” etc., uses the fifth case ending to indicate a command, and thus at the time of giving, it becomes the recipient’s own, not before. Before that, it belongs to the one who commands. Thus, it is said, “It belongs to the one who sends it.” “I give it to so-and-so” uses the present tense to indicate that from that time onward, it belongs to the recipient. Thus, it is said, “It belongs to the one to whom it is given.” “Therefore” indicates that the Elder Revata, in the story of sending robes to the Elder Sāriputta, taught by the Buddha, shows that one should understand without confusion the determinations explained here with these characteristics.
ID433
Tattha dvādhiṭṭhitaṃ, svādhiṭṭhitanti ca na ticīvarādhiṭṭhānaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, atha kho sāmike jīvante vissāsaggāhacīvarabhāvena ca sāmike mate matakacīvarabhāvena ca gahaṇaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, tato pana dasāhe anatikkanteyeva ticīvarādhiṭṭhānaṃ vā parikkhāracoḷādhiṭṭhānaṃ vā vikappanaṃ vā kātabbaṃ. Yo pahiṇatīti dāyakaṃ sandhāyāha, yassa pahīyatīti paṭiggāhakaṃ.
Therein, “twice determined, well-determined” does not refer to the determination of the three robes but to taking it as a trust-taken robe while the owner lives or as a deceased’s robe after the owner’s death. Within ten days, it must be determined as one of the three robes, a requisite cloth, or placed under shared ownership.
There, dvādhiṭṭhitaṃ, svādhiṭṭhitanti is not said referring to the triple-robe designation; rather, it is said referring to taking with the owner alive as a robe obtained through confident acceptance, and with the owner dead as a deceased person’s robe. But after that, before ten days have passed, either the triple-robe designation, or the designation of personal belongings, or the determination should be made. Yo pahiṇatīti he says referring to the giver, yassa pahīyatīti referring to the recipient.
Here, “determined by two” and “self-determined” do not refer to the determination of the three robes, but rather to the taking of robes based on trust while the owner is alive and as inheritance after the owner’s death. Before the ten days have passed, the determination of the three robes or the determination of the cloth as a requisite should be made. “The one who sends” refers to the giver, and “the one to whom it is given” refers to the recipient.
ID434
Pariccajitvā…pe… na labhati, āharāpento bhaṇḍagghena kāretabboti attho. Attanā…pe… nissaggiyanti iminā parasantakabhūtattaṃ jānanto theyyapasayhavasena acchindanto pārājiko hotīti dasseti. Porāṇaṭīkāyaṃ pana “sakasaññāya vinā gaṇhanto bhaṇḍaṃ agghāpetvā āpattiyā kāretabbo”ti vuttaṃ. Sakasaññāya vināpi tāvakālikapaṃsukūlasaññādivasena gaṇhanto āpattiyā na kāretabbo. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana pasayhākāraṃ sandhāya vadati. Tenāha “acchindato nissaggiya”nti. Sace pana…pe… vaṭṭatīti tuṭṭhadānaṃ āha, atha panātiādinā kupitadānaṃ. Ubhayathāpi sayaṃ dinnattā vaṭṭati, gahaṇe āpatti natthīti attho.
“Having relinquished… does not obtain”: the one bringing it must compensate with the value of the goods. “By oneself… subject to forfeiture”: this shows that one knowingly taking another’s property by force with a thieving mind incurs a pārājika offense. In the old commentary, it says: “One taking without ownership perception must compensate the value and incurs an offense.” But one taking without ownership perception, as temporary or refuse-rags, does not incur an offense. The commentary refers to forceful taking, hence it says: “Taking by force is subject to forfeiture”. “If, however… it is permissible” refers to giving with satisfaction; “But if” and so forth refers to giving with dissatisfaction. In both cases, since it is self-given, it is permissible, and there is no offense in taking.
Pariccajitvā…pe… na labhati, he should have it made at the price of the goods, that is the meaning. With Attanā…pe… nissaggiyanti he shows that one who knowingly snatches away what belongs to another by force or theft is one who has committed a defeat. But in the Porāṇaṭīkā, it is stated, “One who takes without his own consent should be made to pay the value of the goods and be dealt with for the offense.” One who takes even without his own consent, for the time being, with the perception of a dust-heap robe, etc., should not be dealt with for the offense. But the commentary speaks referring to the case of force. Therefore, he said, “acchindato nissaggiya”nti. Sace pana…pe… vaṭṭatīti states a gift given out of delight; atha panāti and so on, a gift given out of displeasure. In both cases, because it is given by himself, it is allowable; in taking it, there is no offense, that is the meaning.
“Having relinquished… one does not obtain,” means that one should have it brought by a messenger or obtained through bargaining. “By oneself… relinquished” indicates that knowing it belongs to another, if one takes it by force, one commits a Pārājika offense. In the old commentary, it is said, “If one takes goods without the owner’s consent, one should be made to pay the value of the goods as an offense.” Even if one takes without the owner’s consent, thinking it is temporary or a rag, one is not made to pay an offense. The commentary, however, refers to taking by force. Thus, it is said, “If one takes by force, it is relinquished.” “But if” etc., refers to a gift given willingly, while “but if” etc., refers to a gift given in anger. In both cases, since it is given by oneself, there is no offense in taking it.
ID435
Mama santike…pe… evaṃ pana dātuṃ na vaṭṭatīti vatthupariccāgalakkhaṇattā dānassa evaṃ dadanto apariccajitvā dinnattā dānaṃ na hotīti na vaṭṭati, tato eva dukkaṭaṃ hoti. Āharāpetuṃ pana vaṭṭatīti pubbe “akarontassa na demī”ti vuttattā yathāvuttaupajjhāyaggahaṇādīni akaronte ācariyasseva santakaṃ hotīti katvā vuttaṃ. Karonte pana antevāsikassa santakaṃ bhaveyya sabbaso apariccajitvā dinnattā. Sakasaññāya vijjamānattā “āharāpetuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ siyā. Ṭīkāyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.635) pana “evaṃ dinnaṃ bhatisadisattā āharāpetuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ. Bhatisadise satipi kamme kate bhati laddhabbā hoti, tasmā āropetuṃ na vaṭṭeyya. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.635) pana “āharāpetuṃ vaṭṭatīti kamme akate bhatisadisattā vutta”nti vuttaṃ, tena kamme kate āharāpetuṃ na vaṭṭatīti siddhaṃ. Upajjhaṃ gaṇhissatīti sāmaṇerassa dānaṃ dīpeti, tena ca sāmaṇerakāle datvā upasampannakāle acchindatopi pācittiyaṃ dīpeti. Ayaṃ tāva dāne vinicchayoti iminā dānavinicchayādīnaṃ tiṇṇaṃ vinicchayānaṃ ekaparicchedakatabhāvaṃ dīpeti.
“At my place… but it should not be given thus”: due to the characteristic of relinquishing the object in giving, giving thus without relinquishing it is not giving, so it is not permissible and incurs a dukkaṭa offense. “But it is permissible to have it brought”: since it was said earlier, “I won’t give it unless it is done,” it remains the teacher’s property if the tasks like taking a preceptor are not done; it is said on that basis. If done, it would belong to the pupil, as it was not fully relinquished. Since ownership perception exists, it might be said: “It is permissible to have it brought.” In the sub-commentary (sārattha. ṭī. 2.635), it says: “What is thus given is like wages, so it is permissible to have it brought.” Even if like wages, wages are received after the task, so it should not be imposed. In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.635), it says: “It is permissible to have it brought” because, if the task is not done, it is like wages, implying it is not permissible if the task is done. It illustrates giving to a novice expecting him to take a preceptor, showing that taking it back after ordination incurs a pācittiya offense. “This is the determination on giving”: this indicates that the determinations on giving, trust-taking, and redirection form one chapter.
Mama santike…pe… evaṃ pana dātuṃ na vaṭṭatīti Because giving has the characteristic of relinquishing an object, one who gives thus, not relinquishing but giving, it is not giving; therefore, it is not allowable, for this very reason, there is a wrong-doing. But Āharāpetuṃ pana vaṭṭatīti is stated after having stated earlier, “I do not give to one who does not do,” assuming that the previously stated taking of the preceptor, etc., is not done, it belongs to the teacher. But if he does, it might belong to the novice, as it was not given with complete relinquishment. Because the notion of ownership is present, it has been said, “it is allowable to cause it to be brought back.” It might be the case that. But in the Ṭīkā (sārattha. ṭī. 2.635), it is stated, “Because what is given thus is similar to wages, it is allowable to cause it to be brought back.” Even when it is similar to wages, when the work is done, the wages should be received; therefore, it would not be allowable to cause it to be brought back. In the Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.635), however, it is stated that “āharāpetuṃ vaṭṭatīti is stated because, when the work is not done, it is similar to wages,” thus it is established that when the work is done, it is not allowable to cause it to be brought back. He explains the giving to the novice that he will take a preceptor; and by giving during the novice-period, and snatching it away during the fully ordained period, he also explains the expiation. By stating Ayaṃ tāva dāne vinicchayoti, he shows the single-chapter nature of the three determinations, of the determination of giving, and so on.
“In my presence… it is not proper to give thus” means that since the characteristic of giving is the relinquishment of the object, giving in this way without relinquishing it is not a gift, and thus it is improper, and a dukkaṭa offense is incurred. “But it is proper to have it brought” means that since it was said earlier, “I will not give to one who does not act,” if the student does not act, it belongs to the teacher, but if the student acts, it belongs to the student, since it is not relinquished. Since the owner’s consent exists, it is said, “It is proper to have it brought.” In the sub-commentary (Sārattha Ṭīkā 2.635), it is said, “Since it is given like a debt, it is proper to have it brought.” Even if the work is done, the debt must be repaid, and thus it is not proper to impose it. In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.635), it is said, “It is proper to have it brought” because it is like a debt when the work is not done, but if the work is done, it is not proper to have it brought. This is established. The phrase “the preceptor will take it” refers to giving to a novice, and even if it is given during the novice period and taken by force after ordination, it incurs a pācittiya offense. “This is the determination regarding giving” indicates that the three determinations—giving, trust, and acceptance—are included in one chapter.
ID436
ID437
70. Anuṭṭhānaseyyā nāma yāya seyyāya sayito yāva jīvitindriyupacchedaṃ na pāpuṇāti, tāva vuccati. Dadamānena ca matakadhanaṃ tāva ye tassa dhane issarā gahaṭṭhā vā pabbajitā vā, tesaṃ dātabbanti ettha ke gahaṭṭhā ke pabbajitā kena kāraṇena tassa dhane issarāti? Gahaṭṭhā tāva gilānupaṭṭhākabhūtā tena kāraṇena gilānupaṭṭhākabhāgabhūte tassa dhane issarā, yesañca vāṇijānaṃ hatthato kappiyakārakena pattādiparikkhāro gāhāpito, tesaṃ yaṃ dātabbamūlaṃ, te ca tassa dhane issarā, yesañca mātāpitūnaṃ atthāya paricchinditvā vatthāni ṭhapitāni, tepi tassa dhanassa issarā. Evamādinā yena yena kāraṇena yaṃ yaṃ parikkhāradhanaṃ yehi yehi gahaṭṭhehi labhitabbaṃ hoti, tena tena kāraṇena te te gahaṭṭhā tassa tassa dhanassa issarā.
70. “A bed without rising” refers to a bed where one lies until the faculty of life is not cut off, so it is called. “While giving, the property of the deceased should be given to those who have authority over it, whether householders or monastics”: which householders, which monastics, and for what reason do they have authority over it? Householders who are attendants of the sick have authority over that property as a share for their service. Those merchants from whom requisites like bowls were obtained through a steward, to whom payment is due, also have authority over it. Parents for whom clothes were set aside also have authority over that property. Thus, for whatever reason any requisite property is to be received by any householders, those householders have authority over that property for that reason.
70. Anuṭṭhānaseyyā means that by which sleep one sleeps does not reach the cutting off of the life faculty, until that time it is called. And by the giver, the wealth of the deceased should be given to those who are owners of his wealth, whether householders or renunciants, in this statement, who are the householders and who are the renunciants, and for what reason are they owners of his wealth? Householders, first of all, are those who attended to him during his illness, for that reason, they are owners of his wealth, which is the share for those who attended to him during his illness. And from the hands of which merchants a robe-requisite was obtained by a proper-conduct maker, for them, whatever is the price to be given, they are also owners of his wealth. And for which parents, having set aside, cloths were kept, they too are owners of his wealth. Thus, in this way, by whatever reason, whatever requisite-wealth should be received by whichever householders, for those reasons, those householders are the owners of that wealth.
70. “The bed of non-rising” is the bed in which one lies until the life faculty is cut off. “While giving, the wealth of the deceased should be given to those who are in charge of it, whether laypeople or monastics.” Here, who are the laypeople, who are the monastics, and why are they in charge of the wealth? First, the laypeople are those who are caregivers for the sick, and thus they are in charge of the wealth because they are the ones who care for the sick. Also, merchants who have received requisites such as bowls, etc., through a steward, are in charge of the wealth that should be given as the principal. Similarly, those who have set aside goods for the sake of their parents are also in charge of that wealth. In this way, for whatever reason certain laypeople are to receive certain requisites or wealth, for that reason they are in charge of that wealth.
ID438
Pabbajitā pana bāhirakā tatheva sati kāraṇe issarā. Pañcasu pana sahadhammikesu bhikkhū sāmaṇerā ca matānaṃ bhikkhusāmaṇerānaṃ dhanaṃ vināpi kāraṇena dāyādabhāvena labhanti, na itarā. Bhikkhunīsikkhamānasāmaṇerīnampi dhanaṃ tāyeva labhanti, na itare. Taṃ pana matakadhanabhājanaṃ catupaccayabhājanavinicchaye āvi bhavissati, bahū pana vinayadharattherā “ye tassa dhanassa issarā gahaṭṭhā vā pabbajitā vā”ti pāṭhaṃ nissāya “matabhikkhussa dhanaṃ gahaṭṭhabhūtā ñātakā labhantī”ti vinicchinanti, tampi vinicchayaṃ tassa ca yuttāyuttabhāvaṃ tattheva vakkhāma.
Those who have gone forth but are outsiders still have authority when there is a reason. However, among the five who share the same Dhamma, monks and novices inherit the wealth of deceased monks and novices by right of inheritance even without a reason, while others do not. The wealth of nuns, female trainees, and female novices is also inherited only by them, not by others. This division of the wealth of the deceased will be evident in the determination regarding the four requisites. However, many Vinaya-expert elders, relying on the text “those who are the owners of that wealth, whether householders or those who have gone forth,” decide that “the wealth of a deceased monk is obtained by his relatives who are householders.” We will discuss that decision and its appropriateness or inappropriateness there as well.
But outcasts, even when there is a reason, are independent. Among the five co-religionists, however, monks and novices, even without a reason, inherit the wealth of deceased monks and novices by virtue of being heirs, but others do not. The wealth of nuns, female probationers, and female novices is inherited by them, but not by others. But that distribution of the deceased’s estate will become clear in the determination of the distribution of the four requisites. Many elders who uphold the Vinaya, however, relying on the reading, “those who are the owners of his wealth, whether householders or monastics,” decide that “the relatives who are householders inherit the wealth of the deceased monk,” we will also discuss that decision and whether is justified or not justified at that point.
However, even among external ascetics, if there is a reason, they have authority. But among the five kinds of fellow monks and novices, when monks or novices die, their wealth is obtained by fellow monks and novices through the right of inheritance without any reason, not by others. The wealth of bhikkhunīs, sikkhamānās, and sāmaṇerīs is also obtained by them, not by others. That matter of inheriting the wealth of the deceased will be clarified in the section on the distribution of the four requisites. However, many elder Vinaya experts, relying on the passage “those who have authority over that wealth, whether laypeople or ascetics,” determine that “the relatives of a deceased monk, if they are laypeople, inherit the monk’s wealth.” That determination and its appropriateness will be discussed there.
ID439
Anattamanassa santakanti “duṭṭhu kataṃ tayā mayā adinnaṃ mama santakaṃ gaṇhantenā”ti vacībhedena vā cittuppādamattena vā domanassappattassa santakaṃ. Yo pana paṭhamaṃyeva “suṭṭhu kataṃ tayā mama santakaṃ gaṇhantenā”ti vacībhedena vā cittuppādamattena vā anumoditvā pacchā kenaci kāraṇena kupito, paccāharāpetuṃ na labhati. Yopi adātukāmo, cittena pana adhivāseti, na kiñci vadatīti ettha tu porāṇaṭīkāyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.131) “cittena pana adhivāsetīti vuttamevatthaṃ vibhāvetuṃ ‘na kiñci vadatī’ti vutta”nti vuttaṃ. Evaṃ sati “cittenā”ti idaṃ adhivāsanakiriyāya karaṇaṃ hoti. Adātukāmoti etthāpi tameva karaṇaṃ siyā, tato “cittena adātukāmo, cittena adhivāsetī”tivacanaṃ ocityasamposakaṃ na bhaveyya. Taṃ ṭhapetvā “adātukāmo”ti ettha kāyenāti vā vācāyāti vā aññaṃ karaṇampi na sambhavati, tadasambhave sati visesatthavācako pana-saddopi niratthako. Na kiñci vadatīti ettha tu vadanakiriyāya karaṇaṃ “vācāyā”ti padaṃ icchitabbaṃ, tathā ca sati aññaṃ adhivāsanakiriyāya karaṇaṃ, aññaṃ vadanakiriyāya karaṇaṃ, aññā adhivāsanakiriyā, aññā vadanakiriyā, tasmā “vuttamevatthaṃ vibhāvetu”nti vattuṃ na arahati, tasmā yopi cittena adātukāmo hoti, pana tathāpi vācāya adhivāseti, na kiñci vadatīti yojanaṃ katvā pana “adhivāsetīti vuttamevatthaṃ pakāsetuṃ na kiñci vadatīti vutta”nti vattumarahati. Ettha tu pana-saddo arucilakkhaṇasūcanattho. “Cittenā”ti idaṃ adātukāmakiriyāya karaṇaṃ, “vācāyā”ti adhivāsanakiriyāya avadanakiriyāya ca karaṇaṃ. Adhivāsanakiriyā ca avadanakiriyāyeva . “Adhivāsetī”ti vutte avadanakiriyāya apākaṭabhāvato taṃ pakāsetuṃ “na kiñci vadatī”ti vuttaṃ, evaṃ gayhamāne pubbāparavacanattho ocityasamposako siyā, tasmā ettakavivarehi vicāretvā gahetabboti.
“Belonging to one who is displeased” means the property of someone who becomes displeased either through verbal expression or mere mental arising, saying, “You did wrong by taking what is mine without it being given.” However, one who initially approves, saying, “You did well by taking what is mine,” either verbally or mentally, and later becomes angry for some reason, cannot demand its return. And one who does not wish to give but consents mentally without saying anything—here, in the old commentary (sārattha. ṭī. 2.131), it is said, “‘Consents mentally’** is stated, and to clarify that meaning, ‘does not say anything’ is added.” In this case, “mentally” becomes the instrument of the act of consent. “Does not wish to give”—here too, it could be the same instrument, but then saying “does not wish to give mentally, consents mentally” would not be logically coherent. Apart from that, in “does not wish to give,” no other instrument such as body or speech is possible. Since that is not possible, the word pana (however), which indicates a specific meaning, becomes meaningless. “Does not say anything”**—here, for the act of speaking, the instrument “by speech” should be desired. In that case, there is one instrument for the act of consent, another for the act of speaking, one act of consent, and another act of speaking. Therefore, it is not appropriate to say “to clarify the stated meaning.” Thus, even one who mentally does not wish to give but consents by speech and does not say anything can be interpreted as follows: “It is said ‘does not say anything’ to clarify the meaning of ‘consents.’” Here, the word pana indicates a sense of displeasure. “Mentally” is the instrument of the act of not wishing to give, while “by speech” is the instrument of both the act of consent and the act of not speaking. The act of consent is indeed the act of not speaking. When “consents” is said, since the act of not speaking is not evident, “does not say anything” is stated to make it clear. When understood this way, the meaning of the earlier and later statements becomes logically coherent. Therefore, it should be grasped after considering these distinctions.
Belonging to one who is displeased, means belonging to one who has become displeased, either by verbal expression such as “You have done badly in taking what was not given to you by me, belonging to me,” or merely by a mental arising. But as for one who initially rejoices, either by verbal expression such as “You have done well in taking what belongs to me,” or merely by a mental arising, but later becomes angry due to some reason, he cannot demand its return. Also, he who is unwilling to give, but mentally consents, and does not say anything. In this regard, in the old commentary (Sārattha. ṭī. 2.131), it is said, “‘but he mentally consents’ it is said in order to explain the meaning already stated, ‘he does not say anything’”. If that’s so, “by mind” becomes the instrument of the act of consent. In the expression, unwilling to give, the same could be the instrument, and, then “unwilling to give by mind, he consents by mind”, the statement would not contribute to conveying propriety. Setting that aside, in “unwilling to give,” no other instrument such as by body or by speech is possible, if that is impossible, the word ‘but’, conveying special meaning, becomes meaningless. In does not say anything, the instrument of verb ‘to say’ is meant to be the word ‘by speech’, and in that case there is one instrument of act of consent and another instrument of act of not saying, another act of consent, another act of not saying; therefore, it is not appropriate to say, “to explain the meaning already stated”. Therefore, the sentence should be construed as “He who is unwilling to give by mind, but, nevertheless, consents by speech, and does not say anything”, and then it should be stated as “in order to explain the meaning already stated, it is said ‘he does not say anything’”. In this case, the word ‘but’ indicates a sense of reluctance. “By mind” is the instrument of the act of unwillingness to give, “by speech” is the instrument of the act of consent and the act of not saying. And the act of consent is actually the act of not saying. Because when “he consents” is stated, the act of not saying is not evident, so to explain that, “he does not say anything” is stated. Taking it this way, the meaning of prior and posterior statements would contribute to convey propriety. Therefore, it should be taken after considering all these explanations.
The belongings of one who is displeased refer to the belongings of someone who has become displeased either through verbal conflict, such as saying, “You have done wrong by taking my belongings without permission,” or merely through the arising of mental displeasure. However, if someone initially expresses approval, either verbally or mentally, saying, “You have done well by taking my belongings,” but later becomes angry for some reason, they cannot reclaim it. Even if one is unwilling to give but mentally consents without saying anything, here the ancient commentary (Sārattha-ṭīkā 2.131) states, “mentally consents** means the meaning is to be understood as stated, and ‘says nothing’ is also mentioned.” Thus, in this case, ”mentally”** refers to the act of consenting. Unwilling to give here also implies the same action, so the statement “unwilling to give mentally, mentally consents” should not be taken as redundant. Apart from this, “unwilling to give” here does not imply any other action, whether bodily or verbal. If such an action were possible, the additional particle “pana” would be meaningless. Says nothing here refers to the act of not speaking, and the word “verbally” should be understood. Thus, if there is one action for consenting and another for not speaking, and consenting is one thing while not speaking is another, then it is not appropriate to say, “the meaning is to be understood as stated.” Therefore, even if one is mentally unwilling to give but verbally consents without saying anything, it is appropriate to explain it as “consents as stated, says nothing.” Here, the particle “pana” indicates a sense of disapproval. “Mentally” refers to the act of being unwilling to give, while “verbally” refers to the act of consenting and not speaking. Consent and not speaking are the same. When “consents” is said, the act of not speaking is implied, and to clarify this, “says nothing” is mentioned. When understood in this way, the meaning of the preceding and following statements becomes consistent. Therefore, this should be carefully considered and understood.
ID440
ID441
71. Lābhapariṇāmanavinicchaye tumhākaṃ sappiādīni ābhatānīti tumhākaṃ atthāya ābhatāni sappiādīni. Pariṇatabhāvaṃ jānitvāpi vuttavidhinā viññāpentena tesaṃ santakameva viññāpitaṃ nāma hotīti āha “mayhampi dethāti vadati, vaṭṭatī”ti.
71. In the determination of redirecting gains, “Ghee and so forth brought for you” means ghee and similar items brought for your sake. Even knowing their redirected state, by informing in the prescribed manner, it is as if their ownership is being indicated. Thus, it is said, “He says, ‘Give some to me too,’ and it is allowable.”
71. In the determination of the transfer of gains, ghee and other things have been brought for you, means ghee and other things have been brought for your sake. Even after knowing that they have been transferred, by asking in the prescribed manner, what is asked for is only what belongs to them, thus he says, “he says, ‘Give to me too,’ it is allowable.”
71. In the determination of transferring gains, “ghee and other things brought for you” means ghee and other things brought for your benefit. Even if one knows the state of transfer, if it is offered according to the prescribed method, it is considered as having been offered as their own. Thus, it is said, “he says, ‘Give to me too,’ and it is permissible.”
ID442
“Pupphampi āropetuṃ na vaṭṭatīti idaṃ pariṇataṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, sace pana ekasmiṃ cetiye pūjitaṃ pupphaṃ gahetvā aññasmiṃ cetiye pūjeti, vaṭṭatī”ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.660) vuttaṃ. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.660) pana niyametvā “aññassa cetiyassa atthāya ropitamālāvacchato”ti vuttattā na kevalaṃ pariṇatabhāvoyeva kathito, atha kho niyametvā ropitabhāvopi. Pupphampīti pi-saddena kuto mālāvacchanti dasseti. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.660) pana “ropitamālāvacchatoti kenaci niyametvā ropitaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, anocitaṃ milāyamānaṃ ocinitvā yattha katthaci pūjetuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ. Ṭhitaṃ disvāti sesakaṃ gahetvā ṭhitaṃ disvā. Imassa sunakhassa mā dehi, etassa dehīti idaṃ pariṇateyeva, tiracchānagatassa pariccajitvā dinne pana taṃ palāpetvā aññaṃ bhuñjāpetuṃ vaṭṭati, tasmā “kattha demātiādinā ekenākārena anāpatti dassitā. Evaṃ pana apucchitepi ’apariṇataṃ ida’nti jānantena attano ruciyā yattha icchati, tattha dāpetuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. Yattha icchatha, tattha dethāti etthāpi “tumhākaṃ ruciyā”ti vuttattā yattha icchati, tattha dāpetuṃ labhati.
“Even offering flowers is not allowable”—this is said regarding what has been redirected. However, if one takes flowers offered at one shrine and offers them at another shrine, it is allowable, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.660). But in the Commentary (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.660), it is specified, “From a garland or shrub planted for the sake of another shrine,” so it is not merely the redirected state that is discussed, but also the state of being specifically planted. “Even flowers”—the particle pi indicates garlands or shrubs as well. In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.660), it is said, “‘From a planted garland or shrub’** refers to something planted with a specific purpose; however, it is allowable to pick what is wilting and offer it anywhere.” “Seeing it standing”** means seeing what remains after taking the rest. “Do not give it to this dog, give it to that one”—this applies only to what has been redirected. However, if it is given after rejecting an animal recipient, it is allowable to chase it away and let another eat it. Thus, “‘Where should we give it?’” and so forth show one way of avoiding an offense. Even if not asked, if one knows “this is not redirected” and gives it according to one’s preference wherever one wishes, it is allowable, as stated in all three glosses. “Give it wherever you wish”—here too, since it says “according to your preference,” one can give it wherever one desires.
“It is not allowable even to offer a flower”, this is said in reference to what has been transferred. But if one takes a flower that has been offered at one shrine and offers it at another shrine, it is allowable,” it is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. 2.660). In the commentary (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.660), however, by specifying “from the flower-garland planted for the sake of another shrine”, not only is the state of being transferred mentioned, but also the state of being planted with a specific intention. By the word even in even a flower, he shows from where to obtain the garland. In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.660), however, it is said, “from the planted flower-garland”, this refers to something planted with a specific intention by someone. Faded flowers that are not fit may be picked and offered anywhere. Seeing it standing, means seeing the remainder standing after taking. Do not give to this dog, give to that one, this applies only to what has been transferred. But if, after giving to an animal, that animal chases the one who gave it away and makes it to eat something else, it is allowable. Therefore, with “Where shall we give?”, and so forth, a single circumstance of non-offense is shown. Even when not asked, if one knows, ‘This is not transferred’, it is allowable to have it given where one desires, according to one’s own preference, it is said so in all the three sub-commentaries. Give where you wish, even here, because it is said, “according to your preference,” one may have it given wherever one wishes.
“It is not permissible to transfer flowers” refers to flowers that have been dedicated. However, if a flower offered at one shrine is taken and offered at another shrine, it is permissible, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha-ṭīkā 2.660). In the commentary (Pārājika Aṭṭhakathā 2.660), it is specified that “a garland planted for the sake of another shrine” is mentioned, so not only the state of transfer is discussed, but also the state of being planted. “Flowers too” uses the particle “pi” to indicate from where the garland is taken. The Vimativinodanī (Vimati-ṭīkā 1.660) states, “a garland planted by someone for a specific purpose” refers to one that has been specifically planted. If an unsuitable garland is wilting, it can be picked and offered anywhere. “Seeing it standing” means seeing it remaining after taking the rest. “Do not give to this dog, give to that one” refers to something already transferred. If something is given after abandoning an animal, it is permissible to feed it to another. Therefore, “where should we give?” and so on show non-offense in one way. Even if not asked, if one knows that something has not been transferred, it is permissible to give it wherever one wishes. Thus, it is stated in the three sections. “Give wherever you wish” here also means, “according to your preference,” so one may give wherever one wishes.
ID443
Parivāre (pari. aṭṭha. 329) pana nava adhammikāni dānānīti saṅghassa pariṇataṃ aññasaṅghassa vā cetiyassa vā puggalassa vā pariṇāmeti, cetiyassa pariṇataṃ aññacetiyassa vā saṅghassa vā puggalassa vā pariṇāmeti, puggalassa pariṇataṃ aññapuggalassa vā saṅghassa vā cetiyassa vā pariṇāmetīti evaṃ vuttāni. Nava paṭiggahā paribhogā cāti etesaṃyeva dānānaṃ paṭiggahā ca paribhogā ca. Tīṇi dhammikāni dānānīti saṅghassa ninnaṃ saṅghasseva deti, cetiyassa ninnaṃ cetiyasseva deti, puggalassa ninnaṃ puggalasseva detīti imāni tīṇi. Paṭiggahapaṭibhogāpi tesaṃyeva paṭiggahā ca paribhogā cāti āgataṃ.
In the Parivāra (pari. aṭṭha. 329), nine unrighteous gifts are listed as follows: what is redirected to the Sangha is redirected to another Sangha, a shrine, or an individual; what is redirected to a shrine is redirected to another shrine, the Sangha, or an individual; what is redirected to an individual is redirected to another individual, the Sangha, or a shrine. Nine recipients and uses refer to the recipients and uses of these very gifts. Three righteous gifts are: what is intended for the Sangha is given to the Sangha alone, what is intended for a shrine is given to the shrine alone, and what is intended for an individual is given to the individual alone. The recipients and uses also pertain to these alone, as stated.
In the Parivāra (Pari. Aṭṭha. 329), however, nine unrighteous gifts, transferring what has been transferred to the Saṅgha to another Saṅgha, or to a shrine, or to an individual; transferring what has been transferred to a shrine to another shrine, or to the Saṅgha, or to an individual; transferring what has been transferred to an individual to another individual, or to the Saṅgha, or to a shrine; thus they are stated. Nine receipts and uses, are the receipts and uses of these very gifts. Three righteous gifts, giving what is intended for the Saṅgha to the Saṅgha itself; giving what is intended for a shrine to the shrine itself; giving what is intended for an individual to the individual himself; these are the three. Receipts and uses are also stated as the receipts and uses of these very things.
In the Parivāra (Parivāra Aṭṭhakathā 329), “nine improper gifts” are mentioned: transferring what is dedicated to one Saṅgha to another Saṅgha, shrine, or individual; transferring what is dedicated to one shrine to another shrine, Saṅgha, or individual; and transferring what is dedicated to one individual to another individual, Saṅgha, or shrine. “Nine recipients and uses” refer to the recipients and uses of these gifts. “Three proper gifts” are: what is dedicated to the Saṅgha is given to the Saṅgha alone; what is dedicated to a shrine is given to the shrine alone; and what is dedicated to an individual is given to the individual alone. The recipients and uses are also the same.
ID444
Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is an exposition of the Vinaya compendium,
Thus in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is an explanation of the Vinayasaṅgaha,
Thus, in the Vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanā, which is part of the Vinayālaṅkāra,
ID445
Dānalakkhaṇādivinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma
The ornament of discourse on the determination of the characteristics of giving and so forth
The chapter called the Ornament of the Determination of the Characteristics of Giving, etc.,
the chapter on the determination of the characteristics of gifts, etc.,
ID446
Terasamo paricchedo.
Is the thirteenth chapter.
The Thirteenth Chapter.
is the thirteenth section.
ID447
ID448
72. Evaṃ dānavissāsaggāhalābhapariṇāmanavinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni pathavīvinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ “pathavī”tyādimāha. Tattha pattharatīti pathavī, pa-pubba thara santharaṇeti dhātu, ra-kārassa va-kāro, sasambhārapathavī. Tappabhedamāha “dve pathavī, jātā ca pathavī ajātā ca pathavī”ti. Tāsaṃ visesaṃ dassetuṃ “tattha jātā nāma pathavī”tyādimāha. Tattha suddhapaṃsukā…pe… yebhuyyenamattikāpathavī jātā nāma pathavī hoti. Na kevalaṃ sāyeva, adaḍḍhā pathavīpi “jātā pathavī”ti vuccati. Na kevalaṃ imā dveyeva, yopi paṃsupuñjo vā…pe… cātumāsaṃ ovaṭṭho, sopi “jātā pathavī”ti vuccatīti yojanā. Itaratrapi eseva nayo.
72. Having discussed the determination regarding giving, trust, gains from begging, and redirecting gains, now to discuss the determination regarding the earth, it begins with “earth” and so forth. Therein, it spreads out, thus pathavī—the root is pa-pubba thara santharaṇe (to spread), with ra becoming va, meaning earth with its components. It states its types: “There are two kinds of earth: generated earth and ungenerated earth.” To show their distinction, it begins with “Therein, generated earth is…” Therein, pure soil… up to … mostly clayey earth is called generated earth (jātā pathavī). Not only that, unburnt earth is also called “generated earth.” Not only these two, but also a heap of soil… up to … soaked for four months, that too is called “generated earth,” as the interpretation goes. The same method applies to the rest.
72. Having thus determined giving, trusting, taking, and transfer of gains, now, to discuss the determination of the earth, he says “earth” and so forth. There, what spreads is earth (pathavī), from the root thar, with the prefix pa-, meaning to spread, the ra-sound becomes va-sound, along with its constituent parts, earth. He states its divisions: “There are two kinds of earth: formed earth and unformed earth.” To show their distinction, he says “Here, formed earth is…” and so forth. Here, pure dust…up to… mostly clay soil is called formed earth. Not only that, but also unburnt earth is called “formed earth.” Not only these two, but also any heap of dust…up to… dampened for four months, that too is called “formed earth,” this is the construction. The same method applies to the other cases.
72. Having discussed the determination of transferring gains, etc., now the determination of earth is discussed, beginning with “earth.” Here, “earth” (pathavī) is so called because it spreads (pattharati). The root is “pa” with “thara” or “santharaṇa,” and the “ra” is changed to “va.” It is earth with its accessories. Its types are stated: “There are two kinds of earth: produced earth and unproduced earth.” To explain their differences, it is said, “Here, produced earth is…” and so on. Here, pure sand… mostly clay earth is called produced earth. Not only that, but even undisturbed earth is called “produced earth.” Not only these two, but even a heap of sand… covered for four months is also called “produced earth.” The same applies elsewhere.
ID449
Tattha suddhā paṃsukāyeva ettha pathaviyā atthi, na pāsāṇādayoti suddhapaṃsukā. Tathā suddhamattikā. Appā pāsāṇā etthāti appapāsāṇā. Itaresupi eseva nayo. Yebhuyyena paṃsukā etthāti yebhuyyenapaṃsukā, aluttasamāsoyaṃ, tathā yebhuyyenamattikā. Tattha muṭṭhippamāṇato upari pāsāṇā. Muṭṭhippamāṇā sakkharā. Kathalāti kapālakhaṇḍādi. Marumpāti kaṭasakkharā. Vālukā vālukāyeva. Yebhuyyenapaṃsukāti ettha tīsu koṭṭhāsesu dve koṭṭhāsā paṃsu, eko pāsāṇādīsu aññatarakoṭṭhāso. Adaḍḍhāpīti uddhanapattapacanakumbhakārātapādivasena tathā tathā adaḍḍhā, sā pana visuṃ natthi, suddhapaṃsuādīsu aññatarāvāti veditabbā. Yebhuyyenasakkharāti bahutarasakkharā. Hatthikucchiyaṃ kira ekaṃ pacchipūraṃ āharāpetvā doṇiyaṃ dhovitvā pathaviyā yebhuyyenasakkharabhāvaṃ ñatvā sayaṃ bhikkhū pokkharaṇiṃ khaṇiṃsūti. Yāni pana majjhe “appapaṃsuappamattikā”ti dve padāni, tāni yebhuyyenapāsāṇādipañcakameva pavisanti. Tesaññeva hi dvinnaṃ pabhedavacanametaṃ, yadidaṃ suddhapāsāṇādiādi.
Therein, “pure soil” means only pure soil is present in this earth, not stones or the like. Similarly, “pure clay.” “With few stones” means there are few stones in it. The same method applies to the others. “Mostly soil” means mostly soil is present here—an uncompounded compound. Similarly, “mostly clay.” Therein, above fist-sized are stones. Fist-sized are pebbles. Shards mean broken pottery and the like. Gravel means coarse gravel. Sand is just sand. “Mostly soil”—here, out of three parts, two parts are soil, and one part is either stones or something else. “Even unburnt” means unburnt in various ways, such as by an oven, cooking pot, potter’s kiln, or sun, but it is not separate; it should be understood as one of the pure soil or similar types. “Mostly pebbles” means predominantly pebbles. It is said that monks, having brought a basketful from an elephant’s belly, washed it in a trough, and, knowing the earth was mostly pebbles, dug a pond themselves. The two phrases in the middle, “with little soil” and “with little clay,” are included in the five categories like “mostly stones,” as they are subdivisions of those same two, namely pure stones and so forth.
Here, only pure dust exists as earth here, not stones, etc., thus it is pure dust. Similarly, pure clay. Few stones are here, thus it is few stones. The same method applies to the others. Mostly dust is here, thus it is mostly dust, this is a non-elided compound. Similarly, mostly clay. There, from the size of a fist and upwards, they are stones. The size of a fist are gravel. Potsherds (Kathalā) are pieces of broken pots, etc. Hard gravel (Marumpā) is gravel from a broken pot. Sand (Vālukā) is just sand. Mostly dust here, out of three portions, two portions are dust, one portion is one of the other things like stones, etc. Also unburnt, means not burnt in various ways such as by placing on a fireplace, baking, in a potter’s fire, and so forth, but it is not separate, but to be understood as one of the pure dust and so on. Mostly gravel, means a great amount of gravel. It is said that, in an elephant’s belly, they brought a basketful and washed it in a trough, and realizing that the earth was mostly gravel, the monks themselves dug a pond. As for the two words in the middle “few dust and few clay”, these enter into the fivefold division of mostly stones, etc. For these very two, is this differentiation, namely, pure stones, etc., and so forth.
Here, “pure sand” means that only sand is present in this earth, not stones, etc. Similarly, “pure clay.” “Few stones” means that there are few stones here. The same applies elsewhere. “Mostly sand” means that sand is mostly present here; this is a compound without elision. Similarly, “mostly clay.” Here, stones larger than a fist are called “stones.” Fist-sized stones are called “gravel.” “Pebbles” are fragments of potsherds, etc. “Grit” is coarse gravel. “Sand” is simply sand. “Mostly sand” here means that in three parts, two parts are sand, and one part is stones, etc. “Undisturbed” means not disturbed by fire, cooking, potters’ work, etc. It is not separate but included in pure sand, etc. “Mostly gravel” means mostly gravel. It is said that in an elephant’s stomach, a full load is brought, washed in a trough, and knowing that the earth is mostly gravel, the monks themselves dig a pond. The two words in the middle, “little sand, little clay,” refer to the five categories of mostly stones, etc. This is a division of two types, namely, pure stones, etc.
ID450
Ettha ca kiñcāpi yebhuyyenapaṃsuṃ appapaṃsuñca pathaviṃ vatvā upaḍḍhapaṃsukāpathavī na vuttā, tathāpi paṇṇattivajjasikkhāpadesu sāvasesapaññattiyāpi sambhavato upaḍḍhapaṃsukāyapi pathaviyā pācittiyamevāti gahetabbaṃ. Keci pana “sabbacchannādīsu upaḍḍhacchanne dukkaṭassa vuttattā idhāpi dukkaṭaṃ yujjatī”ti vadanti, taṃ na yuttaṃ pācittiyavatthukañca anāpattivatthukañca duvidhaṃ pathaviṃ ṭhapetvā aññissā dukkaṭavatthukāya tatiyāya pathaviyā abhāvato. Dveyeva hi pathaviyo vuttā “jātā ca pathavī ajātā ca pathavī”ti, tasmā dvīsu aññatarāya pathaviyā bhavitabbaṃ. Vinayavinicchaye ca sampatte garukalahukesu garukeyeva ṭhātabbattā na sakkā ettha anāpattiyā bhavituṃ. Sabbacchannādīsu pana upaḍḍhe dukkaṭaṃ yuttaṃ tattha tādisassa dukkaṭavatthuno sambhavato. Vimativinodaniyampi (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.86) “appapaṃsumattikāya pathaviyā anāpattivatthubhāvena vuttattā upaḍḍhapaṃsumattikāyapi pācittiyamevāti gahetabbaṃ. Na hetaṃ dukkaṭavatthūti sakkā vattuṃ jātājātavinimuttāya tatiyāya pathaviyā abhāvato”ti vuttaṃ.
Although it mentions earth with mostly soil and little soil but does not mention earth with half soil, still, due to the possibility of a residual designation in the disciplinary rules excluding designations, even for earth with half soil, it should be taken as a pācittiya offense. Some say, “Since a dukkaṭa offense is mentioned for half-covered in cases like fully covered, a dukkaṭa could apply here too,” but that is not appropriate, as there is no third type of earth that would be a dukkaṭa offense apart from the two—earth that is an offense and earth that is not—since only two types of earth are stated: “generated earth and ungenerated earth.” Thus, it must be one of these two. In Vinaya determinations, when both heavy and light offenses are possible, the heavier one prevails, so it cannot be free of offense here. However, in cases like fully covered, a dukkaṭa for half is appropriate because such a dukkaṭa object exists there. The Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.86) also states, “Since earth with little soil or clay is mentioned as free of offense, even earth with half soil or clay should be taken as a pācittiya offense. It cannot be said to be a dukkaṭa object, as there is no third type of earth apart from generated and ungenerated.”
And here, although he mentions mostly dusty earth and little dusty earth, but semi-dusty earth is not mentioned, however, because of the possibility of a residual stipulation in the training rules with a specific intention in the case of ‘completely covered’, it should be understood that there is a pācittiya offence even for semi-dusty earth. Some, however, say, “Because in the case of ‘completely covered’, etc., a dukkaṭa offence is stated, a dukkaṭa offence is appropriate here also,” that is not justified, because apart from the two kinds of earth, that for pācittiya offence, and that for no offence, there is no third kind of earth for a dukkaṭa offence. Only two kinds of earth are mentioned, “formed earth and unformed earth,” therefore, it must be one of the two kinds of earth. And in the Vinayavinicchaya, when a grave and a light offence are possible, one should take the graver one, therefore it is not possible here to have no offence. In the case of “completely covered”, etc., however, a dukkaṭa offence is appropriate because such an object for a dukkaṭa offence is possible there. In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Pācittiya 2.86) as well, it is said, “Because earth with little dust and clay is stated as constituting no offence, earth with semi-dust and clay should also be understood as a pācittiya offence. It is not possible to say that this constitutes a dukkaṭa offence, because there is no third kind of earth apart from formed and unformed.”
Here, although mostly sand and little sand earth are mentioned, half-sand earth is not mentioned. However, since it is possible in the training rules that allow exceptions, half-sand earth also incurs a pācittiya offense. Some say, “In fully covered places, half-covered incurs a dukkaṭa offense, so here too a dukkaṭa is appropriate.” This is not correct, as the pācittiya and non-offense cases are based on two types of earth, and there is no third type of earth for which a dukkaṭa offense applies. Only two types of earth are mentioned: “produced earth and unproduced earth,” so it must be one of these two. In Vinaya determinations, when serious and minor offenses are involved, the serious offense must be upheld, so non-offense is not possible here. In fully covered places, however, a dukkaṭa is appropriate because such a case applies there. The Vimativinodanī (Vimati-ṭīkā, Pācittiya 2.86) also states, “Since little sand and clay earth are mentioned as non-offense cases, half-sand and clay earth also incur a pācittiya offense. It cannot be said that this is a dukkaṭa case, as there is no third type of earth apart from produced and unproduced earth.”
ID451
Khaṇantassa khaṇāpentassa vāti antamaso pādaṅguṭṭhakenapi sammajjanisalākāyapi sayaṃ vā khaṇantassa aññena vā khaṇāpentassa. “Pokkharaṇiṃ khaṇā”ti vadati, vaṭṭatīti “imasmiṃ okāse”ti aniyametvā vuttattā vaṭṭati. “Imaṃ valliṃ khaṇā”ti vuttepi pathavikhaṇanaṃ sandhāya pavattavohārattā imināva sikkhāpadena pācittiyaṃ, na bhūtagāmasikkhāpadena, ubhayampi sandhāya vutte pana dvepi pācittiyāni honti.
“For one who digs or causes to dig” means even with the tip of a toe or a sweeping stick, either digging oneself or causing another to dig. “He says, ‘Dig a pond,’ and it is allowable”—since it is said without specifying “in this place,” it is allowable. “Even if he says, ‘Dig this vine’”—since the expression refers to digging the earth, it is a pācittiya offense under this rule alone, not under the rule about plants. If it refers to both, there are two pācittiya offenses.
Digging or causing to dig, means even with the toe, even with a sweeping twig, either digging oneself or causing another to dig. He says, “Dig a pond,” it is allowable, because it is said without specifying “in this place,” it is allowable. “Dig up this creeper,” even when said, because it is a usage directed towards digging the earth, there is a pācittiya offence according to this very training rule, not according to the training rule on plant life. But when said with reference to both, there are two pācittiya offences.
Digging or causing to dig includes even digging with the tip of the toe or a broomstick, whether one digs oneself or causes another to dig. “Dig a pond,” it is permissible, as it is said without specifying a particular spot. “Dig this creeper,” even if said, refers to digging earth, so it incurs a pācittiya offense under this rule, not under the rule on plants. If both are intended, both pācittiya offenses apply.
ID452
73. Kuṭehīti ghaṭehi. Tanukakaddamoti udakamissakakaddamo, so ca udakagatikattā vaṭṭati. Udakapappaṭakoti udake antobhūmiyaṃ paviṭṭhe tassa uparibhāgaṃ chādetvā tanukapaṃsu vā mattikā vā paṭalaṃ hutvā palavamānā uṭṭhāti, tasmiṃ udake sukkhepi taṃ paṭalaṃ vātena calamānaṃ tiṭṭhati, taṃ udakapappaṭako nāma. Omakacātumāsanti ūnacātumāsaṃ. Ovaṭṭhanti devena ovaṭṭhaṃ. Akatapabbhāreti avalañjanaṭṭhānadassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Tādise hi vammikassa sabbhāvoti. Mūsikukkuraṃ nāma mūsikāhi khaṇitvā bahi katapaṃsurāsi.
73. “With pots” means with jars. “Thin mud” means mud mixed with water, which is allowable due to its watery nature. “Water crust” means when water enters the ground and a thin layer of soil or clay forms over it, floating; even when the water dries, that layer remains, moving with the wind—that is called a water crust. “Less than four months” means less than four months. “Soaked” means soaked by rain. “Without a prepared slope” is said to indicate a place not marked for leveling, as such a termite mound would fully qualify. “Mouse-dog” refers to a heap of soil dug out by mice.
73. With pots (Kuṭehī), means with containers. Thin mud is mud mixed with water, and because it flows with the water, it is allowable. Water-scum (Udakapappaṭako), when water enters the inner earth, a thin layer of dust or clay forms over it, floating and rising. Even when that water dries up, that layer remains, moving with the wind, that is called water-scum. Less than four months old (Omakacātumāsaṃ). Dampened (Ovaṭṭhaṃ), means dampened by rain. In an unprepared anthill, this is said to show the place for clearing. Because in such a place there is the presence of an anthill. Mouse-heap (Mūsikukkuraṃ) is a heap of dust dug out and thrown out by mice.
73. “With pots” means with jars. “Thin mud” is mud mixed with water, and since it flows with water, it is permissible. “Water crust” is a thin layer of sand or clay that forms on the surface of water that has entered the ground. When the water dries, this layer remains and is blown by the wind. This is called a water crust. “Less than four months” means less than four months. “Covered” means covered by rain. “Without a slope” is said to show the place for smearing. Such is the nature of an anthill. “Rat hole” is a pile of earth dug out by rats.
ID453
Eseva nayoti omakacātumāsaṃ ovaṭṭhoyeva vaṭṭatīti attho. Ekadivasampi na vaṭṭatīti ovaṭṭhacātumāsato ekadivasātikkantopi vikopetuṃ na vaṭṭati. Heṭṭhabhūmisambandhepi ca gokaṇṭake bhūmito chinditvā chinditvā uggatattā accuggataṃ matthakato chindituṃ gahetuñca vaṭṭatīti vadanti. Sakaṭṭhāne atiṭṭhamānaṃ katvā pādehi madditvā āloḷitakaddamampi gahetuṃ vaṭṭati.
“The same method” means only what is soaked for less than four months is allowable. “Even one day is not allowable” means even one day beyond four months of soaking cannot be disturbed. Regarding connection to the lower ground, they say that even gokaṇṭaka (a type of grass), when cut repeatedly from the ground, can be cut or taken from the top since it grows upward. Mixing mud by trampling it with feet where it stands is also allowable.
The same method (Eseva nayo), means only that which has been dampened for less than four months is allowable. It is not allowable even for one day, means even one day beyond the four months of dampening, it is not allowable to disturb. And even in the case of gokaṇṭaka growing downwards related to earth below, it is allowable to break and break from ground, and due to rising too much to cut and take from the top, it is said. It is allowable to take even mud that has been stirred by trampling with the feet, making it not stay in its own place.
“The same applies” means that even less than four months of covering is permissible. “Not even for a day” means that even if more than a day has passed since the four months of covering, it is not permissible to disturb it. They say that even if connected to the ground below, if a thorn is cut repeatedly and rises high, it is permissible to cut it from the top. If left in its place, even mud trampled by feet and stirred up can be taken.
ID454
Acchadanantiādinā vuttattā ujukaṃ ākāsato patitavassodakena ovaṭṭhameva jātapathavī hoti, na chadanādīsu patitvā tato pavattaudakena tintanti veditabbaṃ. Tatoti purāṇasenāsanato. Iṭṭhakaṃ gaṇhāmītiādi suddhacittaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. “Udakenāti ujukaṃ ākāsatoyeva patitaudakena. Sace pana aññattha paharitvā patitena udakena temitaṃ hoti, vaṭṭatī”ti vadanti. Maṇḍapatthambhanti sākhāmaṇḍapatthambhaṃ.
From the mention of “without covering” and so forth, it should be understood that only earth soaked directly by rain from the sky becomes generated earth, not that soaked by water falling from coverings or the like. “From there” means from an old dwelling. “I take a brick” and so forth is said with a pure mind in view. “With water” means with water fallen directly from the sky. They say, “If it is moistened by water that struck elsewhere and fell, it is allowable.” “Pillar of a canopy” means a branch used as a canopy pillar.
Because it is stated by covering, etc., only earth dampened by rainwater falling directly from the sky becomes formed earth, not that which is dampened by water that has fallen on roofs, etc., and then flowed from there, it should be understood. From there, means from the old dwelling. I will take a brick, etc., this is said with reference to a pure mind. “With water,” means with water that has fallen directly from the sky. But if it has been moistened with water that has struck somewhere else and fallen, it is allowable,” they say. The post of a leaf-hut, means the post of a leaf-hut made of branches.
“Covering” and so on mean that earth produced by rain falling directly from the sky is considered produced earth, not earth produced by water flowing from roofs, etc. “From there” means from an old dwelling. “I will take a brick” and so on refer to pure intention. “With water” means water falling directly from the sky. However, if water is thrown elsewhere and falls, it is permissible. “Pillar of a pavilion” means the pillar of a branch pavilion.
ID455
74. Uccāletvāti ukkhipitvā. Tena apadesenāti tena lesena. Avisayattā anāpattīti ettha sacepi nibbāpetuṃ sakkā hoti, paṭhamaṃ suddhacittena dinnattā dahatūti sallakkhetvāpi tiṭṭhati, anāpatti. Mahāmattikanti bhittilepanaṃ.
74. “Lifting up” means raising. “By that indication” means by that hint. “No offense due to lack of control”—here, even if it could be extinguished, since it was given with a pure mind initially and one observes it burning, there is no offense. “Large clay” means clay for wall plastering.
74. Lifting up, means raising. With that pretext, means with that excuse. Because it is not within the scope, there is no offence, here, even if it is possible to extinguish it, because it was initially given with a pure mind, even if one observes it thinking, “Let it burn,” there is no offence. Large clay (Mahāmattika), means plaster for walls.
74. “Lifted” means raised. “With that pretext” means with that excuse. “No offense because it is out of scope” means that even if it can be extinguished, since it was given with pure intention initially, one may consider, “Let it burn,” and there is no offense. “Great clay” means plastering.
ID456
Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is an exposition of the Vinaya compendium,
Thus in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is an explanation of the Vinayasaṅgaha,
Thus, in the Vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanā, which is part of the Vinayālaṅkāra,
ID457
Pathavīkhaṇanavinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma
The ornament of discourse on the determination of digging the earth
The chapter called the Ornament of the Determination of Digging the Earth,
the chapter on the determination of digging the earth,
ID458
Cuddasamo paricchedo.
Is the fourteenth chapter.
The Fourteenth Chapter.
is the fourteenth section.
ID459
ID460
75. Evaṃ pathavivinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni bhūtagāmavinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ “bhūtagāmo”tiādimāha. Tattha bhavanti ahuvuñcāti bhūtā, jāyanti vaḍḍhanti jātā vaḍḍhitā cāti attho. Gāmoti rāsi, bhūtānaṃ gāmoti bhūtagāmo, bhūtā eva vā gāmo bhūtagāmo, patiṭṭhitaharitatiṇarukkhādīnametaṃ adhivacanaṃ. Tattha “bhavantī”ti imassa vivaraṇaṃ “jāyanti vaḍḍhantī”ti , “ahuvu”nti imassa “jātā vaḍḍhitā”ti. Evaṃ bhūta-saddo paccuppannātītavisayo hoti. Tenāha vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.90) “bhavantīti vaḍḍhanti, ahuvunti babhuvū”ti. Idāni taṃ bhūtagāmaṃ dassento “bhūtagāmoti pañcahi bījehi jātānaṃ rukkhalatādīnametaṃ adhivacana”nti āha. Latādīnanti ādi-saddena osadhigacchādayo veditabbā.
75. Having discussed the determination regarding the earth, now to discuss the determination regarding plants, it begins with “bhūtagāmo” and so forth. Therein, they come into being and have been (bhavanti ahuvuñca), thus bhūtā—meaning they are born and grow, or have been born and grown. Gāmo means a group; the group of beings is bhūtagāmo, or beings themselves are the group, bhūtagāmo—this is a designation for established green grass, trees, and so forth. Therein, “they come into being” is explained as “they are born and grow,” and “have been” as “have been born and grown.” Thus, the term bhūta applies to both present and past. Hence, the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.90) says, “‘They come into being’** means they grow, ‘have been’ means they were.” Now, to show what this bhūtagāmo is, it says, “Bhūtagāmo means this is a designation for trees, vines, and so forth born from five kinds of seeds.”** “Vines and so forth”—by the word ādi, medicinal plants, bushes, and the like are to be understood.
75. Having thus explained the determination of earth, he now begins to explain the determination of bhūtagāma (vegetation) by saying, “bhūtagāmo” (vegetation), and so on. There, bhūtā means “become” and “have been,” meaning that they are born and grow, or have been born and have grown. Gāmo means a collection; bhūtagāmo means a collection of beings, or bhūtagāmo is the beings themselves are the collection. This is a designation for established green grass, trees, and so on. Here, the explanation of “bhavanti” (they become) is “jāyanti vaḍḍhanti” (they are born and grow), and the explanation of “ahuvuṃ” (they have been) is “jātā vaḍḍhitā” (they have been born and have grown). Thus, the word bhūta refers to both the present and the past. Therefore, the Vimativinodani (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Pācittiya 2.90) says: “bhavanti” (they become) means they grow, “ahuvuṃ” (they have been) means they have become. Now, showing that bhūtagāma, he says, “bhūtagāmo is a designation for trees, creepers, and so on, which have arisen from five kinds of seeds.” By the word “ādīnaṃ” (and so on), one should understand that herbs, bushes, and so forth are included.
75. Having thus explained the determination regarding the earth, now to explain the determination regarding living plants, he begins with “bhūtagāmo” (living plants). Herein, bhūtā means “those that exist” or “have come to be,” and the meaning is that they are born, grow, and having been born, they increase. Gāmo means a collection; thus, bhūtagāmo means a collection of living things, or the living things themselves are the collection. This is a term for established grass, plants, trees, etc. Herein, the explanation of “bhavanti” is “they are born and grow,” and “ahuvu” means “they have been born and have grown.” Thus, the term bhūta applies to both the present and the past. Therefore, the Vimativinodanī (Vinaya-vibhaṅga-ṭīkā, Pācittiya 2.90) states: “bhavanti** means they grow, ahuvu means they have grown.” Now, explaining what constitutes bhūtagāma, he says: “Bhūtagāmo is a term for trees, creepers, etc., born from five kinds of seeds.”** The word ādī (etc.) in latādīnaṃ should be understood to include medicinal plants, etc.
ID461
Idāni tāni bījāni sarūpato dassento “tatrimāni pañca bījānī”tiādimāha. Tattha mūlameva bījaṃ mūlabījaṃ. Evaṃ sesesupi. Atha vā mūlaṃ bījaṃ etassāti mūlabījaṃ, mūlabījato vā nibbattaṃ mūlabījaṃ. Evaṃ sesesupi. Tattha paṭhamena viggahena bījagāmo eva labbhati, dutiyatatiyehi bhūtagāmo. Idāni te bhūtagāme sarūpato dassento “tattha mūlabījaṃ nāmā”tyādimāha. Tattha tesu pañcasu mūlabījādīsu haliddi…pe… bhaddamuttakaṃ mūlabījaṃ nāma. Na kevalaṃ imāniyeva mūlabījāni, atha kho ito aññānipi yāni vā pana bhūtagāmajātāni atthi santi, mūle jāyanti, mūle sañjāyanti, etaṃ bhūtagāmajātaṃ mūlabījaṃ nāma hotīti yojanā. Sesesupi eseva nayo. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pāci. aṭṭha. 91) “idāni taṃ bhūtagāmaṃ vibhajitvā dassento ’bhūtagāmo nāma pañca bījajātānī’tiādimāhā”ti. Tattha bhūtagāmo nāmāti bhūtagāmaṃ uddharitvā yasmiṃ sati bhūtagāmo hoti, taṃ dassetuṃ “pañca bījajātānīti āhā”ti aṭṭhakathāsu vuttaṃ. Evaṃ santepi “yāni vā panaññānipi atthi, mūle jāyantī”tiādīni na samenti. Na hi mūlabījādīni mūlādīsu jāyanti. Mūlādīsu jāyamānāni pana tāni bījajātāni, tasmā evamatthavaṇṇanā veditabbā – bhūtagāmo nāmāti vibhajitabbapadaṃ. Pañcāti tassa vibhāgaparicchedo. Bījajātānīti paricchinnadhammanidassanaṃ, yato bījehi jātāni bījajātāni, rukkhādīnaṃ etaṃ adhivacananti ca. Yathā “sālīnaṃ cepi odanaṃ bhuñjatī”tiādīsu (ma. ni. 1.76) sālitaṇḍulānaṃ odano sāliodanoti vuccati, evaṃ bījato sambhūto bhūtagāmo “bīja”nti vuttoti veditabboti ca.
Now, to show those seeds in their own form, it begins with “These are the five kinds of seeds” and so forth. Therein, the root itself is the seed, mūlabījaṃ. The same applies to the others. Alternatively, the root is its seed, thus mūlabījaṃ, or what arises from a root-seed is mūlabījaṃ. The same applies to the others. Therein, by the first analysis, only the seed-group (bījagāmo) is obtained; by the second and third, the plant-group (bhūtagāmo). Now, to show these plants in their own form, it begins with “Therein, mūlabījaṃ means…” Therein, among those five—root-seed and so forth—turmeric… up to … bhaddamuttakaṃ is called mūlabījaṃ. Not only these are root-seeds, but also any other plant-born things that exist, which are born from the root, arise from the root—this plant-born thing is called mūlabījaṃ, as the interpretation goes. The same method applies to the others. It is said in the Commentary (pāci. aṭṭha. 91), “Now, to show that bhūtagāmo by dividing it, it says, ‘Bhūtagāmo means five kinds of seed-born things’ and so forth.” Therein, bhūtagāmo nāma means extracting bhūtagāmo to show that which, when present, constitutes bhūtagāmo, and thus “five kinds of seed-born things” is said in the commentaries. Even so, “whatever else there is, born from the root” and so forth do not fit, for root-seeds and the like are not born from roots and so forth. Rather, those born from roots and so forth are the seed-born things. Thus, the meaning should be explained as follows: “Bhūtagāmo means” is the phrase to be divided. “Five” is the limit of its division. “Seed-born things” is the designation of the defined phenomena, meaning those born from seeds are seed-born things, and this is a designation for trees and so forth. Just as “he eats rice porridge” (ma. ni. 1.76) means porridge from rice grains is called rice porridge, so too what arises from a seed is called a “seed,” as it should be understood.
Now, showing those seeds in their essence, he says, “These are the five seeds there” and so on. There, what is root itself is the seed is mūlabījaṃ (root-seed). Thus also in the remaining cases. Or, the root is its seed; hence, mūlabījaṃ (root-seed). Or, mūlabījaṃ (root-seed) has sprung from a root-seed. Thus also in the remaining cases. Here, by the first definition, one obtains only the seed collection. By the second and third, one obtains bhūtagāma. Now, showing those bhūtagāmas according to their essence, he says “tattha mūlabījaṃ nāmā” and so on. Among those five root-seeds and so on, turmeric…pe…bhadamuttaka is called a root-seed. Not only these alone are root-seeds, but also whatever other kinds that are born as bhūtagāma are present, they are born in the root, they arise in the root, this bhūtagāma kind is called mūlabījaṃ (root-seed) – this is the connection. In the remaining cases, the method is the same. For it is said in the commentary (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 91) “Now, showing that bhūtagāma by dividing it, he says ‘bhūtagāmo means five kinds of seeds’, and so on.” There, bhūtagāmo nāmā – having extracted bhūtagāma, to show what it is when it is present, he said “five kinds of seeds,” as stated in the commentaries. Even so, the phrases “whatever other kinds that are present, they are born in the root” and so on do not fit. For root-seeds and so on are not born in roots and so on. Those are the seed-types which, being born, are in the root, and so on; therefore, the explanation of the meaning should be understood thus: bhūtagāmo nāmā is the term to be divided. Pañcā is the division and limitation of it. Bījajātānī is the presentation of the limited things, because things produced by seeds, they are called “bījajātāni”, and it is the designation for trees, and so on. Just as in phrases such as “he eats the cooked rice of fine rice” (Ma. Ni. 1.76), the cooked rice of fine rice grains is called ‘fine rice cooked rice,’ so the bhūtagāma arisen from seed should be understood as being called ‘seed’.
Now, to explain those seeds in detail, he begins with “tatrimāni pañca bījāni” (herein, these five kinds of seeds). Herein, the root itself is the seed, hence mūlabījaṃ (root-seed). Similarly for the rest. Alternatively, mūlabījaṃ means that which has the root as its seed, or that which is produced from the root-seed. Similarly for the rest. Herein, by the first explanation, the collection of seeds is obtained; by the second and third, the collection of living plants. Now, to explain those living plants in detail, he begins with “tattha mūlabījaṃ nāma” (herein, root-seed is called). Among these five, turmeric, etc., and bhaddamuttaka are called root-seeds. Not only these, but also any other living plants that arise from roots, that are born and grow from roots, are called root-seeds. The same applies to the rest. As stated in the commentary (Pācittiya-aṭṭhakathā, p. 91): “Now, having classified the living plants, he explains: ‘Living plants are of five kinds of seeds.’” Herein, bhūtagāmo nāma (living plants are called) means that which, when present, constitutes living plants. To explain this, it is said: “five kinds of seeds.” Thus, even though it is said, “whatever other things exist, born from roots,” etc., these do not apply to root-seeds, etc., born from roots. Rather, those seed-born things that arise from roots, etc., are the seed-born things. Therefore, the meaning should be understood as follows: bhūtagāmo nāma is a term to be classified. Pañca (five) is its classification. Bījajātāni (kinds of seeds) indicates the specific nature, as they are born from seeds, and this is a term for trees, etc. Just as in the phrase “if one eats rice from sālī grains” (Majjhima Nikāya 1.76), the rice from sālī grains is called sālī rice, so too the living plants born from seeds are called “seeds.”
ID462
Phaḷubījanti pabbabījaṃ. Paccayantarasamavāye sadisaphaluppattiyā visesakāraṇabhāvato viruhaṇasamatthe sāraphale niruḷho bīja-saddo tadatthasaṃsiddhiyā mūlādīsupi kesuci pavattatīti mūlādito nivattanatthaṃ ekena bījasaddena visesetvā vuttaṃ “bīja”nti “rūparūpaṃ, dukkhadukkha”nti ca yathā. Niddese “yāni vā panaññānipi atthi, mūle jāyanti mūle sañjāyantī”ti ettha bījato nibbattena bījaṃ dassitaṃ, tasmā evamettha attho daṭṭhabbo – yāni vā panaññānipi atthi, āluvakaserukamalanīluppalapuṇḍarīkakuvalayakundapāṭalimūlādibhede mūle gacchavallirukkhādīni jāyanti sañjāyanti, tāni, yamhi mūle jāyanti ceva sañjāyanti ca, tañca pāḷiyaṃ (pāci. 91) vuttahaliddādi ca, sabbampi etaṃ mūlabījaṃ nāma, etena kāriyopacārena kāraṇaṃ dassitanti dasseti. Esa nayo khandhabījādīsu. Yevāpanakakhandhabījesu panettha ambāṭakaindasālanuhipālibhaddakakaṇikārādīni khandhabījāni . Ambilāvallicaturassavallikaṇaverādīni phaḷubījāni. Makacimallikāsumanajayasumanādīni aggabījāni. Ambajambupanasaṭṭhiādīni bījabījānīti daṭṭhabbāni. Bhūtagāme bhūtagāmasaññī chindati vā chedāpeti vāti satthakāni gahetvā sayaṃ vā chindati, aññena vā chedāpeti. Bhindati vā bhedāpeti vāti pāsāṇādīni gahetvā sayaṃ vā bhindati, aññena vā bhedāpeti. Pacati vā pacāpeti vāti aggiṃ upasaṃharitvā sayaṃ vā pacati, aññena vā pacāpeti, pācittiyaṃ hotīti sambandho. Tattha āpattibhedaṃ dassento “bhūtagāmañhī”tiādimāha. Tattha bhūtagāmaparimocitanti bhūtagāmato viyojitaṃ.
“Joint-seed” means node-seed (pabbabījaṃ). Since the term bīja (seed) is commonly used for the essential fruit capable of sprouting due to its role as a specific cause for producing similar fruit with the aid of other conditions, and since it is applied to roots and so forth in some cases for achieving that meaning, it is specified with the word bīja to distinguish it from roots and so forth, as in “form-form, suffering-suffering.” In the Niddesa, “whatever else there is, born from the root, arising from the root” shows the seed produced from a seed. Thus, the meaning here should be seen as follows: whatever else there is—onions, water chestnuts, lotuses, blue lotuses, white lotuses, lilies, jasmine, and other root-types—trees, vines, and shrubs born and arising from the root, and that root from which they are born and arise, as well as the turmeric and so forth mentioned in the text (pāci. 91), all of this is called mūlabījaṃ. This shows the cause by means of its effect. The same method applies to node-seeds and so forth. Specifically, among node-seeds, ambāṭaka, indasāla, nuhi, pāli, bhaddaka, kaṇikāra, and so forth are node-seeds. Sour vines, square vines, kaṇavera, and so forth are joint-seeds. Jasmine, great jasmine, sumanā, and so forth are tip-seeds. Mango, rose-apple, jackfruit, and so forth are true seeds (bījabījāni), as should be understood. “Perceiving it as a plant, he cuts or has it cut” means taking a knife and either cutting it himself or having another cut it. “He breaks or has it broken” means taking stones or the like and either breaking it himself or having another break it. “He cooks or has it cooked” means applying fire and either cooking it himself or having another cook it—a pācittiya offense arises, as the connection goes. To show the types of offenses, it begins with “Indeed, bhūtagāma…” Therein, “freed from the plant” means separated from the plant.
Phaḷubīja means joint-seed. Because of the distinct causal efficacy in the production of similar fruits in the combination of different conditions, the seed-term, established in the substantial fruit capable of sprouting, applies in some cases to roots and so on through association with that meaning; therefore, to exclude it from the root and so on, it is specified by one single seed-term; It has been said “bīja” (seed), just as “form-form” and “suffering-suffering”. In the specification, “Whatever others exist, born in the root, arising in the root”, here what is arisen from seed is shown to be the seed. Therefore, the meaning should be seen thus – whatever other kinds that are present, various roots of yam, kasery, lotus, blue water-lily, white lotus, kuvalaya, kunda, pāṭali root, and other roots, bushes, creepers, trees, and so on are born and arise, they, in whatever root they are born and arise, and also those stated in the text (Pāci. 91) – turmeric and so on – all this is called mūlabīja (root-seed), and this illustrates the application of the result to the cause. This method applies to stem-seeds (khandhabīja) and so on. Among the yevāpanaka stem-seeds here, ambāṭaka, indasāla, nuhi, pālibhaddaka, kaṇikāra, and others are khandhabīja (stem-seeds). Ambilā, valli, caturassavalli, kaṇavera, and others are phaḷubīja (joint-seeds). Makaci, mallikā, sumanā, jayasumanā, and others are aggabīja (shoot-seeds). Amba, jambu, panasa, ṭṭhi, and others should be understood as bījabīja (seed-from-seeds). bhūtagāme bhūtagāmasaññī chindati vā chedāpeti vā – taking up tools, he himself cuts or causes another to cut. Bhindati vā bhedāpeti vā – taking up stones and so on, he himself breaks or causes another to break. Pacati vā pacāpeti vā – bringing fire near, he himself cooks or causes another to cook, there is a pācittiya offense – this is the connection. Showing the difference in offenses there, he says “bhūtagāmañhī” and so on. There, bhūtagāmaparimocita means separated from bhūtagāma.
Phaḷubīja (fruit-seed) means seed from fruit. Due to the similarity of fruit production and the capacity to sprout, the term bīja (seed) is applied to the essential fruit, and by extension, it is also applied to roots, etc., in some cases. Therefore, to distinguish it from roots, etc., it is said: “bīja” (seed), just as “form is form, suffering is suffering.” In the Niddesa, “whatever other things exist, born from roots, growing from roots,” here, the seed born from a seed is shown. Therefore, the meaning here should be understood as follows: whatever other things exist, such as āluvaka, kaseruka, malanī, uppala, puṇḍarīka, kuvalaya, kunda, pāṭali, etc., born from roots, growing from roots, are all called root-seeds. This is shown by the example of turmeric, etc., mentioned in the Pāli (Pācittiya 91). The same applies to stem-seeds, etc. Herein, ambāṭaka, indasāla, nuhipāli, bhaddaka, kaṇikāra, etc., are stem-seeds. Ambilā, vallī, caturassa, vallī, kaṇavera, etc., are fruit-seeds. Makaci, mallikā, sumana, jayasumana, etc., are tip-seeds. Amba, jambu, panasa, ṭṭhi, etc., are seed-seeds. “In a living plant, one who perceives it as a living plant cuts it or causes it to be cut” means one takes a tool and cuts it oneself or causes another to cut it. “Breaks it or causes it to be broken” means one takes a stone, etc., and breaks it oneself or causes another to break it. “Cooks it or causes it to be cooked” means one applies fire and cooks it oneself or causes another to cook it, incurring a pācittiya offense. Herein, to explain the types of offenses, he begins with “bhūtagāmañhi” (in the case of a living plant). Herein, bhūtagāmaparimocita means separated from the living plant.
ID463
76. Sañcicca ukkhipituṃ na vaṭṭatīti ettha “sañciccā”ti vuttattā sarīre laggabhāvaṃ ñatvāpi uṭṭhahati, “taṃ uddharissāmī”ti saññāya abhāvato vaṭṭati. Anantakaggahaṇena sāsapamattikā gahitā. Nāmañhetaṃ tassā sevālajātiyā. Mūlapaṇṇānaṃ abhāvena “asampuṇṇabhūtagāmo nāmā”ti vuttaṃ. Abhūtagāmamūlattāti ettha bhūtagāmo mūlaṃ kāraṇaṃ etassāti bhūtagāmamūlo, bhūtagāmassa vā mūlaṃ kāraṇanti bhūtagāmamūlaṃ. Bījagāmo hi nāma bhūtagāmato sambhavati, bhūtagāmassa ca kāraṇaṃ hoti. Ayaṃ pana tādiso na hotīti “abhūtagāmamūlattā”ti vuttaṃ.
76. “It is not allowable to intentionally lift it”—here, since it says “intentionally,” if one knows it is attached to the body and still rises, it is allowable due to the absence of intent to remove it. By mentioning “moss,” even a mustard-seed-sized amount is included. This is a name for that type of algae. Due to the absence of roots or leaves, it is said, “It is called an incomplete plant.” “Due to not having plant-roots”—here, a plant is the root or cause of it, thus bhūtagāmamūlo, or the root or cause of a plant is bhūtagāmamūlaṃ. A seed-group (bījagāmo) arises from a plant and is its cause, but this is not such, hence “due to not having plant-roots.”
76. Regarding “sañcicca ukkhipituṃ na vaṭṭati” (one should not intentionally lift), because “intentionally” is stated, even though one knows that it is attached to the body, one may get up, because there is no intention of “I will remove that.” By the term “anantaka”, a mustard seed size is meant. This is the name of that species of water plant. Because of the absence of root and leaf, it is called “asampuṇṇabhūtagāmo nāmā” (not complete vegetation). Abhūtagāmamūlattā - here, bhūtagāma is its root, its cause; therefore, it is bhūtagāmamūla, or the root, the cause, of bhūtagāma is bhūtagāmamūlaṃ. Indeed, the seed-collection (bījagāma) arises from bhūtagāma, and it is the cause of bhūtagāma. But this is not like that; therefore, it is said “abhūtagāmamūlattā” (because it is not rooted in a bhūtagāma).
76. “It is not allowable to intentionally uproot it” means that even if one knows it is attached to the body, one may rise with the thought, “I will remove it,” but without the perception of doing so, it is allowable. By the term anantaka (without end), even a mustard-sized amount is included. This is the name for that which belongs to the moss family. Due to the absence of roots and leaves, it is called “asampuṇṇabhūtagāmo” (incomplete living plant). “Because it is not rooted in a living plant” means that a living plant has roots as its cause, hence it is called bhūtagāmamūla (rooted in a living plant). The seed-plant arises from the living plant, and the living plant is its cause. But this is not such a case, hence it is said: “because it is not rooted in a living plant.”
ID464
Kiñcāpi hi tālanāḷikerādīnaṃ khāṇu uddhaṃ avaḍḍhanato bhūtagāmassa kāraṇaṃ na hoti, tathāpi bhūtagāmasaṅkhyūpagatanibbattapaṇṇamūlabījato sambhūtattā bhūtagāmato uppanno nāma hotīti bījagāmena saṅgahaṃ gacchati. So bījagāmena saṅgahitoti avaḍḍhamānepi bhūtagāmamūlattā vuttaṃ.
Although the stump of a palm or coconut tree does not grow upward and thus is not a cause of a plant, it is still considered as arising from a plant because it grows from a seed with leaves and roots produced by the plant, and thus it is included in the seed-group (bījagāmo). “It is included in the seed-group”—this is said even though it does not grow, due to its plant-rooted nature.
Even though the stump of a palm, coconut, and so on, because it does not grow upwards, is not the cause of bhūtagāma, yet because it has arisen from a leaf-root-seed that partakes of the designation bhūtagāma, it is called arising from bhūtagāma. It comes under the category of seed-collection (bījagāma). It is said to be “so bījagāmena saṅgahito” (it is included in the bījagāma) because of its being rooted in a bhūtagāma, even when not growing.
Although the stump of a palm or coconut tree does not decrease upwards and is not a cause for a living plant, still, because it arises from the leaves, roots, and seeds produced by the living plant, it is said to have arisen from the living plant and is included in the seed-plant. “It is included in the seed-plant” means that even though it does not decrease, it is said to be rooted in a living plant.
ID465
“Aṅkure harite”ti vatvā tamevatthaṃ vibhāveti “nīlavaṇṇe jāte”ti, nīlapaṇṇassa vaṇṇasadise paṇṇe jāteti attho, “nīlavaṇṇe jāte”ti vā pāṭho gahetabbo. Amūlakabhūtagāme saṅgahaṃ gacchatīti idaṃ nāḷikerassa āveṇikaṃ katvā vadati. “Pānīyaghaṭādīnaṃ bahi sevālo udake aṭṭhitattā bījagāmānulomattā ca dukkaṭavatthū”ti vadanti. Kaṇṇakampi abbohārikamevāti nīlavaṇṇampi abbohārikameva.
“When the sprout is green” is said, and to clarify that meaning, it says “when it becomes blue-colored,” meaning when a leaf resembling a blue leaf appears—or the reading “when it becomes blue-colored” may be taken. “It is included in the rootless plant category”—this is said specifically regarding a coconut tree. They say, “Algae outside water vessels, due to standing in water and resembling the seed-group, is a dukkaṭa object.” “Even an earshoot is unsuitable”—even if blue-colored, it remains unsuitable.
Having said “aṅkure harite” (on the green sprout), he clarifies that very meaning by saying “nīlavaṇṇe jāte” (when the blue color has appeared), meaning when the leaf has appeared with a color resembling the color of a blue leaf; or the reading should be taken as “nīlavaṇṇe jāte” (when the blue color has appeared). Amūlakabhūtagāme saṅgahaṃ gacchatī (it comes under the category of non-rooted bhūtagāma) – this is said specifically with regard to the coconut. Some say, “Because algae outside of water pots and so on are situated in water and are similar to bījagāma, they are an object of minor offense (dukkaṭa)”. Even kaṇṇakampi abbohārikamevā (a small, greenish growth is also not actionable).
“When the sprouts are green” explains the same meaning as “when they have turned blue”, meaning that the leaves have turned a color similar to blue leaves. Alternatively, the reading “when they have turned blue” should be taken. “It is included in the rootless living plant” is said specifically regarding the coconut tree. “Because moss on water pots, etc., stands in water and is in line with the seed-plant, it is a ground for a dukkaṭa offense,” they say. “Even a small piece is insignificant” means that even a blue-colored piece is insignificant.
ID466
77. Seleyyakaṃ nāma silāya sambhūtā ekā gandhajāti. Pupphitakālato paṭṭhāyāti vikasitakālato pabhuti. Ahicchattakaṃ gaṇhantoti vikasitaṃ gaṇhanto. Makuḷaṃ pana rukkhattacaṃ akopentenapi gahetuṃ na vaṭṭati. “Rukkhattacaṃ vikopetīti vuttattā rukkhe jātaṃ yaṃ kiñci ahicchattakaṃ rukkhattacaṃ avikopetvā matthakato chinditvā gahetuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vadanti, tadayuttaṃ “ahicchattakaṃ yāva makuḷaṃ hoti, tāva dukkaṭavatthū”ti vuttattā. Rukkhato muccitvāti ettha “yadipi kiñcimattaṃ rukkhe allīnā hutvā tiṭṭhati, rukkhato gayhamānā pana rukkhacchaviṃ na vikopeti, vaṭṭatī”ti vadanti. Allarukkhato na vaṭṭatīti etthāpi rukkhattacaṃ avikopetvā matthakato tacchetvā gahetuṃ vaṭṭatīti veditabbaṃ. Hatthakukkuccenāti hatthacāpallena. Pānīyaṃ na vāsetabbanti idaṃ attano atthāya nāmitaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Kevalaṃ anupasampannassa atthāya nāmite pana pacchā tato labhitvā na vāsetabbanti natthi. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.92) pana “pānīyaṃ na vāsetabbanti idaṃ attano pivanapānīyaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, aññesaṃ pana vaṭṭati anuggahitattā. Tenāha attanā khāditukāmenā”ti vuttaṃ. “Yesaṃ rukkhānaṃ sākhā ruhatīti vuttattā yesaṃ sākhā na ruhati, tattha kappiyakaraṇakiccaṃ natthī”ti vadanti. Vimativinodaniyampi “yesaṃ rukkhānaṃ sākhā ruhatīti mūlaṃ anotāretvā paṇṇamattaniggamanamattenāpi vaḍḍhati, tattha kappiyampi akaronto chinnanāḷikeraveḷudaṇḍādayo kopetuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ. “Caṅkamitaṭṭhānaṃ dassessāmī”ti vuttattā kevalaṃ caṅkamanādhippāyena vā maggagamanādhippāyena vā akkamantassa, tiṇānaṃ upari nisīdanādhippāyena nisīdantassa ca doso natthi.
77. “Seleyyaka” is a type of fragrant plant born from rock. “From the time of flowering” means from the time it blooms. “Taking a mushroom” means taking it when it has bloomed. However, even taking an unopened bud without damaging the tree’s bark is not allowable. They say, “Since it says ‘damaging the tree’s bark,’ anything born on a tree, such as a mushroom, can be taken by cutting from the top without damaging the bark,” but that is incorrect because it says, “As long as a mushroom is a bud, it is a dukkaṭa object.” “After detaching it from the tree”—here, they say, “Even if it remains slightly attached to the tree, if taken without damaging the bark, it is allowable.” “Not from a wet tree”—here too, it should be understood that cutting from the top without damaging the bark is allowable. “With hand hesitation” means with a trembling hand. “Water should not be flavored”—this is said regarding water bent for one’s own use. However, if it is bent for an unordained person’s sake and later obtained from that, there is no rule against flavoring it. In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.92), it says, “‘Water should not be flavored’** refers to drinking water for oneself, but it is allowable for others since it is not restricted. Hence, it says ‘by one wishing to eat it himself.’” They say, “Since it says ‘for trees whose branches grow,’ for those whose branches do not grow, there is no need for making it allowable.” The Vimativinodanī also says, “‘For trees whose branches grow’ means they grow even with just leaves emerging without roots descending; there, even without making it allowable, cutting things like coconut stumps or bamboo poles is permissible.” “‘I will show a walking place’”**—since this is said, there is no fault in stepping on grass with the mere intention of walking or going on a path, or sitting on grass with the intention of sitting.
77. Seleyyakaṃ is a kind of fragrant substance produced from rock. Pupphitakālato paṭṭhāyā means from the time of blossoming. Ahicchattakaṃ gaṇhanto – taking it when it is blossoming. However, one should not take a bud even without breaking the bark of a tree. Because it is said “rukkhattacaṃ vikopetī” (he damages the bark of a tree), some say, “Whatever mushroom that has grown on a tree, one may take it by cutting it off from the top without damaging the tree bark,” but that is not correct, because it is said, “As long as a mushroom is a bud, it is an object of a dukkaṭa offense.” Rukkhato muccitvā – here, some say, “Even if it remains attached to the tree to some extent, but when taken from the tree, it does not damage the bark of the tree, it is permissible.” Regarding “allarukkhato na vaṭṭatī” (it is not permissible from a wet tree), even here, it should be understood that one may take it by cutting off the surface from the top without damaging the tree bark. Hatthakukkuccenā – by the playfulness of the hand. Pānīyaṃ na vāsetabba (water should not be perfumed) – this is said regarding that which has been bent down for one’s own sake. But there is nothing wrong with not perfuming it after obtaining it later from that which has been bent down solely for the sake of an unordained person. However, in Vimativinodani (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Pācittiya 2.92), it is said: “pānīyaṃ na vāsetabba” (water should not be perfumed) – this is said regarding one’s own drinking water; but it is permissible for others, because it is supported. Therefore, it is said “attanā khāditukāmenā” (by one who desires to eat it himself). It is said, “yesaṃ rukkhānaṃ sākhā ruhatī” (of those trees whose branches grow) – some say, “Where the branches do not grow, there is no need for making it permissible.” In Vimativinodani also it is said “yesaṃ rukkhānaṃ sākhā** ruhatī” (of those trees whose branches grow) – even growing with only the sprouting of leaves without reaching down to the root, in that case, even without making them permissible, it is allowable to break off coconut stems, bamboo stalks, and other things that have been cut off.” Because it is said ”caṅkamitaṭṭhānaṃ dassessāmī”** (I will show the place for walking), there is no fault only for one walking with the intention of a walking path, or with the intention of walking on a path, and for one sitting with the intention of sitting on grass.
77. Seleyyaka is a type of fragrance produced from a rock. “From the time it flowers” means from the time it blooms. “Taking a mushroom” means taking a bloomed one. However, it is not allowable to take a bud even without shaking the tree. “Because it is said to shake the tree bark” means that anything born on a tree, such as a mushroom, can be taken by cutting it from the top without shaking the tree bark. This is appropriate because it is said: “A mushroom is a ground for a dukkaṭa offense until it becomes a bud.” “Freed from the tree” means that even if a small part remains attached to the tree, when taken, it does not shake the tree bark, and it is allowable. “From a wet tree, it is not allowable” means that even here, it should be understood that one can take it by cutting it from the top without shaking the tree bark. “With hand hesitation” means with hand trembling. “Water should not be left” refers to water set aside for one’s own use. However, if it is set aside for the use of one who is not fully ordained, there is no offense in taking it later. The Vimativinodanī (Vinaya-vibhaṅga-ṭīkā, Pācittiya 2.92) states: “Water should not be left” refers to water set aside for one’s own drinking, but it is allowable for others, as it is not reserved. Therefore, it is said: “for one who wishes to drink it oneself.” “For trees whose branches grow” means that for trees whose branches do not grow, there is no need to make them allowable. The Vimativinodanī also states: “For trees whose branches grow” means that even if they grow only a little without reaching the root, one who does not make them allowable can shake cut coconut stalks, etc. “I will show the walking place” means that for one who walks solely for the purpose of walking or for the purpose of traveling, or for one who sits on grass for the purpose of sitting, there is no offense.
ID467
78. Samaṇakappehīti samaṇānaṃ kappiyavohārehi. Kiñcāpi bījādīnaṃ agginā phuṭṭhamattena, nakhādīhi vilikhanamattena ca aviruḷhidhammatā na hoti, tathāpi evaṃ kateyeva samaṇānaṃ kappatīti aggiparijitādayo samaṇavohārā nāma jātā, tasmā tehi samaṇavohārehi karaṇabhūtehi phalaṃ paribhuñjituṃ anujānāmīti adhippāyo. Abījanibbaṭṭabījānipi samaṇānaṃ kappantīti paññattapaṇṇattibhāvato samaṇavohārāicceva saṅkhaṃ gatāni. Atha vā aggiparijitādīnaṃ pañcannaṃ kappiyabhāvatoyeva pañcahi samaṇakappiyabhāvasaṅkhātehi kāraṇehi phalaṃ paribhuñjituṃ anujānāmīti evamettha adhippāyo veditabbo. Aggiparijitantiādīsu “paricita”ntipi paṭhanti. Abījaṃ nāma taruṇaambaphalādi. Nibbaṭṭabījaṃ nāma ambapanasādi, yaṃ bījaṃ nibbaṭṭetvā visuṃ katvā paribhuñjituṃ sakkā hoti. Nibbaṭṭetabbaṃ viyojetabbaṃ bījaṃ yasmiṃ, taṃ panasādi nibbaṭṭabījaṃ nāma. “Kappiya”nti vatvāva kātabbanti yo kappiyaṃ karoti, tena kattabbapakārasseva vuttattā bhikkhunā avuttepi kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti na gahetabbaṃ. Puna “kappiyaṃ kāretabba”nti kārāpanassa paṭhamameva kathitattā bhikkhunā “kappiyaṃ karohī”ti vutteyeva anupasampannena “kappiya”nti vatvā aggiparijitādi kātabbanti gahetabbaṃ. “Kappiyanti vacanaṃ pana yāya kāyaci bhāsāya vattuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vadanti. “Kappiyanti vatvāva kātabba”nti vacanato paṭhamaṃ “kappiya”nti vatvā pacchā aggiādinā phusanādi kātabbanti veditabbaṃ. “Paṭhamaṃ aggimhi nikkhipitvā, nakhādinā vā vijjhitvā taṃ anuddharitvāva kappiyanti vattuṃ vaṭṭatī”tipi vadanti.
78. “With monastic allowable means” means with the allowable practices of monastics. Although seeds and the like do not lose their ability to sprout merely by being touched by fire or scratched by nails, they become allowable for monastics only when treated thus. Hence, things roasted by fire and so forth are called monastic practices, meaning, “I permit the enjoyment of the fruit through these monastic practices as the means.” Even seeds without seeds (abīja) and separated seeds (nibbaṭṭabīja) are allowable for monastics due to their designated or re-designated nature and are thus termed monastic practices. Alternatively, “Due to their being allowable through the five means known as monastic allowable states—roasted by fire and so forth—I permit enjoyment of the fruit,” as the meaning here should be understood. In “roasted by fire” and so forth, some read “paricita” instead. “Seedless” refers to young mango fruit and the like. “Separated seed” refers to mango, jackfruit, and the like, where the seed can be separated and used apart. That which has a seed to be separated is called nibbaṭṭabījaṃ, such as jackfruit. “After saying ‘allowable,’ it must be done”—since it says what the one making it allowable must do, it should not be taken that it can be done without a monk saying it. Again, since it first mentions “it must be made allowable” regarding causing it to be done, it should be understood that only when a monk says, “Make it allowable,” should an unordained person say “allowable” and then roast it with fire or the like. They say, “Saying ‘allowable’ can be done in any language.” From the phrase “after saying ‘allowable,’ it must be done,” it should be understood that one must first say “allowable” and then touch it with fire or the like. They also say, “It is allowable to place it in fire or pierce it with a nail or the like and then say ‘allowable’ without removing it.”
78. Samaṇakappehī means by practices permissible to recluses. Even though seeds and so on do not become incapable of sprouting merely by being touched by fire, or by being scratched by nails and so on, yet only when done in this way is it permissible for recluses. Therefore, fire-purified and so on are termed renunciant practices, so the meaning is I allow eating of fruits, when by those renunciant practices, that becomes making of it allowable. Seeds, not arised from non-seeds, are also permissible for recluses. Because of the nature of being prescribed and allowed, they have entered into the category of renunciant practices. Or, the meaning should be understood here as follows: I allow the eating of fruit by means of the five means known as making it permissible for recluses, precisely because of the permissibility of the five, such as being fire-purified and so on. In aggiparijita, and so on, some also read “paricita”. Abījaṃ means a young mango fruit, and so on. Nibbaṭṭabījaṃ means a mango, panasa, and so on, from which the seed can be removed and made separate, and then it can be consumed. That in which the seed needs to be extracted, needs to be separated, is panasa, and so on, it is called nibbaṭṭabījaṃ. It should not be taken that, even though not said by the bhikkhu, it is permissible to do just by saying “kappiya” (permissible), because the way of doing it should be done. Again, because making someone do it is stated first as “kappiyaṃ kāretabba” (it should be made permissible), it should be taken that when a bhikkhu says “make it permissible (kappiyaṃ karohi),” only then should the unordained person say “permissible (kappiya)” and do the fire-purification and so on. Some say, “The word ‘kappiya’ (permissible) may be spoken in any language.” Because it is said, “kappiyanti vatvāva kātabba” (it should be done only after saying ‘permissible’), it should be understood that one should first say ‘kappiya’ and then touch it with fire and so on. Some also say, “It is permissible to say ‘kappiya’ after first putting it on the fire, or piercing it with a nail and so on, without removing it.”
78. “By the allowable practices of ascetics” means by the allowable practices of ascetics regarding seeds, etc. Although seeds, etc., do not lose their capacity to grow merely by being touched by fire or scratched by nails, etc., still, when done in this way, they become allowable for ascetics. Thus, practices such as roasting with fire, etc., are called ascetic practices. Therefore, the meaning is that I allow the consumption of fruits by these ascetic practices. Even seedless and separated seeds are allowable for ascetics, as they are established by rule. Alternatively, the five practices of roasting with fire, etc., are called the five allowable practices of ascetics, and by these five causes, I allow the consumption of fruits. This is the meaning here. In aggiparijita, etc., some read “paricita” (roasted). Abīja (seedless) refers to young mango fruits, etc. Nibbaṭṭabīja (separated seed) refers to mango, jackfruit, etc., whose seeds can be separated and consumed individually. “Allowable” means that one who makes it allowable should do so in the prescribed manner. Even if not stated by a monk, it is allowable to do so. Again, “make it allowable” means that since the instruction to make it allowable is given first, when a monk says, “make it allowable,” even if not fully ordained, one should say, “allowable,” and then roast with fire, etc. “The word ‘allowable’ can be spoken in any language”, they say. “Having first said ‘allowable,’ then do it” means that first, one should say “allowable,” and then touch it with fire, etc. “First place it in the fire, or pierce it with a nail, etc., and then say ‘allowable’”, they say.
ID468
Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.92) pana “kappiyanti vatvāvāti pubbakālakiriyāvasena vuttepi vacanakkhaṇeva aggisatthādinā bījagāme vaṇaṃ kātabbanti vacanato pana pubbe kātuṃ na vaṭṭati, tañca dvidhā akatvā chedanabhedanameva dassetabbaṃ. Karontena ca bhikkhunā ’kappiyaṃ karohī’ti yāya kāyaci bhāsāya vutteyeva kātabbaṃ. Bījagāmaparimocanatthaṃ puna kappiyaṃ kāretabbanti kārāpanassa paṭhamameva adhikatattā”ti vuttaṃ.
In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.92), it says, “‘After saying allowable’—though it is stated as a prior action, since it says a wound must be made in the seed-group with fire or a knife at the moment of saying it, it is not allowable to do it beforehand. And that should be shown as cutting or breaking, not divided into two. It must be done only when a monk says, ‘Make it allowable,’ in any language. Since causing it to be made allowable for freeing it from the seed-group is already mentioned first.”
However, in Vimativinodani (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Pācittiya 2.92), it is said: “kappiyanti vatvāvā” – although spoken as a prior action, because it is stated that at the very moment of speaking, a wound should be made on the bījagāma with fire, a knife, and so on, it is not permissible to do it beforehand, and that should be shown only as cutting and breaking, without doing two types. And by the one doing it, it should be done only when a bhikkhu says in any language, ‘Make it permissible (kappiyaṃ karohi)’. Again, because having it made permissible (kappiyaṃ kāretabbaṃ) is mentioned first of all for the purpose of releasing it from the bījagāma, it is more appropriate.”
The Vimativinodanī (Vinaya-vibhaṅga-ṭīkā, Pācittiya 2.92) states: “Having first said ‘allowable’” means that even if the action is done beforehand, at the moment of speaking, a wound should be made in the seed-plant with fire, a knife, etc. However, it is not allowable to do so before speaking. This should be shown in two ways: by cutting and breaking. When a monk does it, he should say, “make it allowable,” in any language. For the purpose of freeing the seed-plant, one should again instruct another to make it allowable, as this is the primary instruction.
ID469
Ekasmiṃ bīje vātiādīsu “ekaṃyeva kāremīti adhippāye satipi ekābaddhattā sabbaṃ katameva hotī”ti vadanti. Dāruṃ vijjhatīti ettha “jānitvāpi vijjhati vā vijjhāpeti vā, vaṭṭatiyevā”ti vadanti. Bhattasitthe vijjhatīti etthāpi eseva nayo. “Taṃ vijjhati, na vaṭṭatīti rajjuādīnaṃ bhājanagatikattā”ti vadanti. Marīcapakkādīhi ca missetvāti ettha bhattasitthasambandhavasena ekābaddhatā veditabbā, na phalānaṃyeva aññamaññasambandhavasena. “Kaṭāhepi kātuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vuttattā kaṭāhato nīhaṭāya miñjāya vā bīje vā yattha katthaci vijjhituṃ vaṭṭati eva. Bhindāpetvā kappiyaṃ kārāpetabbanti bījato muttassa kaṭāhassa bhājanagatikattā vuttaṃ.
“In one seed or…”—they say, “Even if the intention is to do just one, since they are connected, all are done.” “He pierces wood”—they say, “Even knowing it, piercing or causing it to be pierced is allowable.” “He pierces cooked rice remnants”—the same method applies here. “He pierces that, it is not allowable”—they say this due to ropes and the like being categorized as utensils. “Mixing with pepper and the like”—here, the connection should be understood as related to cooked rice remnants, not just the fruits’ mutual connection. “It is allowable to do it in a pot too”—since this is said, it is certainly allowable to pierce marrow or seeds anywhere, even when taken out of a pot. “After breaking it, it must be made allowable”—this is said because a pot separated from seeds is categorized as an utensil.
Ekasmiṃ bīje vā, and so on – some say, “Even though there is the intention of making only one, because they are connected together, all are considered as having been made.” Dāruṃ vijjhatī (he pierces the wood) – here, some say, “Even knowing, he pierces or causes it to be pierced, it is still permissible.” The same method applies to bhattasitthe vijjhatī (he pierces the cooked rice grains). Some say, “taṃ vijjhati, na vaṭṭatī” (he pierces that, it is not permissible) – because ropes and so on are considered as vessels.” Regarding marīcapakkādīhi ca missetvā (and mixing with pepper pods and so on), here the connection together should be understood through the connection with cooked rice grains, not through the mutual connection of the fruits alone. Because it is said “kaṭāhepi kātuṃ vaṭṭatī” (it is also permissible to do it in a pot), it is permissible to pierce the pulp, seed, or anything at all, that has been removed from the pot. Bhindāpetvā kappiyaṃ kārāpetabba (having caused it to be broken, it should be made permissible) is said because the pot, released from the seed, is considered a vessel.
“In one seed”, etc., means that even if one intends to do only one, because it is all bound together, the entire action is completed. “Pierces wood” means that even if one knows, one may pierce it or cause it to be pierced, and it is allowable. “Pierces cooked rice” means the same. “It pierces, but it is not allowable” refers to ropes, etc., because they are containers. “Mixed with chili powder, etc.” means that due to the connection with cooked rice, it should be understood as being bound together, not just the fruits being connected to each other. “It is allowable to do so even in a pot” means that in a pot, one may pierce the marrow or seeds wherever it is possible. “Having caused it to be broken, one should instruct another to make it allowable” means that once freed from the seed, the pot is a container.
ID470
Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is an exposition of the Vinaya compendium,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,
Thus, in the Vinayasaṅgaha, which is adorned with the Vinayālaṅkāra,
ID471
Bhūtagāmavinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma
The ornament of discourse on the determination of plants
is the chapter called Bhūtagāmavinicchayakathālaṅkāro,
the chapter on the determination of living plants, called Bhūtagāmavinicchayakathālaṅkāra,
ID472
Pannarasamo paricchedo.
Is the fifteenth chapter.
The fifteenth chapter.
is the fifteenth chapter.
ID473
ID474
79. Evaṃ bhūtagāmavinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni sahaseyyavinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ “duvidhaṃ sahaseyyaka”ntiādimāha. Tattha dve vidhā pakārā yassa sahaseyyakassa taṃ duvidhaṃ, saha sayanaṃ, saha vā sayati etthāti sahaseyyā, sahaseyyā eva sahaseyyakaṃ sakatthe ka-paccayavasena. Taṃ pana anupasampannenasahaseyyāmātugāmenasahaseyyāvasena duvidhaṃ. Tenāha “duvidhaṃ sahaseyyaka”nti. Dirattatirattanti ettha vacanasiliṭṭhatāmattena dirattaggahaṇaṃ katanti veditabbaṃ. Tirattañhi sahavāse labbhamāne diratte vattabbameva natthīti dirattaggahaṇaṃ visuṃ na payojeti. Tenevāha “uttaridirattatirattanti bhagavā sāmaṇerānaṃ saṅgahakaraṇatthāya tirattaparihāraṃ adāsī”ti. Nirantaraṃ tirattaggahaṇatthaṃ vā dirattaggahaṇaṃ kataṃ. Kevalañhi “tiratta”nti vutte aññattha vāsena antarikampi tirattaṃ gaṇheyya. Dirattavisiṭṭhaṃ pana tirattaṃ vuccamānaṃ tena anantarikameva tirattaṃ dīpeti. Vimativinodaniyampi (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.50-51) “dirattaggahaṇaṃ vacanālaṅkāratthaṃ. Nirantaraṃ tissova rattiyo sayitvā catutthadivasādīsu sayantasseva āpatti, na ekantarikādivasena sayantassāti dassanatthampīti daṭṭhabba”nti vuttaṃ. Sahaseyyaṃ ekato seyyaṃ. Seyyanti cettha kāyappasāraṇasaṅkhātaṃ sayanampi vuccati, yasmiṃ senāsane sayanti, tampi, tasmā seyyaṃ kappeyyāti ettha senāsanasaṅkhātaṃ seyyaṃ pavisitvā kāyappasāraṇasaṅkhātaṃ seyyaṃ kappeyya sampādeyyāti attho. Diyaḍḍhahatthubbedhenāti ettha diyaḍḍhahattho vaḍḍhakihatthena gahetabbo. Pañcahi chadanehīti iṭṭhakāsilāsudhātiṇapaṇṇasaṅkhātehi pañcahi chadanehi. Vācuggatavasenāti paguṇavasena.
79. Having thus explained the determination regarding the village boundary, now to explain the determination regarding co-sleeping, he said, “duvidhaṃ sahaseyyaka” and so forth. Here, that which has two types or modes of co-sleeping is duvidhaṃ; sleeping together, or where one sleeps together, is sahaseyyā; sahaseyyakaṃ is simply sahaseyyā with the suffix “ka” indicating the agent. That, however, is twofold: co-sleeping with one who is not fully ordained and co-sleeping with a woman. Hence he said, “duvidhaṃ sahaseyyakaṃ.” Regarding dirattatiratta, it should be understood that the term “diratta” (two nights) is used merely for linguistic smoothness. For when three nights of cohabitation are possible, there is no need to mention two nights separately; thus, “diratta” is not used distinctly. Hence he said, “The Blessed One, for the sake of including novices, granted an exemption for three nights beyond two nights.” Alternatively, “diratta” is mentioned to indicate uninterrupted three nights. For if only “tiratta” (three nights) were said, one might count three nights with an interval elsewhere. But when “tiratta” is qualified by “diratta,” it denotes only an uninterrupted three nights. In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.50-51), it is said, “The mention of ‘diratta’ is for rhetorical embellishment. It shows that an offense occurs only for one who sleeps three nights continuously and then on the fourth day onward, not for one who sleeps with intervals.” Sahaseyyaṃ means sleeping together. Here, seyyaṃ refers both to the act of lying down with the body stretched out and to the lodging where one sleeps. Thus, in seyyaṃ kappeyyā, it means one should enter the lodging called seyyaṃ and arrange or prepare the act of lying down with the body stretched out. Diyaḍḍhahatthubbedhenā refers to a height of one and a half cubits, where “diyaḍḍhahattha” is to be understood as a carpenter’s cubit. Pañcahi chadanehī means with five types of roofing: brick, stone, plaster, grass, and leaves. Vācuggatavasenā means by proficiency in recitation.
79. Having thus explained the determination of bhūtagāma, now, in order to explain the determination of sleeping together, he says, beginning with, “Twofold is sleeping together”. There, that which has two kinds, types, is twofold; sleeping together, or else one sleeps together in this, thus it is sahaseyyā; through the ka-suffix in the reflexive sense, sahaseyyā itself is sahaseyyakaṃ. But that is twofold, by reason of sleeping together with one who is not fully ordained, and by reason of sleeping together with a woman. Therefore, he said, “Twofold is sleeping together”. Here, in “for two nights, three nights,” the grasping of “two nights” should be understood as made through the mere connectedness of the words. Indeed, when three nights are allowed in the case of dwelling together, there is absolutely nothing to be said for two nights, so the grasping of “two nights” is not applied separately. Therefore, indeed, he said, “The Blessed One gave the dispensation of three nights to the novices in order to protect them, stating ‘more than two nights, three nights’”. Or, the grasping of “two nights” has been made for the purpose of grasping the uninterrupted three nights. For if it were said only “three nights”, one might take an interrupted three nights also, by residing elsewhere. But when three nights are specified by two nights, it shows only that very uninterrupted three nights. In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.50-51), it is said, “The grasping of ‘two nights’ is for the sake of embellishment of the word. It should be seen also as showing that the offense occurs for one who sleeps only three continuous nights, and then sleeps on the fourth day and so on, not for one who sleeps with interruptions and so on”. Sahaseyyaṃ is sleeping together. Here, seyya refers to the spreading out of the body, that is, the very act of sleeping; and also that lodging where they sleep, therefore in seyyaṃ kappeyyā, it means that having entered the seyya, that is, the lodging, one should arrange, accomplish the seyya, which refers to the spreading out of the body. In diyaḍḍhahatthubbedhenā, diyaḍḍhahattha should be taken by the carpenter’s cubit. By five coverings, by the five coverings consisting of brick, stone, plaster, grass, and leaves. By way of speech usage is by way of proficiency.
79. Having thus explained the decision regarding bhūtagāma, now to explain the decision regarding sahaseyya, it begins with “duvidhaṃ sahaseyyaka” (two kinds of sahaseyya). Herein, the two kinds or modes of sahaseyya are called “duvidhaṃ” (twofold). “Sahaseyya” means lying down together or sleeping together, and “sahaseyyakaṃ” refers to the act of doing so, formed with the suffix “ka.” This is twofold: with an unordained person or with a woman. Hence, it is said, “duvidhaṃ sahaseyyaka” (twofold sahaseyya). “Dirattatiratta” (two or three nights): Here, the term “diratta” (two nights) should be understood as merely a verbal convention. For when a three-night stay is permissible, there is no need to separately mention a two-night stay. Therefore, it is said, “uttaridirattatiratta” (beyond two or three nights), meaning the Buddha gave the allowance of a three-night stay for the sake of accommodating sāmaṇeras. The mention of “diratta” (two nights) is included to ensure continuity in counting the three nights. For if only “tiratta” (three nights) were mentioned, one might include an interval in the counting. But by specifying “diratta,” it clearly indicates an uninterrupted three-night stay. The Vimativinodanī (Vinaya commentary) also states, “The mention of ‘diratta’ is for the sake of verbal elegance. It means that after lying down continuously for three nights, if one lies down again on the fourth day or later, it is an offense, but not if there is an interval of a day or more.” “Sahaseyyaṃ” means lying down together. “Seyya” here refers to both the act of stretching out the body and the sleeping place itself. Therefore, “seyyaṃ kappeyyā” means entering the sleeping place and preparing the bed by stretching out the body. “Diyaḍḍhahatthubbedhenā” means a length of two and a half cubits, measured by a carpenter’s cubit. “Pañcahi chadanehī” refers to the five kinds of roofing: tiles, stones, plaster, grass, and leaves. “Vācuggatavasenā” means through habitual practice.
ID475
Ekūpacāroti vaḷañjanadvārassa ekattaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.50-51) pana “ekūpacāro ekena maggena pavisitvā abbhokāsaṃ anokkamitvā sabbattha anuparigamanayoggo, etaṃ bahudvārampi ekūpacārova. Yattha pana kuṭṭādīhi rundhitvā visuṃ dvāraṃ yojenti, nānūpacāro hoti. Sace pana rundhati eva, visuṃ dvāraṃ na yojenti, etampi ekūpacārameva mattikādīhi pihitadvāro viya gabbhoti gahetabbaṃ. Aññathā gabbhe pavisitvā pamukhādīsu nipannānupasampannehi sahaseyyāparimuttiyā gabbhadvāraṃ mattikādīhi pidahāpetvā uṭṭhite aruṇe vivarāpentassapi anāpatti bhaveyyā”ti vuttaṃ. Catusālaṃ ekūpacāraṃ hotīti sambandho. Tesaṃ payoge payoge bhikkhussa āpattīti ettha keci “anuṭṭhahanena akiriyasamuṭṭhānā āpatti vuttā, tasmiṃ khaṇe niddāyantassa kiriyābhāvā. Idañhi sikkhāpadaṃ siyā kiriyāya, siyā akiriyāya samuṭṭhāti. Kiriyāya samuṭṭhānatā cassa tabbahulavasena vuttā”ti vadanti. “Yathā cetaṃ, evaṃ divāsayanampi. Anuṭṭhahanena, hi dvārāsaṃvaraṇena cetaṃ akiriyasamuṭṭhānampi hotī”ti vadanti, idañca yuttaṃ viya dissati, vīmaṃsitvā gahetabbaṃ.
Ekūpacāro is said with reference to the unity of the entrance at the anointing door. However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.50-51), it is stated, “Ekūpacāro: suitable for entering by one path and moving everywhere without entering open space, this is still ekūpacāra even if it has many doors. But where walls block it and separate doors are made, it becomes nānūpacāra. If it is blocked but no separate door is made, it remains ekūpacāra, like a chamber with a door closed by clay. Otherwise, if one enters a chamber, lies with unordained persons at the entrance, seals the chamber door with clay, and opens it at dawn, there would be no offense.” The connection is that a four-halled structure is ekūpacāra. In tesaṃ payoge payoge bhikkhussa āpattī, some say, “An offense arising from inaction is mentioned due to not rising, as there is no action while sleeping at that moment. This training rule may arise from action or inaction. Its arising from action is stated as the more common case.” They also say, “Just as here, so too with daytime sleeping. Due to not rising and closing the door, it can also arise from inaction,” and this seems reasonable, to be understood upon reflection.
One single area of movement is said referring to the oneness of the door to be used. But in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.50-51) it is said, **“One single area of movement, entering by one path and without encroaching upon the open space, is fit to be gone through everywhere. This, even with many doors, is indeed a single area of movement. But where they block it with walls and so on, and make separate doors, it is not a single area of movement. But if one just blocks, and does not create a separate door, this should be considered a chamber like one whose door is closed with clay and so on, and is indeed a single area of movement. Otherwise, having entered the chamber, there would be no offense even for one who, after having caused the chamber door to be closed with clay and so on because of the release from sleeping together with those not fully ordained, lying down on the raised platforms and so on, has it opened when dawn has arisen”. The connection is that a four-sided building is a single area of movement. Here, in ”for each of their actions there is an offense for the monk,“** some say”the offense is said to originate from inaction, through not arising, because at that moment, the one sleeping is devoid of action. Indeed, this training rule originates sometimes by action, sometimes by inaction. And that it originates by action is said by way of its prevalence.” “As this is the case, so is sleeping during the day. Through not arising, and by not closing the door, this also originates from inaction,” they say, and this seems to be correct, it should be taken after consideration.
“Ekūpacāro” refers to a single entrance, specifically the main entrance. The Vimativinodanī (Vinaya commentary) states, “‘Ekūpacāro’ means entering through one path without stepping outside, and it is suitable for being approached from all sides. Even if it has many doors, it is still considered a single entrance. However, if walls are used to block off separate doors, it is not a single entrance. But if the doors are merely blocked without constructing separate doors, it is still considered a single entrance, like a room with a door blocked by clay. Even if one enters such a room and lies down with unordained persons, and later opens the door at dawn, there is no offense.” The connection is that a four-walled structure with a single entrance is called “ekūpacāra” (single entrance). “Tesaṃ payoge payoge bhikkhussa āpattī” (in each case, the bhikkhu commits an offense): Some say that the offense arises from non-action, as no action is performed at the moment of sleeping. This rule may arise from either action or non-action, but it is mostly explained as arising from action. Similarly, even during the day, if one does not act, such as by not closing the door, it is also an offense arising from non-action. This seems reasonable and should be carefully considered.
ID476
80. Uparimatalena saddhiṃ asambaddhabhittikassāti idaṃ sambaddhabhittike vattabbameva natthīti dassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Uparimatale sayitassa saṅkā eva natthīti “heṭṭhāpāsāde”tiādi vuttaṃ. Nānūpacāreti yattha bahi nisseṇiṃ katvā uparimatalaṃ ārohanti, tādisaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ “uparimatalepī”ti. Ākāsaṅgaṇe nipajjantassa āpattiabhāvato “chadanabbhantare”ti vuttaṃ. Sabhāsaṅkhepenāti sabhākārena. Aḍḍhakuṭṭake senāsaneti ettha “aḍḍhakuṭṭakaṃ nāma yattha upaḍḍhaṃ muñcitvā tīsu passesu bhittiyo baddhā honti , yattha vā ekasmiṃ passe bhittiṃ uṭṭhāpetvā ubhosu passesu upaḍḍhaṃ upaḍḍhaṃ katvā bhittiyo uṭṭhāpenti, tādisaṃ senāsana”nti tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ, gaṇṭhipade pana “aḍḍhakuṭṭaketi chadanaṃ aḍḍhena asampattakuṭṭake”ti vuttaṃ, tampi no na yuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ pana “sabhāsaṅkhepenāti vuttasseva aḍḍhakuṭṭaketi iminā saṇṭhānaṃ dasseti. Yattha tīsu, dvīsu vā passesu bhittiyo baddhā, chadanaṃ vā asampattā aḍḍhabhitti, idaṃ aḍḍhakuṭṭakaṃ nāmā”ti vuttaṃ. Vāḷasaṅghāṭo nāma parikkhepassa anto thambhādīnaṃ upari vāḷarūpehi katasaṅghāṭo.
80. Uparimatalena saddhiṃ asambaddhabhittikassā is said to show that there is no need to mention it for a connected wall, as there is no doubt when sleeping on the upper floor; hence “heṭṭhāpāsāde” and so forth is stated. Nānūpacāre refers to a place where an external ladder is made to climb to the upper floor, as meant by “uparimatalepī”. Due to the absence of an offense when lying in an open courtyard, “chadanabbhantare” is said. Sabhāsaṅkhepenā means in the manner of an assembly hall. Regarding aḍḍhakuṭṭake senāsane, it is said in all three knotty passages, “An aḍḍhakuṭṭaka is where half is left open and walls are built on three sides, or where a wall is raised on one side and half-walls on both sides.” But in one knotty passage, it says, “Aḍḍhakuṭṭaka means a roof not reaching half the walls,” which seems inconsistent. In the Vimativinodanī, however, it says, “Sabhāsaṅkhepenā indicates the form of what was called aḍḍhakuṭṭake. Where walls are built on three or two sides, or the roof does not reach half the walls, this is called aḍḍhakuṭṭaka.” Vāḷasaṅghāṭo refers to a covering made atop pillars or beams within the enclosure, shaped like a beast.
80. Of that whose walls are not connected with the upper story, this has been said to show that there is nothing to be said about connected walls. Because there is no doubt for one sleeping on the upper story, it is said, “in the lower palace,” and so on. Not a single area of movement refers to a place where they ascend to the upper story by making an outside staircase, it is said “even on the upper story”. Because there is no offense for one lying down in the courtyard, it is said, “inside the covering”. By way of assembly hall, with the manner of an assembly hall. Here, in “a lodging that is a half-hut,” “a half-hut is a lodging where half is left uncovered and walls are built on three sides, or where a wall is erected on one side, and half and half are erected as walls on both sides,” it is said thus in all three gaṇṭhipada texts; but in the gaṇṭhipada, “a half-hut is a building with a roof that does not extend over the complete wall” is stated; that also is not inappropriate for us. But in Vimativinodanī, what is called “By way of assembly hall”, the shape of this is shown by “a half-hut”. Where walls are built on three or two sides, or the roof does not reach a half-wall, this is called a half-hut,” is stated. Vāḷasaṅghāṭo is an structure made with vāḷa forms above the pillars inside of the enclosure.
80. “Uparimatalena saddhiṃ asambaddhabhittikassā” (with an upper floor without connected walls): This is said to indicate that there is no need to mention a connected wall. For one lying on an upper floor, there is no suspicion. Hence, “heṭṭhāpāsāde” (in the lower mansion) and so on are mentioned. “Nānūpacāre” (different entrances) refers to a place where one ascends to the upper floor by an external staircase. Hence, “uparimatalepī” (even on the upper floor) is mentioned. Since there is no offense for one lying down in an open space, “chadanabbhantare” (under the roof) is mentioned. “Sabhāsaṅkhepenā” means in the manner of an assembly hall. “Aḍḍhakuṭṭake senāsane” (in a half-walled dwelling): Here, “aḍḍhakuṭṭaka” refers to a dwelling where half the wall is left open on three sides, or where a wall is built on one side and half-walls are constructed on the other two sides. In the Gaṇṭhipada, it is said, “‘Aḍḍhakuṭṭaka’ means a roof that is half-covered without reaching the wall,” but this is not correct. The Vimativinodanī states, “‘Sabhāsaṅkhepenā’ (in the manner of an assembly hall) indicates the form, and ‘aḍḍhakuṭṭake’ refers to a place where walls are built on three or two sides, or where the roof does not reach halfway up the wall. This is called ‘aḍḍhakuṭṭaka.’” “Vāḷasaṅghāṭo” refers to a lattice structure made in the shape of a net, placed above pillars within an enclosure.
ID477
Parikkhepassa bahi gateti ettha yattha yasmiṃ passe parikkhepo natthi, tatthāpi parikkhepārahapadesato bahi gate anāpattiyevāti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.50-51) pana “parikkhepassa bahi gateti ettha yasmiṃ passe parikkhepo natthi, tattha sace bhūmito vatthu uccaṃ hoti, ubhato uccavatthuto heṭṭhā bhūmiyaṃ nibbakosabbhantarepi anāpatti eva tattha senāsanavohārābhāvato. Atha vatthu nīcaṃ bhūmisamameva senāsanassa heṭṭhimatale tiṭṭhati, tattha parikkheparahitadisāya nibbakosabbhantare sabbattha āpatti hoti, paricchedābhāvato parikkhepassa bahi eva anāpattīti daṭṭhabba”nti vuttaṃ. Aparicchinnagabbhūpacāreti ettha majjhe vivaṭaṅgaṇavantāsu mahācatusālāsu yathā ākāsaṅgaṇaṃ anotaritvā pamukheneva gantvā sabbagabbhe pavisituṃ na sakkā hoti, evaṃ ekekagabbhassa dvīsu passesu kuṭṭaṃ nīharitvā kataṃ paricchinnagabbhūpacāraṃ nāma, idaṃ pana tādisaṃ na hotīti “aparicchinnagabbhūpacāre”ti vuttaṃ. Sabbagabbhepi pavisantīti gabbhūpacārassa aparicchinnattā ākāsaṅgaṇaṃ anotaritvāpi pamukheneva gantvā taṃ taṃ gabbhaṃ pavisanti. Atha kuto tassa parikkhepoyeva sabbaparicchinnattāti vuttanti āha “gabbhaparikkhepoyeva hissa parikkhepo”ti, idañca samantā gabbhabhittiyo sandhāya vuttaṃ. Catusālavasena hi sanniviṭṭhe senāsane gabbhapamukhaṃ visuṃ aparikkhittampi samantā ṭhitaṃ gabbhabhittīnaṃ vasena parikkhittaṃ nāma hoti.
Regarding parikkhepassa bahi gate, it should be seen that even where there is no enclosure on a side, there is no offense if outside the enclosure-worthy area. In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.50-51), it is said, “Parikkhepassa bahi gate: where there is no enclosure on a side, if the ground is raised, there is no offense even within the open space below both raised areas due to the absence of a lodging designation. But if the ground is low and level with the lower floor of the lodging, an offense occurs everywhere within the open space on the side without an enclosure, as there is no boundary; outside the enclosure, there is no offense.” In aparicchinnagabbhūpacāre, in large four-halled structures with an open courtyard in the middle, one cannot enter all chambers via the entrance without crossing the courtyard; thus, where walls are extended on both sides of each chamber, it is called paricchinnagabbhūpacāra. Since this is not so here, it says “aparicchinnagabbhūpacāre.” Sabbagabbhepi pavisantī means they enter each chamber via the entrance without crossing the courtyard due to the unbounded chamber access. Then, how is it fully enclosed? It says, “gabbhaparikkhepoyeva hissa parikkhepo”, referring to the surrounding chamber walls. For in a lodging arranged as a four-halled structure, even an unenclosed chamber entrance is considered enclosed by the surrounding chamber walls.
Having gone outside the enclosure, here, where there is no enclosure on any side, even there, having gone outside of the area suitable for an enclosure, there is indeed no offense, that should be seen. However in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.50-51) it has been stated: “Having gone outside of the enclosure”, here, where there is no enclosure on a certain side, if there the grounds are higher than the foundation, below the higher grounds on both sides within the area of the foundations there is no offense, because there is no lodging designation there. If the site is low and level with the ground and rests at the base of the lodging, in that case there is an offense everywhere within the foundation area, on the side lacking an enclosure, because there is no boundary. There is no offense only outside of the enclosure”. In a location that is not an enclosed chamber area, in the case of great four-sided buildings that have open courtyards in the middle, just as it is not possible to enter all the chambers by going through the entrance without descending to the courtyard, thus an enclosed chamber area is created by taking out walls on two sides of each chamber, but this is not like that, hence “In a location that is not an enclosed chamber area” is said. They enter all the chambers, because the chamber area is not enclosed, they enter each respective chamber by going through the very entrance, without descending into the courtyard. Then why is it said that its enclosure alone is the complete enclosure? He says “Indeed, the chamber enclosure alone is its enclosure,” and this is said in reference to the chamber walls all around. Indeed, in a lodging arranged as a four-sided building, even though the chamber entrance is not enclosed separately, it is called enclosed by means of the walls of the chamber situated all around.
“Parikkhepassa bahi gate” (outside the enclosure): Here, even if there is no enclosure on one side, it is still considered outside the enclosure, and there is no offense. The Vimativinodanī states, “‘Parikkhepassa bahi gate’ means that even if there is no enclosure on one side, if the ground is elevated, there is no offense even in the space below the ground level, as it is not considered a dwelling. But if the ground is level, and the dwelling’s lower floor is at ground level, then in the direction where the enclosure is absent, there is an offense in the space below, as it is not enclosed. Outside the enclosure, there is no offense.” “Aparicchinnagabbhūpacāre” (in an undivided interior): In large four-walled halls with open central spaces, one cannot enter all the rooms without passing through the central space. Therefore, removing walls on two sides of each room creates a “paricchinnagabbhūpacāra” (divided interior). But this is not the case here, hence “aparicchinnagabbhūpacāre” (undivided interior) is mentioned. “Sabbagabbhepi pavisantī” (entering all rooms): Because the interior is undivided, one can enter each room directly without passing through the central space. Hence, it is said, “gabbhaparikkhepoyeva hissa parikkhepo” (the enclosure of the room itself is its boundary), referring to the walls surrounding the rooms. In a four-walled dwelling, even if the entrance is not separately enclosed, the surrounding walls of the rooms constitute the enclosure.
ID478
81. Ekadisāya ujukameva dīghaṃ katvā sannivesito pāsādo ekasālasanniveso. Dvīsu tīsu catūsu vā disāsu siṅghāṭakasaṇṭhānādivasena katā dvisālādisannivesā veditabbā. Sālappabhedadīpanameva cettha purimato visesoti. Aṭṭha pācittiyānīti upaḍḍhacchannaṃ upaḍḍhaparicchannaṃ senāsanaṃ dukkaṭavatthussa ādiṃ katvā pāḷiyaṃ dassitattā tato adhikaṃ sabbacchannaupaḍḍhaparicchannādikampi sabbaṃ pāḷiyaṃ avuttampi pācittiyasseva vatthubhāvena dassitaṃ sikkhāpadassa paṇṇattivajjattā, garuke ṭhātabbato cāti veditabbaṃ. “Satta pācittiyānī”ti pāḷiyaṃ vuttapācittiyadvayaṃ sāmaññato ekattena gahetvā vuttaṃ. Pāḷiyaṃ (pāci. 54) “tatiyāya rattiyā purāruṇā nikkhamitvā puna sayatī”ti idaṃ ukkaṭṭhavasena vuttaṃ, anikkhamitvā purāruṇā uṭṭhahitvā antochadane nisinnassāpi puna divase sahaseyyena anāpatti eva. Ettha catubhāgo cūḷakaṃ, dvebhāgā upaḍḍhaṃ, tīsu bhāgesu dve bhāgā yebhuyyanti iminā lakkhaṇena cūḷakacchannaparicchannādīni veditabbāni. Idāni dutiyasikkhāpadepi yathāvuttanayaṃ atidisanto “mātugāmena…pe… ayameva vinicchayo”ti āha. “Matitthiyā pārājikavatthubhūtāyapi anupādinnapakkhe ṭhitattā sahaseyyāpattiṃ na janetī”ti vadanti. “Atthaṅgate sūriye mātugāme nipanne nipajjati, āpatti pācittiyassā”ti (pāci. 57) vacanato divā tassa sayantassa sahaseyyāpatti na hotiyevāti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
81. A palace arranged lengthwise in one direction is an ekasālasanniveso. Those arranged in two, three, or four directions, shaped like a junction or otherwise, are to be understood as dvisālādisannivesā. The distinction here from before is merely showing hall types. Regarding aṭṭha pācittiyānī, starting with half-covered and half-enclosed lodgings as the basis for a dukkaṭa, as shown in the text, even fully covered or half-enclosed lodgings and beyond, though not mentioned in the text, are shown as bases for a pācittiya due to the rule being a fault of enactment and standing as serious. In “satta pācittiyānī”, the two pācittiyas stated in the text (pāci. 54) are taken generally as one. “Leaving before dawn on the third night and sleeping again” is stated as the strictest case; even if one rises before dawn without leaving and sits inside the roofed area, there is no offense with co-sleeping the next day. Here, a quarter is cūḷakaṃ, half is upaḍḍhaṃ, and two of three parts is yebhuyyaṃ; by this measure, half-covered, enclosed, etc., are to be understood. Now, extending the method to the second training rule, he says, “mātugāmena…pe… ayameva vinicchayo”. They say, “Even with a deceased woman, a basis for a pārājika, there is no co-sleeping offense as she is on the unadopted side.” From the statement (pāci. 57), “If he lies down when a woman lies down after sunset, there is a pācittiya offense,” it is seen that there is no co-sleeping offense for one sleeping with her during the day.
81. A palace built long, straight in one direction is a single-hall arrangement. Two-hall and other arrangements should be known as made with the forms of crossroads and so on in two, three, or four directions. Indeed, here the explanation of the different kinds of halls is the difference from the previous. Eight pācittiyas, the lodging that is half-covered, half-enclosed, is the start of what causes a dukkaṭa, it should be known that for all that is more than that, fully covered and half-enclosed, and so on, even all that is not stated in the Pāḷi, by the status of the thing that causes a pācittiya, it has been shown that since the training rule is paṇṇattivajja, and since one should stand in the serious. “Seven pācittiyas,” is said taking the two pācittiyas stated in the Pāḷi as one in general. In the Pāḷi (pāci. 54), “having gone out before dawn on the third night and sleeps again”, this has been said from the superlative standpoint; even for one not having gone out, having arisen before dawn, and sat down inside the covering, again there is no offense by sleeping together during the day. Here, one quarter is a small one, two quarters is a half, two out of three portions is predominating; with this characteristic, small cover and enclosure, etc. should be known. Now, extending the method as stated to the second training rule as well, he says, “with a woman… et cetera… this very determination.” “Because even a woman who is a pārājika object stands in the category of one who has not acquired [the status], she does not generate the offense of sleeping together”, they say. “Lying down when a woman lies down after sunset, there is a pācittiya offense” (pāci. 57), from this statement it should be understood that there is indeed no offense of sleeping together for one sleeping during the day.
81. A mansion built in a straight line along one direction is called “ekasālasanniveso” (single-halled structure). Structures built in two, three, or four directions, resembling a crossroads, are called “dvisālādisannivesā” (double-halled, etc.). The classification of halls is explained here as before, with additional distinctions. “Aṭṭha pācittiyānī” (eight pācittiya offenses): Since the Pāli texts mention half-covered and half-enclosed dwellings as the basis for dukkaṭa offenses, anything beyond that, such as fully covered or fully enclosed dwellings, though not explicitly mentioned in the Pāli, is also included under pācittiya due to the gravity of the offense. “‘Satta pācittiyānī’” (seven pācittiya offenses): This refers to the two pācittiya offenses mentioned in the Pāli texts, combined into one. In the Pāli (pāci. 54), it is said, “If one leaves before dawn on the third night and lies down again,” this is stated in a strict sense. But if one does not leave and rises before dawn, sitting under the roof, there is no offense for lying down together during the day. Here, one-fourth is called “cūḷakaṃ” (small), half is called “upaḍḍhaṃ” (half), and two-thirds is called the majority. By this definition, terms like “cūḷakacchanna” (small roof) and “paricchanna” (enclosed) should be understood. Now, in the second rule, following the same method, it is said, “With a woman… this is the decision.” Some say that even a woman who is a pārājika offender does not generate an offense of sahaseyya if she has not been formally accused. “After sunset, if a woman lies down and one lies down with her, it is a pācittiya offense” (pāci. 57). Therefore, during the day, there is no offense of sahaseyya for lying down together.
ID479
Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, a commentary on the Vinaya collection
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is an explanation of the Vinayasaṅgaha,
Thus, in the Vinayasaṅgaha, adorned with the Vinayālaṅkāra,
ID480
Sahaseyyavinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma
The exposition on the determination of co-sleeping
The chapter on the determination of sleeping together
the exposition on the decision regarding sahaseyya is called
ID481
Soḷasamo paricchedo.
Is the sixteenth section.
The sixteenth chapter.
the sixteenth chapter.
ID482
ID483
82. Evaṃ sahaseyyavinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni saṅghike vihāre seyyāsu kattabbavinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ “vihāre saṅghike seyya”ntyādimāha. Tattha samaggaṃ kammaṃ samupagacchatīti saṅgho, ayameva vacanattho sabbasaṅghasādhāraṇo. Saṅghassa dinno saṅghiko, viharati etthāti vihāro, tasmiṃ. Sayanti etthāti seyyā, taṃ. Asantharīti santharitvāna. Pakkamanaṃ pakkamo, gamananti attho. “Vihāre saṅghike seyyaṃ, santharitvāna pakkamo”ti imassa uddesapāṭhassa saṅghike vihāre…pe… pakkamananti attho daṭṭhabboti yojanā. Tatrāti tasmiṃ pakkamane ayaṃ īdiso mayā vuccamāno vinicchayo veditabboti attho. Katamo so vinicchayoti āha “saṅghike…pe… pācittiya”nti. Aparikkhittassa upacāro nāma senāsanato dve leḍḍupātā. Pācittiyanti paṭhamaṃ pādaṃ atikkāmentassa dukkaṭaṃ, dutiyātikkame pācittiyaṃ. Kathaṃ viññāyaticcāha “yo pana bhikkhu…pe… vacanato”ti.
82. Having explained the determination regarding co-sleeping, now to explain the determination regarding conduct with beds in a monastic lodging, he said, “vihāre saṅghike seyya” and so forth. Here, a group that undertakes harmonious action is a saṅgha; this is the meaning applicable to all Sangha contexts. Given to the Sangha is saṅghiko; where one dwells is a vihāro; therein. Where they sleep is seyyā; that. Without spreading is asantharīti; having spread is santharitvāna. Departure is pakkamo, meaning going. The recitation text “vihāre saṅghike seyyaṃ, santharitvāna pakkamo” means “in a monastic lodging… departing”; this is the construction to be understood. Tatrā means in that departure, this determination as stated by me is to be understood. What is that determination? He says, “saṅghike…pe… pācittiya”. The boundary of an unenclosed area is two stone-throws from the lodging. Pācittiya means a dukkaṭa for crossing the first step, a pācittiya for the second crossing. How is this known? He says, “yo pana bhikkhu…pe… vacanato”.
82. Having thus explained the determination of sleeping together, now, in order to explain the determination of what should be done regarding beds in saṅghika monasteries, he says, beginning with, “In a saṅghika monastery, a bed”. There, that which goes to the complete action is the saṅgha, this very word meaning is common to all saṅghas. What has been given to the saṅgha is saṅghika, one dwells in this, thus vihāra, in that. They sleep in this, thus seyyā, that. Without spreading is having spread. Departure is pakkamo, meaning going. The connection is: the meaning of this declamation phrase “In a saṅghika monastery, a bed, having spread, departure” should be understood as “in a saṅghika monastery… et cetera… departure.” Tatrā, in that departure, this very determination as is being stated by me should be known. What is that determination? He states: “Saṅghike… et cetera… pācittiya”. The area of movement of that which is not enclosed is two leḍḍupātas from the lodging. Pācittiya, a dukkaṭa for the one stepping across the first [step], a pācittiya for the crossing of the second. How is it to be known? He says, “Whatever monk… et cetera… from the statement.”
82. Having explained the decision on sahaseyya, now to explain the decision on proper conduct regarding community bedding and seats, it begins with “vihāre saṅghike seyya” (in a community dwelling, bedding). Herein, “saṅgha” means an assembly that performs harmonious actions. What is given to the saṅgha is called “saṅghika” (community property). A place where one resides is called “vihāra” (dwelling), and where one lies down is called “seyyā” (bedding). “Santharitvāna” means spread out. “Pakkamo” means departure, i.e., leaving. The phrase “vihāre saṅghike seyyaṃ, santharitvāna pakkamo” means that in a community dwelling, after spreading out the bedding, one departs. The meaning of this recitation should be understood accordingly. “Tatrā” means in that departure, this kind of decision should be understood as explained by me. What is that decision? It is said, “in a community dwelling… pācittiya.” “Aparikkhittassa upacāro” means the area within two stone-throws from the dwelling. “Pācittiya” means that crossing the first step is a dukkaṭa offense, and crossing the second step is a pācittiya offense. How is this understood? It is said, “if a bhikkhu… according to the rule.”
ID484
Tattha saṅghiko vihāro pākaṭo, seyyā apākaṭā, sā katividhāiccāha “seyyā nāma…pe… dasavidhā”ti. Tatthāpi katamā bhisi, katamā cimilikādayoti āha “tattha bhisīti…pe… esa nayo paṇṇasanthāre”ti. Tattha mañce attharitabbāti mañcakabhisi, evaṃ itaratra, vaṇṇānurakkhaṇatthaṃ katāti paṭakhaṇḍādīhi sibbitvā katā. Bhūmiyaṃ attharitabbāti cimilikāya sati tassā upari, asati suddhabhūmiyaṃ attharitabbā. Sīhadhammādīnaṃ pariharaṇe eva paṭikkhepoti iminā mañcapīṭhādīsu attharitvā puna saṃharitvā ṭhapanādivasena attano atthāya pariharaṇameva na vaṭṭati, bhūmattharaṇādivasena paribhogo pana attano pariharaṇaṃ na hotīti dasseti. Khandhake hi “antopi mañce paññattāni honti, bahipi mañce paññattāni hontī”ti evaṃ attano atthāya mañcādīsu paññapetvā pariharaṇavatthusmiṃ “na, bhikkhave, mahācammāni dhāretabbāni sīhacammaṃ byagghacammaṃ dīpicammaṃ, yo dhāreyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 255) paṭikkhepo kato, tasmā vuttanayenevettha adhippāyo daṭṭhabbo. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.112) pana “yadi evaṃ ’pariharaṇeyeva paṭikkhepo’ti idaṃ kasmā vuttanti codanaṃ katvā ’anujānāmi, bhikkhave, sabbaṃ pāsādaparibhoga’nti (cūḷava. 320) vacanato puggalikepi senāsane senāsanaparibhogavasena niyamitaṃ suvaṇṇaghaṭādikaṃ paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭamānampi kevalaṃ attano santakaṃ katvā paribhuñjituṃ na vaṭṭati. Evamidaṃ bhūmattharaṇavasena paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭamānampi attano santakaṃ katvā taṃ taṃ vihāraṃ haritvā paribhuñjituṃ na vaṭṭatīti dassanatthaṃ pariharaṇeyeva paṭikkhepo veditabbo”ti vuttaṃ.
Therein, a monastic lodging is obvious, but the bed is not; how many types is it? He says, “seyyā nāma…pe… dasavidhā”. Among them, what is a mat, what are cushions, etc.? He says, “tattha bhisīti…pe… esa nayo paṇṇasanthāre”. There, to be spread on a bed is a mañcakabhisi; likewise elsewhere. Vaṇṇānurakkhaṇatthaṃ katā means made by sewing with cloth strips for color preservation. Bhūmiyaṃ attharitabbā means to be spread on the ground; if there is a cushion, on it; if not, directly on the ground. Sīhadhammādīnaṃ pariharaṇe eva paṭikkhepo shows that keeping them for oneself by spreading and then folding up beds or seats is not allowed, but use as ground covering is not keeping for oneself. For in the Khandhaka, “Inside and outside, beds are prepared,” regarding keeping beds for oneself, it says, “Monks, large hides—lion, tiger, leopard—are not to be kept; one who keeps them incurs a dukkaṭa” (mahāva. 255); thus, the intent here is to be understood accordingly. However, in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.112), it says, raising the objection, “If so, why say ‘only keeping is prohibited’?” and answers, “From the statement (cūḷava. 320), ‘I allow all palace use,’ even in personal lodgings, items like golden vessels designated for lodging use may be used, but not kept as personal property. Likewise, this may be used as ground covering but not taken to various lodgings as personal property; thus, only keeping is prohibited.”
There, the saṅghika monastery is evident, but the bed is not evident. Of how many kinds is it? He states, “Bed… et cetera… tenfold.” There also, which is the mattress, which are the bolster and so on? He says, “There, a mattress… et cetera… this is the method in the case of a leaf spread”. There, what should be spread on a bed is mañcakabhisi, likewise in the other cases, made for the protection of color, made by sewing with pieces of cloth and so on. What should be spread on the ground, on top of a bolster, if it exists, if not, it should be spread on the bare ground. In the prohibition is only in the case of handling lion skin, and so on, by this he shows that handling in the sense of taking them up again after spreading them on beds, chairs, etc., and putting them away, for one’s own purpose is not allowed, but the use in the sense of spreading on the ground, etc., is not handling for one’s own purpose. Indeed, in the Khandhaka, “they are arranged on the bed inside, they are arranged on the bed outside,” thus in the matter of arranging them on beds and so on for one’s own purpose, it has been prohibited, “Monks, large skins should not be worn, lion skin, tiger skin, leopard skin, whoever would wear [them], an offense of dukkaṭa” (mahāva. 255). Therefore, the intention here should be seen by the very method stated. However, in Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.112), making the objection, “If so, then why is it stated ‘the prohibition is only in the case of handling’?”, it is said “I allow, monks, all the furnishings of the palace” (cūḷava. 320), by this statement, even though it is allowable to use gold pots, and so on, which are designated as furnishings of the lodging even in a private lodging, it is not allowable to use them as exclusively one’s own possession. Likewise, even though it is allowable to use this as a ground-spread, it is not allowable to use it as one’s own possession, taking it to each respective monastery. Therefore, for showing this, it is said: ‘the prohibition is only in the case of handling’“.
Here, the community dwelling is clear, but the bedding is not. What are its kinds? It is said, “seyyā nāma… dasavidhā” (bedding is of ten kinds). Among these, what is a mattress, what is a rug, etc.? It is said, “tattha bhisīti… esa nayo paṇṇasanthāre” (here, a mattress… this is the method for a leaf spread). Here, what should be spread on a bed is called “mañcakabhisi” (bed mattress), and so on elsewhere. “Vaṇṇānurakkhaṇatthaṃ katā” means made by sewing with patches for the sake of preserving its appearance. “Bhūmiyaṃ attharitabbā” means it should be spread on the ground if a rug is present, or directly on the bare ground if not. “Sīhadhammādīnaṃ pariharaṇe eva paṭikkhepo” (the prohibition is only for the protection of the lion’s share): This indicates that using bedding like mattresses and seats for personal protection is not allowed, but using ground spreads, etc., for personal use is not prohibited. In the Khandhaka, it is said, “both inside and outside the bed, things are designated,” and for personal protection, it is prohibited, “bhikkhus should not possess large hides like lion hides, tiger hides, or leopard hides. If one does, it is a dukkaṭa offense” (Mahāvagga 255). Therefore, the intention here should be understood accordingly. The Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha commentary) states, “If it is said, ‘the prohibition is only for protection,’ why is this said? Because the Buddha allowed the use of all monastery property, but personal use of golden vessels, etc., even in personal dwellings, is not allowed. Similarly, even using ground spreads for personal use is not allowed. Therefore, the prohibition is only for protection.”
ID485
Pāvāro kojavoti paccattharaṇatthāyeva ṭhapitā uggatalomā attharaṇavisesā. Ettakameva vuttanti aṭṭhakathāsu (pāci. aṭṭha. 116) vuttaṃ. “Idaṃ aṭṭhakathāsu tathāvuttabhāvadassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ, aññampi tādisaṃ mañcapīṭhesu attharitabbaṃ attharaṇamevā”ti tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. Mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. dutiyasenāsanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) pana “paccattharaṇaṃ nāma pāvāro kojavo”ti niyametvā vuttaṃ, tasmā gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ iminā na sameti, “vīmaṃsitvā gahetabba”nti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.116) vuttaṃ. Vīmaṃsite pana evamadhippāyo paññāyati – mātikāṭṭhakathāpi aṭṭhakathāyeva, tasmā mahāaṭṭhakathādīsu vuttanayena “pāvāro kojavo”ti niyametvā vuttaṃ, evaṃ niyamane satipi yathā “laddhātapatto rājakumāro”ti ātapattassa laddhabhāveyeva niyametvā vuttepi nidassananayavasena rājakakudhabhaṇḍasāmaññena samānā vālabījanādayopi vuttāyeva honti, evaṃ “pāvāro kojavo”ti niyametvā vuttepi nidassananayavasena tehi mañcapīṭhesu attharitabbabhāvasāmaññena samānā aññe attharaṇāpi vuttāyeva honti, tasmā gaṇṭhipadesu vuttavacanaṃ aṭṭhakathāvacanassa paṭilomaṃ na hoti, anulomamevāti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
Pāvāro kojavo refers to special coverings with raised hair placed solely for spreading. Ettakameva vutta means this alone is stated in the commentaries (pāci. aṭṭha. 116). “This is said to show what is stated in the commentaries; other similar coverings to be spread on beds or seats are also meant,” as stated in all three knotty passages. However, in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. dutiyasenāsanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), it is specified, “A covering is a pāvāra or kojava,” which does not align with the knotty passages. The Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.116) says, “To be understood upon reflection.” Upon reflection, the intent appears thus: the Mātikāṭṭhakathā is also a commentary, so in line with the great commentaries, “pāvāro kojavo” is specified. Even with this specification, just as “Prince with an acquired sunshade” specifies a sunshade but implies other royal items like fans by way of example, so too “pāvāro kojavo” implies other coverings sharing the quality of being spread on beds or seats by way of example. Thus, the statement in the knotty passages is not contrary to the commentary but in accord with it.
Pāvāro kojavo means special coverlets with raised wool, placed only for spreading. Only this much has been said means it is stated in the commentaries (pāci. aṭṭha. 116). In all three gaṇṭhipadas, it is stated, “This is said to show that it was mentioned thus in the commentaries; another similar thing that should be spread on beds and seats is also a coverlet.” But in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. dutiyasenāsanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), it is restrictively stated, “A coverlet means a pāvāra or a kojava,” therefore what is stated in the gaṇṭhipadas does not agree with this; it is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.116), “It should be accepted after examination.” Upon examination, the meaning appears thus – the Mātikāṭṭhakathā is also a commentary, therefore in accordance with the method stated in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā and others, it is restrictively stated, “A pāvāra or a kojava.” Even though it is thus restrictively stated, just as when it is said, “A prince who has obtained a sunshade,” it is restrictively stated only in terms of his having obtained the sunshade, yet by way of example, flywhisks and other items similar in general to the royal paraphernalia are also included; similarly, even though it is restrictively stated, “pāvāra or kojava,” yet by way of example, other coverlets which are similar to them in terms of their being spreadable on beds and seats are also included; therefore, the statement in the gaṇṭhipadas is not contrary to the statement in the commentary, it should be understood as being in agreement.
Pāvāro kojavo means a spread with long hair, placed specifically for covering. Only this much is said in the commentaries (pāci. aṭṭha. 116). “This is stated in the commentaries to show the nature of what has been said; other similar coverings should also be spread on beds and benches, and they are indeed coverings.” This is mentioned in three places in the texts. However, in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. dutiyasenāsanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), it is specified, “The covering called paccattharaṇa is the pāvāro kojavo.” Therefore, what is stated in the texts does not align with this, and it is said, “One should investigate and understand.” This is mentioned in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.116). Upon investigation, the intention becomes clear: the Mātikāṭṭhakathā is also a commentary, and thus, like in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, it is specified as “pāvāro kojavo.” Even with such specification, just as when it is said, “The royal prince has obtained a sunshade,” the sunshade is specified as obtained, yet other items like royal umbrellas and the like are also mentioned by way of example, similarly, when “pāvāro kojavo” is specified, other coverings that can be spread on beds and benches are also mentioned by way of example. Therefore, the statement in the texts does not contradict the commentary but is in harmony with it.
ID486
Imasmiṃ pana ṭhāne “yena vihāro kārito, so vihārassāmiko”ti pāṭhaṃ nissāya ekacce vinayadharā “saṅghikavihārassa vā puggalikavihārassa vā vihāradāyakoyeva sāmiko, soyeva issaro, tassa ruciyā eva vasituṃ labhati, na saṅghagaṇapuggalānaṃ ruciyā”ti vinicchayaṃ karonti, so vīmaṃsitabbo, kathaṃ ayaṃ pāṭho kimatthaṃ sādheti issaratthaṃ vā āpucchitabbatthaṃ vāti? Evaṃ vīmaṃsite “bhikkhumhi sati bhikkhu āpucchitabbo”tiādivacanato āpucchitabbatthameva sādheti, na issaratthanti viññāyati.
At this point, relying on the reading “yena vihāro kārito, so vihārassāmiko,” some Vinaya experts determine, “Only the donor of a monastic or personal lodging is its owner and master, entitled to reside by their preference, not by the Sangha or individuals’ preference.” This is to be examined: What does this text establish—mastery or the need to ask permission? Upon examination, from statements like “If a monk is present, the monk is to be asked,” it is understood to establish the need to ask, not mastery.
However, in this context, relying on the reading, “He who had the monastery built is the owner of the monastery,” some Vinaya experts make the determination, “The donor of the monastery, whether it is a Saṅgha monastery or a private monastery, is indeed the owner; he alone is the master; one can reside there only with his consent, not with the consent of the Saṅgha, group, or individual.” This should be examined. How does this reading establish its purpose? Does it establish mastery or the need to ask permission? Upon such examination, it is understood from the statements, “If there is a monk, the monk should be asked,” etc., that it only establishes the need to ask permission, not mastery.
Regarding this matter, some Vinaya experts, relying on the passage “The one who had the monastery built is the owner of the monastery,” conclude that “whether it is a monastery owned by the Sangha or an individual, the donor is the owner and has authority; only they can decide who may reside there, not the Sangha or any individual.” This should be examined: What does this passage establish—authority or the need to inform? Upon examination, it is understood that the passage establishes the need to inform, not authority.
ID487
Atha siyā “āpucchitabbatthe siddhe issarattho siddhoyeva hoti. Issarabhāvatoyeva hi so āpucchitabbo”ti. Tatthevaṃ vattabbaṃ – “āpucchantena ca bhikkhumhi sati bhikkhu āpucchitabbo, tasmiṃ asati sāmaṇero, tasmiṃ asati ārāmiko”tiādivacanato āyasmantānaṃ matena bhikkhupi sāmaṇeropi ārāmikopi vihārakārakopi tassa kule yo koci puggalopi issaroti āpajjeyya, evaṃ viññāyamānepi bhikkhumhi vā sāmaṇere vā ārāmike vā sati teyeva issarā, na vihārakārako. Tesu ekasmimpi asatiyeva vihārakārako issaro siyāti. Imasmiṃ pana adhikāre saṅghikaṃ senāsanaṃ rakkhaṇatthāya āpucchitabbaṃyeva vadati, na issarabhāvato āpucchitabbaṃ. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pāci. aṭṭha. 116) “anāpucchaṃ vā gaccheyyāti ettha bhikkhumhi sati bhikkhu āpucchitabbo”tiādi.
Then one might say, “If the need to ask is established, mastery is also established, for one is asked due to being the master.” It should be replied, “From statements like ‘If a monk is present, the monk is to be asked; if not, a novice; if not, a monastery attendant,’ according to the elders, a monk, novice, attendant, or anyone in the donor’s family could be the master. Yet even so, only the monk, novice, or attendant present is the master, not the donor. Only if none of them are present might the donor be the master.” Here, it says that a monastic lodging is to be asked about for protection, not due to mastery. For the commentary (pāci. aṭṭha. 116) states, “Without asking, one might go; if a monk is present, the monk is to be asked,” and so forth.
Now, it might be said, “If the need to ask permission is established, mastery is also established. Indeed, it is because of his being the master that he should be asked.” In that case, it should be said thus – from the statement of those asking, “When asking, if there is a monk, the monk should be asked; if he is not present, a novice; if he is not present, a temple attendant,” and so on, according to the venerable ones’ opinion, it would follow that a monk, a novice, a temple attendant, the monastery builder, or any person in his family is the master. Even if it is understood in this way, if there is a monk, a novice, or a temple attendant, they alone are the masters, not the monastery builder. Only if none of them are present would the monastery builder be the master. But in this matter, it only speaks of the need to ask permission in order to protect a monastic dwelling belonging to the Saṅgha, not of asking permission due to mastery. Indeed, it is said in the commentary (pāci. aṭṭha. 116), “In the case of ‘or he might go without asking,’ if there is a monk, the monk should be asked,” and so on.
One might argue, “If the need to inform is established, then authority is also established, for it is the authority that requires informing.” To this, it should be said: “When a monk is present, a monk should be informed; when a monk is not present, a novice; when a novice is not present, a monastery worker.” According to the elders, even a monk, novice, monastery worker, or any person in the donor’s family could be the authority. However, when a monk, novice, or monastery worker is present, they are the authorities, not the builder. Only when none of them are present does the builder become the authority. In this context, it is stated that a Sangha-owned dwelling should be informed about for the purpose of protection, not because of authority. As stated in the commentary (pāci. aṭṭha. 116), “If one were to go without informing, a monk should be informed if present,” etc.
ID488
Athāpi evaṃ vadeyya “na sakalassa vākyapāṭhassa adhippāyatthaṃ sandhāya amhehi vuttaṃ, atha kho ’vihārassāmiko’ti etassa padatthaṃyeva sandhāya vuttaṃ. Kathaṃ? Saṃ etassa atthīti sāmiko, vihārassa sāmiko vihārassāmiko. ’Ko vihārassāmiko nāmā’ti vutte ’yena vihāro kārito, so vihārassāmiko nāmā’ti vattabbo, tasmā vihārakārako dāyako vihārassāmiko nāmāti viññāyati, evaṃ viññāyamāne sati sāmiko nāma sassa dhanassa issaro, tassa ruciyā eva aññe labhanti, tasmā vihārassāmikabhūtassa dāyakassa ruciyā eva bhikkhū vasituṃ labhanti, na saṅghagaṇapuggalānaṃ ruciyāti imamatthaṃ sandhāya vutta”nti. Te evaṃ vattabbā – mā āyasmanto evaṃ avacuttha, yathā nāma “ghaṭikāro brahmā”ti vutto so brahmā idāni ghaṭaṃ na karoti, purimattabhāve pana karoti, tasmā “ghaṭaṃ karotī”ti vacanatthena “ghaṭikāro”ti nāmaṃ labhati. Iti pubbe laddhanāmattā pubbavohāravasena brahmabhūtopi “ghaṭikāro”icceva vuccati, evaṃ so vihārakārako bhikkhūnaṃ pariccattakālato paṭṭhāya vihārassāmiko na hoti vatthupariccāgalakkhaṇattā dānassa, pubbe pana apariccattakāle vihārassa kārakattā vihārassāmiko nāma hoti, so evaṃ pubbe laddhanāmattā pubbavohāravasena “vihārassāmiko”ti vuccati, na, pariccattassa vihārassa issarabhāvato. Teneva sammāsambuddhena “vihāradāyakānaṃ ruciyā bhikkhū vasantū”ti avatvā senāsanapaññāpako anuññātoti daṭṭhabbo. Tathā hi vuttaṃ vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.295) “tesaṃ gehānīti ettha bhikkhūnaṃ vāsatthāya katampi yāva na denti, tāva tesaṃ santakaṃyeva bhavissatīti daṭṭhabba”nti, tena dinnakālato paṭṭhāya tesaṃ santakāni na hontīti dasseti. Ayaṃ pana kathā pāṭhassa sammukhībhūtattā imasmiṃ ṭhāne kathitā. Vihāravinicchayo pana catupaccayabhājanavinicchaye (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 194 ādayo) āvi bhavissati. Yo kocīti ñātako vā aññātako vā yo koci. Yena mañcaṃ pīṭhaṃ vā vinanti, taṃ mañcapīṭhakavānaṃ.
Alternatively, one might say, “We did not mean the intent of the entire passage, but only the meaning of ‘vihārassāmiko.’ How? ‘Saṃ etassa atthīti sāmiko’—owner of this; owner of the lodging is vihārassāmiko. When asked, ‘Who is the vihārassāmiko?’ it should be said, ‘The one who built the lodging is the vihārassāmiko.’ Thus, it is understood that the builder-donor is the vihārassāmiko. As such, an owner is the master of their property, and others reside only by their preference. Hence, monks reside by the preference of the donor as vihārassāmiko, not by the Sangha or individuals’ preference.” They should be told, “Elders, do not say so. Just as ‘Ghaṭikāra the Brahmā’ does not make pots now but did in a past life, thus named ‘Ghaṭikāra’ by that action and still called so by prior convention despite being a Brahmā, so too the builder, once donating the lodging, is no longer its owner due to the nature of giving up property. Before donation, as its builder, he was the vihārassāmiko, and is called so by prior convention, not as the master of the donated lodging.” Thus, the Perfectly Enlightened One did not say, “Let monks reside by the donors’ preference,” but permitted a lodging arranger. For in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.295), it says, “Their homes: even built for monks’ residence, until given, remain theirs,” showing they are no longer theirs once given. This discussion arises here due to the text’s presence. The determination regarding lodgings will be clear in the section on the four requisites (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 194 onward). Yo kocī means any relative or unrelated person. One who requests a bed or seat is mañcapīṭhakavānaṃ.
Yet, someone might say, “We did not speak with reference to the meaning of the entire passage, but rather with reference only to the meaning of the phrase, ‘the owner of the monastery.’ How so? He who has this is the owner; the owner of the monastery is the owner of the monastery. When asked, ‘Who is called the owner of the monastery?’ it should be said, ‘He who had the monastery built, he is called the owner of the monastery,’ therefore the monastery builder, the donor, is understood to be the owner of the monastery. When it is understood in this way, an owner is the master of his own wealth; others obtain [it] only with his consent; therefore, monks can reside [in the monastery] only with the consent of the donor who is the owner of the monastery, not with the consent of the Saṅgha, group, or individual – this is the meaning we referred to.” They should be told thus – venerable sirs, do not speak thus. Just as when it is said, “Brahmā the potter,” that Brahmā does not now make pots, but he did so in a previous existence; therefore, he receives the name “potter” in the sense of the statement, “He makes pots.” Thus, due to the name received previously, even though he is a Brahmā, he is still called “potter” according to the former usage; similarly, that monastery builder is not the owner of the monastery from the time he gave it over to the monks, because the gift is characterized by the relinquishment of the property; but previously, at the time he was building the monastery before relinquishing it, he was called the owner of the monastery because he was the builder of the monastery; thus, due to the name received previously, he is called “the owner of the monastery” according to the former usage, not because of his mastery over the relinquished monastery. Therefore, it should be understood that the Fully Self-Awakened One authorized the allocator of lodgings, not saying, “Monks should reside with the consent of the monastery donors.” Thus, it is said in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.295), “In the case of ‘their houses,’ even what has been made for the monks’ residence, as long as it is not given, it should be understood as belonging to them,” thereby showing that from the time it is given, it does not belong to them. But this discussion is presented in this context because of the reading’s prominence. The determination concerning monasteries, however, will become clear in the determination concerning the distribution of the four requisites (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 194 ādayo). Anyone at all means any person, whether a relative or not. Whoever weaves a bed or a seat, that is the weaver of the bed and seat.
Furthermore, one might say, “We did not mean to refer to the entire passage but only to the term ‘owner of the monastery.’ How so? ‘Owner’ means one who has possession; thus, the owner of the monastery is the one who had it built. When asked, ‘Who is the owner of the monastery?’ one should answer, ‘The one who had the monastery built is the owner.’ Therefore, the builder or donor is the owner of the monastery. Thus, the donor, being the owner, has the right to decide who may reside there, not the Sangha or any individual.” To this, it should be said: “Venerables, do not speak thus. Just as it is said, ‘Ghaṭikāro Brahmā,’ that Brahma does not now make pots, but in the past he did, hence he is called ‘Ghaṭikāro.’ Similarly, the builder of the monastery, from the time of the gift onwards, is not the owner of the monastery, as the gift has the characteristic of relinquishment. However, before the gift, he was the owner due to having built the monastery. Thus, he is called ‘owner of the monastery’ due to the name acquired in the past, not because of authority over the relinquished monastery. Therefore, it should be understood that the Fully Enlightened One did not say, ‘The donors’ wishes should be followed,’ but appointed a regulator of lodgings. As stated in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.295), ‘Until they give the houses built for the monks’ residence, they remain their property.’ This indicates that from the time of the gift onwards, they are no longer their property. This discussion is presented here because it is relevant to the passage. The determination regarding monasteries will be fully explained in the section on the distribution of the four requisites (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 194 ff.). Yo kocī means any relative or non-relative. Mañcapīṭhakavānaṃ refers to one who prepares a bed or bench.
ID489
83. Siluccayaleṇanti siluccaye leṇaṃ, pabbataguhāti attho. “Senāsanaṃ upacikāhi khāyita”nti imasmiṃ vatthusmiṃ paññattattā vatthuanurūpavasena aṭṭhakathāyaṃ upacikāsaṅkāya abhāvena anāpatti vuttā. Vattakkhandhake (cūḷava. 360 ādayo) gamikavattaṃ paññāpentena “senāsanaṃ āpucchitabba”nti vuttattā kevalaṃ itikattabbatāmattadassanatthaṃ “āpucchanaṃ pana vatta”nti vuttaṃ , na pana vattabhede dukkaṭanti dassanatthaṃ, teneva andhakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ “senāsanaṃ āpucchitabba”nti ettha “yaṃ pāsāṇapiṭṭhiyaṃ vā pāsāṇatthambhesu vā katasenāsanaṃ yattha upacikā nārohanti, taṃ anāpucchantassapi anāpattī”ti vuttaṃ. Tasmā yaṃ vuttaṃ gaṇṭhipade “tādise senāsane anāpucchā gacchantassa pācittiyaṃ natthi, gamikavatte senāsanaṃ anāpucchā gacchanto vattabhedo hoti, tasmā dukkaṭaṃ āpajjatī”ti, taṃ na gahetabbaṃ.
83. Siluccayaleṇa means a cave at a high rock, i.e., a mountain cave. Since this rule was established regarding a lodging eaten by termites, the commentary states no offense due to the absence of termite concern, per the context. In the Vattakkhandhaka (cūḷava. 360 onward), establishing the duties of a traveler, it says, “The lodging is to be asked about,” so “āpucchanaṃ pana vatta” is said merely to show it as a duty, not to indicate a dukkaṭa for breach of duty. Thus, in the Andhaka commentary, regarding “The lodging is to be asked about,” it says, “A lodging made on a rock surface or stone pillars where termites do not climb has no offense if unasked.” Hence, what a knotty passage says—“In such a lodging, there is no pācittiya for going without asking; one who goes without asking in traveler duties breaches duty, thus incurring a dukkaṭa”—should not be accepted.
83. Siluccayaleṇa means a cave in a rocky outcrop; the meaning is a mountain cave. Because it was prescribed in the context of “lodgings being eaten by white ants,” in the commentary, absence [of offense] is stated due to the absence of concern about white ants, in accordance with the context. Because it is stated in the Vattakkhandhaka (cūḷava. 360 ādayo), “lodgings should be asked about,” when prescribing the duties of a departing monk, it is stated “Asking, however, is a duty” merely to show the mere formality; but not to show that there is a dukkaṭa due to a breach of duty; therefore, in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, regarding “lodgings should be asked about,” it is said, “As for a lodging made on a stone slab or on stone pillars, where white ants do not climb, there is no offense even for one who does not ask.” Therefore, what is stated in the gaṇṭhipada, “For one who goes without asking in such a lodging, there is no pācittiya; for one who goes without asking about lodgings in the duty of a departing monk, there is a breach of duty, therefore he incurs a dukkaṭa,” that should not be accepted.
83. Siluccayaleṇa means a cave in a rocky outcrop, a mountain cave. Since the rule was established in the context of “lodgings damaged by termites,” the commentary states that there is no offense if termites are absent, in accordance with the situation. In the section on duties for travelers (cūḷava. 360 ff.), it is said, “Lodgings should be informed about,” hence “informing is a duty” is stated merely to show the nature of the duty, not to indicate a separate offense of wrongdoing. Therefore, the Andhakaṭṭhakathā states, “Regarding lodgings on stone slabs or stone pillars where termites do not climb, there is no offense even if one does not inform.” Thus, what is said in the texts, “In such lodgings, there is no pācittiya for going without informing, but in the duty for travelers, going without informing is a breach of duty, hence one incurs a dukkaṭa,” should not be accepted.
ID490
Pacchimassa ābhogena mutti natthīti tassa pacchato gacchantassa aññassa abhāvato vuttaṃ. Ekaṃ vā pesetvā āpucchitabbanti ettha gamanacittassa uppannaṭṭhānato anāpucchitvā gacchante dutiyapāduddhāre pācittiyaṃ. Maṇḍape vāti sākhāmaṇḍape vā padaramaṇḍape vā. Rukkhamūleti yassa kassaci rukkhassa heṭṭhā. Palujjatīti vinassati.
Pacchimassa ābhogena mutti natthī is said due to the absence of another following the last one. Ekaṃ vā pesetvā āpucchitabba means if one goes without asking from where the intent to go arose, a pācittiya occurs at the second step lifted. Maṇḍape vā means in a branch canopy or plank canopy. Rukkhamūle means under any tree. Palujjatī means it decays.
There is no release for the last one by reflection means it is stated because there is no one else going behind him. One should ask after sending one means that at the point where the thought to depart arises, one who goes without asking incurs a pācittiya on taking the second step. In a pavilion means in a branch pavilion or a wooden-plank pavilion. At the foot of a tree means under any tree whatsoever. Palujjatī means perishes.
Pacchimassa ābhogena mutti natthi means there is no exemption for the one going behind due to the absence of another. Ekaṃ vā pesetvā āpucchitabba means that for one intending to go, if they go without informing, they incur a pācittiya at the second step. Maṇḍape vā means a branch pavilion or a leaf pavilion. Rukkhamūle means at the base of any tree. Palujjatī means it perishes.
ID491
84. Majjhe saṃkhittaṃ paṇavasaṇṭhānaṃ katvā baddhanti erakapattādīhi veṇiṃ katvā tāya veṇiyā ubhosu passesu vitthataṭṭhāne bahuṃ veṭhetvā tato paṭṭhāya yāva majjhaṭṭhānaṃ, tāva antoākaḍḍhanavasena veṭhetvā majjhe saṃkhipitvā tattha tattha bandhitvā kataṃ. Yattha kākā vā kulalā vā na ūhadantīti yattha dhuvanivāsena kulāvake katvā vasamānā ete kākakulalā, aññe vā sakuṇā taṃ senāsanaṃ na ūhadanti, tādise rukkhamūle nikkhipituṃ anujānāmīti attho.
84. Majjhe saṃkhittaṃ paṇavasaṇṭhānaṃ katvā baddha means made by braiding eraka grass into a plait, wrapping it thickly on both extended sides, then pulling it inward from there to the middle, contracting it, and tying it there. Yattha kākā vā kulalā vā na ūhadantī means where crows, herons, or other birds do not defecate by making permanent nests; I allow placing it under such a tree.
84. Tied in the middle, made into the shape of a conch shell means made with grass blades and such, making a braid, coiling much in the wide place on both sides of that braid, then from there, coiling by drawing it inward up to the middle, making it constricted in the middle, tying it here and there. Where crows or kites do not soil means where these crows and kites, or other birds, who dwell permanently making nests, do not soil that lodging; the meaning is, I allow [you] to place [it] at the foot of such a tree.
84. Majjhe saṃkhittaṃ paṇavasaṇṭhānaṃ katvā baddha means making a braid with hemp leaves, wrapping it extensively on both sides, and then pulling it tightly towards the middle, securing it there. Yattha kākā vā kulalā vā na ūhadantī means a place where crows, sparrows, or other birds do not perch, having made nests and residing there. Such a tree base is permitted for placing lodgings.
ID492
85. Navavāyimoti adhunā suttena vītakacchena paliveṭhitamañco. Onaddhoti kappiyacammena onaddho, sova onaddhako sakatthe ka-paccayavasena. Tena hi vassena sīghaṃ na nassati. Ukkaṭṭhaabbhokāsikoti idaṃ tassa sukhapaṭipattidassanamattaṃ , ukkaṭṭhassāpi pana cīvarakuṭi vaṭṭateva. Kāyānugatikattāti bhikkhuno tattheva nisinnabhāvaṃ dīpeti, tena ca vassabhayena sayaṃ aññattha gacchantassa āpattiṃ dasseti. Abbhokāsikānaṃ atemanatthāya niyametvā dāyakehi dinnampi attānaṃ rakkhantena rakkhitabbameva. “Yasmā pana dāyakehi dānakāleyeva satasahassagghanakampi kambalaṃ ’pādapuñchaniṃ katvā paribhuñjathā’ti dinnaṃ tatheva paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati, tasmā idampi mañcapīṭhādisenāsanaṃ ’ajjhokāsepi yathāsukhaṃ paribhuñjathā’ti dāyakehi dinnaṃ ce, sabbasmimpi kāle ajjhokāse nikkhipituṃ vaṭṭatīti vadantī”ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.108-110) vuttaṃ. Pesetvā gantabbanti ettha “yo bhikkhu imaṃ ṭhānaṃ āgantvā vasati, tassa dethā”ti vatvā pesetabbaṃ.
85. Navavāyimo means a newly woven bed wrapped with thread. Onaddho means bound with permissible leather; that is onaddhako, with the “ka” suffix indicating the agent. Thus, it does not decay quickly in the rains. Ukkaṭṭhaabbhokāsiko merely shows its ease of use; even a strict open-air dweller’s robe hut is permissible. Kāyānugatikattā indicates the monk’s presence there, showing an offense if he goes elsewhere due to rain fear. Even if given by donors for self-protection, it must be protected. The Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.108-110) says, “Since donors may give even a blanket worth a hundred thousand at donation time saying, ‘Use it as a foot-wiper,’ and it may be used so, if this bed or seat lodging is given by donors saying, ‘Use it freely even in the open,’ it may be placed in the open at all times.” Pesetvā gantabba means it should be sent saying, “Give it to the monk who comes to reside here.”
85. Navavāyimo means a bed that has just now been interwoven with thread and covered with a cloth border. Onaddho means covered with proper leather; that very one is onaddhako, by the addition of the suffix ka in its own sense. Because of that, it does not perish quickly in the rain. Ukkaṭṭhaabbhokāsiko this is merely a demonstration of his easy practice; but even for the most austere, a cloth hut is proper. Kāyānugatikattā indicates that the monk is sitting right there; and thereby, it shows the offense for one who, due to fear of the rain, goes elsewhere himself. Even what has been given by donors with the stipulation for not getting wet should be protected by one protecting oneself. It is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.108-110), “But since even a blanket worth a hundred thousand, given by donors at the time of giving with the words, ‘Use it as a foot-wiper,’ it is proper to use it in just that way; therefore, if this lodging, such as a bed or a seat, is given by donors with the words, ‘Even in the open air, use it as you please,’ it is proper to place it in the open air at any time.” Should be sent means one should send [a message], saying, “Give [it] to the monk who comes to reside in this place.”
85. Navavāyimo means a newly made bed covered with a clean cloth. Onaddho means covered with a permissible hide, hence onaddhako due to the prefix ‘ka-.’ Thus, it does not quickly deteriorate in the rain. Ukkaṭṭhaabbhokāsiko indicates the ease of practice for one who stays in the open. Even for one who stays in the open, a robe hut is still suitable. Kāyānugatikattā indicates the monk’s presence there, and it also shows the offense for one who goes elsewhere due to fear of rain. Even if given by donors for the sake of open-air dwellers, one must protect oneself. “Since donors may give even a blanket worth a hundred thousand at the time of donation, saying, ‘Use it as a foot-wiping cloth,’ it is permissible to use it. Similarly, if donors give beds, benches, or lodgings, saying, ‘Use them comfortably in the open,’ it is permissible to place them in the open at any time.” This is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.108-110). Pesetvā gantabba means saying, “Give this to the monk who comes to stay here,” and then sending it.
ID493
Valāhakānaṃ anuṭṭhitabhāvaṃ sallakkhetvāti iminā gimhānepi meghe uṭṭhite abbhokāse nikkhipituṃ na vaṭṭatīti dīpeti. Tatra tatrāti cetiyaṅgaṇādike tasmiṃ tasmiṃ abbhokāse niyametvā nikkhittā. Majjhato paṭṭhāya pādaṭṭhānābhimukhāti yattha samantato sammajjitvā aṅgaṇamajjhe sabbadā kacavarassa saṅkaḍḍhanena majjhe vālikā sañcitā hoti, tattha kattabbavidhidassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ, uccavatthupādaṭṭhānābhimukhaṃ, bhittipādaṭṭhānābhimukhaṃ vā vālikā haritabbāti attho. “Yattha vā pana koṇesu vālikā sañcitā, tattha tato paṭṭhāya aparadisābhimukhā haritabbā”ti keci atthaṃ vadanti. Keci pana “sammaṭṭhaṭṭhānassa padavalañjena avikopanatthāya sayaṃ asammaṭṭhaṭṭhāne ṭhatvā attano pādābhimukhaṃ vālikā haritabbāti vutta”nti vadanti. Tattha “majjhato paṭṭhāyā”ti vacanassa payojanaṃ na dissati. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ pana “pādaṭṭhānābhimukhāti nisīdantānaṃ pādaṭṭhānābhimukhanti keci, sammajjantassa pādaṭṭhānābhimukhanti apare, bahivālikāya agamananimittaṃ pādaṭṭhānābhimukhā haritabbāti vuttanti eke”ti vuttaṃ. Kacavaraṃ hatthehi gahetvā bahi chaḍḍetabbanti iminā “kacavaraṃ chaḍḍessāmī”ti vālikā na chaḍḍetabbāti dīpeti.
Valāhakānaṃ anuṭṭhitabhāvaṃ sallakkhetvā shows that even in summer, if clouds arise, it should not be placed in the open. Tatra tatrā means placed in various open spaces like a shrine courtyard. Majjhato paṭṭhāya pādaṭṭhānābhimukhā is said to show the method where, in a courtyard swept all around with sand piled in the middle by constant refuse removal, sand should be taken toward the raised base or wall base. Some say, “Where sand is piled in corners, it should be taken from there toward the opposite direction.” Others say, “To avoid disturbing the swept area with footprints, stand in an unswept spot and take sand toward your feet,” but the purpose of “majjhato paṭṭhāya” is unclear here. The Sāratthadīpanī says, “Pādaṭṭhānābhimukhā: some say toward the feet of those sitting, others toward the sweeper’s feet, some that it should be taken toward the feet to avoid external sand.” Kacavaraṃ hatthehi gahetvā bahi chaḍḍetabba shows that refuse should not be discarded as sand with the intent “I’ll discard refuse.”
Observing that the clouds have not formed by this, it indicates that even in the hot season, if clouds have formed, it is not proper to place it in the open air. Here and there means those placed definitively in the open air, in the courtyard of the cetiya, and so on. From the middle towards the place where the feet are means it is stated to show the procedure to be done in a place where, having swept all around, sweepings are always piled up in the middle by gathering the refuse in the center of the courtyard, meaning the dust should be carried towards the high ground where the feet are, or towards the wall where the feet are. Some say, “But where dust is piled up in the corners, from there, it should be carried facing away from that direction.” Some, however, say, “In order not to disturb the footprint of the swept place, standing in a place that has not been swept, the dust should be carried facing one’s own feet,” they say. There, the purpose of the statement, “From the middle,” is not seen. But in the Sāratthadīpanī, it is stated, **“Towards the place where the feet are, some say, it is towards the place where the feet are of those sitting; others say, it is towards the place where the feet are of the one sweeping; some say, it is said that it should be carried towards the place where the feet are, in order to prevent the outer dust from entering.” The refuse should be taken with the hands and thrown outside** by this, it indicates that one should not throw the dust thinking,”I will throw the refuse.”
Valāhakānaṃ anuṭṭhitabhāvaṃ sallakkhetvā indicates that even in summer, if clouds arise, it is not permissible to place things in the open. Tatra tatrā means in various open places like shrine courtyards. Majjhato paṭṭhāya pādaṭṭhānābhimukhā means where, after sweeping all around, sand is always collected in the middle by dragging the broom, indicating the method of doing so. It means sand should be carried towards the base of a high structure or a wall. Some say, “Where sand is collected in corners, it should be carried towards the opposite direction.” Others say, “To avoid disturbing the swept area, one should stand in an unswept area and carry sand towards one’s feet.” Here, the purpose of the phrase “majjhato paṭṭhāya” is not clear. The Sāratthadīpanī states, “pādaṭṭhānābhimukhā** means towards the feet of those sitting, according to some; towards the feet of the sweeper, according to others; carrying sand towards the feet to prevent it from going outside, according to others.” Kacavaraṃ hatthehi gahetvā bahi chaḍḍetabba** indicates that one should not throw sand while intending to discard rubbish.
ID494
86. Kappaṃ labhitvāti “gacchā”ti vuttavacanena kappaṃ labhitvā. Therassa hi āṇattiyā gacchantassa anāpatti. Purimanayenevāti “nisīditvā sayaṃ gacchanto”tiādinā pubbe vuttanayeneva.
86. Kappaṃ labhitvā means having received permission by the words “Go.” There is no offense for one going by an elder’s command. Purimanayenevā means by the prior method, such as “sitting and going oneself.”
86. Having obtained permission means having obtained permission by the statement, “Go.” Indeed, for one who goes at the elder’s command, there is no offense. In the same way as before means in the same way as previously stated by, “Sitting down and going oneself,” and so on.
86. Kappaṃ labhitvā means obtaining permission by saying, “I will go.” For one going under the elder’s command, there is no offense. Purimanayenevā means “sitting down and then going oneself,” as previously stated.
ID495
Aññattha gacchatīti taṃ maggaṃ atikkamitvā aññattha gacchati. Leḍḍupātupacārato bahi ṭhitattā “pāduddhārena kāretabbo”ti vuttaṃ, aññattha gacchantassa paṭhamapāduddhāre dukkaṭaṃ, dutiyapāduddhāre pācittiyanti attho. Pākatikaṃ akatvāti apaṭisāmetvā. Antarasannipāteti antarantarā sannipāte.
Aññattha gacchatī means going elsewhere beyond that path. Due to being outside the stone-throw boundary, “pāduddhārena kāretabbo” is said; for one going elsewhere, a dukkaṭa at the first step lifted, a pācittiya at the second.
Goes elsewhere means he goes elsewhere, passing beyond that path. Because he is standing outside the range of a stone’s throw, it is stated, “He should be made to atone for the steps”; the meaning is, for one who goes elsewhere, there is a dukkaṭa on the first lifting of the foot, and a pācittiya on the second lifting of the foot. Without making it as it was means without putting it back in order. In successive gatherings means in gatherings held one after another.
Aññattha gacchatī means going elsewhere after passing that path. “Pāduddhārena kāretabbo” is said because one stands outside the range of a stone’s throw. For one going elsewhere, there is a dukkaṭa at the first step and a pācittiya at the second step. Pākatikaṃ akatvā means not putting it away. Antarasannipāte means at intervals.
ID496
87. Āvāsikānaṃyeva palibodhoti ettha āgantukesu āgantvā kiñci avatvā tattha nisinnesupi nisīditvā “āvāsikāyeva uddharissantī”ti gatesupi āvāsikānameva palibodho. Mahāpaccarivāde pana “idaṃ amhāka”nti vatvāpi avatvāpi nisinnānamevāti adhippāyo. Mahāaṭṭhakathāvāde “āpattī”ti pācittiyameva vuttaṃ. Mahāpaccariyaṃ pana santharāpane pācittiyena bhavitabbanti anāṇattiyā paññattattā dukkaṭaṃ vuttaṃ. Ussārakoti sarabhāṇako. So hi uddhaṃuddhaṃ pāḷipāṭhaṃ sāreti pavattetīti “ussārako”ti vuccati. “Idaṃ ussārakassa, idaṃ dhammakathikassā”ti visuṃ paññattattā anāṇattiyā paññattepi pācittiyeneva bhavitabbanti adhippāyena “tasmiṃ āgantvā nisinne tassa palibodho”ti vuttaṃ. Keci pana vadanti “anāṇattiyā paññattepi dhammakathikassa anuṭṭhāpanīyattā pācittiyena bhavitabbaṃ, āgantukassa pana pacchā āgatehi vuḍḍhatarehi uṭṭhāpanīyattā dukkaṭaṃ vutta”nti.
87. Āvāsikānaṃyeva palibodho means only residents bear the impediment; even if visitors arrive, sit silently, or say, “Residents will remove it,” and leave, only residents bear it. In the Mahāpaccari view, the intent is that it applies to those who sit, whether saying “This is ours” or not. In the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, “offense” means a pācittiya. In the Mahāpaccari, for spreading, a pācittiya should apply, but due to enactment without command, a dukkaṭa is stated. Ussārako means a reciter, who recites the text aloud, hence called “ussārako.” Since it is designated separately as “This is for the reciter, this for the preacher,” even if enacted without command, a pācittiya should apply; thus, “tasmiṃ āgantvā nisinne tassa palibodho” is said. Some say, “Even if enacted without command, a pācittiya should apply for the preacher as it cannot be removed, but a dukkaṭa for a visitor as later senior arrivals may remove it.”
87. The residents are the encumbrance in this case, even if the incoming monks, having arrived, sit down there without saying anything, having sat down [thinking], “The residents will remove [it],” even if they have left, the residents are the encumbrance. But in the Mahāpaccari version, the intention is that it belongs to those who have sat down, whether they have said, “This is ours,” or not. In the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā version, only pācittiya is stated as “an offense.” But in the Mahāpaccari, a dukkaṭa is stated, because it is prescribed without a command, with the idea that there should be a pācittiya for causing [another] to spread [a seat]. Ussārako means a reciter of phrases. Indeed, he is called “ussārako” because he repeats and continues the text of the Pāḷi, going over it again and again. Because it is prescribed separately, “This for the ussāraka, this for the preacher of the Dhamma,” with the intention that there should be a pācittiya even in what is prescribed without a command, it is stated, “If he comes and sits down, he is the encumbrance”. But some say, “Even in what is prescribed without a command, there should be a pācittiya because the preacher of the Dhamma should not be made to stand up; but because an incoming monk can be made to stand up by elders who arrive later, a dukkaṭa is stated.”
87. Āvāsikānaṃyeva palibodho means that even if visitors arrive and sit without saying anything, thinking, “The residents will remove it,” the obstruction belongs to the residents. In the Mahāpaccarī, it is said, “This is ours,” whether stated or not, the intention is that it belongs to those sitting. In the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, it is said to be a pācittiya. In the Mahāpaccarī, however, since it is not a command, it is said to be a dukkaṭa. Ussārako means a reciter. He recites the text repeatedly, hence called “ussārako.” “This is for the reciter, this is for the Dhamma speaker,” being separately prescribed, even if not commanded, it should be a pācittiya. Some say, “Since the Dhamma speaker is not to be disturbed, it should be a pācittiya; for a visitor, since senior ones may come later and remove it, it is said to be a dukkaṭa.”
ID497
88. Pādapuñchanī nāma rajjukehi vā pilotikāya vā pādapuñchanatthaṃ katā. Phalakapīṭhaṃ nāma phalakamayaṃ pīṭhaṃ. Atha vā phalakañceva dārumayapīṭhañca. Dārumayapīṭhanti ca phalakamayameva pīṭhaṃ veditabbaṃ. Pādakaṭhalikanti adhotapādaṭṭhāpanakaṃ. Ajjhokāse rajanaṃ pacitvā …pe… paṭisāmetabbanti ettha theve asati rajanakamme niṭṭhite paṭisāmetabbaṃ. “Bhikkhu vā sāmaṇero vā ārāmiko vā lajjī hotīti vuttattā alajjiṃ āpucchitvā gantuṃ na vaṭṭatī”ti vadanti. Otāpento…pe… gacchatīti ettha “kiñcāpi ’ettakaṃ dūraṃ gantabba’nti paricchedo natthi, tathāpi leḍḍupātaṃ atikkamma nātidūraṃ gantabba”nti vadanti.
88. The term pādapuñchanī refers to something made with ropes or cloth for wiping the feet. Phalakapīṭhaṃ means a seat made of planks. Alternatively, it can mean both a plank and a wooden seat. The term dārumayapīṭhaṃ should also be understood as a seat made of planks. Pādakaṭhalika refers to a place for putting unwashed feet. Regarding “having dyed in the open air …pe… it should be put away”, here, if there is no theft, it should be put away after the dyeing task is completed. They say, “Since it is stated that a monk, novice, monastery worker, or a modest person may be present, it is not permissible to leave after informing an immodest person.” In “heating …pe… he goes”, they say, “Although there is no specific limit such as ‘this much distance must be traveled,’ one should go not too far beyond the range of a clod’s throw.”
88. Pādapuñchanī means a mat made of ropes or cloth for wiping the feet. Phalakapīṭhaṃ means a seat made of planks. Or it can be both a plank and a wooden seat. Dārumayapīṭha should be understood as a seat made of planks. Pādakaṭhalika means a footstool for placing the feet after washing. Ajjhokāse rajanaṃ pacitvā …pe… paṭisāmetabbanti (in the open air, having cooked the dye… one should put it away.) Here, if stains are absent, once the dyeing work is finished, it should be put away. It is said that “Because it is stated that a bhikkhu, a novice, or a monastery attendant is scrupulous, it is not proper to leave without informing the non-scrupulous one”. Otāpento…pe… gacchatīti (warming oneself… one goes). Here, “Although there is no defined limit, saying, ‘One should go this far,’ still one should not go very far, beyond the distance of a clod’s throw” is what is said.
88. Pādapuñchanī refers to a foot wiper made of strings or cloth for the purpose of wiping feet. Phalakapīṭhaṃ refers to a bench made of planks. Alternatively, it could mean both a plank and a wooden bench. Dārumayapīṭha should be understood as a bench made of planks. Pādakaṭhalika refers to a footrest for placing unwashed feet. Ajjhokāse rajanaṃ pacitvā …pe… paṭisāmetabba means that when there is no need for dyeing, after completing the dyeing work, it should be put away. They say, “Since a monk, novice, or monastery worker may feel ashamed, it is not permissible to go without informing the shameless one.” Otāpento…pe… gacchatī means, “Although there is no fixed limit on how far one should go, one should not go too far beyond the range of a stone’s throw.”
ID498
Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is an exposition of the Vinaya compilation,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which elaborates on the Vinaya compendium,
ID499
Mañcapīṭhādisaṅghikasenāsanesupaṭipajjitabba-
The discussion on how to act regarding the monastic furniture such as beds and seats
the section on how to conduct oneself with regards to monastic lodgings belonging to the Saṅgha, such as benches and seats,
the discussion on how to properly use communal bedding and seats,
ID500
Vinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma
Is called the Vinicchayakathālaṅkāra,
the Ornament of Explanation of Decisions,
is called the Ornament of Discourses,
ID501
Sattarasamo paricchedo.
The seventeenth chapter.
is the seventeenth chapter.
the seventeenth chapter.
ID502
ID503
89. Evaṃ saṅghikasenāsanesu kattabbavinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni catukālikavinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ “kālikānipi cattārī”tiādimāha. Tattha karaṇaṃ kāro, kiriyā. Kāro eva kālo ra-kārassa la-kāro yathā “mahāsālo”ti. Kāloti cettha paccuppannādikiriyā. Vuttañhi –
89. Having explained the determinations to be made regarding monastic furniture, now to explain the determinations concerning the four time-related categories, it begins with “kālikānipi cattārī” and so on. Here, kāra means action, activity. The term kālo, with the “ra” sound becoming “la,” as in “mahāsālo,” refers to time. Kālo here denotes an action in the present or otherwise. It is said:
89. Having thus explained the decisions regarding the practice in Saṅgha lodgings, now, in order to explain the decisions regarding the four time-bound things, he begins with “kālikānipi cattārī” and so on. Here, doing (karaṇa) is action (kāra), activity (kiriyā). Kāra itself is time (kālo), the letter ‘ra’ becoming ‘la’ as in “mahāsālo.” Kālo here refers to activities such as the present. It has been stated –
89. Having discussed the determinations regarding communal dwellings, now to explain the four time-based determinations, beginning with “kālikānipi cattārī” (there are four time-based [allowances]). Here, “kāraṇa” means action, and “kiriyā” means activity. “Kāra” itself is “kāla” (time), with the “ra” sound changed to “la,” as in “mahāsālo” (great hall). Kālo here refers to present activity. It is said:
ID504
“Āraddhāniṭṭhito bhāvo, paccuppanno suniṭṭhito; Atītānāgatuppāda-mappattābhimukhā kiriyā”ti.
“An action begun and not yet completed is the present; completed is well-finished; past and future arise and approach the action yet to be reached.”
“A state that has begun but is not finished, is present; what is well-finished; Past, is activity not arisen, future, is about to be.”
“An action that has begun and is being completed is present; an action that is well-completed is past; an action that is yet to arise is future.”
ID505
Ettha pana tassa tassa kiriyāsaṅkhātassa kālassa pabhedabhūto purebhattaekaahorattasattāhajīvikapariyantasaṅkhāto kālaviseso adhippeto. Kāle tasmiṃ tasmiṃ kālavisese paribhuñjitabbānīti kālikāni. Pi-saddo samuccayattho, tena kappiyā catubhūmiyoti samucceti. Cattārīti saṅkhyāniddeso, tena kālikāni nāma cattāri eva honti, na tīṇi na pañcāti dasseti, idaṃ mātikāpadassa atthavivaraṇaṃ. Tattha uddese yaṃ mātikāyaṃ (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. ganthārambhakathā) “kālikānipi cattārī”ti evaṃ vuttaṃ, ettha etasmiṃ mātikāpade cattāri kālikāni veditabbānīti yojanā. Katamāni tānīti āha “yāvakālika”ntiādi . Yāvakālikaṃ…pe… yāvajīvikaṃ iti imāni vatthūni cattāri kālikāni nāmāti attho.
Here, however, what is intended is a specific type of time, distinguished as before noon, one day, seven days, or a lifetime, according to the divisions of time related to that action. Things to be used in those specific times are called kālikāni. The particle pi indicates aggregation, thereby including the four permissible categories. Cattārī is a numerical specification, showing that there are only four time-related categories, not three or five; this is the explanation of the meaning of the outline term. In the recitation, where it is stated in the outline (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. ganthārambhakathā) as “kālikānipi cattārī”, it should be understood that in this outline term, four time-related categories are to be known. What are they? It says “yāvakālika” and so forth. The meaning is that these items—yāvakālika …pe… yāvajīvika—are the four time-related categories.
But here, the specific divisions of time, known as before-noon, a single day-and-night, seven days, and lifetime, are comprised in those various times of activities. Because they are to be consumed within those particular time limits, they are kālikāni (time-bound). The word Pi is used in the sense of inclusion, it include things that are allowable (kappiya) and the four stages (catubhūmi). Cattārī is a designation of number, thereby showing that there are only four time-bound items, not three, not five. This is an explanation of the meaning of the matrix term. There in the outline, what is stated in the matrix (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. ganthārambhakathā) as “kālikānipi cattārī,” here, in this matrix term, four time-bound things should be understood – this is the connection. What are they? He states, “yāvakālika” and so on. Yāvakālikaṃ…pe… yāvajīvikaṃ (That which is allowable until a certain time… until life) These things are the four time-bound items – this is the meaning.
Here, the specific time divisions such as before a meal, a day and night, a week, or a lifetime are intended. These are the distinctions of time. What is to be used at each specific time is called kālikāni (time-based). The particle pi indicates aggregation, thus meaning “permissible in four ways.” Cattārī specifies the number, indicating that there are exactly four time-based allowances, not three or five. This explains the meaning of the matrix term. In the outline (Vinaya Saṅgaha Aṭṭhakathā), it is said, “kālikānipi cattārī,” meaning that in this matrix term, four time-based allowances are to be understood. What are they? It is said: “yāvakālika” (for a specific time), etc. Yāvakālika… up to yāvajīvika (for a lifetime)—these are the four time-based allowances.
ID506
Idāni tesaṃ vatthuñca visesanañca nāmalābhahetuñca dassento “tattha purebhatta”ntiādimāha. Tattha tesu catūsu kālikesu yaṃ kiñci khādanīyaṃ bhojanīyaṃ yāvakālikaṃ, aṭṭhavidhapānaṃ yāmakālikaṃ, sappiādipañcavidhabhesajjaṃ sattāhakālikaṃ, sabbampi paṭiggahitaṃ yāvajīvikaṃ iti vuccatīti sambandho. Yaṃ kiñci khādanīyabhojanīyanti ettha atibyāpitaṃ pariharituṃ visesanamāha “purebhatta”ntyādi. Purebhattaṃ paṭiggahetvā paribhuñjitabbameva yāvakālikaṃ, na aññaṃ khādanīyaṃ bhojanīyantyattho. Yāva…pe… paribhuñjitabbatoti nāmalābhahetuṃ, etena yāva kālo assāti yāvakālikanti vacanatthaṃ dasseti. Aṭṭhavidhaṃ pānanti ettha abyāpitaṃ pariharitumāha “saddhiṃ anulomapānehī”ti. Yāva…pe… tabbatoti nāmalābhahetuṃ, etena yāmo kālo assāti yāmakālikanti vacanatthaṃ dasseti. Sattāhaṃ nidhetabbatoti nāmalābhahetuṃ, etena sattāho kālo assāti sattāhakālikanti vacanatthaṃ dasseti. Sabbampi paṭiggahitanti ettha atibyāpitaṃ pariharituṃ “ṭhapetvā udaka”ntyāha. Yāva…pe… paribhuñjitabbatoti nāmalābhahetuṃ, tena yāvajīvaṃ kālo assāti yāvajīvikanti vacanatthaṃ dasseti.
Now, to show their items, characteristics, and the reason for their names, it begins with “tattha purebhatta” and so on. Among these four time-related categories, any edible or chewable food is yāvakālika; the eight kinds of drink are yāmakālika; the five types of medicine like ghee are sattāhakālika; and everything received is called yāvajīvika—this is the connection. Regarding “any edible or chewable food”, to avoid overgeneralization, it specifies “purebhatta” and so forth. Only what is received and used before noon is yāvakālika, not other edibles or chewables—this is the meaning. “Because it is to be used until …pe…” indicates the reason for the name, showing that it is called yāvakālika because its time lasts until then. Regarding “the eight kinds of drink”, to avoid overgeneralization, it says “together with permissible drinks”. “Because it is to be used until …pe…” indicates the reason for the name, showing that it is called yāmakālika because its time is the night watch. “Because it can be stored for seven days” indicates the reason for the name, showing that it is called sattāhakālika because its time is seven days. Regarding “everything received”, to avoid overgeneralization, it says “except water”. “Because it is to be used until …pe…” indicates the reason for the name, showing that it is called yāvajīvika because its time lasts a lifetime.
Now, showing the substance, the qualification, and the reason for acquiring the name, he says “tattha purebhatta” and so on. Here, among those four time-bound items, whatever is edible or consumable is yāvakālika; the eight kinds of drinks are yāmakālika; the five kinds of medicine, such as ghee, are sattāhakālika; everything else received is called yāvajīvika – this is the connection. In “Yaṃ kiñci khādanīyabhojanīya”, to avoid over-extension, he states the qualification with “purebhatta”, etc. Only that which is received and to be consumed before noon is yāvakālika, not any other edible or consumable food – this is the meaning. Yāva…pe… paribhuñjitabbato (Because… it is to be consumed) is the reason for acquiring the name. By this, he shows the meaning of the word as yāvakālika, meaning that which has a time (kālo) until which (yāva). Concerning “Aṭṭhavidhaṃ pāna”, to avoid under-extension, he states “saddhiṃ anulomapānehī” (together with the drinks that are allowed). Yāva…pe… tabbato (Because… it should be) is the reason for acquiring the name. By this, he shows the meaning of the word as yāmakālika, meaning that which has a watch (yāmo) as its time (kālo). Sattāhaṃ nidhetabbato (because it can be stored for seven days) is the reason for acquiring the name. By this, he shows the meaning of the word as sattāhakālika, meaning that which has seven days (sattāho) as its time (kālo). In “Sabbampi paṭiggahita”, to avoid over-extension, he states “ṭhapetvā udaka” (except for water). Yāva…pe… paribhuñjitabbato (Because… it is to be consumed) is the reason for acquiring the name. By this, he shows the meaning of the word as yāvajīvika, meaning that which has a lifetime (yāvajīvaṃ) as its time (kālo).
Now, explaining their objects, characteristics, and the reasons for their names, it begins with “tattha purebhatta” (there, before the meal). Among these four time-based allowances, any edible food or meal is yāvakālika, the eight kinds of drinks are yāmakālika, the five kinds of medicines like ghee are sattāhakālika, and all that is received is yāvajīvika. This is the connection. Yaṃ kiñci khādanīyabhojanīya (any edible food) is too broad, so it is qualified by “purebhatta” (before the meal). After receiving food before the meal, it is to be consumed as yāvakālika, not any other edible food. Yāva…pe… paribhuñjitabbato (until it is consumed) explains the reason for the name, indicating that it is called yāvakālika because it is to be used for a specific time. Aṭṭhavidhaṃ pāna (eight kinds of drinks) is qualified by “saddhiṃ anulomapānehī” (along with suitable drinks). Yāva…pe… tabbato explains the reason for the name, indicating that it is called yāmakālika because it is to be used for a watch (three hours). Sattāhaṃ nidhetabbato explains the reason for the name, indicating that it is called sattāhakālika because it is to be used for seven days. Sabbampi paṭiggahita (all that is received) is qualified by “ṭhapetvā udaka” (except water). Yāva…pe… paribhuñjitabbato explains the reason for the name, indicating that it is called yāvajīvika because it is to be used for a lifetime.
ID507
Etthāha – “yo pana bhikkhu adinnaṃ mukhadvāraṃ āhāraṃ āhareyya aññatra udakadantaponā, pācittiya”nti (pāci. 265) vacanato nanu udakaṃ appaṭiggahitabbaṃ, atha kasmā “ṭhapetvā udakaṃ avasesaṃ sabbampi paṭiggahita”nti vuttanti? Saccaṃ, parisuddhaudakaṃ appaṭiggahitabbaṃ, kaddamādisahitaṃ pana paṭiggahetabbaṃ hoti, tasmā paṭiggahitesu antogadhabhāvato “ṭhapetvā udaka”nti vuttanti. Evamapi “sabbampi paṭiggahita”nti imināva siddhaṃ paṭiggahetabbassa udakassapi gahaṇatoti? Saccaṃ, tathāpi udakabhāvena sāmaññato “sabbampi paṭiggahita”nti ettake vutte ekaccassa udakassa paṭiggahetabbabhāvato udakampi yāvajīvikaṃ nāmāti ñāyeyya, na pana udakaṃ yāvajīvikaṃ suddhassa paṭiggahetabbābhāvato, tasmā idaṃ vuttaṃ hoti – ekaccassa udakassa paṭiggahetabbabhāve satipi suddhassa appaṭiggahitabbattā taṃ udakaṃ ṭhapetvā sabbampi paṭiggahitaṃ yāvajīvikanti vuccatīti.
Here it is asked: “Given the statement ‘If a monk takes into his mouth food that has not been given, except for water and toothwood, it is a pācittiya’ (pāci. 265), isn’t water not to be received? Then why is it said, ‘except water, everything received’?” True, pure water is not to be received, but water mixed with mud and the like must be received. Therefore, because it is included among things received, it says “except water”. Even so, isn’t it already established by ‘everything received’ that water to be received is included? True, but if only ‘everything received’ were stated, some might think that water, because it must be received, is also yāvajīvika. However, water is not yāvajīvika since pure water does not need to be received. Thus, it is said: even though some water must be received, since pure water does not need to be received, excluding that water, everything received is called yāvajīvika.
Here he states – “If a bhikkhu should take in, through the door of the mouth, food that has not been given, except for water and tooth-cleaning sticks, it is a pācittiya” (pāci. 265). Therefore, is it not the case that water should not be received? Then why is it stated “except for water, everything else received”? It is true, pure water should not be received, but that which is mixed with mud and so forth should be received, therefore, because of its inclusion among the things that are received it is stated, “except for water.” Even so, the receiving of water, which is to be received, is established by this very phrase, “everything else received”? It is true, however, if it were said simply, “everything else received” in general terms of water, one might understand that even the water to be received, because of the fact that some water is to be received, is also yāvajīvika, but water is not yāvajīvika, because pure water is not to be received, therefore, this is stated – although some water may be received, because pure water is not to be received, having excluded that water, everything else received is called yāvajīvika.
Here it is said: “If a monk consumes food that is not given, except for water and tooth-cleaning sticks, it is a pācittiya offense” (Pācittiya 265). Therefore, is water not to be received? Why then is it said, “except for water, all that is received”? Indeed, pure water is not to be received, but water mixed with mud, etc., may be received. Therefore, since it is included among what is received, it is said, “except for water.” Even so, does “all that is received” include water? Yes, but since water is generally not to be received, when it is said, “all that is received,” it implies that some water may be received for a lifetime, but pure water is not to be received. Therefore, it is said: even if some water may be received, since pure water is not to be received, it is said, “except for water, all that is received for a lifetime.”
ID508
90. Mūlakamūlādīni upadesatoyeva veditabbāni, tāni pariyāyato vuccamānānipi na sakkā viññātuṃ. Pariyāyantarena hi vuccamāne taṃ taṃ nāmaṃ ajānantānaṃ sammohoyeva siyā, tasmā tattha na kiñci vakkhāma. Khādanīye khādanīyatthanti pūvādikhādanīye vijjamānaṃ khādanīyakiccaṃ khādanīyehi kātabbaṃ jighacchāharaṇasaṅkhātaṃ atthaṃ payojanaṃ neva pharanti na nipphādenti. Ekasmiṃ dese āhārakiccaṃ sādhentaṃ vā asādhentaṃ vā aparasmiṃ dese uṭṭhitabhūmirasādibhedena āhārajighacchāharaṇakiccaṃ asādhentampi vā sambhaveyyāti āha “tesu tesu janapadesū”tiādi. Keci pana “ekasmiṃ janapade āhārakiccaṃ sādhentaṃ sesajanapadesupi vikāle na kappati evāti dassanatthaṃ idaṃ vutta”ntipi vadanti. Pakatiāhāravasenāti aññehi yāvakālikehi ayojitaṃ attano pakatiyāva āhārakiccakaraṇavasena. Sammohoyeva hotīti anekatthānaṃ nāmānaṃ appasiddhānañca sambhavato sammoho eva siyā. Tenevettha mayampi mūlakamūlādīnaṃ pariyāyantaradassane ādaraṃ na karimha upadesatova gahetabbato.
90. Mūlakamūlādīni should be understood only through instruction; even if explained discursively, they cannot be comprehended. If explained differently, it would only cause confusion for those unfamiliar with the terms, so nothing will be said about them here. “In chewables, the purpose of chewables” means that the function of chewables like cakes, which is to alleviate hunger, “does not pervade” nor produce that purpose. It might happen that something fulfilling or not fulfilling the function of food in one region, due to differences like the taste of the soil in another region, does not fulfill the function of alleviating hunger through food. Thus, it says “in various regions” and so forth. Some say, “This is stated to show that what fulfills the food function in one region is not permissible out of time in other regions.” “By the nature of food” means by its inherent capacity to perform the food function, not mixed with other yāvakālika items. “There would only be confusion” means that due to the existence of multiple meanings and obscure terms, only confusion would arise. For this reason, we too have not ventured to explain mūlakamūlādīni differently, as they should be taken only through instruction.
90. Mūlakamūlādīni (Roots, such as radishes, etc.) should be understood only through instruction; even if explained by synonyms, they cannot be known. If explained by other synonyms, it would only cause confusion for those who do not know those names, therefore, we will not say anything further about that. Khādanīye khādanīyatthanti (In edibles, the purpose of edibles) the function of edibles that exist in cakes and other edibles is to be accomplished by edibles, the purpose or benefit of removing hunger, neva pharanti they do not fulfill. It is possible that what fulfills the purpose of food in one place may or may not do so in another; or that what does not fulfill the purpose of removing hunger may or may not fulfill it, depending on differences of the land where they have grown. Therefore he says, “tesu tesu janapadesū”tiādi (in various countries, etc.). Some, however, say “This is stated to show that what fulfills the purpose of food in one country is not allowable at the wrong time in other countries”. Pakatiāhāravasenāti (by reason of its being regular food) not combined with other things allowable until a certain time (yāvakālika), but by reason of its own nature being used as food. Sammohoyeva hotīti (there is only confusion) because of the possibility of many meanings of the names and etymologies, there would only be confusion. Therefore, we too have not made an effort to show other synonyms of radish roots and so forth, as they are to be understood only through instruction.
90. Mūlakamūlādīni (roots, etc.) are to be understood as taught. Even when explained in various ways, they cannot be fully understood. For when explained in different ways, those who do not know the names would be confused. Therefore, we will not say anything about that. Khādanīye khādanīyattha (the purpose of edibles) refers to the edible function of cakes, etc., which is to satisfy hunger. Neva pharanti (they do not fulfill) means they do not accomplish this purpose. In one region, food may satisfy hunger, while in another, due to differences in soil, etc., it may not. Therefore, it is said, “tesu tesu janapadesū” (in various regions). Some say, “This is said to show that even if food satisfies hunger in one region, it may not be suitable at other times in other regions.” Pakatiāhāravasenā (by the nature of regular food) means that other yāvakālika items are not used, but one’s own regular food is used to satisfy hunger. Sammohoyeva hotī (there is only confusion) means that due to the many names and the lack of clarity, confusion arises. Therefore, we have not paid attention to explaining the roots, etc., in different ways, as they should be understood as taught.
ID509
Yanti vaṭṭakandaṃ.
Ya refers to a round bulb.
Yanti (That) refers to the bulbous root.
Ya refers to the bulb.
ID510
Muḷālanti thūlataruṇamūlameva.
Muḷāla refers to a thick, tender root.
Muḷālanti (Lotus stalk) refers only to the thick, young root.
Muḷāla refers to the thick young root.
ID511
Rukkhavalliādīnanti heṭṭhā vuttameva sampiṇḍetvā vuttaṃ.
Rukkhavalliādīna summarizes what was mentioned earlier.
Rukkhavalliādīnanti (Of trees, creepers, etc.) summarizing what was stated before.
Rukkhavalliādīna refers to what was said above, summarized here.
ID512
Antopathavīgatoti sālakalyāṇikkhandhaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ.
Antopathavīgato refers to the trunk of a sālakalyāṇī plant.
Antopathavīgatoti (Grown within the earth) stated with reference to the trunk of sālakalyāṇī.
Antopathavīgato refers to the trunk of the sāla tree.
ID513
Sabbakappiyānīti mūlatacapattādīnaṃ vasena sabbaso kappiyāni, tesampi nāmavasena na sakkā pariyantaṃ dassetunti sambandho.
Sabbakappiyānī means entirely permissible by virtue of roots, bark, leaves, etc., whose limits cannot be fully enumerated by name.
Sabbakappiyānīti (all are allowable) they are completely allowable in terms of root, bark, leaf, and so on. The listing of even those cannot be shown exhaustively because of their names, this is the connection.
Sabbakappiyānī (all permissible items) refers to roots, bark, etc., which are entirely permissible, but their names cannot be fully listed.
ID514
Acchivādīnaṃ aparipakkāneva phalāni yāvajīvikānīti dassetuṃ “aparipakkānī”ti vuttaṃ.
To show that the unripe fruits of accha and similar plants are yāvajīvika, it says “aparipakkānī”.
To show that unripe fruits of bears and so on are allowable for life (yāvajīvika), “aparipakkānī”ti (unripe) is stated.
To show that unripe fruits are permissible for a lifetime, it is said, “aparipakkānī” (unripe).
ID515
Harītakādīnaṃ aṭṭhīnīti ettha miñjaṃ paṭicchādetvā ṭhitāni kapālāni yāvajīvikānīti ācariyā. Miñjampi yāvajīvikanti eke. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.248-249) pana “harītakādīnaṃ aṭṭhīnīti ettha ’miñjaṃ yāvakālika’nti keci vadanti, taṃ na yuttaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ avuttattā”ti vuttaṃ.
Regarding “the pits of harītaka and similar items”, teachers say that the shells covering the pith, which remain, are yāvajīvika. Some say the pith too is yāvajīvika. However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.248-249), it is said: “Regarding ‘the pits of harītaka and similar items,’ some say ‘the pith is yāvakālika,’ but this is not proper since it is not stated in the commentary.”
Harītakādīnaṃ aṭṭhīnīti (The seeds of myrobalan, etc.) Here, the teachers say that the shells covering the kernel are allowable for life. Some say that the kernel is also allowable for life. In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.248-249) however, it is stated, “Harītakādīnaṃ aṭṭhīnī”ti, ‘some say the kernel is allowable until a certain time’, this is not correct because it is not mentioned in the commentary”.
Harītakādīnaṃ aṭṭhīnī (the seeds of harītakī, etc.) refers to the shells covering the pulp, which are permissible for a lifetime, according to the teachers. Some say the pulp is also permissible for a lifetime. The Vimativinodanī (Vinaya Viññatti, Pācittiya 2.248-249) says, **“harītakādīnaṃ aṭṭhīnī** (the seeds of harītakī, etc.), here some say ‘the pulp is yāvakālika,’ but this is not correct, as it is not mentioned in the commentary.”
ID516
Hiṅgūti hiṅgurukkhato paggharitaniyyāso. Hiṅgujatuādayopi hiṅguvikatiyo eva. Tattha hiṅgujatu nāma hiṅgurukkhassa daṇḍapattāni pacitvā kataniyyāso. Hiṅgusipāṭikaṃ nāma hiṅgupattāni pacitvā kataniyyāso. “Aññena missetvā kato”tipi vadanti. Takanti aggakoṭiyā nikkhantasileso. Takapattīti pattato nikkhantasileso. Takapaṇṇīti palāse bhajjitvā katasileso. “Daṇḍato nikkhantasileso”tipi vadanti.
Hiṅgu refers to the resin exuded from the hiṅgu tree. Hiṅgujatu and similar derivatives are variations of hiṅgu. Here, hiṅgujatu is the resin made by cooking the branches and leaves of the hiṅgu tree. Hiṅgusipāṭikaṃ is the resin made by cooking hiṅgu leaves; some say, “It is made mixed with something else.” Taka is the sap exuded from the tip. Takapattī is the sap exuded from the leaves. Takapaṇṇī is the sap made by roasting on a leaf; some say, “It is the sap exuded from the stem.”
Hiṅgūti (Asafoetida) is the exudate that flows from the asafoetida tree. Hiṅgujatu and so forth are also variations of asafoetida. Here, hiṅgujatu is the exudate prepared by boiling the stem and leaves of the asafoetida tree. Hiṅgusipāṭikaṃ is the exudate prepared by boiling the leaves of asafoetida. It is also said that “it is prepared by mixing with something else.” Takanti (Takka) is the secretion that comes out from the tip. Takapattīti (Takka leaf) is the secretion that comes out from the leaf. Takapaṇṇīti (Takka bark) is the secretion prepared by roasting the leaves of palāsa. It is also said that, “it is the secretion that comes out from the stem.”
Hiṅgū (asafoetida) refers to the resin extracted from the asafoetida tree. Hiṅgujatu, etc., are also varieties of asafoetida. Hiṅgujatu refers to the resin made by boiling the stems and leaves of the asafoetida tree. Hiṅgusipāṭikaṃ refers to the resin made by boiling the leaves of the asafoetida tree. Some say it is mixed with other substances. Taka refers to the resin extracted from the tip of the branch. Takapattī refers to the resin extracted from the leaf. Takapaṇṇī refers to the resin made by crushing the leaf. Some say it is extracted from the stem.
ID517
91. Yāmakālikesu panāti ettha kiñcāpi pāḷiyaṃ khādanīyabhojanīyapadehi yāvakālikameva saṅgahitaṃ, na yāmakālikaṃ, tathāpi “anāpatti yāmakālikaṃ yāme nidahitvā bhuñjatī”ti idha ceva “yāmakālikena bhikkhave sattāhakālikaṃ…pe… yāvajīvikaṃ tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ yāme kappati, yāmātikkante na kappatī”ti aññattha (mahāva. 305) ca vuttattā “yāmakālika”ntivacanasāmatthiyato ca bhagavato adhippāyaññūhi aṭṭhakathācariyehi yāmakālikaṃ sannidhikārakaṃ pācittiyavatthumeva vuttanti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
91. Regarding “among yāmakālika items”, although in the text only yāvakālika is included under the terms for chewables and edibles, not yāmakālika, still, due to statements here like “There is no offense if one consumes yāmakālika stored during the night watch,” and elsewhere (mahāva. 305) like “Monks, yāmakālika with sattāhakālika …pe… yāvajīvika received that day is permissible during the night watch, but not after it passes,” and due to the capability of the term yāmakālika, it should be understood that the commentary teachers, who know the Buddha’s intent, have stated that yāmakālika is an item stored temporarily and is itself a pācittiya offense item.
91. Yāmakālikesu panāti (But among the things allowable for a watch). Although in the Pāḷi, only yāvakālika is included under the terms edible and consumable foods, not yāmakālika, still, because it is stated here, “there is no offense if one stores and eats yāmakālika during the watch” and elsewhere (mahāva. 305) “Monks, with yāmakālika, sattāhakālika… yāvajīvika received that day is allowable during the watch, it is not allowable after the watch has passed,” and because of the very force of the word “yāmakālika,” it should be understood that the teachers of the commentary, who know the intention of the Blessed One, stated that yāmakālika is also an object of the pācittiya offense for storing.
91. Yāmakālikesu panā (but in the case of yāmakālika) means that although in the Pāli, edible food is included only in yāvakālika, not yāmakālika, still, “there is no offense if one consumes yāmakālika food stored for a watch,” and here, “yāmakālika, bhikkhus, is permissible for seven days… up to a lifetime, if received on that day, but not after the watch has passed,” as stated elsewhere (Mahāvagga 305). Therefore, the commentators, understanding the Buddha’s intention, have stated that yāmakālika is also a basis for a pācittiya offense as sannidhikāraka (stored).
ID518
Ṭhapetvā dhaññaphalarasanti ettha “taṇḍuladhovanodakampi dhaññaphalarasoyevā”ti vadanti.
“Except for the juice of grains and fruits”—they say, “Even water from washing rice is indeed the juice of grains and fruits.”
Ṭhapetvā dhaññaphalarasanti (except for the juice of grain). Here it is said “Even water from rinsing rice is juice of grain.”
Ṭhapetvā dhaññaphalarasa (except for grain and fruit juice) means that “even the water used to wash rice is considered grain and fruit juice.”
ID519
92. Sattāhakālike pañca bhesajjānīti bhesajjakiccaṃ karontu vā mā vā, evaṃladdhavohārāni pañca. “Gosappī”tiādinā loke pākaṭaṃ dassetvā “yesaṃ maṃsaṃ kappatī”ti iminā aññesampi rohitamigādīnaṃ sappiṃ gahetvā dasseti. Yesañhi khīraṃ atthi, sappimpi tesaṃ atthiyeva, taṃ pana sulabhaṃ vā dullabhaṃ vā asammohatthaṃ vuttaṃ . Evaṃ navanītampi. “Yesaṃ maṃsaṃ kappatī”ti ca idaṃ nissaggiyavatthudassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ, na pana yesaṃ maṃsaṃ na kappati, tesaṃ sappiādi na kappatīti dassanatthaṃ. Manussakhīrādīnipi hi no na kappanti.
92. In sattāhakālika, “five medicines” refers to five items designated as such, whether they perform the medicinal function or not. By stating “cow’s ghee” and so forth, it indicates what is commonly known in the world, and with “from those whose flesh is permissible”, it includes ghee from other animals like the rohita deer. For those with milk, there is indeed ghee, whether easily available or rare, stated to avoid confusion. The same applies to fresh butter. “From those whose flesh is permissible” is said to indicate items subject to forfeiture, not to suggest that ghee and the like from those whose flesh is not permissible are impermissible. Even human milk and the like are not impermissible.
92. Sattāhakālike (Things allowable for seven days) pañca bhesajjānīti (five medicines) Whether they perform the function of medicine or not, the five are named in this way. By “Gosappī”tiādinā (With “cow ghee” etc.) showing what is commonly known in the world, by “yesaṃ maṃsaṃ kappatī”ti (whose meat is allowable), he shows that ghee of other animals, like red deer, is also included. For those that have milk, those also have ghee, but whether it is easily available or difficult to obtain is stated to avoid confusion. Similarly, fresh butter (navanīta). “Whose meat is allowable” is stated to show the object of expiation, not to show that the ghee and so on of those whose meat is not allowable is not allowable. For even human milk and so forth are not allowable for us.
92. In the case of sattāhakālika, pañca bhesajjānī (five medicines) refers to those that perform the function of medicine or not, but are conventionally considered as such. “Gosappī” (cow ghee), etc., are well-known in the world, and “yesaṃ maṃsaṃ kappatī” (whose meat is permissible) includes the ghee of other animals like the rohitaka deer. For those whose milk is permissible, their ghee is also permissible, whether easily obtained or not, this is said to avoid confusion. Similarly, butter. “Yesaṃ maṃsaṃ kappatī” is said to show the basis for nissaggiya offenses, not to imply that if their meat is not permissible, their ghee, etc., are also not permissible. For example, human milk, etc., are not permissible.
ID520
93. Yāva kālo nātikkamati, tāva paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatīti ettha kāloti bhikkhūnaṃ bhojanakālo adhippeto, so ca sabbantimena paricchedena ṭhitamajjhanhiko. Ṭhitamajjhanhikopi hi kālasaṅgahaṃ gacchati, tato paṭṭhāya pana khādituṃ vā bhuñjituṃ vā na sakkā, sahasā pivituṃ sakkā bhaveyya, kukkuccakena pana na kattabbaṃ. Kālaparicchedajānanatthañca kālatthambho yojetabbo. Kālantare vā bhattakiccaṃ kātabbaṃ. Paṭiggahaṇeti gahaṇameva sandhāya vuttaṃ. Paṭiggahitameva hi taṃ, sannihitaṃ na kappatīti puna paṭiggahaṇakiccaṃ natthi, teneva “ajjhoharitukāmatāya gaṇhantassa paṭiggahaṇe”ti vuttaṃ. Mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. sannidhikārakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) pana “ajjhoharissāmīti gaṇhantassa gahaṇe”icceva vuttaṃ.
93. “As long as the time is not exceeded, it is permissible to use”—here, kālo refers to the monks’ mealtime, which, at the latest limit, is noon. Even noon is included in the time, but after that, one cannot eat or chew; one might hastily drink, but due to scruple, it should not be done. To know the time limit, a time marker should be used, or the meal should be taken at another time. “In receiving” refers solely to the act of taking. Only what is received is subject to this; what is stored is not permissible, so there is no need for further receiving. Thus, it says “in receiving by one desiring to partake.” However, in the Mātikā commentary (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. sannidhikārakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), it is simply said, “in taking with the intent to partake.”
93. Yāva kālo nātikkamati, tāva paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatīti (It is proper to consume it as long as the time has not passed). Here, kālo (time) refers to the time for bhikkhus to eat, and that, at the very latest, is when midday has arrived. For even when midday has arrived, it falls under the category of time, but from that point on, one cannot eat or consume, although one may drink immediately, however, it should not be done due to uncertainty. And to know the limit of time, a time-pillar should be erected. Or, the meal should be taken at another time. Paṭiggahaṇeti (In receiving) is stated referring to the very act of taking. Since it is already received, that which is stored is not allowable, therefore, there is no need to receive it again, that is why it is said, “in the act of receiving with the desire to consume.” However, in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. sannidhikārakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), it is stated only as “in the act of taking with the thought, ‘I will consume’.”
93. Yāva kālo nātikkamati, tāva paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatī (it is permissible to consume until the time has not passed) refers to the time for monks’ meals, which is defined as the middle of the day. Even the middle of the day is included in the time, but after that, one cannot eat or consume solid food, though one may drink quickly, but not out of scrupulosity. The time limit should be understood by the time marker. The meal should be prepared within the time limit. Paṭiggahaṇe (in receiving) refers to the act of receiving. Once received, it is not permissible to store it, so there is no need to receive it again. Therefore, it is said, “in receiving, when one takes it with the intention of consuming it.” In the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī, Sannidhikāraka Sikkhāpada Vaṇṇanā), it is said, “in receiving, when one takes it with the intention of consuming it.”
ID521
Yanti yaṃ pattaṃ. Sandissatīti yāguyā upari sandissati. Telavaṇṇe patte satipi nisnehabhāve aṅguliyā ghaṃsantassa vaṇṇavaseneva lekhā paññāyati, tasmā tattha anāpattīti dassanatthaṃ “sā abbohārikā”ti vuttaṃ. Sayaṃ paṭiggahetvā apariccattameva hi dutiyadivase na vaṭṭatīti ettha paṭiggahaṇe anapekkhavissajjanena, anupasampannassa nirapekkhadānena vā vijahitapaṭiggahaṇaṃ pariccattameva hotīti “apariccatta”nti iminā ubhayathāpi avijahitapaṭiggahaṇameva vuttaṃ, tasmā yaṃ parassa pariccajitvā adinnampi sace paṭiggahaṇe nirapekkhavissajjanena vijahitapaṭiggahaṇaṃ hoti, tampi dutiyadivase vaṭṭatīti veditabbaṃ. Yadi evaṃ “patto duddhoto hotī”tiādīsu kasmā āpatti vuttāti? “Paṭiggahaṇaṃ avissajjetvāva sayaṃ vā aññena vā tucchaṃ katvā na sammā dhovitvā niṭṭhāpite patte laggampi avijahitapaṭiggahaṇameva hotīti tattha āpattī”ti tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. Keci pana “sāmaṇerānaṃ pariccajantīti imasmiṃ adhikāre ṭhatvā ’apariccattamevā’ti vuttattā anupasampannassa pariccattameva vaṭṭati, apariccattaṃ na vaṭṭatīti āpannaṃ, tasmā nirālayabhāvena paṭiggahaṇe vijahitepi anupasampannassa apariccattaṃ na vaṭṭatī”ti vadanti. Taṃ yuttaṃ viya na dissati. Yadaggena hi paṭiggahaṇaṃ vijahati, tadaggena sannidhimpi na karoti vijahitapaṭiggahaṇassa appaṭiggahitasadisattā. Paṭiggahetvā nidahiteyeva ca sannidhipaccayā āpatti vuttā.
Ya refers to the bowl. Sandissati means it appears on the surface of the gruel. Even in a glossy bowl, despite being free of grease, a mark appears when rubbed with a finger due to its sheen, so to show there is no offense, it says “it is not usable”. Regarding “having received it oneself and not given it away, it is not permissible on the second day”, in receiving without intent to relinquish or giving to a layperson without attachment, the receipt is indeed relinquished. Thus, by “not given away”, it refers only to receipt not relinquished in either way. Therefore, even if something is not given to another but its receipt is relinquished without attachment, it is permissible on the second day. If so, why is an offense stated in cases like “the bowl has been washed”? “Because if the receipt is not relinquished and the bowl is emptied by oneself or another without proper washing and finishing, what adheres to it remains un-relinquished receipt—thus there is an offense,” as stated in all three knotty passages. Some say, “Since it is said ‘not given away’ in the context of novices giving it away, what is given away by a layperson is permissible, but what is not given away is not, and thus an offense occurs. Even if receipt is relinquished without attachment, what is not given away by a layperson is not permissible.” This does not seem reasonable. Once receipt is relinquished, no storage occurs, as relinquished receipt is like something not received. An offense due to storage is stated only for what is received and stored.
Yanti (That) refers to that bowl. Sandissatīti (It is seen) it is seen on top of the gruel. Even if there is oiliness in the oil-colored bowl, when rubbing with a finger, a line appears just by the color, therefore, to show that there is no offense, “sā abbohārikā” (it is negligible) is stated. Sayaṃ paṭiggahetvā apariccattameva hi dutiyadivase na vaṭṭatīti (having received it oneself, not having given it away, is indeed not proper on the second day). Here, without relinquishing it at the time of reception, or by giving it to a non-ordained person without expectation, relinquishing the acceptance is what is meant by ‘not given away’. Therefore, by “apariccatta” (not having given it away), only acceptance not relinquished in either of these two ways is stated, therefore, it should be understood that even that which, though given to another, has been relinquished at the time of reception without expectation, is also allowable on the second day. If so, in “the bowl is full of milk,” etc., why is an offense stated? In all three of the knotty passages it is said, “Even what remains stuck to a bowl that has been made empty, either by oneself or by another, without relinquishing the reception and not properly washed and set down, is also an acceptance not relinquished, therefore, there is an offense.” Some, however, say “Because, in the context of ‘novices relinquish it,’ it is said ‘not having given it away,’ it implies that only relinquishment to a non-ordained person is allowable, what has not been given away is not allowable, therefore, even if relinquishing acceptance through non-attachment, what has not been given away to a non-ordained person is not allowable”. This does not seem correct. For when one relinquishes acceptance, one does not store it, because relinquishing acceptance is like not receiving. And the offense due to storing is stated only with regard to what has been received and stored.
Ya refers to the bowl. Sandissatī (appears) means it appears on top of the gruel. Even in an oily bowl, if there is no grease, when one rubs it with a finger, the mark appears due to the color, so there is no offense. Therefore, it is said, “sā abbohārikā” (it is insignificant). Sayaṃ paṭiggahetvā apariccattameva hi dutiyadivase na vaṭṭatī (if one receives it oneself and does not relinquish it, it is not permissible on the second day) means that if one receives it without intending to return it, or if an unordained person gives it without concern, it is considered relinquished. Therefore, “apariccatta” (not relinquished) means that in both cases, the receiving is not abandoned. Thus, even if something is given by another and is not relinquished, if it is abandoned without concern in receiving, it is permissible on the second day. If so, why is an offense stated in cases like “the bowl is dirty”? Because if the bowl is not properly cleaned after receiving, even if it is abandoned, it is still considered not relinquished, so an offense is incurred. Some say, “since it is said in the context of novices relinquishing, ‘not relinquished’ applies only to the unordained, not to the ordained,” but this does not seem correct. For when the act of receiving is abandoned, the possession is also abandoned, as abandoning the act of receiving is similar to not receiving. And an offense is stated only if possession is the condition.
ID522
Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.252-253) pana “apariccattamevāti nirapekkhatāya anupasampannassa adinnaṃ apariccattañca yāvakālikādivatthumeva sandhāya vadati, na pana taggatapaṭiggahaṇaṃ. Na hi vatthuṃ apariccajitvā tatthagatapaṭiggahaṇaṃ pariccajituṃ sakkā, na ca tādisaṃ vacanaṃ atthi, yadi bhaveyya , ’sace patto duddhoto hoti…pe… bhuñjantassa pācittiya’nti vacanaṃ virujjheyya. Na hi dhovanena āmisaṃ apanetuṃ vāyamantassa paṭiggahaṇe apekkhā vattati. Yena punadivase bhuñjato pācittiyaṃ janeyya, patte pana vattamānā apekkhā taggatike āmisepi vattati eva nāmāti āmise anapekkhatā ettha na labbhati, tato āmise avijahitapaṭiggahaṇaṃ punadivase pācittiyaṃ janetīti idaṃ vuttaṃ. Atha mataṃ ’yadaggenettha āmisānapekkhatā na labbhati, tadaggena paṭiggahaṇānapekkhatāpi na labbhatī’ti. Tathā sati yattha āmisāpekkhā atthi, tattha paṭiggahaṇāpekkhāpi na vigacchatīti āpannaṃ, evañca paṭiggahaṇe anapekkhavissajjanaṃ visuṃ na vattabbaṃ siyā, aṭṭhakathāyañcetampi paṭiggahaṇavijahanaṃ kāraṇattena abhimataṃ siyā. Idaṃ suṭṭhutaraṃ katvā visuṃ vattabbaṃ cīvarāpekkhāya vattamānāyapi paccuddhārena adhiṭṭhānavijahanaṃ viya. Etasmiñca upāye sati gaṇṭhikāhatapattesu avaṭṭanatā nāma na siyāti vuttovāyamattho, tasmā yaṃ vuttaṃ sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.252-253) ’yaṃ parassa pariccajitvā adinnampi sace paṭiggahaṇe nirapekkhavissajjanena vijahitapaṭiggahaṇaṃ hoti, tampi dutiyadivase vaṭṭatī’tiādi, taṃ na sārato paccetabba”nti vuttaṃ.
In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.252-253), regarding “not given away”, it refers to something not given to a layperson without attachment and thus not relinquished, concerning items like yāvakālika, not the receipt tied to it. One cannot relinquish the receipt tied to an item without giving away the item itself, nor is there any such statement. If there were, the statement “If the bowl is washed …pe… one who eats incurs a pācittiya” would be contradicted. For one striving to remove food remnants by washing has no attachment to the receipt. What causes a pācittiya when eaten the next day might be the attachment to the food in the bowl, suggesting that detachment from the food is not present here. Thus, un-relinquished receipt of the food causes a pācittiya the next day—this is what is said. Alternatively, it is thought, “When detachment from the food is not obtained, neither is detachment from the receipt.” If so, where there is attachment to the food, attachment to the receipt does not cease either, leading to an offense. Then, relinquishing receipt without attachment need not be stated separately, and if it were a reason accepted in the commentary, it should be elaborated distinctly, like relinquishing a determination by abandonment despite attachment to a robe. With this approach, there would be no issue in the knotty cases of bowls. Thus, what is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.252-253), “Even if something not given to another has its receipt relinquished without attachment, it is permissible the next day,” should not be accepted as essential.
However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.252-253), it states, “apariccattamevā” (precisely not relinquished), referring to the non-relinquishment of what was not given by one not fully ordained, out of non-expectation, and concerning such things as provisions for a limited time, etc., but it does not refer to accepting what is contained therein. For it is not possible to relinquish the acceptance of what is contained in an object without relinquishing the object, nor is there any such statement. If there were, it would contradict the statement, ‘If the bowl is unwashed…etc… he incurs a pācittiya while eating.’ For one striving to remove the food residue by washing has no expectation regarding the acceptance. Something which might generate a pācittiya for the one who eats it on the following day, as the expectation that remains for the bowl remains also in respect of the food within it, therefore, non-expectation in respect of the food is not obtained. It is for this reason that it is said that having accepted the food that has not been disclaimed generates a pācittiya offense on the following day. Now it is considered that ‘since non-expectation towards food is not obtained here, in the same way, non-expectation regarding acceptance is also not obtained.’ If that were the case, where there is an expectation for food, there the expectation regarding acceptance also does not disappear. Therefore, it occurs that a distinct statement of relinquishment of acceptance without expectation would be unnecessary, even though the commentary (aṭṭhakathā) also considers relinquishment regarding acceptance necessary. This must be stated more clearly and distinctly, like the relinquishment of the intention to ordain through re-requesting, even when the expectation regarding the robes continues. And if this method were available, there would be no instance of inversion when using bowls that have knots. This, the meaning is what was said, therefore what was said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.252-253) ‘Even what is not given after having been relinquished to another, if the acceptance is relinquished through relinquishment without expectation, that too is allowable on the second day’ etc., that should not be considered with seriousness” this has been stated.
In the Vimativinodanī (Vinaya Vibhaṅga Ṭīkā, Pācittiya 2.252-253), the phrase “apariccattamevā” refers to the lack of concern for what is not formally relinquished, meaning that the unordained person has not relinquished what is not given to them. This applies to temporary items such as those permitted for a limited time, but not to the acceptance of what has been formally relinquished. For it is not possible to relinquish something that has already been accepted without first relinquishing the object itself. There is no such statement as, “If a bowl is unclean… eating from it incurs a pācittiya offense.” There is no need for concern about accepting something while one is engaged in cleaning it to remove impurities. However, if eating from it the next day would incur a pācittiya offense, then there is concern about the bowl being accepted, even if it is free from impurities. Therefore, it is said that accepting something without relinquishing it the next day incurs a pācittiya offense. Thus, it is concluded that where there is no concern for impurities, there is also no concern for acceptance. Consequently, where there is concern for impurities, there is also concern for acceptance, and thus an offense is incurred. Therefore, the act of relinquishing without concern for acceptance should not be separately stated. The commentary also suggests that relinquishing acceptance is considered a valid reason. This is more clearly explained separately, as in the case of relinquishing a robe due to concern for it, similar to relinquishing a bowl. In this method, there is no issue of bowls being tied or unopened. Therefore, what is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha Ṭīkā, Pācittiya 3.252-253) — “Even if something belonging to another is relinquished and then accepted without concern, it is still valid the next day” — should not be taken literally.
ID523
Pāḷiyaṃ (pāci. 255) “sattāhakālikaṃ yāvajīvikaṃ āhāratthāya paṭiggaṇhāti, āpatti dukkaṭassā”tiādinā sannihitesu sattāhakālikayāvajīvikesu purebhattampi āhāratthāya ajjhoharaṇepi dukkaṭassa vuttattā yāmakālikepi ajjhohāre visuṃ dukkaṭena bhavitabbanti āha “āhāratthāya ajjhoharato dukkaṭena saddhiṃ pācittiya”nti. Pakatiāmiseti odanādikappiyāmise. Dveti purebhattaṃ paṭiggahitaṃ yāmakālikaṃ purebhattaṃ sāmisena mukhena bhuñjato sannidhipaccayā ekaṃ, yāvakālikasaṃsaṭṭhatāya yāvakālikattabhajanena anatirittapaccayā ekanti dve pācittiyāni. Vikappadvayeti sāmisanirāmisapakkhadvaye. Thullaccayaṃ dukkaṭañca vaḍḍhatīti manussamaṃse thullaccayaṃ, sesaakappiyamaṃse dukkaṭaṃ vaḍḍhati.
In the text (pāci. 255), “If one receives sattāhakālika or yāvajīvika for the purpose of food, it is an offense of wrong-doing,” and so forth, since a wrong-doing is stated for consuming stored sattāhakālika or yāvajīvika even before noon for food, it says regarding yāmakālika, “consuming for food incurs a wrong-doing along with a pācittiya”. “Natural food” refers to permissible food like rice. “Two” refers to two pācittiyas: one for storage when eating yāmakālika received before noon with a greasy mouth, and one for exceeding due to mixing with yāvakālika, thus taking on its nature. “In two cases” refers to the cases of greasy and non-greasy. “A grave offense and a wrong-doing increase” means a grave offense with human flesh, and a wrong-doing with other impermissible flesh.
In the Pāḷi (pāci. 255), it states, “he accepts what is to last for seven days or for life, for the purpose of food; there is an offense of wrong-doing (dukkaṭa)” and so on, hence because of what is stated, even when consuming at the earlier part of the day(purebhatta) food which last for seven-day or lifetime, which is stored, there is a dukkaṭa offense, therefore, there is a need of another dukkaṭa offense when consuming even what can last one night(yāmakālika), that’s why it is said, “for the one who consumes it for sustenance, a pācittiya along with a dukkaṭa. Ordinary food means permissible food such as cooked rice and the like. Two means one pācittiya due to storing when eating before noon, with the mouth stained with food, the yāmakālika that was accepted in the morning, and one due to it being mixed with what is to be consumed within a day (yāvakālika) and the vessel used being for yāvakālika, thus there is no offense for exceeding its time limit, therefore, there are two ** pācittiyas. In the two alternatives,** meaning the two viewpoints regarding it being with food or without. A grave offense (thullaccaya) and a dukkaṭa increase, meaning a grave offense (thullaccaya) for human flesh, and a dukkaṭa for the remaining unsuitable flesh increase.
In the Pāli (Pācittiya 255), it is said, “If one accepts food for seven days or for a lifetime, it incurs a dukkaṭa offense.” Since this applies to food accepted before a meal or consumed for nourishment, even if it is consumed outside the proper time, a dukkaṭa offense is incurred. Therefore, it is stated, “Consuming food for nourishment incurs a dukkaṭa along with a pācittiya.” “Pakatiāmise” refers to permissible food such as rice. “Dve” refers to two pācittiya offenses: one for accepting food before a meal and consuming it with impurities, and another for consuming food mixed with temporary items due to their incomplete relinquishment. “Vikappadvaye” refers to the two categories: with and without impurities. “Thullaccayaṃ dukkaṭañca vaḍḍhatī” means that consuming human flesh incurs a thullaccaya offense, while consuming other impermissible flesh incurs a dukkaṭa offense.
ID524
Paṭiggahaṇapaccayā tāva dukkaṭanti ettha sannihitattā purebhattampi dukkaṭameva. Sati paccaye pana sannihitampi sattāhakālikaṃ yāvajīvikañca bhesajjatthāya gaṇhantassa paribhuñjantassa ca anāpattiyeva.
“Due to receiving, initially a wrong-doing”—here, even before noon, it is only a wrong-doing due to storage. However, if there is a reason, there is no offense in taking or using stored sattāhakālika or yāvajīvika for medicinal purposes.
Regarding acceptance, there is a dukkaṭa, here because it is stored, even the consumption before noon (purebhatta) is a dukkaṭa. But if there is a reason, even storing what is to last for seven days or for life, for the one taking it and consuming it for medicinal purposes, there is no offense.
“Paṭiggahaṇapaccayā tāva dukkaṭa” means that even if food is accepted before a meal, it incurs a dukkaṭa offense due to its availability. However, if there is a valid reason, such as accepting seven-day or lifetime medicine for medicinal purposes, there is no offense in using it.
ID525
94. Uggahitakaṃ katvā nikkhittanti apaṭiggahitaṃ sayameva gahetvā nikkhittaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.622) “uggahitakanti paribhogatthāya sayaṃ gahita”nti vuttaṃ. Sayaṃ karotīti pacitvā karoti. Purebhattanti tadahupurebhattameva vaṭṭati savatthukapaṭiggahitattā. Sayaṃkatanti navanītaṃ pacitvā kataṃ. Nirāmisamevāti tadahupurebhattaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ.
94. “Taken and stored” means taken by oneself without receiving and stored. In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.622), “taken” is said to mean “taken by oneself for use.” “He makes it himself” means he cooks and prepares it. “Before noon” means it is permissible only before noon that day since it was received with an item. “Made by oneself” means fresh butter cooked and made. “Only non-greasy” is said regarding that day before noon.
94. Having taken up what has been put down, means what was taken up by oneself without it having been accepted. In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.622) it is said, “Having taken up** means taken up by oneself for the purpose of consumption.” He does it himself,** means he cooks and does it. Before noon means only what was accepted that same day before noon is allowable, because of the acceptance with the item. Made by himself, means made by cooking ghee. Without food indeed means it is said concerning what was accepted before noon that day.
94. “Uggahitakaṃ katvā nikkhitta” means taking something without formal acceptance and then setting it aside. The Vimativinodanī (Vinaya Vibhaṅga Ṭīkā 1.622) states, “Uggahitaka” refers to something taken for personal use. “Sayaṃ karotī” means preparing it oneself. “Purebhatta” refers to food prepared before the meal on the same day, as it is accepted with a valid reason. “Sayaṃkata” refers to something prepared, such as clarified butter. “Nirāmisamevā” refers to food prepared before the meal on the same day, free from impurities.
ID526
95. Ajja sayaṃkataṃ nirāmisameva bhuñjantassa kasmā sāmaṃpāko na hotīti āha “navanītaṃ tāpentassā”tiādi. Pacchābhattaṃ paṭiggahitakehīti khīradadhīni sandhāya vuttaṃ. Uggahitakehi kataṃ abbhañjanādīsu upanetabbanti yojanā. Ubhayesampīti pacchābhattaṃ paṭiggahitakhīradadhīhi ca purebhattaṃ uggahitakehi ca katānaṃ. Esa nayoti nissaggiyaṃ na hotīti attho. Akappiyamaṃsasappimhīti hatthiādīnaṃ sappimhi. Kāraṇapatirūpakaṃ vatvāti “sajātikānaṃ sappibhāvato”ti kāraṇapatirūpakaṃ vatvā. Sappinayena veditabbanti nirāmisameva sattāhaṃ vaṭṭatīti attho. Etthāti navanīte. Dhotaṃ vaṭṭatīti adhotañce, savatthukapaṭiggahitaṃ hoti, tasmā dhotaṃ paṭiggahetvā sattāhaṃ nikkhipituṃ vaṭṭatīti therānaṃ adhippāyo.
95. Why is there no self-cooking offense when eating non-greasy food made today? It says “for one heating fresh butter” and so forth. “With items received after noon” refers to milk and curds. It should be used for ghee and the like made from items taken before noon—this is the connection. “For both” refers to those made with milk and curds received after noon and those taken before noon. “The same method” means it is not subject to forfeiture. “With ghee from impermissible flesh” refers to ghee from elephants and the like. “Stating a plausible reason” means stating a plausible reason like “because it is ghee from the same species.” “To be understood by the rule of ghee” means it is permissible for seven days only if non-greasy. “Here” refers to fresh butter. “Washed is permissible” means if unwashed, it is received with an item, so the elders’ intent is that it is permissible to receive it washed and store it for seven days.
95. Why is it that for one who eats what was prepared by himself today, and is without food, there is no offense for cooking for oneself? To this, it is said, “for one who is heating ghee,” and so on. With what was accepted after noon, means it is said concerning milk and curds. The meaning is that what was prepared with what was taken up(uggahita) can be used for anointing and other purposes. For both of these, meaning for what was made with milk and curds accepted after noon, and for what was made with what was taken up before noon. This is the method, meaning there is no nissaggiya offense. Concerning unsuitable flesh and ghee, meaning the ghee of elephants and so on. Having stated a semblance of a reason, meaning having stated a semblance of a reason, “due to the state of being ghee of their own kind”. It should be understood as with ghee, meaning it is only allowable for seven days, without food. Here, meaning in ghee. What has been washed is allowable, meaning if it is unwashed, it becomes accepted with the item. Therefore, the intention of the elders is that it is allowable to accept it after washing and to keep it for seven days.
95. If one consumes self-prepared food free from impurities today, why is it not considered self-cooked? It is explained, “Because the clarified butter is heated…” “Pacchābhattaṃ paṭiggahitakehī” refers to milk and curds accepted after the meal. These can be used in preparations such as ointments. “Ubhayesampī” refers to both milk and curds accepted after the meal and food prepared before the meal. “Esa nayo” means that there is no nissaggiya offense. “Akappiyamaṃsasappimhī” refers to the fat of elephants and other animals. “Kāraṇapatirūpakaṃ vatvā” means stating a valid reason, such as “due to the nature of similar fats.” “Sappinayena veditabba” means it is considered free from impurities for seven days. “Etthā” refers to clarified butter. “Dhotaṃ vaṭṭatī” means that if it is washed, it can be accepted and stored for seven days, according to the elders’ intention.
ID527
Mahāsīvattherassa pana vatthuno viyojitattā dadhiguḷikādīhi yuttatāmattena savatthukapaṭiggahitaṃ nāma na hoti, tasmā takkato uddhaṭamattameva paṭiggahetvā dhovitvā, pacitvā vā nirāmisameva katvā bhuñjiṃsūti adhippāyo, na pana dadhiguḷikādīhi saha vikāle bhuñjiṃsūti. Tenāha “tasmā navanītaṃ paribhuñjantena…pe… savatthukapaṭiggahaṃ nāma na hotī”ti. Tattha adhotaṃ paṭiggahetvāpi taṃ navanītaṃ paribhuñjantena dadhiādīni apanetvā paribhuñjitabbanti attho. Keci pana “takkato uddhaṭamattameva khādiṃsū”ti vacanassa adhippāyaṃ ajānantā “takkato uddhaṭamattaṃ adhotampi dadhiguḷikādisahitaṃ vikāle paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vadanti, taṃ na gahetabbaṃ. Na hi dadhiguḷikādiāmisena saṃsaṭṭharasaṃ navanītaṃ paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatīti sakkā vattuṃ. Navanītaṃ paribhuñjantenāti adhovitvā paṭiggahitanavanītaṃ paribhuñjantena. Dadhi eva dadhigataṃ yathā “gūthagataṃ muttagata”nti (ma. ni. 2.119; a. ni. 9.11). “Khayaṃ gamissatī”ti vacanato khīraṃ pakkhipitvā pakkasappiādipi vikāle kappatīti veditabbaṃ. Khayaṃ gamissatīti nirāmisaṃ hoti, tasmā vikālepi vaṭṭatīti attho. Ettāvatāti navanīte laggamattena visuṃ dadhiādivohāraṃ aladdhena appamattena dadhiādināti attho, etena visuṃ paṭiggahitadadhiādīhi saha pakkaṃ savatthukapaṭiggahitasaṅkhameva gacchatīti dasseti. Tasmimpīti nirāmisabhūtepi. Kukkuccakānaṃ pana ayaṃ adhippāyo – paṭiggahaṇe tāva dadhiādīhi asambhinnarasattā bhattena sahitaguḷapiṇḍādi viya savatthukapaṭiggahitaṃ nāma hoti. Taṃ pana pacantena dhovitvāva pacitabbaṃ. Itarathā pacanakkhaṇe paccamānadadhiguḷikādīhi sambhinnarasatāya sāmaṃpakkaṃ jātaṃ, tesu khīṇesupi sāmaṃpakkameva hoti, tasmā nirāmisameva pacitabbanti. Teneva “āmisena saddhiṃ pakkattā”ti kāraṇaṃ vuttaṃ.
However, Elder Mahāsīva’s view is that it is not considered received with an item merely due to association with curds or pills, as the item is separate. Thus, they ate it after taking it from buttermilk, washing it, or cooking it as non-greasy, not eating it out of time with curds or pills. Thus, it says “therefore, when using fresh butter …pe… it is not considered received with an item”. Here, even if fresh butter is received unwashed, it should be used after removing curds and the like—this is the meaning. Some, not understanding the intent of “they ate only what was taken from buttermilk,” say, “It is permissible to use it out of time, even unwashed with curds or pills,” but this should not be accepted. It cannot be said that fresh butter mixed with the taste of curds or other greasy items is permissible to use. “When using fresh butter” means when using fresh butter received unwashed. “Curds” refers to what is curd-based, as in “dung-based” or “urine-based” (ma. ni. 2.119; a. ni. 9.11). From the phrase “it will perish,” it should be understood that ghee cooked with milk is permissible out of time. “It will perish” means it becomes non-greasy, so it is permissible even out of time. “To this extent” means with a small amount of curds or the like adhering, not separately designated as curds, showing that when cooked with separately received curds, it is considered received with an item. “Even in that” refers to what has become non-greasy. However, the scrupulous ones’ intent is that at the time of receiving, since its taste is not mixed with curds or the like, it is like a rice ball with sauce and thus received with an item. It must be cooked after washing. Otherwise, at the moment of cooking, its taste mixing with curds or pills being cooked makes it self-cooked; even when those are exhausted, it remains self-cooked, so it must be cooked as non-greasy. Hence, the reason “because it was cooked with greasy items” is stated.
But according to Elder Mahāsīva, because of the removal of the item, being merely mixed with curd granules and so on does not constitute acceptance with the item. Therefore, he intended that one should take it immediately after it has been drawn from buttermilk, and consume it after washing, or cooking it, only as free from food particles, but not consume it at the wrong time along with curd granules and so on. Therefore, he said, “Therefore, one who consumes ghee…etc… there is no such thing as acceptance with the item.” Here, the meaning is that even if one accepts it without washing, one should consume that ghee after removing the curd and so on. But some, not understanding the intention of the statement “one should eat it immediately after it has been drawn from buttermilk,” say, “it is allowable to consume even what has been drawn from buttermilk without being washed, along with curd granules and so on, at the wrong time,” that should not be accepted. For it cannot be said that it is allowable to consume ghee that has the flavor mixed with curd granules and other food. One consuming ghee, means one consuming ghee that was accepted after being washed. Curd is what is contained in curd, just as it is said “what is contained in excrement, what is contained in urine” (ma. ni. 2.119; a. ni. 9.11). From the statement, “it will come to destruction,” it should be understood that milk, having been put in and cooked ghee, etc., are permissible at the wrong time. It will come to destruction, means it becomes without food, therefore, it is allowable even at the wrong time. By this much, meaning with a small amount of curd and the like, which do not have a separate designation of curd, etc., due to being only attached to the ghee, and by this, it is shown that what is cooked along with separately accepted curd and the like goes as being accepted with the item. Even in that, meaning even in what has become free of food. But the intention of the Kukkuṭikas is this – at the time of acceptance, it is, due to not being mixed with the flavor of curd and so on, just like a lump of sugar along with rice, called acceptance with the item. But one should cook it after washing it. Otherwise, at the time of cooking, due to being mixed with the flavors of the curd granules, etc., that are being cooked, it becomes cooked by oneself; even when those have perished, it remains cooked by oneself, therefore, one should cook it free of food. Therefore, the reason given is, “because it was cooked along with food.”
According to Mahāsīvatthera, since the object is separated, items like curd balls are not considered accepted with a valid reason. Therefore, one should take only what is necessary, wash it, and consume it free from impurities. It is not permissible to consume it with curd balls at an improper time. Thus, it is stated, “Therefore, when consuming clarified butter… it is not considered accepted with a valid reason.” This means that even if unwashed clarified butter is accepted, it should be consumed after removing impurities like curds. Some, misunderstanding the statement, “They ate only what was taken from the churn,” claim that unwashed clarified butter mixed with curd balls can be consumed at an improper time. This is incorrect, as it is not permissible to consume clarified butter mixed with impurities. “Navanītaṃ paribhuñjantenā” refers to consuming clarified butter after washing and accepting it. “Dadhigataṃ” refers to curds, similar to “gūthagata” or “muttagata.” “Khayaṃ gamissatī” means that when it becomes free from impurities, it can be consumed even at an improper time. “Ettāvatā” means that even a small amount of clarified butter, without separate acceptance of curds, is considered accepted with a valid reason. “Tasmimpī” means even when it is free from impurities. For the scrupulous, this is the intention: if curds and other impurities are not mixed, it is considered accepted with a valid reason, like food mixed with lumps of sugar. However, it should be cooked after washing. Otherwise, during cooking, the mixing of curds and other impurities makes it self-cooked. Therefore, it should be cooked free from impurities. Hence, the reason is stated as “cooked with impurities.”
ID528
Ettha cāyaṃ vicāraṇā – savatthukapaṭiggahitattābhāve āmisena saha bhikkhunā pakkassa sayaṃpākadoso vā parisaṅkīyati, yāvakālikatā vā. Tattha na tāva sayaṃpākadoso ettha sambhavati sattāhakālikattā. Yañhi tattha dadhiādi āmisagataṃ, taṃ parikkhīṇanti. Atha paṭiggahitadadhiguḷikādinā saha attanā pakkattā savatthukapakkaṃ viya bhaveyyāti parisaṅkīyati, tadā “āmisena saha paṭiggahitattā”ti kāraṇaṃ vattabbaṃ, na pana “pakkattā”ti, tathā ca upaḍḍhattherānaṃ matameva aṅgīkataṃ siyā. Tattha ca sāmaṇerādīhi pakkampi yāvakālikameva siyā paṭiggahitakhīrādiṃ pacitvā anupasampannehi katasappiādi viya, na ca taṃ yuttaṃ bhikkhācārena laddhanavanītādīnaṃ takkādiāmisasaṃsaṭṭhasambhavena aparibhuñjitabbattāppasaṅgato. Na hi gahaṭṭhā dhovitvā, sodhetvā vā patte ākirantīti niyamo atthi.
Here is the consideration: If it is not considered received with an item, there is doubt whether a monk cooking it with greasy items incurs a self-cooking fault or it becomes yāvakālika. There is no self-cooking fault here due to its being sattāhakālika. The greasy items like curds in it are exhausted. If it is suspected that cooking it oneself with received curds or pills makes it like something cooked with an item, then the reason should be “because it was received with greasy items,” not “because it was cooked.” This would align with the view of some elders. There, even if cooked by novices, it would be only yāvakālika, like ghee cooked by laypeople with received milk, but this is not reasonable, as fresh butter and the like obtained through alms, mixed with buttermilk or greasy items, would become unfit for use. There is no rule that householders wash or purify it before putting it in a bowl.
And here is the analysis – if there is no acceptance with the item, then either the fault of cooking by oneself, or the state of being yāvakālika is doubted for what was cooked by a monk along with food. Of these, the fault of cooking by oneself is not possible here, because it is something to last for seven days. For whatever curd and other items contained in the food, they have perished. Then it is doubted that, because it was cooked by oneself along with the accepted curd granules, etc., it might be like what was cooked with the item, then the reason should be stated as “because it was accepted along with food,” and not “because it was cooked,” and in that case, the opinion of the sub-commentator elders (upaḍḍhattherānaṃ) would be accepted. And in that case, even what was cooked by novices (sāmaṇera) and others would be yāvakālika only, like ghee, etc., made by those not fully ordained after cooking accepted milk, etc., and that is not proper, because ghee, etc., received through alms-round is likely mixed with buttermilk, and other food, so would become unsuitable for consuming. For there is no rule that householders pour it into bowls after washing, or purifying.
Here, this consideration arises: if there is no valid reason for acceptance, a monk may be suspected of self-cooking or temporary use when consuming something mixed with impurities. However, in this case, self-cooking is not possible due to the seven-day allowance. The impurities like curds are exhausted. If one cooks with accepted curd balls, it may be considered as if it were cooked with a valid reason. Therefore, the reason should be stated as “accepted with impurities,” not “cooked.” This is the opinion of some elders. Even if novices cook it, it should be considered temporary, like clarified butter cooked by the unordained. However, this is not proper monastic conduct, as clarified butter mixed with churnings should not be consumed. There is no rule that laypeople must wash or clean bowls before offering food.
ID529
Aṭṭhakathāyañca “yathā tattha patitataṇḍulakaṇādayo na paccanti, evaṃ…pe… puna pacitvā deti, purimanayeneva sattāhaṃ vaṭṭatī”ti iminā vacanenapetaṃ virujjhati, tasmā idha kukkuccakānaṃ kukkuccuppattiyā nimittameva na dissati. Yathā cettha, evaṃ “lajjī sāmaṇero yathā tattha taṇḍulakaṇādayo na paccanti, evaṃ aggimhi vilīyāpetvā…pe… detī”ti vacanassāpi nimittaṃ na dissati. Yadi hi etaṃ yāvakālikasaṃsaggaparihārāya vuttaṃ siyā. Attanāpi tathā kātabbaṃ bhaveyya. Gahaṭṭhehi dinnasappiādīsu ca āmisasaṃsaggasaṅkā na vigaccheyya. Na hi gahaṭṭhā evaṃ vilīyāpetvā parissāvetvā kaṇataṇḍulādiṃ apanetvā puna pacanti. Apica bhesajjehi saddhiṃ khīrādiṃ pakkhipitvā yathā khīrādi khayaṃ gacchati, evaṃ parehi pakkabhesajjatelādipi yāvakālikameva siyā, na ca tampi yuttaṃ dadhiādikhayakaraṇatthaṃ “puna pacitvā detī”ti vuttattā, tasmā mahāsīvattheravāde kukkuccaṃ akatvā adhotampi navanītaṃ tadahupi punadivasādīsupi pacituṃ, taṇḍulādimissaṃ sappiādiṃ attanāpi aggimhi vilīyāpetvā puna takkādikhayatthaṃ pacituñca vaṭṭati.
In the commentary, “Just as rice grains falling there are not cooked, so …pe… he cooks it again and gives it; by the previous method, it is permissible for seven days,” this does not contradict it. Thus, there is no basis here for the scrupulous ones’ scruple. Just as here, in “A modest novice, so that rice grains there are not cooked, melts it in the fire …pe… gives it,” no basis is seen either. If this were said to avoid mixing with yāvakālika, one should do so oneself. In ghee given by householders, the doubt of mixing with greasy items would not cease. Householders do not melt, strain, remove rice grains, and cook again. Moreover, if medicines are cooked with milk and the like until the milk is exhausted, ghee or oil cooked by others would be only yāvakālika, but this is not reasonable since “he cooks it again and gives it” is said to exhaust curds and the like. Thus, without scruple in Elder Mahāsīva’s view, even unwashed fresh butter can be cooked that day or later, and ghee mixed with rice grains can be melted in the fire and cooked again to exhaust buttermilk and the like.
And in the commentary (Aṭṭhakathā), the statement, “just as the grains of rice, etc., that have fallen there do not cook, so…etc… he gives it after cooking it again; it is allowable for seven days, just as before,” contradicts this, therefore, no reason is seen for the Kukkuṭikas doubt here. Just as here, so too no reason is seen for the statement “the scrupulous novice (lajjī sāmaṇero) just as the grains of rice, etc., that have fallen there do not cook, so after melting it on a fire…etc… he gives it”. For if this were said to avoid admixture with yāvakālika. Then, one should do so oneself, too. And the doubt of admixture with food would not disappear regarding ghee and so on given by householders. For householders do not melt, strain, and remove grains of rice, etc., in this way and cook it again. Moreover, just as milk, etc., put together with medicines, comes to destruction, so too, medicine, oil, etc., cooked by others would be yāvakālika only, and that too is not proper, because it is said, “he gives it after cooking it again,” in order to cause the destruction of curd, etc., therefore, without making a doubt in the opinion of Elder Mahāsīva, it is allowable to cook even unwashed ghee on the same day or on subsequent days, and it is allowable for oneself to melt ghee, etc., mixed with rice, etc., on a fire and to cook it again for the destruction of buttermilk, etc.
The commentary also states, “Just as grains and husks do not cook there, so… after cooking again, it is valid for seven days.” This statement refutes the scrupulous monks’ concern, as there is no basis for their worry. Similarly, the statement, “A conscientious novice, just as grains and husks do not cook there, so… after dissolving in fire… gives it,” also has no basis. If this were said to avoid temporary mixing, one should act accordingly. However, there is no concern about mixing with impurities when laypeople offer clarified butter. Laypeople do not dissolve or strain grains and husks before cooking. Moreover, when medicine is mixed with milk and cooked by others, it should be considered temporary. However, this is not proper, as clarified butter mixed with churnings should not be consumed. Therefore, according to Mahāsīvatthera’s view, there is no need for scruples. Unwashed clarified butter can be cooked on the same day or subsequent days, and grains mixed with clarified butter can be dissolved in fire and cooked again to remove churnings.
ID530
Tattha vijjamānassāpi paccamānakkhaṇe sambhinnarasassa yāvakālikassa abbohārikattena savatthukapaṭiggahitapurepaṭiggahitakānampi abbohārikatoti niṭṭhamettha gantabbanti. Teneva “ettāvatā hi savatthukapaṭiggahitaṃ nāma na hotī”ti vuttaṃ. Visuṃ paṭiggahitena pana khīrādinā āmisena navanītādiṃ missetvā bhikkhunā vā aññehi vā pakkatelādibhesajjaṃ savatthukapaṭiggahitasaṅkhameva gacchati tattha paviṭṭhayāvakālikassa abbohārikattābhāvā. Yaṃ pana purepaṭiggahitabhesajjehi saddhiṃ appaṭiggahitaṃ khīrādiṃ pakkhipitvā pakkatelādikaṃ anupasampanneheva pakkampi savatthukapaṭiggahitampi sannidhipi na hoti tattha pakkhittakhīrādimissāpi tasmiṃ khaṇe sambhinnarasatāya purepaṭiggahitattāpattito, sace pana appaṭiggahiteheva, aññehi vā pakkatelādīsupi āmisaraso paññāyati, taṃ yāvakālikaṃva hotīti veditabbaṃ. Ayaṃ kathāmaggo vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.622) āgato. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.622) pana “kukkuccāyanti kukkuccakāti iminā attanopi tattha kukkuccasabbhāvampi dīpeti. Teneva mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. bhesajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) ’nibbaṭṭitasappi vā navanītaṃ vā pacituṃ vaṭṭatī’ti vutta”nti ettakameva āgato.
Even if its taste mixes with yāvakālika at the moment of cooking, since it is not usable, both what was received with an item and what was taken before are not usable—thus it should be concluded here. Hence, it says “to this extent, it is not considered received with an item”. However, oil or medicine cooked by a monk or others, mixed with separately received greasy items like milk, is considered received with an item because the yāvakālika in it is usable. But if un-received milk is cooked with previously received medicines, even if cooked by a layperson, it is not stored or received with an item, though mixed with milk at that moment, due to its prior receipt. If cooked with un-received items or others, and a greasy taste is evident, it is only yāvakālika—this should be understood. This path of discussion comes from the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.622). In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.622), it says only “‘they are scrupulous’ indicates their scruple here too,” and in the Mātikā commentary (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. bhesajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), “It is permissible to cook extracted ghee or fresh butter.”
Even though the flavor is present and mixed at the moment of cooking, the state of being yāvakālika(what may be used within a specific time frame) is negligible. It is concluded that those things accepted before, even with items, becomes also negligible. Therefore it is said “by this much it does not become accepted with item”. But medicine such as oil, etc., mixed and cooked by a monk or by others with separately accepted milk, etc., being food, goes under the category of being accepted with the item, because the yāvakālika(foods/drinks allowed during specific time) mixed therein is not negligible. However, milk, etc., that was not accepted, along with previously accepted medicines, and cooked oil, etc., even cooked by those not fully ordained, even accepted with the item, there is no storing offense there, because of the attainment of the state of having been accepted before, due to the mixture of the added milk, etc., being mixed with the flavor at that moment. But if the flavor of food is discernible even in oil, etc., cooked by others, or with what was not accepted, that should be understood as being yāvakālika. This line of discussion is found in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.622). But in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.622), it is said “Those who are scrupulous are called kukkuccakā”, this also shows that even he had a scruple in that matter. Therefore, in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. bhesajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), it is only stated, ‘It is allowable to cook solidified ghee or ghee’”.
Even if there is mixing during cooking, the temporary nature of the mixed item makes it non-essential, and thus it is not considered accepted with a valid reason. Therefore, it is stated, “Thus, it is not considered accepted with a valid reason.” However, if milk or other items are separately accepted and mixed with clarified butter by a monk or others, the cooked medicine is considered accepted with a valid reason due to the non-essential nature of the temporary item. If unaccepted milk is mixed with previously accepted medicine and cooked by the unordained, it is not considered accepted with a valid reason, even if mixed milk is present at that moment, due to the prior acceptance. If unaccepted items are mixed, or if others cook medicine, and the impurity is evident, it is considered temporary. This discussion is found in the Vimativinodanī (Vinaya Vibhaṅga Ṭīkā 1.622). The Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha Ṭīkā 2.622) states, “The scrupulous are concerned,” indicating that even the scrupulous nature of the individual is highlighted. Therefore, in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī Aṭṭhakathā, Bhesajjasikkhāpada Vaṇṇanā), it is stated, “It is permissible to cook clarified butter or ghee,” and this is all that is mentioned.
ID531
Uggahetvāti sayameva gahetvā. Tāni paṭiggahetvāti tāni khīradadhīni paṭiggahetvā. Gahitanti taṇḍulādivigamatthaṃ puna pacitvā gahitanti attho. Paṭiggahetvā ca ṭhapitabhesajjehīti atirekasattāhapaṭiggahitehi yāvajīvikabhesajjehi, etena tehi yuttampi sappiādi atirekasattāhapaṭiggahitaṃ na hotīti dasseti. Vaddalisamayeti vassakālasamaye, anātapakāleti attho. Vuttanayena yathā taṇḍulādīni na paccanti, tathā lajjīyeva sampādetvā detīti lajjisāmaṇeraggahaṇaṃ. Apica alajjinā ajjhoharitabbaṃ yaṃ kiñci abhisaṅkharāpetuṃ na vaṭṭati, tasmāpi evamāha.
“Having taken” means taken by oneself. “Having received them” means having received milk and curds. “Taken” means taken after cooking again to remove rice grains and the like. “With medicines stored after receiving” refers to yāvajīvika medicines received beyond seven days, showing that ghee and the like mixed with them are not received beyond seven days. “At the time of sprouting” means during the rainy season, meaning not dried in the sun. As stated, a modest person prepares it so that rice grains and the like are not cooked—this refers to a modest novice. Also, an immodest person must not be made to prepare anything for consumption, so it is said thus.
Having taken up means having taken by oneself. Having accepted those, means having accepted those milk and curds. Taken means taken after cooking again for the purpose of removing rice grains and so on. With medicines that have been accepted and put aside, means with yāvajīvika medicines that have been accepted for more than seven days; by this, it is shown that even ghee, etc., mixed with those, is not accepted for more than seven days. At the time of the rains, means during the rainy season, meaning at a time without heat. Just as rice grains and so on do not cook according to the stated method, in the same way, a scrupulous person(lajjī) makes it ready and gives it. This is why scrupulous novice(lajjisāmaṇera) is mentioned. Moreover, it is not allowable to prepare anything that should be consumed by a non-scrupulous person; therefore, too, this is said.
“Uggahetvā” means taking it oneself. “Tāni paṭiggahetvā” means accepting milk and curds. “Gahita” means taking grains after cooking them again. “Paṭiggahetvā ca ṭhapitabhesajjehī” refers to excess medicine accepted for more than seven days or for a lifetime, indicating that even clarified butter accepted for more than seven days is not considered excess. “Vaddalisamaye” refers to the rainy season, meaning during the cool season. As grains do not cook, a conscientious novice should prepare and offer them. Moreover, an unscrupulous person should not consume anything prepared without proper care, as it is not permissible.
ID532
96. Tile paṭiggahetvā katatelanti attanā bhajjādīni akatvā katatelaṃ. Teneva “sāmisampi vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ. Nibbaṭṭītattāti yāvakālikato vivecitattā, etena elāabhāvato yāvakālikattābhāvaṃ, bhikkhuno savatthukapaṭiggahaṇena yāvakālikattupagamanañca dasseti. Ubhayampīti attanā aññehi ca kataṃ.
96. “Oil made after receiving sesame” means oil made without roasting it oneself. Hence, it says “even greasy is permissible”. “Because it is extracted” means separated from yāvakālika, showing that due to the absence of oiliness it is not yāvakālika, and a monk’s receiving it with an item does not make it yāvakālika. “Both” refers to that made by oneself and others.
96. Sesame oil prepared after accepting sesame seeds, means the oil is prepared without oneself frying, etc. Therefore, it is said, “even with food, it is allowable.” Because it has become separated, means because it has been separated from being yāvakālika; by this, it is shown that due to the absence of it, there is no state of being yāvakālika, and that it becomes yāvakālika due to the monk’s acceptance with the item. Both, means what was done by oneself and by others.
96. “Tile paṭiggahetvā katatela” means oil prepared by others without frying. Thus, it is stated, “Even with impurities, it is permissible.” “Nibbaṭṭītattā” means it is separated from temporary items, indicating that it is not considered temporary, and a monk’s acceptance with a valid reason makes it temporary. “Ubhayampī” refers to what is prepared by oneself and others.
ID533
Yāva aruṇuggamanā tiṭṭhati, nissaggiyanti sattame divase katatelaṃ sace yāva aruṇuggamanā tiṭṭhati, nissaggiyaṃ.
“If it remains until dawn, it is subject to forfeiture”—oil made on the seventh day, if it remains until dawn, is subject to forfeiture.
If it remains until sunrise, it is to be forfeited, means if oil prepared on the seventh day remains until sunrise, it is to be forfeited.
“Yāva aruṇuggamanā tiṭṭhati, nissaggiya” means that if oil prepared on the seventh day remains until dawn, it is subject to forfeiture.
ID534
Acchavasanti dukkaṭavatthuno vasāya anuññātattā taṃsadisānaṃ dukkaṭavatthūnaṃyeva akappiyamaṃsasattānaṃ vasā anuññātā, na thullaccayavatthu manussānaṃ vasāti āha “ṭhapetvā manussavasa”nti. Saṃsaṭṭhanti parissāvitaṃ. Tiṇṇaṃ dukkaṭānanti ajjhohāre ajjhohāre tīṇi dukkaṭāni sandhāya vuttaṃ. Kiñcāpi paribhogatthāya vikāle paṭiggahaṇapacanaparissāvanādīsu pubbapayogesu pāḷiyaṃ, aṭṭhakathāyañca āpatti na vuttā, tathāpi ettha āpattiyā eva bhavitabbaṃ paṭikkhittassa karaṇato āhāratthāya vikāle yāmakālikādīnaṃ paṭiggahaṇe viya. “Kāle paṭiggahitaṃ vikāle anupasampannenāpi nipakkaṃ saṃsaṭṭhañca paribhuñjantassa dvepi dukkaṭāni hontiyevā”ti vadanti.
“Bear fat”—since it is permitted due to bear fat being a wrong-doing item, fats from similar wrong-doing animals are permitted, not human fat, a grave-offense item. Thus, it says “except human fat”. “Mixed” means strained. “Three wrong-doings” refers to three wrong-doings per consumption. Although no offense is stated in the text or commentary for preliminary acts like receiving, cooking, or straining out of time for use, an offense should apply here due to doing what is prohibited, like receiving yāmakālika and the like out of time for food. They say, “Even if received in time and cooked or mixed by a layperson out of time, two wrong-doings certainly apply when using it.”
Bear fat, since the fat of items causing a dukkaṭa is allowed, the fat of animals of unsuitable flesh, which are also items causing a dukkaṭa, is allowed, but not the fat of humans, which is an item causing a grave offense (thullaccaya); therefore, it is said, “except for human fat.” Mixed, means strained. Of three dukkaṭas, means it is said concerning three dukkaṭas for each and every consumption. Although in the Pāḷi and the commentary, no offense is stated for the prior actions of accepting, cooking, straining, and so on, at the wrong time for the purpose of consumption, even so, there should be an offense here, due to doing what is prohibited, like accepting yāmakālika, etc., at the wrong time for the purpose of food. “Even for one who consumes what was accepted at the right time, cooked, and mixed by someone not fully ordained at the wrong time, there are two dukkaṭas,” they say.
“Acchavasa” refers to the fat of animals not permissible for consumption, as it is allowed for medicinal purposes. It is stated, “Except for human fat,” meaning human fat is not allowed. “Saṃsaṭṭha” means strained. “Tiṇṇaṃ dukkaṭāna” refers to three dukkaṭa offenses incurred with each act of consumption. Although the Pāli and commentary do not mention offenses for accepting, cooking, or straining at an improper time, an offense is incurred here due to the rejection of proper conduct, similar to accepting food at an improper time. It is said, “If food accepted at the proper time is consumed at an improper time by the unordained, even if cooked and strained, two dukkaṭa offenses are incurred.”
ID535
Yasmā khīrādīni pakkhipitvā pakkabhesajjatele kasaṭaṃ āmisagatikaṃ, tena saha telaṃ paṭiggahetuṃ, pacituṃ vā bhikkhuno na vaṭṭati, tasmā vuttaṃ “pakkatelakasaṭe viya kukkuccāyatī”ti. “Sace vasāya saha pakkattā na vaṭṭati, idaṃ kasmā vaṭṭatī”ti pucchantā “bhante…pe… vaṭṭatī”ti āhaṃsu, thero atikukkuccakatāya “etampi āvuso na vaṭṭatī”ti āha, roganiggahatthāya eva vasāya anuññātattaṃ sallakkhetvā pacchā “sādhū”ti sampaṭicchi.
Since milk and similar substances, when added to cooked medicinal oil, make it bitter and associated with flesh, a monk is not permitted to receive or cook oil together with it; therefore, it is said, “like the bitterness of cooked oil, he becomes anxious”. When some asked, “If it is not allowed when cooked with fat, why is this allowed?” saying, “Venerable sir… etc… it is allowed”, the elder, due to excessive scrupulosity, said, “Friends, this too is not allowed”, but later, considering that fat is permitted for the sake of curing illness, he accepted it, saying, “Good”.
Since milk and other ingredients are added and cooked into medicinal oil, forming a residue, it is not allowable for a monk to accept or cook oil with it, therefore it is said, “he is scrupulous like one with cooked oil residue.” “If it is not allowable when cooked with fat, why is this allowable?” they asked, saying, “Bhante…etc… it is allowable.” The elder, due to excessive scrupulousness, said, “Friend, this also is not allowable,” but later, reflecting that fat was allowed only for the purpose of suppressing disease, he accepted it, saying, “Good.”
Since milk and other substances are mixed into boiled medicinal oil, making it impure and material, a monk should not accept or boil such oil. Therefore, it is said, “He is anxious as with boiled oil mixed with impurities.” When asked, “If it is not permissible to boil it with fat, why is this permissible?” they replied, “Venerable sir… it is permissible.” The elder, due to excessive scrupulousness, said, “This too is not permissible.” Later, considering that fat is permitted for the purpose of curing illness, he accepted it, saying, “Good.”
ID536
97. “Madhukarīhi madhumakkhikāhīti idaṃ khuddakabhamarānaṃ dvinnaṃ eva visesana”nti keci vadanti. Aññe pana “daṇḍakesu madhukārikā madhukarimakkhikā nāma, tāhi saha tisso madhumakkhikajātiyo”ti vadanti. Bhamaramakkhikāti mahāpaṭalakārikā. Silesasadisanti sukkhatāya vā pakkatāya vā ghanībhūtaṃ. Itaranti tanukamadhu. Madhupaṭalanti madhurahitaṃ kevalaṃ madhupaṭalaṃ. “Sace madhusahitaṃ paṭalaṃ paṭiggahetvā nikkhipanti. Paṭalassa bhājanaṭṭhāniyattā madhuno vasena sattāhātikkame nissaggiyaṃ hotī”ti vadanti, “madhumakkhitaṃ pana madhugatikamevā”ti iminā taṃ sameti.
97. “Madhukarīhi madhumakkhikāhī”—some say this is merely a description of two types of small bees. However, others say, “Among the reeds, there are bees called madhukārikā or madhukarimakkhikā, and together with them, there are three species of honeybees.” Bhamaramakkhikā refers to large flat bees. Silesasadisa means solidified due to drying or cooking. Itara refers to thin honey. Madhupaṭala means a honeycomb devoid of honey, just the bare structure. They say, “If a honeycomb with honey is received and stored, due to the honeycomb being confined to the container, after seven days, it becomes subject to relinquishment based on the honey,” and “honey-coated honeycomb is simply honey-based,” which aligns with this.
97. Some say that “by madhukārīhi, by madhumakkhikāhī** is a qualification of only two kinds of small bees. Others, however, say,”On staffs (daṇḍakesu), there are madhukārikā and madhukarimakkhikā, so with them, there are three types of honeybees.” Bhamaramakkhikā** are those that make large honeycombs. Silesasadisanti is that which has become thick, either due to dryness or cooking. Itaranti is thin honey. Madhupaṭalanti refers to a mere honeycomb without honey. “If they accept and put away a honeycomb with honey, because the comb is like a container, on account of the honey, it becomes an offense requiring forfeiture after seven days,” they say, this is combined with “but what is touched by honey remains in the category of honey.”
97. “With honeybees and honey-making insects”—some say this refers specifically to two types of small bees. Others say, “Among the daṇḍaka bees, the madhukārikā and madhukarimakkhikā are named, and with them, there are three kinds of honey-making insects.” Bhamaramakkhikā refers to the large honey-making insect. Silesasadisa means solidified due to dryness or boiling. Itara refers to thin honey. Madhupaṭala means the honeycomb without honey, just the comb. “If they accept a honeycomb containing honey and store it, since the container is for the comb, the honey becomes forfeited after seven days due to the honey’s presence,” they say. “However, honey mixed with honey-making insects is treated as honey itself,” thus reconciling the matter.
ID537
98. “Phāṇitaṃ nāma ucchumhā nibbatta”nti pāḷiyaṃ (pāci. 260) avisesena vuttattā, aṭṭhakathāyañca “ucchurasaṃ upādāya…pe… avatthukā ucchuvikati ’phāṇita’nti veditabbā”ti vacanato ucchurasopi nikkasaṭo sattāhakālikoti veditabbaṃ. Kenaci pana “madhumhi cattāro kālikā yathāsambhavaṃ yojetabbā, ucchumhi cā”ti vatvā “samakkhikaṇḍaṃ selakaṃ madhu yāvakālikaṃ, anelakaṃ udakasambhinnaṃ yāmakālikaṃ, asambhinnaṃ sattāhakālikaṃ, madhusitthaṃ parisuddhaṃ yāvajīvikaṃ, tathā ucchuraso sakasaṭo yāvakāliko, nikkasaṭo udakasambhinno yāmakāliko, asambhinno sattāhakāliko, suddhakasaṭaṃ yāvajīvika”nti ca vatvā uttaripi bahudhā papañcitaṃ. Tattha “udakasambhinnaṃ madhu vā ucchuraso vā sakasaṭo yāvakāliko, nikkasaṭo udakasambhinno yāmakāliko”ti idaṃ neva pāḷiyaṃ, na aṭṭhakathāyaṃ dissati, “yāvakālikaṃ samānaṃ garutarampi muddikājātirasaṃ attanā saṃsaṭṭhaṃ lahukaṃ yāmakālikabhāvaṃ upanentaṃ udakaṃ lahutaraṃ sattāhakālikaṃ attanā saṃsaṭṭhaṃ garutaraṃ yāmakālikabhāvaṃ upanetī”ti ettha kāraṇaṃ soyeva pucchitabbo. Sabbattha pāḷiyaṃ aṭṭhakathāyañca udakasambhinnena garutarassāpi lahubhāvopagamanaṃyeva dassitaṃ. Pāḷiyampi (mahāva. 284) hi “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, gilānassa guḷaṃ, agilānassa guḷodaka”nti vadantena agilānena paribhuñjituṃ ayuttopi guḷo udakasambhinno agilānassapi vaṭṭatīti anuññāto.
98. Since the text (pāci. 260) states generally, “Phāṇitaṃ nāma ucchumhā nibbatta” (phāṇita is derived from sugarcane), and the commentary says, “Starting from sugarcane juice… etc… unprocessed sugarcane derivatives should be understood as ‘phāṇita’,” it should be understood that even sugarcane juice, when free of impurities, is permissible for seven days. However, someone said, “In the case of honey, the four time categories should be applied as appropriate, and so too with sugarcane,” stating, “Sugarcane with impurities, selaka honey, is for the day; without impurities but mixed with water, it is for the night; unmixed, it is for seven days; pure honey residue is for life. Similarly, sugarcane juice with impurities is for the day; free of impurities but mixed with water, it is for the night; unmixed, it is for seven days; pure impurities are for life,” and further elaborated extensively. However, the statement that “honey or sugarcane juice mixed with water, with impurities, is for the day, and free of impurities but mixed with water, is for the night” is found neither in the text nor the commentary. Regarding, “A day-item, even if heavier like grape juice, when mixed with lighter water becomes a night-item, and lighter water, when mixed with heavier night-items, becomes a heavier night-item,” the reason for this should be asked of that person alone. Everywhere in the text and commentary, it is shown that even heavier items, when mixed with water, take on a lighter nature. Indeed, in the text (mahāva. 284), it says, “I allow, monks, molasses for the sick, and molasses water for the healthy”, indicating that molasses, though unsuitable for the healthy to consume, is permitted when mixed with water even for the healthy.
98. Because in the Pāli (pāci. 260) it is said without distinction, “Molasses is what is produced from sugarcane,” and in the commentary, it says, “Taking sugarcane juice…etc… without any solid matter, the sugarcane derivative should be understood as ‘molasses’,” so even sugarcane juice without residue should be understood as allowable for seven days. But someone, having said, “In the case of honey, the four time-allowables should be applied as appropriate, and similarly in the case of sugarcane,” also said, “Honey with bees and solid honey are allowable as long as needed, thin honey and honey mixed with water are allowable for a day, unmixed honey is allowable for seven days, and pure beeswax is allowable for life. Similarly, sugarcane juice with residue is allowable as long as needed, that without residue and mixed with water is allowable for a day, that without residue and unmixed is allowable for seven days, and pure residue is allowable for life,” and further elaborated on this in many ways. Therein, “honey mixed with water or sugarcane juice with residue is allowable as long as needed, that without residue and mixed with water is allowable for a day” – this is not found in the Pāli or the commentary. The reason given is that “water, which is lighter, when mixed with something heavier that is allowable as long as needed, such as juice of various mangoes, makes the heavier substance allowable only for a day; and when water, which is lighter, and allowable for seven day, is mixed with a heavier substance that is allowable for day, causes the seven-day allowable to be only allowable for a day”. One should question him why. In all places in the Pāli and the commentary, it is shown that even a heavier substance becomes lighter when mixed with water. Indeed, in the Pāli (mahāva. 284), by saying, “I allow, monks, molasses for the sick, molasses-water for the non-sick,” it is allowed that even molasses, which is not suitable for consumption by a non-sick person, becomes allowable for a non-sick person when mixed with water.
98. “Phāṇita is produced from sugarcane,” as stated in the Pāli (pāci. 260) without distinction, and the commentary says, “The juice extracted from sugarcane… should be understood as ‘phāṇita.’” Thus, even the juice without impurities is considered valid for seven days. Some say, “In honey, four types of timing should be applied as appropriate, and in sugarcane as well,” stating, “Honeycomb, rock honey, and pure honey are valid for a lifetime; honey mixed with water is valid for a day and night; unmixed honey is valid for seven days; pure honey is valid for a lifetime. Similarly, sugarcane juice with impurities is valid for a lifetime; without impurities and mixed with water, it is valid for a day and night; unmixed, it is valid for seven days; pure juice is valid for a lifetime.” They elaborate further. However, “Honey or sugarcane juice mixed with water, whether with or without impurities, is valid for a day and night”—this is not found in the Pāli or the commentary. The reason is that heavier substances mixed with lighter ones reduce the validity to a day and night, while lighter substances mixed with heavier ones extend it to seven days. The Pāli (mahāva. 284) states, “I allow, monks, jaggery for the sick and jaggery water for the healthy,” indicating that even jaggery mixed with water is permissible for the healthy.
ID538
Yampi ca “ucchu ce, yāvakāliko, ucchuraso ce, yāmakāliko, phāṇitaṃ ce, sattāhakālikaṃ, taco ce, yāvajīviko”ti aṭṭhakathāvacanaṃ dassetvā “ucchuraso udakasambhinno yāmakāliko”ti aññena kenaci vuttaṃ, tampi tathāvidhassa aṭṭhakathāvacanassa samantapāsādikāya vinayaṭṭhakathāya abhāvato na sārato paccetabbaṃ, tatoyeva ca “ucchuraso udakasambhinnopi asambhinnopi sattāhakālikoyevā”ti keci ācariyā vadanti. Bhesajjakkhandhake ca “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, ucchurasa”nti ettha tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu avisesena vuttaṃ “ucchuraso sattāhakāliko”ti. Sayaṃkataṃ nirāmisameva vaṭṭatīti ettha aparissāvitaṃ paṭiggahitampi karaṇasamaye parissāvetvā, kasaṭaṃ apanetvā ca attanā katanti veditabbaṃ, ayaṃ sāratthadīpanīpāṭho (sārattha. ṭī. 2.623).
Also, showing the commentary statement, “If it is sugarcane, it is for the day; if sugarcane juice, for the night; if phāṇita, for seven days; if bark, for life,” someone else said, “Sugarcane juice mixed with water is for the night,” but this should not be accepted as authoritative due to the absence of such a statement in the Samantapāsādikā Vinaya commentary. Hence, some teachers say, “Sugarcane juice, whether mixed with water or not, is only for seven days.” In the Bhesajjakkhandhaka, it says, “I allow, monks, sugarcane juice”, stated generally across all three sections, meaning “sugarcane juice is for seven days.” “Only that prepared by oneself and free of flesh is permissible”—here, even if received unfiltered, it should be understood as prepared by oneself after filtering and removing impurities at the time of preparation, according to the Sāratthadīpanī reading (sārattha. ṭī. 2.623).
And also, having shown the commentary statement, “If it is sugarcane, it is allowable as long as needed; if it is sugarcane juice, it is allowable for a day; if it is molasses, it is allowable for seven days; if it is the bark, it is allowable for life,” another person said, “Sugarcane juice mixed with water is allowable for a day.” But that also should not be taken as essential, because such a commentary statement is not found in the Samantapāsādikā, the Vinaya commentary. And from that very source, some teachers say, “Sugarcane juice, whether mixed with water or not, is allowable only for seven days.” And in the Bhesajjakkhandhaka, where it says, “I allow, monks, sugarcane juice,” in all three compendium sections, it is stated without distinction, “Sugarcane juice is allowable for seven days.” “What is self-made is allowable only if it is free from solid matter”, here, even what has been accepted without being strained, at the time of preparation, it should be understood as made by oneself after straining and removing the residue. This is the reading in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.623).
Regarding the commentary’s statement, “Sugarcane is valid for a lifetime; sugarcane juice is valid for a day and night; phāṇita is valid for seven days; the rind is valid for a lifetime,” and someone else’s statement, “Sugarcane juice mixed with water is valid for a day and night,” this should not be accepted as authoritative, as it is not found in the Samantapāsādikā Vinaya commentary. Therefore, some teachers say, “Sugarcane juice, whether mixed with water or not, is valid for seven days.” In the Bhesajjakkhandhaka, it is said, “I allow, monks, sugarcane juice,” and here, in all three contexts, it is stated without distinction, “Sugarcane juice is valid for seven days.” “What is made by oneself, if free from materiality, is permissible”—here, even if accepted without straining, it should be understood as made by oneself after straining and removing impurities during preparation. This is the explanation in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.623).
ID539
Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.623) pana ucchurasaṃ upādāyāti nikkasaṭarasassāpi sattāhakālikattaṃ dasseti “ucchumhā nibbatta”nti pāḷiyaṃ sāmaññato vuttattā. Yaṃ pana suttantaṭṭhakathāyaṃ “ucchu ce, yāvakāliko, ucchuraso ce, yāmakāliko, phāṇitaṃ ce, sattāhakālikaṃ, taco ce, yāvajīviko”ti vuttaṃ, taṃ ambaphalarasādimissatāya yāmakālikattaṃ sandhāya vuttanti gahetabbaṃ, avinayavacanattā taṃ appamāṇanti. Teneva “purebhattaṃ paṭiggahitena aparissāvitaucchurasenā”tiādi vuttaṃ. Nirāmisameva vaṭṭati tattha paviṭṭhayāvakālikassa abbohārikattāti idaṃ guḷe kate tattha vijjamānampi kasaṭaṃ pākena sukkhatāya yāvajīvikattaṃ bhajatīti vuttaṃ. Tassa yāvakālikatte hi sāmaṃpākena purebhattepi anajjhoharaṇīyaṃ siyāti. “Savatthukapaṭiggahitattā”ti idaṃ ucchurase cuṇṇavicuṇṇaṃ hutvā ṭhitakasaṭaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, tena ca “aparissāvitena appaṭiggahitena anupasampannehi kataṃ sattāhaṃ vaṭṭatīti dassetī”ti vuttaṃ.
In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.623), “ucchurasaṃ upādāya” indicates that even juice free of impurities is for seven days, due to the general statement in the text, “derived from sugarcane.” However, what is said in the Suttanta commentary, “If sugarcane, for the day; if sugarcane juice, for the night; if phāṇita, for seven days; if bark, for life,” should be understood as referring to its night-status due to being mixed with mango juice or similar, and since it is not a Vinaya statement, it is not authoritative. Hence, it says, “With sugarcane juice received before midday and unfiltered…” etc. “Only free of flesh is permissible”—this means that impurities present in molasses, when cooked and dried, take on a lifelong status. If it were for the day, it could not be consumed even before midday with personal cooking. “Due to being received with a basis” refers to impurities in sugarcane juice that have become powdery, indicating that “what is unfiltered and not received, if prepared by non-monks, is permissible for seven days,” it is said.
But the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.623) shows that even juice without residue is allowable for seven days, stating “taking sugarcane juice” because in the Pāli it is stated generally as “produced from sugarcane.” But that which is stated in the Suttanta commentary, “If it is sugarcane, it is allowable as long as needed; if it is sugarcane juice, it is allowable for a day; if it is molasses, it is allowable for seven days; if it is the bark, it is allowable for life,” should be taken as being said with reference to its being allowable for a day due to being mixed with the juice of mango fruit and the like. It is not authoritative because it’s a non-vinaya statement. Therefore, it has been said, “with unstrained sugarcane juice accepted before the meal,” and so on. What is allowable, is only that which is free of solid matter, because anything allowable for a specific time that has entered into it is insignificant - this has been said, because even solid matter existing in made molasses, become allowable for life due to its being dried by cooking. For if it were allowable only for as long as needed, then it would not be consumable even before the meal due to it being self-cooked. “Because of acceptance with a solid substance,” this is said with reference to the residue that remains as powder or particles in the sugarcane juice. And by that, it is stated, “It shows that what is unstrained, unaccepted, or made by those not fully ordained is allowable for seven days.”
The Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.623) states, “Extracted from sugarcane”—even juice without impurities is valid for seven days, as the Pāli states generally, “produced from sugarcane.” However, the Suttanta commentary says, “Sugarcane is valid for a lifetime; sugarcane juice is valid for a day and night; phāṇita is valid for seven days; the rind is valid for a lifetime,” which should be understood as referring to the mixture with mango juice and the like, making it valid for a day and night. Since this is not a Vinaya statement, it is not authoritative. Therefore, “Sugarcane juice accepted before a meal without straining” is mentioned. “Only what is free from materiality is permissible”—here, since what is valid for a lifetime is not subject to scrutiny, even if impurities are present, they are dried by boiling, making it valid for a lifetime. If it were valid for a day and night, it might not be consumable even before a meal. “Because it is accepted with its substance”—this refers to the powdered or crushed sugarcane juice that remains as impurities. Thus, it is said, “Even if accepted without straining or by non-fully ordained individuals, it is valid for seven days.”
ID540
Jhāmaucchuphāṇitanti aggimhi ucchuṃ tāpetvā kataṃ. Koṭṭitaucchuphāṇitanti khuddānukhuddakaṃ chinditvā koṭṭetvā nippīḷetvā pakkaṃ. Taṃ tattha vijjamānampi kasaṭaṃ pakkakāle yāvakālikattaṃ vijahatīti āha “taṃ yutta”nti. Sītodakena katanti madhukapupphāni sītodakena madditvā parissāvetvā pacitvā kataṃ. “Aparissāvetvā kata”nti keci, tattha kāraṇaṃ na dissati. Khīraṃ pakkhipitvā kataṃ madhukaphāṇitaṃ yāvakālikanti ettha khīraṃ pakkhipitvā pakkatelaṃ kasmā vikāle vaṭṭatīti ce? Tele pakkhittaṃ khīraṃ telameva hoti, aññaṃ pana khīraṃ pakkhipitvā kataṃ khīrabhāvaṃ gaṇhātīti idamettha kāraṇaṃ. Yadi evaṃ khaṇḍasakkharampi khīraṃ pakkhipitvā karonti, taṃ kasmā vaṭṭatīti āha “khaṇḍasakkharaṃ panā”tiādi. Tattha khīrajallikanti khīrapheṇaṃ.
Jhāmaucchuphāṇita means sugarcane heated over a fire. Koṭṭitaucchuphāṇita means cut into small pieces, pounded, pressed, and cooked. It says, “That is proper”, meaning that even impurities present there abandon their day-status when cooked. “Made with cold water” refers to madhuka flowers mashed with cold water, filtered, and cooked. Some say, “Made without filtering,” but no reason for this is evident. “Madhukaphāṇita made with milk is for the day”—if so, why is oil cooked with milk permissible at an improper time? Because milk added to oil becomes oil, whereas anything else made with milk takes on the nature of milk—this is the reason here. If so, lump sugar is also made with milk, so why is it permissible? It says, “But lump sugar…” etc. Here, khīrajallika means milk foam.
Roasted sugarcane molasses is that made by heating sugarcane on a fire. Crushed sugarcane molasses is that which is made by cutting it into small pieces, crushing it, pressing it, and then cooking it. Even though residue is present there, it loses its status of being allowable as long as needed during the cooking process, therefore he says, “that is appropriate.” Made with cold water means made by crushing madhuka flowers with cold water, straining it, and then cooking it. Some say “made without straining,” but there is no reason found for that. Milk added and made madhuka-molasses is allowable as long as needed, Here, why is oil cooked with milk added allowable after the proper time? The milk added to the oil becomes oil, while when other milk added becomes the nature of milk: this is the reason for this. If this is so, then hard sugar also is made with milk, why is that allowable?, therefore is said “But hard sugar,” and so on. Therein, khīrajallikanti is milk-froth.
“Jhāmaucchuphāṇita” is made by heating sugarcane in fire. “Koṭṭitaucchuphāṇita” is made by cutting sugarcane into small pieces, crushing, pressing, and boiling it. Even if impurities are present, they lose their validity for a day and night during boiling, hence it is said, “This is appropriate.” “Made with cold water” refers to honey flowers crushed with cold water, strained, and boiled. Some say, “Made without straining,” but no reason is given. “Milk mixed and made into madhukaphāṇita is valid for a day and night”—here, if milk is mixed and boiled with oil, why is it permissible at an improper time? Because the milk mixed with oil becomes oil, but other milk mixed and made retains its milk nature. If lump sugar is mixed with milk and made, why is it permissible? It is said, “Lump sugar, etc.” Here, “khīrajallika” refers to milk foam.
ID541
99. “Madhukapupphaṃ panā”tiādi yāvakālikarūpena ṭhitassāpi avaṭṭanakaṃ merayabījavatthuṃ dassetuṃ āraddhaṃ. Āhārakiccaṃ karontāni etāni kasmā evaṃ paribhuñjitabbānīti codanāparihārāya bhesajjodissaṃ dassentena tappasaṅgena sabbānipi odissakāni ekato dassetuṃ “sattavidhañhī”tiādi vuttaṃ samantapāsādikāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.623). Vinayasaṅgahappakaraṇe pana taṃ na vuttaṃ, “pacchābhattato paṭṭhāya sati paccayeti vuttattā paṭiggahitabhesajjāni dutiyadivasato paṭṭhāya purebhattampi sati paccayeva paribhuñjitabbāni, na āhāratthāya bhesajjatthāya paṭiggahitattā”ti vadanti. Dvāravātapānakavāṭesūti mahādvārassa vātapānānañca kavāṭaphalakesu. Kasāve pakkhittāni tāni attano sabhāvaṃ pariccajantīti “kasāve…pe… makkhetabbānī”ti vuttaṃ, ghuṇapāṇakādiparihāratthaṃ makkhetabbānīti attho. Adhiṭṭhetīti “idāni mayhaṃ ajjhoharaṇīyaṃ na bhavissati, bāhiraparibhogatthāya bhavissatī”ti cittaṃ uppādetīti attho. Tenevāha “sappiñca telañca vasañca muddhani telaṃ vā abbhañjanaṃ vā”tiādi, evaṃ paribhoge anapekkhatāya paṭiggahaṇaṃ vijahatīti adhippāyo. Evaṃ aññesupi kālikesu anajjhoharitukāmatāya suddhacittena bāhiraparibhogatthāya niyamepi paṭiggahaṇaṃ vijahatīti idampi visuṃ ekaṃ paṭiggahaṇavijahananti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
99. “But madhuka flowers…” etc., is begun to show that even items classified as for the day, like fermentation bases, are impermissible. To counter the question, “Why should these, which serve as food, be used this way?” it shows their medicinal purpose, and by extension, all such items together, saying, “There are seven kinds…” etc., in the Samantapāsādikā (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.623). In the Vinayasaṅgaha treatise, this is not stated, but they say, “From after midday, when there is a reason, medicinal items received may be used even before midday from the second day onward, due to a reason, not for food but for medicinal purposes.” “In door shutters and window frames” refers to the panels of large doors and windows. When steeped in dye, they lose their inherent nature, so it says, “In dye… etc… should be smeared”, meaning they should be smeared to prevent termites and insects. “Determines” means generating the thought, “Now this will not be consumable by me; it will be for external use.” Hence it says, “Ghee, oil, fat, or head oil or anointing…” etc., meaning that receiving it without intent to consume abandons its receipt status. Similarly, in other time categories, with a pure mind and no intent to consume, determining it for external use also abandons its receipt—this should be seen as a distinct way of abandoning receipt.
99. “But the madhuka flower,” etc. is begun to show the non-allowable nature of something that is established as allowable as long as needed, a substance for making liquor. Showing the medicinal purpose, for those undertaking dietary needs why these things should be consumed in this way, in order to refute a doubt, and incidentally to show all of the specified items together, it has been said “Indeed, the seven kinds” and so on in the Samantapāsādikā (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.623). But it is not stated in the Vinayasaṅgahappakaraṇa, “from the time of the afternoon meal onwards, it is said, ‘if there is a reason,’ accepted medicines from the second day onwards, even before noon, are to be consumed if there is a reason, not for the purpose of nourishment, because they are accepted for medicinal purposes,” they say. In door and window shutters means on the panels of the main door and windows. Those, mixed with astringent, abandoning their own nature, it is said “with astringent…etc… they should be smeared,” meaning that they should be smeared to prevent damage from woodworms, insects, etc. He determines means, “Now this will not be consumable for me; it will be for external use,” he generates the thought. Therefore, he says, “Ghee, oil, fat, on the head, oil or ointment,” and so on. The intention is that, due to the lack of desire for such consumption, he abandons the acceptance. Thus, also in other time-allowables, abandoning the acceptance, with a pure mind, out of desire not to consume it, even while reserving it for external use - this also separately should be seen as one abandonment of acceptance.
99. “Madhukapuppha, etc.”—this is begun to show that even things valid for a day and night, if not stirred, are like meraya seeds. Why should these, which perform the function of food, be consumed in this way? To avoid criticism, it is shown that these are medicinal. With this connection, all seven types are shown together, as stated in the Samantapāsādikā (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.623). However, in the Vinayasaṅgaha, it is not mentioned, as it is said, “Starting from the afternoon, if there are conditions, medicinal items accepted from the second day onwards may be consumed before a meal, but not for the purpose of food, as they were accepted for medicinal purposes.” “In doorways, windows, and shutters”—on the large door, windows, and shutters. When dye is applied, they lose their original nature, hence it is said, “Dye… should be applied.” The meaning is that they should be applied to prevent insects like ants. “He determines”—he generates the thought, “This will not be consumable by me now, but will be for external use.” Therefore, it is said, “Ghee, oil, fat, or head oil or ointment”—thus, by showing indifference to consumption, the act of accepting is abandoned. Similarly, in other cases, if one wishes not to consume, with a pure mind, even if accepting for external use, this too should be seen as a separate act of abandoning acceptance.
ID542
Aññena bhikkhunā vattabboti ettha suddhacittena dinnattā sayampi āharāpetvā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatiyeva. Dvinnampi anāpattīti yathā aññassa santakaṃ ekena paṭiggahitaṃ sattāhātikkamepi nissaggiyaṃ na hoti parasantakabhāvato, evamidampi avibhattattā ubhayasādhāraṇampi vinibbhogābhāvato nissaggiyaṃ na hotīti adhippāyo. Paribhuñjituṃ pana na vaṭṭatīti bhikkhunā paṭiggahitattā sattāhātikkame yassa kassaci bhikkhuno paribhuñjituṃ na vaṭṭati paṭiggahitasappiādīnaṃ paribhogassa sattāheneva paricchinnattā. “Tāni paṭiggahetvā sattāhaparamaṃ sannidhikārakaṃ paribhuñjitabbānī”ti (pārā. 623) hi vuttaṃ.
“He should be told by another monk”—here, since it was given with a pure mind, he may also bring it himself and use it. “No offense for either”—just as something owned by another, received by one, does not become subject to relinquishment after seven days due to being another’s property, so too this, though shared by both without division, is not subject to relinquishment due to lack of separation. “But it is not permissible to use”—since it was received by a monk, after seven days, no monk may use it, as the use of received ghee and similar items is limited to seven days. It is said, “Having received them, they should be used as stored items for a maximum of seven days” (pārā. 623).
Another monk should be told, here, because it is given with a pure mind, it is certainly allowable to have it brought and consumed by oneself. There is no offense for either means just as that which belongs to another, accepted by one, does not become an offense requiring forfeiture even after seven days have passed, because it belongs to another, so also this, because it is undivided and common to both, does not become an offense requiring forfeiture, because there is no separate appropriation. The intention is that it does not become an offense requiring forfeiture. But it is not allowable to consume means that after seven days have passed since it was accepted by a monk, it is not allowable for any monk to consume it, because the consumption of accepted ghee and the like is limited to seven days. For it is said, “Having accepted them, they should be consumed, stored up, for a maximum of seven days” (pārā. 623).
“Another monk should be told”—here, since it is given with a pure mind, even if one takes it oneself, it is permissible to consume. “For both, there is no offense”—just as when something belonging to another is accepted by one, even if kept beyond seven days, it is not forfeited because it belongs to another, so too here, since it is undivided and shared by both, it is not forfeited. “However, it is not permissible to consume”—since it was accepted by a monk, beyond seven days, no monk is allowed to consume it, as the use of accepted ghee, etc., is limited to seven days. “Having accepted these, they should be consumed as stored for up to seven days” (pārā. 623).
ID543
“Āvuso imaṃ telaṃ sattāhamattaṃ paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatī”ti iminā yena paṭiggahitaṃ, tena antosattāheyeva parassa vissajjitabhāvaṃ dasseti. Kassa āpattīti “paṭhamaṃ tāva ubhinnaṃ sādhāraṇattā anāpatti vuttā, idāni pana ekena itarassa vissaṭṭhabhāvato ubhayasādhāraṇatā natthīti vibhattasadisaṃ hutvā ṭhitaṃ, tasmā ettha paṭiggahitassa sattāhātikkame ekassa āpattiyā bhavitabba”nti maññamāno “kiṃ paṭiggahaṇapaccayā paṭiggāhakassa āpatti, udāhu yassa santakaṃ jātaṃ, tassā”ti pucchati. Nissaṭṭhabhāvatoyeva ca idha “avibhattabhāvato”ti kāraṇaṃ avatvā “yena pariggahitaṃ, tena vissajjitattā”ti vuttaṃ, idañca vissaṭṭhābhāvato ubhayasādhāraṇataṃ pahāya ekassa santakaṃ hontampi yena paṭiggahitaṃ, tato aññassa santakaṃ jātaṃ, tasmā parasantakapaṭiggahaṇe viya paṭiggāhakassa paṭiggahaṇapaccayā natthi āpattīti dassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ, na pana “yena paṭiggahitaṃ, tena vissajjitattā”ti vacanato avissajjite sati avibhattepi sattāhātikkame āpattīti dassanatthaṃ avissajjite avibhattabhāvatoyeva anāpattiyā siddhattā. Sace pana itaro yena paṭiggahitaṃ, tasseva antosattāhe attano bhāgampi vissajjeti, sattāhātikkame siyā āpatti yena paṭiggahitaṃ, tasseva santakabhāvamāpannattā. “Itarassa appaṭiggahitattā”ti iminā tassa santakabhāvepi aññehi paṭiggahitasakasantake viya tena appaṭiggahitabhāvato anāpattīti dīpeti, imaṃ pana adhippāyaṃ ajānitvā ito aññathā gaṇṭhipadakārādīhi papañcitaṃ, na taṃ sārato paccetabbaṃ, idaṃ sāratthadīpanīvacanaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.625).
“Friend, this oil may be used for seven days”—this indicates that the one who received it relinquishes it to another within seven days. “Whose offense?”—thinking, “First, there is no offense for either since it is shared; but now, since one has relinquished it to the other, it is no longer shared and stands as if divided, so there should be an offense for one after seven days,” he asks, “Is the offense due to receiving, for the receiver, or for the one to whom it belongs?” Due to its relinquished state, it does not say “due to lack of division” as the reason but says, “Since it was relinquished by the one who received it”, meaning that even though it becomes the property of one after being shared, since it was received by one and became another’s property, there is no offense for the receiver due to receiving, as in the case of receiving another’s property. It is not said, “Since it was relinquished by the one who received it,” to imply that if not relinquished, even without division, there is an offense after seven days, as the absence of offense is established by the lack of division in the un-relinquished state. However, if the other relinquishes his share within seven days to the one who received it, there might be an offense after seven days for the receiver, as it becomes his property. “Since the other did not receive it”—this clarifies that even if it becomes his property, since it was received by another, like something owned by another, there is no offense for him due to not receiving it. Without understanding this intent, some commentators and others elaborated otherwise, which should not be accepted as authoritative. This is the Sāratthadīpanī statement (sārattha. ṭī. 2.625).
“Friend, this oil is allowable to consume for only seven days,” by this, he shows that it has been relinquished to another by the one who accepted it, within the seven days. Whose is the offense? “First, because it is common to both, no offense was mentioned. But now, because it has been relinquished by one to the other, it is no longer common to both, and it has become like something divided. Therefore, here, after seven days of the one who accepted it, there must be an offense for one.” Thinking thus, he asks, “Is the offense for the acceptor due to the acceptance, or for the one to whom it has come to belong?” And because of the state of being relinquished, here, without stating the reason as “because of being undivided,” it is said, “Because it has been relinquished by the one who acquired it.” And this is said to show that, because of the state of being relinquished, abandoning the commonality of both, even though it has come to belong to one, it has come to belong to another than the one who accepted it. Therefore, like in the acceptance of what belongs to another, there is no offense for the acceptor due to the acceptance. But it is not said, “Because it has been relinquished by the one who acquired it,” to show that if it is not relinquished, even if it is undivided, there is an offense after seven days, because if it is not relinquished, the absence of offense is already established due to the state of being undivided. But if the other relinquishes his share as well to the one who accepted it, within the seven days, there would be an offense after seven days, because it has come to belong solely to the one who accepted it. “Because the other did not accept it,” by this, he clarifies that even though it belongs to him, because it was not accepted by him, like something accepted by others that belongs to oneself, there is no offense. But not knowing this intention, and elaborating on this differently by the author of the compendium section and others, should not be taken as essential. This is the statement of the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.625).
“Friend, this oil is permissible to consume for seven days”—this shows that what is accepted should be given to another within seven days. “Whose offense is it?”—first, since it is shared by both, no offense was stated. Now, since one has given it to another, the shared nature no longer exists, and it stands as if divided. Therefore, here, if kept beyond seven days, one incurs an offense. Wondering, “Is the offense due to the act of acceptance by the acceptor, or due to it becoming the property of another?” he asks. Since it has been given away, the reason here is not stated as “due to being undivided,” but “because it was given by the one who accepted it.” This is said to show that, due to being given away, the shared nature is abandoned, and it becomes the property of another, just as in accepting another’s property, there is no offense for the acceptor due to the act of acceptance. However, if the other, within seven days, gives his share back to the one who accepted it, beyond seven days, there may be an offense, as it becomes the property of the one who accepted it. “Because the other did not accept it”—this shows that even if it is his property, like something accepted by others with his consent, there is no offense because he did not accept it. Not understanding this intention, some elaborate differently in their commentaries, but this should not be accepted as authoritative. This is the explanation in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.625).
ID544
Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.625) pana – sace dvinnaṃ…pe… na vaṭṭatīti ettha pāṭho gaḷito, evaṃ panettha pāṭho veditabbo – sace dvinnaṃ santakaṃ ekena paṭiggahitaṃ avibhattaṃ hoti, sattāhātikkame dvinnampi anāpatti, paribhuñjituṃ pana na vaṭṭatīti. Aññathā pana saddappayogopi na saṅgahaṃ gacchati, “gaṇṭhipadepi ca ayameva pāṭho dassito”ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.625) vuttaṃ. “Dvinnampi anāpattī”ti avibhattattā vuttaṃ. “Paribhuñjituṃ pana na vaṭṭatī”ti idaṃ “sattāhaparamaṃ sannidhikārakaṃ paribhuñjitabba”nti (pārā. 623) vacanato vuttaṃ. “Yena paṭiggahitaṃ, tena vissajjitattā”ti iminā upasampannassa dānampi sandhāya “vissajjetī”ti idaṃ vuttanti dasseti. Upasampannassa nirapekkhadinnavatthumhi paṭiggahaṇassa avigatattepi sakasantakatā vigatāva hoti, tena nissaggiyaṃ na hoti. “Attanāva paṭiggahitattaṃ sakasantakattañcā”ti imehi dvīhi kāraṇeheva nissaggiyaṃ hoti, na ekena. Anupasampannassa nirapekkhadāne pana tadubhayampi vijahati, paribhogopettha vaṭṭati, na sāpekkhadāne dānalakkhaṇābhāvato. “Vissajjatī”ti etasmiñca pāḷipade kassaci adatvā anapekkhatāya chaḍḍanampi saṅgahitanti veditabbaṃ. “Anapekkhā datvā”ti idañca paṭiggahaṇavijahanavidhidassanatthameva vuttaṃ. Paṭiggahaṇe hi vijahite puna paṭiggahetvā paribhogo sayameva vaṭṭissati, tabbijahanañca vatthuno sakasantakatāpariccāgena hotīti. Etena ca vatthumhi ajjhoharaṇāpekkhāya sati paṭiggahaṇavissajjanaṃ nāma visuṃ na labbhatīti sijjhati. Itarathā hi “paṭiggahaṇe anapekkhova paṭiggahaṇaṃ vissajjetvā puna paṭiggahetvā bhuñjatī”ti vattabbaṃ siyā, “appaṭiggahitattā”ti iminā ekassa santakaṃ aññena paṭiggahitampi nissaggiyaṃ hotīti dasseti. Evanti “puna gahessāmī”ti apekkhaṃ akatvā suddhacittena paricattataṃ parāmasati. Paribhuñjantassa anāpattidassanatthanti nissaggiyamūlikāhi pācittiyādiāpattīhi anāpattidassanatthanti adhippāyo. Paribhoge anāpattidassanatthanti ettha pana nissaṭṭhapaṭilābhassa kāyikaparibhogādīsu yā dukkaṭāpatti vuttā, tāya anāpattidassanatthanti adhippāyo.
In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.625), regarding “If it belongs to two… etc… it is not permissible”, the reading is corrupt, but it should be understood as follows: If something belonging to two is received by one and remains undivided, there is no offense for either after seven days, but it is not permissible to use. Otherwise, the grammatical usage would not fit, and it is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.625), “This reading is shown in the commentary too.” “No offense for either” is said due to non-division. “But it is not permissible to use” is said based on the statement, “It should be used as a stored item for a maximum of seven days” (pārā. 623). “Since it was relinquished by the one who received it”—this indicates that “relinquishes” includes giving to an ordained person, showing that even if receipt remains due to giving without intent, ownership is lost, so it is not subject to relinquishment. Receipt and ownership together cause relinquishment, not one alone. When given without intent to a layperson, both are abandoned, and use is permissible here, unlike giving with intent, which lacks the quality of giving. In the textual term “vissajjati”, it should be understood that abandoning without intent, without giving to anyone, is also included. “Having given without intent” is said only to show the method of abandoning receipt. Once receipt is abandoned, using it after receiving it again will naturally be permissible, and abandoning it occurs by relinquishing ownership of the item. This establishes that if there is intent to consume the item, a separate act of relinquishing receipt is not possible. Otherwise, it would have to be said, “Having relinquished receipt without intent, he receives and uses it again.” “Since it was not received”—this shows that even if it belongs to one and is received by another, it becomes subject to relinquishment. “Thus” refers to relinquishing it with a pure mind without expecting, “I will take it again.” “To show no offense in use”—the intent is to show no offense from relinquishment-based offenses like pācittiya. “To show no offense in consumption”—the intent is to show no offense from the minor offense stated for bodily use after relinquishment and repossession.
However, in the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.625) it says – “sace dvinnaṃ…pe… na vaṭṭatīti” – here the text is corrupted. The text should be understood as follows: – if something belonging to two people is received by one, and it is not divided, there is no offense for either after seven days have passed, but it is not allowable to consume it. Otherwise, even the conjunctive usage with saddhā does not make sense; it has been said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.625) “In the Gaṇṭhipada also, this very same reading is shown.” “Dvinnampi anāpattīti” – this is said because it is not divided. “Paribhuñjituṃ pana na vaṭṭatīti” – this is said because of the statement, “one should consume [it] made by storage within the limit of seven days” (pārā. 623). “Yena paṭiggahitaṃ, tena vissajjitattāti” – by this, he shows that the phrase “he gives up” is said with reference to giving to a fully ordained monk. Even though the act of receiving has not disappeared in the case of something given without expectation to a fully ordained monk, the state of it belonging to oneself has disappeared; therefore, it does not become subject to forfeiture. It becomes subject to forfeiture only because of these two reasons: “because of having been received by oneself, and because of belonging to oneself”, not because of one. In case of a gift without expectation to an un-ordained person, he abandons both of those, but he should consume. Here it is not in the case of giving with expectations, because of the absence of the definition of the gift. And it should be understood that in this Pāli word “vissajjatī” [he gives up], giving up without expectation without giving it to someone is also included. “Anapekkhā datvāti” – this is said only to show the way of abandoning acceptance. For once acceptance is abandoned, it is allowable to consume after receiving it again. Abandonment of acceptance happens through relinquishing the ownership of the object. And by this it is established that the giving up of receiving, while craving the consumption is not separately received. Otherwise, it should have been said, “paṭiggahaṇe anapekkhova paṭiggahaṇaṃ vissajjetvā puna paṭiggahetvā bhuñjatīti” [one, who does not have craving for reception, he should give up, receive again and eat]. “Appaṭiggahitattāti” - by this he shows that something belonging to one person, even if received by another, becomes subject to forfeiture. Evanti - this examines the relinquishment of ownership with a pure mind, without creating the expectation “I will take it again.” Paribhuñjantassa anāpattidassanatthanti - the intention is to show the absence of offenses, such as pācittiya, which have forfeiture as their basis. Paribhoge anāpattidassanatthanti - but here, the intention is to show the absence of the dukkaṭa offense that is said in relation to the physical consumption, etc., of what has been obtained after forfeiture.
In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.625), however, the passage “sace dvinnaṃ…pe… na vaṭṭatī” is considered corrupted. Here, the passage should be understood as follows: If something belonging to two people is received by one person and remains undivided, after seven days, both are exempt from an offense, but it is not permissible to use it. Otherwise, even the use of words would not be included. It is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.625): “Even in the Gaṇṭhipada, this same passage is shown.” “Both are exempt from an offense” is said because it remains undivided. “But it is not permissible to use it” is stated based on the rule: “Stored items should be used within seven days at most” (Pārā. 623). “Because it was received by one and given away by the same person” indicates that this refers to a fully ordained monk who gives it away. Even if a fully ordained monk receives something without concern for the donor, the ownership of the item is relinquished, and thus it does not become forfeited. Forfeiture occurs only due to two reasons: receiving it oneself and it being one’s own property, not just one of these. However, when a layperson gives without concern, both conditions are abandoned, and usage is permissible, as it does not carry the characteristic of a concerned gift. “Given without concern” is stated to show the rule of relinquishing possession. If possession is relinquished, usage becomes permissible upon receiving it again, and relinquishment occurs by abandoning ownership of the item. Thus, when there is an intention to consume the item, separate relinquishment of possession is not possible. Otherwise, one would have to say, “After relinquishing possession without concern, one may receive it again and use it.” “Because it was not received” shows that even if one person’s property is received by another, it becomes forfeited. “Thus” means one touches it with a pure mind, without the intention of taking it again. “To show the absence of an offense for the one using it” means to show that there is no offense based on the root of forfeiture and the pācittiya offenses. “To show the absence of an offense in usage” means to show that there is no offense in bodily usage, etc., even after relinquishing possession, as stated in the case of nissaṭṭhapaṭilābha.
ID545
100. Evaṃ catukālikapaccayaṃ dassetvā idāni tesu visesalakkhaṇaṃ dassento “imesu panā”tiādimāha. Tattha akappiyabhūmiyaṃ sahaseyyāpahonake gehe vuttaṃ saṅghikaṃ vā puggalikaṃ vā bhikkhussa, bhikkhuniyā vā santakaṃ yāvakālikaṃ yāmakālikañca ekarattampi ṭhapitaṃ antovutthaṃ nāma hoti, tattha pakkañca antopakkaṃ nāma hoti. Sattāhakālikaṃ pana yāvajīvikañca vaṭṭati. Paṭiggahetvā ekarattaṃ vītināmitaṃ pana yaṃ kiñci yāvakālikaṃ vā yāmakālikaṃ vā ajjhoharitukāmatāya gaṇhantassa pariggahaṇe tāva dukkaṭaṃ, ajjhoharato pana ekamekasmiṃ ajjhohāre sannidhipaccayā pācittiyaṃ hotīti attho. Idāni aññampi visesalakkhaṇaṃ dassento “yāvakālikaṃ panā”tiādimāha. Tattha sambhinnarasānīti saṃsaṭṭharasāni. Dīghakālāni vatthūni rassakālena saṃsaṭṭhāni rassakālameva anuvattantīti āha “yāvakālikaṃ pana…pe… tīṇipi yāmakālikādīnī”ti. Itaresupi eseva nayo. Tasmātiādīsu tadahupurebhattameva vaṭṭati, na tadahupacchābhattaṃ, na rattiyaṃ, na dutiyadivasādīsūti attho.
100. Having explained the four time categories, now showing their specific characteristics, he says, “But among these…” etc. Therein, what belongs to a monk or nun, whether communal or personal, kept overnight in an improper place or a suitable residence becomes “kept indoors”, and if cooked there, it becomes “cooked indoors”. However, items for seven days or for life are permissible. Receiving any day-item or night-item and keeping it overnight, if taken with intent to consume, incurs a minor offense at the time of taking, and for each act of consumption, a pācittiya offense due to storage. Now, showing further specific characteristics, he says, “But a day-item…” etc. Therein, “mixed flavors” means combined flavors. Long-term items mixed with short-term ones follow the short-term duration, so he says, “But a day-item… etc… all three, night-items, etc.”. The same applies to the others. “Therefore” etc. means it is permissible only before midday on that day, not after midday, at night, or on subsequent days.
100. Thus, having shown the four-time-period requisites, now, showing the specific characteristic among them, he says “imesu panā”ti, etc. Therein, whatever sanghika or personal property belonging to a monk or a bhikkhunī, which has been said to be allowable in a dwelling suitable for overnight stay on an unsuitable ground, is placed [there] even for a single night, whether yāvakālika (allowable for the day) or yāmakālika (allowable for a watch), that is called antovuttha (kept overnight). And what has been cooked there, is called antopakkaṃ (cooked inside). But the sattāhakālikaṃ (allowable for seven days) and yāvajīvikaṃ (allowable for life) are allowable. But whatever yāvakālikaṃ or yāmakālikaṃ, after allowing one night to pass after receiving, when taking it with desire to consume, there is a dukkaṭa (offense of wrong-doing) for acquiring. But at the time of consumption, due to storage, there is a pācittiya (offense requiring expiation) for each and every instance of consumption. This is the meaning. Now, showing another specific characteristic, he says “yāvakālikaṃ panā”ti, etc. Therein, sambhinnarasānīti means mixed flavors. Foods of a long duration, mixed with food of short duration, follow the short duration. Therefore, he says, “yāvakālikaṃ pana…pe… tīṇipi yāmakālikādīnī”ti. The same logic applies to the others. Tasmāti, etc. – only what has been received that day and before noon is allowable, not what has been received that day after noon, not at night, and not on the second day and so on. This is the meaning.
100. Having explained the fourfold timing of requisites, now, to explain their specific characteristics, it begins with “imesu panā”ti. Here, in a place unsuitable for use, such as a house with a shared sleeping area, whether the property belongs to the Sangha or an individual monk or nun, if it is stored for a limited time, even for one night, it is called antovuttha. If it is cooked, it is called antopakka. However, what is stored for seven days or for a lifetime is permissible. If it is received and kept overnight, then any item intended for limited use, whether for a day or a night, incurs a dukkaṭa offense at the time of taking it with the intention to consume it, and a pācittiya offense for each act of consumption due to the presence of stored items. Now, to explain further specific characteristics, it begins with “yāvakālikaṃ panā”ti. Here, sambhinnarasānī means mixed in taste. Long-lasting items mixed with short-lasting ones follow the short-lasting period, as stated: “yāvakālikaṃ pana…pe… tīṇipi yāmakālikādīnī”ti. The same applies to others. “Therefore” means it is permissible only before the meal on the same day, not after the meal, not at night, nor on the second day, etc.
ID546
Kasmāti ce? Tadahupaṭiggahitena yāvakālikena saṃsaṭṭhattāti. Ettha ca “yāvakālikena saṃsaṭṭhattā”ti ettakameva avatvā “tadahupaṭiggahitenā”ti visesanassa vuttattā purepaṭiggahitayāvakālikena saṃsaṭṭhe sati tadahupurebhattampi na vaṭṭati, anajjhoharaṇīyaṃ hotīti viññāyati. “Sambhinnarasa”nti iminā sacepi saṃsaṭṭhaṃ, asambhinnarasaṃ sesakālikattayaṃ attano attano kāle vaṭṭatīti dasseti . Yāmakālikenāti ettha “tadahupaṭiggahitenā”ti tatiyantavisesanapadaṃ ajjhāharitabbaṃ, pubbavākyato vā anuvattetabbaṃ. Tassa phalaṃ vuttanayameva.
Why? Because it is mixed with a day-item received on that day. Here, by adding “received on that day” rather than just saying “mixed with a day-item,” it is understood that if mixed with a day-item received earlier, it is not permissible even before midday on that day and becomes inedible. “Mixed flavors”—this shows that if mixed but the flavors remain distinct, the other three time categories remain permissible in their respective times. “With a night-item”—here, the qualifier “received on that day” should be inferred or carried over from the previous sentence, with the same result as stated.
Why is that? Because it is mixed with yāvakālika (allowable for the day) that has been received on that day. And here, because the qualifier “tadahupaṭiggahitenā” [by what has been received on that day] has been stated, instead of saying just “yāvakālikena saṃsaṭṭhattā” [because of being mixed with a yāvakālika item], it is understood that if it is mixed with yāvakālika received earlier, even what is received on that day before noon is not allowable, it becomes unsuitable for consumption. “Sambhinnarasa”nti - by this, he shows that, even if mixed, if the flavour is not mixed, the other three time periods are allowable in their own time. Yāmakālikenāti - here the instrumental qualifying word “tadahupaṭiggahitenā” [with what has been received on that day] should be supplied, or it should be carried over from the previous sentence. Its result is the same as has been stated.
Why? Because it is mixed with what was received on the same day for limited use. Here, by stating “tadahupaṭiggahitenā”, it is understood that if it is mixed with something received earlier for limited use, it is not permissible even before the meal on the same day, as it becomes unfit for consumption. “Mixed in taste” shows that even if mixed, the remaining three periods of time are permissible at their respective times if the taste is not mixed. “With what is received for a night” here, the qualification “tadahupaṭiggahitenā” should be supplied from the previous sentence or understood accordingly. The result is as previously explained.
ID547
Potthakesu pana “yāmakālikena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ pana itaradvayaṃ tadahupaṭiggahita”nti dissati, taṃ na sundaraṃ. Yattha natthi, tameva sundaraṃ, kasmā? Dutiyantañhi visesanapadaṃ itaradvayaṃ viseseti. Tato tadahupaṭiggahitameva sattāhakālikaṃ yāvajīvikañca yāmakālikena saṃsaṭṭhe sati yāva aruṇuggamanā vaṭṭati, na purepaṭiggahitānīti attho bhaveyya, so na yutto. Kasmā? Sattāhakālikayāvajīvikānaṃ asannidhijanakattā, “dīghakālikāni rassakālikaṃ anuvattantī”ti iminā lakkhaṇena viruddhattā ca, tasmā tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ vā hotu purepaṭiggahitaṃ vā, sattāhakālikaṃ yāvajīvikañca tadahupaṭiggahitena yāmakālikena saṃsaṭṭhattā yāva aruṇuggamanā vaṭṭatīti attho yutto, evañca upari vakkhamānena “sattāhakālikena pana tadahupaṭiggahitena saddhiṃ saṃsaṭṭhaṃ tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ vā purepaṭiggahitaṃ vā yāvajīvikaṃ sattāhaṃ kappatī”ti vacanena samaṃ bhaveyya.
In some manuscripts, it appears as “But the other two mixed with a night-item, received on that day,” which is not elegant. Where it is absent, that is more elegant. Why? Because the accusative qualifier modifies “the other two.” Then, only seven-day and lifelong items received on that day, when mixed with a night-item, would be permissible until dawn, not those received earlier, which would be illogical. Why? Because seven-day and lifelong items do not cause storage issues, and it contradicts the characteristic that “long-term items follow short-term ones.” Thus, whether received on that day or earlier, seven-day and lifelong items mixed with a night-item received on that day are permissible until dawn, which is logical and aligns with the later statement, “But a lifelong item mixed with a seven-day item received on that day, whether received on that day or earlier, is permissible for seven days.”
But in the books, “yāmakālikena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ pana itaradvayaṃ tadahupaṭiggahita”nti is seen, that is not good. Where it is not, that is good. Why? The accusative qualifying word “itaradvayaṃ” qualifies. Then the meaning would be that only sattāhakālika (allowable for seven days) and yāvajīvika (allowable for life) that have been received on that day, when mixed with yāmakālika (allowable for a watch), are allowable until dawn, not those that have been received earlier, that is not right. Why? Because sattāhakālika and yāvajīvika items do not generate the need to be non-stored, and because it is contradictory to the principle that ‘long duration items follow the short duration item’. Therefore, the correct meaning is: whether it is received on that day or received earlier, sattāhakālika and yāvajīvika, because of being mixed with yāmakālika that has been received on that day, are allowable until dawn. And in this way, it would be consistent with the statement to be said later, “sattāhakālikena pana tadahupaṭiggahitena saddhiṃ saṃsaṭṭhaṃ tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ vā purepaṭiggahitaṃ vā yāvajīvikaṃ sattāhaṃ kappatī”ti [But lifetime (food), mixed with seven-day (food) received on that day, whether the lifetime(food) has been received on that day or previously, is allowable for seven days].
In some texts, it is seen: “What is mixed with what is received for a night, the other two are received on the same day”, but this is not proper. Where it is not found, that is proper. Why? Because the qualification “tadahupaṭiggahita” specifies the other two. Thus, what is received on the same day for seven days or a lifetime, when mixed with what is received for a night, is permissible until dawn, not what was received earlier. This is not correct. Why? Because seven-day and lifetime items do not generate immediacy, and it contradicts the characteristic: “Long-lasting items follow the short-lasting period.” Therefore, whether received on the same day or earlier, seven-day and lifetime items, when mixed with what is received for a night on the same day, are permissible until dawn. This is proper, and it aligns with what is stated above: “What is received for seven days, whether received on the same day or earlier, when mixed with what is received for seven days on the same day, is permissible for seven days.”
ID548
Apica “yāmakālikena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ pana itaradvayaṃ tadahu yāva aruṇuggamanā vaṭṭatī”ti pubbapāṭhena bhavitabbaṃ, taṃ lekhakehi aññesu pāṭhesu “tadahupaṭiggahita”nti vijjamānaṃ disvā, idha tadahupadato paṭiggahitapadaṃ gaḷitanti maññamānehi pakkhipitvā likhitaṃ bhaveyya, “tadahū”ti idaṃ pana “yāva aruṇuggamanā”ti padaṃ viseseti, tena yāva tadahuaruṇuggamanā vaṭṭati, na dutiyāhādiaruṇuggamanāti atthaṃ dasseti. Teneva uparipāṭhepi “sattāhakālikena pana tadahupaṭiggahitenā”ti rassakālikatthapadena tulyādhikaraṇaṃ visesanapadaṃ tameva viseseti, na dīghakālikatthaṃ yāvajīvikapadaṃ , tasmā “tadahupaṭiggahitena sattāhakālikena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ vā purepaṭiggahitaṃ vā yāvajīvikaṃ sattāhaṃ kappatī”ti vuttaṃ.
Moreover, it should be according to the earlier reading, “But the other two mixed with a night-item are permissible on that day until dawn,” but scribes, seeing “received on that day” in other readings, might have added it here, thinking it was omitted from “that day.” “That day” qualifies “until dawn,” indicating it is permissible until dawn of that day, not the next day’s dawn. Hence, in the later reading too, “with a seven-day item received on that day” is a qualifier in apposition with the short-term term, not the lifelong term, so it says, “A lifelong item mixed with a seven-day item received on that day, whether received on that day or earlier, is permissible for seven days.”
Moreover, it should have been written “yāmakālikena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ pana itaradvayaṃ tadahu yāva aruṇuggamanā vaṭṭatī”ti [But other two, mixed with the yāmakālika (allowed for a watch), is allowed only until dawn of that day] as the original text. The scribes, seeing “tadahupaṭiggahita”nti present in other readings, and thinking that the word “paṭiggahita” [received] had been dropped here after the word “tadahu” [on that day], might have added and written it. But this “tadahū”ti qualifies the phrase “yāva aruṇuggamanā”ti [until dawn]. Therefore it shows the meaning that it is allowable until dawn of that day, not until dawn of the second day and so on. For this reason, even in the later text, “sattāhakālikena pana tadahupaṭiggahitenā”ti - the qualifying word, which has the same case ending as the short-duration word, qualifies that itself, not the long-duration word “yāvajīvikapadaṃ”. Therefore, it is said, “tadahupaṭiggahitena sattāhakālikena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ vā purepaṭiggahitaṃ vā yāvajīvikaṃ sattāhaṃ kappatī”ti [Lifetime (food), mixed with seven-day (food) received on that day, whether the lifetime(food) has been received on that day or previously, is allowable for seven days].
Moreover, “What is mixed with what is received for a night, the other two are permissible until dawn” should follow the earlier reading. Seeing “tadahupaṭiggahita” in other readings, the scribes, thinking that the word “paṭiggahita” was omitted here, inserted it, writing “tadahū”, which specifies “yāva aruṇuggamanā”, meaning it is permissible until dawn on the same day, not on the second day, etc. Thus, in the above passage, “with what is received for seven days on the same day”, the qualification “tadahupaṭiggahitenā” specifies the short-lasting period, not the long-lasting period of the lifetime item. Therefore, it is stated: “What is received for seven days, whether received on the same day or earlier, when mixed with what is received for seven days on the same day, is permissible for seven days.”
ID549
Dvīhapaṭiggahitenātiādīsupi “dvīhapaṭiggahitena sattāhakālikena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ vā purepaṭiggahitaṃ vā yāvajīvikaṃ chāhaṃ vaṭṭati, tīhapaṭiggahitena sattāhakālikena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ vā purepaṭiggahitaṃ vā yāvajīvikaṃ pañcāhaṃ vaṭṭati, catūhapaṭiggahitena sattāhakālikena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ vā purepaṭiggahitaṃ vā yāvajīvikaṃ caturāhaṃ vaṭṭati, pañcāhapaṭiggahitena sattāhakālikena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ vā purepaṭiggahitaṃ vā yāvajīvikaṃ tīhaṃ vaṭṭati, chāhapaṭiggahitena sattāhakālikena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ vā purepaṭiggahitaṃ vā yāvajīvikaṃ dvīhaṃ vaṭṭati, sattāhapaṭiggahitena sattāhakālikena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ vā purepaṭiggahitaṃ vā yāvajīvikaṃ tadaheva vaṭṭatī”ti evaṃ sattāhakālikasseva atītadivasaṃ parihāpetvā sesadivasavasena yojetabbaṃ, na yāvajīvikassa. Na hi yāvajīvikassa hāpetabbo atītadivaso nāma atthi sati paccaye yāvajīvaṃ paribhuñjitabbato. Tenāha “sattāhakālikampi attanā saddhiṃ saṃsaṭṭhaṃ yāvajīvikaṃ attano sabhāvaññeva upanetī”ti. Kesuci potthakesu “yāmakālikena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ pana itaradvayaṃ tadahupaṭiggahita”nti likhitaṃ pāṭhaṃ nissāya imasmimpi pāṭhe “tadahupaṭiggahitanti idameva icchitabba’nti maññamānā “purepaṭiggahita”nti pāṭhaṃ paṭikkhipanti. Kesuci “purebhattaṃ paṭiggahitaṃ vā”ti likhanti, taṃ sabbaṃ yathāvuttanayaṃ amanasikarontā vibbhantacittā evaṃ karontīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
In “Received on two days” etc., it should be understood as: “A lifelong item mixed with a seven-day item received on two days, whether received on that day or earlier, is permissible for six days; with one received on three days, five days; with one received on four days, four days; with one received on five days, three days; with one received on six days, two days; with one received on seven days, only that day.” Thus, it should be applied based on the remaining days after accounting for the past days of the seven-day item, not the lifelong item. There is no past day to deduct for a lifelong item, as it can be used for life when there is a reason. Hence it says, “Even a seven-day item mixed with itself leads a lifelong item to its own nature.” Some, relying on the manuscript reading “But the other two mixed with a night-item, received on that day,” think “received on that day” is preferable here and reject “received earlier.” Others write “received before midday,” but all this should be seen as done by those with confused minds, not considering the method explained.
Dvīhapaṭiggahitenāti, etc. – also, it should be applied, reducing the remaining days by the number of past days for the sattāhakālika only, in this manner: “yāvajīvika, whether received on that day or earlier, mixed with sattāhakālika received two days earlier, is allowable for six days; yāvajīvika, whether received on that day or earlier, mixed with sattāhakālika received three days earlier, is allowable for five days; yāvajīvika, whether received on that day or earlier, mixed with sattāhakālika received four days earlier, is allowable for four days; yāvajīvika, whether received on that day or earlier, mixed with sattāhakālika received five days earlier, is allowable for three days; yāvajīvika, whether received on that day or earlier, mixed with sattāhakālika received six days earlier, is allowable for two days; yāvajīvika, whether received on that day or earlier, mixed with sattāhakālika received seven days earlier, is allowable only on that day.” Not for yāvajīvika. For there is no past day to be reduced for yāvajīvika, since it is to be consumed for a lifetime if there are requisites. Therefore, he says, “sattāhakālikampi attanā saddhiṃ saṃsaṭṭhaṃ yāvajīvikaṃ attano sabhāvaññeva upanetī”ti [Even seven-day (food), mixed with itself, brings life-time (food) into its nature]. In some books, based on the reading “yāmakālikena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ pana itaradvayaṃ tadahupaṭiggahita”nti, some reject the reading “purepaṭiggahita”nti, thinking that “tadahupaṭiggahitanti” is the intended reading even in this text. Some write “purebhattaṃ paṭiggahitaṃ vā”ti [or received before meal], it should be understood that all that is done by confused minds, not considering the principle as stated.
“With what is received for two days”, etc., means: “What is received for two days, when mixed with what is received for seven days on the same day or earlier, is permissible for six days; what is received for three days, when mixed with what is received for seven days on the same day or earlier, is permissible for five days; what is received for four days, when mixed with what is received for seven days on the same day or earlier, is permissible for four days; what is received for five days, when mixed with what is received for seven days on the same day or earlier, is permissible for three days; what is received for six days, when mixed with what is received for seven days on the same day or earlier, is permissible for two days; what is received for seven days, when mixed with what is received for seven days on the same day or earlier, is permissible only on the same day.” Thus, for seven-day items, the past day is excluded, and the remaining days are to be applied, not for lifetime items. For lifetime items, there is no past day to be excluded, as they are to be used for a lifetime when the conditions are present. Therefore, it is said: “Even what is received for seven days, when mixed with a lifetime item, retains its own nature.” In some texts, the passage “What is mixed with what is received for a night, the other two are received on the same day” is written, and based on this, some reject the reading “purepaṭiggahita”, thinking that only “tadahupaṭiggahita” is intended. Some write “purebhattaṃ paṭiggahitaṃ vā”, but all this should be seen as done by those with confused minds, not following the proper method.
ID550
Imesu catūsu kālikesu yāvakālikaṃ majjhanhikakālātikkame, yāmakālikaṃ pacchimayāmātikkame, sattāhakālikaṃ sattāhātikkame paribhuñjantassa āpattīti vuttaṃ. Katarasikkhāpadena āpatti hotīti pucchāyamāha “kālayāma”iccādi. Tassattho – yāvakālikaṃ kālātikkame paribhuñjantassa “yo pana bhikkhu vikāle khādanīyaṃ vā bhojanīyaṃ vā khādeyya vā bhuñjeyya vā, pācittiya”nti iminā vikālebhojanasikkhāpadena (pāci. 248) āpatti hoti. Yāmakālikaṃ yāmātikkame paribhuñjantassa “yo pana bhikkhu sannidhikārakaṃ khādanīyaṃ vā bhojanīyaṃ vā khādeyya vā bhuñjeyya vā, pācittiya”nti iminā sannidhisikkhāpadena (pāci. 253) āpatti hoti. Sattāhakālikaṃ sattāhātikkame paribhuñjantassa “yāni kho pana tāni gilānānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ paṭisāyanīyāni bhesajjāni, seyyathidaṃ, sappi navanītaṃ telaṃ madhu phāṇitaṃ, tāni paṭiggahetvā sattāhaparamaṃ sannidhikārakaṃ paribhuñjitabbāni, taṃ atikkāmayato nissaggiyaṃ pācittiya”nti iminā bhesajjasikkhāpadena (pārā. 622) āpatti hotīti.
Among these four time categories, using a day-item after midday, a night-item after the last watch, or a seven-day item after seven days incurs an offense. Which training rule causes the offense? He answers, “Time, watch…” etc. The meaning is: For using a day-item after its time, the offense is under the training rule, “If a monk eats or consumes food or chewables at an improper time, it is a pācittiya” (pāci. 248). For using a night-item after its watch, the offense is under the training rule, “If a monk eats or consumes stored food or chewables, it is a pācittiya” (pāci. 253). For using a seven-day item after seven days, the offense is under the training rule, “Those medicinal items suitable for sick monks, namely ghee, butter, oil, honey, phāṇita, having been received, should be used as stored items for a maximum of seven days; exceeding that, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya” (pārā. 622).
Among these four time-periods, it has been said that there is an offense for consuming yāvakālika after midday, yāmakālika after the last watch, and sattāhakālika after seven days. To the question of which training rule causes the offense, he says, “kālayāma”ccādi. Its meaning is: – for consuming yāvakālika after its time, there is an offense according to the vikālebhojana training rule (pāci. 248), which states, “yo pana bhikkhu vikāle khādanīyaṃ vā bhojanīyaṃ vā khādeyya vā bhuñjeyya vā, pācittiya”nti [Should any bhikkhu chew or consume staple or non-staple food at the wrong time, it is a pācittiya]. For consuming yāmakālika after its watch, there is an offense according to the sannidhi training rule (pāci. 253), which states, “yo pana bhikkhu sannidhikārakaṃ khādanīyaṃ vā bhojanīyaṃ vā khādeyya vā bhuñjeyya vā, pācittiya”nti [Should any bhikkhu chew or consume staple or non-staple food that has been stored, it is a pācittiya]. For consuming sattāhakālika after seven days, there is an offense according to the bhesajja training rule (pārā. 622), which states, “yāni kho pana tāni gilānānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ paṭisāyanīyāni bhesajjāni, seyyathidaṃ, sappi navanītaṃ telaṃ madhu phāṇitaṃ, tāni paṭiggahetvā sattāhaparamaṃ sannidhikārakaṃ paribhuñjitabbāni, taṃ atikkāmayato nissaggiyaṃ pācittiya”nti [Now, these tonics are to be used by ill bhikkhus: ghee, butter, oil, honey, molasses. Having received these, they are to be consumed, made by storage, for a maximum of seven days. For one who exceeds that, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya (offense of forfeiture and expiation)].
Among these four periods, using what is for a day beyond midday, what is for a night beyond the last watch, and what is for seven days beyond seven days incurs an offense. By which training rule is the offense incurred? It is asked with “kālayāma”, etc. The meaning is: For using what is for a day beyond the time, the offense is incurred by the rule: “If a monk consumes solid or soft food at the wrong time, it is a pācittiya offense” (Pāc. 248). For using what is for a night beyond the watch, the offense is incurred by the rule: “If a monk consumes stored solid or soft food, it is a pācittiya offense” (Pāc. 253). For using what is for seven days beyond seven days, the offense is incurred by the rule: “The medicinal foods allowable for sick monks, such as ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, and molasses, having received them, should be used within seven days at most. Exceeding that, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense” (Pārā. 622).
ID551
Imāni cattāri kālikāni ekato saṃsaṭṭhāni sambhinnarasāni purimapurimakālikassa kālavasena paribhuñjitabbānīti vuttaṃ. Asambhinnarasāni ce honti, kathaṃ paribhuñjitabbānīti āha “sace panā”tiādi. Tassattho suviññeyyova.
These four time categories, when mixed together with combined flavors, should be used according to the duration of the earliest category, it is said. If the flavors are not combined, how should they be used? He says, “If however…” etc. The meaning is easily understood.
These four time-period items, when mixed together, and their flavors are mixed, are to be consumed according to the time of the earlier time-period item. If their flavors are not mixed, how should they be consumed? He says, “sace panā”ti, etc. Its meaning is easily understood.
These four periods, when mixed together and blended in taste, should be used according to the time of the earlier period, as stated. If they are not blended in taste, how should they be used? It is explained with “sace panā”ti. The meaning is easy to understand.
ID552
Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a compilation and explanation of the Vinaya,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which elaborates on the Vinaya,
ID553
Catukālikavinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma
The discussion on the determination of the four time categories
The chapter named Catukālikavinicchayakathālaṅkāro [Discourse on the Determination of Four-time-period-food]
The section on the determination of the fourfold timing is concluded.
ID554
Aṭṭhārasamo paricchedo.
Is the eighteenth section.
is the eighteenth chapter.
The eighteenth chapter.
ID555
ID556
101. Evaṃ catukālikavinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni kappiyakuṭivinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ “kappiyā catubhūmiyo”tiādimāha. Tattha kappantīti kappiyā, kappa sāmatthiyeti dhātu. Bhavanti etāsu antovutthaantopakkānīti bhūmiyo, catasso bhūmiyo catubhūmiyo, catasso kappiyakuṭiyoti attho. Katamā tāti āha “ussāvanantikā…pe… veditabbā”ti. Kathaṃ viññāyaticcāha “anujānāmi…pe… vacanato”ti. Idaṃ bhesajjakkhandhakapāḷiṃ (mahāva. 295) sandhāyāha. Tattha uddhaṃ sāvanā ussāvanā, ussāvanā anto yassā kappiyabhūmiyāti ussāvanantikā. Gāvo nisīdanti etthāti gonisādikā, go-saddūpapada ni-pubbasada visaraṇagatyāvasānesūti dhātu. Gahapatīhi dinnāti gahapati, uttarapadalopatatiyātappurisoyaṃ. Kammavācāya sammannitabbāti sammutīti evamimāsaṃ viggaho kātabbo. Tatthāti kappiyakuṭivinicchaye. Taṃ pana avatvāpīti andhakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttanayaṃ avatvāpi. Pi-saddena tathāvacanampi anujānāti. Aṭṭhakathāsu vuttanayena vutteti sesaaṭṭhakathāsu vuttanayena “kappiyakuṭiṃ karomā”ti vā “kappiyakuṭī”ti vā vutte. Sādhāraṇalakkhaṇanti sabbaaṭṭhakathānaṃ sādhāraṇaṃ ussāvanantikakuṭikaraṇalakkhaṇaṃ. Cayanti adhiṭṭhānaṃ uccavatthuṃ. Yato paṭṭhāyāti yato iṭṭhakato silato mattikāpiṇḍato vā paṭṭhāya. Paṭhamiṭṭhakādīnaṃ heṭṭhā na vaṭṭantīti paṭhamiṭṭhakādīnaṃ heṭṭhābhūmiyaṃ patiṭṭhāpiyamānā iṭṭhakādayo bhūmigatikattā “kappiyakuṭiṃ karomā”ti vatvā patiṭṭhāpetuṃ na vaṭṭanti. Yadi evaṃ bhūmiyaṃ nikhaṇitvā ṭhapiyamānā thambhā kasmā tathā vatvā patiṭṭhāpetuṃ vaṭṭantīti āha “thambhā pana…pe… vaṭṭantī”ti.
101. Having explained the determination of the four time categories, now to explain the determination of permissible huts, he says, “There are four permissible grounds…” etc. Therein, they are permissible, thus kappiyā—the root means “to be capable.” They exist as grounds where items are kept or cooked indoors, thus bhūmiyo; four grounds, catubhūmiyo, meaning four permissible huts. What are they? He says, “Ussāvanantikā… etc… should be understood”. How is this known? He says, “I allow… etc… from the statement”, referring to the Bhesajjakkhandhaka text (mahāva. 295). Therein, pouring upward is ussāvanā; a permissible ground within which it is poured is ussāvanantikā. Cows sit there, thus gonisādikā—the root “sada” with “go” as a prefix means sitting, moving, or resting. Given by householders, thus gahapati—a compound with the latter part omitted. To be authorized by a formal act, thus sammuti—this is how their analysis should be done. “Therein” means in the determination of permissible huts. “But without saying that too”—without stating the method in the Andhaka commentary. The particle “pi” also permits that statement. “When stated according to the method in the commentaries”—when said according to the method in other commentaries, “We are making a permissible hut” or “Permissible hut.” “Common characteristic”—the characteristic common to all commentaries, the making of an ussāvanantikā hut. “Mound” means a raised foundation. “From when”—from when bricks, stones, or clay lumps are used. “Not permissible below the first bricks, etc.”—bricks and similar items being placed below the first bricks in the ground, due to being earth-based, are not permissible to establish after saying, “We are making a permissible hut.” If so, why are pillars dug into the ground and placed permissible after saying so? He says, “But pillars… etc… are permissible”.
101. Having thus determined the four time-periods, now, in order to determine the kappiyakuṭi (allowable hut), he says, “kappiyā catubhūmiyo”ti, etc. Therein, those that are allowable are kappiyā, kappa is the capacity. Grounds (bhūmi) are called so because antovuttha (kept overnight) and antopakka (cooked inside) items exist on them. Catubhūmiyo means four grounds, meaning four allowable huts. Which are they? He says, “ussāvanantikā…pe… veditabbā”ti. How is it known? He says, “anujānāmi…pe… vacanato”ti. This is said with reference to the Pāli of the Bhesajjakkhandhaka (mahāva. 295). Therein, upward calling is ussāvanā; an ussāvanantikā allowable ground is one that has ussāvanā within. Gonisādikā means a place where cows sit, from go- (cow), and the verb root sad with prefix ni- meaning to settle, go, or end. Gahapati means what has been given by householders, this is a tatpurisa compound with elision of the final member. Sammutī means what is to be agreed upon by a kammavācā (formal act). Thus the derivation of these words should be made. Tatthāti, in the determination of the allowable hut. Taṃ pana avatvāpīti, even without saying that method, which has been stated in the Andhaka commentary. Pi-saddena - by the word “pi”, he also allows that statement. Aṭṭhakathāsu vuttanayena vutteti, when saying “kappiyakuṭiṃ karomā”ti [I am making an allowable hut] or “kappiyakuṭī”ti [allowable hut], according to the method stated in other commentaries. Sādhāraṇalakkhaṇanti, the common characteristic of making an ussāvanantikā hut for all commentaries. Cayanti means a foundation or high ground. Yato paṭṭhāyāti, starting from which brick, stone, or lump of clay. Paṭhamiṭṭhakādīnaṃ heṭṭhā na vaṭṭantīti – bricks and so on, being placed on the ground below the first brick, etc., are not allowed to be placed after saying “kappiyakuṭiṃ karomā”ti, because they are part of the ground. If so, why are the posts, which are being placed by digging into the ground, allowed to be established after saying that? He says, “thambhā pana…pe… vaṭṭantī”ti.
101. Having discussed the determination of the fourfold timing, now to discuss the determination of suitable grounds, it begins with “kappiyā catubhūmiyo”ti. Here, kappiyā means suitable, from the root meaning “to be fit.” These are the grounds where antovuttha and antopakka are stored, the four grounds, catubhūmiyo, meaning the four suitable grounds. What are they? It is explained with “ussāvanantikā…pe… veditabbā”ti. How is it understood? It is explained with “anujānāmi…pe… vacanato”ti. This refers to the Bhesajjakkhandhaka passage (Mahāva. 295). Here, ussāvanantikā means the ground within the boundary of the announcement. Gonisādikā means where cows rest, from the root go-sadda and ni-sadda, meaning to settle. Gahapati means given by householders, a masculine term. Sammutī means appointed by formal act. Thus, the analysis of these should be done. “There” refers to the determination of suitable grounds. “Even without stating it” means without stating the method found in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā. The particle “pi” allows such a statement. “According to the method stated in the commentaries” means according to the method stated in other commentaries: “I make a suitable ground” or “a suitable ground.” “The common characteristic” is the characteristic of making a suitable ground common to all commentaries. “Caya” means the foundation, the high ground. “From where it begins” means from where the bricks, stones, or clay lumps begin. “The first bricks, etc., are not placed below” means the first bricks, etc., are not to be placed on the lower ground, as they are part of the ground. If placed on the ground after digging, why are pillars allowed to be placed after saying “I make a suitable ground”? It is explained with “thambhā pana…pe… vaṭṭantī”ti.
ID557
Saṅghasantakamevāti vāsatthāya kataṃ saṅghikasenāsanaṃ sandhāya vadati. Bhikkhusantakanti vāsatthāya eva kataṃ bhikkhussa puggalikasenāsanaṃ.
“Only belonging to the Sangha”—this refers to a communal dwelling made for residence. “Belonging to a monk”—a personal dwelling made for a monk’s residence.
Saṅghasantakamevāti, he speaks with reference to a sangha dwelling that has been made for the purpose of residing.
“Belonging to the Sangha” refers to the dwelling made for the Sangha’s use. “Belonging to a monk” refers to the dwelling made for an individual monk’s use.
ID558
102. Mukhasannidhīti iminā antovutthadukkaṭameva dīpeti.
102. “Near the entrance”—this indicates only the minor offense of keeping indoors.
102. Mukhasannidhīti - by this, he illuminates only the dukkaṭa (offense) of keeping overnight.
102. “Mukhasannidhī” here indicates only the dukkaṭa offense for antovuttha.
ID559
Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.295) pana evaṃ vuttaṃ – taṃ pana avatvāpīti pi-saddena tathāvacanampi anujānāti. Aṭṭhakathāsūti andhakaṭṭhakathāvirahitāsu sesaṭṭhakathāsu. Sādhāraṇalakkhaṇanti andhakaṭṭhakathāya saha sabbaṭṭhakathānaṃ samānaṃ. Cayanti adhiṭṭhānaṃ uccavatthuṃ. Yato paṭṭhāyāti yato iṭṭhakādito paṭṭhāya cayaṃ ādiṃ katvā bhittiṃ uṭṭhāpetukāmāti attho. “Thambhā pana upari uggacchanti, tasmā vaṭṭantī”ti etena iṭṭhakapāsāṇā heṭṭhā patiṭṭhāpiyamānāpi yadi cayato, bhūmito vā ekaṅgulamattampi uggatā tiṭṭhanti, vaṭṭantīti siddhaṃ hoti.
In the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.295), it is said thus: “Even without saying it”—the particle pi also permits such a statement. “In the commentaries” refers to the remaining commentaries excluding the Andhaka commentary. “Common characteristic” means common to all commentaries including the Andhaka commentary. “Construction” refers to the foundation, a high site. “From when” means from the point at which, starting with bricks and so forth, one intends to erect a wall with the construction as the beginning—this is the meaning. “But the pillars rise upward, therefore they are permissible”—by this, it is established that even if bricks or stones are placed below as a foundation, if they rise even a finger’s breadth from the construction or the ground, they are permissible.
But in the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.295) it is said thus – taṃ pana avatvāpīti, by the word pi (even), it permits that kind of statement also. Aṭṭhakathāsūti, in the remaining commentaries other than the Andhakaṭṭhakathā. Sādhāraṇalakkhaṇanti, common to all the commentaries, including the Andhakaṭṭhakathā. Cayanti means the foundation, the base object. Yato paṭṭhāyāti, meaning ‘from which brick, etc. onwards, intending to build up the wall, making the pile the beginning’. By the statement “Thambhā pana upari uggacchanti, tasmā vaṭṭantī”ti, it is established that even if bricks and stones are placed below, if they stand elevated even by a finger’s breadth from the pile or the ground, it is allowable.
In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.295), it is stated thus: “Taṃ pana avatvāpī”ti—the particle “pi” also permits such a statement. “Aṭṭhakathāsū”ti refers to the remaining commentaries excluding the Andhakaṭṭhakathā. “Sādhāraṇalakkhaṇa”nti means the common characteristic shared by all commentaries along with the Andhakaṭṭhakathā. “Caya”nti refers to the foundation or elevated ground. “Yato paṭṭhāyā”ti means starting from the bricks, etc., laying the foundation and intending to build a wall. “‘Thambhā pana upari uggacchanti, tasmā vaṭṭantī’”ti—by this, even if bricks or stones are placed below, if they rise even a finger’s breadth from the ground due to the foundation, it is established that they are round.
ID560
Ārāmoti upacārasīmāparicchinno sakalo vihāro. Senāsanānīti vihārassa anto tiṇakuṭiādikāni saṅghassa nivāsagehāni. Vihāragonisādikā nāmāti senāsanagonisādikā nāma. Senāsanāni hi sayaṃ parikkhittānipi ārāmaparikkhepābhāvena “gonisādikā”ti vuttā. “Upaḍḍhaparikkhittopī”ti iminā tato ūnaparikkhitto yebhuyyena aparikkhitto nāma, tasmā aparikkhittasaṅkhameva gacchatīti dasseti. Etthāti upaḍḍhādiparikkhitte. Kappiyakuṭi laddhuṃ vaṭṭatīti gonisādikāya abhāvena sesakappiyakuṭīsu tīsu yā kāci kappiyakuṭi kātabbāti attho.
“Monastery” refers to the entire vihara demarcated by the boundary of the surrounding area. “Dwellings” are the monks’ lodgings within the vihara, such as grass huts and the like, for the Sangha’s residence. “Known as monastery cattle sheds and so forth” means known as dwellings, cattle sheds, and so forth. Indeed, dwellings, even if enclosed themselves, are called “cattle sheds and so forth” due to the absence of the monastery’s enclosure. “Even half-enclosed”—this indicates that what is less than half-enclosed is mostly unenclosed, thus considered fully unenclosed, showing it falls under the category of unenclosed. “Here” refers to what is half-enclosed or more. “A permissible hut may be obtained” means that due to the absence of cattle sheds and the like, any permissible hut among the three remaining types of permissible huts may be built—this is the meaning.
Ārāmoti, the entire monastery enclosed by the boundary of its surrounding area. Senāsanānīti, the dwelling houses of the Sangha, such as grass huts, etc., within the monastery. Vihāragonisādikā nāmāti, means like the dwellings of a monastery. For dwellings, even if they are themselves enclosed, due to not being enclosed by the monastery’s enclosure, are called “gonisādikā”. By “Upaḍḍhaparikkhittopī”ti, he shows that one less than that enclosed is mostly not enclosed, therefore it falls under the category of unenclosed. Etthāti, in that which is half-enclosed, etc.. Kappiyakuṭi laddhuṃ vaṭṭatīti, meaning that in the absence of a gonisādikā, any of the three remaining suitable huts should be made.
“Ārāmo”ti refers to the entire monastery bounded by the proximity boundary. “Senāsanānī”ti refers to the dwelling places inside the monastery, such as grass huts, etc., which are residences for the Sangha. “Vihāragonisādikā nāmā”ti means the same as “senāsanagonisādikā.” Even if the dwellings are enclosed by themselves, due to the absence of a monastery boundary, they are called “gonisādikā.” “‘Upaḍḍhaparikkhittopī’”ti—by this, it is indicated that if less than half is enclosed, it is generally considered unenclosed, and thus it is treated as unenclosed. “Etthā”ti refers to a place that is half-enclosed, etc. “Kappiyakuṭi laddhuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti means that due to the absence of a gonisādikā, any of the remaining three kappiyakuṭīs can be used.
ID561
Tesaṃ gehānīti ettha bhikkhūnaṃ vāsatthāya katampi yāva na denti, tāva tesaṃ santakaṃyeva bhavissatīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Vihāraṃ ṭhapetvāti upasampannānaṃ vāsatthāya kataṃ gehaṃ ṭhapetvāti attho. Gehanti nivāsagehaṃ. Tadaññaṃ pana uposathāgārādi sabbaṃ anivāsagehaṃ catukappiyabhūmivimuttā pañcamī kappiyabhūmi. Saṅghasantakepi hi etādise gehe suṭṭhu parikkhittārāmaṭṭhepi abbhokāse viya antovutthādidoso natthi. Yena kenaci channe paricchanne ca sahaseyyappahonake bhikkhussa, saṅghassa vā nivāsagehe antovutthādidoso, na aññattha. Tenāha “yaṃ panā”tiādi. Tattha “saṅghikaṃ vā puggalikaṃ vā”ti idaṃ kiñcāpi bhikkhubhikkhunīnaṃ sāmaññato vuttaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ pana saṅghikaṃ puggalikañca bhikkhunīnaṃ, tāsaṃ saṅghikaṃ puggalikañca bhikkhūnaṃ gihisantakaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhatīti veditabbaṃ.
Tesaṃ gehāni—here, it should be understood that even a house built for the residence of monks remains their property until they give it away. Vihāraṃ ṭhapetvā means “excepting a monastery,” that is, excepting a house made for the residence of fully ordained monks. Geha refers to a dwelling house. Apart from that, everything else—such as a Uposatha hall—is a non-dwelling house; the fifth permissible ground, free from the four impermissible grounds. For even in Sangha-owned property, in such a house, or in a well-enclosed garden area, there is no fault of staying inside as there would be in an open space. In a dwelling house covered and enclosed by anyone, suitable for cohabitation, whether belonging to a monk or the Sangha, there is a fault of staying inside, but not elsewhere. Hence it says, “yaṃ pana” and so forth. Therein, “saṅghikaṃ vā puggalikaṃ vā”—although this is said generally for monks and nuns, it should be understood that what is Sangha-owned or individually owned by monks pertains to monks, and what is Sangha-owned or individually owned by nuns pertains to nuns, remaining separate from the property of householders.
Tesaṃ gehānīti, in this context, even what is made for the dwelling of bhikkhus, until it is given, it should be considered as still belonging to them. Vihāraṃ ṭhapetvāti, meaning ‘excluding a house built for the dwelling of fully ordained monks’. Gehanti, a dwelling house. But all else besides that, such as the uposatha hall, etc., is a non-dwelling house, the fifth suitable ground free from the four suitable grounds. For even in such a house belonging to the Sangha, even when situated within a well-enclosed monastery, there is no fault of dwelling within, as there would be in an open space. The fault of dwelling within occurs in a dwelling house of a bhikkhu or the Sangha, covered or enclosed by anything, sufficient for sleeping together, but not elsewhere. Therefore he said “yaṃ panā”ti, etc.. Therein, “saṅghikaṃ vā puggalikaṃ vā”ti, although this is said generally regarding bhikkhus and bhikkhunīs, it should be understood that what is of the Sangha or individual regarding bhikkhus, and of their Sangha or individual regarding bhikkhunīs, is located in the place of a layperson’s belongings for bhikkhus.
“Tesaṃ gehānī”ti—here, even if a house is built for the monks to reside in, as long as it is not given to them, it remains their property. “Vihāraṃ ṭhapetvā”ti means excluding the house built for the residence of the ordained. “Geha”nti refers to a residence. Other buildings, such as the Uposatha hall, etc., are non-residential buildings. The fifth kappiyabhūmi is exempt from the four kappiyabhūmis. Even in such buildings owned by the Sangha, if they are well-enclosed within the monastery grounds, there is no fault of dwelling inside, just as there is none in the open air. The fault of dwelling inside arises only in a roofed and enclosed residence where a monk or the Sangha sleeps, not elsewhere. Therefore, it is said, “‘Yaṃ panā’”ti, etc. Here, “‘saṅghikaṃ vā puggalikaṃ vā’”ti—although this is generally stated for monks and nuns, for monks, it refers to what is owned by the Sangha or an individual, and for nuns, it refers to what is owned by the Sangha or an individual, but for monks, it stands in the place of lay ownership.
ID562
Mukhasannidhīti antosannihitadoso hi mukhappavesananimittaṃ āpattiṃ karoti, nāññathā, tasmā “mukhasannidhī”ti (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.295) vuttoti.
“Near the mouth”—the fault of being stored inside arises due to causing an offense related to entering the mouth, not otherwise; therefore, it is said “near the mouth” (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.295).
Mukhasannidhīti, for the fault of storing within causes an offence due to entry into the mouth, not otherwise, therefore it is said “mukhasannidhī”ti (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.295).
“Mukhasannidhī”ti—the fault of being inside is the cause for an offense due to the act of entering the mouth, not otherwise. Therefore, it is said, “‘mukhasannidhī’”ti (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.295).
ID563
Tattha tattha khaṇḍā hontīti upaḍḍhato adhikaṃ khaṇḍā honti. Sabbasmiṃ chadane vinaṭṭheti tiṇapaṇṇādivassaparittāyake chadane vinaṭṭhe. Gopānasīnaṃ pana upari vallīhi baddhadaṇḍesu ṭhitesupi jahitavatthukā honti eva. Pakkhapāsakamaṇḍalanti ekasmiṃ passe tiṇṇaṃ gopānasīnaṃ upari ṭhitatiṇapaṇṇādichadanaṃ vuccati.
“In various places they are broken” means more than half is broken. “When the entire roof is destroyed” refers to the roof made of grass, leaves, or other rain-protecting materials being destroyed. Even if the roof beams remain tied with creepers and supported by stakes, they become foundationless. “Half-roofed circular structure” refers to the covering of grass, leaves, or the like placed atop three roof beams on one side.
Tattha tattha khaṇḍā hontīti, there are more gaps than half. Sabbasmiṃ chadane vinaṭṭheti, when the roofing that protects from rain, made of grass, leaves, etc., is destroyed. But even when the supporting sticks bound with creepers above the rafters remain, it becomes a case of abandoned material. Pakkhapāsakamaṇḍalanti, refers to the roofing of grass, leaves, etc., placed on top of three rafters on one side.
“Tattha tattha khaṇḍā hontī”ti—there are gaps more than half. “Sabbasmiṃ chadane vinaṭṭhe”ti—when the roof made of grass, leaves, etc., is completely destroyed. Even if the rafters are tied with vines and the beams remain, they are considered abandoned. “Pakkhapāsakamaṇḍala”nti refers to the roof made of grass, leaves, etc., placed above three rafters on one side.
ID564
103. “Anupasampannassa datvā tassā”tiādinā akappiyakuṭiyaṃ vutthampi anupasampannassa dinne kappiyaṃ hoti, sāpekkhadānañcettha vaṭṭati, paṭiggahaṇaṃ viya na hotīti dasseti. Antopakkasāmaṃpakkesu pana “na, bhikkhave, antovutthaṃ antopakkaṃ sāmaṃpakkaṃ paribhuñjitabbaṃ, yo paribhuñjeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Anto ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ antopakkaṃ sāmaṃpakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti tiṇṇaṃ dukkaṭānaṃ. Anto ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ antopakkaṃ aññehi pakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti dvinnaṃ dukkaṭānaṃ. Anto ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ bahipakkaṃ sāmaṃpakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti dvinnaṃ dukkaṭānaṃ. Bahi ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ antopakkaṃ sāmaṃpakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti dvinnaṃ dukkaṭānaṃ. Anto ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ bahipakkaṃ aññehi pakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Bahi ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ antopakkaṃ aññehi pakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Bahi ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ bahipakkaṃ sāmaṃpakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Bahi ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ bahipakkaṃ aññehi pakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, anāpattī”ti (mahāva. 274) vacanato ekaṃ tirāpattikaṃ, tīṇi durāpattikāni, tīṇi ekāpattikāni, ekaṃ anāpattikanti aṭṭha honti. Tattha antovutthanti akappiyakuṭiyaṃ vutthaṃ. Antopakkepi eseva nayo. Sāmaṃpakkanti yaṃ kiñci āmisaṃ bhikkhussa pacituṃ na vaṭṭati. Tattha yaṃ vattabbaṃ, taṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttameva.
103. “Having given it to an unordained person” and so forth—living in an impermissible hut becomes permissible when given to an unordained person; it indicates that giving with expectation is allowed here, unlike acceptance. However, regarding what is cooked inside or by oneself: “Monks, what is resided in inside, cooked inside, and self-cooked should not be consumed; one who consumes it incurs an offense of wrongdoing. If, monks, what is resided in inside, cooked inside, and self-cooked is consumed, it incurs three offenses of wrongdoing. If, monks, what is resided in inside, cooked inside, and cooked by others is consumed, it incurs two offenses of wrongdoing. If, monks, what is resided in inside, cooked outside, and self-cooked is consumed, it incurs two offenses of wrongdoing. If, monks, what is resided in outside, cooked inside, and self-cooked is consumed, it incurs two offenses of wrongdoing. If, monks, what is resided in inside, cooked outside, and cooked by others is consumed, it incurs an offense of wrongdoing. If, monks, what is resided in outside, cooked inside, and cooked by others is consumed, it incurs an offense of wrongdoing. If, monks, what is resided in outside, cooked outside, and self-cooked is consumed, it incurs an offense of wrongdoing. If, monks, what is resided in outside, cooked outside, and cooked by others is consumed, there is no offense” (mahāva. 274). Thus, there are eight cases: one with three offenses, three with two offenses, three with one offense, and one with no offense. Therein, “resided in inside” means resided in an impermissible hut. The same applies to “cooked inside.” “Self-cooked” means anything edible that a monk may not cook himself. What should be said about this is already stated in the commentary.
103. By “Anupasampannassa datvā tassā”ti, etc., he shows that even if what is dwelling in an unsuitable hut is given to an unordained person, it becomes suitable; and that giving with expectation is allowable here, like receiving, it is not. But regarding food cooked inside or by oneself, “na, bhikkhave, antovutthaṃ antopakkaṃ sāmaṃpakkaṃ paribhuñjitabbaṃ, yo paribhuñjeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Anto ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ antopakkaṃ sāmaṃpakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti tiṇṇaṃ dukkaṭānaṃ. Anto ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ antopakkaṃ aññehi pakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti dvinnaṃ dukkaṭānaṃ. Anto ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ bahipakkaṃ sāmaṃpakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti dvinnaṃ dukkaṭānaṃ. Bahi ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ antopakkaṃ sāmaṃpakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti dvinnaṃ dukkaṭānaṃ. Anto ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ bahipakkaṃ aññehi pakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Bahi ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ antopakkaṃ aññehi pakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Bahi ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ bahipakkaṃ sāmaṃpakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Bahi ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ bahipakkaṃ aññehi pakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, anāpattī”ti (mahāva. 274), because of this statement, there are eight cases: one with a triple offence, three with a double offence, three with a single offence, and one without offence. Therein, antovutthanti, means what has dwelt in an unsuitable hut. In the case of antopakkepi, the same principle applies. Sāmaṃpakkanti, it is not allowable for a bhikkhu to cook any kind of food. What should be said regarding that has been said in the commentary.
103. “‘Anupasampannassa datvā tassā’”ti—even if given to an unordained person in an unallowable place, it becomes allowable if given with expectation, but receiving is not like that. In the case of internal, external, and self-cooked food: “Monks, one should not consume food that is internal, external, or self-cooked. If one consumes it, there is an offense of wrongdoing. If, monks, one consumes internal, external, or self-cooked food, there is an offense of three wrongdoings. If, monks, one consumes internal food cooked by others, there is an offense of two wrongdoings. If, monks, one consumes external self-cooked food, there is an offense of two wrongdoings. If, monks, one consumes internal food cooked by others, there is an offense of wrongdoing. If, monks, one consumes external food cooked by others, there is no offense” (Mahāva. 274). Thus, there are eight cases: one involving three offenses, three involving two offenses, three involving one offense, and one involving no offense. Here, “antovuttha”nti refers to dwelling in an unallowable place. “Antopakkepi”—the same applies. “Sāmaṃpakka”nti refers to any food that a monk is not allowed to cook. What should be said here is already stated in the commentary.
ID565
Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is an exposition of the Vinaya compendium
Thus in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,
Thus, in the Vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanā, which is the ornament of the Vinaya,
ID566
Kappiyabhūmivinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma
The section called the Adornment of the Discussion on Determining Permissible Grounds
The chapter named the Ornament of Explanation of the Determination of Suitable Ground
The chapter on the determination of allowable grounds is named
ID567
Ekūnavīsatimo paricchedo.
Is the nineteenth chapter.
Is the nineteenth chapter.
The nineteenth chapter.
ID568
ID569
104. Evaṃ kappiyabhūmivinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni paṭiggahaṇavinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ “khādanīyādipaṭiggāho”tiādimāha. Tattha khādiyateti khādanīyaṃ, ṭhapetvā pañca bhojanāni sabbassa ajjhoharitabbassetaṃ adhivacanaṃ. Ādisaddena bhojanīyaṃ saṅgaṇhāti. Paṭiggahaṇaṃ sampaṭicchanaṃ paṭiggāho, khādanīyādīnaṃ paṭiggāho khādanīyādipaṭiggāho. Tenāha “ajjhoharitabbassa yassa kassaci khādanīyassa vā bhojanīyassa vā paṭiggahaṇa”nti. Pañcasu aṅgesu uccāraṇamattanti ukkhipanamattaṃ, iminā paṭiggahitabbabhārassa pamāṇaṃ dasseti. Teneva tādisena purisena anukkhipanīyavatthusmiṃ paṭiggahaṇaṃ na ruhatīti dīpeti. “Hatthapāso”ti iminā āsannabhāvaṃ. Teneva ca dūre ṭhatvā abhiharantassa paṭiggahaṇaṃ na ruhatīti dīpeti. Abhihāroti pariṇāmitabhāvo, tena ca tatraṭṭhakādīsu na ruhatīti dīpeti. “Devo vā”tiādinā dāyakato payogattayaṃ dasseti. “Tañce”tiādinā paṭiggāhakato payogadvayaṃ dasseti.
104. Having thus discussed the determination of permissible grounds, now to discuss the determination of acceptance, it begins with “The acceptance of edibles and so forth” and so on. Therein, what is eaten is “edible”; excluding the five types of food, this is a designation for all that is to be consumed. The particle “and so forth” includes food. Acceptance is receiving; the acceptance of edibles and so forth is “the acceptance of edibles and so forth.” Hence it says, “The acceptance of anything edible or food to be consumed.” Among the five factors, “mere lifting” means just raising it, indicating the measure of the load to be accepted. By this, it shows that acceptance does not apply to an object that such a person cannot lift. “Reach of the hand” indicates proximity. By this, it shows that acceptance does not apply to something brought from a distance. “Offering” means the state of being handed over, indicating that it does not apply in cases like those standing there. “Whether a deity” and so forth shows the threefold effort from the giver. “And if” and so forth shows the twofold effort from the receiver.
104. Having thus explained the determination of suitable ground, now, in order to explain the determination of acceptance, he begins with “khādanīyādipaṭiggāho”ti, etc.. Therein, khādiyateti khādanīyaṃ, this is a term for all that is to be consumed, except for the five staple foods. By the word ādi, he includes soft food. Acceptance is receiving, paṭiggāho, the acceptance of hard food, etc., is khādanīyādipaṭiggāho. Therefore he said “ajjhoharitabbassa yassa kassaci khādanīyassa vā bhojanīyassa vā paṭiggahaṇa”nti. Among the five factors, uccāraṇamattanti, merely lifting, by this he shows the measure of the weight of the object to be accepted. Therefore, he indicates that acceptance does not apply to an object that cannot be lifted by such a person. By “Hatthapāso”ti, he shows the state of proximity. And therefore, he indicates that acceptance does not apply to someone offering from a distance. Abhihāroti, the state of being directed, and by that, it does not apply to what is placed there, etc.. By “Devo vā”ti, etc., he shows the three modes of action on the part of the giver. By “Tañce”ti, etc., he shows the two modes of action on the part of the receiver.
104. Having discussed the determination of allowable grounds, now the discussion on the determination of receiving begins with “‘khādanīyādipaṭiggāho’”ti, etc. Here, “khādanīya” refers to what is to be chewed, excluding the five kinds of food, and it is a term for all that is to be swallowed. The word “ādi” includes “bhojanīya.” Receiving is acceptance; the receiving of edible items is “khādanīyādipaṭiggāho.” Therefore, it is said, “‘ajjhoharitabbassa yassa kassaci khādanīyassa vā bhojanīyassa vā paṭiggahaṇa’”nti. Among the five factors, “uccāraṇamatta”nti means merely lifting, indicating the measure of what should be received. Thus, receiving is not permissible for a person who cannot lift such a burden. “‘Hatthapāso’”ti indicates proximity. Thus, receiving is not permissible for one standing far away and bringing something. “Abhihāro”ti refers to the act of bringing, and thus it is not permissible in places like aṭṭhakādi, etc. “‘Devo vā’”ti, etc., indicates the three efforts from the donor’s side. “‘Tañce’”ti, etc., indicates the two efforts from the receiver’s side.
ID570
Idāni tesu pañcasu aṅgesu hatthapāsassa durājānatāya taṃ dassetumāha “tatthi”ccādi. Tattha aḍḍhateyyahattho hatthapāso nāmāti yojanā. “Tassa orimantenā”ti iminā ākāse ujuṃ ṭhatvā parena ukkhittaṃ gaṇhantassāpi āsannaṅgabhūtapādatalato paṭṭhāya hatthapāso paricchinditabbo, na sīsato paṭṭhāyāti dasseti. Tattha “orimantenā”ti imassa heṭṭhimantenāti attho gahetabbo.
Now, among those five factors, since the reach of the hand is difficult to understand, it says “there” and so forth to explain it. Therein, the reach of the hand is reckoned as two and a half cubits. “From its lower part”—this indicates that even when standing straight in the air and taking something raised by another, the reach of the hand should be measured from the sole of the foot, the nearest limb, not from the head. Therein, “from its lower part” should be understood as meaning “from the bottom.”
Now, among these five factors, since the hand-span is difficult to know, he says “tatthi”ccādi, etc. to show it. Therein, aḍḍhateyyahattho (two and a half cubits) is called the hand-span; this is the connection. By “Tassa orimantenā”ti, he shows that even when receiving something thrown by another person standing directly in the air, the hand-span should be measured starting from the foot, which is the proximate part, not from the head. Therein, the meaning of “orimantenā”ti should be taken as the lower end.
Now, to explain the difficulty of knowing the hand’s reach among these five factors, it is said, “‘tatthi’”ccādi. Here, a hand’s reach is called “aḍḍhateyyahattho.” “‘Tassa orimantenā’”ti—even if one stands straight in the air and lifts something with the other hand, the hand’s reach should be measured from the sole of the foot, which is the nearest part, not from the head. Here, “‘orimantenā’”ti should be understood as “from the lower side.”
ID571
Ettha ca pavāraṇasikkhāpadaṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pāci. aṭṭha. 238-239) “sace pana bhikkhu nisinno hoti, āsannassa pacchimantato paṭṭhāyā”tiādinā paṭiggāhakānaṃ āsannaṅgassa pārimantato paṭṭhāya paricchedassa dassitattā idhāpi ākāse ṭhitassa paṭiggāhakassa āsannaṅgabhūtapādatalassa pārimantabhūtato paṇhipariyantassa heṭṭhimatalato paṭṭhāya, dāyakassa pana orimantabhūtato pādaṅgulassa heṭṭhimapariyantato paṭṭhāya hatthapāso paricchinditabboti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Imināva nayena bhūmiyaṃ nipajjitvā ussīsake nisinnassa hatthato paṭiggaṇhantassāpi āsannasīsaṅgassa pārimantabhūtato gīvantato paṭṭhāyeva hatthapāso minitabbo, na pādatalato paṭṭhāya. Evaṃ nipajjitvā dānepi yathānurūpaṃ veditabbaṃ. “Yaṃ āsannataraṃ aṅga”nti (pāci. aṭṭha. 238-239) hi vuttaṃ. Akallakoti gilāno sahatthā paribhuñjituṃ asakkonto mukhena paṭiggaṇhāti. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.265) pana “akallakoti gilāno gahetuṃ vā”ti ettakameva vuttaṃ, etena akallakoti gilāno vā atha vā gahetuṃ akallako asamatthoti attho dassito. Tenāha “sacepi natthukaraṇiyaṃ dīyamānaṃ nāsāpuṭena akallako vā mukhena paṭiggaṇhātī”ti.
And here, in the commentary on the Pavāraṇa training rule (pāci. aṭṭha. 238-239), it says, “If a monk is seated, starting from the rear of the nearest part” and so forth, showing the measurement from the edge of the nearest limb of the receiver. Thus, here too, for one standing in the air, the reach of the hand should be measured from the bottom of the sole, the nearest limb of the receiver, up to the edge of the heel, and from the bottom of the giver’s toe, the lower edge. By this method, even for one lying on the ground taking from the hand of one seated upright, the reach of the hand should be measured from the edge of the nearest limb, the neck, not from the sole of the foot. The same should be understood as appropriate when giving while lying down. It is said, “The limb that is nearest” (pāci. aṭṭha. 238-239). “Unfit” means a sick person unable to use it with their hand, accepting it with their mouth. In the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.265), however, it says only “unfit” means “a sick person or one who takes,” indicating that “unfit” means either a sick person or one incapable of taking. Hence it says, “Even if without hands, an unfit person accepts with the nostrils or mouth.”
And here, in the commentary on the Pācittiya rule concerning invitation (pāci. aṭṭha. 238-239), since “sace pana bhikkhu nisinno hoti, āsannassa pacchimantato paṭṭhāyā”ti, etc., shows the measurement starting from the further end of the proximate part of the receivers, here too, for the receiver standing in the air, starting from the lower end of the heel, which is the further end of the foot, the proximate part, and for the giver, starting from the lower end of the toe, which is the lower end, the hand-span should be measured, this should be understood. By this same method, even for one receiving from the hand of someone sitting with the head raised while lying on the ground, the hand-span should be measured starting from the neck, which is the further end of the proximate head part, not from the foot. In the same way, giving while lying down should be understood accordingly. For it is said, “Yaṃ āsannataraṃ aṅga”nti (pāci. aṭṭha. 238-239). Akallakoti, being sick, unable to consume with his own hand, he receives with his mouth. But in the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.265) only “akallakoti gilāno gahetuṃ vā”ti is said, by this the meaning is shown that akallakoti means sick or unable or incapable of taking. Therefore he said “sacepi natthukaraṇiyaṃ dīyamānaṃ nāsāpuṭena akallako vā mukhena paṭiggaṇhātī”ti.
Here, in the commentary on the Pavāraṇā Sikkhāpada (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 238-239), it is said, “If a monk is seated, starting from the nearest part of the receiver’s side,” etc., indicating that the measure should be taken from the nearest part of the receiver’s body. Similarly, here, for one standing in the air, the hand’s reach should be measured from the sole of the foot, which is the nearest part, starting from the lower side of the foot’s edge, and for the donor, from the lower side of the toe’s edge. In the same way, for one lying down and receiving with the head, the hand’s reach should be measured from the neck, which is the nearest part, not from the sole of the foot. Thus, even when lying down, it should be understood accordingly. “‘Yaṃ āsannataraṃ aṅga’”nti (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 238-239) is stated. “Akallako”ti refers to a sick person who is unable to consume with his own hand and receives with his mouth. In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Pācittiya 2.265), it is said, “‘akallako’ti—a sick person or one unable to receive,” indicating that ”akallako” means a sick person or one unable to receive. Therefore, it is said, “‘sacepi natthukaraṇiyaṃ dīyamānaṃ nāsāpuṭena akallako vā mukhena paṭiggaṇhātī’”ti.
ID572
105. Ekadesenāpīti aṅguliyā phuṭṭhamattena.
105. “Even with a part” means merely touching with a finger.
105. Ekadesenāpīti, merely by touching with the finger.
105. “Ekadesenāpī”ti—even if touched by a finger.
ID573
Tañce paṭiggaṇhāti, sabbaṃ paṭiggahitamevāti veṇukoṭiyaṃ bandhitvā ṭhapitattā. Sace bhūmiyaṃ ṭhitameva ghaṭaṃ dāyakena hatthapāse ṭhatvā “ghaṭaṃ dassāmī”ti dinnaṃ veṇukoṭiyā gahaṇavasena paṭiggaṇhāti, ubhayakoṭibaddhaṃ sabbampi paṭiggahitameva hoti. Bhikkhussa hatthe apīḷetvā pakatiyā pīḷiyamānaṃ ucchurasaṃ sandhāya “gaṇhathā”ti vuttattā “abhihāro na paññāyatī”ti vuttaṃ, hatthapāse ṭhitassa pana bhikkhussa atthāya pīḷiyamānaṃ ucchuto paggharantaṃ rasaṃ gaṇhituṃ vaṭṭati. Doṇikāya sayaṃ paggharantaṃ ucchurasaṃ majjhe āvaritvā vissajjitampi gaṇhituṃ vaṭṭati. Paṭiggahaṇasaññāyāti “mañcādinā paṭiggahessāmī”ti uppāditasaññāya, iminā “paṭiggaṇhāmī”ti vācāya vattabbakiccaṃ natthīti dasseti.
“And if he accepts it, all of it is accepted”—because it is tied to the end of a bamboo pole. If a pot standing on the ground is given by the giver standing within reach, saying, “I give the pot,” and it is accepted by taking the bamboo pole, everything tied at both ends is indeed accepted. Regarding sugarcane juice squeezed naturally without being pressed by the monk’s hand, it is said, “The offering is not evident” because it was said, “Take it.” However, it is permissible to take sugarcane juice flowing out from being squeezed for the monk standing within reach. It is also permissible to take sugarcane juice flowing out naturally from a trough, intercepted in the middle and released. “With the perception of acceptance” means with the perception aroused, “I will accept it with a bed or the like,” indicating that there is no need to say “I accept” verbally.
Tañce paṭiggaṇhāti, sabbaṃ paṭiggahitamevāti, because it is tied and placed at the tip of the bamboo. If a pot placed on the ground is given by the giver standing within hand-span, saying “I will give the pot”, and it is received by grasping the bamboo tip, the whole thing, tied at both ends, is received. Because it is said “take it” referring to the juice of sugarcane being pressed naturally, without being pressed by the hand of the bhikkhu, it is said “abhihāro na paññāyatī”ti; but it is allowable to take the juice flowing from the sugarcane being pressed for the sake of the bhikkhu standing within hand-span. It is allowable to take the juice of sugarcane flowing by itself from the trough, even if it is released after being blocked in the middle. Paṭiggahaṇasaññāyāti, by the perception arising, “I will receive with the couch, etc.”, by this he shows that there is no need to say verbally, “I receive”.
“Tañce paṭiggaṇhāti, sabbaṃ paṭiggahitamevā”ti—because it is tied with a bamboo stick. If a pot is placed on the ground and the donor, standing within hand’s reach, says, “I will give the pot,” and the monk receives it by grasping the bamboo stick, the entire pot is considered received. Since the monk’s hand is not pressed, but the juice is naturally pressed, it is said, “‘gaṇhathā’”ti, and thus “‘abhihāro na paññāyatī’”ti is stated. However, if the juice is pressed for the benefit of the monk standing within hand’s reach, it is permissible to receive it. It is also permissible to receive juice flowing from a doṇikā by covering it in the middle and pouring it out. “Paṭiggahaṇasaññāyā”ti—with the perception, “I will receive it with a bed, etc.,” it is indicated that there is no need to say, “I receive it.”
ID574
Yattha katthaci aṭṭhakathāsu, padesesu vā. Asaṃhārime phalaketi thāmamajjhimena asaṃhāriye. “Tintiṇikādipaṇṇesūti vacanato sākhāsu paṭiggahaṇaṃ ruhatīti daṭṭhabba”nti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.265) vuttaṃ. Porāṇaṭīkāyampi tatheva vuttaṃ, tadetaṃ vicāretabbaṃ. Aṭṭhakathāyañhi “bhūmiyaṃ atthatesu sukhumesu tintiṇikādipaṇṇesu paṭiggahaṇaṃ na ruhatī”ti vuttaṃ. Taṃ tintiṇikādipaṇṇānaṃ sukhumattā tattha ṭhapitaāmisassa asaṇṭhahanato bhūmiyaṃ ṭhapitasadisattā “na ruhatī”ti vuttaṃ, tintiṇikādisākhāsu ṭhapitepi evameva siyā, tasmā “sākhāsu paṭiggahaṇaṃ ruhatī”ti vacanaṃ ayuttaṃ viya dissati. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ “na ruhatī”ti kiriyāpadassa “kasmā”ti hetupariyesane sati na aññaṃ pariyesitabbaṃ, “sukhumesū”ti vuttaṃ visesanapadaṃyeva hetumantavisesanaṃ bhavati, tasmā tintiṇikapaṇṇādīsu paṭiggahaṇaṃ na ruhati, kasmā? Tesaṃ sukhumattā. Aññesu pana paduminīpaṇṇādīsu ruhati, kasmā? Tesaṃ oḷārikattāti hetuphalasambandho icchitabboti dissati , tasmā “tadetaṃ vicāretabba”nti vuttaṃ. Tathā hi vuttaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ “na hi tāni sandhāretuṃ samatthānīti mahantesu pana paduminīpaṇṇādīsu ruhatī”ti.
“Wherever” means in any commentary or section. “On an immovable plank” means on one that cannot be moved by a person of average strength. From the statement “on leaves of the tinduka tree and so forth,” it should be understood that acceptance on branches is valid, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.265). The old commentary says the same, but this should be examined. For in the commentary it says, “Acceptance does not apply on fine leaves of the tinduka tree and so forth spread on the ground.” This is said because, due to the fineness of tinduka leaves and the like, the food placed on them does not stay put, being like something placed on the ground, hence “it does not apply.” It would be the same if placed on branches of tinduka and so forth; thus, the statement “acceptance on branches applies” seems improper. In the commentary, when the verb “does not apply” prompts the question “why,” no other reason need be sought; the qualifying phrase “fine” itself is the reason-bearing qualifier. Therefore, acceptance does not apply on tinduka leaves and the like—why? Because of their fineness. But it applies on lotus leaves and the like—why? Because of their coarseness. This cause-and-effect relationship is desirable, hence it says, “this should be examined.” Indeed, the commentary says, “For they cannot hold it, but it applies on large lotus leaves and the like.”
Yattha katthaci, in any of the commentaries, or in the regions. Asaṃhārime phalaketi, on a plank that cannot be moved by a person of average strength. “Because of the statement ‘tintiṇikādipaṇṇesūti, it should be understood that receiving on branches is allowable’,” it is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.265). In the Porāṇaṭīkā also, it is said likewise, this should be investigated. For in the commentary, it is said, “Receiving on small tamarind leaves, etc. spread on the ground is not allowable”. That is said “not allowable” because of the smallness of the tamarind leaves, etc., the food placed there cannot stay put, being similar to being placed on the ground; even if placed on tamarind branches, etc., it would be the same, therefore the statement “receiving on branches is allowable” seems inappropriate. In the commentary, when seeking the reason for the verb “na ruhatī”, no other reason needs to be sought, the adjective “sukhumesū” itself becomes the reason-possessing adjective, therefore receiving on tamarind leaves, etc., is not allowable, why? Because of their smallness. But on other lotus leaves, etc., it is allowable, why? Because of their largeness, the connection of reason and result should be desired, this is what it seems, therefore it is said, “this should be investigated.” Thus it is said in the commentary, “For they are not capable of supporting it, but on large lotus leaves, etc., it is allowable.”
“Yattha katthaci”—in some commentaries or places. “Asaṃhārime phalake”ti—on a strong, immovable plank. “‘Tintiṇikādipaṇṇesū’”ti—according to the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Pācittiya 3.265), it is said that receiving is permissible on branches, etc. The ancient commentary also states the same, and this should be considered. For in the commentary, it is said, “Receiving is not permissible on very fine grass, etc., placed on the ground.” Due to the fineness of the grass, etc., the food placed there does not adhere well, and thus it is said, “It is not permissible.” However, it seems inappropriate to say that receiving is permissible on branches, etc. In the commentary, the reason for the statement “It is not permissible” is the fineness of the grass, etc., and thus no other reason should be sought. Therefore, receiving is not permissible on fine grass, etc., due to their fineness. On other things, such as lotus leaves, etc., it is permissible due to their coarseness. Thus, the connection between cause and effect should be understood. Therefore, it is said, “‘tadetaṃ vicāretabba’”nti. As stated in the commentary, “They are not capable of holding it, but on large lotus leaves, etc., it is permissible.”
ID575
106. Puñchitvā paṭiggahetvāti puñchitepi rajanacuṇṇāsaṅkāya sati paṭiggahaṇatthāya vuttaṃ, nāsati. Taṃ panāti patitarajaṃ appaṭiggahetvā upari gahitapiṇḍapātaṃ. Anāpattīti durūpaciṇṇādidoso natthi. Pubbābhogassa anurūpavasena “anupasampannassa datvā…pe… vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ. Yasmā pana taṃ “aññassa dassāmī”ti cittuppādamattena parasantakaṃ na hoti, tasmā tassa adatvāpi paṭiggahetvā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati. “Anupasampannassa dassāmī”tiādipi vinayadukkaṭassa parihārāya vuttaṃ, tathā akatvā gahitepi paṭiggahetvā paribhuñjato anāpattiyeva. Bhikkhussa detīti aññassa bhikkhussa deti. Kañjikanti khīrarasādiṃ yaṃ kiñci dravaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Hatthato mocetvā puna gaṇhāti, uggahitakaṃ hotīti āha “hatthato amocentenevā”ti. Āluḷentānanti āloḷentānaṃ, ayameva vā pāṭho. Āharitvā bhūmiyaṃ ṭhapitattā abhihāro natthīti āha “patto paṭiggahetabbo”ti.
106. “Wiping and accepting”—this is said for the sake of acceptance even when there is suspicion of dye powder being wiped off, not otherwise. “But that” refers to the alms food taken above without accepting the fallen dust. “No offense” means there is no fault of improper handling or the like. In accordance with prior use, it says, “Having given it to an unordained person… it is permissible.” Since it does not become another’s property merely by the thought “I will give it to another,” it is permissible to accept and consume it even without giving it. “I will give it to an unordained person” and so forth is said to avoid a disciplinary offense; even if taken without doing so, there is no offense in accepting and consuming it. “He gives it to a monk” means he gives it to another monk. “Rice water” refers to any liquid like milk juice. Releasing it from the hand and taking it again makes it taken, hence it says, “Without releasing it from the hand.” “Stirring” means those who stir; this may also be the reading. Since it was brought and placed on the ground, there is no offering, hence it says, “The bowl should be accepted.”
106. Puñchitvā paṭiggahetvāti, even though it is wiped, because of the doubt about the dust of coloring, it is said for the sake of receiving, not when there is none. Taṃ panāti, the almsfood received on top without receiving the fallen dust. Anāpattīti, there is no fault of improper practice, etc.. In accordance with the previous intention, it is said “anupasampannassa datvā…pe… vaṭṭatī”ti. But since it does not become another’s possession merely by the arising of the thought, “I will give it to another,” therefore it is allowable to receive and consume it even without giving it to him. The statement “anupasampannassa dassāmī”ti, etc., is said for the avoidance of the Vinaya offence of wrong-doing; even if taken without doing so, there is no offence for one who receives and consumes. Bhikkhussa detīti, he gives to another bhikkhu. Kañjikanti, refers to any liquid, such as milk, juice, etc.. He takes it again after releasing it from the hand, it becomes accepted, therefore he says “hatthato amocentenevā”ti. Āluḷentānanti, for those who are stirring, or this is the correct reading. Because it is brought and placed on the ground, there is no directing, therefore he says “patto paṭiggahetabbo”ti.
106. “Puñchitvā paṭiggahetvā”ti—even if wiped, if there is suspicion of dye powder, it is said for the purpose of receiving, but not otherwise. “Taṃ panā”ti—without receiving the dust below, taking the upper portion of the almsfood. “Anāpattī”ti—there is no fault of improper conduct. According to the previous effort, “‘anupasampannassa datvā…pe… vaṭṭatī’”ti is stated. Since it does not become another’s property merely by the intention, “I will give it to another,” it is permissible to receive it without giving it and consume it. “‘Anupasampannassa dassāmī’”ti, etc., is stated to avoid the fault of wrongdoing in the Vinaya, but even if not done, there is no offense in receiving and consuming it. “Bhikkhussa detī”ti—he gives it to another monk. “Kañjika”nti refers to any liquid, such as milk, etc. Releasing it from the hand and taking it again, it is considered taken. Therefore, it is said, “‘hatthato amocentenevā’”ti. “Āluḷentāna”nti—stirring it, or this is the reading. Since it is brought and placed on the ground, there is no act of bringing. Therefore, it is said, “‘patto paṭiggahetabbo’”ti.
ID576
107. Paṭhamataraṃ uḷuṅkato thevā patte patantīti ettha “yathā paṭhamataraṃ patitatheve doso natthi, tathā ākiritvā apanentānaṃ pacchā patitathevepi abhihaṭattā nevatthi doso”ti vadanti. Carukenāti khuddakabhājanena. “Abhihaṭattāti dīyamānakkhaṇaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Datvā apanayanakāle pana chārikā vā bindūni vā patanti, puna paṭiggahetabbaṃ abhihārassa vigatattā”ti vadanti, taṃ yathā na patati, tathā apanessāmīti paṭiharante yujjati, pakatisaññāya apanente abhihāro na chijjati, supatitaṃ. Paṭiggahitameva hi taṃ hoti. Mukhavaṭṭiyāpi gahetuṃ vaṭṭatīti abhihariyamānassa pattassa mukhavaṭṭiyā uparibhāge hatthaṃ pasāretvā phusituṃ vaṭṭati. Pādena pelletvāti pādena “paṭiggahessāmī”ti saññāya akkamitvā. Kecīti abhayagirivāsino. Vacanamattamevāti paṭibaddhaṃ paṭibaddhapaṭibaddhanti saddamattameva nānaṃ, kāyapaṭibaddhameva hoti, tasmā tesaṃ vacanaṃ na gahetabbanti adhippāyo. Esa nayoti “paṭibaddhapaṭibaddhampi kāyapaṭibaddhamevā”ti ayaṃ nayo. Tathā ca tattha kāyapaṭibaddhe tappaṭibaddhe ca thullaccayameva vuttaṃ.
107. “First dripping from a ladle into the bowl”—here, they say, “Just as there is no fault if it falls first as a drop, so too, even if it falls later after being poured and removed, there is no fault because it was offered.” “With a spoon” means with a small vessel. “Because it was offered” is said with reference to the moment of giving. They say, “But if ash or drops fall after giving and removing, it must be accepted again because the offering has ceased.” This fits if one removes it intending “I will remove it so it does not fall,” but if removed with normal perception, the offering is not broken; it is well-accepted. For it is indeed accepted. “It is permissible to take with the rim of the mouth” means it is permissible to extend the hand to touch the upper part of the rim of the bowl being offered. “Pressing with the foot” means stepping on it with the perception “I will accept it” using the foot. “Some” refers to the Abhayagiri residents. “Merely a statement” means merely the sound of “attached, doubly attached,” without difference; it is only physically attached. Thus, their statement should not be accepted—this is the intent. “The same method” means the method “even doubly attached is only physically attached.” Accordingly, there it is said that what is physically attached and attached to it incurs only a grave offense.
107. Paṭhamataraṃ uḷuṅkato thevā patte patantīti ettha “yathā paṭhamataraṃ patitatheve doso natthi, tathā ākiritvā apanentānaṃ pacchā patitathevepi abhihaṭattā nevatthi doso”ti vadanti. In the case of, ‘First, drops fall from the ladle into the bowl,’ some say, “just as there is no fault when it falls at first, so too, because it has been offered, there is no fault even if it falls afterward, for those who pour it out and remove it.” Carukenāti khuddakabhājanena. With a small utensil means with a small container. “Abhihaṭattāti dīyamānakkhaṇaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. “Because it has been offered” is said in reference to the moment it is being given. Datvā apanayanakāle pana chārikā vā bindūni vā patanti, puna paṭiggahetabbaṃ abhihārassa vigatattā”ti vadanti, taṃ yathā na patati, tathā apanessāmīti paṭiharante yujjati, pakatisaññāya apanente abhihāro na chijjati, supatitaṃ. But some say, “If ashes or drops fall while giving and removing it, it should be re-accepted because the act of offering has ceased.” It is appropriate for the one removing to do so with the thought, ‘I will remove it in such a way that it does not fall’, When removing it with the usual perception the offering is not cut off. Paṭiggahitameva hi taṃ hoti. For it has already been accepted. Mukhavaṭṭiyāpi gahetuṃ vaṭṭatīti abhihariyamānassa pattassa mukhavaṭṭiyā uparibhāge hatthaṃ pasāretvā phusituṃ vaṭṭati. It is permissible to touch even with the rim of the mouth, means it is permissible to extend the hand and touch the upper part of the rim of the mouth of the bowl that is being offered. Pādena pelletvāti pādena “paṭiggahessāmī”ti saññāya akkamitvā. Having pushed with the foot means, without stepping on it with the intention of “I will accept this” with the foot. Kecīti abhayagirivāsino. Some, means those residing at Abhayagiri. Vacanamattamevāti paṭibaddhaṃ paṭibaddhapaṭibaddhanti saddamattameva nānaṃ, kāyapaṭibaddhameva hoti, tasmā tesaṃ vacanaṃ na gahetabbanti adhippāyo. It is only a word means that attached, and attached to what is attached, it’s only a difference in word, but it is attached to the body; therefore, the meaning is their words should not be accepted. Esa nayoti “paṭibaddhapaṭibaddhampi kāyapaṭibaddhamevā”ti ayaṃ nayo. This is the method, means this is the method, “Even what is attached to what is attached is only attached to the body.” Tathā ca tattha kāyapaṭibaddhe tappaṭibaddhe ca thullaccayameva vuttaṃ. And so, there, regarding what is attached to the body and what is attached to that, only a grave offense is mentioned.
107. Paṭhamataraṃ uḷuṅkato thevā patte patantīti: Here, they say, “Just as there is no fault if the almsbowl is first placed down and then the food is poured into it, similarly, even if the food is poured in and then the bowl is moved afterward, there is no fault because it has been properly received.” Carukenāti: with a small vessel. “Abhihaṭattāti: This refers to the moment of giving. However, they say, “If crumbs or drops fall when taking it away after giving, it should be received again because the act of giving has ceased.” Thus, it is appropriate for one to take it away in such a way that it does not spill. If one takes it away with the perception of it being ordinary, the act of giving is not interrupted, as it has been properly received. Mukhavaṭṭiyāpi gahetuṃ vaṭṭatīti: It is permissible to extend one’s hand to touch the rim of the almsbowl while it is being offered. Pādena pelletvāti: stepping on it with the foot, intending to receive it. Kecīti: the Abhayagiri residents. Vacanamattamevāti: Only the words “bound, bound, bound” are uttered, but it is actually bound by the body. Therefore, their words should not be taken literally. Esa nayoti: This is the principle: “Even if it is said ‘bound, bound,’ it is only bound by the body.” Thus, in such cases, whether bound by the body or by the robe, a thullaccaya offense is incurred.
ID577
Tena āharāpetunti yassa bhikkhuno santikaṃ gataṃ, taṃ “idha naṃ ānehī”ti āṇāpetvā tena āharāpetuṃ itarassa vaṭṭatīti attho. Tasmāti yasmā mūlaṭṭhasseva paribhogo anuññāto, tasmā. Taṃ divasaṃ hatthena gahetvā dutiyadivase paṭiggahetvā paribhuñjantassa uggahitakapaṭiggahitaṃ hotīti āha “anāmasitvā”ti. Appaṭiggahitattā “sannidhipaccayā anāpattī”ti vuttaṃ. Appaṭiggahetvā paribhuñjantassa adinnamukhadvārāpatti hotīti āha “paṭiggahetvā pana paribhuñjitabba”nti. “Na tato paranti tadaheva sāmaṃ appaṭiggahitaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, tadaheva paṭiggahitaṃ pana punadivasādīsu appaṭiggahetvāpi paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vadanti.
“Have it brought by him” means it is permissible for another to have it brought by commanding the monk to whom it went, saying, “Bring it here,” and having it brought by him—this is the meaning. “Therefore”—since only the use by the original owner is permitted, therefore. If taken by hand on that day and accepted and consumed on the second day, it becomes taken and accepted, hence it says, “Without touching.” Because it was not accepted, it says, “There is no offense due to storage.” If consumed without accepting, it incurs an offense of eating what was not given through the mouth, hence it says, “But it should be consumed after accepting.” They say, “Not beyond that” refers to what was not accepted by oneself on that day; what was accepted on that day, however, may be consumed on subsequent days without further acceptance.
Tena āharāpetunti yassa bhikkhuno santikaṃ gataṃ, taṃ “idha naṃ ānehī”ti āṇāpetvā tena āharāpetuṃ itarassa vaṭṭatīti attho. Have him bring it, means, it is permissible for the other to have him bring, having ordered the one to whom it went, saying, “Bring that here”. Tasmāti yasmā mūlaṭṭhasseva paribhogo anuññāto, tasmā. Therefore means, because the enjoyment of the original owner alone is permitted, therefore. Taṃ divasaṃ hatthena gahetvā dutiyadivase paṭiggahetvā paribhuñjantassa uggahitakapaṭiggahitaṃ hotīti āha “anāmasitvā”ti. He says “without touching” because if one takes it with the hand on that day, and then having received it on the second day and consumes it, that is taking up what has been received. Appaṭiggahitattā “sannidhipaccayā anāpattī”ti vuttaṃ. Because it was not formally received, it is said that, “there is no offense due to storage.” Appaṭiggahetvā paribhuñjantassa adinnamukhadvārāpatti hotīti āha “paṭiggahetvā pana paribhuñjitabba”nti. He says “but it should be consumed after having received it,” because if one consumes it without receiving it, that will be an offense of taking what is not given, through the entrance of the mouth. “Na tato paranti tadaheva sāmaṃ appaṭiggahitaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, tadaheva paṭiggahitaṃ pana punadivasādīsu appaṭiggahetvāpi paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vadanti. “Not beyond that,” it is said, refering to what not been formally received by himself that very same day, but some say that if it has been formally received the same day, it is permissible to consume on subsequent days, even without re-receiving it.
Tena āharāpetunti: If a monk goes to another monk and instructs him, “Bring this here,” then it is permissible for that monk to have it brought by the other. Tasmāti: Because the use of the root item is permitted, therefore. On that day, if one takes it with the hand and receives it the next day, it is considered properly received. Thus, it is said, “anāmasitvā”ti: without touching. Because it has not been received, it is said, “sannidhipaccayā anāpattī”ti: there is no offense due to proximity. If one uses it without receiving it, there is an offense of taking what is not given. Thus, it is said, “paṭiggahetvā pana paribhuñjitabba”nti: it should be used after receiving it. “Na tato paranti: This refers to what has not been received on the same day. However, if it has been received on the same day, it is permissible to use it on subsequent days without receiving it again.
ID578
108. Khīyantīti khayaṃ gacchanti, tesaṃ cuṇṇehi thullaccayaappaṭiggahaṇāpattiyo na hontīti adhippāyo. Satthakenāti paṭiggahitasatthakena. Navasamuṭṭhitanti eteneva ucchuādīsu abhinavalaggattā abbohārikaṃ na hotīti dasseti. Eseva nayoti sannidhidosādiṃ sandhāya vadati. Tenāha “na hī”tiādi. Kasmā panettha uggahitapaccayā, sannidhipaccayā vā doso na siyāti āha “na hi taṃ paribhogatthāya pariharantī”ti. Iminā ca bāhiraparibhogatthaṃ sāmaṃ gahetvā vā anupasampannena dinnaṃ vā pariharituṃ vaṭṭatīti dīpeti, tasmā pattasammakkhanādiatthaṃ sāmaṃ gahetvā pariharitatelādiṃ sace paribhuñjitukāmo hoti, paṭiggahetvā paribhuñjantassa anāpatti. Abbhantaraparibhogatthaṃ pana sāmaṃ gahitaṃ paṭiggahetvā paribhuñjantassa uggahitapaṭiggahaṇaṃ hoti, appaṭiggahetvā paribhuñjantassa adinnamukhadvārāpatti hoti. Abbhantaraparibhogatthameva anupasampannena dinnaṃ gahetvā pariharantassa siṅgīloṇakappo viya sannidhipaccayā āpatti hoti. Keci pana “thāmamajjhimassa purisassa uccāraṇamattaṃ hotītiādinā vuttapañcaṅgasampattiyā paṭiggahaṇassa ruhaṇato bāhiraparibhogatthampi sace anupasampannehi dinnaṃ gaṇhāti, paṭiggahitamevā”ti vadanti. Evaṃ sati idha bāhiraparibhogatthaṃ anupasampannena dinnaṃ gahetvā pariharantassa sannidhipaccayā āpatti vattabbā siyā. “Na hi taṃ paribhogatthāya pariharantī”ti ca na vattabbaṃ, tasmā bāhiraparibhogatthaṃ gahitaṃ paṭiggahitaṃ nāma na hotīti veditabbaṃ.
108. “They wear out” means they deteriorate; the intent is that there are no offenses of grave breach or non-acceptance due to their powder. “With a knife” means with an accepted knife. “Freshly sprouted”—by this, it shows that in sugarcane and the like, due to their freshly sprouted tips, they are not unusable. “The same method” refers to faults like storage. Hence it says, “For not” and so forth. Why then is there no fault here due to being taken or storage? It says, “For they do not carry it for consumption.” By this, it indicates that it is permissible to carry it oneself or have it given by an unordained person for external use. Thus, if one wishes to consume oil and the like taken and carried oneself for wiping the bowl, there is no offense if accepted and consumed. However, if taken oneself for internal use and consumed after accepting, it becomes taken and accepted; if consumed without accepting, it incurs an offense of eating what was not given through the mouth. If given by an unordained person and carried for internal use only, there is an offense due to storage, like the case of horn salt. Some say, “Since acceptance applies with the five factors stated as ‘the lifting capacity of a person of average strength’ and so forth, even for external use, if taken when given by an unordained person, it is accepted.” If so, an offense due to storage should be stated here for carrying what was given by an unordained person for external use. And “they do not carry it for consumption” should not be said. Thus, it should be understood that what is taken for external use is not considered accepted.
108. Khīyantīti khayaṃ gacchanti, tesaṃ cuṇṇehi thullaccayaappaṭiggahaṇāpattiyo na hontīti adhippāyo. They wear down, means they go to destruction; the meaning is that there are no offenses of grave wrongdoing or of not accepting with their powders. Satthakenāti paṭiggahitasatthakena. With a knife means, with a knife that has been accepted. Navasamuṭṭhitanti eteneva ucchuādīsu abhinavalaggattā abbohārikaṃ na hotīti dasseti. Newly arisen, by this he shows, that in the case of sugar-cane and the like, because they are newly produced, there is nothing to be dealt with. Eseva nayoti sannidhidosādiṃ sandhāya vadati. The method is the same; he says this referring to the fault of storage and so on. Tenāha “na hī”tiādi. Therefore, he says, “indeed not” and so forth. Kasmā panettha uggahitapaccayā, sannidhipaccayā vā doso na siyāti āha “na hi taṃ paribhogatthāya pariharantī”ti. He asks, “Why is there no fault here due to taking up or due to storage?” and he replies, “For they do not handle it for the purpose of consumption.” Iminā ca bāhiraparibhogatthaṃ sāmaṃ gahetvā vā anupasampannena dinnaṃ vā pariharituṃ vaṭṭatīti dīpeti, tasmā pattasammakkhanādiatthaṃ sāmaṃ gahetvā pariharitatelādiṃ sace paribhuñjitukāmo hoti, paṭiggahetvā paribhuñjantassa anāpatti. And by this, he indicates that it is permissible to handle what has been taken by oneself for external use or what has been given by a non-ordained person. Therefore, there is no offense for one who, having taken oil and the like, handles it himself for the purpose of smearing the bowl and so on, if he wishes to consume it, having formally received it before consuming. Abbhantaraparibhogatthaṃ pana sāmaṃ gahitaṃ paṭiggahetvā paribhuñjantassa uggahitapaṭiggahaṇaṃ hoti, appaṭiggahetvā paribhuñjantassa adinnamukhadvārāpatti hoti. But if what has been taken by oneself for internal consumption is consumed after formally accepting it, that is taking up what has been formally received. If consumed withouth formally accepting, it is the offence of taking what has not been given by the door of the mouth. Abbhantaraparibhogatthameva anupasampannena dinnaṃ gahetvā pariharantassa siṅgīloṇakappo viya sannidhipaccayā āpatti hoti. If, for the purpose of internal consumption, one takes and handles what has been given by a non-ordained person, there is an offense due to storage, like the case of salt in a horn. Keci pana “thāmamajjhimassa purisassa uccāraṇamattaṃ hotītiādinā vuttapañcaṅgasampattiyā paṭiggahaṇassa ruhaṇato bāhiraparibhogatthampi sace anupasampannehi dinnaṃ gaṇhāti, paṭiggahitamevā”ti vadanti. However, some say, “Since acceptance arises from the fulfillment of the five factors mentioned in, ‘it is the amount of excretion of a man of medium strength,’ and so forth, even in the case of external use, if one takes what has been given by non-ordained persons, it is indeed accepted.” Evaṃ sati idha bāhiraparibhogatthaṃ anupasampannena dinnaṃ gahetvā pariharantassa sannidhipaccayā āpatti vattabbā siyā. In this case, it should be stated here that one who takes and handles what has been given by a non-ordained person for external use has an offense due to storage. “Na hi taṃ paribhogatthāya pariharantī”ti ca na vattabbaṃ, tasmā bāhiraparibhogatthaṃ gahitaṃ paṭiggahitaṃ nāma na hotīti veditabbaṃ. And, “For they do not handle it for the purpose of consumption,” should not be said. Therefore, it should be understood that what has been taken for external use is not called ‘accepted’.
108. Khīyantīti: They are being consumed. The meaning is that there is no thullaccaya offense or offense of not receiving for their powders. Satthakenāti: with a received knife. Navasamuṭṭhitanti: This indicates that because it is newly made, it is not considered improper for sugarcane, etc. Eseva nayoti: This is the principle regarding the fault of proximity, etc. Thus, it is said, “na hī”tiādi: “For it is not carried for the purpose of use.” Why is there no fault here due to receiving or proximity? It is said, “na hi taṃ paribhogatthāya pariharantī”ti: “For they do not carry it for the purpose of use.” This also indicates that it is permissible to carry something taken by oneself or given by a non-ordained person for external use. Therefore, if one wishes to use oil, etc., taken for the purpose of cleaning a bowl, there is no offense if one uses it after receiving it. However, if something taken for internal use is used without receiving it, there is an offense of taking what is not given. If something taken for internal use is carried after being given by a non-ordained person, there is an offense due to proximity, like the siṅgīloṇakappa. Some, however, say, “If it is taken from a non-ordained person for external use, it is considered received if it meets the five conditions, such as being the size of a middle-aged man’s excrement.” In such a case, there would be an offense due to proximity for carrying something taken from a non-ordained person for external use. Therefore, it should be understood that something taken for external use is not considered received.
ID579
Yadi evaṃ pañcasu paṭiggahaṇaṅgesu “paribhogatthāyā”ti visesanaṃ vattabbanti? Na vattabbaṃ. Paṭiggahaṇañhi paribhogatthameva hotīti “paribhogatthāyā”ti visuṃ avatvā “tañce bhikkhu kāyena vā kāyapaṭibaddhena vā paṭiggaṇhātī”ti ettakameva vuttaṃ. Apare pana “satipi paṭiggahaṇe ’na hi taṃ paribhogatthāya pariharantī’ti idha aparibhogatthāya pariharaṇe anāpatti vuttā”ti vadanti. Tena ca paṭiggahaṇaṅgesu pañcasu samiddhesu ajjhoharitukāmatāya gahitameva paṭiggahitaṃ nāma hoti ajjhoharitabbesuyeva paṭiggahaṇassa anuññātattāti dasseti. Tathā bāhiraparibhogatthāya gahetvā ṭhapitatelādiṃ ajjhoharitukāmatāya sati paṭiggahetvā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatīti dasseti. Udukkhalamusalādīni khīyantīti ettha udukkhalamusalānaṃ khayena pisitakoṭṭitabhesajjesu sace āgantukavaṇṇo paññāyati, na vaṭṭati. Suddhaṃ udakaṃ hotīti rukkhasākhādīhi gaḷitvā patanaudakaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ.
If so, should the qualifier “for consumption” be stated among the five factors of acceptance? It should not be stated. For acceptance is indeed for consumption; thus, without separately saying “for consumption,” it merely says, “And if a monk accepts it with the body or something physically attached.” Others say, “Even if acceptance occurs, ‘for they do not carry it for consumption’ indicates no offense in carrying it for non-consumption here.” By this, it shows that only what is taken with the intent to consume among the five factors fulfilled is considered accepted, since acceptance is permitted only for what is to be consumed. Likewise, it shows that it is permissible to accept and consume oil and the like taken and kept for external use if one intends to consume it. “Mortars and pestles wear out”—here, if a foreign color appears in medicines pounded with worn-out mortars and pestles, it is not permissible. “It becomes pure water” refers to water dripping from tree branches and the like.
Yadi evaṃ pañcasu paṭiggahaṇaṅgesu “paribhogatthāyā”ti visesanaṃ vattabbanti? If so, should the qualification “for the purpose of consumption” be said regarding the five factors of acceptance? Na vattabbaṃ. It should not be said. Paṭiggahaṇañhi paribhogatthameva hotīti “paribhogatthāyā”ti visuṃ avatvā “tañce bhikkhu kāyena vā kāyapaṭibaddhena vā paṭiggaṇhātī”ti ettakameva vuttaṃ. For acceptance is only for consumption. Therefore, without separately saying “for the purpose of consumption”, only “and if a monk accepts it with the body or with something connected to the body” is stated. Apare pana “satipi paṭiggahaṇe ’na hi taṃ paribhogatthāya pariharantī’ti idha aparibhogatthāya pariharaṇe anāpatti vuttā”ti vadanti. But others say, “Although there is acceptance, ‘they do not handle it for the purpose of consumption,’ it is said here that there is no offense in handling for non-consumption purposes.” Tena ca paṭiggahaṇaṅgesu pañcasu samiddhesu ajjhoharitukāmatāya gahitameva paṭiggahitaṃ nāma hoti ajjhoharitabbesuyeva paṭiggahaṇassa anuññātattāti dasseti. And by this, it shows that only when, after the five factors of acceptance are fulfilled, what is taken with the desire to swallow it, is called formally accepted, since acceptance is permitted only for things to be swallowed. Tathā bāhiraparibhogatthāya gahetvā ṭhapitatelādiṃ ajjhoharitukāmatāya sati paṭiggahetvā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatīti dasseti. Likewise, it shows that it is permissible to consume oil and the like, which has been taken and kept for external use, after having formally received it, if there is a desire to swallow it. Udukkhalamusalādīni khīyantīti ettha udukkhalamusalānaṃ khayena pisitakoṭṭitabhesajjesu sace āgantukavaṇṇo paññāyati, na vaṭṭati. Mortars, pestles, and the like wear down here, if, due to the wearing down of mortars and pestles, an adventitious color appears in the crushed and pounded medicines, it is not permissible. Suddhaṃ udakaṃ hotīti rukkhasākhādīhi gaḷitvā patanaudakaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. It is pure water is said with reference to water that has dripped and fallen from tree branches and the like.
If so, should the qualification “for the purpose of use” be applied to the five factors of receiving? It should not. For receiving is solely for the purpose of use. Thus, it is said, “If a monk receives it with the body or with something attached to the body,” and nothing more. Others say, “Even in receiving, ‘they do not carry it for the purpose of use,’ so there is no offense in carrying it for a purpose other than use.” This indicates that if the five factors of receiving are present, what is taken with the intention of consuming it is considered received, as receiving is permitted for consumption. Similarly, it indicates that if oil, etc., taken for external use is set aside with the intention of consuming it, it is permissible to use it after receiving it. Udukkhalamusalādīni khīyantīti: Here, if the mortar and pestle are worn out, it is not permissible to use them for grinding medicine if there is a risk of contamination. Suddhaṃ udakaṃ hotīti: This refers to water dripping from tree branches, etc.
ID580
109. Patto vāssa paṭiggahetabboti etthāpi pattagataṃ chupitvā dentassa hatthe laggena āmisena dosābhāvatthaṃ pattapaṭiggahaṇanti abbhantaraparibhogatthameva pattapaṭiggahaṇaṃ veditabbaṃ. Yaṃ sāmaṇerassa patte patati…pe… paṭiggahaṇaṃ na vijahatīti ettha punappunaṃ gaṇhantassa attano patte pakkhittameva attano santakanti sanniṭṭhānakaraṇato hatthagataṃ paṭiggahaṇaṃ na vijahati. Paricchinditvā dinnaṃ pana gaṇhantassa gahaṇasamayeyeva attano santakanti sanniṭṭhānassa katattā hatthagataṃ paṭiggahaṇaṃ vijahati. Kesañci atthāya bhattaṃ pakkhipatīti ettha anupasampannassa atthāya pakkhipantepi āgantvā gaṇhissatīti sayameva pakkhipitvā ṭhapanato paṭiggahaṇaṃ na vijahati. Anupasampannassa hatthe pakkhittaṃ pana anupasampanneneva ṭhapitaṃ nāma hotīti paṭiggahaṇaṃ vijahati pariccattabhāvato. Tena vuttaṃ “sāmaṇera…pe… pariccattattā”ti. Kesañcītiādīsu anupasampannānaṃ atthāya katthaci ṭhapiyamānampi hatthato muttamatte eva paṭiggahaṇaṃ na vijahati, atha kho bhājane patitameva paṭiggahaṇaṃ vijahati. Bhājanañca bhikkhunā punadivasatthāya apekkhitamevāti taggatampi āmisaṃ duddhotapattagataṃ viya paṭiggahaṇaṃ vijahatīti saṅkāya “sāmaṇerassa hatthe pakkhipitabba”nti vuttanti veditabbaṃ. Īdisesu hi yutti na gavesitabbā, vuttanayeneva paṭipajjitabbaṃ.
109. “The bowl must be accepted”—here too, accepting the bowl is for the sake of internal use, to avoid fault from food sticking to the hand of the giver touching the bowl’s contents; thus, accepting the bowl should be understood as for internal use. “What falls into the novice’s bowl… does not abandon acceptance”—here, for one repeatedly taking it, since it is placed in one’s own bowl and concluded as one’s own, the acceptance in hand does not abandon. But for one taking what is given with a boundary, since it is concluded as one’s own at the moment of taking, the acceptance in hand abandons. “Puts food for someone”—here, even if put for an unordained person, since one puts it oneself and keeps it expecting them to come and take it, acceptance does not abandon. But what is put in the hand of an unordained person is considered placed by the unordained person, so acceptance abandons due to relinquishment. Hence it says, “A novice… due to relinquishment.” In “for someone” and so forth, even if placed somewhere for unordained persons, acceptance does not abandon as soon as it leaves the hand; rather, it abandons only when it falls into a vessel. And the vessel is one expected by the monk for the next day; thus, suspecting that the food in it, like that in a poorly washed bowl, abandons acceptance, it says, “It should be put in the novice’s hand.” In such cases, logic should not be sought; it should be practiced as stated.
109. In Patto vāssa paṭiggahetabbo, in this instance too, touching what is in the bowl, the acceptance of the bowl should be understood for using the content only, since there is no fault with the alms-food attached in the hand of one who is giving. In Yaṃ sāmaṇerassa patte patati…pe… paṭiggahaṇaṃ na vijahatī, as for one who is repeatedly taking, only that placed in his own bowl is what is determined to be his own, the acceptance of what is in hand does not cease. But as for one who receives what has been measured out and given, since the determination that it belongs to him has been made just at the moment of receiving, the acceptance of what is in hand ceases. In Kesañci atthāya bhattaṃ pakkhipatī, even if placing food for the sake of a non-ordained person, the acceptance does not cease because it is placed and kept with the thought that he will come and receive. But what has been placed in the hand of a non-ordained person is regarded as established by the non-ordained person, and the acceptance ceases because of it being relinquished. Therefore it is said, “sāmaṇera…pe… pariccattattā”. In Kesañcī and so on, even if placed anywhere for the sake of non-ordained persons, the acceptance does not cease just because it is released from the hand, but it ceases only when it has fallen into a container. And the container is what is expected by a monk for the following day, so even the almsfood that has gone into it ceases to be accepted, like what has gone into an unwashed bowl, with doubt, it should be understood that it is said, “it should be placed in the hand of a novice.” For in such cases, reasoning should not be sought, one should practice only according to the method stated.
109. Patto vāssa paṭiggahetabboti: Here, even if the bowl is touched while giving, there is no fault of material attachment if the bowl is received. Thus, the receiving of the bowl should be understood as being for internal use. Yaṃ sāmaṇerassa patte patati…pe… paṭiggahaṇaṃ na vijahatīti: Here, if one repeatedly takes what has been placed in one’s own bowl, it is considered one’s own property, and the act of receiving is not abandoned. However, if something is given after being specified, the act of receiving is abandoned at the moment of taking, as it is considered one’s own property. Kesañci atthāya bhattaṃ pakkhipatīti: Here, even if food is placed for the benefit of a non-ordained person, if it is placed with the intention that they will come and take it, the act of receiving is not abandoned. However, if it is placed in the hands of a non-ordained person, it is considered given by them, and the act of receiving is abandoned due to the act of relinquishment. Thus, it is said, “sāmaṇera…pe… pariccattattā”ti. Kesañcītiādīsu: Even if something is placed somewhere for the benefit of non-ordained persons, the act of receiving is not abandoned if it is merely released from the hand, but it is abandoned if it falls into a vessel. The vessel, however, is expected by the monk for the next day, and thus, even if the food is spoiled, the act of receiving is abandoned. Therefore, it is said, “It should be placed in the hands of a novice.” In such cases, one should not seek further justification but should proceed according to the stated method.
ID581
110. Pattagatā yāgūti iminā pattamukhavaṭṭiyā phuṭṭhepi kuṭe yāgu paṭiggahitā, uggahitā vā na hoti bhikkhuno anicchāya phuṭṭhattāti dasseti. Āropetīti hatthaṃ phusāpeti. Paṭiggahaṇūpagaṃ bhāraṃ nāma thāmamajjhimassa purisassa ukkhepārahaṃ. Kiñcāpi avissajjetvāva aññena hatthena pidahantassa doso natthi, tathāpi na pidahitabbanti aṭṭhakathāpamāṇeneva gahetabbaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.265) pana “na pidahitabbanti hatthato muttaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, hatthagataṃ pana itarena hatthena pidahato, hatthato muttampi vā aphusitvā upari pidhānaṃ pātentassa na doso”ti vuttaṃ.
110. “Porridge in the bowl”—by this, it shows that even if porridge touches the rim of the bowl or a wall, it is neither accepted nor taken due to the monk’s lack of intent in its touching. “Places it” means makes the hand touch it. “A load suitable for acceptance” means what a person of average strength can lift. Although there is no fault in closing it with another hand without releasing it, it should not be closed—this should be taken as per the authority of the commentary. In the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.265), however, “should not be closed” is said with reference to what is released from the hand; there is no fault in closing what is in hand with the other hand or in placing a lid above without touching what is released.
110. Pattagatā yāgūti iminā pattamukhavaṭṭiyā phuṭṭhepi kuṭe yāgu paṭiggahitā, uggahitā vā na hoti bhikkhuno anicchāya phuṭṭhattāti dasseti. The gruel in the bowl; by this, he shows that even if it touches the rim of the bowl’s mouth, the gruel, if it is touched without the monk’s desire, is neither formally accepted nor taken up. Āropetīti hatthaṃ phusāpeti. Raises means, makes the hand touch. Paṭiggahaṇūpagaṃ bhāraṃ nāma thāmamajjhimassa purisassa ukkhepārahaṃ. Acceptable weight means, what can be lifted by a man of medium strength. Kiñcāpi avissajjetvāva aññena hatthena pidahantassa doso natthi, tathāpi na pidahitabbanti aṭṭhakathāpamāṇeneva gahetabbaṃ. Although there is no fault for one who covers it with the other hand without releasing it, still it should be taken only according to the standard of the commentary, that it should not be covered. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.265) pana “na pidahitabbanti hatthato muttaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, hatthagataṃ pana itarena hatthena pidahato, hatthato muttampi vā aphusitvā upari pidhānaṃ pātentassa na doso”ti vuttaṃ. But in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.265), “should not be covered” is said referring to what has been released from the hand, but it is said that there is no fault for one who covers what is in hand with the other hand, or who, without touching what has been released from the hand, places a cover on top.
110. Pattagatā yāgūti: This indicates that even if the gruel touches the rim of the bowl, it is not considered received or taken by the monk if it is touched unintentionally. Āropetīti: He causes the hand to touch it. Paṭiggahaṇūpagaṃ bhāraṃ nāma: This refers to a load that can be lifted by a man of average strength. Although there is no fault in closing it with another hand without releasing it, it should not be closed, according to the commentary. However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.265), it is said, “na pidahitabbanti: This refers to what has been released from the hand. There is no fault in closing it with another hand or in covering it without touching it after it has been released from the hand.
ID582
111. Paṭiggaṇhātīti chāyatthāya upari dhāriyamānā mahāsākhā yena kenaci chijjeyya, tattha laggarajaṃ mukhe pāteyya vāti kappiyaṃ kārāpetvā paṭiggaṇhāti.
111. “Accepts”—if a large branch held above for shade breaks by any means and dust on it falls into the mouth, he has it made permissible and accepts it.
111. Paṭiggaṇhātīti chāyatthāya upari dhāriyamānā mahāsākhā yena kenaci chijjeyya, tattha laggarajaṃ mukhe pāteyya vāti kappiyaṃ kārāpetvā paṭiggaṇhāti. Accepts means, he has it made allowable and accepts it, thinking, “If a large branch held above for shade should be broken by something, dust clinging there might fall into the mouth.”
111. Paṭiggaṇhātīti: If a large branch being held above for shade is broken by someone, and dust from the break falls into the bowl, it is permissible to receive it after making it allowable.
ID583
Macchikavāraṇatthanti ettha “sacepi sākhāya laggarajaṃ patte patati, sukhena paribhuñjituṃ sakkāti sākhāya paṭiggahitattā abbhantaraparibhogatthamevidha paṭiggahaṇanti mūlapaṭiggahaṇameva vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ. Apare pana “macchikavāraṇatthanti vacanamattaṃ gahetvā bāhiraparibhogatthaṃ gahita”nti vadanti. Kuṇḍaketi mahāghaṭe. Tasmimpīti cāṭighaṭepi. Anupasampannaṃ gāhāpetvāti tameva ajjhoharaṇīyaṃ bhaṇḍaṃ anupasampannena gāhāpetvā.
“To keep away flies”—here it says, “Even if dust on the branch falls into the bowl, it can be consumed easily because it is accepted by the branch; thus, acceptance here is for internal use, and only basic acceptance is permissible.” Others say, “Taking the phrase ‘to keep away flies’ literally, it is taken for external use.” “In a basin” means in a large pot. “Even in that” means even in a bowl-like pot. “Having an unordained person take it” means having an unordained person take that very edible item.
Macchikavāraṇatthanti ettha “sacepi sākhāya laggarajaṃ patte patati, sukhena paribhuñjituṃ sakkāti sākhāya paṭiggahitattā abbhantaraparibhogatthamevidha paṭiggahaṇanti mūlapaṭiggahaṇameva vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ. For the purpose of warding off flies; here it is said, “Even if dust clinging to the branch falls into the bowl, one can consume comfortably because of the branch has been accepted. This kind of acceptance is for internal use, thus, basic acceptance is appropriate.” Apare pana “macchikavāraṇatthanti vacanamattaṃ gahetvā bāhiraparibhogatthaṃ gahita”nti vadanti. But others say, “Taking only the words ‘for the purpose of warding off flies,’ it has been taken for external use.” Kuṇḍaketi mahāghaṭe. In a large pot means, in a large pot. Tasmimpīti cāṭighaṭepi. Even in that means, even in a clay pot. Anupasampannaṃ gāhāpetvāti tameva ajjhoharaṇīyaṃ bhaṇḍaṃ anupasampannena gāhāpetvā. Having a non-ordained person take hold of it means, having a non-ordained person take hold of that very same swallowable item.
Macchikavāraṇatthanti: Here, it is said, “Even if dust from the branch falls into the bowl, it is permissible to consume it comfortably because it has been received from the branch. Thus, the receiving here is for internal use, and the root act of receiving is valid.” Others, however, say, “The phrase ‘for the purpose of warding off flies’ is taken literally, and thus what is taken for external use is considered received.” Kuṇḍaketi: in a large jar. Tasmimpīti: even in a small jar. Anupasampannaṃ gāhāpetvāti: having a non-ordained person take the same edible item.
ID584
Therassa pattaṃ dutiyattherassāti “therassa pattaṃ mayhaṃ dethā”ti tena attano pariccajāpetvā dutiyattherassa deti. Tuyhaṃ yāguṃ mayhaṃ dehīti ettha evaṃ vatvā sāmaṇerassa pattaṃ gahetvā attanopi pattaṃ tassa deti. Ettha panāti “paṇḍito sāmaṇero”tiādipattaparivattanakathāyaṃ. Kāraṇaṃ upaparikkhitabbanti yathā mātuādīnaṃ telādīni haranto tathārūpe kicce anupasampannena aparivattetvāva paribhuñjituṃ labhati, evamidha pattaparivattanaṃ akatvā paribhuñjituṃ kasmā na labhatīti kāraṇaṃ vīmaṃsitabbanti attho. Ettha pana “sāmaṇerehi gahitataṇḍulesu parikkhīṇesu avassaṃ amhākaṃ sāmaṇerā saṅgahaṃ karontīti cittuppatti sambhavati, tasmā taṃ parivattetvāva paribhuñjitabbaṃ. Mātāpitūnaṃ atthāya pana chāyatthāya vā gahaṇe paribhogāsā natthi, tasmā taṃ vaṭṭatī”ti kāraṇaṃ vadanti. Teneva ācariyabuddhadattattherenapi vuttaṃ –
“The elder’s bowl to the second elder”—by saying, “Give the elder’s bowl to me,” he has it relinquished to himself and gives it to the second elder. “Give your porridge to me”—saying this, he takes the novice’s bowl and gives his own bowl to him. “But here” refers to the discussion on bowl exchange beginning with “a wise novice” and so forth. “The reason should be examined”—just as one carrying oil and the like for parents can consume it without exchange by an unordained person in such a task, why can it not be consumed here without bowl exchange? The reason should be investigated—this is the meaning. Here they say the reason: “When novices’ rice runs out, it’s possible to think, ‘The novices will surely support us,’ so it must be exchanged and consumed. But when taken for parents or for shade, there is no expectation of consumption, so it is permissible.” Thus, the elder Ācariya Buddhadatta also said:
Therassa pattaṃ dutiyattherassāti “therassa pattaṃ mayhaṃ dethā”ti tena attano pariccajāpetvā dutiyattherassa deti. The elder’s bowl to the second elder means, he gives it to the second elder, having made him give up his own, saying, “Give me the elder’s bowl.” Tuyhaṃ yāguṃ mayhaṃ dehīti ettha evaṃ vatvā sāmaṇerassa pattaṃ gahetvā attanopi pattaṃ tassa deti. Give me your gruel, here, having said this, he takes the novice’s bowl and gives him his own bowl. Ettha panāti “paṇḍito sāmaṇero”tiādipattaparivattanakathāyaṃ. But here, means in the story of the bowl exchange, beginning with, “The wise novice.” Kāraṇaṃ upaparikkhitabbanti yathā mātuādīnaṃ telādīni haranto tathārūpe kicce anupasampannena aparivattetvāva paribhuñjituṃ labhati, evamidha pattaparivattanaṃ akatvā paribhuñjituṃ kasmā na labhatīti kāraṇaṃ vīmaṃsitabbanti attho. The reason should be examined, means the reason why, just as one taking oil and the like for mother and so on, is able to consume it in such a task without exchanging with a non-ordained one, one is not able to consume here without making a bowl exchange, should be examined. Ettha pana “sāmaṇerehi gahitataṇḍulesu parikkhīṇesu avassaṃ amhākaṃ sāmaṇerā saṅgahaṃ karontīti cittuppatti sambhavati, tasmā taṃ parivattetvāva paribhuñjitabbaṃ. But here, “When the rice taken by the novices is exhausted, the thought ‘our novices are surely helping us’ arises. Therefore, it should be consumed only after exchanging. Mātāpitūnaṃ atthāya pana chāyatthāya vā gahaṇe paribhogāsā natthi, tasmā taṃ vaṭṭatī”ti kāraṇaṃ vadanti. But in the case of taking for the sake of mother and father, or for shade, there is no expectation of consumption; therefore, that is permissible,” they state as the reason. Teneva ācariyabuddhadattattherenapi vuttaṃ – Therefore, it was also said by Venerable Ācariya Buddhadatta:
Therassa pattaṃ dutiyattherassāti: “Give the elder’s bowl to me,” and then, having relinquished it, he gives it to the second elder. Tuyhaṃ yāguṃ mayhaṃ dehīti: Here, after saying this, he takes the novice’s bowl and also gives his own bowl to him. Ettha panāti: in the discussion of exchanging bowls, such as “the wise novice,” etc. Kāraṇaṃ upaparikkhitabbanti: The reason should be investigated as to why one cannot consume it without exchanging bowls, just as one can consume oil, etc., taken for one’s mother, etc., without exchanging. Here, however, it is said, “When novices take rice and it runs out, the thought arises, ‘Our novices are surely providing for us,’ therefore it should be consumed after exchanging. However, when taking for one’s parents or for shade, there is no expectation of use, so it is permissible.” Thus, the elder Ācariya Buddhaddatta also said:
ID585
“Mātāpitūnamatthāya, telādiṃ haratopi ca; Sākhaṃ chāyādiatthāya, imassa na visesatā.
“For the sake of parents, or carrying oil and the like; Or a branch for shade and so forth—this has no distinction.
“Mātāpitūnamatthāya, telādiṃ haratopi ca; Sākhaṃ chāyādiatthāya, imassa na visesatā.
“Even when taking oil, etc., for one’s parents, or a branch for shade, there is no distinction for this.
ID586
“Tasmā hissa visesassa, cintetabbaṃ tu kāraṇaṃ; Tassa sālayabhāvaṃ tu, visesaṃ takkayāmaha”nti.
“Therefore, the reason for this distinction should be considered; We infer its distinction as being like a rice hall.”
“Tasmā hissa visesassa, cintetabbaṃ tu kāraṇaṃ; Tassa sālayabhāvaṃ tu, visesaṃ takkayāmaha”nti.
Therefore, the reason for the distinction should be considered, and we explain the distinction based on the nature of the rice.”
ID587
Idamevettha yuttataraṃ avassaṃ tathāvidhavitakkuppattiyā sambhavato. Na hi sakkā ettha vitakkaṃ sodhetunti. Mātādīnaṃ atthāya haraṇe pana nāvassaṃ tathāvidhavitakkuppattīti sakkā vitakkaṃ sodhetuṃ. Yattha hi vitakkaṃ sodhetuṃ sakkā, tattha nevatthi doso. Teneva vakkhati “sace pana sakkoti vitakkaṃ sodhetuṃ, tato laddhaṃ khāditumpi vaṭṭatī”ti. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.265) pana “ettha panāti pattaparivattane. Kāraṇanti ettha yathā sāmaṇerā ito amhākampi dentīti vitakko uppajjati, na tathā aññatthāti kāraṇaṃ vadanti, tañca yuttaṃ. Yassa pana tādiso vitakko natthi, tena aparivattetvāpi bhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ.
This seems more reasonable here due to the possibility of such a thought arising. For it is not possible to purify the thought here. But when carrying for parents and the like, such a thought does not necessarily arise, so the thought can be purified. Where the thought can be purified, there is no fault. Hence it will say, “If one can purify the thought, it is permissible to eat what is obtained from it.” In the Vimativinodani (vi HLvi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.265), however, “But here” refers to bowl exchange. “Reason”—they say the reason is that a thought arises, “The novices will give to us from here,” but not so elsewhere, and this is reasonable. But for one without such a thought, it is permissible to consume without exchange.
Idamevettha yuttataraṃ avassaṃ tathāvidhavitakkuppattiyā sambhavato. This is more appropriate here, because of the inevitability of the arising of such thought. Na hi sakkā ettha vitakkaṃ sodhetunti. For it is not possible to purify the thought here. Mātādīnaṃ atthāya haraṇe pana nāvassaṃ tathāvidhavitakkuppattīti sakkā vitakkaṃ sodhetuṃ. But in the case of taking for the sake of mother and so on, the arising of such a thought is not inevitable, so it is possible to purify the thought. Yattha hi vitakkaṃ sodhetuṃ sakkā, tattha nevatthi doso. For where it is possible to purify the thought, there is no fault. Teneva vakkhati “sace pana sakkoti vitakkaṃ sodhetuṃ, tato laddhaṃ khāditumpi vaṭṭatī”ti. Therefore, he will say, “But if he is able to purify the thought, then it is permissible to even eat what has been obtained.” Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.265) pana “ettha panāti pattaparivattane. But in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.265), “But here” means in bowl exchange. Kāraṇanti ettha yathā sāmaṇerā ito amhākampi dentīti vitakko uppajjati, na tathā aññatthāti kāraṇaṃ vadanti, tañca yuttaṃ. Reason, here they give the reason that just as the thought arises, “The novices from here also give to us,” it is not so elsewhere, and that is correct. Yassa pana tādiso vitakko natthi, tena aparivattetvāpi bhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ. But it is said, “For one who does not have such a thought, it is permissible to consume even without exchanging.”
This is more appropriate here due to the inevitable arising of such thoughts. For it is not possible to purify the thought here. However, when taking for one’s mother, etc., such thoughts do not inevitably arise, so it is possible to purify the thought. Where it is possible to purify the thought, there is no fault. Thus, it is said, “If one can purify the thought, then it is permissible to consume it.” In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.265), however, it is said, “ettha panāti: in the exchange of bowls. Kāraṇanti: Here, the reason is that the thought arises, “The novices are giving to us as well,” but not in other cases. This is reasonable. For one who does not have such a thought, it is permissible to consume without exchanging.
ID588
112. Niccāletunti cāletvā pāsāṇasakkharādiapanayanaṃ kātuṃ. Uddhanaṃ āropetabbanti anaggikaṃ uddhanaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Uddhane paccamānassa āluḷane upari apakkataṇḍulā heṭṭhā pavisitvā paccantīti āha “sāmaṃpākañceva hotī”ti.
112. “Constantly move” means to move it to remove stones, gravel, and the like. “Place on the hearth” refers to an unheated hearth. When cooking on the hearth, if stirred, uncooked rice from above sinks below and cooks, hence it says, “It becomes self-cooked.”
112. Niccāletunti cāletvā pāsāṇasakkharādiapanayanaṃ kātuṃ. Shake means to shake and to remove stones, gravel, and so on. Uddhanaṃ āropetabbanti anaggikaṃ uddhanaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. The pot should be placed, it is said referring to a pot without fire. Uddhane paccamānassa āluḷane upari apakkataṇḍulā heṭṭhā pavisitvā paccantīti āha “sāmaṃpākañceva hotī”ti. When stirring what is cooking in the pot, the uncooked rice above goes down below and cooks, so he says, “and it becomes unevenly cooked”.
112. Niccāletunti: Shaking it to remove stones, gravel, etc. Uddhanaṃ āropetabbanti: This refers to non-fiery stirring. When stirring the fire, if the rice above is not stirred, it cooks underneath. Thus, it is said, “sāmaṃpākañceva hotī”ti: it cooks by itself.
ID589
113. Ādhārake patto ṭhapitoti appaṭiggahitāmiso patto puna paṭiggahaṇatthāya ṭhapito. Cāletīti vinā kāraṇaṃ cāleti, satipi kāraṇe bhikkhūnaṃ paribhogārahaṃ cāletuṃ na vaṭṭati. Kiñcāpi “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, amanussikābādhe āmakamaṃsaṃ āmakalohita”nti (mahāva. 264) tādise ābādhe attano atthāya āmakamaṃsapaṭiggahaṇaṃ anuññātaṃ, “āmakamaṃsapaṭiggahaṇā paṭivirato hotī”ti (dī. ni. 1.10, 194) ca sāmaññato paṭikkhittaṃ, tathāpi attano, aññassa vā bhikkhuno atthāya aggahitattā “sīhavighāsādiṃ…pe… vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ. Sakkoti vitakkaṃ sodhetunti “mayhampi detī”ti vitakkassa anuppannabhāvaṃ sallakkhetuṃ sakkoti , “sāmaṇerassa dassāmī”ti suddhacittena mayā gahitanti vā sallakkhetuṃ sakkoti. Sace pana mūlepi paṭiggahitaṃ hotīti ettha “gahetvā gate mayhampi dadeyyunti saññāya sace paṭiggahitaṃ hotī”ti vadanti.
113. “A bowl placed on a stand”—a bowl with unaccepted food is placed again for acceptance. “Moves it” means moves it without reason; even with a reason, it is not permissible to move what is suitable for monks’ consumption. Although in such a sickness it is permitted, “I allow, monks, raw flesh and raw blood in a non-human sickness” (mahāva. 264), and generally it is prohibited, “He abstains from accepting raw flesh” (dī. ni. 1.10, 194), still, because it was not taken for oneself or another monk, it says, “Lion’s carcass and so forth… it is permissible.” “Can purify the thought” means can recognize the absence of the thought “They give to me too,” or can recognize, “I took it with a pure mind to give to the novice.” “But if it was accepted at the source”—they say, “If it was accepted with the perception ‘Having taken it, they might give to me.’”
113. Ādhārake patto ṭhapitoti appaṭiggahitāmiso patto puna paṭiggahaṇatthāya ṭhapito. The bowl placed on the stand, means, the bowl with unaccepted food is placed for the purpose of accepting again. Cāletīti vinā kāraṇaṃ cāleti, satipi kāraṇe bhikkhūnaṃ paribhogārahaṃ cāletuṃ na vaṭṭati. Moves means, moves it without reason. Even with a reason, it is not permissible to move what is suitable for monks’ consumption. Kiñcāpi “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, amanussikābādhe āmakamaṃsaṃ āmakalohita”nti (mahāva. 264) tādise ābādhe attano atthāya āmakamaṃsapaṭiggahaṇaṃ anuññātaṃ, “āmakamaṃsapaṭiggahaṇā paṭivirato hotī”ti (dī. ni. 1.10, 194) ca sāmaññato paṭikkhittaṃ, tathāpi attano, aññassa vā bhikkhuno atthāya aggahitattā “sīhavighāsādiṃ…pe… vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ. Although, “I allow, monks, raw flesh and raw blood in case of non-human affliction” (Mahāvagga 264), in such an affliction, the acceptance of raw flesh for one’s own sake is permitted, and, “he abstains from accepting raw flesh” (Dīgha Nikāya 1.10, 194), it is generally prohibited. Still, because it is not taken for the sake of oneself or another monk, “lion’s leftovers…etc…is permissible”, it is said. Sakkoti vitakkaṃ sodhetunti “mayhampi detī”ti vitakkassa anuppannabhāvaṃ sallakkhetuṃ sakkoti , “sāmaṇerassa dassāmī”ti suddhacittena mayā gahitanti vā sallakkhetuṃ sakkoti. He is able to purify the thought, means, he is able to discern the non-arising of the thought, “He also gives to me”, or he is able to discern, “I took it with a pure mind, thinking, ‘I will give it to the novice’”. Sace pana mūlepi paṭiggahitaṃ hotīti ettha “gahetvā gate mayhampi dadeyyunti saññāya sace paṭiggahitaṃ hotī”ti vadanti. But if it has been accepted even at the root; here, some say, “If it has been accepted with the thought, ‘Having taken and gone, he might give to me as well’.”
113. Ādhārake patto ṭhapitoti: An almsbowl containing unreceived food is set aside for the purpose of receiving it again. Cāletīti: He shakes it without a reason. Even with a reason, it is not permissible for monks to shake what is suitable for their use. Although it is permitted to receive raw meat or blood for one’s own use in the case of non-human illness (Mahāvagga 264), and it is prohibited by the rule, “One abstains from receiving raw meat” (Dī. Ni. 1.10, 194), nevertheless, because it is not taken for oneself or for another monk, it is said, “sīhavighāsādiṃ…pe… vaṭṭatī”ti: it is permissible. Sakkoti vitakkaṃ sodhetunti: He is able to discern the absence of the thought, “They are giving to me as well,” or to discern, “I have taken it with a pure mind to give to the novice.” Sace pana mūlepi paṭiggahitaṃ hotīti: Here, it is said, “If it is received with the thought, ‘They will give to me as well after taking it.’”
ID590
114. Koṭṭhāse karotīti “bhikkhū sāmaṇerā ca attano attano abhirucitaṃ koṭṭhāsaṃ gaṇhantū”ti sabbesaṃ samake koṭṭhāse karoti. Gahitāvasesanti sāmaṇerehi gahitakoṭṭhāsato avasesaṃ. Gaṇhitvāti “mayhaṃ idaṃ gaṇhissāmī”ti gahetvā. Idha gahitāvasesaṃ nāma tena gaṇhitvā puna ṭhapitaṃ.
114. “Makes portions”—he makes equal portions for all, saying, “Let the monks and novices take the portion they each prefer.” “What remains after taking” refers to what remains after the novices take their portions. “Having taken” means taking it, saying, “I will take this for myself.” Here, “what remains after taking” refers to what he took and then placed back.
114. Koṭṭhāse karotīti “bhikkhū sāmaṇerā ca attano attano abhirucitaṃ koṭṭhāsaṃ gaṇhantū”ti sabbesaṃ samake koṭṭhāse karoti. Makes portions; means he makes equal portions for all, thinking “Let the monks and novices take their own preferred portion”. Gahitāvasesanti sāmaṇerehi gahitakoṭṭhāsato avasesaṃ. The remainder of what was taken, means the remainder from the portion taken by the novices. Gaṇhitvāti “mayhaṃ idaṃ gaṇhissāmī”ti gahetvā. Having taken means having taken with thought “This, I will take for myself”. Idha gahitāvasesaṃ nāma tena gaṇhitvā puna ṭhapitaṃ.
114. Koṭṭhāse karotīti: “Let the monks and novices each take their preferred portion,” and he makes equal portions for all. Gahitāvasesanti: The remainder after the novices have taken their portions. Gaṇhitvāti: Having taken it with the thought, “I will take this for myself.” Here, gahitāvasesaṃ nāma: what is taken and then set aside again by him.
ID591
Paṭiggahetvāti tadahu paṭiggahetvā. Teneva “yāvakālikena yāvajīvikasaṃsagge doso natthī”ti vuttaṃ. Sace pana purimadivase paṭiggahetvā ṭhapitā hoti, sāmisena mukhena tassā vaṭṭiyā dhūmaṃ pivituṃ na vaṭṭati. Samuddodakenāti appaṭiggahitasamuddodakena.
“Having accepted” means having accepted it on that day. Hence it says, “There is no fault in contact between time-limited and lifetime items.” But if it was accepted and kept from the previous day, it is not permissible to inhale the steam from its rim with a mouth containing food. “With seawater” means with unaccepted seawater.
Paṭiggahetvāti tadahu paṭiggahetvā. Having received means, having received that very day. Teneva “yāvakālikena yāvajīvikasaṃsagge doso natthī”ti vuttaṃ. Therefore, it is said, “There is no fault in mixing what is allowable for a limited time with what is allowable for life.” Sace pana purimadivase paṭiggahetvā ṭhapitā hoti, sāmisena mukhena tassā vaṭṭiyā dhūmaṃ pivituṃ na vaṭṭati. But if it has been received and kept on the previous day, it is not permissible to inhale the smoke from its rim with a mouth that has food in it. Samuddodakenāti appaṭiggahitasamuddodakena. With ocean water, means with unaccepted ocean water.
Paṭiggahetvāti: Having received it on the same day. Thus, it is said, “yāvakālikena yāvajīvikasaṃsagge doso natthī”ti: There is no fault in temporary or lifelong association. However, if it was received the previous day and set aside, it is not permissible to drink the smoke from the rim of the bowl with a material mouth. Samuddodakenāti: with unreceived seawater.
ID592
Himakarakā nāma kadāci vassodakena saha patanakā pāsāṇalekhā viya ghanībhūtā udakavisesā, tesu paṭiggahaṇakiccaṃ natthi. Tenāha “udakagatikā evā”ti. Yasmā katakaṭṭhi udakaṃ pasādetvā visuṃ tiṭṭhati, tasmā “abbohārika”nti vuttaṃ. Iminā appaṭiggahitāpattīhi abbohārikaṃ, vikālabhojanāpattīhipi abbohārikanti dasseti. Laggatīti sukkhe mukhe ca hatthe ca mattikāvaṇṇaṃ dassentaṃ laggati. Bahalanti hatthamukhesu alagganakampi paṭiggahetabbaṃ.
Himakarakā refers to a special type of water that sometimes becomes thick, like a stone inscription falling with rainwater, and there is no duty to receive it. Hence it is said, “like the flow of water”. Since the sediment clarifies the water and stands apart, it is called “unusable”. This indicates that it is unusable due to offenses of not receiving and also due to offenses of eating at the wrong time. Laggati means it sticks, showing a clay-like color on a dry mouth and hands. Bahala means even that which does not stick to hands or mouth must be received.
Himakarakā are specific types of water that sometimes become solidified like stone inscriptions that fall with rainwater, in which there is no need for formal acceptance. Therefore, it is said, “They are merely a flow of water”. Because katakaṭṭhi settles water and remains separate, it is called “abbohārika”. This shows that it is abbohārika concerning the offenses of unaccepted things and the offenses of eating at the wrong time. Laggatīti it sticks, showing the color of clay on the dry mouth and hand. Bahalanti even that which doesn’t stick to the hands and mouth should be formally accepted.
Himakarakā refers to certain solidified water formations, like icicles or frozen waterfalls, which fall with rainwater. There is no offense in receiving them. Hence, it is said, “They are like flowing water.” Because water mixed with sawdust remains separate, it is called “abbohārika” (not to be received). This indicates that there is no offense in receiving such things, nor in eating at improper times. Laggatī means showing a clay-like color on a dry mouth or hand. Bahala refers to what should be received even if it does not stick to the hand or mouth.
ID593
Vāsamattanti reṇukhīrābhāvaṃ dasseti. Pānīyaṃ gahetvāti attanoyeva atthāya gahetvā. Sace pana pītāvasesakaṃ tattheva ākirissāmīti gaṇhāti, puna paṭiggahaṇakiccaṃ natthi. Ākirati, paṭiggahetabbanti puppharasassa paññāyanato vuttaṃ. Vikkhambhetvāti viyūhitvā, apanetvāti attho.
Vāsamatta indicates the absence of dust or milkiness. Pānīyaṃ gahetvā means taking water for one’s own purpose. However, if one takes it intending, “I will pour out the remaining portion there,” there is no further duty to receive it. Ākirati, paṭiggahetabba is said because it is recognized as flower nectar. Vikkhambhetvā means separating or removing, that is the meaning.
Vāsamattanti this shows the state of dust and milk. Pānīyaṃ gahetvāti having taken it for oneself. If, however, one takes it thinking, “I will pour the remainder here after drinking,” there is no need for formal acceptance again. Ākirati, paṭiggahetabbanti this is said because the manifestation of flower-juice is known. Vikkhambhetvāti having dispersed, meaning having removed.
Vāsamatta indicates the absence of milk mixed with water. Pānīyaṃ gahetvā means taking water for one’s own use. If one takes it thinking, “I will scatter the remaining water here,” there is no need to receive it again. Ākirati, paṭiggahetabba is said with reference to flower juice. Vikkhambhetvā means to scatter or remove.
ID594
115. Mahābhūtesūti pāṇasarīrasannissitesu pathavīādimahābhūtesu. Sabbaṃ vaṭṭatīti attano paresañca sarīrasannissitaṃ sabbaṃ vaṭṭati, akappiyamaṃsānulomatāya thullaccayādiṃ na janetīti adhippāyo. Patatīti attano sarīrato chijjitvā patati. “Rukkhato chinditvā”ti vuttattā mattikatthāya pathaviṃ khaṇituṃ, aññampi yaṃ kiñci mūlapaṇṇādivisabhesajjaṃ chinditvā chārikaṃ akatvāpi appaṭiggahitampi paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
115. Mahābhūtesu refers to the great elements such as earth, etc., dependent on the body of a living being. Sabbaṃ vaṭṭati means all that depends on one’s own body and others’ bodies is permissible, with the intention that it does not generate gross offenses or the like due to conformity with unsuitable flesh. Patati means it falls, having been severed from one’s own body. Since it is said, “cutting from a tree,” it should be understood that digging the earth for clay, or cutting any roots, leaves, or other dissimilar medicinal substances without turning them into ash, even if not received, is permissible for use.
115. Mahābhūtesūti in the great elements of earth and so forth that are dependent on the bodies of living beings. Sabbaṃ vaṭṭatīti everything connected with one’s own body and the bodies of others is allowable; the intention is that it does not produce a major offense, etc., because it conforms to the rules concerning unsuitable meat. Patatīti it falls after being separated from one’s own body. Because it is said, “having cut from the tree,” it should be understood that it is allowable to dig the earth for the purpose of medicine, and to use any other root, leaf, etc., as a diverse medicine, even unaccepted, without making it ashes.
115. Mahābhūtesu refers to the great elements such as earth, dependent on living bodies. Sabbaṃ vaṭṭatī means everything dependent on one’s own or others’ bodies is permissible. It does not incur a grave offense due to the inedibility of uncooked meat. Patatī means falling after being severed from one’s body. Since it is said, “cut from a tree,” it is permissible to dig earth for clay or to consume roots, leaves, or medicinal substances without making them into powder, even if they are not formally received.
ID595
Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is an explanation of the Vinaya compilation,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary of the collection of the Vinaya,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,
ID596
Paṭiggahaṇavinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma
this is called the Adornment of the Discussion on the Determination of Receiving,
the chapter called the Ornament of the Discussion on the Determination of Acceptance
the section on the determination of receiving is concluded.
ID597
Vīsatimo paricchedo.
the twentieth chapter.
is the twentieth chapter.
This is the twentieth chapter.
ID598
ID599
116. Evaṃ paṭiggahaṇavinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni pavāraṇāvinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ “paṭikkhepapavāraṇā”tiādimāha. Tattha paṭikkhipanaṃ paṭikkhepo, asampaṭicchananti attho. Pavāriyate pavāraṇā, paṭisedhanantyattho. Paṭikkhepasaṅkhātā pavāraṇā paṭikkhepapavāraṇā. Atha vā paṭikkhepavasena pavāraṇā paṭikkhepapavāraṇā. Pañcannaṃ bhojanānaṃ aññataraṃ bhuñjantassa aññasmiṃ bhojane abhihaṭe paṭikkhepasaṅkhātā pavāraṇāti sambandho.
116. Having explained the determination of receiving, now to explain the determination of invitation, it begins with “paṭikkhepapavāraṇā” and so forth. Therein, refusal is paṭikkhepo, meaning non-acceptance. Invitation is pavāraṇā, meaning prohibition. The invitation characterized by refusal is paṭikkhepapavāraṇā. Alternatively, an invitation by means of refusal is paṭikkhepapavāraṇā. The connection is: an invitation characterized by refusal when another food is offered to one eating one of the five types of food.
116. Having thus explained the determination of acceptance, now, in order to explain the determination of pavāraṇā, he says “paṭikkhepapavāraṇā” and so on. Here, refusal is paṭikkhepa, meaning non-acceptance. Pavāraṇā is that which is offered, meaning refusal. Paṭikkhepapavāraṇā is the pavāraṇā that is known as refusal. Or, paṭikkhepapavāraṇā is the pavāraṇā by means of refusal. The connection is that it is pavāraṇā, known as refusal, when one is eating one of the five kinds of food and another food is offered.
116. Having discussed the determination of receiving, now the discussion on the determination of pavāraṇā begins with “paṭikkhepapavāraṇā” (refusal pavāraṇā). Here, refusal (paṭikkhipana) means rejection, not accepting. Pavāraṇā means invitation, refusal. A pavāraṇā characterized by refusal is called “paṭikkhepapavāraṇā”. Alternatively, a pavāraṇā performed through refusal is called “paṭikkhepapavāraṇā”. This is connected to refusing one of the five kinds of food while eating another.
ID600
117. Yaṃ asnātīti yaṃ bhuñjati. Ambilapāyāsādīsūti ādi-saddena khīrapāyāsādiṃ saṅgaṇhāti. Tattha ambilapāyāsaggahaṇena takkādiambilasaṃyuttā ghanayāgu vuttā. Khīrapāyāsaggahaṇena khīrasaṃyuttā yāgu saṅgayhati. Pavāraṇaṃ janetīti anatirittabhojanāpattinibandhanaṃ paṭikkhepaṃ sādheti. Katopi paṭikkhepo anatirittabhojanāpattinibandhano na hoti, akataṭṭhāneyeva tiṭṭhatīti āha “pavāraṇaṃ na janetī”ti.
117. Yaṃ asnāti means that which one eats. Ambilapāyāsādīsu includes, by the term ādi, milk porridge and the like. Therein, by mentioning ambilapāyāsa, thick gruel mixed with sour substances like buttermilk is meant. By mentioning khīrapāyāsa, gruel mixed with milk is included. Pavāraṇaṃ janeti means it establishes a refusal that entails the offense of eating beyond the limit. A refusal that is made does not entail the offense of eating beyond the limit and remains only where it was not made; hence it says, “pavāraṇaṃ na janeti”.
117. Yaṃ asnātīti whatever he is eating. Ambilapāyāsādīsūti the word ādi includes milk-rice gruel and the like. Here, by mentioning ambilapāyāsa, thick gruel mixed with sour buttermilk, etc., is indicated. By mentioning khīrapāyāsa, gruel mixed with milk is included. Pavāraṇaṃ janetīti it establishes the refusal that is the basis for the offense of eating what is not leftover. Even a refusal that is made does not become the basis for the offense of eating what is not leftover; it remains in the state of not having been done, therefore he says, “pavāraṇaṃ na janetī”.
117. Yaṃ asnātī means what one eats. Ambilapāyāsādīsū includes khīrapāyāsa (milk-rice) and similar items. Here, ambilapāyāsa refers to thick gruel mixed with sour substances like buttermilk. Khīrapāyāsa refers to gruel mixed with milk. Pavāraṇaṃ janetī means it establishes refusal due to the offense of eating beyond the limit. Even if refusal is made, it does not establish the offense of eating beyond the limit if it is not done properly, hence it is said, “pavāraṇaṃ na janetī” (it does not establish pavāraṇā).
ID601
“Yāgu-saddassa pavāraṇajanakayāguyāpi sādhāraṇattā ’yāguṃ gaṇhathā’ti vuttepi pavāraṇā hotīti pavāraṇaṃ janetiyevāti vutta”nti tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. Taṃ parato tattheva “bhattamissakaṃ yāguṃ āharitvā”ti ettha vuttakāraṇena na sameti. Vuttañhi tattha – heṭṭhā ayāguke nimantane udakakañjikakhīrādīhi saddhiṃ madditaṃ bhattameva sandhāya “yāguṃ gaṇhathā”ti vuttattā pavāraṇā hoti. “Bhattamissakaṃ yāguṃ āharitvā”ti ettha pana visuṃ yāguyā vijjamānattā pavāraṇā na hotīti. Tasmā tattha vuttanayeneva khīrādīhi saddhiṃ madditaṃ bhattameva sandhāya “yāguṃ gaṇhathā”ti vuttattā yāguyāva tattha abhāvato pavāraṇā hotīti evamettha kāraṇaṃ vattabbaṃ. Evañhi sati parato “yenāpucchito, tassa atthitāyā”ti aṭṭhakathāya vuttakāraṇenapi saṃsandati, aññathā gaṇṭhipadesuyeva pubbāparavirodho āpajjati, aṭṭhakathāya ca na sametīti. Sace…pe… paññāyatīti iminā vuttappamāṇassa macchamaṃsakhaṇḍassa nahāruno vā sabbhāvamattaṃ dasseti. Tāhīti puthukāhi.
It is said in all three knotty passages that “since the term ‘yāgu’ is common to both gruel that generates an invitation and that which does not, even when it is said, ‘Take gruel,’ an invitation occurs, meaning it generates an invitation.” However, this does not align with the reason stated later in “bringing gruel mixed with rice.” For it is said there: due to an invitation made earlier without gruel, referring only to rice mixed with water, sour gruel, milk, etc., when it is said, “Take gruel,” an invitation occurs. But in “bringing gruel mixed with rice,” since gruel exists separately, no invitation occurs. Therefore, it should be stated here that due to the absence of gruel there, when it is said, “Take gruel,” referring only to rice mixed with milk and the like, an invitation occurs. This aligns with the reason stated later in the commentary, “for the sake of the one asked,” and otherwise contradicts the earlier and later passages in the knotty points and does not conform to the commentary. Sace…pe… paññāyati indicates the full presence of a piece of fish or flesh of the specified amount. Tāhi refers to separate items.
It is stated in all three gaṇṭhipadas that “because the word ‘yāgu’ applies to the yāgu which causes pavāraṇā and also applies to the yāgu, even if one says ‘take yāgu’, the pavāraṇā happens; that’s why ‘it causes pavāraṇā’”. That does not fit with what’s mentioned later, in regard to ‘having brought rice gruel mixed with…’ within the same text. For it is said there – below, in the case of the invitation without gruel, referring to rice mashed together with water, kañjika, milk, and so forth, it is said, “Take the gruel,” and pavāraṇā occurs. But in the case of “having brought rice gruel mixed with…,” since gruel is present separately, pavāraṇā does not occur. Therefore, the reason here should be stated in the same way as stated there, since rice mashed together with milk, etc. is referred when they said “take the gruel”, the gruel is truly absent. The pavāraṇā occurs, and when stating things that way, it’s consistent with what’s later said in the commentary, ‘because of the existence of the one who was asked,’ otherwise there will be mutual contradiction in gaṇṭhipadas itself, and it is also not consistent with the commentary. Sace…pe… paññāyatīti by this, he shows merely the existence of the piece of fish, meat, or tendon of the stated amount. Tāhīti with the puthukā.
In the three commentarial notes, it is said that even when gruel is requested, pavāraṇā occurs. However, this does not align with the statement, “bringing gruel mixed with rice.” There, it is explained that pavāraṇā occurs when gruel is requested along with rice mixed with milk or water. But here, since gruel is separately available, pavāraṇā does not occur. Therefore, it should be understood that pavāraṇā occurs only when gruel is requested along with rice mixed with milk or water. This explanation aligns with the commentary. Otherwise, there would be a contradiction, and it would not align with the commentary. Sace…pe… paññāyatī indicates the quantity of fish or meat that is permissible. Tāhī means in pieces.
ID602
Sālivīhiyavehi katasattūti yebhuyyanayena vuttaṃ, satta dhaññāni pana bhajjitvā katopi sattuyeva. Tenevāha “kaṅguvaraka…pe… sattusaṅgahameva gacchatī”ti. Sattumodakoti sattuyo piṇḍetvā kato apakko sattuguḷo . Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.238-239) pana “sattumodakoti sattuṃ temetvā kato apakko, sattuṃ pana pisitvā piṭṭhaṃ katvā temetvā pūvaṃ katvā pacanti, taṃ na pavāretī”ti vuttaṃ.
Sālivīhiyavehi katasattu is said by way of predominance; however, even flour made by roasting seven grains is still flour. Hence it says, “kaṅguvaraka…pe… sattusaṅgahameva gacchati”. Sattumodako refers to an uncooked lump of flour kneaded from flour. However, in the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.238-239), it is said, **“sattumodako** is uncooked flour moistened; but flour ground into powder, moistened, and made into a cake and cooked does not constitute an invitation.”
Sālivīhiyavehi katasattūti this is said generally. But, sattu is also made by roasting seven kinds of grain. Therefore, he said, “Kaṅguvaraka…pe… sattusaṅgahameva gacchatī”. Sattumodakoti an uncooked sattu ball made by kneading sattu. But in the Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.238-239), it is said, “Sattumodakoti is uncooked sattu made by moistening the sattu. But they make cooked cakes after mashing, grinding and moistening sattu; that does not cause pavāraṇā.”
Sālivīhiyavehi katasattū generally refers to seven grains, but even if other grains are mixed, it is still called seven. Hence, it is said, “kaṅguvaraka…pe… sattusaṅgahameva gacchatī” (it is still considered a group of seven). Sattumodako refers to a ball made by kneading seven grains, which is uncooked. In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pāci. 239), it is said, **“sattumodako** is made by moistening flour, kneading it into dough, and cooking it, but it is not offered as pavāraṇā.”
ID603
Pañcannaṃ bhojanānaṃ aññataravasena vippakatabhojanabhāvassa upacchinnattā “mukhe sāsapamattampi…pe… na pavāretī”ti vuttaṃ. “Akappiyamaṃsaṃ paṭikkhipati, na pavāretī”ti vacanato sace saṅghikaṃ lābhaṃ attano apāpuṇantaṃ jānitvā vā ajānitvā vā paṭikkhipati, na pavāreti paṭikkhipitabbasseva paṭikkhittattā, alajjisantakaṃ paṭikkhipantopi na pavāreti. Avatthutāyāti anatirittāpattisādhikāya pavāraṇāya avatthubhāvato. Etena paṭikkhipitabbasseva paṭikkhittabhāvaṃ dīpeti. Yañhi paṭikkhipitabbaṃ hoti, tassa paṭikkhepo āpattiyā aṅgaṃ na hotīti taṃ pavāraṇāya avatthūti vuccati.
Since the state of being food ceases due to being one of the five foods, it is said, “even a mustard seed’s worth in the mouth…pe… does not constitute an invitation”. From the statement, “One refuses unsuitable flesh and does not invite,” if one refuses a monastic gain, knowing or not knowing it does not reach oneself, there is no invitation because it is refused as something that should be refused; even one refusing something belonging to the shameless does not invite. Avatthutāya means due to the lack of basis for an invitation that establishes an offense of excess. This clarifies that only what should be refused is refused. For when something must be refused, its refusal does not constitute a factor of an offense; thus it is said to lack basis for an invitation.
Because the state of partially eaten food among the five kinds of food has been interrupted, it is said, “even a sesame seed’s worth in the mouth…pe… does not cause pavāraṇā.” Because it is said, “He refuses unsuitable meat, it does not cause pavāraṇā,” if he refuses a Sangha gain, knowing or not knowing that it does not belong to him, it does not cause pavāraṇā because what should be refused has been refused. Even one who refuses a shameless person does not cause pavāraṇā. Avatthutāyāti because of the non-object status of pavāraṇā, which would establish the offense of eating what is not leftover. By this, he indicates that what should be refused has been refused. Indeed, the refusal of what should be refused is not a factor of the offense; therefore, it is called the non-object of pavāraṇā.
Since the state of being uncooked is interrupted for one of the five kinds of food, it is said, “even a mustard seed’s worth in the mouth… does not constitute pavāraṇā.” From the statement, “refusing uncooked meat does not constitute pavāraṇā,” if one refuses communal property knowingly or unknowingly, it does not constitute pavāraṇā because it is a refusal of what should be refused. Even if one refuses out of shamelessness, it does not constitute pavāraṇā. Avatthutāyā means the absence of a basis for the offense of eating beyond the limit. This indicates that refusal is only valid when it is made properly. What should be refused, if refused, does not become a basis for pavāraṇā.
ID604
118. Āsannataraṃ aṅganti hatthapāsato bahi ṭhatvā onamitvā dentassa sīsaṃ āsannataraṃ hoti, tassa orimantena paricchinditabbaṃ.
118. Āsannataraṃ aṅga refers to the head of one giving by bending down from beyond arm’s reach, which is nearer, and it should be delimited by its lower part.
118. Āsannataraṃ aṅganti the head of one who offers, bending down while standing outside the hand’s reach, is the closest part; it should be determined by its lower edge.
118. Āsannataraṃ aṅga means that when one stands outside arm’s reach and bends down to offer, the head becomes closer, and the boundary should be determined by the closer part.
ID605
Upanāmetīti iminā kāyābhihāraṃ dasseti. Apanāmetvāti abhimukhaṃ haritvā. Idaṃ bhattaṃ gaṇhāti vadatīti kiñci apanāmetvā vadati. Kevalaṃ vācābhihārassa anadhippetattā gaṇhathāti gahetuṃ āraddhaṃ. Hatthapāsato bahi ṭhitassa satipi dātukāmatābhihāre paṭikkhipantassa dūrabhāveneva pavāraṇāya abhāvato therassapi dūrabhāvamattaṃ gahetvā pavāraṇāya abhāvaṃ dassento “therassa dūrabhāvato”tiādimāha, na pana therassa abhihārasambhavato. Sacepi gahetvā gato hatthapāse ṭhito hoti, kiñci pana avatvā ādhāraṭṭhāne ṭhitattā abhihāro nāma na hotīti “dūtassa ca anabhiharaṇato”ti vuttaṃ. “Gahetvā āgatena ’bhattaṃ gaṇhathā’ti vutte abhihāro nāma hotīti ’sace pana gahetvā āgato bhikkhu…pe… pavāraṇā hotī’ti vutta”nti tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. Keci pana “pattaṃ kiñcipi upanāmetvā ’imaṃ bhattaṃ gaṇhathā’ti vuttanti gahetabba”nti vadanti, taṃ yuttaṃ viya dissati vācābhihārassa idha anadhippetattā.
Upanāmeti indicates a physical offering. Apanāmetvā means bringing it forward. Idaṃ bhattaṃ gaṇhāti vadati means saying it after slightly moving it away. Merely starting to take it with verbal offering is not intended; from beyond arm’s reach, even with the desire to give, refusing it does not constitute an invitation due to the distance alone. Showing the elder’s absence of invitation due to mere distance, it says, “therassa dūrabhāvato” and so forth, not because of the elder’s offering. Even if one takes it and stands within arm’s reach but says nothing due to being at the support, there is no offering; hence it says, “dūtassa ca anabhiharaṇato”. It is said in all three knotty passages, “When one who has taken it and come says, ‘Take the rice,’ it constitutes an offering; thus it is said, ‘If a monk who has taken it and come…pe… an invitation occurs.’” Some say, “It should be understood as saying, ‘Take this rice,’ after slightly offering the bowl,” which seems reasonable since verbal offering is not intended here.
Upanāmetīti by this, he indicates a physical offering. Apanāmetvāti having moved it away from the front. Idaṃ bhattaṃ gaṇhāti vadatīti he says something, having moved it slightly away. Because a mere verbal offering is not intended, it has begun to be accepted as “take it.” For one standing outside the hand’s reach, even if there is an offering with the desire to give, pavāraṇā does not occur due to the distance. Showing the non-occurrence of pavāraṇā, taking only the remoteness of the elder, he said, “therassa dūrabhāvato” and so forth, but not because of the possibility of an offering by the elder. Even if, having taken it, he stands within hand’s reach, it is said,”dūtassa ca anabhiharaṇato” because it is not an offering since, without saying anything, it is placed on the supporting place. It is stated in all three gaṇṭhipadas that “When one comes holding food and says, ‘Take the food,’ it is considered an offering, thus ‘If a bhikkhu comes holding…pe… pavāraṇā occurs’”. Some, however, say, “It should be understood as ‘having slightly offered the bowl and saying, ’Take this food,’” which seems correct since a verbal offering is not intended here.
Upanāmetī indicates bodily offering. Apanāmetvā means bringing it forward. Idaṃ bhattaṃ gaṇhāti vadatī means saying something after bringing it forward. Merely verbal offering is not intended here. Even if one stands outside arm’s reach and refuses to offer due to distance, it does not constitute pavāraṇā. Hence, it is said, “therassa dūrabhāvato” (due to the elder’s distance), but not because the elder is capable of offering. Even if one takes it and stands within arm’s reach, if nothing is said, it is not considered an offering. Hence, it is said, “dūtassa ca anabhiharaṇato” (due to the messenger’s lack of offering). In the three commentarial notes, it is said that if one brings food and says, “take this food,” it constitutes an offering. Some say that even if a bowl is brought forward and one says, “take this food,” it should be accepted. This seems appropriate because verbal offering is not intended here.
ID606
Parivesanāyāti bhattagge. Abhihaṭāva hotīti parivesakeneva abhihaṭā hoti. Tato dātukāmatāya gaṇhantaṃ paṭikkhipantassa pavāraṇā hotīti ettha aggaṇhantampi paṭikkhipato pavāraṇā hotiyeva. Kasmā? Dātukāmatāya abhihaṭattā, “tasmā sā abhihaṭāva hotī”ti hi vuttaṃ. Teneva tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu “dātukāmābhihāre sati kevalaṃ ’dassāmī’ti gahaṇameva abhihāro na hoti, ’dassāmī’ti gaṇhantepi agaṇhantepi dātukāmatābhihārova abhihāro hoti, tasmā gahaṇasamaye vā aggahaṇasamaye vā taṃ paṭikkhipato pavāraṇā hotī”ti vuttaṃ. Idāni tassa asati dātukāmatābhihāre gahaṇasamayepi paṭikkhipato pavāraṇā na hotīti dassetuṃ “sace panā”tiādi vuttaṃ. Kaṭacchunā anukkhittampi pubbe eva abhihaṭattā pavāraṇā hotīti “abhihaṭāva hotī”ti vuttaṃ. Uddhaṭamatteti bhājanato viyojitamatte. Dvinnaṃ samabhārepīti parivesakassa ca aññassa ca bhattapacchibhāraggahaṇe sambhūtepīti attho.
Parivesanāya means at the meal hall. Abhihaṭāva hoti means it is offered by the server alone. Tato dātukāmatāya gaṇhantaṃ paṭikkhipantassa pavāraṇā hoti means an invitation occurs for one refusing what is taken with the desire to give from there; even for one not taking but refusing, an invitation still occurs. Why? Because it is offered with the desire to give; hence it is said, “Thus it is offered.” Therefore, in all three knotty passages, it is said, “When there is the desire to give and offer, merely taking with ‘I will give’ is not an offering; whether taking or not, the desire to give and offer is the offering; thus, refusing it at the time of taking or not taking constitutes an invitation.” Now, to show that without the desire to give and offer, even refusing at the time of taking does not constitute an invitation, it says, “sace pana” and so forth. Even if not lifted with a ladle, it constitutes an invitation because it was offered earlier; thus it says, “abhihaṭāva hoti”. Uddhaṭamatte means as soon as it is separated from the vessel. Dvinnaṃ samabhārepi means when the server and another share the duty of carrying the rice container.
Parivesanāyāti at the dining hall. Abhihaṭāva hotīti it is offered by the server. Tato dātukāmatāya gaṇhantaṃ paṭikkhipantassa pavāraṇā hotīti here, even for one who refuses without taking, pavāraṇā occurs. Why? Because it was offered with the desire to give. For it is said, “Therefore, it is offered.” Therefore, in all three gaṇṭhipadas, it is said, “When there is an offering with the desire to give, merely saying, ‘I will give,’ and taking is not an offering. Even if one takes or does not take upon saying, ‘I will give,’ the offering with the desire to give is the offering. Therefore, whether at the time of taking or not taking, pavāraṇā occurs for one who refuses it.” Now, in order to show that pavāraṇā does not occur for one who refuses even at the time of taking when there is no offering with the desire to give, it is said, “sace panā” and so forth. Even what has not been scooped with a ladle is pavāraṇā because it was already offered before. It is said, “abhihaṭāva hotī”. Uddhaṭamatteti as soon as it is removed from the container. Dvinnaṃ samabhārepīti meaning, even if the server and another person are both holding the food-bag.
Parivesanāyā means in the dining hall. Abhihaṭāva hotī means it is offered by the server. Tato dātukāmatāya gaṇhantaṃ paṭikkhipantassa pavāraṇā hotī means that even if one refuses to take it when offered, it constitutes pavāraṇā. Why? Because it is offered with the intention to give. Hence, it is said, “tasmā sā abhihaṭāva hotī” (therefore, it is offered). In the three commentarial notes, it is said that when there is an intention to give, even if one says, “I will give,” it is not an offering. Whether one takes it or not, the intention to give constitutes an offering. Therefore, whether at the time of taking or not taking, refusal constitutes pavāraṇā. Now, to show that when there is no intention to give, refusal at the time of taking does not constitute pavāraṇā, it is said, “sace panā” (but if). Even if not lifted with a ladle, since it was previously offered, it constitutes pavāraṇā. Hence, it is said, “abhihaṭāva hotī” (it is offered). Uddhaṭamatte means just removed from the vessel. Dvinnaṃ samabhārepī means even if the server and another person share the burden of carrying the food.
ID607
119. Rasaṃ gaṇhathāti ettha kevalaṃ maṃsarasassa apavāraṇājanakassa nāmena vuttattā paṭikkhipato pavāraṇā na hoti. Maccharasantiādīsu maccho ca rasañcāti atthasambhavato, vatthunopi tādisattā pavāraṇā hoti. “Idaṃ gaṇhathā”tipi avatvā tuṇhībhūtena abhihaṭaṃ paṭikkhipatopi hoti eva.
119. Rasaṃ gaṇhathā does not constitute an invitation when refused because it is stated only by the name of meat broth, which does not generate an invitation. In maccharasa and the like, since fish and broth are possible meanings and the object is of that nature, an invitation occurs. Even one refusing silently offered food without saying, “Take this,” constitutes it.
119. Rasaṃ gaṇhathāti here, because only meat-juice, which does not cause pavāraṇā, is mentioned by name, pavāraṇā does not occur for one who refuses. In Maccharasantiādīsu, because both fish and juice are possible, and because the substance is also of that kind, pavāraṇā occurs. Even for one who refuses what is offered by someone who is silent, without even saying, “Take this,” it occurs.
119. Rasaṃ gaṇhathā here refers only to meat juice, which does not generate pavāraṇā when refused. Maccharasa refers to fish and juice, and since it is possible, pavāraṇā occurs. Even if one silently refuses what is offered without saying, “take this,” it still constitutes pavāraṇā.
ID608
Karambakoti missakādhivacanametaṃ. Yañhi bahūhi missetvā karonti, so “karambako”ti vuccati, so sacepi maṃsena missetvā kato hoti, “karambakaṃ gaṇhathā”ti apavāraṇārahassa nāmena vuttattā paṭikkhipato pavāraṇā na hoti. “Maṃsakarambakaṃ gaṇhathā”ti vutte pana “maṃsamissakaṃ gaṇhathā”ti vuttaṃ hoti, tasmā pavāraṇāva hoti.
Karambako is a term for a mixture. What is made by mixing many things is called karambako; even if made with meat, when said, “Take karambaka,” refusing it does not constitute an invitation because it is stated by a name that does not generate an invitation. But when said, “Take maṃsakarambaka,” it is as if saying, “Take a meat mixture,” thus it constitutes an invitation.
Karambakoti this is a word for a mixture. Whatever is made by mixing many things is called “karambaka.” Even if it is made mixed with meat, if it is said, “Take karambaka,” which is a name not worthy of pavāraṇā, pavāraṇā does not occur for one who refuses. But if it is said, “Take meat karambaka,” it is the same as saying, “Take what is mixed with meat,” therefore pavāraṇā does occur.
Karambako is a term for a mixture. What is made by mixing many things is called “karambako”. Even if it is mixed with meat, if one says, “take karambaka,” it does not constitute pavāraṇā because it is named as something not to be offered. But if one says, “take meat karambaka,” it means “take meat mixture,” and thus it constitutes pavāraṇā.
ID609
120. “Uddissakata”nti maññamānoti ettha “vatthuno kappiyattā akappiyasaññāya paṭikkhepatopi acittakattā imassa sikkhāpadassa pavāraṇā hotī”ti vadanti. “Heṭṭhā ayāguke nimantane udakakañjikakhīrādīhi saddhiṃ madditaṃ bhattameva sandhāya ’yāguṃ gaṇhathā’ti vuttattā pavāraṇā hoti, ’bhattamissakaṃ yāguṃ āharitvā’ti ettha pana visuṃ yāguyā vijjamānattā pavāraṇā na hotī”ti vadanti. Ayamettha adhippāyoti “yenāpucchito”tiādinā vuttamevatthaṃ sandhāya vadati. Kāraṇaṃ panettha duddasanti ettha eke tāva vadanti “yasmā yāgumissakaṃ nāma bhattameva na hoti, khīrādikampi hotiyeva, tasmā karambake viya pavāraṇāya na bhavitabbaṃ, evañca sati ’yāgu bahutarā vā hoti samasamā vā , na pavāreti, yāgu mandā, bhattaṃ bahutaraṃ, pavāretī’ti ettha kāraṇaṃ duddasa”nti. Keci pana vadanti “yāgumissakaṃ nāma bhattaṃ, tasmā taṃ paṭikkhipato pavāraṇāya eva bhavitabbaṃ, evañca sati ’idha pavāraṇā hoti, na hotī’ti ettha kāraṇaṃ duddasa”nti.
120. “Uddissakata”nti maññamāno means they say, “Even refusing it due to mistaking it as designated, since the object is permissible, it constitutes an invitation for this rule due to the absence of intent.” They say, “In an earlier invitation without gruel, referring only to rice mixed with water, sour gruel, milk, etc., when said, ‘Take gruel,’ an invitation occurs; but in ‘bringing gruel mixed with rice,’ since gruel exists separately, no invitation occurs.” Ayamettha adhippāyo refers to the meaning stated with “yenāpucchito” and so forth. Kāraṇaṃ panettha duddasa means some say, “Since what is mixed with gruel is not just rice but also includes milk and the like, it should not constitute an invitation like karambaka; if so, the reason is unclear in ‘whether gruel is more, equal, or less, it does not constitute an invitation; if gruel is little and rice is more, it constitutes an invitation.’” Others say, “What is mixed with gruel is rice, so refusing it should constitute an invitation; if so, the reason why it does or does not constitute an invitation here is unclear.”
120. “Uddissakata”nti maññamānoti here, some say, “Since the food is allowable food, even for one who refuses with the perception of its being unallowable food, since this precept has no element of mind, pavāraṇā occurs”. Others say, “Below, in the invitation with no rice gruel, it has been told ‘Take the gruel’ which is referred to boiled rice mixed together with broth, milk and other ingredients. Therefore, Pavāraṇā happens. When it’s said ‘Take the gruel mixed with boiled rice’, Pavāraṇā doesn’t happen because the gruel is existing as a separated ingredient”. Ayamettha adhippāyoti he says this referring to what was stated with “yenāpucchito” and so forth. Kāraṇaṃ panettha duddasanti here, some say, “Since what is called ‘mixed with gruel’ is not just rice, but also milk, etc., therefore, like karambaka, there should be no pavāraṇā. And if that is so, then the reason is difficult to see in ‘gruel is more abundant or equal, it does not cause pavāraṇā; gruel is less, rice is more abundant, it causes pavāraṇā.’” Some, however, say, “What is called ‘mixed with gruel’ is rice; therefore, for one who refuses it, pavāraṇā should occur. And if that is so, then the reason is difficult to see in ‘here pavāraṇā occurs, it does not occur.’”
120. “Uddissakata”nti maññamāno means that even if one refuses something thinking it is permissible when it is not, due to ignorance, it constitutes pavāraṇā. Some say, “in the earlier case of gruel mixed with rice, pavāraṇā occurs when gruel is requested along with rice mixed with milk or water, but here, since gruel is separately available, pavāraṇā does not occur.” Ayamettha adhippāyo means the intended meaning is as explained earlier. Kāraṇaṃ panettha duddasa means the reason for pavāraṇā is difficult to see. Some say, “since gruel mixed with rice is not considered rice, but milk or water is present, pavāraṇā should not occur, just as in the case of karambaka. Thus, the reason is difficult to see.” Others say, “gruel mixed with rice is considered rice, so refusal should constitute pavāraṇā, but here it is difficult to see why pavāraṇā occurs or not.”
ID610
Yathā cettha kāraṇaṃ duddasaṃ, evaṃ parato “missakaṃ gaṇhathā”ti etthāpi kāraṇaṃ duddasamevāti veditabbaṃ. Na hi pavāraṇappahonakassa appabahubhāvo pavāraṇāya bhāvābhāvanimittaṃ, kiñcarahi pavāraṇājanakassa nāma gahaṇamevettha pamāṇaṃ, tasmā “idañca karambakena na samānetabba”ntiādinā yampi kāraṇaṃ vuttaṃ, tampi pubbe vuttena saṃsandiyamānaṃ na sameti. Yadi hi missakanti bhattamissakeyeva ruḷhaṃ siyā, evaṃ sati yathā “bhattamissakaṃ gaṇhathā”ti vutte bhattaṃ bahutaraṃ vā samaṃ vā appataraṃ vā hoti, pavāretiyeva, evaṃ “missakaṃ gaṇhathā”ti vuttepi appatarepi bhatte pavāraṇāya bhavitabbaṃ “missaka”nti bhattamissakeyeva ruḷhattā. Tathā hi “missakanti bhattamissakeyeva ruḷhavohārattā idaṃ pana bhattamissakamevāti vutta”nti tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. Atha missakanti bhattamissake ruḷhaṃ na hoti, missakabhattaṃ pana sandhāya “missakaṃ gaṇhathā”ti vuttanti. Evampi yathā ayāguke nimantane khīrādīhi sammadditaṃ bhattameva sandhāya “yāguṃ gaṇhathā”ti vutte pavāraṇā hoti, evamidhāpi missakabhattameva sandhāya “missakaṃ gaṇhathā”ti vutte bhattaṃ appaṃ vā hotu, bahu vā, pavāraṇā eva siyā, tasmā missakanti bhattamissake ruḷhaṃ vā hotu, missakaṃ sandhāya bhāsitaṃ vā, ubhayathāpi pubbenāparaṃ na sametīti kimettha kāraṇacintāya. Īdisesu pana ṭhānesu aṭṭhakathāpamāṇeneva gantabbanti ayaṃ amhākaṃ khanti.
Just as the reason is unclear here, it should be understood that the reason is equally unclear later in “Take a mixture.” For the amount of what is sufficient for an invitation, whether little or much, is not the cause of its presence or absence; rather, the taking of the name that generates an invitation is the measure here. Thus, the reason stated with “This should not be equated with karambaka” and so forth, when aligned with what was said earlier, does not fit. If “mixture” were conventionally only rice mixture, then just as when said, “Take a rice mixture,” whether rice is more, equal, or less, it constitutes an invitation, so too when said, “Take a mixture,” even with less rice, it should constitute an invitation since “mixture” conventionally means only rice mixture. Indeed, in all three knotty passages, it is said, “Since ‘mixture’ conventionally means only rice mixture, this is indeed a rice mixture.” Alternatively, if “mixture” is not conventionally a rice mixture but said referring to a rice mixture, then just as in an earlier invitation without gruel, when said, “Take gruel,” referring only to rice mixed with milk and the like, an invitation occurs, so too here, referring only to a rice mixture, when said, “Take a mixture,” whether rice is little or much, an invitation should occur. Thus, whether “mixture” conventionally means a rice mixture or is said referring to it, in either case, the earlier and later do not align; so why ponder the reason here? In such cases, we prefer to follow only the authority of the commentary.
Just as the reason is difficult to see here, so also, later, in “Take what is mixed,” the reason is difficult to see. The abundance or scarcity of what is sufficient for pavāraṇā is not the cause for the occurrence or non-occurrence of pavāraṇā. What is the measure here? Merely taking the name of what causes pavāraṇā. Therefore, whatever reason is stated with “And this should not be equated with karambaka” and so forth, that, too, being connected with what was said before, is not consistent. If ‘mixed’ is restricted to mean only rice, then as it is said ‘take the gruel mixed with boiled rice’, whether the rice is more or equal or less, the pavāraṇā must happen. Similarly, when it is said ‘take missakaṃ (mixed food)’, even there is small quantity of rice, the pavāraṇā should happen because the term ‘missakaṃ’ is exclusively applied to the rice. It’s also mentioned like that in all three gaṇṭhipadas that ‘missakaṃ’ is a term that exclusively denotes rice. If ‘missakaṃ’ does not denote rice, but referring to the ‘missakabhattaṃ (mixed rice)’, then it is said ‘take missakaṃ’. Even in that case, just as in the invitation without gruel, referring to rice mashed with milk, etc., it is said, “Take gruel,” and pavāraṇā occurs, so also here, referring to mixed rice, it is said, “Take missakaṃ,” whether the rice is little or much, pavāraṇā should occur. Therefore, whether ‘missakaṃ’ denotes rice or is spoken referring to what is mixed, in either case, the latter is not consistent with the former. So, what is the use of considering the reason here? In such places, one should proceed only by the authority of the commentary, this is our opinion.
Just as the reason here is difficult to see, so too in the case of saying, “take a mixture,” the reason is equally difficult to see. The quantity of what is offered is not the basis for pavāraṇā, but the act of taking is the measure. Therefore, the reason given earlier does not align with this. If “mixture” were exclusively rice mixed with something, then even if rice is less, pavāraṇā should occur, just as when saying, “take rice mixture.” But since “mixture” is not exclusively rice mixed with something, it refers to mixed rice. Thus, whether rice is more or less, pavāraṇā should occur. Therefore, whether “mixture” refers to rice mixed with something or mixed rice, the earlier and later explanations do not align. In such cases, one should follow the commentary.
ID611
Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.238-239) pana “uddissakatanti maññamānoti ettha vatthuno kappiyattā ’pavāritova hotī’ti vuttaṃ. Tañce uddissakatameva hoti, paṭikkhepo natthi. Ayametthādhippāyoti ’yenāpucchito’tiādinā vuttamevatthaṃ sandhāya vadati. Kāraṇaṃ panettha duddasanti bhattassa bahutarabhāve pavāraṇāya sambhavakāraṇaṃ duddasaṃ, aññathā karambakepi macchādibahubhāve pavāraṇā bhaveyyāti adhippāyo. Yathā cettha kāraṇaṃ duddasaṃ, evaṃ parato ’missakaṃ gaṇhathā’ti etthāpi kāraṇaṃ duddasamevāti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Yañca ’idaṃ pana bhattamissakamevā’tiādi kāraṇaṃ vuttaṃ, tampi ’appataraṃ na pavāretī’ti vacanena na sametī”ti ettakameva vuttaṃ.
In the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.238-239), it is said, “uddissakatanti maññamāno** means due to the permissibility of the object, ‘he is invited.’ If it is indeed designated, there is no refusal.” Ayamettha adhippāyo** refers to the meaning stated with “yenāpucchito” and so forth. Kāraṇaṃ panettha duddasa means the reason for an invitation occurring when rice predominates is unclear; otherwise, in karambaka too, when fish and the like predominate, an invitation would occur. Just as the reason is unclear here, it should be understood as equally unclear later in “Take a mixture.” The reason stated with “This is indeed a rice mixture” and so forth does not align with “It does not constitute an invitation when less.”
But in the Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.238-239), regarding “uddissakatanti maññamāno”, it is said, “Because the substance is allowable, ‘he is already in pavāraṇā.’” If it is actually uddissakata, there is no refusal. Ayametthādhippāyoti he says this referring to what was stated with “yenāpucchito” and so forth. Kāraṇaṃ panettha duddasanti the reason for the occurrence of pavāraṇā when rice is more abundant is difficult to see; otherwise, in karambaka also, pavāraṇā should occur when there is an abundance of fish, etc. – this is the intention. Just as the reason is difficult to see here, so also, later, in “Take what is mixed,” the reason is difficult to see. And whatever reason is stated, such as “But this is only rice,” that, too, is not consistent with the statement, “a lesser amount does not cause pavāraṇā.” Only this much is said.
In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pāci. 239), it is said, **“uddissakatanti maññamāno** means that if something is permissible, refusal does not constitute pavāraṇā. Ayametthādhippāyo means the intended meaning is as explained earlier. Kāraṇaṃ panettha duddasa means the reason for pavāraṇā when rice is more is difficult to see. Otherwise, even in karambaka, if fish or meat is more, pavāraṇā should occur. Just as the reason here is difficult to see, so too in the case of saying, “take a mixture,” the reason is equally difficult to see. What was said earlier, “this is rice mixture,” does not align with the statement, “less does not constitute pavāraṇā.”
ID612
“Visuṃ katvā detīti bhattassa upari ṭhitaṃ rasādiṃ visuṃ gahetvā detī”ti tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. Kehici pana “yathā bhattasitthaṃ na patati, tathā gāḷhaṃ hatthena pīḷetvā parissāvetvā detī”ti vuttaṃ. Tatthāpi kāraṇaṃ na dissati. Yathā hi bhattamissakaṃ yāguṃ āharitvā “yāguṃ gaṇhathā”ti vatvā yāgumissakaṃ bhattampi dentaṃ paṭikkhipato pavāraṇā na hoti, evamidhāpi bahukhīrarasādīsu bhattesu “khīraṃ gaṇhathā”tiādīni vatvā dinnāni khīrādīni vā detu khīrādimissakaṃ bhattaṃ vā, ubhayathāpi pavāraṇāya na bhavitabbaṃ, tasmā “visuṃ katvā detī”ti tenākārena dentaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, na pana bhattamissakaṃ katvā dīyamānaṃ paṭikkhipato pavāraṇā hotīti dassanatthanti gahetabbaṃ. Yadi pana bhattamissakaṃ katvā dīyamāne pavāraṇā hotīti adhippāyena aṭṭhakathāyaṃ “visuṃ katvā detī”ti vuttaṃ, evaṃ sati aṭṭhakathāyevettha pamāṇanti gahetabbaṃ, na pana kāraṇantaraṃ gavesitabbaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.238-239) pana “visuṃ katvā detīti ’rasaṃ gaṇhathā’tiādinā vācāya visuṃ katvā detīti attho gahetabbo, na pana kāyena rasādiṃ viyojetvāti tathā aviyojitepi paṭikkhipato pavāraṇāya asambhavato apavāraṇāpahonakassa nāmena vuttattā bhattamissakayāguṃ āharitvā ’yāguṃ gaṇhathā’ti vuttaṭṭhānādīsu viya, aññathā ettha yathā pubbāparaṃ na virujjhati, tathā adhippāyo gahetabbo”ti vuttaṃ.
“Visuṃ katvā deti” is said in all three knotty passages as “He gives it by taking the broth and the like separately from atop the rice.” However, some say, “He gives it squeezed tightly by hand and strained so that the rice residue does not fall,” but no reason is apparent there. Just as refusing one who brings rice mixed with gruel and says, “Take gruel,” giving rice mixed with gruel does not constitute an invitation, so too here, whether giving milk and the like or rice mixed with milk and the like when saying, “Take milk,” and so forth, in either case it should not constitute an invitation. Thus, “visuṃ katvā deti” is said referring to giving it in that manner, not meaning an invitation occurs when refusing what is given mixed with rice. If, however, the commentary intends that an invitation occurs when refusing what is given mixed with rice, saying, “visuṃ katvā deti”, then the commentary alone should be taken as authoritative here, and no other reason should be sought. In the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.238-239), it is said, “visuṃ katvā deti” means “He gives it separately by saying ‘Take broth’ and so forth,” to be understood as not separating the broth and the like physically; since refusing it when not separated does not constitute an invitation, due to being stated by a name insufficient for an invitation, like in places where rice mixed with gruel is brought and “Take gruel” is said. Otherwise, the intention should be understood here so that the earlier and later do not contradict.
‘Visuṃ katvā detī’ti means ‘taking separately the sauce, etc., that is placed on top of the rice, and giving it’ – this is stated in all three ganthipadas. Some, however, have said, “He squeezes it firmly with his hand and strains it so that the rice grains do not fall, and then gives it.” But even in that, no reason is seen. Just as when one brings rice-gruel mixed with rice and, saying, “Take the rice-gruel,” even gives the rice mixed with the rice-gruel, there is no refusal (pavāraṇā) for the one who declines it, so too here, in cases of much milk-sauce and the like with rice, whether he gives the milk-sauce and the like after saying “Take the milk” and so forth, or the rice mixed with milk-sauce, in either case, there should be no refusal. Therefore, ‘giving it separately’ refers to giving it in that manner. But it should be understood that it is said in order to show that there is refusal for one who declines when it is being given mixed with rice. If, however, ‘giving it separately’ is said in the commentary with the intention that there is refusal when it is being given mixed with rice, then in that case, the commentary itself should be taken as the authority here, and no other reason should be sought. In the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.238-239), however, it is said: ‘Visuṃ katvā detī’ti means ‘giving it separately, saying, “Take the sauce,” etc.,’ the meaning should be taken as giving it separately verbally; but not separating the sauce, etc., physically. As even when not so separated, there can be no refusal for one who declines it, because it is described as being insufficient for a non-refusal, like in the places, etc., where rice-gruel mixed with rice is brought and it is said, “Take the gruel.” Otherwise, here, the intention should be understood in such a way that the earlier and later statements do not contradict each other.”
“Visuṃ katvā detīti: This means taking the juice or other items placed on top of the food separately and giving them. This is stated in all three commentarial sub-sections. Some, however, say, “It means squeezing firmly with the hand and giving it in such a way that the food does not fall.” But no reason is seen for this. For example, when rice mixed with gruel is brought and one says, “Take the gruel,” and then offers the rice mixed with gruel, the refusal is not valid. Similarly, here too, when milk or other juices are mixed with rice and one says, “Take the milk,” and gives the milk or milk-mixed rice, in both cases, the refusal is not valid. Therefore, the phrase “visuṃ katvā detī” refers to giving in this manner, but it does not mean that refusing food mixed with other items is valid. This should be understood as the intention. If, however, the commentary’s statement “visuṃ katvā detī” is taken to mean that refusing food mixed with other items is valid, then the commentary itself should be taken as the authority here, and no other reasoning should be sought. The Vimativinodanī (Vinaya-vibhaṅga-ṭīkā, Pācittiya 2.238-239) states: “Visuṃ katvā detīti: The meaning should be understood as giving separately by saying, “Take the juice,” etc., but not by physically separating the juice, etc. Since even without such separation, refusal is not possible, as in the case of bringing rice mixed with gruel and saying, “Take the gruel,” etc., the intention here should be understood in a way that does not contradict the earlier and later passages.
ID613
Nāvā vā setu vātiādimhi nāvādiabhiruhanādikkhaṇe kiñci ṭhatvāpi abhiruhanādikātabbattepi gamanatapparatāya ṭhānaṃ nāma na hoti, janasammaddena pana anokāsādibhāvena ṭhātuṃ na vaṭṭati. Acāletvāti vuttaṭṭhānato aññasmiṃ pīṭhappadese vā uddhaṃ vā apelletvā, tasmiṃ eva pana ṭhāne parivattetuṃ labhati. Tenāha “yena passenā”tiādi. Sace ukkuṭikaṃ nisinno pāde amuñcitvāpi bhūmiyaṃ nisīdati, iriyāpathaṃ vikopento nāma hotīti ukkuṭikāsanaṃ avikopetvā sukhena nisīdituṃ “tassa pana heṭṭhā…pe… nisīdanakaṃ dātabba”nti vuttaṃ. “Āsanaṃ acāletvāti pīṭhe phuṭṭhokāsato ānisadamaṃsaṃ amocetvā anuṭṭhahitvāti vuttaṃ hoti. Adinnādāne viya ṭhānācāvanaṃ na gahetabba”nti tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ.
In nāvā vā setu vā and so forth, standing momentarily while boarding a boat or bridge, even if intending to board, is not considered standing due to the intent to move; however, due to the crowd or lack of space, standing is not permissible. Acāletvā means not moving to another part of the seat or upward from the stated place, though turning in that same place is possible. Hence it says, “yena passenā” and so forth. If one seated in a squatting posture sits on the ground without releasing the feet, it constitutes altering the posture; thus, to sit comfortably without altering the squatting posture, it says, “tassa pana heṭṭhā…pe… nisīdanakaṃ dātabba”. “Āsanaṃ acāletvā” means not lifting the buttock flesh from contact with the seat without standing, as said; it should not be understood as moving from the place like in taking what is not given, as stated in all three knotty passages.
In the phrase ‘Nāvā vā setu vā’ (either a boat or a bridge), etc., at the moment of boarding the boat, etc., even if one stands still for a bit, boarding, etc., must be done. However, due to the focus on going, standing still does not qualify as a location. But it is not permissible to stand due to the density of the crowd and the lack of space. ‘Acāletvā’ (without moving) means not lifting it to another part of the seat or upwards from the said place; but, it is permissible to turn it around in that very place. Therefore, he said, ‘yena passenā’tiādi (by whichever side, and so on). If one is sitting squatting and sits on the ground without releasing his feet, that constitutes changing the posture. Therefore, it is said, ‘tassa pana heṭṭhā…pe… nisīdanakaṃ dātabba’ (but under him…etc…a sitting cloth should be given) to allow him to sit comfortably without disturbing the squatting position. ‘Āsanaṃ acāletvā’ (without moving the seat) means without releasing the flesh of the buttocks from the place touched on the seat, without rising up. It should not be taken as moving from the place, as in the case of taking what is not given.” This is stated in all three ganthipadas.
Nāvā vā setu vāti: In the case of boarding a boat or crossing a bridge, even if one stands still at the moment of boarding or crossing, it is not considered a place of standing because the act of moving is still ongoing. However, due to the crowd, it is not proper to stand still due to lack of space. Acāletvāti: This means not moving from the stated place to another seat or above, but it is permissible to turn around in the same place. Hence, it is said, “yena passenā”ti, etc. If one sitting in a crouched position places one’s feet on the ground without moving them, it is considered disturbing the posture. Therefore, it is said, “tassa pana heṭṭhā…pe… nisīdanakaṃ dātabba”nti. “Āsanaṃ acāletvāti: This means not moving from the seat after touching it, not rising, and not freeing the flesh from contact with the seat. As in the case of theft, moving from the place should not be taken.
ID614
121. Akappiyakatanti ettha akappiyakatasseva anatirittabhāvato kappiyaṃ akārāpetvā tasmiṃ patte pakkhittaṃ mūlaphalādiyeva atirittaṃ na hoti, akappiyabhojanaṃ vā kuladūsanādinā uppannaṃ. Sesaṃ pana pattapariyāpannaṃ atirittameva hoti, paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati, taṃ pana mūlaphalādiṃ paribhuñjitukāmena tato nīharitvā kappiyaṃ kārāpetvā aññasmiṃ bhājane ṭhapetvā atirittaṃ kārāpetvā paribhuñjitabbaṃ.
121. Akappiyakata means since what is made impermissible is not excessive, what is placed in that bowl without making it permissible, such as roots or fruits, is not excessive; or impermissible food arises due to corruption of a family and the like. The rest included in the bowl is excessive and permissible for use; however, one desiring to use roots, fruits, and the like must remove them, make them permissible, place them in another vessel, make them excessive, and then use them.
121. In the phrase ‘Akappiyakata’ (made unsuitable), because what has been made unsuitable is not leftover, a portion of root, fruit, and so forth that is put in that bowl without making what is suitable unsuitable is not leftover, or unsuitable food arisen through family-spoiling and so forth. Anything else that is within the bowl is considered leftover, and is permissible to be consumed. But that root, fruit, and so forth, by one desiring to consume, should be taken out from there, made allowable, placed in another vessel, and then made non-leftover before consumption.
121. Akappiyakatanti: Here, since what is not properly prepared is not considered excessive, if one does not have it properly prepared and places roots, fruits, etc., in the bowl, they are not considered excessive. However, unallowable food, such as that which arises from corrupting families, is not permissible. The rest of what is placed in the bowl is considered excessive and can be consumed. But if one wishes to consume roots, fruits, etc., they should be taken out, properly prepared, placed in another vessel, made allowable, and then consumed.
ID615
122. So puna kātuṃ na labhatīti tasmiṃyeva bhājane kariyamānaṃ paṭhamaṃ katena saddhiṃ kataṃ hotīti puna soyeva kātuṃ na labhati, añño labhati. Aññasmiṃ pana bhājane tena vā aññena vā kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Tenāha “yena akataṃ, tena kātabbaṃ, yañca akataṃ, taṃ kātabba”nti. Tenāpīti ettha pi-saddo na kevalaṃ aññenevāti imamatthaṃ dīpeti. Evaṃ katanti aññasmiṃ bhājane kataṃ.
122. So puna kātuṃ na labhati means what is being made in that same vessel becomes mixed with what was made first, so that person cannot make it again; another can. But it is permissible to make it in another vessel by that person or another. Hence it says, “yena akataṃ, tena kātabbaṃ, yañca akataṃ, taṃ kātabba”. Tenāpi here, the particle pi clarifies that it is not only by another. Evaṃ kata means made in another vessel.
122. ‘So puna kātuṃ na labhatī’ti (he is not allowed to do it again) means that what is being done in that same vessel is considered done along with what was done first, thus the same person is not allowed to do it again, but another person is allowed. But it is permissible to do it in another vessel, either by him or by another. Therefore, he said, ‘yena akataṃ, tena kātabbaṃ, yañca akataṃ, taṃ kātabba’ (by whom it was not done, by him it should be done, and whatever was not done, that should be done). ‘Tenāpī’ti (by him also) – here, the word ‘pi’ (also) indicates the meaning that it is not only by another.
122. So puna kātuṃ na labhatīti: If it is done in the same vessel as before, it is considered done together with what was done earlier, so it cannot be done again by the same person, but another person can do it. However, it is permissible to do it in another vessel, either by the same person or by another. Hence, it is said, “yena akataṃ, tena kātabbaṃ, yañca akataṃ, taṃ kātabba”nti. Tenāpīti: Here, the word pi indicates that it is not only by another person. Evaṃ katanti: This means done in another vessel.
ID616
Pesetvāti anupasampannassa hatthe pesetvā. Imassa vinayakammabhāvato “anupasampannassa hatthe ṭhitaṃ na kātabba”nti vuttaṃ.
Pesetvā means sending it by the hand of an unordained person. Since this is a disciplinary act, it says, “anupasampannassa hatthe ṭhitaṃ na kātabba”.
‘Evaṃ kata’ (thus done) means done in another vessel. ‘Pesetvā’ (having sent) means having sent it in the hand of a non-ordained person. Because this is a Vinaya procedure, it is said, ‘anupasampannassa hatthe ṭhitaṃ na kātabba’ (what is placed in the hand of a non-ordained person should not be done).
Pesetvāti: This means sending it into the hand of an unordained person. Since this is a Vinaya matter, it is said, “anupasampannassa hatthe ṭhitaṃ na kātabba”nti.
ID617
Sace pana āmisasaṃsaṭṭhānīti ettha sace mukhagatenāpi anatirittena āmisena saṃsaṭṭhāni honti, pācittiyamevāti veditabbaṃ, tasmā pavāritena bhojanaṃ atirittaṃ kārāpetvā bhuñjantenapi yathā akatena missaṃ na hoti, evaṃ mukhañca hatthañca suddhaṃ katvā bhuñjitabbaṃ. Kiñcāpi apavāritassa purebhattaṃ yāmakālikādīni āhāratthāya paribhuñjatopi anāpatti, pavāritassa pana pavāraṇamūlakaṃ dukkaṭaṃ hotiyevāti “yāmakālikaṃ…pe… ajjhohāre ajjhohāre āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti pāḷiyaṃ (pāci. 240) vuttaṃ.
Sace pana āmisasaṃsaṭṭhāni means if they are mixed with non-excessive food even by what comes into the mouth, it is indeed a pācittiya offense; thus, even one who has invited, having made food excessive, must eat it after purifying the mouth and hands so it does not mix with what was not made. Although one who has not invited may use time-bound items like evening food before the meal without offense, for one who has invited, it is indeed a dukkaṭa offense based on the invitation; hence in the text (pāci. 240), it says, “yāmakālikaṃ…pe… ajjhohāre ajjhohāre āpatti dukkaṭassa”.
‘Sace pana āmisasaṃsaṭṭhānī’ti (But if they are in contact with non-leftover food) – here, if they are in contact even with non-leftover food that has been in the mouth, it should be known as a pācittiya. Therefore, even when one who has refused consumes food after having it made non-leftover, he should consume it after making both his mouth and hands clean, so that it does not become mixed with what has not been made non-leftover. Although there is no offense for one who has not refused to consume timeless-food, and so forth, before the meal for the sake of nourishment, for one who has refused, there is an offense of wrong-doing (dukkaṭa) arising from the refusal. That is why it is said in the Pali (pāci. 240), ‘yāmakālikaṃ…pe… ajjhohāre ajjhohāre āpatti dukkaṭassā’ (For every swallowing of timeless-food, etc., there is an offense of wrong-doing).
Sace pana āmisasaṃsaṭṭhānīti: Here, if the food is mixed with unallowable flesh even by contact with the mouth, it is a Pācittiya offense. Therefore, even if one consumes food after making it allowable, it should not be mixed with what is not properly prepared. Thus, one should consume it after cleaning the mouth and hands. Although an uninvited person may consume food before the meal, such as morning food, without offense, for an invited person, a Dukkaṭa offense arises based on the invitation, as stated in the Pāli (Pācittiya 240): “For each mouthful, a Dukkaṭa offense is incurred.”
ID618
Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is an explanation of the Vinaya compilation,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is an explanation of the Vinayasaṅgaha,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinaya Saṅgaha,
ID619
Paṭikkhepapavāraṇāvinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma
this is called the Adornment of the Discussion on the Determination of Refusal and Invitation,
The chapter named Elucidation of the Determination of Refusal
The section on the determination of refusal and invitation is concluded.
ID620
Ekavīsatimo paricchedo.
the twenty-first chapter.
The twenty-first chapter.
The twenty-first chapter.
ID621
ID622
123. Evaṃ paṭikkhepapavāraṇāvinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni pabbajjāvinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ “pabbajjāti ettha panā”tyādimāha. Tattha paṭhamaṃ vajitabbāti pabbajjā, upasampadāto paṭhamaṃ upagacchitabbāti attho. Pa-pubba vaja gatimhīti dhātu. Kulaputtanti ācārakulaputtaṃ sandhāya vadati. Ye puggalā paṭikkhittā, te vajjetvāti sambandho. Pabbajjādosavirahitoti pabbajjāya antarāyakarehi pañcābādhādidosehi virahito. Nakhapiṭṭhippamāṇanti ettha kaniṭṭhaṅgulinakhapiṭṭhi adhippetā. “Tañce nakhapiṭṭhippamāṇampi vaḍḍhanapakkhe ṭhitaṃ hoti, na pabbājetabboti iminā sāmaññalakkhaṇaṃ dassitaṃ, tasmā yattha katthaci sarīrāvayavesu nakhapiṭṭhippamāṇaṃ vaḍḍhanakapakkhe ṭhitaṃ ce, na vaṭṭatīti siddhaṃ. Evañca sati nakhapiṭṭhippamāṇampi avaḍḍhanakapakkhe ṭhitaṃ ce, sabbattha vaṭṭatīti āpannaṃ, tañca na sāmaññato adhippetanti padesaviseseyeva niyametvā dassento ‘sace panā’tiādimāha. Sace hi avisesena nakhapiṭṭhippamāṇaṃ avaḍḍhanakapakkhe ṭhitaṃ vaṭṭeyya, ’nivāsanapārupanehi pakatipaṭicchannaṭṭhāne’ti padesaniyamaṃ na kareyya, tasmā nivāsanapārupanehi pakatipaṭicchannaṭṭhānato aññattha nakhapiṭṭhippamāṇaṃ avaḍḍhanakapakkhe ṭhitampi na vaṭṭatīti siddhaṃ. Nakhapiṭṭhippamāṇato khuddakataraṃ pana avaḍḍhanakapakkhe vā vaḍḍhanakapakkhe vā ṭhitaṃ hotu, vaṭṭati nakhapiṭṭhippamāṇato khuddakatarassa vaḍḍhanakapakkhe avaḍḍhanakapakkhe vā ṭhitassa mukhādīsuyeva paṭikkhittattā”ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.88) vuttaṃ.
123. Having explained the determination of refusal and invitation, now to explain the determination of ordination, it begins with “pabbajjāti ettha pana” and so forth. Therein, pabbajjā means going forth, to be approached first before full ordination, derived from the root “pa-pubba vaja gati” (going forth before). Kulaputta refers to a son of a virtuous family. Excluding those individuals who are prohibited is the connection. Pabbajjādosavirahito means free from defects such as the five diseases that obstruct ordination. Nakhapiṭṭhippamāṇa refers to the measure of the fingernail of the little finger. “Tañce nakhapiṭṭhippamāṇampi vaḍḍhanapakkhe ṭhitaṃ hoti, na pabbājetabbo” shows the characteristic of a monastic; thus, if anywhere on the body’s parts there is a measure of a fingernail tending toward growth, it is not permissible. If so, it follows that a fingernail measure tending toward non-growth is permissible everywhere, but since this is not generally intended, specifying certain parts, it says, “sace pana” and so forth. For if a fingernail measure tending toward non-growth were generally permissible, it would not specify “in places naturally covered by clothing”; thus, it is established that elsewhere than places naturally covered by clothing, even a fingernail measure tending toward non-growth is not permissible. However, smaller than a fingernail measure, whether tending toward growth or non-growth, is permissible, since what is smaller than a fingernail measure, whether tending toward growth or non-growth, is prohibited only in places like the face, as stated in the Sāratthadīpani (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.88).
123. Having thus discussed the determination of refusal, now, in order to discuss the determination of going-forth, he says, ‘pabbajjāti ettha panā’tyādimāha (Now, regarding ‘going-forth’…). Here, pabbajjā means what should be avoided (vajitabba) first, meaning what should be approached first before the higher ordination (upasampadā). The root is pa- + vaja (to go) with the meaning of going. ‘Kulaputta’ (son of a good family) refers to a son of a good family regarding conduct. The connection is: ‘excluding those individuals who are rejected’. ‘Pabbajjādosavirahito’ti (free from the faults of going-forth) means free from the faults such as the five impediments and so forth, that are obstacles to going-forth. ‘Nakhapiṭṭhippamāṇa’ (the size of the back of a fingernail) – here, the back of the fingernail of the little finger is intended. ‘Tañce nakhapiṭṭhippamāṇampi vaḍḍhanapakkhe ṭhitaṃ hoti, na pabbājetabbo’ (Even if it is the size of the back of a fingernail, if it is in the growing stage, he should not be ordained) – by this, the general characteristic is shown. Therefore, wherever on the body’s limbs, something of the size of the back of a fingernail is in the growing stage, it is not permissible; it is established. If that is the case, even if it is of the size of the back of a fingernail, if it is in the non-growing stage, then everywhere it is permissible. That has happened. But this is not generally intended. Clarifying this by restricting it to certain regions, he starts by saying ‘sace panā’tiādimāha (but if, and so on). Because, if in general, the size of the back of a fingernail were permissible when it is in the non-growing stage, he would not have imposed region restrictions: ‘in the place naturally covered by lower and upper robes’. Therefore, it is confirmed that, in locations other than places naturally covered by lower and upper robes, even what is of the size of the back of a fingernail, while it is in the non-growing stage, is not allowed. However, whether it is smaller than the back of a fingernail, and in the non-growing stage or growing stage, it is permissible. Because only what is smaller than the size of the back of a fingernail, whether in the growing stage or non-growing stage, is prohibited in the mouth, etc,” this is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.88).
123. Having discussed the determination of refusal and invitation, now the determination of ordination is discussed, beginning with “pabbajjāti ettha panā”ti. Here, pabbajjā means what should be undertaken first, i.e., it should be undertaken before full ordination. The root is “pa,” meaning to go. Kulaputtanti: This refers to a well-behaved youth. The connection is that those individuals who are rejected should be avoided. Pabbajjādosavirahitoti: This means free from the five hindrances and other faults that obstruct ordination. Nakhapiṭṭhippamāṇanti: Here, the size of the nail of the smallest finger is intended. “Tañce nakhapiṭṭhippamāṇampi vaḍḍhanapakkhe ṭhitaṃ hoti, na pabbājetabboti: This shows the general characteristic of ordination. Therefore, wherever in the body the size of a nail is present on the side of increase, it is not permissible. Thus, if the size of a nail is present on the side of decrease, it is permissible everywhere. This is established. However, this is not intended as a general rule but is restricted to specific places, as shown by the phrase ‘sace panā’ti. If, without distinction, the size of a nail on the side of decrease were permissible everywhere, there would be no need to specify places like “covered by clothing.” Therefore, it is established that even if the size of a nail is present on the side of decrease in a place not covered by clothing, it is not permissible. However, if it is smaller than the size of a nail, whether on the side of increase or decrease, it is permissible, as the mouth, etc., are excluded from the prohibition of the size of a nail.
ID623
Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 88-89) pana “paṭicchannaṭṭhāne nakhapiṭṭhippamāṇaṃ avaḍḍhanakapakkhe ṭhitaṃ hoti, vaṭṭatīti vuttattā appaṭicchannaṭṭhāne tādisampi na vaṭṭati, paṭicchannaṭṭhānepi ca vaḍḍhanakapakkhe ṭhitaṃ na vaṭṭatīti siddhameva hoti. Pākaṭaṭṭhānepi pana nakhapiṭṭhippamāṇato ūnataraṃ avaḍḍhanakaṃ vaṭṭatīti ye gaṇheyyuṃ, tesaṃ taṃ gahaṇaṃ paṭisedhetuṃ ‘mukhe panā’tiādi vutta”nti vuttaṃ. Godhā…pe… na vaṭṭatīti iminā tādisopi rogo kuṭṭheyeva antogadhoti dasseti. Gaṇḍepi iminā nayena vinicchayo veditabbo. Tattha pana mukhādīsu kolaṭṭhimattato khuddakataropi gaṇḍo na vaṭṭatīti visuṃ na dassito. “Appaṭicchannaṭṭhāne avaḍḍhanakapakkhe ṭhitepi na vaṭṭatī”ti ettakameva hi tattha vuttaṃ, tathāpi kuṭṭhe vuttanayena mukhādīsu kolaṭṭhippamāṇato khuddakataropi gaṇḍo na vaṭṭatīti viññāyati, tasmā avaḍḍhanakapakkhe ṭhitepīti ettha pi-saddo avuttasampiṇḍanattho, tena kolaṭṭhimattato khuddakataropi na vaṭṭatīti ayamattho dassitoyevāti amhākaṃ khanti. Pakativaṇṇe jāteti rogahetukassa vikāravaṇṇassa abhāvaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ.
In the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 88-89), it is said, “In a covered place, a fingernail measure tending toward non-growth is permissible; thus, even such a measure in an uncovered place is not permissible, and in a covered place tending toward growth is not permissible—this is established. Even in an exposed place, less than a fingernail measure tending toward non-growth is permissible, but to refute those who might accept it, it says, ‘mukhe pana’ and so forth.” Godhā…pe… na vaṭṭati shows that such a condition is included in leprosy. The determination in the case of boils should be understood in the same way. Therein, even a boil smaller than a jujube seed in the face and the like is not permissible, not shown separately; only “even tending toward non-growth in an uncovered place is not permissible” is stated there. Still, by the method stated for leprosy, it is understood that a boil smaller than a jujube seed in the face and the like is not permissible; thus, in avaḍḍhanakapakkhe ṭhitepi, the particle pi implies inclusion of the unstated, showing that even smaller than a jujube seed is not permissible—this is our preference. Pakativaṇṇe jāte means said with reference to the absence of discoloration caused by disease.
In the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 88-89), however, it is said: “Because it is stated that something the size of the back of a fingernail in a covered place, in the non-growing stage, is permissible, even something like that in an uncovered place is not permissible, and even in a covered place, if it is in the growing stage, it is not permissible, is understood already. However, if some would accept that even in an exposed place, if it is smaller than the size of the back of a fingernail, and in the non-growing stage, it is permissible, to refute that acceptance, it is stated, ‘mukhe panā’tiādi (but in the mouth, etc.). ‘Godhā…pe… na vaṭṭatī’ti (A gecko…etc… is not permissible) – by this, it is shown that even such a disease is included in leprosy itself. With regard to a lump, the determination should be made in the same way. In that case, a lump smaller than a jujube seed is not explicitly shown to be disallowed in the mouth, etc. Only this much is said there,”Even in the non-growing stage, in an uncovered place, it is not permissible.” Still, because it is known that a lump smaller than the size of a jujube seed in the mouth and so on is not permissible, following the method described for leprosy, therefore, ‘avaḍḍhanakapakkhe ṭhitepī’ti (even if in the non-growing stage), here the ‘pi’ (even, also) includes what is not stated. Therefore, even what is smaller than the size of a jujube seed is not permissible; this meaning has already been indicated – this is our view. ‘Pakativaṇṇe jāte’ti (when the natural color has appeared) refers to the absence of a discolored condition caused by the disease.
The Vimativinodanī (Vinaya-vibhaṅga-ṭīkā, Mahāvagga 88-89) states: “Since it is said that the size of a nail on the side of decrease is permissible in a covered place, it is not permissible in an uncovered place. It is also established that it is not permissible on the side of increase in a covered place. However, some may take it that even less than the size of a nail is permissible in an uncovered place on the side of decrease. To refute this, the phrase ‘mukhe panā’ti is stated.” Godhā…pe… na vaṭṭatīti: This shows that such a disease is like leprosy, deeply rooted within. The determination of a boil should also be understood in this way. Here, however, it is not separately stated that a boil smaller than the size of a kolaṭṭhi is not permissible on the mouth, etc. “Even if it is on the side of decrease in an uncovered place, it is not permissible”—this much is stated there. Nevertheless, it is understood that even a boil smaller than the size of a kolaṭṭhi is not permissible on the mouth, etc., as in the case of leprosy. Therefore, avaḍḍhanakapakkhe ṭhitepīti: Here, the word pi indicates the inclusion of what is not stated, meaning that even a boil smaller than the size of a kolaṭṭhi is not permissible. This is our understanding. Pakativaṇṇe jāteti: This refers to the absence of a discoloration caused by the disease.
ID624
Kolaṭṭhimattakoti badaraṭṭhippamāṇo. “Sañjātachaviṃ kāretvā”ti pāṭho, vijjamānachaviṃ kāretvāti attho. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.88-89) pana “sacchaviṃ kāretvāti vijjamānachaviṃ kāretvāti attho, sañchavinti vā pāṭho, sañjātachaanti attho. Gaṇḍādīsu vūpasantesupi taṃ ṭhānaṃ vivaṇṇampi hoti, taṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ.
Kolaṭṭhimattako means the size of a jujube seed. The reading “sañjātachaviṃ kāretvā” means making it with existing skin. In the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.88-89), it is said, **“sacchaviṃ kāretvā** means making it with existing skin; alternatively, the reading ‘sañchavi’ means with generated skin. Even when boils and the like subside, that place may remain discolored, and that is permissible.”
‘Kolaṭṭhimattako’ti (the size of a jujube seed) means the size of a jujube seed. “Sañjātachaviṃ kāretvā” (Having made the skin healed) – the meaning is having made the existing skin healed. In the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.88-89), however, it is stated: ‘sacchaviṃ kāretvā’ti (having made the skin good) – the meaning is having made the existing skin good, or the reading is sañchaviṃ, meaning sañjātachaviṃ (healed skin). Even when lumps and the like have subsided, that place may be discolored; that is permissible”.
Kolaṭṭhimattakoti: This means the size of a jujube seed. The reading “sañjātachaviṃ kāretvā”ti means making the skin intact. The Vimativinodanī (Vinaya-vibhaṅga-ṭīkā, Mahāvagga 2.88-89) states: “sacchaviṃ kāretvāti: This means making the existing skin intact. The reading sañchavinti means making the grown skin intact. Even after the boils, etc., have healed, the place may remain discolored, and this is permissible.
ID625
Padumapuṇḍarīkapattavaṇṇanti rattapadumasetapadumapupphadalavaṇṇaṃ. Kuṭṭhe vuttanayenevāti “paṭicchannaṭṭhāne avaḍḍhanakaṃ vaṭṭati, aññattha na kiñci vaṭṭatī”ti vuttanayaṃ dasseti. Sosabyādhīti khayarogo. Yakkhummādoti kadāci āgantvā bhūmiyaṃ pātetvā hatthamukhādikaṃ avayavaṃ bhūmiyaṃ ghaṃsanako yakkhova rogo.
Padumapuṇḍarīkapattavaṇṇa means the color of red lotus or white lotus petals. Kuṭṭhe vuttanayeneva shows the method stated as “In a covered place, non-growth is permissible; elsewhere, nothing is permissible.” Sosabyādhī means a wasting disease. Yakkhummādo means a disease like a yakkha that occasionally comes, knocks one to the ground, and rubs limbs like hands and mouth on the ground.
‘Padumapuṇḍarīkapattavaṇṇa’ (the color of the petals of a red lotus and a white lotus) means the color of the petals of red lotus and white lotus flowers. ‘Kuṭṭhe vuttanayenevā’ti (just as in the case of leprosy) – it indicates the method stated as ‘in a covered place, the non-growing one is permissible; elsewhere, nothing is permissible’. ‘Sosabyādhī’ti (consumption disease) means tuberculosis. ‘Yakkhummādo’ti (demon-madness) means a disease that is like a demon (yakkha) who, sometimes appearing, throws one to the ground and causes the limbs such as hands and mouth to rub against the ground.
Padumapuṇḍarīkapattavaṇṇanti: This means the color of the petals of red or white lotus flowers. Kuṭṭhe vuttanayenevāti: This shows the method stated for leprosy: “On the side of decrease, it is permissible in a covered place, but nowhere else.” Sosabyādhīti: This means a wasting disease. Yakkhummādoti: This is a disease where a spirit, having come, throws one to the ground and rubs the face, hands, etc., on the ground.
ID626
124. Mahāmattoti mahatiyā issariyamattāya samannāgato. “Na dānāhaṃ devassa bhaṭo”ti āpucchatīti raññā eva dinnaṃ ṭhānantaraṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Yo pana rājakammikehi amaccādīhi ṭhapito, amaccādīnaṃ eva vā bhaṭo hoti, tena taṃ taṃ amaccādimpi āpucchituṃ vaṭṭatīti.
124. Mahāmatto means one endowed with great authority. “Na dānāhaṃ devassa bhaṭo”ti āpucchati is said with reference to a position given directly by the king. But one appointed by royal officials or ministers, or who is a servant of ministers alone, may ask permission from those ministers as well.
124. ‘Mahāmatto’ti (great minister) means one endowed with great power of authority. ‘“Na dānāhaṃ devassa bhaṭo”ti āpucchatī’ti (I am not now, your majesty, a soldier’ he asks leave) – this is said referring to a position given by the king himself. But one who has been appointed by royal officials such as ministers, etc., or is a soldier of ministers, etc., it is permissible for him to ask leave of that particular minister, etc.
124. Mahāmattoti: This means one who possesses great authority. “Na dānāhaṃ devassa bhaṭo”ti āpucchatīti: This refers to a position given by the king. However, if one is appointed by royal officials, etc., or is a servant of the officials, etc., one should inform them.
ID627
125. “Dhajabandho”ti vuttattā apākaṭacoro pabbājetabboti viññāyati. Tena vakkhati “ye pana ambalabujādicorakā”tiādi. Evaṃ jānantīti “sīlavā jāto”ti jānanti.
125. Since it says “dhajabandho”, it is understood that an unexposed thief may be ordained. Hence it will say, “But those like mango thieves and the like” and so forth. Evaṃ jānanti means “They know him as virtuous.”
125. Because it is stated ‘“Dhajabandho”** (flag-bound)’ it is understood that an unconcealed thief is to be ordained. That is why he will say “Those who are thieves of the category of ambalabuja, etc., are…” ’Evaṃ jānantī’**ti (they know thus) means they know “he has become virtuous.”
125. “Dhajabandho”ti: This indicates that a hidden thief should be ordained. Hence, it is said, “Those who are thieves, such as ambalabuja, etc.” Evaṃ jānantīti: They know, “He is virtuous.”
ID628
126. Bhinditvāti andubandhanaṃ bhinditvā. Chinditvāti saṅkhalikabandhanaṃ chinditvā. Muñcitvāti rajjubandhanaṃ muñcitvā. Vivaritvāti gāmabandhanādīsu gāmadvārādīni vivaritvā. Apassamānānaṃ vā palāyatīti purisaguttiyaṃ purisānaṃ gopakānaṃ apassamānānaṃ palāyati.
126. Bhinditvā means breaking an iron fetter. Chinditvā means cutting a chain fetter. Muñcitvā means releasing a rope fetter. Vivaritvā means opening village gates or the like in village bondage. Apassamānānaṃ vā palāyati means fleeing from guards or protectors without being seen.
126. ‘Bhinditvā’ti (having broken) means having broken the chain fetters. ‘Chinditvā’ti (having cut) means having cut the link-chain fetters. ‘Muñcitvā’ti (having released) means having released rope fetters. ‘Vivaritvā’ti (having opened) means having opened the village gates, and so forth, in village enclosures and the like. ‘Apassamānānaṃ vā palāyatī’ti (or he flees while unobserved) means he flees while the men guarding in the human enclosure are not watching.
126. Bhinditvāti: This means breaking the bonds of imprisonment. Chinditvāti: This means cutting the chains. Muñcitvāti: This means releasing the ropes. Vivaritvāti: This means opening the village gates, etc. Apassamānānaṃ vā palāyatīti: This means escaping when the guards are not watching.
ID629
129. Purimanayenevāti “kasāhato katadaṇḍakammo”ti ettha vuttanayeneva.
129. Purimanayeneva means by the method stated in “Struck with a whip, punished with a penalty.”
129. ‘Purimanayenevā’ti (just as in the previous method) means just as in the method stated in “one who has been whipped as a punishment”.
129. Purimanayenevāti: This means in the manner stated earlier: “Punished by whipping or sentenced to death.”
ID630
130. Palātopīti iṇassāmikānaṃ āgamanaṃ ñatvā bhayena palātopi iṇāyiko. Gīvā hoti iṇāyikabhāvaṃ ñatvā anādarena iṇamuttake bhikkhubhāve pavesitattā.
130. Palātopi means even one who flees out of fear, knowing the creditors are coming, is a debtor. Gīvā hoti means, knowing the debtor status, entering monkhood carelessly despite the debt.
130. ‘Palātopī’ti (even if he has fled) – even a debtor who, having known of the arrival of the creditors, flees out of fear is still a debtor (iṇāyiko). ‘Gīvā hoti’ (it becomes invalid) because by admitting him into the monkhood, free from debt, with disregard after knowing his status as a debtor.
130. Palātopīti: This means fleeing out of fear upon knowing the arrival of creditors. Gīvā hotiti: This means being indebted due to carelessness, having entered the monkhood while still indebted.
ID631
Upaḍḍhupaḍḍhanti thokaṃ thokaṃ. Dātabbamevāti iṇāyikena dhanaṃ sampajjatu vā, mā vā, dāne saussāheneva bhavitabbaṃ, aññehi ca bhikkhūhi “mā dhuraṃ nikkhipāhī”ti vatvā sahāyakehi bhavitabbanti dasseti. Dhuranikkhepena hissa bhaṇḍagghena kāretabbatā siyāti.
Upaḍḍhupaḍḍha means little by little. Dātabbameva means it must be given, whether the debtor prospers financially or not; it must be done with enthusiasm, and other monks should assist, saying, “Do not abandon the burden,” showing that by abandoning the burden, it might need to be compensated with the value of goods.
‘Upaḍḍhupaḍḍha’ (little by little) means a little at a time. ‘Dātabbamevā’ti (it should indeed be given) means whether the debtor acquires wealth or not, he should be diligent in giving; and the other monks should say “do not abandon your responsibility” and be supportive. Because, by abandoning his responsibility, he should be made liable by the value of his goods.
Upaḍḍhupaḍḍhanti: This means little by little. Dātabbamevāti: Whether the creditor obtains the money or not, the act of giving should be done with enthusiasm. Other monks should say, “Do not give up the burden,” and should support him. For by giving up the burden, he may be made to carry the load.
ID632
131. Dāsacārittaṃ āropetvā kītoti iminā dāsabhāvaparimocanatthāya kītaṃ nivatteti. Tādiso hi dhanakkītopi adāso eva. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 97) pana “desacārittanti sāvanapaṇṇāropanādikaṃ taṃ taṃ desacāritta”nti vuttaṃ. Tattha tattha cārittavasenāti tasmiṃ tasmiṃ janapade dāsapaṇṇajjhāpanādinā adāsakaraṇaniyāmena. Abhisekādīsu sabbabandhanāni mocāpenti, taṃ sandhāya “sabbasādhāraṇenā”ti vuttaṃ.
131. Dāsacārittaṃ āropetvā kīto negates being bought to free from slavery; such a one, even if bought with money, is not a slave. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 97), it says, “desacāritta** means local customs like applying a servitude mark.” Tattha tattha cārittavasena** means by the custom of freeing from slavery in various regions through marking and the like. In coronations and the like, all bonds are released; hence it says, “sabbasādhāraṇena”.
131. ‘Dāsacārittaṃ āropetvā kīto’ti (purchased by imposing slave-customs) – by this, he refutes the purchase for the purpose of freeing him from the state of slavery. For such a person, even if purchased with money, is indeed not a slave. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 97), however, it is stated: ‘desacāritta’ (country-custom) means the various country customs such as the imposition of written declarations, etc.” ‘Tattha tattha cārittavasenā’ti (according to the custom in each place) means by the rule of making non-slaves by the declaration of slave-documents, and so forth, in that particular region. In coronations and so forth, they release all bonds; referring to that, it is stated, ‘sabbasādhāraṇenā’ (by what is common to all).
131. Dāsacārittaṃ āropetvā kītoti: This means buying back to free one from slavery. Such a person, even if bought with money, is not a slave. The Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 97) states: “desacārittanti: This refers to local customs such as sweeping, placing leaves, etc.” Tattha tattha cārittavasenāti: In various regions, by the custom of making one a slave through debt, etc. In coronations, etc., all bonds are released, hence it is said, “sabbasādhāraṇenā”ti.
ID633
Sace sayameva paṇṇaṃ āropenti, na vaṭṭatīti tā bhujissitthiyo “mayampi vaṇṇadāsiyo homā”ti attano rakkhaṇatthāya sayameva rājūnaṃ dāsipaṇṇe attano nāmaṃ likhāpenti, tāsaṃ puttāpi rājadāsāva honti, tasmā te pabbājetuṃ na vaṭṭati. Tehi adinnā na pabbājetabbāti yattakā tesaṃ sāmino, tesu ekena adinnepi na pabbājetabbā. Bhujisse katvā pana pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭatīti yassa vihārassa te ārāmikā dinnā, tasmiṃ vihāre saṅghaṃ ñāpetvā phātikammena dhanādiṃ katvā bhujisse katvā pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭati. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 97) pana “devadāsiputte vaṭṭatīti likhitaṃ. ’Ārāmikañce pabbājetukāmo, aññamekaṃ datvā pabbājetabba’nti vuttaṃ. Mahāpaccarivādassa ayamidha adhippāyo, ’bhikkhusaṅghassa ārāmike demā’ti dinnattā na te tesaṃ dāsā, ’ārāmiko ca neva dāso na bhujisso’ti vattabbato na dāsoti likhitaṃ. Takkāsiñcanaṃ sīhaḷadīpe cārittaṃ, te ca pabbājetabbā saṅghassārāmikattā. Nissāmikaṃ dāsaṃ attanāpi bhujissaṃ kātuṃ labhatī”ti vuttaṃ.
If they themselves register their names, it is not permissible—those freed women, saying, “We too are servants of beauty,” have their names written in the royal slave registry for their own protection; their sons also become royal slaves, and therefore it is not permissible to ordain them. Those not given by them should not be ordained—however many owners they have, if even one of them has not given permission, they should not be ordained. But having made them freed, it is permissible to ordain them—in the monastery where they were given as servants, having informed the Saṅgha and made them freed by means of wealth or other means through a lawful act, it is permissible to ordain them. However, in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 97), it is written, “It is permissible to ordain the sons of temple slaves.” It is said, “If one wishes to ordain a monastery servant, another should be given in his place, and then he may be ordained.” The intention here, according to the Mahāpaccarī tradition, is that since they were given with the statement, “We give monastery servants to the community of monks,” they are not slaves of those individuals. It is written that they are not slaves because it can be said, “A monastery servant is neither a slave nor a freed person.” The practice of “pouring buttermilk” is a custom in Sri Lanka, and they can be ordained because they are monastery servants of the Saṅgha. “A slave without a master can also be made freed by oneself,” it is said.
Sace sayameva paṇṇaṃ āropenti, na vaṭṭatīti If those female serfs, thinking, “We too are bonded laborers,” of their own accord have their names written in the slave registers of the kings for their own protection, their sons also become royal slaves; therefore, it is not permissible to ordain them. Tehi adinnā na pabbājetabbāti As many as are their masters, even if one of them has not given permission, they should not be ordained. Bhujisse katvā pana pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭatīti In whichever monastery they have been given as monastery attendants, in that monastery, having informed the Saṅgha, having made them free through a formal act with compensation by means of wealth, etc., it is permissible to ordain them. In the Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 97), however, it is written that “it is permissible for sons of temple slaves,”. It is said, “If one wishes to ordain a monastery attendant, he should be ordained after giving another one in his place.” The meaning here in the Mahāpaccari and others is, “Because they are given with the statement ‘We give the monastery attendants to the community of bhikkhus,’ they are not their slaves, and it is written that they are not slaves because it is stated, ‘A monastery attendant is neither a slave nor a freedman.’” “Pouring buttermilk is a custom in Sri Lanka and they should be given monastic ordination since they are temple slaves. One is able to free an ownerless slave even by himself.”
If they themselves affix the leaf, it is not permissible—those bhujissi women, thinking, “We too are royal slaves,” affix their own names to the slave leaves of the kings for their own protection. Their sons also become royal slaves; therefore, it is not permissible to ordain them. Those who are not given by their owners should not be ordained—even if one of their owners does not give them, they should not be ordained. However, it is permissible to ordain them after making them bhujissa—if they are given as monastery attendants to a certain monastery, after informing the Sangha and performing the formal act, it is permissible to ordain them by making them bhujissa. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 97), however, it is written: “It is permissible to ordain the sons of royal slaves. If one wishes to ordain a monastery attendant, after giving another in exchange, it should be done.” The intention here is according to the Mahāpaccarivāda: “Since they are given to the Sangha as monastery attendants, they are not their slaves. A monastery attendant is neither a slave nor a bhujissa.” In Sri Lanka, the practice of pouring buttermilk is followed, and they should be ordained because they belong to the Sangha as monastery attendants. One can also make a masterless slave a bhujissa oneself.
ID634
Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.97) pana “takkaṃ sīse āsittakasadisāva hontīti yathā adāse karontā takkena sīsaṃ dhovitvā adāsaṃ karonti, evaṃ ārāmikavacanena dinnattā adāsāva teti adhippāyo. ’Takkāsiñcanaṃ pana sīhaḷadīpe cāritta’nti vadanti. Neva pabbājetabboti vuttanti kappiyavacanena dinnepi saṅghassa ārāmikadāsattā evaṃ vutta”nti vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyampi (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.97) “takkaṃ sīse āsittakasadisāva hontīti kesuci janapadesu adāse karontā takkaṃ sīse āsiñcanti, tena kira te adāsā honti, evamidampi ārāmikavacanena dinnampīti adhippāyo. Tathā dinnepi saṅghassa ārāmikadāso evāti ‘neva pabbājetabbo’ti vuttaṃ. ‘Tāvakāliko nāma’ti vuttattā kālaparicchedaṃ katvā vā pacchāpi gahetukāmatāya vā dinnaṃ sabbaṃ tāvakālikamevāti gahetabbaṃ. Nissāmikadāso nāma yassa sāmikulaṃ aññātikaṃ maraṇena parikkhīṇaṃ, na koci tassa dāyādo, so pana samānajātikehi vā nivāsagāmavāsīhi vā issarehi vā bhujisso katova pabbājetabbo. Devadāsāpi dāsā eva. Te hi katthaci dese rājadāsā honti, katthaci vihāradāsā vā, tasmā pabbājetuṃ na vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ.
However, in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.97), it is said, “They are like those with buttermilk poured on their heads”—just as some, while making themselves slaves, wash their heads with buttermilk and become slaves, so too, since they were given with the term “monastery servant,” they are like slaves; this is the meaning. They say, “The pouring of buttermilk is a custom in Sri Lanka.” It is said they should not be ordained—it is stated this way because, even when given with lawful terminology, they are monastery slaves of the Saṅgha. In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.97), “They are like those with buttermilk poured on their heads”—in some regions, those making themselves slaves pour buttermilk on their heads, and by this, it is said, they become slaves; similarly, this applies to those given with the term “monastery servant”; this is the meaning. Even when given in this way, they are still monastery slaves of the Saṅgha, so “they should not be ordained” is stated. “One called temporary”—because it is said thus, anything given with a time limit or with the intention of taking it back later should be regarded as temporary. A slave without a master is one whose master’s family is unknown, destroyed by death, with no heirs; such a one, having been made freed by those of the same caste, village residents, or authorities, should be ordained. Temple slaves are also slaves. In some places, they are royal slaves, and in others, monastery slaves; therefore, it is not permissible to ordain them,” it is said.
In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.97), however, it is stated, “takkaṃ sīse āsittakasadisāva hontī”ti Just as, when making someone who is not a slave, they wash his head with buttermilk and make him a non-slave, so is the meaning: they are non-slaves because they were given with the declaration of the monastery attendant. “It is said that pouring buttermilk is a custom in Sri Lanka. Neva pabbājetabboti vuttanti It is stated thus because they are monastery slaves of the Saṅgha even though they have been given with an appropriate declaration,” it is said. In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.97) too, “takkaṃ sīse āsittakasadisāva hontī”ti In some regions, when making someone a non-slave, they pour buttermilk on his head; by that, it is said, they become non-slaves; the meaning is that even this is given with the declaration of the monastery attendant. Even though given in such a way, he is indeed a monastery slave of the Saṅgha, thus it is said, ‘neva pabbājetabbo’. Because it is stated ‘tāvakāliko nāma’, all that is given with a limit of time or with the desire to take it back later, should be considered temporary. Nissāmikadāso is one whose family of owners has died out without leaving any known relations, no one is his heir; he should only be ordained having been freed by those of equal status, by the residents of his dwelling village, or by the authorities. Temple slaves are also slaves. They are, in some places, royal slaves, and in some places, monastery slaves, therefore, it is not permissible to ordain them,” it is said.
In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.97), “like buttermilk poured on the head”—just as those who make mirrors wash their heads with buttermilk and then make mirrors, so too, because they are given by the word of a monastery attendant, they are like mirrors—this is the meaning. “In Sri Lanka, the practice of pouring buttermilk is followed.” “They should not be ordained”—even if given by the word of a steward, because they are slaves of the Sangha as monastery attendants, it is said thus. In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.97), “like buttermilk poured on the head”—in some countries, those who make mirrors pour buttermilk on their heads, and it is said that they become like mirrors. Similarly, even if given by the word of a monastery attendant, they are slaves of the Sangha as monastery attendants, and thus “they should not be ordained.” “Temporary”—because it is said to be temporary, it should be understood as given for a limited time or with the intention of taking it back later. A masterless slave is one whose master’s family has died, leaving no heirs, and who is then made a bhujissa by his peers or village residents or rulers and can be ordained. Royal slaves are also slaves. In some places, they are royal slaves; in others, they are monastery slaves; therefore, it is not permissible to ordain them.
ID635
Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.97) pana “nissāmikadāso nāma yassa sāmikā saputtadārā matā honti, na koci tassa pariggāhako, sopi pabbājetuṃ na vaṭṭati, taṃ pana attanāpi bhujissaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Ye vā pana tasmiṃ raṭṭhe sāmino, tehipi kārāpetuṃ vaṭṭati, ’devadāsiputtaṃ pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭatī’ti tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. ’Dāsassa pabbajitvā attano sāmike disvā palāyantassa āpatti natthī’ti vadantī”ti vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ pana “dāsampi pabbājetvā sāmike disvā paṭicchādanatthaṃ apanento padavārena adinnādānāpattiyā kāretabbo, dāsassa pana palāyato anāpattī”ti vuttaṃ.
In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.97), however, “A slave without a master” is one whose masters, along with their sons and wives, have died, and there is no one to take possession of him; even he should not be ordained, but it is permissible for oneself to make him freed. It is also permissible for those who are masters in that region to have him freed. “It is permissible to ordain the son of a temple slave,” it is said in all three commentaries. “There is no offense for a slave who, after being ordained, flees upon seeing his former masters,” they say. However, in the Vimativinodanī, it is said, “Even a slave who, after being ordained, hides from his masters and departs can be charged with an offense of taking what is not given step by step, but there is no offense for a slave who flees.”
In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.97), however, it states, “nissāmikadāso” is one whose owners, together with their sons and wives, have died; no one takes care of him; he also should not be ordained; however, it is permissible to free him even by oneself. Or, it is permissible to have him freed by whoever are the authorities in that kingdom. “It is allowable to ordain the son of a temple slave,” it is said in all three sub-commentaries (gaṇṭhipada). “It is said that there is no offense for a slave who, having ordained, runs away upon seeing his owners,” it is stated. In the Vimativinodanī, however, it states “Even after ordaining a slave, if he, upon seeing his owners, goes away to conceal himself, he should be made liable to the offense of taking what is not given, in stages; however, there is no offense for a slave who runs away.”
In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.97), “a masterless slave” is one whose master, along with his wife and children, has died, leaving no one to claim him. He too cannot be ordained, but it is permissible to make him a bhujissa oneself. Those who are the masters in that country can also have him ordained. “It is permissible to ordain the son of a royal slave”—this is stated in three places. “There is no offense for a slave who, after ordination, sees his master and flees.” In the Vimativinodanī, however, it is said: “Even if a slave is ordained and, seeing his master, takes him away to conceal him, he should be charged with the offense of theft. But if the slave flees, there is no offense.”
ID636
132. Hatthacchinnakādivatthūsu kaṇṇamūleti sakalassa kaṇṇassa chedaṃ sandhāyāha. Kaṇṇasakkhalikāyāti kaṇṇacūḷikāya . Yassa pana kaṇṇāvaṭṭeti heṭṭhā kuṇḍalādiṭhapanachiddaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. “Tañhi saṅghaṭṭanakkhamaṃ. Ajapadaketi ajapadanāsikaṭṭhikoṭiyaṃ. Tato hi uddhaṃ na vicchindituṃ sakkā hoti. Sandhetunti avirūpasaṇṭhānaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, virūpaṃ pana parisadūsakaṃ āpādeti.
132. In cases like that of one with a severed hand, “at the base of the ear” refers to the cutting of the entire ear. “At the ear cartilage” means at the earlobe. “But for one at the ear rim” refers to the hole below where earrings or similar items are placed. “For that is unable to withstand contact. On the goat’s foot” means at the tip of the nose resembling a goat’s foot. Beyond that, it cannot be severed. “To join” is said with reference to maintaining an undistorted shape, for a distorted shape causes disfigurement to the assembly.
132. In the case of those with cut-off hands, etc., kaṇṇamūleti this refers to the cutting of the entire ear. Kaṇṇasakkhalikāyāti of the earlobe. Yassa pana kaṇṇāvaṭṭeti this refers to the hole below where earrings and the like are placed. “For that is able to withstand friction. Ajapadaketi at the tip of the nasal bone, like a goat’s foot. For it is not possible to cut it off from above that. Sandhetunti this refers to connecting a non-deformed shape, but a deformed one causes blemish of the assembly.
132. In the cases of those with severed hands, etc., “at the root of the ear” refers to the complete cutting of the ear. “At the ear cartilage”—at the tip of the ear. “For one whose ear is pierced”—this refers to the hole made for wearing earrings, etc., below. “For it can withstand friction. “At the goat’s foot”—at the tip of the nose where the goat’s foot is marked. Beyond that, it cannot be cut. “To join”—this refers to an irregular shape, as an irregular shape causes disrepute to the assembly.
ID637
Khujjasarīroti vaṅkasarīro. Brahmuno viya ujukaṃ gattaṃ sarīraṃ yassa so brahmujugatto, bhagavā. Avaseso sattoti iminā lakkhaṇena rahitasatto. Etena ṭhapetvā mahāpurisaṃ cakkavattiñca itare sattā khujjapakkhikāti dasseti. Yebhuyyena hi sattā khandhe kaṭiyaṃ jāṇūsūti tīsu ṭhānesu namanti, te kaṭiyaṃ namantā pacchato namanti, dvīsu ṭhānesu namantā purato namanti, dīghasarīrā pana ekena passena vaṅkā honti, eke mukhaṃ unnāmetvā nakkhattāni gaṇayantā viya caranti, eke appamaṃsalohitā sūlasadisā honti, eke purato pabbhārā honti, pavedhamānā gacchanti. Parivaṭumoti samantato vaṭṭakāyo. Etena evarūpā eva vāmanakā na vaṭṭantīti dasseti.
A hunchbacked body means a crooked body. One whose limbs and body are straight like Brahmā’s is straight-limbed like Brahmā, the Blessed One. Other beings means a being lacking this characteristic. By this, it is shown that, except for a Great Man or a Wheel-Turning Monarch, other beings are hunchbacked or defective. For most beings bend at three places—the shoulders, waist, and knees; those bending at the waist lean backward, those bending at two places lean forward, while those with long bodies are crooked on one side; some walk as if gazing upward counting the stars, some with little flesh and blood resemble a spear, some are stooped forward, trembling as they go. Round-bodied means having a body round all around. By this, it is shown that such dwarfish forms are not permissible.
Khujjasarīroti bent body. Brahmujugatto, one whose body is straight like Brahmā’s, is the Blessed One. Avaseso sattoti a being who lacks this characteristic. By this, it is shown that apart from the Great Man and the Universal Monarch, other beings are hunchbacked. For most beings are bent in three places: at the shoulders, at the waist, and at the knees; those who are bent at the waist bend backwards; those who are bent in two places bend forwards; those with long bodies are bent to one side; some walk as if counting the stars, raising their faces; some are like skewers, with little flesh and blood; some are bent forward, and walk trembling. Parivaṭumoti a completely round body. By this, it is shown that only dwarves of such a form are not permissible.
“A hunchbacked body”—a crooked body. One whose body is straight like Brahma’s is “straight-bodied,” like the Blessed One. “The remaining beings”—beings lacking this characteristic. This excludes the Great Man and the Universal Monarch, indicating that other beings are hunchbacked. For most beings, their bodies bend at the waist, knees, and ankles; those who bend at the waist bend backward; those who bend at two places bend forward; those with long bodies are crooked on one side; some walk with their faces raised as if counting stars; some are like bloodless stakes; some are bent forward; they walk trembling. “Round-bodied”—a body that is round on all sides. This indicates that such beings are not round.
ID638
133. Aṭṭhisirācammasarīroti aṭṭhisirācammamattasarīro. Kūṭakūṭasīsoti anekesu ṭhānesu piṇḍitamaṃsataṃ dassetuṃ āmeḍitaṃ kataṃ. Tenāha “tālaphalapiṇḍisadisenā”ti. Tālaphalānaṃ mañjarī piṇḍi nāma. Anupubbatanukena sīsenāti cetiyathūpikā viya kamena kisena sīsena. Mahāveḷupabbaṃ viya ādito paṭṭhāya yāva pariyosānā avisamathūlena sīsena samannāgato nāḷisīso nāma. Kappasīsoti gajamatthakaṃ viya dvidhā bhinnasīso. “Kaṇṇikakeso vā”ti imassa vivaraṇaṃ “pāṇakehī”tiādi. Makkaṭasseva nalāṭepi kesānaṃ uṭṭhitabhāvaṃ sandhāyāha “sīsalomehī”tiādi.
133. A body of bones, veins, and skin means a body consisting merely of bones, veins, and skin. A head with multiple lumps—to indicate flesh heaped in many places, it is emphasized. Hence it is said, “like a cluster of palm fruits”. The cluster of palm fruits is called a bunch. With a gradually thinning head means with a head that tapers like a cetiya pinnacle. One endowed with a head uniform from base to tip, like a great bamboo joint, is called a tube-headed one. A split head means a head divided in two like an elephant’s forehead. The explanation of “with ear-like hair” begins with “by creatures” and so on. Referring to hair rising even on the forehead like a monkey’s, it says “with head hair” and so forth.
133. Aṭṭhisirācammasarīroti a body that is just bone, sinew, and skin. Kūṭakūṭasīsoti repeated to show a mass of flesh lumped together in many places. Therefore, he said, “tālaphalapiṇḍisadisenā”ti. The cluster of palm fruits is called piṇḍi. Anupubbatanukena sīsenāti with a head that gradually becomes thin like a shrine or stūpa. One who is endowed with a head that is uniformly thick from beginning to end, like the Mahāveḷu mountain, is called nāḷisīso. Kappasīsoti a head split in two like the head of an elephant. “Kaṇṇikakeso vā”ti The explanation of this is “pāṇakehī”ti etc. He said “sīsalomehī”ti etc., referring to the state of hair standing up even on the forehead of a monkey.
133. “A body of bones, sinews, and skin”—a body consisting only of bones, sinews, and skin. “A head like a lump”—a head with lumps of flesh in many places, indicating a mass of flesh. Hence it is said, “like a cluster of palm fruits.” The cluster of palm fruits is called a “piṇḍi.” “With a gradually tapering head”—like the pinnacle of a stupa, with a small, delicate head. Like a great bamboo shoot, from the beginning to the end, with a head that is not uneven—this is called a “nāḷi head.” “A kappa head”—a head split in two, like an elephant’s head. “Or with hair like a kaṇṇika”—this is explained by “with lice,” etc. Like a monkey, even on the forehead, the hair stands up—hence it is said, “with head hair,” etc.
ID639
Makkaṭabhamukoti nalāṭalomehi avibhattalomabhamuko. Akkhicakkehīti akkhimaṇḍalehi. Kekaroti tiriyaṃ passanako. Udakatārakāti olokentānaṃ udake paṭibimbikacchāyā. Udakabubbuḷanti keci. Akkhitārakāti abhimukhe ṭhitānaṃ chāyā. Akkhibhaṇḍakātipi vadanti. Atipiṅgalakkhi majjārakkhi. Madhupiṅgalanti madhuvaṇṇapiṅgalaṃ. Nippakhumakkhīti ettha pakhuma-saddo akkhidalalomesu niruḷho, tadabhāvā nippakhumakkhi. Akkhipākenāti akkhidalapariyantesu pūtitāpajjanarogena.
A monkey-browed one means one whose brow hair is indistinguishable from other hair. With eye sockets means with eyeballs. Squinting means looking sideways. Water stars means reflections seen in water by onlookers. Some say “water bubbles.” Eye stars means reflections seen by those standing in front. They are also called “eye rims.” Very yellow-eyed means moderately red-eyed. Honey-yellow means honey-colored yellow. Without eyelashes—here the word pakhuma is commonly used for eyelash hair; due to its absence, one is without eyelashes. With eye disease means with a festering illness affecting the edges of the eye sockets.
Makkaṭabhamukoti with a forehead where the hairline is not distinct from the eyebrows. Akkhicakkehīti with the eyeballs. Kekaroti one who looks sideways. Udakatārakāti reflections in water when looking. Some say water bubbles. Akkhitārakāti shadows of those standing in front. They are also called eye-receptacles. Atipiṅgalakkhi eyes the color of mead. Madhupiṅgalanti honey-colored. Nippakhumakkhīti here the word pakhuma is commonly used for eyelashes, and the absence of them is nippakhumakkhi. Akkhipākenāti with a disease that causes putrefaction on the edges of the eyelids.
“A face like a monkey”—a face with hair on the forehead, making the hair indistinct. “With circular eyes”—with circular eye sockets. “A kekara”—one who looks sideways. “Water stars”—the reflection seen in water when looking. Some say it is like a water bubble. “Eye stars”—the shadow seen when standing face to face. Some say it is like eye ornaments. “Very tawny eyes”—eyes the color of tawny. “Honey-colored”—eyes the color of honey. “Eyes without lashes”—here, the term “lashes” refers to the hairs on the eyelids; the absence of these makes one “eyelashless.” “With eye disease”—with a festering disease at the edges of the eyelids.
ID640
Cipiṭanāsikoti anunnatanāsiko. Paṭaṅgamaṇḍūko nāma mahāmukhamaṇḍūko. Bhinnamukhoti upakkamukhapariyosāno, sabbadā vivaṭamukho vā. Vaṅkamukhoti ekapasse apakkamma ṭhitaheṭṭhimahanukaṭṭhiko. Oṭṭhacchinnakoti ubhosu oṭṭhesu yattha katthaci jātiyā vā pacchā vā satthādinā apanītamaṃsena oṭṭhena samannāgato. Eḷamukhoti niccapaggharitalālāmukho.
Flat-nosed means with an unraised nose. A locust-frog means a large-mouthed frog. Split-mouthed means with a mouth uneven from end to end, or always open-mouthed. Crooked-mouthed means with a lower jawbone shifted to one side. Lip-severed means endowed with lips from which flesh has been removed, either by birth or later by a weapon or similar means, at any part of both lips. Drooling-mouthed means with a mouth constantly dripping saliva.
Cipiṭanāsikoti one with a flat nose. Paṭaṅgamaṇḍūko is a large-mouthed frog. Bhinnamukhoti one with a mouth that opens from beginning to end, or one whose mouth is always open. Vaṅkamukhoti one with a lower jawbone that is displaced to one side. Oṭṭhacchinnakoti one who is endowed with a lip on which flesh has been removed, either by birth or later by a knife or the like, on either of the lips, anywhere. Eḷamukhoti one whose mouth constantly drips saliva.
“A flat-nosed one”—one with a flat nose. “A paṭaṅga frog”—a large-mouthed frog. “A split-mouthed one”—one whose mouth is always open or whose mouth ends in an attempt. “A crooked-mouthed one”—one whose lower jaw is shifted to one side. “One with cut lips”—one whose lips, either from birth or later, have had flesh removed by a knife, etc. “A drooling-mouthed one”—one whose mouth always drips saliva.
ID641
Bhinnagaloti avanatagalo. Bhinnauroti atininnauramajjho. Evaṃ bhinnapiṭṭhīti. Sabbañcetanti “kacchugatto”tiādiṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Ettha ca vinicchayo kuṭṭhādīsu vutto evāti āha “vinicchayo”tiādi.
Split-necked means with a sunken neck. Split-chested means with an overly sunken chest. Likewise, split-backed. All this is said with reference to “one with a scabby body” and so on. The explanation here is as stated in cases like leprosy, hence it says “the explanation” and so forth.
Bhinnagaloti one with a sunken throat. Bhinnauroti one with a very sunken chest. Similarly, bhinnapiṭṭhīti. Sabbañcetanti this is said referring to “one with scabies,” etc. And here, the determination is the same as stated in the case of leprosy, etc., thus he said, “vinicchayo”ti etc.
“A broken-necked one”—one with a bent neck. “A broken-chested one”—one with a very sunken chest. Similarly, “a broken-backed one.” “All these”—this refers to “tortoise-bodied,” etc. Here, the decision is as stated in the section on leprosy, etc., hence it is said, “the decision,” etc.
ID642
Vātaṇḍikoti aṇḍakesu vuddhirogena samannāgato, aṇḍavātarogena uddhutabījaṇḍakosena samannāgato vā. Yassa nivāsanena paṭicchannampi uṇṇataṃ pakāsati, sova na pabbājetabbo. Vikaṭoti tiriyaṃ gamanapādehi samannāgato, yassa caṅkamato jāṇukā bahi nigacchanti. Saṅghaṭṭoti gacchato parivattanapādehi samannāgato, yassa caṅkamato jāṇukā anto pavisanti. Mahājaṅghoti thūlajaṅgho. Mahāpādoti mahantena pādatalena yutto. Pādavemajjheti piṭṭhipādavemajjhe. Etena aggapādo ca paṇhi ca sadisāvāti dasseti.
With swollen testicles means endowed with a disease causing enlargement of the testicles, or with testicles bloated by a wind disease affecting the scrotum. Even when covered by clothing, if it protrudes noticeably, such a one should not be ordained. Distorted means endowed with legs that move sideways, whose knees protrude outward when walking. Rubbing means endowed with legs that turn inward when walking, whose knees move inward. Large-shinned means with thick shins. Large-footed means endowed with a large sole of the foot. Mid-foot means the middle of the back of the foot. By this, it is shown that the forefoot and heel are similar.
Vātaṇḍikoti one who is endowed with a disease of swelling in the testicles, or one endowed with testicles swollen due to the disease of wind in the testicles. Only he whose swelling is visible even when covered by his lower garment should not be ordained. Vikaṭoti one endowed with feet that move sideways, whose knees go outwards when walking. Saṅghaṭṭoti one endowed with feet that turn inwards when walking, whose knees go inwards when walking. Mahājaṅghoti one with thick calves. Mahāpādoti one with a large sole. Pādavemajjheti in the middle of the back of the foot. By this, it is shown that the front of the foot and the heel are alike.
“A vātaṇḍika”—one afflicted with a swelling disease of the testicles, or with a wind disease causing the testicles to swell. One whose testicles are visibly swollen even when covered by clothing should not be ordained. “A vikaṭa”—one with feet turned sideways, whose knees protrude outward when walking. “A saṅghaṭṭa”—one with feet turned inward, whose knees turn inward when walking. “A great-thighed one”—one with thick thighs. “A large-footed one”—one with a large sole. “In the middle of the foot”—in the middle of the foot and back. This indicates that the heel and the front of the foot are similar.
ID643
134. Majjhe saṃkuṭitapādattāti kuṇṭhapādatāya kāraṇaṃ dasseti, agge saṃkuṭitapādattāti kuṇṭhapādatāya. Kuṇṭhapādasseva caṅkamanavibhāvanaṃ “piṭṭhipādaggena caṅkamanto”ti. “Pādassa bāhirantenā”ti ca “abbhantarantenā”ti ca idaṃ pādatalassa ubhohi pariyantehi caṅkamanaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ.
134. Due to a contracted foot in the middle indicates the reason for a crippled foot; due to a contracted foot at the tip refers to the crippled foot itself. The description of such a crippled foot’s walking is “walking with the back of the foot’s tip”. “With the outer edge of the foot” and “with the inner edge” are said with reference to walking with both edges of the sole of the foot.
134. Majjhe saṃkuṭitapādattāti he states the reason for being a cripple-foot, agge saṃkuṭitapādattāti for being a cripple-foot. And the manifestation of the gait of a cripple-foot is “piṭṭhipādaggena caṅkamanto”ti. “Pādassa bāhirantenā”ti and “abbhantarantenā”ti this is said referring to walking with both edges of the sole.
134. “Because the foot is contracted in the middle”—this indicates the reason for being clubfooted. “Because the foot is contracted at the end”—this also indicates being clubfooted. The description of walking with a clubfoot is “walking with the heel and the front of the foot.” “With the outer edge of the foot” and “with the inner edge”—this refers to walking with both edges of the sole of the foot.
ID644
Mammananti khalitavacanaṃ, yo ekamevakkharaṃ catupañcakkhattuṃ vadati, tassetaṃ adhivacanaṃ, ṭhānakaraṇavisuddhiyā abhāvena aphuṭṭhakkharavacanaṃ. Vacanānukaraṇena hi so “mammano”ti vutto. Yo ca karaṇasampannopi ekamevakkharaṃ hikkārabahuso vadati, sopi idheva saṅgayhati. Yo vā pana taṃ niggahetvāpi anāmeḍitakkharameva sithilaṃ siliṭṭhavacanaṃ vattuṃ samattho, so pabbājetabbo. Āpattito na muccantīti ñatvā karontāva na muccanti. Jīvitantarāyādiāpadāsu aruciyā kāyasāmaggiṃ dentassa anāpatti.
Stammering means faltering speech, a term for one who repeats a single syllable four or five times; this refers to speech unclear due to the lack of purity in articulation and place. By mimicking his speech, he is called “mammano”. Even one with proper articulation who repeatedly utters a single syllable with a hiccup is included here. But one who, despite restraining it, can softly utter a clear, unemphasized syllable is fit to be ordained. “They are not free from an offense”—those who act knowingly are not free. In dangers to life or other emergencies, there is no offense for one who reluctantly offers bodily agreement.
Mammananti stammering speech, one who speaks the same syllable four or five times; this is the designation for him; indistinct speech of syllables due to the lack of purity of place and instrument [of speech]. For by imitation of the speech, he is called “mammana.” And one who, even though equipped with the instruments [of speech], repeatedly speaks the same syllable with many ‘hik’ sounds, is also included here. But he who, even after suppressing that, is able to speak a loose, slurred word, without repeated syllables, should be ordained. Āpattito na muccantīti they do not escape offense when they are aware. If he reluctantly gives bodily service, there is no offense in cases of danger to life, etc.
“Stammering”—this is a term for one who repeats a single syllable four or five times, due to the lack of clarity in pronunciation. Because of the imitation of speech, he is called a “stammerer.” Even one who is capable of clear pronunciation but frequently repeats a single syllable with a stutter is included here. Or one who, even after correcting it, can only speak weakly and indistinctly, should be ordained. “They do not escape the offense”—even if they know, they still commit the offense. There is no offense for one who, out of disgust for life-threatening situations, provides bodily necessities.
ID645
135. Abhabbapuggalakathāsu “yo kāḷapakkhe itthī hoti, juṇhapakkhe puriso, ayaṃ pakkhapaṇḍako”ti keci vadanti. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana “kāḷapakkhe paṇḍako hoti, juṇhapakkhe panassa pariḷāho vūpasammatī”ti apaṇḍakapakkhe pariḷāhavūpasamasseva vuttattā paṇḍakapakkhe ussannapariḷāhatā paṇḍakabhāvāpattīti viññāyatīti vīmaṃsitvā yuttataraṃ gahetabbaṃ. Itthibhāvo pumbhāvo vā natthi etassāti abhāvako. “Tasmiṃyevassa pakkhe pabbajjā vāritāti ettha apaṇḍakapakkhe pabbājetvā paṇḍakapakkhe nāsetabbo”ti tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. Keci pana “apaṇḍakapakkhe pabbajito sace kilesakkhayaṃ pāpuṇāti, na nāsetabbo”ti vadanti, taṃ tesaṃ matimattaṃ. Paṇḍakassa hi kilesakkhayāsambhavato, khīṇakilesassa ca paṇḍakabhāvānāpattito. Ahetukapaṭisandhikathāyañhi avisesena paṇḍakassa ahetukapaṭisandhitā vuttā, āsittausūyapakkhapaṇḍakānañca paṭisandhito paṭṭhāyeva paṇḍakabhāvo, na pavattiyaṃyevāti vadanti. Teneva ahetukapaṭisandhiniddese jaccandhabadhirādayo viya paṇḍako jātisaddena visesetvā na niddiṭṭho. Catutthapārājikasaṃvaṇṇanāyañca (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.233) abhabbapuggale dassentena paṇḍakatiracchānagataubhatobyañjanakā tayo vatthuvipannā ahetukapaṭisandhikā, tesaṃ saggo avārito, maggo pana vāritoti avisesato vuttanti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.109) āgataṃ.
135. In discussions of persons incapable [of ordination], some say, “One who is a woman in the dark fortnight and a man in the bright fortnight is a fortnightly eunuch.” However, in the Commentary, it is said, “In the dark fortnight, he is a eunuch, but in the bright fortnight, his affliction subsides”; since it only mentions the subsiding of affliction in the non-eunuch fortnight, it is understood that in the eunuch fortnight, the heightened affliction leads to the state of being a eunuch—this should be carefully considered and the more reasonable interpretation adopted. One without the state of womanhood or manhood is an indeterminate one. “His ordination is prohibited only in that fortnight”—in all three commentaries, it is said, “Having ordained him in the non-eunuch fortnight, he should be expelled in the eunuch fortnight.” Some say, “If one ordained in the non-eunuch fortnight attains the destruction of defilements, he should not be expelled,” but this is merely their opinion. For a eunuch cannot attain the destruction of defilements, and one whose defilements are destroyed cannot fall into the state of eunuch. In the discussion of rootless rebirth, it is generally stated that a eunuch has a rootless rebirth; for those eunuchs of the “poured” or “envious” fortnight type, the eunuch state exists from birth, not merely in the course of life, they say. Hence, in the description of rootless rebirth, a eunuch is not specifically distinguished with the term “born” like those born blind or deaf. In the commentary on the fourth pārājika (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.233), when illustrating incapable persons, it is broadly stated that eunuchs, animals, and hermaphrodites—the three defective by condition—have rootless rebirths; heaven is not barred to them, but the path is barred, as recorded in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.109).
135. In the discourses on ineligible persons, some say, “He who is a woman in the dark fortnight and a man in the bright fortnight, this is a pakkhapaṇḍaka”. In the Commentary, however, because only the ceasing of distress is stated in the non-paṇḍaka phase, “In the dark fortnight he becomes a paṇḍaka, but in the bright fortnight his distress is calmed,” by understanding that the intensification of distress in the paṇḍaka phase results in being a pandaka, a more reasoned view should be accepted, upon careful consideration. He whose female or male state is not present, is called abhāvako. “Tasmiṃyevassa pakkhe pabbajjā vāritā”ti, here it has been said in three sub-commentaries “After ordaining during the non-paṇḍaka phase, the individual should be expelled during their paṇḍaka phase”. Some, however, say that “If an individual ordained in the non-paṇḍaka phase attains the destruction of defilements, he should not be expelled”, but that is just their opinion. Because the destruction of defilements is impossible for a paṇḍaka, and because a person with destroyed defilements does not become a paṇḍaka. Because, in the discussion about rebirth without a cause, the rebirth of a paṇḍaka without a cause has been stated in a general way, and that the state of being a paṇḍaka for the āsitta, usūya and pakkha types is from rebirth onwards, it is not stated that it is only in the course of existence. Therefore, in the description of rebirth without a cause, a paṇḍaka is not specifically mentioned with the word ‘jāti’ (by birth), like those born blind and deaf, etc. And in the commentary on the fourth pārājika (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.233), showing the ineligible persons, the three – the paṇḍaka, the animal, and the one with both genders– are deficient in the factor [of rebirth-linking consciousness], and have rebirth without a cause. Their access to heaven is not prevented, but the path is prevented. This has been generally stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.109).
135. In the discussion of unfit persons, some say, “One who is a woman during the dark fortnight and a man during the bright fortnight is called a ‘pakkhapaṇḍaka.’” In the commentary, however, it is said: “During the dark fortnight, he is a paṇḍaka; during the bright fortnight, his passion subsides.” Since it is said that during the non-paṇḍaka fortnight, his passion subsides, it is understood that during the paṇḍaka fortnight, his heightened passion constitutes the state of being a paṇḍaka. Therefore, the more appropriate interpretation should be accepted. He has neither the state of a woman nor that of a man, hence he is “without gender.” “Ordination is prohibited for him during that fortnight”—here, if he is ordained during the non-paṇḍaka fortnight, he should be expelled during the paṇḍaka fortnight—this is stated in three places. Some, however, say: “If one ordained during the non-paṇḍaka fortnight attains the destruction of defilements, he should not be expelled.” This is merely their opinion. For a paṇḍaka, the destruction of defilements is impossible, and one who has destroyed the defilements does not attain the state of being a paṇḍaka. In the discussion of rootless rebirth, it is generally stated that a paṇḍaka has a rootless rebirth. It is also said that for those with latent tendencies or envy, the state of being a paṇḍaka arises from the moment of rebirth, not during the course of life. Therefore, in the description of rootless rebirth, the paṇḍaka is not specifically mentioned, like the congenitally blind and deaf. In the commentary on the fourth pārājika (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.233), when describing unfit persons, it is said that paṇḍakas, hermaphrodites, and those with defective sexual organs are three types of rootless rebirths; their heaven is not prohibited, but the path is prohibited—this is stated without distinction in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.109).
ID646
Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.109) pana paṇḍakavatthusmiṃ āsittausūyapakkhapaṇḍakā tayopi purisabhāvaliṅgādiyuttā ahetukapaṭisandhikā, te ca kilesapariyuṭṭhānassa balavatāya napuṃsakapaṇḍakasadisattā “paṇḍakā”ti vuttā, tesu āsittausūyapaṇḍakānaṃ dvinnaṃ kilesapariyuṭṭhānaṃ yonisomanasikārādīhi vītikkamato nivāretumpi sakkā, tena te pabbājetabbāti vuttā. Pakkhapaṇḍakassa pana kāḷapakkhe ummādo viya kilesapariḷāho avattharanto āgacchati, vītikkamaṃ patvā eva ca nivattati, tasmā tasmiṃ pakkhe so na pabbājetabboti vutto, tadetaṃ vibhāgaṃ dassetuṃ “yassa paresa”nti vuttaṃ. Tattha āsittassāti mukhe āsittassa attanopi asucimuccanena pariḷāho vūpasammati. Usūyāya uppannāyāti usūyāya vasena attano sevetukāmatārāge uppanne asucimuttiyā pariḷāho vūpasammati.
In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.109), regarding the case of eunuchs, the “poured,” “envious,” and “fortnightly” eunuchs, though endowed with male characteristics and signs, have rootless rebirths. Due to the strength of their defilement-possession, they are like neuter eunuchs and thus called “eunuchs.” Among them, the defilement-possession of the “poured” and “envious” eunuchs can be prevented from transgression through proper attention and so forth, so they are said to be ordainable. For the fortnightly eunuch, however, in the dark fortnight, defilement-affliction spreads uncontrollably like madness, subsiding only after transgression; thus, he is said not to be ordainable in that fortnight. To illustrate this distinction, “for whom by others” is stated. Here, “of the poured” means that when impurity is poured into his mouth, his own release of impurity calms the affliction. “Arising from envy” means that when lust arises due to envy toward an object he desires, the release of impurity calms the affliction.
But in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.109), in the account of the paṇḍaka, the three – āsittapaṇḍaka, usūyapaṇḍaka and pakkhapaṇḍaka – have the gender sign of a man, are without a cause and are reborn. And because due to the strength of the defilements’ upsurge, they are like eunuchs they are called “paṇḍakas.” Among them, the upsurge of defilements in the two, āsittapaṇḍaka and usūyapaṇḍaka, can even be prevented from transgressing through wise attention and so forth, therefore it is said that they should be ordained. But in the pakkhapaṇḍaka, like madness in the dark fortnight, the burning of defilement comes without ceasing, and only after transgressing does it cease, therefore it is said that in that fortnight he should not be ordained, to show this division, it is said, “yassa paresa”. Therein, āsittassāti, for him who is sprinkled in the mouth, the burning is pacified by the release of his own impurity. Usūyāya uppannāyāti, for him whose defilements appear through envy, when lust of desire arises, his burning is pacified by the release of impurity.
In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.109), however, in the discussion of paṇḍakas, those with latent tendencies or envy, though possessing male characteristics, are of rootless rebirth. Due to the strength of their defilements, they are like neuter paṇḍakas and are called “paṇḍakas.” For those with latent tendencies, it is possible to prevent the arising of defilements through proper attention, etc., and thus they can be ordained. For the pakkhapaṇḍaka, however, during the dark fortnight, his passion arises uncontrollably like madness and subsides only after it has run its course. Therefore, he should not be ordained during that fortnight. To explain this distinction, it is said, “for one who is affected by others.” Here, “for one with latent tendencies”—his passion subsides by the emission of impurity from his own body. “For one with envy”—his passion subsides by the emission of impurity due to the desire to associate with others.
ID647
“Bījāni apanītānī”ti vuttattā bījesu ṭhitesu nimittamatte apanīte paṇḍako na hoti. Bhikkhunopi anābādhapaccayā tadapanayane thullaccayameva, na paṇḍakattaṃ. Bījesu pana apanītesu aṅgajātampi rāgena kammaniyaṃ na hoti, pumabhāvo vigacchati, massuādipurisaliṅgampi upasampadāpi vigacchati, kilesapariḷāhopi dunnivāravītikkamo hoti napuṃsakapaṇḍakassa viya, tasmā īdiso upasampannopi nāsetabboti vadanti. Yadi evaṃ kasmā bījuddharaṇe pārājikaṃ na paññattanti? Ettha tāva keci vadanti “paññattamevetaṃ bhagavatā ’paṇḍako bhikkhave anupasampanno na upasampādetabbo, upasampanno nāsetabbo’ti vuttattā”ti. Keci pana “yasmā bījuddharaṇakkhaṇe paṇḍako na hoti, tasmā tasmiṃ khaṇe pārājikaṃ na paññattaṃ. Yasmā pana so uddhaṭabījo bhikkhu aparena samayena vuttanayena paṇḍakattaṃ āpajjati, abhāvako hoti, upasampadāya avatthu, tato eva cassa upasampadā vigacchati, tasmā esa paṇḍakattupagamanakālato paṭṭhāya jātiyā napuṃsakapaṇḍakena saddhiṃ yojetvā ’upasampanno nāsetabbo’ti abhabboti vutto, na tato pubbe. Ayañca kiñcāpi sahetuko, bhāvakkhayena panassa ahetukasadisatāya maggopi na uppajjatī”ti vadanti. Apare pana “pabbajjato pubbe upakkamena paṇḍakabhāvamāpannaṃ sandhāya ’upasampanno nāsetabbo’ti vuttaṃ, upasampannassa pana pacchā upakkamena upasampadāpi na vigacchatī”ti, taṃ na yuttaṃ. Yadaggena hi pabbajjato pubbe upakkamena abhabbo hoti, tadaggena pacchāpi hotīti vīmaṃsitvā gahetabbaṃ.
“The seeds have been removed”—because it is said thus, if the seeds remain and only the mere sign is removed, one does not become a eunuch. Even for a nun, removing it without a medical reason incurs only a grave offense, not eunuchhood. But when the seeds are removed, the genital organ too becomes incapable of functioning with lust, maleness departs, and male characteristics like a beard also disappear even after full ordination; the heat of defilements becomes hard to restrain and transgresses like that of a natural eunuch. Therefore, they say such a one, even if fully ordained, should be expelled. If so, why was a defeat offense not established for removing the seeds? Here, some say, “It was indeed established by the Blessed One when he said, ‘A eunuch, monks, if not fully ordained, should not be fully ordained; if fully ordained, he should be expelled.’” Others, however, say, “Since he is not a eunuch at the moment of removing the seeds, a defeat offense was not established at that moment. But since that monk, with seeds removed, later falls into eunuchhood in the manner stated, becoming genderless and unfit for full ordination, his full ordination thereby lapses; thus, from the time he enters eunuchhood, he is classified with those born as natural eunuchs and said to be ‘expelled if fully ordained’ as an unfit person, not before that. And although he has a cause, due to the loss of gender, he becomes like one without a cause, and the path does not arise for him.” Others say, “It is said, ‘If fully ordained, he should be expelled,’ referring to one who became a eunuch by effort before ordination; but for one fully ordained, full ordination does not lapse even if he becomes so later by effort.” This is not reasonable. For just as one is unfit by effort before ordination, so too afterward; this should be understood after consideration.
Since it is said “bījāni apanītānī”, when the seeds are present, if only the sign is removed, he is not a paṇḍaka. For a monk too, there is only a thullaccaya if he removes it due to health reasons, not the state of being a paṇḍaka. But when the seeds are removed, even the male organ is not suitable for action due to lust, the male nature disappears, even the male signs such as beard and so on disappear, and also the higher ordination, the burning of defilements also becomes difficult to prevent, like that of a napuṃsakapaṇḍaka, therefore it is said that such a one, even if fully ordained, should be expelled. If so, why is a pārājika not declared for the extraction of the seeds? Here, some say, “This has indeed been declared by the Blessed One, since it is said, ‘Monks, a paṇḍaka who is not ordained should not be ordained, one who is ordained should be expelled.’” But some say, “Because at the moment of extracting the seeds he is not a paṇḍaka, therefore a pārājika is not declared at that moment. But because that monk, with the seeds extracted, at a later time becomes a paṇḍaka in the manner mentioned, he becomes unsuited, not a subject for higher ordination, and from that very moment his higher ordination disappears, therefore, from the time of becoming a paṇḍaka, he is to be connected with the napuṃsakapaṇḍaka by birth, and it is said ‘one who is ordained should be expelled,’ as unsuited, not before that. And although this is with a cause, because of the destruction of nature, he is similar to one without a cause, the path does not arise.” But others say, “It is said ‘one who is ordained should be expelled’ with reference to one who has become a paṇḍaka by endeavor before ordination, but if it is after the higher ordination, by endeavor, the higher ordination does not disappear,” that is not right. It should be considered and accepted that by whatever reason he is unsuited by endeavor before ordination, by that same reason he is unsuited afterward as well.
Since it is said, “The seeds have been removed,” when the seeds remain but only the signs are removed, a eunuch is not created. Even for a bhikkhu, if there is no harm caused by the removal of those seeds, it is only a grave offense, not the state of being a eunuch. However, when the seeds are removed, even the sexual organ becomes incapable of performing the act due to lust, masculinity is lost, and the signs of a man such as a beard are also lost. The ordination is also lost, and the defilements become difficult to restrain, like those of a neuter eunuch. Therefore, they say that even one who is ordained in such a state should be expelled. If this is so, why was a pārājika offense not prescribed for the removal of the seeds? Here, some say, “It was indeed prescribed by the Blessed One, ‘A eunuch, O bhikkhus, should not be ordained. If ordained, he should be expelled.’” Others, however, say, “Because at the moment of seed removal, he is not a eunuch, therefore no pārājika offense was prescribed at that moment. But since that bhikkhu, whose seeds have been removed, later becomes a eunuch in the manner described, he becomes incapable, unfit for ordination, and his ordination is lost. Therefore, from the time he becomes a eunuch, he is to be associated with a naturally neuter eunuch and is said to be ‘ordained and should be expelled,’ but not before. And although this is due to a cause, because of the destruction of his potential, even the path does not arise for him, making him similar to one without a cause.” Still others say, “It refers to one who became a eunuch through effort before ordination, and thus it is said, ‘If ordained, he should be expelled.’ But for one who becomes a eunuch through effort after ordination, the ordination is not lost.” This is not correct. For whatever reason one is incapable before ordination, for the same reason one is incapable afterward. This should be carefully considered and understood.
ID648
Itthattādi bhāvo natthi etassāti abhāvako. Pabbajjā na vāritāti ettha pabbajjāggahaṇeneva upasampadāpi gahitā. Tenāha “yassa cettha pabbajjā vāritā”tiādi. Tasmiṃ yevassa pakkhe pabbajjā vāritāti ettha pana apaṇḍakapakkhepi pabbajjāmattameva labhati, upasampadā pana tadāpi na vaṭṭati, paṇḍakapakkhe pana āgato liṅganāsanāya nāsetabboti veditabbanti vuttaṃ.
There is no state of femininity or masculinity in him, thus “genderless.” Ordination is not prohibited”—here, by the term “ordination,” full ordination is also included. Hence it is said, “For whom ordination is prohibited here” and so forth. “In that very phase, his ordination is prohibited”—here, however, even in the non-eunuch phase, he obtains only ordination, not full ordination at that time; but in the eunuch phase, he should be expelled due to the loss of gender characteristics, it is said.
Abhāvako is one who does not possess the nature of being a woman and so on. Pabbajjā na vāritāti, “The going forth is not prohibited,” Here, by the very mention of pabbajjā, full ordination is also included. Therefore, he said, “For whomsoever the going forth is prohibited here,” and so on. Tasmiṃ yevassa pakkhe pabbajjā vāritāti, “In that very side of his, the going forth is prohibited,” Here, even on the side of not being a paṇḍaka, he receives only the mere going forth; full ordination, however, even then is not permissible. But, on the side of being a paṇḍaka, if he has come, he should be expelled due to the destruction of the sign. This should be understood, it is said.
Because there is no state of being a woman, etc., in him, he is incapable. The phrase “Ordination is not prohibited” here includes both ordination and higher ordination. Therefore, it is said, “For whom ordination is prohibited here.” In his case, ordination is prohibited only in his faction. Here, however, even in the non-eunuch faction, only ordination is obtained, but higher ordination is not valid at that time. In the eunuch faction, it should be understood that one who has come for the sake of the signs should be expelled.
ID649
136. Ubhatobyañjanamassa atthīti ubhatobyañjanakoti iminā asamānādhikaraṇavisayo bāhiratthasamāsoyaṃ, purimapade ca vibhattialopoti dasseti. Byañjananti cettha purisanimittaṃ itthinimittañca adhippetaṃ. Atha ubhatobyañjanakassa ekameva indriyaṃ hoti, udāhu dveti? Ekameva hoti, na dve. Kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce? “Yassa itthindriyaṃ uppajjati, tassa purisindriyaṃ uppajjatīti, no. Yassa vā pana purisindriyaṃ uppajjati, tassa itthindriyaṃ uppajjatīti, no”ti (yama. 3.indriyayamaka.188) ekasmiṃ santāne indriyabhūtabhāvadvayassa uppattiyā abhidhamme paṭisedhitattā, tañca kho itthiubhatobyañjanakassa itthindriyaṃ, purisaubhatobyañjanakassa purisindriyanti. Yadi evaṃ dutiyabyañjanassa abhāvo āpajjati indriyañhi byañjanassa kāraṇaṃ vuttaṃ, tañca tassa natthīti? Vuccate – na tassa indriyaṃ dutiyabyañjanakāraṇaṃ. Kasmā? Sadā abhāvato. Itthiubhatobyañjanakassa hi yadā itthiyā rāgacittaṃ uppajjati, tadā purisabyañjanaṃ pākaṭaṃ hoti, itthibyañjanaṃ paṭicchannaṃ guḷhaṃ hoti, tathā itarassa itaraṃ. Yadi ca tesaṃ indriyaṃ dutiyabyañjanakāraṇaṃ bhaveyya, sadāpi byañjanadvayaṃ tiṭṭheyya, na pana tiṭṭhati, tasmā veditabbametaṃ “na tassa taṃ byañjanakāraṇaṃ, kammasahāyaṃ pana rāgacittamevettha kāraṇa”nti. Yasmā cassa ekameva indriyaṃ hoti, tasmā itthiubhatobyañjanako sayampi gabbhaṃ gaṇhāti, parampi gaṇhāpeti. Purisaubhatobyañjanako paraṃ gaṇhāpeti, sayaṃ pana na gaṇhātīti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.116) āgataṃ.
136. “Having both characteristics means a hermaphrodite”—by this, it is shown that this is an external compound with dissimilar case endings, with the elision of the case ending in the prior term. Here, “characteristics” refers to the male organ and the female organ. Now, does a hermaphrodite have just one sense organ or two? It is just one, not two. How is this known? Because in the Abhidhamma it is denied that two states of being sense organs arise in one continuum, as stated: “When a female sense organ arises, does a male sense organ arise? No. Or when a male sense organ arises, does a female sense organ arise? No” (yama. 3.indriyayamaka.188). And that is, for a female hermaphrodite, the female sense organ; for a male hermaphrodite, the male sense organ. If so, does the absence of a second characteristic result, since the sense organ is said to be the cause of the characteristic, and it is not present for that one? It is answered: No, its sense organ is not the cause of the second characteristic. Why? Because it is always absent. For when a female hermaphrodite’s mind becomes lustful toward a woman, the male characteristic becomes evident, and the female characteristic becomes concealed and hidden; likewise, for the other, it is the reverse. And if the sense organ were the cause of the second characteristic for them, both characteristics would always be present, but they are not; therefore, it should be understood that “its sense organ is not the cause of that characteristic; rather, the lustful mind, assisted by kamma, is the cause here.” Since it has only one sense organ, a female hermaphrodite can both conceive and cause conception in another; a male hermaphrodite causes conception in another but does not conceive himself, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.116).
136. Ubhatobyañjanakoti, “One who has both signs,” Ubhatobyañjanamassa atthīti ubhatobyañjanako, by this, it is shown that this is an external compound, whose locus is dissimilar, and there is elision of the case ending in the first member. Here, byañjananti, “sign,” refers to the male sign and the female sign. Now, does the ubhatobyañjanaka have only one sense-faculty, or two? It is only one, not two. How is it known? Because it is refuted in the Abhidhamma that two states, in the form of sense-faculties, arise in one continuum: “For whomsoever the female-faculty arises, does the male-faculty arise? No. Or, for whomsoever the male-faculty arises, does the female-faculty arise? No.” (yama. 3.indriyayamaka.188) And that, indeed, is the female-faculty for the female ubhatobyañjanaka, and the male-faculty for the male ubhatobyañjanaka. If so, it results in the absence of the second sign, for the sense-faculty is said to be the cause of the sign, and that he does not have? It is said - the sense-faculty is not the cause of his second sign. Why? Because of its constant absence. For the female ubhatobyañjanaka, when a passionate thought arises in him regarding a woman, then the male sign becomes manifest, the female sign is concealed, hidden. Similarly, the other one’s other (sign becomes manifest and concealed). And if the sense-faculty were the cause of their second sign, then the two signs would always remain, but they do not remain. Therefore, it should be understood, “That is not the cause of his sign; rather, passionate thought aided by kamma is the cause here.” And since he has only one sense-faculty, therefore, the female ubhatobyañjanaka himself becomes pregnant and makes another pregnant. The male ubhatobyañjanaka makes another pregnant, but he himself does not become pregnant. This is what has come in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.116).
136. “He has the characteristics of both sexes,” thus he is called a hermaphrodite. This indicates an external subject matter and the elision of case endings in the previous word. Here, “characteristics” refer to the signs of a man and a woman. Now, does a hermaphrodite have one faculty or two? He has only one, not two. How is this known? “When the female faculty arises, the male faculty does not arise. When the male faculty arises, the female faculty does not arise” (Yamaka 3, Indriyayamaka 188). In the Abhidhamma, the simultaneous arising of two faculties in one continuum is rejected. For a female hermaphrodite, the female faculty arises; for a male hermaphrodite, the male faculty arises. If this is so, does the absence of the second characteristic occur because the faculty is said to be the cause of the characteristic, and that is absent in him? It is said: No, the faculty is not the cause of the second characteristic. Why? Because it is always absent. For when a female hermaphrodite has lustful thoughts toward a woman, the male characteristic becomes apparent, and the female characteristic becomes hidden. Similarly, for the other, the other characteristic becomes apparent. If the faculty were the cause of the second characteristic, both characteristics would always be present, but they are not. Therefore, it should be understood that the faculty is not the cause of the characteristic, but rather the lustful mind assisted by kamma is the cause here. Since he has only one faculty, a female hermaphrodite can both conceive and cause conception. A male hermaphrodite can cause conception but cannot conceive himself. This is explained in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.116).
ID650
Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.116) pana – itthiubhatobyañjanakoti itthindriyayutto, itaro pana purisindriyayutto. Ekassa hi bhāvadvayaṃ saha na uppajjati yamake (yama. 3.indriyayamaka.188) paṭikkhittattā. Dutiyabyañjanaṃ pana kammasahāyena akusalacitteneva bhāvarahitaṃ uppajjati. Pakatitthipurisānampi kammameva byañjanaliṅgānaṃ kāraṇaṃ, na bhāvo tassa kenaci paccayena paccayattassa paṭṭhāne avuttattā. Kevalaṃ bhāvasahitānaṃyeva byañjanaliṅgānaṃ pavattadassanatthaṃ aṭṭhakathāsu (dha. sa. aṭṭha. 632-633) “itthindriyaṃ paṭicca itthiliṅgādīnī”tiādinā indriyassa byañjanakāraṇattena vuttaṃ. Idha pana akusalabalena indriyaṃ vināpi byañjanaṃ uppajjatīti veditabbaṃ. Ubhinnampi ce tesaṃ ubhatobyañjanakānaṃ. Yadā itthiyā rāgo uppajjati, tadā purisabyañjanaṃ pākaṭaṃ hoti, itaraṃ paṭicchannaṃ. Yadā purise rāgo uppajjati, tadā itthibyañjanaṃ pākaṭaṃ hoti, itaraṃ paṭicchannanti āgataṃ.
In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.116), however—“female hermaphrodite” means one endowed with the female sense organ; the other is endowed with the male sense organ. For the arising of two states in one being is denied in the Yamaka (yama. 3.indriyayamaka.188). But the second characteristic arises without gender, assisted by kamma through an unwholesome mind. For natural women and men too, kamma alone is the cause of characteristic signs, not gender, as it is not stated in the Paṭṭhāna as a condition for it by any means. It is only said in the commentaries (dha. sa. aṭṭha. 632-633), “Depending on the female sense organ, female signs and so forth arise,” to show the occurrence of characteristic signs accompanied by gender; here, however, it should be understood that the characteristic arises even without the sense organ due to the strength of unwholesomeness. And for both of them, the hermaphrodites: when lust arises toward a woman, the male characteristic becomes evident, and the other is concealed; when lust arises toward a man, the female characteristic becomes evident, and the other is concealed, it is stated.
In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.116), however, – itthiubhatobyañjanakoti, “the itthiubhatobyañjanaka”, is one endowed with the female sense-faculty, while the other one is endowed with the male sense-faculty. For one person, two states do not arise together, because it is refuted in the Yamaka (yama. 3.indriyayamaka.188). The second sign, however, arises through unwholesome thought, aided by kamma, devoid of the (corresponding) state. Even for ordinary men and women, kamma alone is the cause of the signs and marks, not the state, because its conditionality by any condition is not mentioned in the Paṭṭhāna. Only for the sake of showing the occurrence of signs and marks along with the state, it is said in the commentaries (dha. sa. aṭṭha. 632-633), “Depending on the female-faculty, the female signs, etc.,” thus mentioning the sense-faculty as the cause of the sign. But here, it should be understood that the sign arises even without the sense-faculty, due to the power of unwholesomeness. And for both of them, the ubhatobyañjanakas, when passion arises in them towards a woman, then the male sign becomes manifest, the other one is concealed. When passion arises towards a man, then the female sign becomes manifest, the other one is concealed. This is what has come.
In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.116), however, a female hermaphrodite is one endowed with the female faculty, while the other is endowed with the male faculty. For in one being, the two states do not arise simultaneously, as rejected in the Yamaka (Yamaka 3, Indriyayamaka 188). The second characteristic arises only through unwholesome consciousness assisted by kamma, devoid of its natural state. Even for ordinary women and men, kamma is the cause of the characteristics and signs, not the state, because no condition for the state is mentioned in the texts. The commentaries (Dha. Sa. Aṭṭha. 632-633) state, “The female faculty is the cause of the female signs, etc.,” indicating that the faculty is the cause of the characteristics. Here, however, it should be understood that the characteristic can arise even without the faculty, due to the power of unwholesomeness. For both of these hermaphrodites, when lust arises toward a woman, the male characteristic becomes apparent, and the other becomes hidden. When lust arises toward a man, the female characteristic becomes apparent, and the other becomes hidden.
ID651
137. Theyyāya saṃvāso etassāti theyyasaṃvāsako. So ca na saṃvāsamattasseva thenako idhādhippeto, atha kho liṅgassa tadubhayassa ca thenakopīti āha “tayo theyyasaṃvāsakā”tiādi. Na yathāvuḍḍhaṃ vandanaṃ sādiyatīti yathāvuḍḍhaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ vā sāmaṇerānaṃ vā vandanaṃ na sādiyati. Yathāvuḍḍhaṃ vandanaṃ sādiyatīti attanā musāvādaṃ katvā dassitavassānurūpaṃ yathāvuḍḍhaṃ vandanaṃ sādiyati. Bhikkhuvassagaṇanādikoti iminā na ekakammādikova idha saṃvāso nāmāti dasseti.
137. He cohabits by theft, thus a “thief-cohabiter.” And here, it is not merely one who steals cohabitation that is intended, but one who steals the insignia or both that and cohabitation; hence it is said, “There are three types of thief-cohabiters” and so forth. “He does not accept veneration according to seniority”—he does not accept veneration from monks or novices according to seniority. “He accepts veneration according to seniority”—having lied about himself, he accepts veneration according to seniority in line with the years he has shown. “Counting monastic years and so forth”—by this, it is shown that cohabitation here is not merely a single act or such.
137. One who associates by theft is a theyyasaṃvāsako. And he is not a thief (thenako) of mere association, he is rather a thief (thenako) of the sign and of both. He speaks of “tayo theyyasaṃvāsakā”tiādi, “Three kinds of those who associate by theft” and so on. Na yathāvuḍḍhaṃ vandanaṃ sādiyatīti, he does not consent to being venerated according to seniority by monks or novices. Yathāvuḍḍhaṃ vandanaṃ sādiyatīti, he does consent to being venerated according to seniority corresponding to the years he has presented by telling a lie himself. Bhikkhuvassagaṇanādikoti, “Counting the years as a monk, etc.,” by this he shows that association here is not just the singular act of kamma, etc.
137. “He associates by theft,” thus he is called a thief-associate. He is not merely a thief by association, but also by the signs and both. Therefore, it is said, “There are three types of thief-associates.” “He does not accept respect according to seniority” means he does not accept respect from bhikkhus or sāmaṇeras according to seniority. “He accepts respect according to seniority” means he accepts respect according to seniority after falsely claiming seniority. “The counting of bhikkhu rains, etc.” indicates that the association here is not merely by a single act.
ID652
138. Rāja…pe… bhayenāti ettha bhaya-saddo paccekaṃ yojetabbo “rājabhayena dubbhikkhabhayenā”tiādinā. Saṃvāsaṃ nādhivāseti, yāva so suddhamānasoti rājabhayādīhi gahitaliṅgatāya so suddhamānaso yāva saṃvāsaṃ nādhivāsetīti attho. Yo hi rājabhayādiṃ vinā kevalaṃ bhikkhū vañcetvā tehi saddhiṃ saṃvasitukāmatāya liṅgaṃ gaṇhāti, so asuddhacittatāya liṅgaggahaṇeneva theyyasaṃvāsako nāma hoti. Ayaṃ pana tādisena asuddhacittena bhikkhū vañcetukāmatāya abhāvato yāva saṃvāsaṃ nādhivāseti, tāva theyyasaṃvāsako nāma na hoti. Teneva “rājabhayādīhi gahitaliṅgānaṃ ’gihī maṃ samaṇoti jānantū’ti vañcanacitte satipi bhikkhūnaṃ vañcetukāmatāya abhāvā doso na jāto”ti tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. Keci pana “vūpasantabhayatā idha suddhacittatā”ti vadanti, evañca sati so vūpasantabhayo yāva saṃvāsaṃ nādhivāseti, tāva theyyasaṃvāsako na hotīti ayamattho viññāyati. Imasmiñca atthe viññāyamāne avūpasantabhayassa saṃvāsasādiyanepi theyyasaṃvāsako na hotīti āpajjeyya, na ca aṭṭhakathāyaṃ avūpasantabhayassa saṃvāsasādiyanepi atheyyasaṃvāsakatā dassitā. Sabbapāsaṇḍiyabhattāni bhuñjantoti ca iminā avūpasantabhayenapi saṃvāsaṃ asādiyanteneva bhavitabbanti dīpeti. Teneva tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ “yasmā vihāraṃ āgantvā saṅghikaṃ gaṇhantassa saṃvāsaṃ pariharituṃ dukkaraṃ, tasmā ’sabbapāsaṇḍiyabhattāni bhuñjanto’ti idaṃ vutta”nti. Tasmā rājabhayādīhi gahitaliṅgatāyevettha suddhacittatāti gahetabbaṃ.
138. “Due to fear of the king… and so forth”—here, the word “fear” should be applied to each case individually, as “due to fear of the king, fear of famine,” and so on. “He does not consent to cohabitation as long as his mind is pure”—as long as he, having taken the insignia due to fear of the king and so forth, does not consent to cohabitation with a pure mind, is the meaning. For one who takes the insignia not out of fear of the king or such but merely with the desire to cohabit with monks by deceiving them becomes a thief-cohabiter by the very act of taking the insignia due to an impure mind. But this one, due to the absence of such an impure mind intending to deceive monks, is not a thief-cohabiter as long as he does not consent to cohabitation. Hence, in all three commentaries, it is said, “For those who take the insignia due to fear of the king and so forth, even if there is a mind to deceive by thinking, ‘Let laypeople know me as a monk,’ there is no fault due to the absence of intent to deceive monks.” Some, however, say, “Purity of mind here means the subsiding of fear,” and if so, it is understood that as long as one whose fear has subsided does not consent to cohabitation, he is not a thief-cohabiter. And with this meaning understood, it would follow that even one whose fear has not subsided is not a thief-cohabiter even if he consents to cohabitation; but the commentary does not show that one whose fear has not subsided becomes a thief-cohabiter even when consenting to cohabitation. “Eating the food of all sects”—this indicates that even one whose fear has not subsided must avoid consenting to cohabitation. Hence, in all three commentaries, it is said, “Since it is difficult to avoid cohabitation when coming to a monastery and taking what belongs to the Sangha, it is said, ‘eating the food of all sects.’” Therefore, purity of mind here should be understood as taking the insignia due to fear of the king and so forth.
138. Rāja…pe… bhayenāti, “Through fear of the king…etc.,” Here, the word bhaya, “fear,” should be connected separately: “Through fear of the king, through fear of famine,” and so on. Saṃvāsaṃ nādhivāseti, yāva so suddhamānasoti, meaning, “He does not consent to association, as long as his mind is pure”, due to the adoption of the sign out of fear of the king, etc., as long as his mind is pure. For one who, without fear of the king, etc., merely to deceive the monks, and wishing to associate with them, takes up the sign, he, due to his impure mind, becomes a theyyasaṃvāsaka by the very act of taking up the sign. But this one, since he does not have the desire to deceive the monks with such an impure mind, as long as he does not consent to association, he does not become a theyyasaṃvāsaka. Therefore, it is said in all three gaṇṭhipadas, “Even if those who have adopted the sign out of fear of the king, etc., have the deceptive thought, ‘Let the laymen know me as an ascetic,’ there is no fault arisen due to the absence of the desire to deceive the monks.” Some, however, say, “The state of having the fear subsided is purity of mind here.” And if this were so, the meaning is understood that he, with his fear subsided, as long as he does not consent to association, does not become a theyyasaṃvāsaka. And if this meaning is understood, it would follow that even one whose fear has not subsided, even if he consents to association, would not be a theyyasaṃvāsaka, and the state of not being a theyyasaṃvāsaka even when one whose fear has not subsided consents to association has not been shown in the commentary. Sabbapāsaṇḍiyabhattāni bhuñjantoti ca, “While eating all the almsfood of sectarians,” by this, he indicates that even one whose fear has not subsided should be one who does not consent to association. Therefore, it is said in all three gaṇṭhipadas, “Since it is difficult for one who comes to the monastery and receives what belongs to the Saṅgha to avoid association, therefore, this is said, ‘While eating all the almsfood of sectarians’.” Therefore, it should be accepted that the adoption of the sign out of fear of the king, etc., is purity of mind here.
138. “Through fear of the king, etc.” Here, the word “fear” should be applied separately: “through fear of the king, fear of famine, etc.” “He does not agree to the association until he is pure-minded” means that because of the signs taken out of fear of the king, etc., he does not agree to the association until he is pure-minded. For one who, without fear of the king, etc., deceives the bhikkhus and desires to associate with them by taking the signs, he is called a thief-associate because of his impure mind in taking the signs. This one, however, because he does not desire to deceive the bhikkhus with an impure mind, does not agree to the association, and thus is not called a thief-associate. Therefore, it is said, “For those who take the signs out of fear of the king, etc., even if they have the thought, ‘Let the laypeople know me as an ascetic,’ no fault arises because they do not desire to deceive the bhikkhus.” Some, however, say, “Here, pure-mindedness means the absence of fear.” Thus, as long as he does not agree to the association, he is not called a thief-associate. This meaning should be understood. In this context, even if one who has not abandoned fear agrees to the association, he is not called a thief-associate, and this is not shown in the commentary. “Eating the food of all sects” indicates that even one who has not abandoned fear should not agree to the association. Therefore, it is said in the three knot-points, “Because it is difficult for one who comes to the monastery and takes communal property to maintain the association, therefore it is said, ‘Eating the food of all sects.’” Therefore, pure-mindedness here should be understood as taking the signs out of fear of the king, etc.
ID653
Sabbapāsaṇḍiyabhattānīti sabbasāmayikānaṃ sādhāraṇaṃ katvā vīthicatukkādīsu ṭhapetvā dātabbabhattāni. Kāyaparihāriyānīti kāyena pariharitabbāni. Abbhuggacchantīti abhimukhaṃ gacchanti. Kammantānuṭṭhānenāti kasigorakkhādikammākaraṇena. Tadeva pattacīvaraṃ ādāya vihāraṃ gacchatīti cīvarāni nivāsanapārupanavasena ādāya, pattañca aṃsakūṭe laggetvā vihāraṃ gacchati.
“The food of all sects”—meals designated as common to all sectarians, to be given after being placed on streets or crossroads. “Bodily requisites”—those to be used by the body. “They approach”—they go toward him. “By not engaging in work”—by not performing tasks such as farming or herding. “He goes to the monastery taking that very bowl and robe”—wearing the robes for dressing and covering, and attaching the bowl to his shoulder, he goes to the monastery.
Sabbapāsaṇḍiyabhattānīti, “All the almsfood of sectarians,” means the almsfood that should be given after being placed at crossroads, etc., made common to all religious groups. Kāyaparihāriyānīti, “To be attended to by the body,” means to be maintained by the body. Abbhuggacchantīti, “They go towards,” means they go facing (them). Kammantānuṭṭhānenāti, “By engaging in occupations,” means by engaging in occupations such as farming, cattle-herding, etc. Tadeva pattacīvaraṃ ādāya vihāraṃ gacchatīti, “Taking that very bowl and robe, he goes to the monastery,” means taking the robes for the purpose of wearing and covering, and placing the bowl on the shoulder, he goes to the monastery.
“The food of all sects” refers to the food to be given, excluding the food placed in the streets, etc., after making it common to all contemporary sects. “To be carried by the body” means to be carried physically. “Going forth” means going forward. “By performing work” means by doing work such as farming and cattle-tending. “Taking the robe and bowl and going to the monastery” means taking the robes for wearing and covering, placing the bowl on the shoulder, and going to the monastery.
ID654
Nāpi sayaṃ jānātīti “yo evaṃ pabbajati, so theyyasaṃvāsako nāma hotī”ti vā “evaṃ kātuṃ na labhatī”ti vā “evaṃ pabbajito samaṇo nāma na hotī”ti vā na jānāti. Yo evaṃ pabbajati, so theyyasaṃvāsako nāma hotīti idaṃ pana nidassanamattaṃ. Anupasampannakāleyevāti iminā upasampannakāle sutvā sacepi nāroceti, theyyasaṃvāsako na hotīti dīpeti.
“He does not know himself”—“That one who ordains thus is called a thief-cohabiter,” or “One should not do this,” or “One ordained thus is not a monk”—he does not know this. “One who ordains thus is called a thief-cohabiter”—this is merely an example. “Only at the time of not being fully ordained”—by this, it is indicated that if he hears it at the time of full ordination and still does not declare it, he is not a thief-cohabiter.
Nāpi sayaṃ jānātīti, “Nor does he himself know,” means he does not know, “One who goes forth thus becomes a theyyasaṃvāsaka,” or, “It is not permissible to do so,” or, “One who has gone forth thus does not become an ascetic.” Yo evaṃ pabbajati, so theyyasaṃvāsako nāma hotīti, “One who goes forth thus, he indeed becomes known as a theyyasaṃvāsaka,” this, however, is just an illustration. Anupasampannakāleyevāti, “Only during the time of not being fully ordained,” by this he indicates that even if he hears it during the time of being fully ordained, and even if he does not inform, he does not become a theyyasaṃvāsaka.
“He does not know himself” means he does not know, “One who ordains thus is called a thief-associate,” or “He cannot do thus,” or “One who ordains thus is not called an ascetic.” “One who ordains thus is called a thief-associate” is merely an illustration. “At the time of not being fully ordained” means that even if he does not approve after hearing it at the time of full ordination, he is not called a thief-associate.
ID655
Sikkhaṃ appaccakkhāya…pe… theyyasaṃvāsako na hotīti idaṃ bhikkhūhi dinnaliṅgassa apariccattattā na liṅgatthenako hoti, liṅgānurūpassa saṃvāsassa sāditattā nāpi saṃvāsatthenako hotīti vuttaṃ. Eko bhikkhu kāsāye saussāhova odātaṃ nivāsetvāti etthāpi idameva kāraṇaṃ daṭṭhabbaṃ. Parato “sāmaṇero saliṅge ṭhito”tiādinā sāmaṇerassa vuttavidhānesupi atheyyasaṃvāsapakkhe ayameva nayo. “Bhikkhuniyāpi eseva nayo”ti vuttamevatthaṃ “sāpi gihibhāvaṃ patthayamānā”tiādinā vibhāveti.
“Without renouncing the training… he is not a thief-cohabiter”—this is said because, since the insignia given by the monks has not been relinquished, he is not a thief of the insignia, and since he accepts cohabitation in line with the insignia, he is not a thief of cohabitation either. “A single monk, eager in the ochre robes, wearing white”—here too, this same reason should be seen. Further on, “A novice standing with the insignia” and so forth—in the cases stated for a novice, this same method applies in the context of not being a thief-cohabiter. “The same method applies to a nun too”—this stated meaning is clarified by “She too, longing for the lay state” and so forth.
Sikkhaṃ appaccakkhāya…pe… theyyasaṃvāsako na hotīti, “Without having given up the training…etc… he does not become a theyyasaṃvāsaka.” This is said because he is not a thief of the sign due to not abandoning the sign given by the monks, and he is not a thief of association due to consenting to association which is in accordance with the sign. Eko bhikkhu kāsāye saussāhova odātaṃ nivāsetvāti, “A certain monk, though zealous for the ochre robe, having dressed in white,” here too, this very reason should be seen. Further, “sāmaṇero saliṅge ṭhito”tiādinā, “A novice, remaining in his sign,” and so on, in the statements regarding the novice, in the case of not being a theyyasaṃvāsaka, this very method (applies). “Bhikkhuniyāpi eseva nayo”ti, “For a bhikkhuni too, this very method,” the very matter which is stated is clarified by “sāpi gihibhāvaṃ patthayamānā”tiādinā, “She too, desiring the state of a laywoman,” and so on.
“Without renouncing the training… he is not called a thief-associate” means that because the bhikkhus have not given up the signs, he is not a thief by the signs, and because he agrees to the association in accordance with the signs, he is not a thief by association. “One bhikkhu, wearing white robes with enthusiasm, wears the ochre robe” means the same reason should be seen here. Elsewhere, “A sāmaṇera standing with the signs,” etc., in the case of a sāmaṇera, the same method applies to the non-thief-associate faction. “For a bhikkhunī, the same method applies” means the same meaning is explained by “She desires the state of a layperson,” etc.
ID656
Sace koci vuḍḍhapabbajitoti sāmaṇeraṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Mahāpeḷādīsūti etena gihisantakaṃ dassitaṃ. Sāmaṇerapaṭipāṭiyā…pe… theyyasaṃvāsako na hotīti ettha kiñcāpi theyyasaṃvāsako na hoti, pārājikaṃ pana āpajjatiyeva. Sesamettha uttānamevāti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.110) vuttaṃ.
“If some elder ordained person”—this is said referring to a novice. “In large chests and so forth”—by this, lay property is indicated. “In the order of novices… he is not a thief-cohabiter”—here, although he is not a thief-cohabiter, he indeed commits a defeat offense. The rest here is as explained above, it is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.110).
Sace koci vuḍḍhapabbajitoti, “If someone has gone forth in old age,” it is said referring to a novice. Mahāpeḷādīsūti, “In great calamities, etc.,” by this, what belongs to a layman is shown. Sāmaṇerapaṭipāṭiyā…pe… theyyasaṃvāsako na hotīti, “According to the conduct of a novice…etc… he does not become a theyyasaṃvāsaka,” here, although he does not become a theyyasaṃvāsaka, he certainly commits a pārājika. The rest here is straightforward, this is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.110).
“If any senior ordained one” refers to a sāmaṇera. “In great monasteries, etc.” indicates lay property. “In the succession of sāmaṇeras… he is not called a thief-associate” means that although he is not called a thief-associate, he still commits a pārājika offense. The rest here is clear, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.110).
ID657
Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.110) pana – theyyāya liṅgaggahaṇamattampi idha saṃvāso evāti āha “tayo theyyasaṃvāsakā”ti. Na yathāvuḍḍhaṃ vandananti bhikkhūnaṃ sāmaṇerānaṃ vā vandanaṃ na sādiyati. Yathāvuḍḍhaṃ vandananti attanā musāvādena dassitavassakkamena bhikkhūnaṃ vandanaṃ sādiyati. Daharasāmaṇero pana vuḍḍhasāmaṇerānaṃ, daharabhikkhū ca vuḍḍhānaṃ vandanaṃ sādiyantopi theyyasaṃvāsako na hoti. Imasmiṃ attheti saṃvāsatthenakatthe. Bhikkhuvassānīti idaṃ saṃvāsatthenake vuttapāṭhavasena vuttaṃ, sayameva pana pabbajitvā sāmaṇeravassāni gaṇentopi ubhayatthenako eva. Na kevalañca purisova, itthīpi bhikkhūnīsu evaṃ paṭipajjati, theyyasaṃvāsikāva. Ādikammikāpi cettha na muccanti. Upasampannesu eva paññattāpattiṃ paṭicca ādikammikā vuttā, tenevettha ādikammikopi na mutto.
In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.110), however—merely taking the insignia by theft is cohabitation here, so it says, “There are three thief-cohabiters.” “Not venerating according to seniority”—he does not accept veneration from monks or novices. “Venerating according to seniority”—he accepts veneration from monks according to the sequence of years shown by his own falsehood. But a young novice accepting veneration from elder novices, or young monks from elders, is not a thief-cohabiter. “In this meaning”—in the sense of stealing cohabitation. “Monastic years”—this is said according to the text stated for stealing cohabitation; but one who ordains himself and counts novice years is also a thief in both senses. And not only a man—even a woman acting thus among nuns is a thief-cohabiter. Beginners too are not exempt here. Beginners are mentioned due to the offense established for the fully ordained; thus, even a beginner here is not exempt.
In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.110), however, – even the mere taking up of the sign by theft is association here. Thus he says “tayo theyyasaṃvāsakā”ti, “Three kinds of those who associate by theft.” Na yathāvuḍḍhaṃ vandananti, he does not consent to being venerated by monks or novices. Yathāvuḍḍhaṃ vandananti, he does consent to being venerated by monks according to the sequence of years presented by himself through a lie. But a younger novice, even if he consents to being venerated by elder novices, and younger monks by elder ones, does not become a theyyasaṃvāsaka. Imasmiṃ attheti, “In this context,” in the context of the thief of association. Bhikkhuvassānīti, “The years as a monk,” this is said according to the reading stated in the context of the thief of association; but even one who goes forth himself and counts the years as a novice is a thief of both. And not only a man, but also a woman, if she behaves thus among bhikkhunīs, she is indeed a theyyasaṃvāsikā. Even the first offenders (ādikammika) do not escape here. The first offenders are mentioned in relation to the stipulated offense among the fully ordained. Therefore, even the first offender is not exempt here.
In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. �ī. Mahāvagga 2.110), however, it is said that even the mere taking of the signs for theft constitutes association here, thus it is said, “There are three types of thief-associates.” “Not accepting respect according to seniority” means not accepting respect from bhikkhus or sāmaṇeras. “Accepting respect according to seniority” means accepting respect from bhikkhus after falsely claiming seniority. A young sāmaṇera, however, even if he accepts respect from senior sāmaṇeras, and a young bhikkhu accepts respect from seniors, is not called a thief-associate. “In this matter” refers to the matter of being a thief by association. “The rains of bhikkhus” is said in the context of being a thief by association, but even if one ordains himself and counts the rains as a sāmaṇera, he is a thief by both. Not only men, but women also behave thus among bhikkhunīs, being thief-associates. Even those who commit the first offense are not exempt here. Because the offense is prescribed for the fully ordained, even those who commit the first offense are not exempt.
ID658
Rāja…pe… bhayenāti ettha bhaya-saddo paccekaṃ yojetabbo. Yāva so suddhamānasoti “iminā liṅgena bhikkhū vañcetvā tehi saṃvasissāmī”ti asuddhacittābhāvena suddhacitto. Tena hi asuddhacittena liṅge gahitamatte pacchā bhikkhūhi saha saṃvasatu vā mā vā, liṅgatthenako hoti. Pacchā saṃvasantopi abhabbo hutvā saṃvasati, tasmā ubhayatthenakopi liṅgatthenake eva pavisatīti veditabbaṃ. Yo pana rājādibhayena suddhacittova liṅgaṃ gahetvā vicaranto pacchā “bhikkhuvassāni gaṇetvā jīvassāmī”ti asuddhacittaṃ uppādeti, so cittuppādamattena theyyasaṃvāsako na hoti suddhacittena gahitaliṅgattā. Sace pana so bhikkhūnaṃ santikaṃ gantvā sāmaṇeravassagaṇanādiṃ karoti, tadā saṃvāsatthenako, ubhayatthenako vā hotīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Yaṃ pana parato “saha dhuranikkhepena ayampi theyyasaṃvāsakovā”ti vuttaṃ, taṃ bhikkhūhi saṅgamma saṃvāsādhivāsanavasena dhuranikkhepaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Tena vuttaṃ “saṃvāsaṃ nādhivāseti, yāvā”ti , tassa tāva theyyasaṃvāsako nāma na vuccatīti sambandho daṭṭhabbo. Ettha ca corādibhayaṃ vināpi kīḷādhippāyena liṅgaṃ gahetvā bhikkhūnampi santike pabbajitālayaṃ dassetvā vandanādiṃ asādiyantopi “sobhati nu kho me pabbajitaliṅga”ntiādinā suddhacittena gaṇhantopi theyyasaṃvāsako na hotīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
“Due to fear of the king… and so forth”—here, the word “fear” should be applied individually. “As long as his mind is pure”—pure in mind due to the absence of an impure intent such as, “With this insignia, I will deceive monks and live with them.” For with an impure mind, as soon as the insignia is taken, whether he later lives with monks or not, he becomes a thief of the insignia. Even if he lives with them later, he does so as an unfit person; thus, he is included among thieves of the insignia even as a thief in both senses, it should be understood. But one who takes the insignia with a pure mind due to fear of the king or such and, while wandering, later generates an impure mind thinking, “I will count monastic years and live,” does not become a thief-cohabiter by that mere arising of mind due to having taken the insignia with a pure mind. But if he goes to the monks and counts novice years or such, then he becomes a thief of cohabitation or a thief in both senses, it should be seen. What is said further on, “With the laying down of the burden, this one too is a thief-cohabiter”—this is said referring to laying down the burden by consenting to cohabitation with the monks’ assembly. Hence it is said, “He does not consent to cohabitation, as long as”—the connection should be seen as: he is not called a thief-cohabiter for that long. And here, even without fear of thieves or such, one who takes the insignia playfully and, showing an attachment to ordination among monks without accepting veneration or such, with a pure mind thinking, “Does the ordained insignia suit me?” or such, is not a thief-cohabiter, it should be seen.
Rāja…pe… bhayenāti, “Through fear of the king…etc.,” Here, the word bhaya, “fear,” should be connected separately. Yāva so suddhamānasoti, “As long as he is pure-minded,” pure-minded due to the absence of the impure thought, “By means of this sign, I will deceive the monks and associate with them.” Therefore, if the sign is taken with that impure thought, whether he associates with the monks afterwards or not, he becomes a thief of the sign. Even if he associates afterwards, he associates as one who is unfit. Therefore, it should be understood that the thief of both also falls into the category of the thief of the sign. But one who, out of fear of kings, etc., takes up the sign with a pure mind and lives, and afterwards generates the impure thought, “I will make a living by counting the years as a monk,” he does not become a theyyasaṃvāsaka by the mere arising of the thought, due to having taken up the sign with a pure mind. But if he goes to the monks and engages in counting the years as a novice, etc., then he becomes a thief of association, or a thief of both. This should be seen. But what is said later, “Along with the discarding of the burden, he too is indeed a theyyasaṃvāsaka,” that is said referring to the discarding of the burden due to consenting to association after meeting with the monks. Therefore, it is said, “saṃvāsaṃ nādhivāseti, yāvā”ti, “He does not consent to association, as long as,” it should be connected that he is not called a theyyasaṃvāsaka. And here, even one who, without fear of thieves, etc., takes up the sign for the sake of sport and, even in the presence of monks, shows no attachment to the monastic life and does not consent to veneration, etc., even one who takes it up with a pure mind, thinking, “Does the monastic sign suit me?” etc., does not become a theyyasaṃvāsaka. This should be seen.
“Through fear of the king, etc.” Here, the word “fear” should be applied separately. “Until he is pure-minded” means “With this sign, I will deceive the bhikkhus and associate with them,” but without an impure mind, he is pure-minded. Therefore, even if one with an impure mind takes the signs and later associates with the bhikkhus or not, he is a thief by the signs. Even if he later associates, being incapable, he associates, thus he is a thief by both and enters as a thief by the signs. One who, out of fear of the king, etc., takes the signs with a pure mind and later generates an impure mind, thinking, “I will count the rains of the bhikkhus and live,” is not called a thief-associate because the signs were taken with a pure mind. If, however, he goes to the bhikkhus and counts the rains as a sāmaṇera, etc., then he is a thief by association or by both. What is said elsewhere, “Even this one is a thief-associate at the time of laying down the burden,” refers to laying down the burden by agreeing to the association with the bhikkhus. Therefore, it is said, “He does not agree to the association, until,” meaning he is not called a thief-associate until then. Here, even if one takes the signs for the sake of play, without fear of thieves, etc., and shows the signs of ordination to the bhikkhus, not accepting respect, etc., thinking, “Does the sign of ordination suit me?” etc., with a pure mind, he is not called a thief-associate.
ID659
Sabbapāsaṇḍiyabhattānīti sabbasāmayikānaṃ sādhāraṇaṃ katvā paññattāni bhattāni. Idañca bhikkhūnaññeva niyamitabhattaggahaṇe saṃvāsopi sambhaveyyāti sabbasādhāraṇabhattaṃ vuttaṃ. Saṃvāsaṃ pana asādiyitvā abhikkhukavihārādīsu vihārabhattādīni bhuñjantopi theyyasaṃvāsako na hoti eva. Kammantānuṭṭhānenāti kasiādikammākaraṇena. Pattacīvaraṃ ādāyāti bhikkhuliṅgavasena sarīrena dhāretvā.
“The food of all sects”—meals designated as common to all sectarians. And since cohabitation could arise if only the monks’ designated meal is taken, food common to all is mentioned. But one who does not consent to cohabitation and eats monastery food or such in places without monks is not a thief-cohabiter. “By not engaging in work”—by not performing tasks like farming. “Taking the bowl and robe”—wearing them on the body as a monk’s insignia.
Sabbapāsaṇḍiyabhattānīti, “All the almsfood of sectarians,” means the almsfood stipulated as common to all religious groups. And this almsfood, common to all, is mentioned because association might also occur with the exclusive acceptance of almsfood by the monks. But even one who, without consenting to association, eats the monastery food, etc., in monasteries of non-bhikkhus, etc., is not a theyyasaṃvāsaka. Kammantānuṭṭhānenāti, “By engaging in occupations,” means by engaging in occupations such as farming, etc. Pattacīvaraṃ ādāyāti, “Taking the bowl and robe,” means wearing them on the body in the manner of the bhikkhu sign.
“The food of all sects” refers to the food prescribed, made common to all contemporary sects. This is said because the association is possible even when the bhikkhus are restricted in taking food. Even if one eats monastery food, etc., without agreeing to the association, in monasteries without bhikkhus, etc., he is not called a thief-associate. “By performing work” means by doing work such as farming. “Taking the robe and bowl” means wearing the signs of a bhikkhu on the body.
ID660
Yo evaṃ pabbajati, so theyyasaṃvāsako nāma hotīti idaṃ nidassanamattaṃ. “Theyyasaṃvāsako”ti pana nāmaṃ ajānantopi “evaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭatī”ti vā “karonto samaṇo nāma na hotī”ti vā “yadi ārocessāmi, chaḍḍayissanti ma”nti vā “yena kenaci pabbajjā me na ruhatī”ti jānāti, theyyasaṃvāsako hoti. Yo pana paṭhamaṃ “pabbajjā evaṃ me gahitā”ti saññī kevalaṃ antarā attano setavatthanivāsanādivippakāraṃ pakāsetuṃ lajjanto na katheti, so theyyasaṃvāsako na hoti. Anupasampannakāleyevāti ettha avadhāraṇena upasampannakāle theyyasaṃvāsakalakkhaṇaṃ ñatvā vañcanāyapi nāroceti, theyyasaṃvāsako na hotīti dīpeti. So hi suddhacittena gahitaliṅgattā liṅgatthenako na hoti, laddhūpasampadattā tadanuguṇasseva saṃvāsassa sāditattā saṃvāsatthenakopi na hoti. Anupasampanno pana liṅgatthenako hoti, saṃvāsārahassa liṅgassa gahitattā saṃvāsasādiyanamattena saṃvāsatthenako hoti.
Whoever goes forth in this way is called a theyyasaṃvāsaka—this is merely an example. However, even one who does not know the term “theyyasaṃvāsaka” but understands, “It is not proper to act in this way,” or “One who does so is not a true samaṇa,” or “If I report this, they will expel me,” or “My going-forth is invalid for some reason,” is a theyyasaṃvāsaka. But one who initially perceives, “My going-forth was taken in this way,” and, out of shame, does not confess merely due to some irregularity in wearing white clothes or the like, is not a theyyasaṃvāsaka. Even during the time of being unordained—here, the restriction implies that one who, knowing the characteristic of a theyyasaṃvāsaka at the time of ordination, does not report it even with intent to deceive, is not a theyyasaṃvāsaka. This indicates that such a one, having taken the insignia with a pure mind, is not a liṅgatthenaka (thief of the insignia), and, having received ordination, is not a saṃvāsatthenaka (thief of association) either, since they have only undertaken the association consistent with that. However, an unordained person who is a liṅgatthenaka, having taken the insignia worthy of association, becomes a saṃvāsatthenaka merely by undertaking association.
He who ordains thus, is called a co-resident by theft – this is only an example. Even if one does not know the term “co-resident by theft,” if one knows, “It is not proper to do this,” or, “One who does this is not called a monk,” or, “If I inform them, they will expel me,” or, “Ordination by just anyone does not please me,” he is a co-resident by theft. But he who, initially, thinking “Ordination has been obtained by me in this way,” simply does not declare the occasional manifestation of his own white-cloth-wearing and other improper behaviors because he is ashamed, he is not a co-resident by theft. Just at the time of not being fully ordained, here by determination, even though he knows the characteristics of a co-resident by theft at the time of being fully ordained, and does not inform even through deceit, he does not become a co-resident by theft, it is illuminated. Because his sign was obtained with a pure mind, he is not one [who is a thief] in the sense of the sign; because he has obtained full ordination, and because he has relished fellowship in accordance with that, he is also not one [who is a thief] in the sense of fellowship. But one who is not fully ordained is one [who is a thief] in the sense of the sign, because the sign of one worthy of fellowship has been obtained, he is one [who is a thief] in the sense of fellowship by the mere fact of relishing fellowship.
One who goes forth in this way is called a thief by association. This is merely an illustration. Even if one does not know the term “thief by association,” they may think, “It is not proper to do this,” or “If I do this, I am not truly a monastic,” or “If I report it, they will expel me,” or “I am not suited for monastic life in any way.” Such a person is a thief by association. However, if someone initially thinks, “I have received monastic ordination in this way,” but out of shame, does not speak of the differences in their robe, dwelling, etc., they are not a thief by association. During the time before full ordination, by this emphasis, even if one knows the characteristics of a thief by association at the time of full ordination and does not report it deceitfully, they are not a thief by association. This is because, having taken the robe with a pure mind, they are not a thief by the mere act of wearing the robe, and having received full ordination, they are not a thief by association since they enjoy the association in accordance with it. However, before full ordination, one is a thief by the mere act of wearing the robe, and since they have taken the robe suitable for association, they are a thief by association merely by enjoying the association.
ID661
Saliṅge ṭhitoti saliṅgabhāve ṭhito. Theyyasaṃvāsako na hotīti bhikkhūhi dinnaliṅgassa apariccattattā liṅgatthenako na hoti. Bhikkhupaṭiññāya apariccattattā saṃvāsatthenako na hoti. Yaṃ pana mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. paṭhamapārājikavaṇṇanā) “liṅgānurūpassa saṃvāsassa sāditattā nāpi saṃvāsatthenako”ti kāraṇaṃ vuttaṃ, tampi idameva kāraṇaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Itarathā sāmaṇerassāpi bhikkhuvassagaṇanādīsu liṅgānurūpasaṃvāso eva sāditoti saṃvāsatthenakatā na siyā bhikkhūhi dinnaliṅgassa ubhinnampi sādhāraṇattā. Yathā cettha bhikkhu, evaṃ sāmaṇeropi pārājikaṃ samāpanno sāmaṇerapaṭiññāya apariccattattā saṃvāsatthenako na hotīti veditabbo. Sobhatīti sampaṭicchitvāti kāsāvadhāraṇe dhuraṃ nikkhipitvā gihibhāvaṃ sampaṭicchitvā.
Standing with the insignia means standing in the state of having the insignia. He is not a theyyasaṃvāsaka—because the insignia given by the bhikkhus has not been relinquished, he is not a liṅgatthenaka. Because the acknowledgment as a bhikkhu has not been relinquished, he is not a saṃvāsatthenaka. However, the reason stated in the mātikāṭṭhakathā (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. paṭhamapārājikavaṇṇanā), “Nor is he a saṃvāsatthenaka because he has undertaken the association consistent with the insignia,” refers to this same reason. Otherwise, even a sāmaṇera, by undertaking association consistent with the insignia—such as counting the vassa with bhikkhus—would not be a saṃvāsatthenaka, since the insignia given by bhikkhus is common to both. Just as here a bhikkhu, so too a sāmaṇera who commits a pārājika offense is not a saṃvāsatthenaka because the acknowledgment as a sāmaṇera has not been relinquished—this should be understood. It shines, having accepted means having laid down the duty of wearing the kāsāva and accepted lay status.
Remaining in the sign, having remained in the state of having the sign. He is not a co-resident by theft because he has not abandoned the sign given by the bhikkhus, he is not one [who is a thief] in the sense of the sign. Because he has not abandoned the declaration of being a bhikkhu, he is not one [who is a thief] in the sense of fellowship. But in the Root Text Commentary (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Paṭhamapārājikavaṇṇanā), the reason given, “because he has relished fellowship in conformity with the sign, he is also not one [who is a thief] in the sense of fellowship,” that too has been stated referring to this very reason. Otherwise, even for a novice, in the counting of years as a bhikkhu, etc., only fellowship in conformity with the sign is relished, thus he would not be one [who is a thief] in the sense of fellowship, because the sign given by the bhikkhus is common to both. Just as in this case, it is a bhikkhu, so too a novice, who has fallen into a pārājika offense, should be understood as not one [who is a thief] in the sense of fellowship due to not abandoning the declaration of being a novice. Having accepted ‘it becomes’ having taken up the task of wearing the ochre robes, having accepted the state of a householder.
Established in the proper robe means being established in the state of wearing the proper robe. They are not a thief by association because, since the robe given by the monks has not been relinquished, they are not a thief by the mere act of wearing the robe. Since they have not relinquished the acknowledgment of being a monk, they are not a thief by association. However, the reason stated in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Paṭhamapārājikavaṇṇanā) that “since they enjoy the association in accordance with the robe, they are not a thief by association” is also referring to this same reason. Otherwise, even a novice monk, enjoying the association in accordance with the robe in matters such as counting the rains retreat, would not be a thief by association, since the robe given by the monks is common to both. Just as in this case a monk who has committed a pārājika offense is not a thief by association due to not relinquishing the acknowledgment of being a monk, so too should a novice be understood. They shine by accepting means having laid down the burden of wearing the ochre robe and accepting the householder’s life.
ID662
Sace koci vuḍḍhapabbajitoti sāmaṇeraṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Mahāpeḷādīsūti vilīvādimayesu gharadvāresu ṭhapitesu bhattabhājanavisesesu. Etena vihāre bhikkhūhi saddhiṃ vassagaṇanādīnaṃ akaraṇaṃ dassetīti vuttaṃ.
If someone is an elder who has gone forth—this refers to a sāmaṇera. In large baskets and the like refers to special vessels for food placed at house doors made of bamboo or similar materials. This indicates that he does not participate in counting the vassa and so forth with bhikkhus in the monastery, it is said.
If any elder-ordained one this is said in reference to a novice. In the great receptacles and so forth, in the special receptacles for food placed at the doorways made of wickerwork and so forth. By this, it is said that he shows the non-performance of counting years, etc., together with the bhikkhus in the monastery.
If any senior monk refers to a novice. In places like Mahāpeḷā, meaning in houses with doors made of bamboo or similar materials, where special food vessels are placed. This shows that in such monasteries, the counting of the rains retreat, etc., is not done together with the monks.
ID663
139. Titthiyapakkantakakathāyaṃ tesaṃ liṅge ādinnamatte titthiyapakkantako hotīti “titthiyo bhavissāmī”ti gatassa liṅgaggahaṇeneva tesaṃ laddhipi gahitāyeva hotīti katvā vuttaṃ. Kenaci pana “tesaṃ liṅge ādinnamatte laddhiyā gahitāyapi aggahitāyapi titthiyapakkantako hotī”ti vuttaṃ, taṃ na gahetabbaṃ. Na hi “titthiyo bhavissāmī”ti gatassa liṅgasampaṭicchanato aññaṃ laddhiggahaṇaṃ nāma atthi. Liṅgasampaṭicchaneneva hi so gahitaladdhiko hoti. Teneva “vīmaṃsanatthaṃ kusacīrādīni…pe… yāva na sampaṭicchati, tāva taṃ laddhi rakkhati, sampaṭicchitamatte titthiyapakkantako hotī”ti vuttaṃ. Naggova ājīvakānaṃ upassayaṃ gacchati, padavāre padavāre dukkaṭanti “ājīvako bhavissa”nti asuddhacittena gamanapaccayā dukkaṭaṃ vuttaṃ. Naggena hutvā gamanapaccayāpi padavāre dukkaṭā na muccatiyevāti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.110) vuttaṃ.
139. In the discussion of one who defects to sectarians, As soon as their insignia is taken, he becomes a titthiyapakkantaka—this is said on the basis that by merely taking their insignia with the intent, “I will become a sectarian,” their doctrine is also taken. However, some say, “As soon as their insignia is taken, whether their doctrine is taken or not, he becomes a titthiyapakkantaka,” but this should not be accepted. For one who goes with the intent, “I will become a sectarian,” there is no taking of doctrine apart from accepting the insignia. Indeed, by accepting the insignia alone, he becomes one who has taken their doctrine. Hence it is said, “For investigation, he wears grass robes and so forth… until he accepts it, that doctrine protects him; the moment he accepts it, he becomes a titthiyapakkantaka.” Naked, he goes to the residence of the Ājīvakas, with a dukkaṭa at each step—a dukkaṭa is incurred due to going with an impure mind intending, “I will become an Ājīvaka.” Even going naked incurs a dukkaṭa at each step, from which he is not exempt, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.110).
139. In the account of one who has defected to another sect, on merely seizing their sign, he becomes one who has defected to another sect, this is stated having considered that by merely grasping the sign of one who has gone forth intending ‘I will become a sectarian’, their doctrine is as good as grasped. But it has been stated by some, “on merely seizing their sign, whether the doctrine is grasped or not grasped, he becomes one who has defected to another sect,” that should not be accepted. Indeed, for one who has gone forth intending ‘I will become a sectarian,’ there is no other grasping of doctrine than accepting the sign. By accepting the sign, indeed, he becomes one who has grasped the doctrine. Therefore, it has been said, “for the purpose of testing, grass, bark-cloth, and so forth… and so on… until he accepts it, he protects that doctrine; on merely accepting it, he becomes one who has defected to another sect.” A naked one goes to the আশ্রয় (āśraya – refuge/resort) of the Ājīvakas, at each step, a dukkaṭa a dukkaṭa is declared due to the cause of going with an impure mind, intending, ‘I will become an Ājīvaka’. In Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.110), it has been stated, even due to the cause of going having become naked, one is certainly not freed from a dukkaṭa at each step.
139. In the discussion on those who have departed to heretical sects, they become those who have departed to heretical sects as soon as they take the robe, meaning that by merely taking the robe with the intention, “I will become a heretic,” their attainment is also considered taken. However, it should not be understood that “as soon as they take the robe, whether their attainment is taken or not, they become those who have departed to heretical sects.” For there is no other act of taking the attainment apart from accepting the robe with the intention, “I will become a heretic.” By merely accepting the robe, they have taken the attainment. Therefore, it is said, “For the purpose of investigation, until they accept the robe, their attainment remains protected. As soon as they accept it, they become those who have departed to heretical sects.” Naked, they go to the Ājīvaka’s residence, and at every step, they commit a dukkaṭa offense, meaning that due to going with an impure mind, thinking, “I will become an Ājīvaka,” a dukkaṭa offense is incurred. Even if they go naked, they are not freed from the dukkaṭa offense at every step, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.110).
ID664
Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.110) pana – titthiyapakkantakādikathāsu tesaṃ liṅge ādinnamatteti vīmaṃsādiadhippāyaṃ vinā “titthiyo bhavissāmī”ti sanniṭṭhānavasena liṅge kāyena dhāritamatte. Sayamevāti titthiyānaṃ santikaṃ agantvā sayameva saṅghārāmepi kusacīrādīni nivāseti. Ājīvako bhavissanti…pe… gacchatīti ājīvakānaṃ santike tesaṃ pabbajanavidhinā “ājīvako bhavissāmī”ti gacchati. Tassa hi titthiyabhāvūpagamanaṃ pati sanniṭṭhāne vijjamānepi “gantvā bhavissāmī”ti parikappitattā padavāre dukkaṭameva vuttaṃ. Dukkaṭanti pāḷiyā avuttepi methunādīsu vuttapubbapayogadukkaṭānulomato vuttaṃ. Etena ca sanniṭṭhānavasena liṅge sampaṭicchite pārājikaṃ, tato purimapayoge thullaccayañca vattabbameva. Thullaccayakkhaṇe nivattantopi āpattiṃ desāpetvā muccati evāti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Yathā cettha, evaṃ saṅghabhedepi lohituppādepi bhikkhūnaṃ pubbapayogādīsu dukkaṭathullaccayapārājikāhi muccanasīmā ca veditabbā. Sāsanaviruddhatāyettha ādikammikānampi anāpatti na vuttā. Pabbajjāyapi abhabbatādassanatthaṃ panete aññe ca pārājikakaṇḍe visuṃ sikkhāpadena pārājikādiṃ adassetvā idha abhabbesu eva vuttāti veditabbaṃ.
In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.110), however—in the discussions of one who defects to sectarians and the like, As soon as their insignia is taken means the moment it is worn on the body with firm resolve, “I will become a sectarian,” without any intent such as investigation. By himself means he wears grass robes and the like even in a monastic complex without going to the sectarians. Intending to become an Ājīvaka… he goes means he goes to the Ājīvakas with the intent, “I will become an Ājīvaka,” following their ordination procedure. For him, even if there is firm resolve to adopt the sectarian state, because it is planned as, “I will go and become one,” only a dukkaṭa at each step is stated. Dukkaṭa—though not explicitly stated in the text, it is said in accordance with the dukkaṭa for preliminary actions mentioned in cases like sexual misconduct. This also implies that accepting the insignia with firm resolve incurs a pārājika, and prior actions incur a thullaccaya. Even one who turns back at the moment of thullaccaya is freed by confessing the offense, it should be noted. Just as here, so too in schism or bloodshed, the boundaries of liberation from dukkaṭa, thullaccaya, and pārājika in the preliminary actions of bhikkhus should be understood. Opposition to the teaching here does not imply an exemption for initial offenders. However, to show incapacity for going forth, these and other matters are stated here among the incapable without being separately designated as pārājika rules in the pārājika section—this should be understood.
But in Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.110), in accounts such as those of one who has defected to another sect, on merely seizing their sign, without intention of testing, etc., refers to merely physically holding the sign with the resolve, ‘I will become a sectarian’. By oneself not having gone to the presence of the sectarians, he himself, even in the monastic residence, wears grass, bark-cloth, and so forth. Intending ‘I will become an Ājīvaka’… and so on… he goes he goes to the presence of the Ājīvakas, intending ‘I will become an Ājīvaka’ according to their ordination procedure. Indeed, for him, even though there is resolve regarding becoming a sectarian, because he has conceived, ‘I will become one after going’, only a dukkaṭa at each step has been declared. Dukkaṭa – although not stated in the Pāḷi, it has been stated in conformity with the previously mentioned dukkaṭa of preliminary effort in cases of sexual intercourse and so forth. And by this, it should be understood that having accepted the sign with resolve, there is a pārājika, and before that, in the preliminary effort, there should certainly be a thullaccaya. Even if one turns back at the moment of the thullaccaya, he is freed only after confessing the offense. Just as here, so too in the case of schism in the Saṅgha, and in the case of causing bloodshed, the limit of being freed from dukkaṭa, thullaccaya, and pārājika in the preliminary effort, etc., of the bhikkhus, should be known. Here, the non-offense for those undertaking initial action is not declared due to it being contrary to the teaching. But to show non-suitability for ordination, these and other offenses in the pārājika section are stated here among the unsuitable ones, without separately showing pārājika, etc., by precept.
However, in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. �ī. Mahāvagga 2.110), in the discussion on those who have departed to heretical sects, etc., as soon as they take the robe, it means that without the intention of investigation, etc., they have firmly decided, “I will become a heretic,” and have merely carried the robe on their body. By themselves, without going to the heretics, they themselves wear the robe, etc., even in the monastery. Thinking, “I will become an Ājīvaka,” they go, meaning they go to the Ājīvakas with the intention of following their ordination procedure, thinking, “I will become an Ājīvaka.” Even though the state of becoming a heretic is achieved upon their firm decision, since they have resolved, “I will become one by going,” a dukkaṭa offense is incurred at every step. Dukkaṭa, though not explicitly stated in the Pāḷi, is mentioned here in accordance with the previously stated offenses such as sexual intercourse. Thus, when the robe is accepted with a firm decision, a pārājika offense is incurred, and in the previous act, a thullaccaya offense is also to be declared. Even if one turns back at the moment of the thullaccaya offense, they are freed after confessing the offense. This should be understood. Just as in this case, so too in cases of schism in the Sangha and causing a split, the boundaries for monks to be freed from dukkaṭa, thullaccaya, and pārājika offenses should be understood. In cases contrary to the Dispensation, even for those who are beginners, no exemption from offense is stated. However, to show the incapacity for monastic life, these and other cases in the pārājika section are stated here separately, without showing the pārājika, etc., offenses, as they are incapable.
ID665
Taṃ laddhīti titthiyavese seṭṭhabhāvaggahaṇameva sandhāya vuttaṃ. Tesañhi titthiyānaṃ sassatādiggāhaṃ gaṇhantopi liṅge asampaṭicchite titthiyapakkantako na hoti, taṃ laddhiṃ aggahetvāpi “etesaṃ vatacariyā sundarā”ti liṅgaṃ sampaṭicchanto titthiyapakkantako hoti eva. Laddhiyā abhāvenāti bhikkhubhāve sālayatāya titthiyabhāvūpagamanaladdhiyā abhāvena. Etena ca āpadāsu kusacīrādiṃ pārupantassapi naggassa viya anāpattīti dasseti. Upasampannabhikkhunā kathitoti ettha saṅghabhedakopi upasampannabhikkhunāva kathito, mātughātakādayo pana anupasampannenātipi daṭṭhabbanti āgataṃ.
That doctrine refers specifically to adopting the supreme state in sectarian garb. For even if one adopts their eternalist or other views, without accepting their insignia, he is not a titthiyapakkantaka; but by accepting their insignia, saying, “Their practices are beautiful,” without adopting that doctrine, he becomes a titthiyapakkantaka. Due to the absence of doctrine means due to the absence of the doctrine of adopting the sectarian state while maintaining steadfastness in bhikkhuhood. This also shows that even in emergencies, one who wears grass robes or the like, like one who is naked, incurs no offense. Spoken of by an ordained bhikkhu—here, even a schismatic is spoken of only by an ordained bhikkhu, but killers of mothers and the like may also be spoken of by the unordained, it is noted.
That doctrine is stated referring to the grasping of the superior state in the guise of a sectarian. For even though those sectarians grasp the belief in permanence, etc., one who does not accept the sign is not one who has defected to another sect; even without grasping that doctrine, one who accepts the sign, thinking ‘the conduct of these ones is beautiful,’ becomes one who has defected to another sect. Due to the absence of doctrine due to the absence of the doctrine of going over to a sectarian state, out of attachment to the state of being a bhikkhu. And by this, he shows that there is no offense for one who wraps himself in grass, bark-cloth, etc., in times of distress, like a naked one. Addressed by a fully ordained bhikkhu here, one who causes schism in the Saṅgha has also been addressed by a fully ordained bhikkhu alone; it has also been said that matricide, etc., may be committed even by one who is not fully ordained.
That attainment refers specifically to the taking of the superior state of the heretic’s attire. For even if those heretics hold eternalist views, etc., they do not become those who have departed to heretical sects unless they accept the robe. However, even without taking that attainment, if they accept the robe, thinking, “Their way of life is beautiful,” they become those who have departed to heretical sects. Due to the absence of attainment, meaning due to the absence of the attainment of becoming a heretic while clinging to the state of being a monk. This also shows that even in emergencies, one who wears the robe, etc., like a naked person, incurs no offense. Spoken by a fully ordained monk, here even a schismatic monk is spoken of by a fully ordained monk, but matricides, etc., should be understood as spoken by one who is not fully ordained.
ID666
140. Tiracchānakathāyaṃ “yo koci amanussajātiyo, sabbova imasmiṃ atthe tiracchānagatoti veditabbo”ti etena eso manussajātiyo eva bhagavato sāsane pabbajituṃ vā upasampajjituṃ vā labhati, na tato aññeti dīpeti. Tenāha bhagavā “tumhe khottha nāgā aviruḷhidhammā imasmiṃ dhammavinaye”ti (mahāva. 111).
140. In the discussion of animals, “Whoever is of a non-human kind, all such are to be understood as animal-gone in this context”—this indicates that only those of human kind can go forth or be ordained in the Buddha’s teaching, not others. Hence the Blessed One said, “You are nāgas, free from growth in defilements, in this Dhamma and Vinaya” (mahāva. 111).
140. In the account of animals, ‘whoever is of a non-human species, all should be understood as animals in this context’ by this he illuminates that only one of the human species is able to ordain or to obtain full ordination in the Blessed One’s teaching, and none other than that. Therefore, the Blessed One said, “You, Kস্থা (Khoṭṭha), Nāgas, are not of a nature to grow in this Dhamma and Vinaya” (Mahāva. 111).
140. In the discussion on animal rebirth, “Any being of non-human birth, all are to be understood as having gone to the animal realm in this context,” meaning that only human beings are capable of going forth or receiving full ordination in the Buddha’s Dispensation, not others. Therefore, the Blessed One said, “You, indeed, are the nāgas, the ones of unbroken virtue in this Dhamma-Vinaya” (Mahāva. 111).
ID667
141. Ānantariyakathāyaṃ tiracchānādiamanussajātito manussajātikānaññeva puttesu mettādayopi tikkhavisadā honti lokuttaraguṇā viyāti āha “manussitthibhūtā janikā mātā”ti. Yathā manussānaññeva kusalapavatti tikkhavisadā, evaṃ akusalapavattipīti āha “sayampi manussajātikenevā”tiādi. Atha vā yathā samānajātiyassa vikopane kammaṃ garutaraṃ, na tathā vijātiyassāti āha “manussitthibhūtā”ti. Puttasambandhena mātupitusamaññā , dattakittimādivasenapi puttavohāro loke dissati, so ca kho pariyāyatoti nippariyāyasiddhataṃ dassetuṃ “janikā mātā”ti vuttaṃ. Yathā manussattabhāve ṭhitasseva kusaladhammānaṃ tikkhavisadasūrabhāvāpatti yathā taṃ tiṇṇampi bodhisattānaṃ bodhittayanibbattiyaṃ, evaṃ manussattabhāve ṭhitasseva akusaladhammānampi tikkhavisadasūrabhāvāpattīti āha “sayampi manussajātikenevā”ti. Ānantariyenāti ettha cutianantaraṃ niraye paṭisandhiphalaṃ anantaraṃ nāma, tasmiṃ anantare janakattena niyuttaṃ ānantariyaṃ, tena. Atha vā cutianantaraṃ phalaṃ anantaraṃ nāma, tasmiṃ anantare niyuttaṃ, tannibbattanena anantarakaraṇasīlaṃ, anantarappayojanaṃ vā ānantariyaṃ, tena ānantariyena mātughātakakammena. Pitughātakepi “yena manussabhūto janako pitā sayampi manussajātikeneva satā sañcicca jīvitā voropito, ayaṃ ānantariyena pitughātakakammena pitughātako”tiādinā sabbaṃ veditabbanti āha “pitughātakepi eseva nayo”ti.
141. In the discussion of immediate retribution, love and so forth toward sons are sharp and clear only among those of human kind, not among animals or other non-human kinds, like supramundane qualities—thus it says, “A mother who has become a human woman, a birth-giver.” Just as the arising of wholesome states is sharp and clear only among humans, so too the arising of unwholesome states—thus it says, “Himself only of human kind.” Alternatively, just as harming one of the same kind is a grave act, not so for one of a different kind—thus it says, “A human woman.” The designation as mother or father due to a son’s relationship, or even as an adopted or reputed son, is seen in worldly usage, but this is figurative; to show the literal establishment, “A birth-giver mother” is said. Just as the sharp, clear, and bold arising of wholesome states occurs only in human existence—as in the generation of the three enlightenments of the three bodhisattas—so too the sharp, clear, and bold arising of unwholesome states occurs only in human existence—thus it says, “Himself only of human kind.” With immediate retribution—here, “immediate” means the rebirth-linking result in hell right after death; “immediate retribution” refers to that which is certain due to causing that. Alternatively, “immediate” means the result right after death; “immediate retribution” refers to that which is certain therein, or to the habit of producing it, or to the purpose of immediacy—thus, “With the act of matricide causing immediate retribution.” In the case of patricide too, it should all be understood thus: “One who, himself of human kind, knowingly deprives of life a father who is a human being, this one is a patricide with the act of patricide causing immediate retribution”—thus it says, “In patricide too, the same method applies.”
141. In the account of immediate [result] deeds, from the non-human species such as animals, only for those of the human species, are loving-kindness, etc., towards their offspring intense and sharp, like superior qualities, he states ‘the birth-giving mother who is a human woman’. Just as for humans alone, the arising of good is intense and sharp, so too is the arising of bad, he states ‘by oneself, by one of the human species’ and so forth. Or, just as the disturbance of one of the same species is a heavier deed, not so for one of a different species, he states ‘a human woman’. The designation of mother and father is by connection to offspring; the usage of ‘son’ is also seen in the world in the case of adopted and fostered sons, etc., and that, indeed, is indirect, to show its establishment without indirectness, ‘the birth-giving mother’ is stated. Just as for one who remains in the human state, the attainment of wholesome dhammas is intense, sharp, and powerful, as in the attainment of the three enlightenments by those three Bodhisattas, so too for one who remains in the human state, the attainment of unwholesome dhammas is intense, sharp, and powerful, he states ‘by oneself, by one of the human species’. By an immediate [result] deed – here, the immediate fruit of rebirth in hell immediately after death is called ‘anantara’; that which is connected to that immediate [result] as a generator is ‘ānantariya’, by that. Or, the fruit immediately after death is called ‘anantara’; that which is connected to that immediate [result], which is inclined to cause that immediate [result] by its production, or which has the immediate [result] as its purpose, is ‘ānantariya’, by that by the immediate [result] deed of matricide. Even in the case of patricide, “by whom the birth-giving father who is a human being, is intentionally deprived of life by oneself, who is also of the human species, this one is a patricide by the immediate [result] deed of patricide,” in this way, everything should be understood, he states ‘the same method applies in the case of patricide’.
141. In the discussion on ānantarika (immediate result) karma, even from animal and non-human births, the loving-kindness, etc., of human-born children are sharp and clear, like supramundane qualities, hence it is said, “A human woman as the mother.” Just as the wholesome conduct of humans is sharp and clear, so too is their unwholesome conduct, hence it is said, “Even by human birth alone.” Alternatively, just as the kamma of harming one of the same birth is heavier, not so for one of a different birth, hence it is said, “A human woman.” The designation of mother and father through the connection of a child, and the designation of a child through adoption, etc., are seen in the world, but that is only by convention. To show the non-conventional reality, it is said, “The birth mother.” Just as for one established in human existence, the sharp and clear arising of wholesome qualities is like the arising of the threefold enlightenment of the Bodhisattas, so too for one established in human existence, the sharp and clear arising of unwholesome qualities is like that, hence it is said, “Even by human birth alone.” By ānantarika, here the result immediately following death is rebirth in hell, and what is connected with that result is called ānantarika. Alternatively, the result immediately following death is called anantara, and what is connected with that is ānantarika, hence “By the ānantarika karma of matricide.” For patricide as well, “A human father, even by human birth alone, being intentionally deprived of life, this is the ānantarika karma of patricide,” etc., thus all should be understood, hence it is said, “For patricide, the same method applies.”
ID668
Parivattitaliṅgampi mātaraṃ vā pitaraṃ vā jīvitā voropentassa ānantariyakammaṃ hotiyeva. Satipi hi liṅgaparivatte so eva ekakammanibbatto bhavaṅgappabandho jīvitappabandho, na aññoti. Yo pana sayaṃ manusso tiracchānabhūtaṃ pitaraṃ vā mātaraṃ vā, sayaṃ vā tiracchānabhūto manussabhūtaṃ, tiracchānoyeva vā tiracchānabhūtaṃ jīvitā voropeti, tassa kammaṃ ānantariyaṃ na hoti, bhāriyaṃ pana hoti, ānantariyaṃ āhacceva tiṭṭhati. Eḷakacatukkaṃ saṅgāmacatukkaṃ coracatukkañcettha kathetabbaṃ. “Eḷakaṃ māremī”ti abhisandhināpi hi eḷakaṭṭhāne ṭhitaṃ manusso manussabhūtaṃ mātaraṃ vā pitaraṃ vā mārento ānantariyaṃ phusati maraṇādhippāyeneva ānantariyavatthuno vikopitattā. Eḷakābhisandhinā, pana mātāpitiabhisandhinā vā eḷakaṃ mārento ānantariyaṃ na phusati ānantariyavatthuno abhāvato. Mātāpitiabhisandhinā mātāpitaro mārento phussateva. Esa nayo itarasmimpi catukkadvaye. Yathā ca mātāpitūsu, evaṃ arahantesu etāni catukkāni veditabbāni. Sabbattha hi purimaṃ abhisandhicittaṃ appamāṇaṃ, vadhakacittaṃ, pana tadārammaṇajīvitindriyañca pamāṇaṃ. Katānantariyakammo ca “tassa kammassa vipākaṃ paṭibāhessāmī”ti sakalacakkavāḷaṃ mahācetiyappamāṇehi kañcanathūpehi pūretvāpi sakalacakkavāḷaṃ pūretvā nisinnassa bhikkhusaṅghassa mahādānaṃ datvāpi buddhassa bhagavato saṅghāṭikaṇṇaṃ amuñcanto vicaritvāpi kāyassa bhedā nirayameva upapajjati, pabbajjañca na labhati. Pitughātake vesiyā puttoti upalakkhaṇamattaṃ, kulitthiyā aticāriniyā puttopi attano pitaraṃ ajānitvā ghāntentopi pitughātakova hoti.
Even one who deprives of life a mother or father whose insignia has been changed incurs an act of immediate retribution. For despite the change of insignia, the continuum of life and existence born of that single act remains the same, not another. But one who, being human, deprives of life a father or mother who has become an animal, or who, being an animal, deprives of life a human father or mother, or who, being an animal, deprives of life an animal father or mother, does not incur an act of immediate retribution, though it is a grave act, standing close to immediate retribution. The tetrad of goats, the tetrad of battle, and the tetrad of thieves should be explained here. For even with the intent, “I will kill a goat,” if one kills a human mother or father standing in the goat’s place, he incurs immediate retribution because the object of immediate retribution was harmed with the intent to kill. But with the intent to kill a goat, or with the intent to kill a mother or father, if he kills a goat, he does not incur immediate retribution due to the absence of an object of immediate retribution. With the intent to kill a mother or father, if he kills a mother or father, he does incur it. The same method applies in the other two tetrads. And just as with mothers and fathers, so too with arahants, these tetrads should be understood. For in all cases, the initial intent is immeasurable, but the intent MURDER and the life faculty as its object are measurable. One who has committed an act of immediate retribution, even if he thinks, “I will obstruct the result of that act,” and fills the entire universe with golden stupas the size of great cetiyas, or gives great alms to a Sangha seated throughout the universe, or wanders without letting go of the corner of the Buddha’s robe, still goes to hell after the breakup of the body and does not attain going-forth. In patricide, “Son of a prostitute” is merely an illustration; even the son of a noblewoman or an adulteress who unknowingly kills his father is still a patricide.
Even for one who, having changed their gender, deprives their mother or father of life, there is an immediate [result] deed. Indeed, even though there is a change of gender, it is the same stream of consciousness produced by a single deed, the life-stream, and not another. But he who, being himself a human, deprives a father or mother who is of animal form of life, or he himself being of animal form, a human being, or an animal alone deprives an animal of life, his deed is not an immediate [result] deed, but it is heavy; it remains just short of an immediate [result] deed. The fourfold case of the sheep, the fourfold case of battle, and the fourfold case of the thief should be stated here. Indeed, even with the intention ‘I will kill a sheep’, one who, in the place of a sheep, kills a human being who is a human being, who is his mother or father, experiences an immediate [result] deed, because the object of the immediate [result] deed has been disturbed precisely with the intention of killing. But with the intention of [killing] a sheep, or with the intention of [killing] a mother or father, one who kills a sheep does not experience an immediate [result] deed, due to the absence of the object of an immediate [result] deed. With the intention of [killing] a mother or father, one who kills a mother or father certainly experiences it. This same method applies in the other two fourfold cases. And just as in the case of mother and father, so too these fourfold cases should be understood in the case of Arahants. Indeed, everywhere, the prior intention-mind is immeasurable, but the killing-mind, and the life-faculty with that as its object, is measurable. And one who has committed an immediate [result] deed, even though, thinking ‘I will ward off the result of that deed’, he fills the entire universe with golden stūpas of the size of great cetiyas, and even though he gives a great offering to the Saṅgha of bhikkhus seated filling the entire universe, and even though he roams about not letting go of the corner of the Blessed One Buddha’s outer robe, after the breaking up of the body, he is reborn in hell alone, and he does not obtain ordination. In the case of a patricide, son of a prostitute is only an example; even the son of a high-born woman who is an adulteress, not knowing his own father, and killing him, becomes a patricide.
Even if one kills a mother or father whose gender has been changed, the ānantarika karma still applies. For even if the gender is changed, the same kamma-produced life continuum and life faculty arise, not another. However, if a human kills an animal father or mother, or an animal kills a human father or mother, or an animal kills another animal, that kamma is not ānantarika, but it is heavy, and ānantarika remains. Here, the fourfold goat, the fourfold battle, and the fourfold thief should be discussed. For even if a human, standing in the place of a goat, kills a human mother or father with the intention, “I will kill a goat,” they incur ānantarika karma due to the intention to kill, which destroys the basis of ānantarika. However, if one kills a goat with the intention of killing a goat, or kills parents with the intention of killing parents, they do not incur ānantarika karma due to the absence of the basis of ānantarika. But if one kills parents with the intention of killing parents, they incur ānantarika karma. This method applies to the other two fourfold groups as well. Just as in the case of parents, so too in the case of arahants, these fourfold groups should be understood. In all cases, the initial intention is immeasurable, but the killer’s mind and the life faculty dependent on that object are measurable. One who has committed ānantarika karma, even if they fill the entire world with golden stupas the size of the great cetiya, offer great gifts to the entire Sangha of monks, or wander holding the edge of the Buddha’s robe, will still be reborn in hell after death and will not attain monastic life. In the case of patricide, the son of a prostitute is merely an illustration; even the son of an adulterous woman, not knowing his father, kills him and becomes a patricide.
ID669
Arahantaghātakakamme avasesanti anāgāmiādikaṃ. Ayamettha saṅkhepo, vitthāro pana tatiyapārājikavaṇṇanāto gahetabbo.
In the act of killing an arahant, “Remaining” refers to non-returners and the like. This is the summary here; the details should be taken from the commentary on the third pārājika.
In the deed of killing an Arahant, the remaining refers to the non-returner and so forth. This is the summary here; the detailed account, however, should be taken from the explanation of the third pārājika.
In the case of killing an arahant, the remainder refers to the non-returner, etc. This is the summary here; the detailed explanation should be taken from the commentary on the third pārājika.
ID670
“Duṭṭhacittenā”ti vuttamevatthaṃ vibhāveti “vadhakacittenā”ti. Vadhakacetanāya hi dūsitaṃ cittaṃ idha duṭṭhacittaṃ nāma. Lohitaṃ uppādetīti ettha tathāgatassa abhejjakāyatāya parūpakkamena cammacchedaṃ katvā lohitapaggharaṇaṃ nāma natthi, sarīrassa pana antoyeva ekasmiṃ ṭhāne lohitaṃ samosarati, āghātena pakuppamānaṃ sañcitaṃ hoti. Devadattena paviddhasilato bhijjitvā gatā sakkhalikāpi tathāgatassa pādantaṃ pahari, pharasunā pahaṭo viya pādo antolohitoyeva ahosi. Jīvako pana tathāgatassa ruciyā satthakena cammaṃ chinditvā tamhā ṭhānā duṭṭhalohitaṃ nīharitvā phāsumakāsi, tenassa puññakammameva ahosi. Tenāha “jīvako viyā”tiādi.
“With a corrupt mind”—this clarifies the meaning already stated as “With a murderous mind.” For a mind corrupted by murderous intent is here called a corrupt mind. He causes blood to arise—here, due to the Tathāgata’s unbreakable body, there is no shedding of blood by cutting the skin through another’s aggression, but internally in one place, blood gathers, accumulated by agitation due to hostility. Even a pebble thrown by Devadatta, breaking off and striking the Tathāgata’s foot, caused only internal blood, as if struck by an axe. But Jīvaka, cutting the skin with a knife at the Tathāgata’s wish and removing corrupted blood from that place, made it comfortable, and thus it was only a meritorious act for him. Hence it says, “Like Jīvaka” and so forth.
‘With a corrupted mind’ he clarifies the meaning that has been stated, ‘with a killing mind’. Indeed, the mind that is corrupted by the volition of killing is called a corrupted mind here. He causes blood to be shed – here, due to the Tathāgata’s unbreakable body, there is no shedding of blood by cutting the skin through external effort, but in the body itself, in one place, blood gathers, agitated by impact, it becomes accumulated. A splinter, broken off from the rock hurled by Devadatta, also struck the Tathāgata’s foot; like one struck with an axe, the foot became full of internal blood. But Jīvaka, out of affection for the Tathāgata, cut the skin with a scalpel, removed the corrupted blood from that place, and made it well; thereby, for him, there was only a meritorious deed. Therefore, he states ‘like Jīvaka’ and so forth.
“With a malicious mind” clarifies the meaning as “with a killer’s mind.” For here, a malicious mind refers to a mind corrupted by the intention to kill. Causes blood to flow, meaning that due to the Tathāgata’s invulnerable body, there is no cutting of the skin or flowing of blood externally, but internally, blood gathers in one place, and when struck, it flows. When Devadatta threw a stone, it split and struck the Tathāgata’s foot, causing internal bleeding, as if struck by an axe. However, Jīvaka, out of compassion for the Tathāgata, cut the skin with a knife, removed the bad blood, and applied a bandage, which became a meritorious act. Hence it is said, “Like Jīvaka,” etc.
ID671
Atha ye parinibbute tathāgate cetiyaṃ bhindanti, bodhiṃ chindanti, dhātumhi upakkamanti, tesaṃ kiṃ hotīti? Bhāriyaṃ kammaṃ hoti ānantariyasadisaṃ. Sadhātukaṃ pana thūpaṃ vā paṭimaṃ vā bādhamānaṃ bodhisākhaṃ chindituṃ vaṭṭati. Sacepi tattha nilīnā sakuṇā cetiye vaccaṃ pātenti, chindituṃ vaṭṭatiyeva. Paribhogacetiyato hi sarīracetiyaṃ garutaraṃ. Cetiyavatthuṃ bhinditvā gacchante bodhimūlepi chinditvā harituṃ vaṭṭati. Yā pana bodhisākhā bodhigharaṃ bādhati, taṃ geharakkhaṇatthaṃ chindituṃ na labhati. Bodhiatthāya hi gehaṃ, na gehatthāya bodhi. Āsanagharepi eseva nayo. Yasmiṃ pana āsanaghare dhātu nihitā hoti, tassa rakkhaṇatthāya taṃ sākhaṃ chindituṃ vaṭṭati. Bodhijagganatthaṃ ojoharaṇasākhaṃ vā pūtiṭṭhānaṃ vā chindituṃ vaṭṭatiyeva, satthu rūpakāyapaṭijaggane viya puññampi hoti.
Then what of those who, after the Tathāgata’s parinibbāna, break a cetiya, cut down a Bodhi tree, or aggress against a relic? It becomes a grave act, similar to one of immediate retribution. However, obstructing a relic-bearing stupa or statue, or cutting a Bodhi branch, is permissible. Even if birds perched there defecate on the cetiya, cutting it is still permissible. For a bodily cetiya is weightier than a cetiya of use. Breaking the cetiya ground and taking it away, or cutting and removing the Bodhi root, is permissible. But a Bodhi branch that obstructs a Bodhi house cannot be cut for the house’s protection. For the house exists for the Bodhi, not the Bodhi for the house. The same applies in a sitting hall. However, in a sitting hall where a relic is placed, cutting that branch for its protection is permissible. Cutting a branch that draws sap or a rotten part for the Bodhi’s maintenance is permissible, and it becomes meritorious, like tending the Tathāgata’s physical form.
But what happens to those who break the cetiya, cut down the Bodhi tree, and make an effort towards the relics when the Tathāgata is completely extinguished? A heavy deed occurs, similar to an immediate [result] deed. But it is permissible to damage a stūpa or an image that contains relics, or to cut a branch of the Bodhi tree. Even if birds nesting there drop excrement on the cetiya, it is permissible to cut it. Indeed, the bodily cetiya is more important than the cetiya of use. Even if the land of the cetiya is being broken up, it is permissible to go and cut down and remove [parts] even at the base of the Bodhi tree. But the branch of the Bodhi tree that is damaging the Bodhi house, it is not permissible to cut that for the sake of protecting the house. Indeed, the house is for the sake of the Bodhi tree, not the Bodhi tree for the sake of the house. The same method applies in the case of the seat-house. But in the seat-house in which a relic is deposited, it is permissible to cut that branch for the sake of protecting that. For the sake of tending the Bodhi tree, it is certainly permissible to cut a branch that is drawing away sap, or a rotten place; it is also meritorious, like tending the physical body of the Teacher.
Then, what happens to those who, after the Tathāgata’s parinibbāna, break a cetiya, cut down the Bodhi tree, or damage relics? They incur heavy kamma similar to ānantarika. However, it is permissible to cut a branch of the Bodhi tree that obstructs a relic stupa or an image. Even if birds nesting there defecate on the cetiya, it is permissible to cut it. For the bodily cetiya is heavier than the usage cetiya. If one breaks the cetiya and goes to the Bodhi tree, it is permissible to cut and take it. However, a branch of the Bodhi tree that obstructs the Bodhi shrine should not be cut for the sake of protecting the shrine. For the shrine is for the sake of the Bodhi tree, not the Bodhi tree for the sake of the shrine. The same applies to the assembly hall. However, if relics are placed in the assembly hall, it is permissible to cut a branch for the sake of protecting it. It is permissible to cut a branch for the sake of the Bodhi tree’s growth or to remove a rotten branch, just as protecting the Teacher’s physical body is meritorious.
ID672
Saṅghabhede catunnaṃ kammānanti apalokanādīnaṃ catunnaṃ kammānaṃ. Ayaṃ saṅghabhedakoti pakatattaṃ bhikkhuṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Pubbe eva pārājikaṃ samāpanno vā vatthādidosena vipannupasampado vā saṅghaṃ bhindantopi ānantariyaṃ na phusati, saṅgho pana bhinnova hoti, pabbajjā cassa na vāritāti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
In schism, “Of the four acts” refers to the four acts such as announcement and so forth. “This is a schismatic”—this is said regarding a regular bhikkhu. One who has already committed a pārājika offense or whose ordination is invalid due to a flaw in the object or procedure, even if he causes schism, does not incur immediate retribution, though the Sangha is indeed split, and his going-forth is not prevented, it should be noted.
In the case of schism in the Saṅgha, of the four deeds of the four deeds, such as the single declaration, etc. This one is a schismatic is said in reference to a bhikkhu who is of established status. One who has already fallen into a pārājika earlier, or one whose full ordination is ruined by the fault of wearing the wrong robes, etc., even if he causes schism in the Saṅgha, does not experience an immediate [result] deed, but the Saṅgha is indeed divided, and his ordination is not prohibited, this should be understood.
In the case of schism in the Sangha, the four actions refer to the four actions of consultation, etc. This is a schismatic, referring to an ordinary monk. Even if one who has previously committed a pārājika offense or whose ordination is invalid due to some defect causes a schism in the Sangha, they do not incur ānantarika karma, but the Sangha is still split, and their monastic life is not prohibited. This should be understood.
ID673
Bhikkhunīdūsane icchamānanti odātavatthavasanaṃ icchamānaṃ. Tenevāha “gihibhāve sampaṭicchitamatteyevā”ti. Neva pabbajjā atthīti yojanā. Yo ca paṭikkhitte abhabbe ca puggale ñatvā pabbājeti, upasampādeti vā, dukkaṭaṃ. Ajānantassa sabbattha anāpattīti veditabbaṃ.
In the defilement of a bhikkhunī, “Desiring” refers to one desiring to wear white clothes. Hence it says, “The moment lay status is accepted.” There is no going-forth—this is the connection. And one who knowingly ordains or grants ordination to a prohibited or incapable person incurs a dukkaṭa. For one unaware, there is no offense in all cases—this should be understood.
In the case of corrupting a bhikkhuni, desiring desiring one wearing white garments. Therefore, he states ‘merely upon accepting the state of a householder’. There is no ordination, this is the construction. And he who ordains and fully ordains those who have been rejected and who are unsuitable persons, knowing [them to be so], commits a dukkaṭa. For one who does not know, there is no offense everywhere, this should be understood.
In the case of corrupting a bhikkhunī, desiring means desiring to wear white clothes. Hence it is said, “Merely by accepting the householder’s life.” There is no monastic life, this is the interpretation. However, if one knowingly gives ordination or full ordination to a rejected or incapable person, it is a dukkaṭa offense. If one does not know, there is no offense in all cases.
ID674
142. Gabbhamāsehi saddhiṃ vīsati vassāni assāti gabbhavīso. Hāyanavaḍḍhananti gabbhamāsesu adhikesu uttari hāyanaṃ, ūnesu vaḍḍhananti veditabbaṃ. Ekūnavīsativassanti dvādasa māse mātukucchismiṃ vasitvā mahāpavāraṇāya jātakālato paṭṭhāya ekūnavīsativassaṃ. Pāṭipadadivaseti pacchimikāya vassūpagamanadivase. “Tiṃsarattidivo māso”ti (a. ni. 3.71; 8.43; vibha. 1023) vacanato “cattāro māsā parihāyantī”ti vuttaṃ. Vassaṃ ukkaḍḍhantīti vassaṃ uddhaṃ kaḍḍhanti, tatiyasaṃvacchare ekamāsassa adhikattā māsapariccajanavasena vassaṃ uddhaṃ kaḍḍhantīti attho, tasmā tatiyo saṃvaccharo terasamāsiko hoti. Saṃvaccharassa pana dvādasamāsikattā aṭṭhārasasu vassesu adhikamāse visuṃ gahetvā “cha māsā vaḍḍhantī”ti vuttaṃ. Tatoti chamāsato. Nikkaṅkhā hutvāti adhikamāsehi saddhiṃ paripuṇṇavīsativassattā nibbematikā hutvā. Yaṃ pana vuttaṃ tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu “aṭṭhārasannaṃyeva vassānaṃ adhikamāse gahetvā gaṇitattā sesavassadvayassapi adhikadivasāni honti, tāni adhikadivasāni sandhāya ’nikkaṅkhā hutvā’ti vutta”nti, taṃ na gahetabbaṃ. Na hi dvīsu vassesu adhikadivasāni nāma visuṃ upalabbhanti tatiye vasse vassukkaḍḍhanavasena adhikamāse pariccatteyeva atirekamāsasambhavato, tasmā dvīsu vassesu atirekadivasāni visuṃ na sambhavanti.
142. With twenty years including the months in the womb, he is a gabbhavīso. Decrease or increase means a decrease beyond when the womb months are in excess, an increase when they are deficient—this should be understood. Nineteen years old refers to one who, having dwelt twelve months in the mother’s womb and born at the great Pavāraṇā, is nineteen years old from that time. On the first day refers to the day of entering the rains retreat on the later schedule. Based on the statement, “A month has thirty nights” (a. ni. 3.71; 8.43; vibha. 1023), “Four months decrease” is said. They extend the rains means they stretch the rains upward; due to an extra month in the third year, they stretch the rains upward by relinquishing a month, meaning the third year has thirteen months. However, since a year has twelve months, taking the extra months separately in eighteen years, “Six months increase” is said. From that means from those six months. Without doubt means being undoubtedly fully twenty years old including the extra months. However, what is said in all three knotty passages—“Because only the extra months of eighteen years are counted, the remaining two years also have extra days, and ‘without doubt’ is said regarding those extra days”—should not be accepted. For extra days are not separately discernible in two years, since an extra month arises only when it is relinquished in the third year due to extending the rains; thus, extra days do not separately arise in two years.
142. One who is twenty years old including the months of gestation is called gabbhavīso. Hāyanavaḍḍhana means that when there is an excess in the months of gestation, a year is to be understood, and when there is a deficiency, an increase (is to be understood). Ekūnavīsativassa means nineteen years, having stayed in the mother’s womb for twelve months, starting from the time of birth at the Mahāpavāraṇā. Pāṭipadadivase means on the day of the last day of entering the rains retreat. It is said that “four months are lost” because of the saying, “Thirty nights and days make a month” (A. iii. 71; viii. 43; Vibh. 1023). Vassaṃ ukkaḍḍhantī means they pull the year upwards, meaning, because of the addition of one month in the third year, they pull the year upwards by discarding a month, therefore, that third year consists of thirteen months. But because a year consists of twelve months, it is said, “six months increase”, taking separately the extra months in eighteen years. Tato means from the six months. Nikkaṅkhā hutvā means having become free from doubt, being twenty full years including the extra months. But as for what is said in all three sub-commentaries, “Because in even eighteen years, the extra months are taken and counted, the remaining two years also have extra days, and with reference to those extra days, it is said ‘having become free from doubt’”, that should not be accepted. For, extra days are not found separately in two years, since the possibility of extra months arises only when the extra month is discarded by way of pulling up the year in the third year, therefore extra days do not occur separately in two years.
142. Gabbhavīso means twenty years including the months in the womb. Hāyanavaḍḍhana should be understood as the decrease when the months in the womb exceed, and the increase when they are less. Ekūnavīsativassa refers to nineteen years, counting from the time of birth after staying in the mother’s womb for twelve months up to the Mahāpavāraṇā. Pāṭipadadivase means the last day of entering the rains. According to the statement, “Thirty days make a month” (A. Ni. 3.71; 8.43; Vibh. 1023), it is said, “Four months decrease.” Vassaṃ ukkaḍḍhantī means they pull the year upward; because of the extra month in the third year, they pull the year upward by discarding a month, thus making the third year thirteen months long. Since a year consists of twelve months, it is said, “Six months increase” in eighteen years, taking the extra months separately. Tato means after six months. Nikkaṅkhā hutvā means being free from doubt because the twenty years are complete including the extra months. However, what is said in the three knot points—that “because the extra months are taken in the calculation of eighteen years, the remaining two years also have extra days, and with reference to those extra days, it is said, ‘being free from doubt’”—should not be accepted. For in two years, extra days do not separately exist, as the extra month arises only in the third year by pulling the year upward, thus extra days do not separately occur in two years.
ID675
“Te dve māse gahetvā vīsati vassāni paripuṇṇāni hontī”ti kasmā vuttaṃ, ekūnavīsativassamhi ca puna aparasmiṃ vasse pakkhitte vīsati vassāni paripuṇṇāni hontīti āha “ettha pana…pe… vutta”nti. Anekatthattā nipātānaṃ pana-saddo hisaddattho, ettha hīti vuttaṃ hoti. Idañhi vuttassevatthassa samatthanavasena vuttaṃ. Iminā ca imaṃ dīpeti – yaṃ vuttaṃ “ekūnavīsativassaṃ sāmaṇeraṃ nikkhamanīyapuṇṇamāsiṃ atikkamma pāṭipadadivase upasampādentī”ti, tattha gabbhamāsepi gahetvā dvīhi māsehi aparipuṇṇavīsativassaṃ sandhāya “ekūnavīsativassa”nti vuttaṃ, tasmā adhikamāsesu dvīsu gahitesu eva vīsati vassāni paripuṇṇāni nāma hontīti. Tasmāti yasmā gabbhamāsāpi gaṇanūpagā honti, tasmā. Ekavīsativasso hotīti jātadivasato paṭṭhāya vīsativasso samāno gabbhamāsehi saddhiṃ ekavīsativasso hoti. Aññaṃ upasampādetīti upajjhāyo, kammavācācariyo vā hutvā upasampādetīti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.406) āgataṃ.
Why is it said, “Taking those two months, twenty years are complete,” and when another year is added to nineteen years, twenty years are complete?—thus it says, “Here, however… it is said.” Due to the multiple meanings of particles, the word pana has the sense of “here,” meaning it is said here. This is said to support the meaning already stated. And this clarifies: What is said—“They ordain a sāmaṇera of nineteen years after passing the full-moon day of departure, on the first day”—refers to one not yet fully twenty years old including the womb months, hence “nineteen years” is said; thus, only when two extra months are taken do twenty years become complete. Therefore means because the womb months are also subject to counting. He is twenty-one years old means one who is twenty years old from birth becomes twenty-one including the womb months. He ordains another means he ordains as an upajjhāya or kammavācā teacher, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.406).
Why is it said, “Taking those two months, twenty years are completed”? Since when nineteen years have passed and another year has been added, twenty years are completed, he says, “ettha pana…pe… vutta”. Because particles have many meanings, the word pana has the meaning of the word ‘hi’, here it is said, “indeed”. For this has been said in order to support the meaning of what has already been said. And by this he clarifies this — what was said, “Ordaining a novice of nineteen years, past the full moon of ending the banishment, on the first day (after it),” in reference to that, taking even the months of gestation, with reference to one who is twenty years short by two months, it is said “nineteen years old”, therefore, only when two extra months are taken, twenty years are indeed completed. Tasmā means because even the months of gestation are to be counted, therefore. Ekavīsativasso hotī means, starting from the day of birth, being twenty years old, he becomes twenty-one years old including the months of gestation. Aññaṃ upasampādetī means, being a preceptor or a teacher of the formal act, he ordains another, this is what has come down in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. Pācittiya 3.406).
Why is it said, “Taking those two months, the twenty years become complete,” and also, “In nineteen years and again in another year, the twenty years become complete”? Here, it is said, “ettha pana…pe… vutta”. The word pana has the meaning of hi (indeed), and here hi is meant. This is said in accordance with the meaning of what has been stated. This also clarifies—what is said, “They should give full ordination to a novice of nineteen years on the day after the full moon of the month of departure, having passed the full moon of the month of departure,” refers to the nineteen years being incomplete by two months, even including the months in the womb. Therefore, when the two extra months are taken, the twenty years become complete. Tasmā means because the months in the womb are also included in the calculation. Ekavīsativasso hotī means that from the day of birth, one who has completed twenty years becomes twenty-one years old including the months in the womb. Aññaṃ upasampādetī means the preceptor or the teacher, having become the preceptor or the teacher, gives full ordination, as explained in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Pācittiya 3.406).
ID676
Gabbhe sayitakālena saddhiṃ vīsatimaṃ vassaṃ paripuṇṇamassāti gabbhavīso. Nikkhamanīyapuṇṇamāsīti sāvaṇamāsassa puṇṇamiyā āsāḷhīpuṇṇamiyā anantarapuṇṇamī. Pāṭipadadivaseti pacchimikāya vassūpanāyikāya, dvādasa māse mātukucchismiṃ vasitvā mahāpavāraṇāya jātaṃ upasampādentīti attho. “Tiṃsarattidivo māso, dvādasamāsiko saṃvaccharo”ti vacanato “cattāro māsā parihāyantī”ti vuttaṃ. Vassaṃ ukkaḍḍhantīti vassaṃ uddhaṃ kaḍḍhanti, “ekamāsaṃ adhikamāso”ti chaḍḍetvā vassaṃ upagacchantīti attho, tasmā tatiyo tatiyo saṃvaccharo terasamāsiko hoti. Te dve māse gahetvāti nikkhamanīyapuṇṇamāsato yāva jātadivasabhūtā mahāpavāraṇā, tāva ye dve māsā anāgatā, tesaṃ atthāya adhikamāsato laddhe dve māse gahetvā. Tenāha “yo pavāretvā vīsativasso bhavissatī”tiādi. “Nikkaṅkhā hutvā”ti idaṃ aṭṭhārasannaṃ vassānaṃ eva adhikamāse gahetvā tato vīsatiyā vassesupi cātuddasīnaṃ atthāya catunnaṃ māsānaṃ parihāpanena sabbathā paripuṇṇavīsativassataṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ.
With the twentieth year complete including the time lying in the womb, he is a gabbhavīso. The full-moon day of departure refers to the full moon of Sāvaṇa, the full moon following the Āsāḷhī full moon. On the first day refers to the later rains retreat entry; it means ordaining one born at the great Pavāraṇā after dwelling twelve months in the mother’s womb. Based on the statement, “A month has thirty nights, a year has twelve months,” “Four months decrease” is said. They extend the rains means they stretch the rains upward; it means they enter the rains by discarding “one month as an extra month,” thus every third year has thirteen months. Taking those two months means taking the two months gained from the extra month, from the full-moon day of departure until the great Pavāraṇā, the day of birth, which have not yet arrived. Hence it says, “He who, after Pavāraṇā, will be twenty years old,” and so forth. “Without doubt” is said regarding the complete twenty years, taking only the extra months of eighteen years and decreasing four months for the sake of the fourteenth days in the twenty years.
One with whom the twentieth year is complete, including the time spent in the womb, is gabbhavīso. Nikkhamanīyapuṇṇamāsī means the full moon of the month of Sāvaṇa, the full moon following the full moon of Āsāḷhī. Pāṭipadadivase means on the day of the last day of entering the rains, meaning ordaining one who was born on the Mahāpavāraṇā after staying twelve months in his mother’s womb. It is said that “four months are lost” because of the saying, “Thirty nights and days make a month, a year has twelve months.” Vassaṃ ukkaḍḍhantī means they pull up the year, meaning they enter the rains discarding ‘one month is the extra month’, therefore every third year is of thirteen months. Te dve māse gahetvā means, taking the two months obtained from the extra month for the sake of those two months that have not arrived from the full moon of ending the banishment until the Mahāpavāraṇā, which is the day of birth. Therefore he says, “He who will be twenty years old after completing the observance,” and so on. “Nikkaṅkhā hutvā” this is said with reference to the complete twenty years, taking only the extra months of eighteen years, and then, removing four months for the fourteenth days in even twenty years.
Gabbhavīso means the twentieth year is complete including the time spent in the womb. Nikkhamanīyapuṇṇamāsī refers to the full moon of the month of Sāvaṇa or Āsāḷhī, the full moon immediately following. Pāṭipadadivase means the last day of entering the rains; after staying in the mother’s womb for twelve months, they give full ordination on the day of Mahāpavāraṇā. According to the statement, “Thirty days make a month, and twelve months make a year,” it is said, “Four months decrease.” Vassaṃ ukkaḍḍhantī means they pull the year upward, discarding one extra month and entering the year, thus making the third year thirteen months long. Te dve māse gahetvā means taking the two months from the full moon of the month of departure up to the day of birth on Mahāpavāraṇā, for the sake of those two months that are yet to come, having obtained them from the extra month. Therefore, it is said, “One who, after the Pavāraṇā, will be twenty years old,” etc. “Nikkaṅkhā hutvā” refers to the complete twenty years, taking the extra months in eighteen years and then, for the sake of fourteen days, discarding four months.
ID677
Pavāretvā vīsativasso bhavissatīti mahāpavāraṇādivase atikkante gabbhavassena saha vīsativasso bhavissatīti attho. Tasmāti yasmā gabbhamāsāpi gaṇanūpagā honti, tasmā. Ekavīsativassoti jātiyā vīsativassaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Aññaṃ upasampādetīti upajjhāyo, ācariyo vā hutvā upasampādeti. Sopīti upasampādentopi anupasampannoti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.406) āgataṃ.
He will be twenty years old after Pavāraṇā means he will be twenty years old including the womb year after the great Pavāraṇā day has passed. Therefore means because the womb months are also subject to counting. Twenty-one years old is said with reference to being twenty years old by birth. He ordains another means he ordains as an upajjhāya or teacher. That one too—even the one ordaining is unordained, as stated in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.406).
Pavāretvā vīsativasso bhavissatī means, having passed the day of the Mahāpavāraṇā, he will be twenty years old, including the year of gestation. Tasmā means because even the months of gestation are to be counted, therefore. Ekavīsativasso is said in reference to twenty years from birth. Aññaṃ upasampādetī means, being a preceptor or a teacher, he ordains another. Sopī means that he who ordains is also not ordained, this is what is found in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. ṭī. Pācittiya 2.406).
Pavāretvā vīsativasso bhavissatī means that after the day of Mahāpavāraṇā has passed, one will be twenty years old including the year in the womb. Tasmā means because the months in the womb are also included in the calculation. Ekavīsativasso refers to twenty years from birth. Aññaṃ upasampādetī means the preceptor or the teacher, having become the preceptor or the teacher, gives full ordination. Sopī means even the one who gives full ordination or does not give full ordination, as explained in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Pācittiya 2.406).
ID678
Ettha siyā – aṭṭhakathāṭīkāsu “aṭṭhārasasu vassesu cha māsā vaḍḍhantī”ti vuttaṃ, idāni pana “ekūnavīsatiyā vassesu satta māsā adhikā”ti vadanti, kathamettha viññātabbanti? Vuccate – aṭṭhakathāṭīkāsu sāsanavohārena lokiyagatiṃ anupagamma tīsu tīsu saṃvaccharesu māsachaḍḍanaṃ gahetvā “aṭṭhārasasu vassesu cha māsā vaḍḍhantī”ti vuttaṃ, idāni pana vedavohārena candasūriyagatisaṅkhātaṃ tithiṃ gahetvā gaṇento “ekūnavīsatiyā vassesu satta māsā adhikā”ti vadantīti, taṃ vassūpanāyikakathāyaṃ āvi bhavissati.
Here one might ask: In the commentaries and sub-commentaries, it is said, “In eighteen years, six months increase,” but now they say, “In nineteen years, seven months are extra”—how should this be understood? It is answered: In the commentaries and sub-commentaries, following the convention of the teaching without adhering to worldly reckoning, it is said, “In eighteen years, six months increase,” by taking the discarding of a month every three years; but now, by counting according to Vedic convention based on the lunar and solar movement, they say, “In nineteen years, seven months are extra”—this will become clear in the discussion of the rains retreat entry.
Here it may be — in the commentaries and sub-commentaries, it is said, “In eighteen years, six months increase,” but now, it is said, “In nineteen years, seven months are extra,” how should this be understood here? It is said — in the commentaries and sub-commentaries, it is said, “In eighteen years, six months increase,” following the worldly usage of the dispensation, not accepting the worldly course, taking the discarding of a month in every three years. But now, those who count taking the lunar and solar courses, known as tithi, in accordance with the Vedic usage, say, “In nineteen years, seven months are extra,” and that will be clear in the discussion on entering the rains retreat.
Here, it may be asked: In the Aṭṭhakathāṭīkā, it is said, “In eighteen years, six months increase,” but now it is said, “In nineteen years, seven months are extra.” How should this be understood? It is answered: In the Aṭṭhakathāṭīkā, without considering worldly ways but taking the discarding of months in every three years, it is said, “In eighteen years, six months increase.” But now, considering the lunar and solar ways, taking the tithi (lunar day) into account, they say, “In nineteen years, seven months are extra.” This will be clarified in the discussion on the beginning of the rains.
ID679
143. Mātā vā matā hotīti sambandho. Soyevāti pabbajjāpekkho eva.
143. The mother or she is dead—this is the connection. That one alone means only the one seeking going-forth.
143. The connection is that his mother has died. Soyevā means he who is seeking the going forth.
143. Mātā vā matā hotī is a connection. Soyevā means one who is seeking ordination.
ID680
144. “Ekasīmāyañca aññepi bhikkhū atthīti iminā ekasīmāyaṃ bhikkhumhi asati bhaṇḍukammārocanakiccaṃ natthīti dasseti. Khaṇḍasīmāya vā ṭhatvā nadīsamuddādīni vā gantvā pabbājetabboti etena sabbe sīmaṭṭhakabhikkhū āpucchitabbā, anāpucchā pabbājetuṃ na vaṭṭatīti dīpeti.
144. “And there are other bhikkhus in the same boundary”—this shows that if there is no bhikkhu in the same boundary, there is no duty to announce the shaving. He should be ordained by standing in a partial boundary or going to a river, sea, or the like—this indicates that all bhikkhus within the boundary must be informed; it is not proper to ordain without informing.
144. “Ekasīmāyañca aññepi bhikkhū atthīti iminā By this, it is shown that if there is no monk in the same boundary, there is no need to announce the shaving of the head. Khaṇḍasīmāya vā ṭhatvā nadīsamuddādīni vā gantvā pabbājetabbo by this it is pointed out that all the monks staying within the boundary should be informed, it is not proper to ordain without informing them.
144. “Ekasīmāyañca aññepi bhikkhū atthī” indicates that if there are no monks within a single boundary, there is no need to inform them about the tools. “Khaṇḍasīmāya vā ṭhatvā nadīsamuddādīni vā gantvā pabbājetabbo” means that all monks within the boundary should be informed; it is not permissible to ordain without informing them.
ID681
145. Anāmaṭṭhapiṇḍapātanti aggahitaaggaṃ piṇḍapātaṃ. Sāmaṇerabhāgasamako āmisabhāgoti ettha kiñcāpi sāmaṇerānaṃ āmisabhāgassa samakameva dīyamānattā visuṃ sāmaṇerabhāgo nāma natthi, heṭṭhā gacchantaṃ pana bhattaṃ kadāci mandaṃ bhaveyya, tasmā upari aggahetvā sāmaṇerapāḷiyāva gahetvā dātabboti adhippāyo. Niyatapabbajjasseva cāyaṃ bhāgo dīyati. Teneva “apakkaṃ patta”ntiādi vuttaṃ. Aññe vā bhikkhū dātukāmā hontīti sambandho.
145. Unaccepted almsfood refers to almsfood whose best portion has not been taken. A portion of material goods equal to a sāmaṇera’s share—here, although the portion of material goods given to sāmaṇeras is equal and there is no distinct sāmaṇera portion, the food going downward might sometimes be inferior, so it should be given by taking it from the sāmaṇera line without taking the best portion from above—this is the intent. This portion is given only to one definitely going forth. Hence “An unripe bowl” and so forth is said. Or other bhikkhus wish to give—this is the connection.
145. Anāmaṭṭhapiṇḍapāta means almsfood, the first portion of which has not been taken. Sāmaṇerabhāgasamako āmisabhāgo although here there is no separate portion of almsfood for novices, called a novice’s portion, since it is given equally to the portion of almsfood for novices, but the food going below might sometimes be less, therefore, without taking from the top, taking only from the novice’s row and giving, is the meaning. And this portion is given only to one whose going forth is fixed. Therefore, it is said, “apakkaṃ patta”, etc. The connection is that other monks wish to give.
145. Anāmaṭṭhapiṇḍapāta means almsfood that has not been accepted. Sāmaṇerabhāgasamako āmisabhāgo means that although the material portion given to novices is equal, there is no separate portion called the novice’s portion. However, since the food going down may sometimes be inferior, it is intended that the best portion should be taken from the novice’s share and given. This portion is given only to one who is certain to ordain. Therefore, it is said, “apakkaṃ patta” etc. The connection is that other monks may wish to give.
ID682
146. Sayaṃ pabbājetabboti kesacchedanādīni sayaṃ karontena pabbājetabbo. Kesacchedanaṃ kāsāyacchādanaṃ saraṇadānanti hi imāni tīṇi karonto “pabbājetī”ti vuccati, tesu ekaṃ dve vāpi karonto tathā voharīyatiyeva, tasmā etaṃ pabbājehīti kesacchedanaṃ kāsāyacchādanañca sandhāya vuttaṃ. Upajjhāyaṃ uddissa pabbājetīti etthāpi eseva nayo. Khaṇḍasīmaṃ netvāti bhaṇḍukammārocanapariharaṇatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Tena sabhikkhuke vihāre aññampi “etassa kese chindā”ti vattuṃ na vaṭṭati. Pabbājetvāti kesacchedanaṃ sandhāya vadati. Bhikkhuto añño pabbājetuṃ na labhatīti saraṇadānaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Tenevāha “sāmaṇero panā”tiādīti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha ṭī. mahāvagga 3.34) āgataṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.34) pana – sayaṃ pabbājetabboti ettha “kesamassuṃ ohāretvā”tiādivacanato kesacchedanakāsāyacchādanasaraṇadānāni pabbajanaṃ nāma, tesu pacchimadvayaṃ bhikkhūhi eva kātabbaṃ, kāretabbaṃ vā. Pabbājehīti idaṃ tividhampi sandhāya vuttaṃ. Khaṇḍasīmaṃ netvāti bhaṇḍukammārocanapariharaṇatthaṃ. Bhikkhūnañhi anārocetvā ekasīmāya “etassa kese chindā”ti aññaṃ āṇāpetumpi na vaṭṭati. Pabbājetvāti kesādicchedanameva sandhāya vuttaṃ “kāsāyāni acchādetvā”ti visuṃ vuttattā. Pabbājetuṃ na labhatīti saraṇadānaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Anupasampannena bhikkhuāṇattiyā dinnampi saraṇaṃ na ruhatīti vuttaṃ.
146. He should ordain himself means he should ordain by personally performing the shaving and so forth. Shaving the hair, covering with kāsāya, and giving the refuges—these three, when done, are called “ordaining”; even doing one or two of them is conventionally referred to as such. Thus, “Ordain him” is said regarding shaving the hair and covering with kāsāya. He ordains under an upajjhāya—the same method applies here too. Taking to a partial boundary is said for the sake of announcing the shaving and avoiding it. Thus, in a monastery with bhikkhus, it is not proper to say to another, “Cut his hair.” Having ordained—he says this regarding shaving the hair. Other than a bhikkhu, one cannot ordain is said regarding giving the refuges. Hence it says, “But a sāmaṇera…” and so forth, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha ṭī. mahāvagga 3.34). In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.34), however—He should ordain himself—based on the statement, “Having shaved hair and beard…,” ordination consists of shaving the hair, covering with kāsāya, and giving the refuges; of these, the latter two must be done or caused to be done only by bhikkhus. “Ordain him” is said regarding all three. Taking to a partial boundary is for the sake of announcing the shaving and avoiding it. For without informing the bhikkhus, it is not proper even to order another in the same boundary, “Cut his hair.” Having ordained is said regarding only the cutting of hair and so forth, because “Covering with kāsāya” is stated separately. He cannot ordain is said regarding giving the refuges. Even refuges given by an unordained person under a bhikkhu’s order do not take effect, it is said.
146. Sayaṃ pabbājetabbo means, he should be ordained by oneself doing the cutting of the hair, etc. For, doing these three, cutting the hair, clothing in the yellow robe, and giving the refuge, one is said to “ordain,” of those, doing one or even two, one is spoken of in the same way. Therefore, etaṃ pabbājehī is said in reference to the cutting of the hair and the clothing in the yellow robe. Upajjhāyaṃ uddissa pabbājetī here too the same method applies. Khaṇḍasīmaṃ netvā is said for the purpose of avoiding the announcement of the shaving. Therefore, even in a monastery with monks, it is not proper to say to another, “Cut this one’s hair.” Pabbājetvā he speaks in reference to cutting the hair. Bhikkhuto añño pabbājetuṃ na labhatī is said in reference to giving the refuge. Therefore he says, “sāmaṇero panā”, etc., this is what is found in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.34). In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.34), however, sayaṃ pabbājetabbo, here, from the statement “having shaved off the hair and beard” etc., the cutting of hair, clothing with the yellow robe, and giving the refuge are called the going forth, of those, the last two should be done only by monks, or should be caused to be done. Pabbājehī this is said referring to all three. Khaṇḍasīmaṃ netvā for the purpose of avoiding the announcement of shaving. For, without informing the monks, in the same boundary, it is not proper even to command another, “cut this one’s hair”. Pabbājetvā is said in reference to the cutting of the hair etc., since it is said separately, “having clothed in the yellow robes”. Pabbājetuṃ na labhatī is said with reference to the giving of the refuge. It is said that the refuge given by a non-ordained person, even at the command of a monk, does not take root.
146. Sayaṃ pabbājetabbo means one should ordain by performing the hair-cutting, etc., oneself. Hair-cutting, robing, and giving the refuges are the three actions by which one is said to ordain. Even if one performs one or two of these, it is still called ordination. Therefore, “etaṃ pabbājehī” refers to hair-cutting and robing. “Upajjhāyaṃ uddissa pabbājetī” follows the same principle. “Khaṇḍasīmaṃ netvā” is said for the purpose of avoiding informing about the tools. Therefore, in a monastery with monks, it is not permissible to tell another, “Cut his hair.” “Pabbājetvā” refers to hair-cutting. “Bhikkhuto añño pabbājetuṃ na labhatī” refers to giving the refuges. Therefore, it is said, “sāmaṇero panā” etc., as explained in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.34). The Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.34) states: “Sayaṃ pabbājetabbo” means that from the statement, “Having shaved the hair,” etc., hair-cutting, robing, and giving the refuges constitute ordination. The latter two should be done by monks or caused to be done by them. “Pabbājehī” refers to all three. “Khaṇḍasīmaṃ netvā” is for the purpose of avoiding informing about the tools. For without informing the monks, it is not permissible to order another to cut hair within a single boundary. “Pabbājetvā” refers only to hair-cutting, as robing is mentioned separately. “Pabbājetuṃ na labhatī” refers to giving the refuges. For refuges given by an unordained person under the authority of a monk do not take effect.
ID683
Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyampi (vajira ṭī. mahāvagga 34) – khaṇḍasīmaṃ netvāti bhaṇḍukammārocanapariharaṇatthaṃ vuttaṃ, tena sabhikkhuke vihāre aññampi “etassa kese chindā”ti vattuṃ na vaṭṭati. “Pabbājetvā”ti imassa adhippāyapakāsanatthaṃ “kāsāyāni acchādetvā ehī”ti vuttaṃ. Upajjhāyo ce kesamassuoropanādīni akatvā pabbajjatthaṃ saraṇāni deti, na ruhati pabbajjā. Kammavācāya sāvetvā upasampādeti, ruhati upasampadā. Apattacīvarānaṃ upasampadāsiddhidassanato, kammavipattiyā abhāvato cetaṃ yujjatevāti eke. Hoti cettha –
In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā too (vajira ṭī. mahāvagga 34)—Taking to a partial boundary is said for the sake of announcing the shaving and avoiding it, meaning it is not proper to say to another in a monastery with bhikkhus, “Cut his hair.” “Having ordained”—to clarify the intent of this, “Covering with kāsāya, come” is said. If an upajjhāya gives the refuges for ordination without performing the shaving of hair and so forth, the going-forth does not take effect. If he ordains by reciting the kammavācā, the ordination takes effect. This is reasonable due to the success of ordination without flawed robes and the absence of procedural failure, some say. Here it is stated—
In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira ṭī. Mahāvagga 34) too, khaṇḍasīmaṃ netvā is said for the purpose of avoiding the announcement of the shaving, therefore, even in a monastery with monks, it is not proper to tell another, “Cut this one’s hair.” “Pabbājetvā” for the purpose of explaining the meaning of this, it is said, “kāsāyāni acchādetvā ehī”. If the preceptor gives the refuges for going forth without having done the shaving of the hair and beard, etc., the going forth does not take root. He ordains having recited the formal act, the ordination takes root. Some say that this is fitting, because of the accomplishment of the ordination of those without bowl and robe, and because of the absence of a fault in the formal act. Here it is —
In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira Ṭī. Mahāvagga 34): “Khaṇḍasīmaṃ netvā” is said for the purpose of avoiding informing about the tools. Therefore, in a monastery with monks, it is not permissible to tell another, “Cut his hair.” “Pabbājetvā” is explained by the statement, “Having robed him, come.” If the preceptor gives the refuges without performing the hair-cutting, etc., the ordination does not take effect. If he informs the assembly and gives full ordination, the full ordination takes effect. This is justified by the fact that the robes are seen to be complete at the time of full ordination and there is no failure in the procedure. Some say:
ID684
“Saliṅgasseva pabbajjā, viliṅgassāpi cetarā; Apetapubbavesassa, taṃdvayā iti cāpare”ti.
“For one with the insignia, it is going-forth; for one without the insignia, the other too; For one without a prior state, both thus, say others.”
“The going forth is only for one with the (correct) marks, the other (ordination) is even for one with different marks; For one who has lost the previous marks, both of those, say some”.
“Ordination is valid for one with the marks, and also for one without the marks; for one who has previously abandoned the marks, both are valid.”
ID685
Bhikkhunā hi sahatthena vā āṇattiyā vā dinnameva kāsāvaṃ vaṭṭati, adinnaṃ na vaṭṭatīti pana santesveva kāsāvesu, nāsantesu asambhavatoti tesaṃ adhippāyoti āgato.
Only kāsāva given by a bhikkhu’s hand or order is proper; what is not given is not proper—this applies when kāsāva is available; when it is not, it is impossible, according to their intent, it is stated.
Bhikkhunā hi sahatthena vā āṇattiyā vā dinnameva kāsāvaṃ vaṭṭati, adinnaṃ na vaṭṭatī But this means when there are yellow robes, not when there are none, because it is impossible, this is their meaning, it has been said.
“Bhikkhunā hi sahatthena vā āṇattiyā vā dinnameva kāsāvaṃ vaṭṭati, adinnaṃ na vaṭṭatī” means that the robe is valid only if given by a monk either directly or by his authority, but not if not given. This is the intention when robes are available, but not when they are not available.
ID686
Bhabbarūpoti bhabbasabhāvo. Tamevatthaṃ pariyāyantarena vibhāveti “sahetuko”ti. Ñātoti pākaṭo. Yasassīti parivārasampattiyā samannāgato.
Capable in form means having the nature of capability. This same meaning is explained in another way as “With cause.” Known means evident. Famous means endowed with a following.
Bhabbarūpo means of the nature of being fit. Clarifying that same meaning with another term, he says, “sahetuko”. Ñāto means well-known. Yasassī means endowed with the accomplishment of a retinue.
Bhabbarūpo means one of a capable nature. This is explained in another way as “sahetuko” (with a cause). Ñāto means well-known. Yasassī means endowed with a retinue.
ID687
Vaṇṇasaṇṭhānagandhāsayokāsavasena asucijegucchapaṭikūlabhāvaṃ pākaṭaṃ karontenāti sambandho. Tattha kesā nāmete vaṇṇatopi paṭikūlā, saṇṭhānatopi gandhatopi āsayatopi okāsatopi paṭikūlā. Manuññepi hi yāgupatte vā bhattapatte vā kesavaṇṇaṃ kiñci disvā “kesamissakamidaṃ, haratha na”nti jigucchanti, evaṃ kesā vaṇṇato paṭikūlā. Rattiṃ bhuñjantāpi kesasaṇṭhānaṃ akkavākaṃ vā makacivākaṃ vā chupitvā tatheva jigucchanti, evaṃ saṇṭhānatopi paṭikūlā. Telamakkhanapupphadhūmādisaṅkhāravirahitānañca kesānaṃ gandho paramajeguccho hoti. Tato jegucchataro aggimhi pakkhittānaṃ. Kesā hi vaṇṇasaṇṭhānato appaṭikūlāpi siyuṃ, gandhena pana paṭikūlāyeva. Yathā hi daharassa kumārakassa vaccaṃ vaṇṇato haliddivaṇṇaṃ, saṇṭhānato haliddipiṇḍisaṇṭhānaṃ. Saṅkaraṭṭhāne chaḍḍitañca uddhumātakakāḷasunakhasarīraṃ vaṇṇato tālapakkavaṇṇaṃ, saṇṭhānato vaṭṭetvā vissaṭṭhamudiṅgasaṇṭhānaṃ, dāṭhāpissa sumanamakuḷasadisā, taṃ ubhayampi vaṇṇasaṇṭhānato siyā appaṭikūlaṃ, gandhena pana paṭikūlameva, evaṃ kesāpi siyuṃ vaṇṇasaṇṭhānato appaṭikūlā, gandhena pana paṭikūlāyevāti.
By making evident the state of impurity, repulsiveness, and objectionableness through color, shape, smell, origin, and location—this is the connection. Therein, hair is objectionable by color, shape, smell, origin, and location. Even in a pleasant porridge pot or food bowl, seeing something hair-colored prompts, “This is mixed with hair, take it away,” and disgust arises—thus hair is objectionable by color. Even at night while eating, touching something hair-shaped like a crow’s or spider’s leg causes disgust in the same way—thus it is objectionable by shape too. And the smell of hair unprepared with oil, ointment, flowers, or incense is utterly repulsive. Even more repulsive is that of hair thrown into fire. Hair might be unobjectionable by color or shape, but by smell, it is objectionable indeed. Just as a young boy’s excrement is yellow in color and shaped like a turmeric lump, or a bloated black dog’s corpse discarded in a dump is palm-fruit-colored and shaped like a rolled and released mung bean, with teeth like jasmine buds—both might be unobjectionable by color or shape, but are objectionable by smell—so too hair might be unobjectionable by color or shape, but by smell it is objectionable indeed.
The connection is with ‘by making clear the nature of being disgusting and repulsive in terms of color, shape, smell, basis, and location of impurity’. Therein, kesā (hairs) are repulsive even in terms of color, repulsive in terms of shape, smell, basis, and location. Indeed, even in a pleasant pot of gruel or pot of food, seeing something of the color of hair, people are disgusted, (saying) “This is mixed with hair, remove it, no”, thus, hairs are repulsive vaṇṇato (in terms of color). Even those who eat at night, touching a snake-bite-like or a monkey-bite-like thing of the shape of hair, are disgusted in the same way, thus, they are repulsive saṇṭhānatopi (in terms of shape). And the gandho (smell) of hairs without the application of oil, unguent, flowers, incense, etc., is extremely disgusting. Even more disgusting is that of those thrown into the fire. Even though hairs might not be repulsive in terms of color and shape, gandhena (by smell), they are indeed repulsive. Just as, for a young boy, feces, in terms of color, is like the color of turmeric, in terms of shape, it is like the shape of a lump of turmeric. And the swollen and blackened corpse of a dog discarded in a rubbish heap, in terms of color, is like the color of a ripe palmyra fruit, in terms of shape, it is like the shape of a spread-out drum, and the fangs are also like jasmine buds, both of those might not be repulsive in terms of color and shape, but by smell, they are indeed repulsive. Thus, hairs too might not be repulsive in terms of color and shape, but by smell, they are indeed repulsive.
By color, shape, smell, location, and place, they make clear the repulsive and impure nature. There, kesā (hair) are repulsive by color, shape, smell, location, and place. Even pleasant hair, when seen in a rice pot or a food bowl, is repulsive, as people say, “This is mixed with hair, take it away.” Thus, hair is repulsive by color. Even those eating at night, touching the shape of hair like a crow’s beak or a monkey’s tail, feel repulsed. Thus, hair is repulsive by shape. The smell of hair, devoid of oil, butter, flowers, or smoke, is extremely repulsive. Even more repulsive is the smell of hair thrown into fire. Hair may not be repulsive by color or shape, but by smell, it is repulsive. Just as the excrement of a young child is yellow in color and shaped like a turmeric ball, and when discarded in a garbage heap, it swells like a black dog’s corpse, resembling a palm fruit in color and a rolled-up mud ball in shape, and the teeth resemble a flower bud, both may not be repulsive by color or shape, but by smell, they are repulsive. Similarly, hair may not be repulsive by color or shape, but by smell, it is repulsive.
ID688
Yathā pana asuciṭṭhāne gāmanissandena jātāni sūpeyyapaṇṇāni nāgarikamanussānaṃ jegucchāni honti aparibhogāni, evaṃ kesāpi pubbalohitamuttakarīsapittasemhādinissandena jātattā paramajegucchāti. Evaṃ āsayatopi paṭikūlā. Ime ca kesā nāma gūtharāsimhi uṭṭhitakaṇṇakā viya ekatiṃsakoṭṭhāsarāsimhi jātā, te susānasaṅkāraṭṭhānādīsu jātasākaṃ viya, parikhādīsu jātakamalakuvalayādipupphaṃ viya ca asuciṭṭhāne jātattā paramajegucchāti evaṃ okāsato paṭikūlātiādinā nayena tacapañcakassa vaṇṇādivasena paṭikūlabhāvaṃ pakāsentenāti attho.
Just as edible leaves grown from village filth are repulsive and unfit for consumption by city people, so too hair, arising from the filth of pus, blood, urine, excrement, bile, phlegm, and so forth, is utterly repulsive—thus it is objectionable by origin too. And this hair arises in the mass of thirty-one body parts like thorns sprouting in a dung heap, like vegetables grown in a cemetery dump, or like lotus or water lily flowers born in a ditch—being born in an impure place, it is utterly repulsive—thus it is objectionable by location too, and so forth. By this method, it makes evident the objectionable nature of the five skin-bound parts through color and so forth—this is the meaning.
But just as leaves for curry that have grown in a place of impurity, with the outflow of a village, are disgusting to townsfolk, and not fit for consumption, in the same way, hairs too, because they are produced by the outflow of pus, blood, urine, feces, bile, and phlegm, etc., are extremely disgusting. Thus, they are repulsive āsayatopi (also in terms of their basis). And these hairs are produced in the mass of the thirty-one constituents (of the body), like mushrooms arising in a heap of dung, like vegetables growing in a charnel ground, rubbish heap, etc., and like lotuses, water-lilies, etc., growing in a moat, etc., because they are produced in a place of impurity, they are extremely disgusting, thus, they are repulsive okāsato (in terms of location) — in this way, explaining the repulsive nature of the fivefold skin-aggregate (tacapañcaka) in terms of color, etc., is the meaning.
Just as leaves grown in a place of impurity, flowing from a village, are repulsive and unusable for city dwellers, so too hair, born from the flow of blood, pus, feces, bile, and phlegm, is extremely repulsive. Thus, hair is repulsive by location. These hairs, like thorns risen from a heap of feces, born in a heap of thirty-two parts, like vegetables grown in a cemetery or garbage heap, like lotuses and water lilies grown in a ditch, are extremely repulsive by place, as they are born in a place of impurity. Thus, by color, etc., the repulsive nature of the fivefold body is explained.
ID689
Nijjīvanissattabhāvaṃ vā pākaṭaṃ karontenāti ime kesā nāma sīsakaṭāhapaliveṭhanacamme jātā, tattha yathā vammikamatthake jātesu kuṇṭhatiṇesu na vammikamatthako jānāti “mayi kuṇṭhatiṇāni jātānī”ti, nāpi kuṇṭhatiṇāni jānanti “mayaṃ vammikamatthake jātānī”ti. Evameva na sīsakaṭāhapaliveṭhanacammaṃ jānāti “mayi kesā jātā”ti, nāpi kesā jānanti “mayaṃ sīsakaṭāhapaliveṭhanacamme jātā”ti, aññamaññaṃ ābhogapaccavekkhaṇarahitā ete dhammā. Iti “kesā nāma imasmiṃ sarīre pāṭiyekko koṭṭhāso acetano abyākato suñño nissatto thaddho pathavīdhātū”tiādinā nayena nijjīvanissattabhāvaṃ pakāsentena. Pubbeti purimabuddhānaṃ santike. Madditasaṅkhāroti nāmarūpavavatthānena ceva paccayapariggahavasena ca ñāṇena parimadditasaṅkhāro. Bhāvitabhāvanoti kalāpasammasanādinā sabbaso kusalabhāvanāya pūraṇena bhāvitabhāvano . Adinnaṃ na vaṭṭatīti ettha “pabbajjā na ruhatīti vadantī”ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.34) vuttaṃ.
“Revealing their lifeless, insentient nature”—these hairs are born on the skin wrapping the skull; just as an anthill’s summit does not know, “On me, coarse grasses have grown,” nor do the coarse grasses know, “We have grown on the anthill’s summit,” so too the skin wrapping the skull does not know, “On me, hairs have grown,” nor do the hairs know, “We have grown on the skin wrapping the skull.” These phenomena lack mutual awareness or reflection. Thus, it reveals their lifeless, insentient nature by the method: “Hairs are a distinct portion in this body—unconscious, undeclared, empty, insentient, rigid, of the earth element,” and so forth. “Formerly”—in the presence of previous Buddhas. “With conditioned phenomena subdued”—conditioned phenomena subdued by knowledge through discernment of name-and-form and comprehension of conditionality. “With meditation developed”—meditation fully developed through complete cultivation of wholesome states by means of contemplation of aggregates and so on. “What is not given is not proper”—here it is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.34), “They say, ‘Ordination does not take root.’”
Nijjīvanissattabhāvaṃ vā pākaṭaṃ karontenāti, meaning, by making evident the state of being without life and without a living being, these hairs have arisen on the skin that covers the skull, just as when tiny grasses grow on the top of an anthill, the anthill does not know, “Tiny grasses have grown on me,” nor do the tiny grasses know, “We have grown on the top of the anthill.” Similarly, the skin that covers the skull does not know, “Hairs have grown on me,” nor do the hairs know, “We have grown on the skin that covers the skull.” These phenomena are devoid of mutual awareness and reflection. Thus, by demonstrating the state of being without life and without a living being in the manner beginning, “Hairs are a separate part in this body, insentient, indeterminate, empty, without a living being, hard, the earth element.” Pubbeti means in the presence of previous Buddhas. Madditasaṅkhāroti means one whose formations have been thoroughly examined by knowledge, through both defining name-and-form and grasping conditions. Bhāvitabhāvanoti one whose cultivation is complete, having fulfilled all wholesome cultivation, such as through comprehending in groups, etc. Adinnaṃ na vaṭṭatīti Regarding this, it is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.34), “They say that the going forth does not flourish.”
Nijjīvanissattabhāvaṃ vā pākaṭaṃ karontenāti: By making clear the state of being lifeless and insentient, it is said: “These hairs, having grown on the skin covering the skull, do not know, ‘We have grown on the skin covering the skull,’ nor does the skin covering the skull know, ‘Hairs have grown on me.’ Just as when grass grows on an anthill, the anthill does not know, ‘Grass has grown on me,’ nor does the grass know, ‘We have grown on the anthill.’ These phenomena are devoid of mutual consideration and reflection. Thus, by explaining in this way: ‘These hairs are a separate part of this body, insentient, indeterminate, empty, lifeless, rigid, and of the earth element,’ the state of being lifeless and insentient is made clear. Pubbe: In the presence of previous Buddhas. Madditasaṅkhāro: The conditioned nature is crushed by the knowledge of the discernment of mind and matter and the understanding of conditions. Bhāvitabhāvano: Developed through the cultivation of wisdom by means of the analysis of aggregates, etc., and by fulfilling all wholesome development. Adinnaṃ na vaṭṭatī: Here, it is said,”Ordination does not take root,” as explained in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.34).
ID690
Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.34) pana – yasassīti parivārasampanno. Nijjīvanissattabhāvanti “kesā nāma imasmiṃ sarīre pāṭiyekko koṭṭhāso acetano abyākato suñño nissatto thaddho pathavīdhātū”tiādinayaṃ saṅgaṇhāti, sabbaṃ visuddhimagge (visuddhi. 1.311) āgatanayena gahetabbaṃ. Pubbeti pubbabuddhuppādesu . Madditasaṅkhāroti vipassanāvasena vuttaṃ. Bhāvitabhāvanoti samathavasenapi.
In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.34), however—“Renowned”—endowed with a retinue. “Lifeless, insentient nature”—it encompasses the method: “Hairs are a distinct portion in this body—unconscious, undeclared, empty, insentient, rigid, of the earth element,” and so forth; all should be understood according to the method presented in the Visuddhimagga (visuddhi. 1.311). “Formerly”—during the arising of previous Buddhas. “With conditioned phenomena subdued”—said in terms of insight. “With meditation developed”—also in terms of tranquility.
However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.34) – yasassīti means endowed with a retinue. Nijjīvanissattabhāvanti takes up the method such as, “Hairs are a separate constituent in this body, insentient, indeterminate, empty, not a being, hard, the earth element,” everything should be understood according to the method that appears in the Visuddhimagga (visuddhi. 1.311). Pubbeti means in the presence of previous Buddhas. Madditasaṅkhāroti is said with reference to insight. Bhāvitabhāvanoti and with regard to tranquility.
In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.34), it is said: Yasassī: Endowed with a retinue. Nijjīvanissattabhāva: It includes the explanation: “These hairs are a separate part of this body, insentient, indeterminate, empty, lifeless, rigid, and of the earth element,” as found in the Visuddhimagga (Visuddhi. 1.311). Pubbe: During the arising of previous Buddhas. Madditasaṅkhāro: This refers to insight meditation. Bhāvitabhāvano: This also refers to serenity meditation.
ID691
Kāsāyāni tikkhattuṃ vā…pe… paṭiggāhāpetabboti ettha “sabbadukkhanissaraṇatthāya imaṃ kāsāvaṃ gahetvā”ti vā “taṃ kāsāvaṃ datvā”ti vā vatvā “pabbājetha maṃ, bhante, anukampaṃ upādāyā”ti evaṃ yācanapubbakaṃ cīvaraṃ paṭicchāpeti. Athāpītiādi tikkhattuṃ paṭiggāhāpanato paraṃ kattabbavidhidassanaṃ, athāpīti tato parampīti attho. Keci pana “cīvaraṃ appaṭiggāhāpetvā pabbājanappakārabhedadassanatthaṃ ‘athāpī’ti vuttaṃ. Athāpīti atha vāti attho”ti vadanti. Adinnaṃ na vaṭṭatīti iminā pabbajjā na ruhatīti dasseti.
“Saffron robes should be accepted three times or…”—here, saying either “Taking these saffron robes for the sake of liberation from all suffering” or “Giving those saffron robes,” followed by, “Ordain me, venerable sir, out of compassion,” the robe is received preceded by such a request. “And yet” and so forth shows the procedure to be followed after accepting three times; “and yet” means “thereafter.” Some say, “‘And yet’** is said to indicate a distinction in the manner of ordination without having accepted the robe; ‘and yet’ means ‘alternatively.’” ”What is not given is not proper”**—this indicates that ordination does not take root.
Kāsāyāni tikkhattuṃ vā…pe… paṭiggāhāpetabboti Regarding this, having said either, “Taking this ochre robe for the sake of escape from all suffering,” or “Having given that ochre robe,” and having requested, “Ordain me, venerable sir, out of compassion,” in this way he is caused to accept the robe. Athāpīti, etc., is a demonstration of the procedure to be done after causing [him] to accept it three times. Athāpīti means even beyond that. Some, however, say, “The phrase,”‘athāpī’” is stated in order to show the different kinds of ordinations, without causing [him] to accept the robe.”Athāpīti means ‘or else’,” they say. Adinnaṃ na vaṭṭatīti With this, he shows that the going-forth does not flourish.
Kāsāyāni tikkhattuṃ vā…pe… paṭiggāhāpetabbo: Here, after saying, “Take this robe for the sake of liberation from all suffering,” or “Give this robe,” one should request, “Venerable, please ordain me out of compassion,” and thus receive the robe after making the request. Athāpī: This indicates what should be done after the threefold acceptance. Athāpī: This means “after that.” Some say, “Without receiving the robe, ‘athāpī’ is said to show the method of ordination. Athāpī: This means ‘or else.’” Adinnaṃ na vaṭṭatī: This shows that ordination does not take root.
ID692
147. Pāde vandāpetvāti pādābhimukhaṃ namāpetvā. Dūre vandantopi hi pāde vandatīti vuccatīti. Upajjhāyena vāti ettha yassa santike upajjhaṃ gaṇhāti, ayaṃ upajjhāyo. Yaṃ ābhisamācārikesu vinayanatthāya ācariyaṃ katvā niyyātenti, ayaṃ ācariyo. Sace pana upajjhāyo sayameva sabbaṃ sikkhāpeti, aññampi na niyyāteti, upajjhāyovassa ācariyopi hoti. Yathā upasampadākāle sayameva kammavācaṃ vācento upajjhāyova kammavācācariyopi hotīti vuttaṃ.
147. “Having him salute the feet”—having him bow toward the feet. For even one saluting from a distance is said to “salute the feet.” “By the preceptor or”—here, the one in whose presence he takes the preceptor is the upajjhāya. The one appointed as a teacher for training in monastic conduct and entrusted with him is the ācariya. But if the preceptor himself teaches everything and does not entrust him to another, the preceptor becomes his teacher as well. Just as at the time of higher ordination, the preceptor himself reciting the kammavācā becomes both preceptor and kammavācā teacher, it is said.
147. Pāde vandāpetvāti Having caused him to bow towards the feet. Because even one who bows from a distance is said to bow at the feet. Upajjhāyena vāti Here, the one in whose presence he takes a preceptor, this is the preceptor (upajjhāya). The one who is assigned as a teacher for the purpose of the Vinaya within the customary practices, this is the teacher (ācariya). But if the preceptor himself teaches everything, and does not assign anyone else, his preceptor is also his teacher. Just as it is said that at the time of higher ordination, the preceptor himself, while reciting the formal act, is also the teacher of the formal act.
147. Pāde vandāpetvā: Having made them bow at the feet. Even those who bow from a distance are said to bow at the feet. Upajjhāyena vā: Here, the one in whose presence one takes the ordination is the upajjhāya. The one appointed to teach the training rules for the sake of discipline is the ācariya. If the upajjhāya himself teaches everything and does not appoint another, then the upajjhāya is also the ācariya. As it is said, at the time of higher ordination, the upajjhāya himself recites the motion and is also the kammavācācariya.
ID693
Anuññātaupasampadāti ñatticatutthakammena anuññātaupasampadā. Ṭhānakaraṇasampadanti ettha uraādīni ṭhānāni, saṃvutādīni karaṇānīti veditabbāni. Anunāsikantaṃ katvā dānakāle antarāvicchedaṃ akatvā dātabbānīti dassetuṃ “ekasambandhānī”ti vuttaṃ. Vicchinditvāti ma-kārantaṃ katvā dānasamaye vicchedaṃ katvā.
“Authorized higher ordination”—higher ordination authorized by the motion-and-fourth transaction. “Competence in posture and articulation”—here, chest and so forth are postures, closed syllables and so forth are articulations, to be understood as such. To indicate that they should be given without interruption at the time of giving, with a nasal ending, it is said, “continuous”. “Breaking off”—making it end with an “m” sound and interrupting at the time of giving.
Anuññātaupasampadāti means the higher ordination is authorized through the formal act of a ñatticatutthakamma. Ṭhānakaraṇasampadanti Here, the places (ṭhānāni) should be understood as the chest, etc., and the articulators (karaṇāni) as lips that are close together, etc.. To show that they should be given during the giving, without making an internal break, having made it end in a nasal sound, it is said, “ekasambandhānī”ti. Vicchinditvāti means making it end in the ‘ma’ sound, and having made a break at the time of the giving.
Anuññātaupasampadā: Higher ordination approved by a motion with four announcements. Ṭhānakaraṇasampada: Here, the places such as the chest, etc., and the actions such as restraint, etc., should be understood. To show that one should give without interruption at the time of giving, having made it continuous, it is said, “ekasambandhānī” (connected as one). Vicchinditvā: Having made it end with the letter ‘ma,’ and having interrupted it at the time of giving.
ID694
148. Sabbamassa kappiyākappiyaṃ ācikkhitabbanti dasasikkhāpadavinimuttaṃ parāmāsāparāmāsādibhedaṃ kappiyākappiyaṃ ācikkhitabbaṃ. Ābhisamācārikesu vinetabboti iminā “sekhiyaupajjhāyavattādiābhisamācārikasīlamanena pūretabbaṃ. Tattha ca kattabbassa akaraṇe, akattabbassa ca karaṇe daṇḍakammāraho hotīti dīpetīti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.34) vuttaṃ. Anunāsikantaṃ katvā dānakāle antarāvicchedo na kātabboti āha “ekasambandhānī”ti. Ābhisamācārikesu vinetabboti iminā sekhiyavattākkhandhakavattesu, aññesu ca sukkavissaṭṭhiādilokavajjasikkhāpadesu ca sāmaṇerehi vattitabbaṃ, tattha avattamāno alajjī daṇḍakammāraho ca hotīti dassetīti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.34).
148. “All that is proper and improper must be explained to him”—the distinction between proper and improper, beyond the ten training precepts, such as what may be touched or not, must be explained. “He should be trained in monastic conduct”—this indicates, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.34), “The moral conduct of monastic duties, such as those toward the preceptor and the sekhiya rules, must be fulfilled. It shows that he is liable to disciplinary action for not doing what should be done or doing what should not be done.” To say that no interruption should occur at the time of giving with a nasal ending, it says, “continuous”. “He should be trained in monastic conduct”—this indicates, as stated in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.34), that novices should observe the sekhiya duties, duties in the Khandhaka, and other training rules such as avoiding worldly faults like deceit; one who does not observe them becomes shameless and liable to disciplinary action.
148. Sabbamassa kappiyākappiyaṃ ācikkhitabbanti What is allowable and unallowable, excluding the ten precepts, differentiated by what should be touched and what should not be touched, etc., should be explained to him. Ābhisamācārikesu vinetabboti With this, it is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.34) that “by this he should fulfill the customary practices such as the sekhiya rules and the preceptor’s duties. And here he will be liable to a penalty for not doing what should be done, and for doing what should not be done.” To state that during the time of giving after making it end with a nasal sound, no inner break should be done, he says “ekasambandhānī”ti. Ābhisamācārikesu vinetabboti With this, it is said that a novice should conduct in the sekhiya-duty, the duties for sections of training, and in other blameless in the world precepts, such as for seminal emission, etc. And one, who not conducting there, is shameless and worthy of penalty, showing thusly in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.34).
148. Sabbamassa kappiyākappiyaṃ ācikkhitabba: One should explain what is allowable and unallowable, free from the ten training rules, including the distinctions of what is to be avoided and what is not. Ābhisamācārikesu vinetabbo: This means, “One should fulfill the training rules such as the duties of a teacher, etc., and the minor training rules. If one does not do what should be done or does what should not be done, one is deserving of punishment,” as explained in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.34). To show that one should not interrupt at the time of giving, having made it continuous, it is said, “ekasambandhānī”. Ābhisamācārikesu vinetabbo: This means that a novice should behave according to the training rules, the duties of the chapter, and other rules such as those concerning improper speech, etc. If one does not behave accordingly, one is shameless and deserving of punishment, as explained in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.34).
ID695
Urādīni ṭhānāni nāma, saṃvutādīni karaṇāni nāma. Anunāsikantaṃ katvā ekasambandhaṃ katvā dānakāle antarā aṭṭhatvā vattabbaṃ, vicchinditvā dānakālepi yathāvuttaṭṭhāne eva vicchedo, aññatra na vaṭṭatīti likhitaṃ, anunāsikante dīyamāne khalitvā “buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmī”ti ma-kārena missībhūte khette otiṇṇattā vaṭṭatīti upatissatthero. Missaṃ katvā vattuṃ vaṭṭati, vacanakāle pana anunāsikaṭṭhāne vicchedaṃ akatvā vattabbanti dhammasiritthero. “Evaṃ kammavācāyampī”ti vuttaṃ. Ubhatosuddhiyāva vaṭṭatīti ettha mahāthero patitadantādikāraṇatāya acaturassaṃ katvā vadati, byattasāmaṇero samīpe ṭhito pabbajjāpekkhaṃ byattaṃ vadāpeti, mahātherena avuttaṃ vadāpetīti na vaṭṭati. Kammavācāya itaro bhikkhu ce vadati, vaṭṭatīti. Saṅgho hi kammaṃ karoti, na puggaloti. Na, nānāsīmapavattakammavācāsāmaññanayena paṭikkhipitabbattā. Atha therena caturassaṃ vuttaṃ pabbajjāpekkhaṃ vattuṃ asakkontaṃ sāmaṇero sayaṃ vatvā vadāpeti, ubhatosuddhi eva hoti therena vuttasseva vuttattā. “Buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchanto asādhāraṇe buddhaguṇaṃ, dhammaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchanto nibbānaṃ, saṅghaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchanto sekkhadhammaṃ asekkhadhammañca saraṇaṃ gacchatī”ti aggahitaggahaṇavasena yojanā kātabbā. Aññathā saraṇattayasaṅkaradoso. Sabbamassa kappiyākappiyanti dasasikkhāpadavinimuttaṃ parāmāsāparāmāsādibhedaṃ. “Ābhisamācārikesu vinetabbo”ti vacanato sekhiyaupajjhāyavattādiābhisamācārikasīlamanena pūretabbaṃ. Tattha cārittassa akaraṇe, vārittassa karaṇe daṇḍakammāraho hotī”ti dīpetīti vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 34) āgato.
Chest and so forth are called postures, closed syllables and so forth are called articulations. It should be spoken without pausing in the middle at the time of giving, with a nasal ending made continuous; even when breaking off at the time of giving, the break should only be at the specified place, not elsewhere, it is written. When given with a nasal ending, if stumbled over, saying “buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi” with an “m” sound mixed in a field does not invalidate it, says Upatissatthera. It is permissible to say it mixed, but at the time of recitation, it should be spoken without breaking at the nasal place, says Dhammasiritthera. “So too in the kammavācā,” it is said. “It is valid only with purity on both sides”—here, the great elder, due to reasons like a missing tooth, speaks imperfectly; a skilled novice standing nearby has the ordination candidate speak skillfully, but it is not valid if the elder does not say it and has it said instead. If another monk recites the kammavācā, it is valid, for the Sangha performs the act, not an individual. No, it should be rejected by the method of common usage of kammavācā across different boundaries. Alternatively, if the elder speaks perfectly but the ordination candidate cannot, and the novice says it himself and has him say it, it is pure on both sides because what the elder said is spoken. “Going for refuge to the Buddha, he goes for refuge to the Buddha’s unique qualities; going for refuge to the Dhamma, he goes for refuge to nibbāna; going for refuge to the Sangha, he goes for refuge to the qualities of trainees and the perfected ones”—this should be construed by the method of selective interpretation. Otherwise, there is the fault of mixing the three refuges. “All that is proper and improper”—beyond the ten training precepts, the distinction such as what may be touched or not. “He should be trained in monastic conduct”—from this statement, the moral conduct of monastic duties like the sekhiya and preceptor duties must be fulfilled. It shows that he is liable to disciplinary action for not doing what should be done or doing what should not be done, as stated in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 34).
The chest, etc. are called ṭhānāni (places); the lips, etc. are called karaṇāni (articulators). Having made it end in a nasal, making it one connected whole, it should be said during the giving without stopping in the middle, and a break at the time of the giving after breaking it as mentioned, is written [to be done] at the same place, elsewhere it is not suitable. Because, [when a sound] given at the end of the nasalized, slipping and ‘Buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmī’ becoming mixed with the sound ‘ma’, trespassing the field, [so] it is allowed, said Upatissatthera. It is proper to say after mixing; at the time of saying, however, it should be said without making a break in the place of the nasal, said Dhammasiritthera. It is said, “Thus, also, it is the teacher of the formal act.” Ubhatosuddhiyāva vaṭṭatīti Here, the elder, due to the reason of fallen teeth, etc., speaks making it imperfectly; the articulate novice, standing nearby, causes the candidate for going forth to speak articulately, he causes to say what was not spoken by the elder; therefore, it is not allowable. If the other monk speaks the formal act, it is allowable. Because the Sangha performs the act, not an individual. No, because it should be rejected according to the method, differing formal acts performed in a non-unitary boundary. Now, if the elder spoke perfectly, and the novice, being unable to speak it to the ordination candidate, speaks himself and then causes him to say, there is purity on both sides, since what was spoken by the elder has been spoken. The explanation should be made by means of understanding what has not been understood as ‘taking refuge in the Buddha, taking refuge in the unique qualities of the Buddha, taking refuge in the Dhamma, taking refuge in Nibbāna, taking refuge in the Saṅgha, taking refuge in the qualities of the learners and the qualities of those beyond training.’ Otherwise, there will be a fault of mixing three refuges. Sabbamassa kappiyākappiyanti What is allowable and unallowable, excluding the ten precepts, differentiated by what should be touched and what should not be touched, etc. Because of the statement “Ābhisamācārikesu vinetabbo”ti, by this he should fulfill the customary practices such as the sekhiya rules and the preceptor’s duties. And here he will be liable to a penalty for not doing what is customary, and for doing what is proscribed,’ so it is shown thusly in Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 34) .
The ṭhānāni are places such as the chest, etc., and the karaṇāni are actions such as restraint, etc. Having made it continuous, one should give without interruption at the time of giving. If interrupted, it should be given as previously stated. If given continuously, even if one stumbles and says, “I go for refuge to the Buddha,” it is acceptable because the field is mixed with the letter ‘ma,’ as stated by Upatissatthera. It is acceptable to speak mixedly, but at the time of speaking, one should not interrupt at the place of continuity, as stated by Dhammasiritthera. “Thus, even in the motion,” it is said. Ubhatosuddhiyāva vaṭṭatī: Here, the senior monk, due to reasons such as broken teeth, etc., speaks without skill. A skilled novice standing nearby should speak skillfully to one seeking ordination. If the senior monk does not speak, it is not acceptable. If another monk speaks during the motion, it is acceptable. The Sangha performs the act, not an individual. It should not be rejected based on the method of recitation in different territories. If the senior monk speaks skillfully, and the novice, unable to speak, speaks himself, it is acceptable because the senior monk has spoken. “Going for refuge to the Buddha, one takes refuge in the unique qualities of the Buddha; going for refuge to the Dhamma, one takes refuge in Nibbāna; going for refuge to the Sangha, one takes refuge in the qualities of the trainees and the fully enlightened ones,” thus the connection should be made by grasping what is to be grasped. Otherwise, there is the fault of mixing the three refuges. Sabbamassa kappiyākappiya: What is allowable and unallowable, free from the ten training rules, including the distinctions of what is to be avoided and what is not. “Ābhisamācārikesu vinetabbo”: This means that one should fulfill the training rules such as the duties of a teacher, etc., and the minor training rules. If one does not do what should be done or does what should not be done, one is deserving of punishment,” as explained in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 34).
ID696
Anujānāmi bhikkhave sāmaṇerānaṃ dasa sikkhāpadānītiādīsu sikkhitabbāni padāni sikkhāpadāni, sikkhākoṭṭhāsāti attho. Sikkhāya vā padāni sikkhāpadāni, adhisīlaadhicittaadhipaññāsikkhānaṃ adhigamupāyoti attho. Atthato pana kāmāvacarakusalacittasampayuttā viratiyo, taṃsampayuttadhammā panettha taggahaṇeneva gahetabbā. Pāṇoti paramatthato jīvitindriyaṃ, tassa atipātanaṃ pabandhavasena pavattituṃ adatvā satthādīhi atikkamma abhibhavitvā pātanaṃ pāṇātipāto, pāṇavadhoti attho. So pana atthato pāṇe pāṇasaññino jīvitindriyupacchedakaupakkamasamuṭṭhāpikā vadhakacetanāva, tasmā pāṇātipātā veramaṇi, verahetutāya verasaṅkhātaṃ pāṇātipātādipāpadhammaṃ maṇati nīharatīti virati “veramaṇī”ti vuccati. Viramati etāyāti vā “viramatī”ti vattabbe niruttinayena “veramaṇī”ti samādānavirati vuttā. Esa nayo sesesupi.
“I allow, bhikkhus, the ten training precepts for novices” and so forth—the precepts to be trained in are sikkhāpadāni, meaning portions of training. Or, the steps of training are sikkhāpadāni, meaning the means to attain the trainings in higher virtue, higher mind, and higher wisdom. In meaning, they are abstinences associated with wholesome consciousness of the sense sphere, and the associated phenomena are to be understood here as included by that very designation. “Living being”—in ultimate terms, the life faculty; its killing, not allowing it to continue in a sustained way, by overcoming and felling it with a weapon or the like, is pāṇātipāta, meaning the slaying of a living being. In meaning, it is solely the intention to kill, arising from an effort to cut off the life faculty of one perceived as a living being; thus, abstinence from killing living beings, because it removes—by being a cause of abstaining—the evil phenomena known as killing and so forth, is called veramaṇī, abstinence. Or, because one abstains by it, what should be called viramati is, by linguistic convention, termed veramaṇī, the abstinence of undertaking. This method applies to the rest as well.
Anujānāmi bhikkhave sāmaṇerānaṃ dasa sikkhāpadānīti, etc., the words to be trained in are sikkhāpadāni, meaning the portions of training. Or, the steps of training are sikkhāpadāni, meaning the means of attaining the trainings of higher virtue, higher mind, and higher wisdom. But in essence, they are the abstinences connected with wholesome mind states of the sense-sphere; the things connected with them are included here by the inclusion of those [abstinences]. Pāṇoti in the ultimate sense is the life faculty; its destruction, without allowing it to continue in a continuous process, having overcome and destroyed it with weapons, etc., is pāṇātipāto, meaning the killing of a living being. That, in essence, is just the intention to kill, originating the effort of cutting off the life faculty of a sentient being, who perceives it as a sentient being; therefore, abstaining from killing living beings, a state of abstaining, which removes the evil dhamma beginning with the killing of living beings, which is known as the cause of enmity, is called “veramaṇī”ti. Or, because one abstains through this, thus it should be said ‘viramatī’, as the abstinence from undertaking in the method of diction is said “veramaṇī”ti. This method applies to the remaining precepts as well.
Anujānāmi bhikkhave sāmaṇerānaṃ dasa sikkhāpadānī: In these words, the terms to be trained in are called sikkhāpadāni, meaning sections of training. Or, the terms of training are called sikkhāpadāni, meaning the means of achieving higher virtue, higher mind, and higher wisdom. In essence, they are the abstinences associated with wholesome consciousness of the sense sphere, and the associated states are to be understood here by grasping them. Pāṇo: Ultimately, the life faculty. The act of killing, which occurs through the force of bondage, without giving, overcoming with weapons, etc., is called pāṇātipāto, meaning the killing of a living being. In essence, it is the intention to kill, arising from the act of cutting off the life faculty of a being perceived as a living being. Therefore, the abstention from killing is called veramaṇī, meaning abstention because it removes the evil of killing, etc., which is called ‘vera’ (enmity). It is called veramaṇī because it causes abstention. Or, it is called veramaṇī by the method of etymology, meaning abstention. This is the method for the rest as well.
ID697
Adinnassa ādānaṃ adinnādānaṃ, theyyacetanā. Abramhacariyanti aseṭṭhacariyaṃ, maggenamaggapaṭipattisamuṭṭhāpikā methunacetanā. Musāti abhūtavatthu, tassa vādo abhūtaṃ ñatvāva bhūtato viññāpanacetanā musāvādo. Piṭṭhapūvādinibbattā surā ceva pupphāsavādibhedaṃ merayañca surāmerayaṃ. Tadeva madanīyaṭṭhena majjañceva pamādakāraṇaṭṭhena pamādaṭṭhānañca, taṃ yāya cetanāya pivati, tassā evaṃ adhivacanaṃ.
The taking of what is not given is adinnādāna, the intention to steal. “Non-celibacy”—conduct that is not supreme, the intention for sexual intercourse arising from practice of the path or non-path. “Falsehood”—an untrue matter; its assertion, knowing it to be untrue yet presenting it as true, is musāvāda, the intention to misrepresent. Liquor produced from flour cakes and the like, and fermented drinks divided into flower-based and other types, are surāmeraya. That very thing, being intoxicating, is liquor (majja) and, being a cause of heedlessness, is a basis for heedlessness (pamādaṭṭhāna); this is a designation for the intention with which one drinks it.
The taking of what is not given is adinnādānaṃ, the intention to steal. Abramhacariyanti means ignoble conduct, the intention of engaging in sexual intercourse originating from wrong practice. Musāti is a non-existent thing; its speech, the intention to make known what is non-existent as existent, is musāvādo. Liquor that is brewed from flour, etc., is surā and, differentiated by flower-distillate, etc., is meraya, together they are surāmerayaṃ. That very thing, because it is to be intoxicated, is alcohol, and because it is the cause of negligence, it is the ground of negligence; it is just another name for the intention by which one drinks it.
The taking of what is not given is called adinnādāna, meaning the intention to steal. Abramhacariya: Improper conduct, meaning the intention for sexual misconduct arising from the path and the practice of the path. Musā: Falsehood, meaning the intention to deceive by stating what is untrue as true. Musāvādo: False speech. Surāmeraya: Fermented liquor and distilled spirits, including flower juices, etc., which cause intoxication and heedlessness. The intention to drink them is called by the same name.
ID698
Aruṇuggamanato paṭṭhāya yāva majjhanhikā, ayaṃ ariyānaṃ bhojanassa kālo nāma, tadañño vikālo. Bhuñjitabbaṭṭhena bhojananti idha sabbaṃ yāvakālikaṃ vuccati, tassa ajjhoharaṇaṃ idha uttarapadalopena bhojananti adhippetaṃ. Vikāle bhojanaṃ ajjhoharaṇaṃ vikālabhojanaṃ, vikāle vāyāvakālikassa bhojanaṃ ajjhoharaṇaṃ vikālabhojanantipi attho gahetabbo, taṃ atthato vikāle yāvakālikaajjhoharaṇacetanāva.
From the rising of dawn until midday, this is the time for the noble ones’ meals; anything else is vikāla, an improper time. By the nature of being edible, bhojana—here, all food permissible for the proper time is meant; its consumption is intended here as bhojana, with the latter word elided. Consuming food at an improper time is vikālabhojana; or, consuming food permissible for the proper time at an improper time is also vikālabhojana—this meaning should be understood; in essence, it is solely the intention to consume permissible food at an improper time.
From sunrise until midday, this is called the time for the noble ones to eat; anything other than that is vikālo. What is to be eaten is bhojananti here all food permissible within a certain time is referred to. Here the swallowing of that by eliding the last word is meant by bhojana. Swallowing food at the wrong time is vikālabhojanaṃ, or eating food permissible within a certain time at the wrong time is also to be understood as vikālabhojananti, that, in essence, is just the intention to swallow food permissible within a certain time, at the wrong time.
From dawn until midday is called the proper time for eating by the noble ones; any other time is called vikālo. Bhojana: Here, everything that is to be eaten within the proper time is called yāvakālika. The act of consuming it is called bhojana by the omission of the subsequent word. Consuming food at the wrong time is called vikālabhojana, meaning the act of consuming food at the wrong time or consuming food that is allowable only for a certain time at the wrong time. In essence, it is the intention to consume food at the wrong time.
ID699
Sāsanassa ananulomattā visūkaṃ paṭāṇībhūtaṃ dassanaṃ “visūkadassanaṃ, naccagītādidassanasavanānañceva vaṭṭakayuddhajūtakīḷādisabbakīḷānañca nāmaṃ. Dassananti cettha pañcannampi viññāṇānaṃ yathāsakaṃ visayassa ālocanasabhāvatāya dassanasaddena saṅgahetabbattā savanampi saṅgahitaṃ. Naccagītavāditasaddehi cettha attano naccanagāyanādīnipi saṅgahitānīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
Due to not conforming to the teaching, a distracting sight that becomes an obstacle is visūkadassana, a term for watching dancing, singing, and the like, as well as listening to them, and all forms of play such as dice, combat, gambling, and games. “Seeing”—here, because the term “seeing” encompasses the nature of the five kinds of consciousness attending to their respective objects, hearing is included as well. By the sounds of dancing, singing, and music, one’s own dancing, singing, and the like are also included, it should be understood.
Because it is unsuitable for the dispensation, a sight that has become a spectacle is “visūkadassanaṃ, a name for seeing and hearing dance, song, etc., and for all sports, such as wrestling matches and gambling games. Dassananti here, because even hearing is included by the word ‘seeing,’ due to the fact that each of the five consciousnesses illuminates its own respective object, it should be understood that with the words ‘dance, song, and instrumental music,’ one’s own dancing, singing, etc., are also included here.
Visūkadassanaṃ: Improper entertainment, such as dancing, singing, music, watching animal fights, gambling, etc., which are contrary to the Dhamma. Dassana: Here, the term ‘seeing’ includes the function of the five consciousnesses in perceiving their respective objects, and thus hearing is also included. Dancing, singing, and playing musical instruments are also included here.
ID700
Mālāti baddhamabaddhaṃ vā pupphaṃ, antamaso suttādimayampi alaṅkāratthāya piḷandhiyamānaṃ mālātveva vuccati. Gandhanti vāsacuṇṇādivilepanato aññaṃ yaṃ kiñci gandhajātaṃ. Vilepananti pisitvā gahitaṃ chavirāgakaraṇañceva gandhajātañca. Dhāraṇaṃ nāma piḷandhanaṃ. Maṇḍanaṃ nāma ūnaṭṭhānapūraṇaṃ. Gandhavasena, chavirāgavasena vā sādiyanaṃ vibhūsanaṃ nāma, mālādīsu vā dhāraṇādīni yathākkamaṃ yojetabbāni. Tesaṃ dhāraṇādīnaṃ ṭhānaṃ kāraṇaṃ vītikkamacetanā.
“Garland”—flowers, whether bound or unbound, even those made of thread or the like, worn for adornment, are indeed called mālā. “Scent”—any kind of fragrance apart from perfumed powder or ointment. “Ointment”—something ground and taken for coloring the skin or as a fragrance. “Wearing” means putting on. “Adorning” means filling a deficiency. Taking pleasure through scent or skin coloring is vibhūsana, embellishment; or, in the case of garlands and the like, wearing and so forth should be applied in sequence. The basis and cause of these—wearing and the rest—is the intention to transgress.
Mālāti means a garland, whether tied or untied, of flowers; even that which is made of thread, etc., when worn for adornment, is called a garland. Gandhanti means any kind of scent other than scented powders and unguents, etc. Vilepananti means a ground-up preparation that causes skin to become colored, and also a kind of scent. Dhāraṇaṃ means wearing. Maṇḍanaṃ means filling in deficient places. Vibhūsanaṃ is indulging through scent or through skin color, or wearing, etc., of garlands, etc., are to be applied respectively. The basis, the cause for their wearing, etc., is the intention to transgress.
Mālā: Flowers, whether strung or unstrung, even if made into garlands with thread, etc., for the purpose of adornment. Gandha: Any kind of fragrance other than perfumes, powders, etc. Vilepana: Ointments applied after grinding, which remove the natural color of the skin and are fragrant. Dhāraṇa: Wearing. Maṇḍana: Adorning. Vibhūsana: Accepting for the sake of fragrance or for removing the natural color of the skin. The wearing of garlands, etc., should be connected with the actions of wearing, etc., in order.
ID701
Uccāti ucca-saddena samānattho nipāto. Uccāsayanaṃ vuccati pamāṇātikkantaṃ āsandādi. Mahāsayanaṃ akappiyattharaṇehi atthataṃ salohitavitānañca. Etesu hi āsanaṃ sayanañca uccāsayanamahāsayanasaddehi gahitāni uttarapadalopena. Jātarūparajatapaṭiggahaṇāti ettha rajatasaddena dārumāsakādi sabbaṃ rūpiyaṃ saṅgahitaṃ. Muttāmaṇiādayopettha dhaññakkhettavatthādayo ca saṅgahitāti daṭṭhabbā. Paṭiggahaṇa-saddena pana paṭiggāhāpanasādiyanānipi saṅgahitāni.
“High”—a particle synonymous with the word “high.” “High bedding” is called an excessively large seat or the like. “Luxurious bedding”—spread with improper coverings or with a red canopy. For in these, both seat and bed are encompassed by the terms uccāsayana and mahāsayana, with the latter word elided. “Accepting gold and silver”—here, by the term rajata, all forms of money, such as wooden coins, are included. Pearls, gems, grains, fields, clothes, and the like are also included here, it should be understood. By the term paṭiggahaṇa, causing to be accepted and taking pleasure in it are also included.
Uccāti is a particle synonymous with the word high. Uccāsayanaṃ is called a seat, etc., that exceeds the measure. Mahāsayanaṃ is that which is covered with unallowable spreads and with a red canopy. For here, the seat and the bed are included by the words high seat and great bed by eliding the last word. Jātarūparajatapaṭiggahaṇāti here with the word rajata, all money such as wooden coins, etc., is included. Pearls, gems, etc., and fields of grain, land, dwelling, etc., are also included here, it should be understood. With the word paṭiggahaṇa, however, accepting, causing to accept, and indulging are also included.
Uccā: The term ‘high’ has the same meaning as the prefix ‘high.’ Uccāsayana: A bed or seat that exceeds the proper measure. Mahāsayana: A bed spread with unallowable coverings and adorned with red canopies. Here, seats and beds are included by the terms ‘high seat’ and ‘large bed’ by the omission of the subsequent word. Jātarūparajatapaṭiggahaṇā: Here, the term ‘silver’ includes all kinds of money, including wood, coins, etc. Precious stones, fields, etc., are also included here. Paṭiggahaṇa: The term ‘acceptance’ includes receiving, causing to receive, and consenting.
ID702
149. Senāsanaggāho ca paṭippassambhantīti iminā vassacchedaṃ dasseti. Upasampannānampi pārājikasamāpattiyā saraṇagamanādisāmaṇerabhāvassapi vinassanato senāsanaggāho ca paṭippassambhati, saṅghalābhampi te na labhantīti veditabbaṃ. Purimikāya puna saraṇāni gahitānīti saraṇagahaṇena saha tadahevassa vassūpagamanampi dasseti. Pacchimikāya vassāvāsikanti vassāvāsikalābhaggahaṇadassanamattamevetaṃ, tato purepi vā pacchāpi vā vassāvāsikañca cīvaramāsesu saṅghe uppannakālacīvarañca purimikāya upagantvā avipannasīlo sāmaṇero labhati eva. Sace pacchimikāya gahitānīti pacchimikāya vassūpagamanañca chinnavassatañca dasseti. Tassa hi kālacīvaralābho na pāpuṇāti, tasmā “apaloketvā lābho dātabbo”ti vuttaṃ. Vassāvāsikalābho pana yadi senāsanassāmikā dāyakā senāsanaguttatthāya pacchimikāya upagantvā vattaṃ katvā attano senāsane vasantassapi vassāvāsikaṃ dātabbanti vadanti, anapaloketvāpi dātabbova. Yaṃ pana sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.108) “pacchimikāya vassāvāsikaṃ lacchatīti pacchimikāya puna vassaṃ upagatattā lacchatī”ti vuttaṃ, tampi vassāvāsike dāyakānaṃ imaṃ adhippāyaṃ nissāya vuttañce, sundaraṃ, saṅghikaṃ, kālacīvarampi sandhāya vuttañce, na yujjatīti veditabbaṃ.
149. “The claim to lodging ceases”—this indicates the breaking of the rains residence. For those fully ordained, too, due to committing a pārājika offense, or even for a novice due to the loss of going for refuge and so forth, the claim to lodging ceases, and they do not receive the Sangha’s gains, it should be understood. “In the earlier period, the refuges were taken again”—this indicates, along with taking the refuges, his entering the rains residence on that very day. “In the later period, the rains residence benefit”—this is merely an indication of receiving the rains residence benefit; whether before or after that, a novice with unspoiled virtue who enters the earlier period receives both the rains residence benefit and the robe arising in the Sangha during the robe months. “If taken in the later period”—this indicates entering the rains in the later period and breaking the rains continuity. For him, the benefit of the timely robe does not apply; thus, it is said, “the benefit should be given after consultation.” As for the rains residence benefit, if the donors, owners of the lodging, say it should be given to one who, for the sake of protecting the lodging, enters the later period, fulfills duties, and resides in their lodging, it should indeed be given without consultation. But what is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.108), “he receives the rains residence benefit in the later period because he enters the rains again in the later period”—if this is said relying on this intention of the donors for the rains residence benefit, it is fine; but if it refers to the Sangha’s timely robe, it does not fit, it should be understood.
149. Senāsanaggāho ca paṭippassambhantīti With this, he shows the breaking of the rains. Even for those who have received higher ordination, due to undertaking a pārājika offence, even the state of a novice with regard to taking refuge, etc., the acceptance of lodging ceases, and they do not receive even the Sangha’s share; it should be understood. Purimikāya puna saraṇāni gahitānīti Along with taking the refuges, he shows his entering the rains on that very day. Pacchimikāya vassāvāsikanti This is only a demonstration of receiving the share of the rains residence. A novice who has entered the early rains and whose precepts are unbroken receives the rains residence allowance and the robe that has arisen for the Sangha during the robe months, even before or after that. Sace pacchimikāya gahitānīti He shows the entering of the later rains and the breaking of the rains. For he does not attain the benefit of the robe [distribution] at the proper time. Therefore, it is said, “apaloketvā lābho dātabbo”ti. But as for the benefit of the rains residence, if the donors who own the lodging say that even for one who has entered the later rains, has performed his duties for the protection of the lodging, and is dwelling in his own lodging, the rains residence allowance should be given, then it should be given even without formal consultation. But in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.108) it is said, “pacchimikāya vassāvāsikaṃ lacchatīti he receives the rains residence [allowance] for the later [rains] because he has entered the rains again during the later [period],’’ if this has also been said having in mind this intention of the donors regarding the rains residence, it is fine, if it is said with reference to the Sangha’s share, and to the robe [distribution] at the proper time, it is not appropriate, it should be understood.
149. Senāsanaggāho ca paṭippassambhantī: This shows the end of the rains residence. Even for those who have attained higher ordination, if they commit a pārājika offense, their status as a novice is destroyed, and they lose their lodging. They also do not receive the Sangha’s offerings. Purimikāya puna saraṇāni gahitānī: Taking refuge again shows that one enters the rains residence at that very time. Pacchimikāya vassāvāsika: This merely shows the obtaining of the rains residence. Before or after that, one may obtain the rains residence and the robe season. If one enters the rains residence later, one does not obtain the robe season. Therefore, it is said, “apaloketvā lābho dātabbo” (the gain should be given after informing). However, some say that if the donors, who are the owners of the lodging, enter the rains residence later and perform their duties, they should give the rains residence even without informing. What is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.108), “pacchimikāya vassāvāsikaṃ lacchatī” (one obtains the rains residence later), means that one obtains it because one has entered the rains residence later. If this is said with reference to the donors’ intention, it is acceptable. If it is said with reference to the Sangha’s robe season, it is not acceptable.
ID703
Na ajānitvāti “surā”ti ajānitvā pivato pāṇātipātāveramaṇiādisabbasīlabhedaṃ saraṇabhedañca na āpajjati. Akusalaṃ pana surāpānāveramaṇisīlabhedo ca hoti mālādidhāraṇādīsu viyāti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Itarānīti vikālabhojanāveramaṇiādīni. Tānipi hi sañcicca vītikkamantassa taṃ taṃ bhijjati eva, itarītaresaṃ pana abhijjanena nāsanaṅgāni na honti. Teneva “etesu bhinnesū”ti bhedavacanaṃ vuttaṃ.
“Not unknowingly”—one who drinks, not knowing it is “liquor,” does not violate the precepts such as abstinence from killing living beings or the distinction of the refuges. However, an unwholesome act and a violation of the precept of abstinence from drinking liquor occur, just as with wearing garlands and the like, it should be understood. “The others”—abstinence from eating at an improper time and so forth. For these too, when intentionally transgressed, each respective one is broken; but the breaking of one does not entail the destruction of the others. Hence, the term “when these are broken” is stated to indicate violation.
Na ajānitvāti For one who drinks not knowing it is “liquor,” he does not incur a breach of all precepts of abstaining from killing a living being, etc. and the breach of refuge. However, there is unwholesomeness and there is a breach of the precepts of abstaining from drinking liquor, it should be understood, like wearing of garlands, etc. Itarānīti are abstaining from untimely meals, etc. For those too, one intentionally transgressing, those are broken; however, without the breaking of other ones, they are not factors for destruction. Therefore, the statement of breaking, “etesu bhinnesū”ti, has been stated.
Na ajānitvā: If one drinks without knowing it is liquor, one does not commit an offense against the precept of abstaining from killing, etc., or against the refuges. However, there is an offense against the precept of abstaining from drinking liquor, as in the case of wearing garlands, etc. Itarānī: The abstinences from eating at the wrong time, etc. If one intentionally transgresses these, they are broken. If one transgresses others unintentionally, they are not destroyed. Therefore, the term “etesu bhinnesū” (broken in these) is used.
ID704
Accayaṃ desāpetabboti “accayo maṃ bhante accāgamā”tiādinā saṅghamajjhe desāpetvā saraṇasīlaṃ dātabbanti adhippāyo pārājikattā tesaṃ. Tenāha “liṅganāsanāya nāsetabbo”ti. Ayameva hi nāsanā idhādhippetāti liṅganāsanākāraṇehi pāṇātipātādīhi avaṇṇabhāsanādīnaṃ saha patitattā vuttaṃ. Nanu ca kaṇṭakasāmaṇeropi micchādiṭṭhiko eva, tassa ca heṭṭhā daṇḍakammanāsanāva vuttā, idha pana micchādiṭṭhikassa liṅganāsanā vuccati, ko imesaṃ bhedoti codanaṃ manasi nidhāyāha “sassatucchedānañhi aññataradiṭṭhiko”ti. Ettha cāyaṃ adhippāyo – yo hi “attā issaro”ti vā “nicco dhuvo”tiādinā vā “attā ucchijjissati vinassissatī”tiādinā vā titthiyaparikappitaṃ yaṃ kiñci sassatucchedadiṭṭhiṃ daḷhaṃ gahetvā voharati, tassa sā pārājikaṭṭhānaṃ hoti, so ca liṅganāsanāya nāsetabbo. Yo pana īdisaṃ diṭṭhiṃ aggahetvā sāsanikova hutvā kevalaṃ buddhavacanādhippāyaṃ viparītato gahetvā bhikkhūhi ovadiyamānopi appaṭinissajjitvā voharati, tassa sā diṭṭhi pārājikaṃ na hoti, so pana kaṇṭakanāsanāya eva nāsetabboti vimativinodaniyaṃ. Imasmiṃ ṭhāne sāratthadīpaniyaṃ dasasikkhāpadato paṭṭhāya vitthārato vaṇṇanā āgatā, sā porāṇaṭīkāyaṃ sabbaso potthakaṃ āruḷhā, tasmā idha na vitthārayimha.
“He should be made to confess a fault” means he should be made to confess in the midst of the Sangha with “A fault has overcome me, venerable sir,” and so forth, and then the refuges and precepts should be given, with the intent that these are expellable offenses (pārājika). Hence it says “He should be expelled by the destruction of status”. “For this alone is the expulsion intended here” is said because falling into such acts as killing and disparaging along with these reasons results in ruin. But isn’t a troublesome novice also one with wrong view, and below only disciplinary action was mentioned for him, while here expulsion by status is stated for one with wrong view—what is the difference between these? Addressing this objection, it says “One who holds either eternalism or annihilationism”. The intent here is this: one who firmly holds and expresses any view of eternalism or annihilationism concocted by outsiders, such as “the self is the lord” or “permanent and eternal” or “the self will be annihilated and destroyed,” that becomes a basis for an expellable offense, and he should be expelled by the destruction of status. However, one who, while still within the dispensation without holding such a view, merely misinterprets the meaning of the Buddha’s words and persists in expressing it despite admonition by monks, that view is not an expellable offense; he should be expelled only by the method of dealing with a troublesome one, as per the Vimativinodanī. At this point, the Sāratthadīpanī provides an extensive commentary starting from the ten training precepts, which has been entirely included in the ancient commentary book, so we do not elaborate here.
Accayaṃ desāpetabboti means that after making him confess in the midst of the Sangha with “Bhante, a transgression has overcome me,” the going-for-refuge and precepts should be given. Because they have reached the state of pārājika, therefore he said, “liṅganāsanāya nāsetabbo”ti. Indeed, expulsion here is intended as the destruction of the marks, it is said since killing living beings etc. due to causing destruction of the marks, along with speaking dispraise etc., have fallen together. Now, the novice Kaṇṭaka was also a holder of wrong view; in his case, expulsion by formal act was mentioned above, but here, for one with wrong view, expulsion by destruction of the marks is mentioned; what is the difference between them? Keeping this objection in mind, he says: “sassatucchedānañhi aññataradiṭṭhiko”ti. And here is the meaning - he who speaks taking a firm hold of either eternalist or annihilationist views of any kind whatsoever, imagined by sectarians with “The self is the lord,” or “Permanent, everlasting,” etc, or “The self will be annihilated, will be destroyed,” etc. that becomes for him, equivalent to pārājika, and he is to be expelled by destruction of the marks. But, he who, without taking hold of such a view, being within the dispensation, merely misunderstands the meaning of the Buddha’s words and, even when instructed by the bhikkhus, speaks without relinquishing it, that view does not become pārājika for him, but he is to be expelled by expulsion of Kantaka, according to the Vimativinodanī. In this instance, in Sāratthadīpanī, starting from the ten precepts, the explanation is given in detail, and that has been entirely put on the books in the ancient commentary, therefore, we have not elaborated on it here.
“Accayaṃ desāpetabbo” means that after confessing the offense in the midst of the Sangha with words such as, “Venerable sir, I have committed an offense,” refuge and precepts should be given. This is the intention for those who have committed a pārājika offense. Therefore, it is said, “He should be expelled through the destruction of his status.” “This is indeed the destruction intended here” refers to the destruction of status due to actions such as killing living beings, speaking disparagingly, and so on, which are mentioned together with the fall. Now, even the novice Kaṇṭaka, who holds wrong views, was previously mentioned as being subject to disciplinary action (daṇḍakamma). Here, however, the destruction of status is mentioned for one who holds wrong views. What is the distinction between these? Reflecting on this objection, it is said, “For those who hold eternalist or annihilationist views.” The intention here is this: Whoever firmly grasps and proclaims any eternalist or annihilationist view fabricated by sectarians, such as “The self is the lord,” “The self is permanent, stable,” or “The self will be annihilated, destroyed,” for such a person, this is grounds for a pārājika offense, and he should be expelled through the destruction of his status. However, one who does not hold such a view but, being a follower of the teaching, misunderstands the Buddha’s words and, despite being admonished by the monks, does not relinquish it and continues to proclaim it, for such a person, this view does not constitute a pārājika offense, but he should be expelled through the Kaṇṭaka method. This is to dispel doubt. In this context, the detailed explanation starting from the ten training rules is found in the Sāratthadīpanī. The ancient commentary covers this entire section extensively, so we have not elaborated on it here.
ID705
150. “Attano pariveṇanti idaṃ puggalikaṃ sandhāya vutta”nti gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. Ayaṃ panettha gaṇṭhipadakārānaṃ adhippāyo – vassaggena pattasenāsananti iminā tassa vassaggena pattaṃ saṅghikasenāsanaṃ vuttaṃ. Attano pariveṇanti imināpi tasseva puggalikasenāsanaṃ vuttanti. Ayaṃ panettha amhākaṃ khanti – yattha vā vasatīti iminā saṅghikaṃ vā hotu puggalikaṃ vā, tassa nibaddhavasanakasenāsanaṃ vuttaṃ. Yattha vā paṭikkamatīti iminā pana yaṃ ācariyupajjhāyassa vasanaṭṭhānaṃ upaṭṭhānādinimittaṃ nibaddhaṃ pavisati, taṃ ācariyupajjhāyānaṃ pavisanaṭṭhānaṃ vuttaṃ, tasmā tadubhayaṃ dassetuṃ “ubhayenapi attano pariveṇañca vassaggena pattasenāsanañca vutta”nti āha. Tattha attano pariveṇanti iminā ācariyupajjhāyānaṃ nivāsanaṭṭhānaṃ dassitaṃ, vassaggena pattasenāsananti iminā pana tassa vasanaṭṭhānaṃ, tasmā tadubhayampi saṅghikaṃ vā hotu puggalikaṃ vā, āvaraṇaṃ kātabbamevāti. Mukhadvārikanti mukhadvārena bhuñjitabbaṃ. Daṇḍakammaṃ katvāti daṇḍakammaṃ yojetvā. Daṇḍenti vinenti etenāti daṇḍo, soyeva kattabbattā kammanti daṇḍakammaṃ, āvaraṇādi. Daṇḍakammamassa karothāti assa daṇḍakammaṃ yojetha āṇāpetha. Daṇḍakammanti vā niggahakammaṃ, tasmā niggahamassa karothāti vuttaṃ hoti. Esa nayo sabbattha īdisesu ṭhānesu.
150. “‘His own dwelling’”, it is said in the glosses, “this is said with reference to an individual’s property.” This is the intent of the gloss-makers here: “The lodging obtained through the rains” refers to the Sangha-owned lodging obtained through the rains. “His own dwelling” also refers to that individual’s lodging. However, this is our preference: “Wherever he dwells” refers to his fixed place of residence, whether Sangha-owned or individual. “Wherever he resorts” refers to the place of dwelling of the teacher or preceptor, which he regularly enters for attendance or other reasons; thus, it says “both his own dwelling and the lodging obtained through the rains are meant” to indicate both. Here, “his own dwelling” indicates the dwelling place of the teacher or preceptor, while “the lodging obtained through the rains” indicates his own dwelling place; thus, both, whether Sangha-owned or individual, must be protected. “Through the mouth” means to be eaten by way of the mouth. “Having imposed disciplinary action” means having applied disciplinary action. That which disciplines and trains is “discipline” (daṇḍa), and being something to be done, it is “action” (kamma), hence “disciplinary action”, such as restriction. “Impose disciplinary action on him” means apply or command disciplinary action for him. “Disciplinary action” also means censure, so it is said “impose censure on him.” This method applies in all such cases.
150. “Attano pariveṇa”ti, “This is said with reference to an individual,” it is said in the Ganthipada. Here is the meaning for those who have made ganthipada: vassaggena pattasenāsanati with that, by seniority, the Sangha’s dwelling assigned has been mentioned. Attano pariveṇati with this, the personal dwelling has been mentioned. This is our opinion on this: yattha vā vasatīti, with this whether it is of the Sangha or personal, his regular dwelling place is mentioned. Yattha vā paṭikkamatīti, with this, the dwelling place of the preceptor and teacher, which he regularly enters for the purpose of attending etc., that is the place of entering for the preceptor and teacher, is mentioned. therefore, to show both of these, it says: “ubhayenapi attano pariveṇañca vassaggena pattasenāsanañca vutta”ti. There, attano pariveṇati with this, the dwelling place of the preceptor and teacher is shown, vassaggena pattasenāsanati with this his dwelling place. Therefore, both of these, whether it is of the Sangha or personal, covering should be done. Mukhadvārikanti should be consumed with mukhadvāra. Daṇḍakammaṃ katvāti imposing the penalty act. One is disciplined, is trained by this therefore it is daṇḍa, that very thing because it is to be done is kamma therefore daṇḍakammaṃ, covering etc. Daṇḍakammamassa karothāti impose the penalty act on him, command. Daṇḍakammanti or niggahakamma, therefore, it is said, do the punishment for him. This method applies in all such similar places.
150. “Attano pariveṇa” refers to personal quarters, as stated in the Gaṇṭhipada. The intention of the Gaṇṭhipada authors here is this: “Vassaggena pattasenāsana” refers to the Sangha’s dwelling place given at the end of the rains retreat. “Attano pariveṇa” refers to his personal dwelling. Our understanding here is: “Yattha vā vasatī” refers to a dwelling place, whether communal or personal, where he has been residing. “Yattha vā paṭikkamatī” refers to a place where he enters for the purpose of attending on his teacher or preceptor, which is designated as the dwelling place of the teacher or preceptor. Therefore, to indicate both, it is said, “Both his personal quarters and the dwelling place given at the end of the rains retreat are mentioned.” Here, “Attano pariveṇa” indicates the dwelling place of the teacher or preceptor, while “Vassaggena pattasenāsana” indicates his own dwelling place. Thus, both, whether communal or personal, should be enclosed. “Mukhadvārika” means it should be eaten at the entrance. “Daṇḍakammaṃ katvā” means applying disciplinary action. “Daṇḍa” means to discipline or restrain; thus, “daṇḍakamma” refers to the action to be taken, such as enclosing. “Daṇḍakammamassa karothā” means impose disciplinary action on him, command him. “Daṇḍakamma” also means a corrective action; thus, it is said to impose correction on him. This is the method in all such cases.
ID706
Senāsanaggāho ca paṭippassambhantīti iminā chinnavasso hotīti dīpeti. Sace ākiṇṇadosova hoti, āyatiṃ saṃvare na tiṭṭhati, nikkaḍḍhitabboti ettha sace yāvatatiyaṃ vuccamāno na oramati, saṅghaṃ apaloketvā nāsetabbo, puna pabbajjaṃ yācamānopi apaloketvā pabbājetabboti vadanti. Pacchimikāya vassāvāsikaṃ lacchatīti pacchimikāya puna vassaṃ upagatattā lacchati. Apaloketvā lābho dātabboti chinnavassatāya vuttaṃ. Itarāni pañca sikkhāpadānīti vikālabhojanādīni pañca. Accayaṃ desāpetabboti “accayo maṃ bhante accāgamā”tiādinā nayena desāpetabboti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.108) vuttaṃ.
“The holding of lodgings ceases” indicates that he becomes one whose rains retreat is broken. “If he is thoroughly corrupt and does not maintain restraint in the future, he should be expelled”, here, if he does not desist even after being admonished up to three times, he should be expelled with the Sangha’s consent; even if he requests ordination again, he should be ordained only with consent, they say. “He receives the rains-residence benefit in the latter period” means he receives it because he enters the rains again in the latter period. “The benefit should be given with consent” is said due to his status as one whose rains is broken. “The other five training precepts” refers to abstaining from eating at the wrong time and so forth. “He should be made to confess a fault” means he should be made to confess in the manner of “A fault has overcome me, venerable sir,” as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.108).
Senāsanaggāho ca paṭippassambhantīti with this it is shown that the counting of his vassa is interrupted. Sace ākiṇṇadosova hoti, āyatiṃ saṃvare na tiṭṭhati, nikkaḍḍhitabboti here, if, being spoken to up to three times, he does not desist, without informing the Sangha, he should be expelled; even if he asks for re-ordination, without informing he should be ordained, they say. Pacchimikāya vassāvāsikaṃ lacchatīti because he has entered upon the later rains-residence, he receives. Apaloketvā lābho dātabboti it is said due to the interruption of vassa. Itarāni pañca sikkhāpadānīti five starting from taking untimely food etc. Accayaṃ desāpetabboti should be made to confess in this manner, “Bhante, a transgression has overcome me” etc, it is said in Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.108).
“Senāsanaggāho ca paṭippassambhantī” indicates that the rains retreat has been broken. “If he is full of faults and does not refrain in the future, he should be expelled” means that if, after being admonished up to three times, he does not desist, he should be expelled with the consent of the Sangha. Even if he requests re-ordination, he should be re-ordained with the Sangha’s consent. “He receives the latter rains residence” means he receives it because he has entered the rains retreat again later. “The gain should be given after informing” refers to the broken rains retreat. “The other five training rules” refer to the five, including eating at the wrong time. “Accayaṃ desāpetabbo” means the offense should be confessed in the manner, “Venerable sir, I have committed an offense,” as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.108).
ID707
Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the collection of the Vinaya,
Thus in Vinayālaṅkāra, which is the explanation of the compendium of the Vinaya,
Thus, in the Vinayasaṅgaha, which is adorned with the Vinayālaṅkāra commentary,
ID708
Pabbajjāvinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma
The discourse on the determination of ordination
The chapter called Elaboration of the Determination of Going-Forth
The section on the discussion of going forth is concluded.
ID709
Dvāvīsatimo paricchedo.
Is the twenty-second chapter.
The Twenty-Second Section.
The twenty-second chapter.
ID710
ID711
Evaṃ pabbajjāvinicchayaṃ kathetvā tadanantaraṃ upasampadāvinicchayo kathetabbo, evaṃ santepi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ upasampadāvinicchayakathā pāḷivaṇṇanāvaseneva āgatā, no pāḷimuttakavinicchayavasena, imassa pana pakaraṇassa pāḷimuttakavinicchayakathābhūtattā tamakathetvā nissayavinicchayo eva ācariyena kathito, mayaṃ pana upasampadāvinicchayassa atisukhumattā atigambhīrattā sudullabhattā sāsanānuggahatthaṃ ācariyena avuttampi samantapāsādikato nīharitvā vimativinodanīādippakaraṇesu āgatavinicchayena alaṅkaritvā taṃ vinicchayaṃ kathayissāma.
Having thus explained the determination of ordination, next the determination of higher ordination should be explained. Even so, in the commentary, the discourse on higher ordination is presented only through the explanation of the Pali text, not as an independent determination beyond the Pali. However, since this treatise is concerned with independent determination beyond the Pali, the teacher explained only the determination of dependence without discussing it. But we, for the sake of supporting the dispensation, due to the extreme subtlety, profundity, and rarity of the determination of higher ordination, will explain that determination, drawing from the Samantapāsādikā and adorning it with judgments found in treatises like the Vimativinodanī, even though it was not explained by the teacher.
Having thus explained the determination of going-forth, next the determination of higher ordination should be explained; even though that is so, in the Commentary, the explanation of the determination of higher ordination has come along with the explanation of the Pāḷi, not based on determinations separate from Pāḷi, but this treatise is an explanation of determinations separate from Pāḷi. Not explaining that, only the determination of dependence has been explained by the teacher, but we, since the determination of higher ordination is very subtle, very profound, very difficult to obtain, for the sake of supporting the dispensation, though not said by the teacher, extracting from Samantapāsādikā, adorned with the determination that have come in the treatises such as Vimativinodanī, will explain that determination.
Having discussed the going forth, the discussion on the higher ordination should follow. Even though the commentary on the higher ordination is presented in the Aṭṭhakathā through the Pāli and its explanation, and not through an independent discussion, since this section is an independent discussion, the teacher has explained the determination of dependence. However, due to the extreme subtlety, depth, and difficulty of understanding the discussion on the higher ordination, we will present it by extracting from the Samantapāsādikā and adorning it with the determinations found in the Vimativinodanī and other texts, even though the teacher did not mention it.
ID712
Tena kho pana samayenāti yena samayena bhagavatā “na bhikkhave anupajjhāyako”tiādisikkhāpadaṃ apaññattaṃ hoti, tena samayena. Anupajjhāyakanti upajjhaṃ agāhāpetvā sabbena sabbaṃ upajjhāyavirahitaṃ, evaṃ upasampannā neva dhammato na āmisato saṅgahaṃ labhanti, te parihāyantiyeva, na vaḍḍhanti. Na bhikkhave anupajjhāyakoti upajjhaṃ agāhāpetvā nirupajjhāyako na upasampādetabbo, yo upasampādeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassāti sikkhāpadapaññattito paṭṭhāya evaṃ upasampādentassa āpatti hoti, kammaṃ pana na kuppati. Keci “kuppatī”ti vadanti, taṃ na gahetabbaṃ. “Saṅghena upajjhāyenā”tiādīsupi ubhatobyañjanakupajjhāyapariyosānesu eseva nayo.
“Now at that time” refers to the time when the Blessed One had not yet established training precepts such as “Monks, one without a preceptor…,” at that time. “Without a preceptor” means entirely without a preceptor, not having taken a preceptor; those ordained thus gain neither spiritual nor material support, they only decline and do not grow. “Monks, one without a preceptor” means one without a preceptor should not be ordained; “whoever ordains him commits an offense of wrongdoing”, from the establishment of this training precept onward, one who ordains thus incurs an offense, though the act (kamma) is not invalidated. Some say “it is invalidated,” but that is not to be accepted. The same method applies in cases like “by the Sangha with a preceptor” and so forth, up to those involving a preceptor who is a hermaphrodite.
Tena kho pana samayenāti by the time when the Blessed One had not yet laid down the precept starting with “Bhikkhus, without a preceptor,” by that time. Anupajjhāyakanti without having taken a preceptor, utterly lacking a preceptor; those who are thus ordained do not receive support neither by Dhamma nor materially, they only decline, they do not grow. Na bhikkhave anupajjhāyakoti without having taken a preceptor, lacking a preceptor, one should not be ordained, yo upasampādeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassāti from the time of laying down of the precept, for one who ordains thus there is an offence, but the act is not invalid. Some say “it is invalid”, that should not be accepted. In “saṅghena upajjhāyenā” etc., and up to those with preceptors who are hermaphrodites, the same method applies.
“Tena kho pana samayena” refers to the time when the Blessed One laid down the training rule, “Monks, one without a preceptor should not be ordained.” “Anupajjhāyaka” means one who has not been assigned a preceptor, completely without a preceptor. Such persons, being ordained, do not receive support either in the Dhamma or materially; they decline and do not prosper. “Na bhikkhave anupajjhāyako” means one without a preceptor should not be ordained; “whoever ordains him commits an offense of wrong conduct”—from the laying down of the training rule, this is the offense for one who ordains in this way, but the act is not invalid. Some say it is invalid, but this should not be accepted. In cases such as “saṅghena upajjhāyenā” and so on, where both the Sangha and the preceptor are involved, the same method applies.
ID713
Apattakā hatthesu piṇḍāya carantīti yo hatthesu piṇḍo labbhati, tadatthāya caranti. Seyyathāpi titthiyāti yathā ājīvakanāmakā titthiyā. Sūpabyañjanehi missetvā hatthesu ṭhapitapiṇḍameva hi te bhuñjanti. Āpatti dukkaṭassāti evaṃ upasampādentasseva āpatti hoti, kammaṃ pana na kuppati, acīvarakādivatthūsupi eseva nayo.
“Those without robes wander for alms with their hands” means they wander for alms that are received in their hands. “Just like sectarians” means like the sectarians known as Ājīvakas. Indeed, they eat only alms placed in their hands mixed with broth and condiments. “An offense of wrongdoing” means the one who ordains thus incurs an offense, but the act is not invalidated; the same method applies in cases involving lack of robes and other items.
Apattakā hatthesu piṇḍāya carantīti they wander for alms, for the alms food that is obtained in the hands. Seyyathāpi titthiyāti just as the sectarians called Ājīvakas. For they eat only the lump of food placed in the hands mixed with sauces and curries. Āpatti dukkaṭassāti for the one who ordains thus, there is an offence, but the act is not invalid. In the cases of lacking robes etc. too, the same method applies.
“Apattakā hatthesu piṇḍāya carantī” means they go for alms in the hands, seeking alms. “Seyyathāpi titthiyā” refers to the sectarians known as Ājīvakas. They eat alms placed in their hands, mixed with sauces and condiments. “Āpatti dukkaṭassā” means the offense is for the one who ordains in this way, but the act is not invalid. The same applies to cases of lacking robes and so on.
ID714
Yācitakenāti “yāva upasampadaṃ karoma, tāva dethā”ti yācitvā gahitena, tāvakālikenāti attho. Īdisena hi pattena vā cīvarena vā pattacīvarena vā upasampādentasseva āpatti hoti, kammaṃ pana na kuppati, tasmā paripuṇṇapattacīvarova upasampādetabbo. Sace tassa natthi, ācariyupajjhāyā cassa dātukāmā honti , aññe vā bhikkhū, nirapekkhehi vissajjetvā adhiṭṭhānūpagaṃ pattacīvaraṃ dātabbaṃ.
“With borrowed items” means with items borrowed by saying “give it until we perform the ordination,” taken temporarily. Indeed, ordaining with such a bowl, robe, or bowl and robe incurs an offense, but the act is not invalidated; therefore, one should be ordained only with a complete bowl and robe. If he does not have them, and the teacher or preceptor or other monks wish to give them, they should give a bowl and robe suitable for determination, relinquished without expectation.
Yācitakenāti with what is borrowed with, “Give it until I perform the higher ordination”, that is, with temporary. For the one who ordains with a bowl or a robe or a bowl and robe like this, there is an offence only for him who ordains, but the act is not invalid. Therefore, one should ordain only with a complete bowl and robe. If he does not have, and the teachers and preceptors are willing to give him, or other bhikkhus, without expectation they should give bowl and robe that would be counted as owned, after formally relinquishing.
“Yācitakenā” means taken after requesting, “Give this until I receive higher ordination,” i.e., temporarily. For one who ordains with such a bowl, robe, or bowl and robe, there is an offense, but the act is not invalid. Therefore, one should be ordained with a complete set of bowl and robe. If he does not have these, and the teacher or preceptor or other monks are willing to give, they should give after dismissing those who are indifferent, providing a bowl and robe suitable for the occasion.
ID715
Gottenapi anussāvetunti “mahākassapassa upasampadāpekkho”ti evaṃ gottaṃ vatvā anussāvetuṃ anujānāmīti attho. Dve ekānussāvaneti dve ekato anussāvane, ekena ekassa, aññena itarassāti evaṃ dvīhi vā ācariyehi ekena vā ekakkhaṇe kammavācaṃ anussāventehi upasampādetuṃ anujānāmīti attho. Dve tayo ekānussāvane kātuṃ, tañca kho ekena upajjhāyenāti dve vā tayo vā jane purimanayeneva ekato anussāvane kātuṃ anujānāmi, tañca kho anussāvanakiriyaṃ ekena upajjhāyena anujānāmīti attho. Tasmā ekena ācariyena dve vā tayo vā anussāvetabbā. Dvīhi vā tīhi vā ācariyehi visuṃ visuṃ ekena ekassāti evaṃ ekappahāreneva dve tisso vā kammavācā kātabbā. Sace pana nānācariyā nānupajjhāyā honti, tissatthero sumanattherassa saddhivihārikaṃ, sumanatthero tissattherassa saddhivihārikaṃ anussāveti, aññamaññañca gaṇapūrakā honti, vaṭṭati. Sace nānupajjhāyā honti, eko ācariyo hoti, “na tveva nānupajjhāyenā”ti paṭikkhittattā na vaṭṭati. Idaṃ sandhāya hi esa paṭikkhepo.
“Even by clan he may announce” means I allow announcing by saying, for example, “Mahākassapa’s ordination candidate,” mentioning the clan. “Two with one announcement” means two together with one announcement, one for one and another for the other, thus I allow ordination by two teachers or one announcing the kammavācā at the same moment. “Two or three with one announcement, and that with one preceptor” means I allow two or three persons to be announced together in the same manner, and that announcement is permitted with one preceptor. Therefore, one teacher should announce two or three. Alternatively, with two or three teachers separately announcing one each, two or three kammavācās should be performed at the same moment. If there are different teachers and different preceptors—one like Tissa Thera announcing Sumanatthera’s co-resident, and Sumanatthera announcing Tissa Thera’s co-resident, and they complete the quorum for each other—it is permissible. If there are different preceptors but one teacher, it is not permissible because it is forbidden by “not with different preceptors.” This prohibition is made with this in mind.
Gottenapi anussāvetunti “Let him announce mentioning the clan name saying, ‘He is the higher ordination candidate of Mahākassapa’” is the meaning. Dve ekānussāvaneti two announcements together; by one, for one, by the other, for the other, thus by two teachers or by one, announcing the kammavāca at one moment, I allow to ordain, is the meaning. Dve tayo ekānussāvane kātuṃ, tañca kho ekena upajjhāyenāti I allow to do two or three persons together in the announcements in the above-mentioned manner, and that act of announcement, I allow by one preceptor, is the meaning. Therefore, by one teacher two or three should be announced. Or, by two or three teachers separately, by one for one, thus at the same time, two or three kammavācā should be done. But if there are different teachers and different preceptors, Ven. Tissa announces Ven. Sumanatthera’s co-resident, Ven. Sumanatthera announces Ven. Tissa’s co-resident, and they mutually make up the number, it is allowed. If there are different preceptors, and there is one teacher, it is not allowed, because it is prohibited by “but not with different preceptors”. This prohibition is stated with reference to this.
“Gottenapi anussāvetu” means, “I allow one to announce, ‘I am a disciple of Mahākassapa seeking higher ordination.’” “Dve ekānussāvane” means two announcements together, one by one person, another by another, or two teachers or one teacher announcing the motion simultaneously. “Dve tayo ekānussāvane kātuṃ, tañca kho ekena upajjhāyenā” means I allow two or three persons to make the announcement together, but the act of announcing should be done by one preceptor. Therefore, one teacher should announce for two or three. Two or three teachers should each announce for one person, making two or three motions in one session. If there are different teachers and preceptors, for example, Thera Tissa announces for Thera Sumana’s pupil, and Thera Sumana announces for Thera Tissa’s pupil, and they complete the group, it is valid. If there are different preceptors, and one teacher, it is not valid because it is rejected, “not with different preceptors.” This is the rejection intended here.
ID716
Paṭhamaṃ upajjhaṃ gāhāpetabboti ettha vajjāvajjaṃ upanijjhāyatīti upajjhā, taṃ upajjhaṃ “upajjhāyo me, bhante, hohī”ti evaṃ vadāpetvā gāhāpetabbo. Vitthāyantīti vitthaddhagattā honti. Yaṃ jātanti yaṃ tava sarīre jātaṃ nibbattaṃ vijjamānaṃ, taṃ saṅghamajjhe pucchante santaṃ atthīti vattabbantiādi. Ullumpatu manti uddharatu maṃ.
“First, the preceptor should be taken”, here, one who reflects on what is blamable and blameless is a preceptor (upajjhā); that “preceptor” should be taken by having him say, “Be my preceptor, venerable sir.” “They become conceited” means they become stiff-bodied. “What is born” means what is born, produced, or present in your body; when asked in the midst of the Sangha, if it is present, it should be said to be so, and so forth. “May he uplift me” means may he raise me up.
Paṭhamaṃ upajjhaṃ gāhāpetabboti here, that which examines what should and should not be done is upajjhā, that upajjhaṃ, making him say “Venerable sir, be my preceptor”, he should be made to take. Vitthāyantīti they become dejected. Yaṃ jātanti whatever has arisen, has come into being, is present in your body, when asked in the midst of the Sangha, if it is present, say “it is present” etc. Ullumpatu manti lift me up.
“Paṭhamaṃ upajjhaṃ gāhāpetabbo” means one should first be assigned a preceptor. “Upajjhā” refers to one who reflects on what is allowable and what is not. “Upajjhaṃ” means, “Venerable sir, be my preceptor,” and he should be made to say this. “Vitthāyantī” means they are of full stature. “Yaṃ jāta” means whatever has arisen, been produced, or exists in your body; when asked in the midst of the Sangha, you should say, “It exists.” “Ullumpatu ma” means “lift me up.”
ID717
Tāvadevāti upasampannasamanantarameva. Chāyā metabbāti ekaporisā vā dviporisā vāti chāyā metabbā. Utuppamāṇaṃ ācikkhitabbanti “vassāno hemanto gimho”ti utuppamāṇaṃ ācikkhitabbaṃ. Ettha ca utuyeva utuppamāṇaṃ. Sace vassānādayo aparipuṇṇā honti, yattakehi divasehi yassa yo utu aparipuṇṇo, te divase sallakkhetvā so divasabhāgo ācikkhitabbo. Atha vā “ayaṃ nāma utu, so ca kho paripuṇṇo aparipuṇṇo vā”ti evaṃ utuppamāṇaṃ ācikkhitabbaṃ, “pubbaṇho vā sāyanho vā”ti evaṃ divasabhāgo ācikkhitabbo. Saṅgītīti idameva sabbaṃ ekato katvā “tvaṃ kiṃ labhasi, kā te chāyā, kiṃ utuppamāṇaṃ, ko divasabhāgo”ti puṭṭho “idaṃ nāma labhāmi vassaṃ vā hemantaṃ vā gimhaṃ vā, ayaṃ me chāyā, idaṃ utuppamāṇaṃ, ayaṃ divasabhāgoti vadeyyāsī”ti evaṃ ācikkhitabbaṃ.
“Immediately thereafter” means immediately after being ordained. “The shadow should be measured” means the shadow should be measured as one span or two spans. “The measure of the season should be explained” means the measure of the season—rainy season, cold season, hot season—should be explained. Here, the season itself is the measure. If the rainy season and so forth are incomplete, the number of days by which any season is incomplete should be noted and that portion of days explained. Alternatively, “This is the season, and it is complete or incomplete” should be explained as the measure of the season, and “morning or evening” should be explained as the portion of the day. “Recited together” means all this should be combined and explained thus: when asked, “What do you receive, what is your shadow, what is the measure of the season, what is the portion of the day?” he should say, “I receive this—rainy season, cold season, or hot season—this is my shadow, this is the measure of the season, this is the portion of the day.”
Tāvadevāti immediately after being ordained. Chāyā metabbāti the shadow is to be measured, whether one-person length or two-person length. Utuppamāṇaṃ ācikkhitabbanti the season-measure “the rains, the winter, the summer” should be told. And here, the season itself is utuppamāṇaṃ. If the rains etc. are incomplete, as many days as are incomplete for each season, taking those days into account, that portion of days should be told. Or, “This is such-and-such season, and it is either complete or incomplete,” thus the season-measure should be told. divasabhāgo ācikkhitabbo. whether “Forenoon or afternoon,” thus the portion of the day should be told. Saṅgītīti putting all this together, “What have you obtained? What is your shadow? What is the season-measure? What is the portion of the day?”, if asked, “I have obtained this, either the rains, or the winter, or the summer, this is my shadow, this is the season-measure, this is the portion of the day,” thus you should speak, he should be told.
“Tāvadevā” means immediately after ordination. “Chāyā metabbā” means one or two arm-lengths of shade. “Utuppamāṇaṃ ācikkhitabba” means the season should be indicated, such as “the rainy season, winter, or summer.” Here, the season itself is the measure. If the rainy season and so on are incomplete, the remaining days should be calculated and the portion of the day indicated. Alternatively, “This is such a season, whether complete or incomplete,” and so on, the season should be indicated. “Divasabhāgo ācikkhitabbo” means the time of day, such as morning or evening, should be indicated. “Saṅgītī” means all this should be combined, and when asked, “What do you receive? What is your shade? What is the season? What is the time of day?” you should say, “I receive such a season, rainy, winter, or summer; this is my shade; this is the season; this is the time of day,” and so on.
ID718
Ohāyāti chaḍḍetvā. Dutiyaṃ dātunti upasampadamāḷakato pariveṇaṃ gacchantassa dutiyakaṃ dātuṃ anujānāmi, cattāri ca akaraṇīyāni ācikkhitunti attho. Paṇḍupalāsoti paṇḍuvaṇṇo patto. Bandhanā pavuttoti vaṇṭato patito. Abhabbo haritatthāyāti puna harito bhavituṃ abhabbo. Puthusilāti mahāsilā. Ayaṃ samantapāsādikato nīharitvā ābhato upasampadāvinicchayo.
“Leaving aside” means abandoning. “A second should be given” means I allow a second companion to be given to one going from the ordination hall to the dwelling, and the four things not to be done should be explained. “Like a withered leaf” means a pale-colored leaf. “Fallen from the stalk” means fallen from the stem. “Unable to become green again” means incapable of becoming green again. “A broad stone” means a large stone. This determination of higher ordination is drawn from the Samantapāsādikā.
Ohāyāti having discarded. Dutiyaṃ dātunti I allow to give a second to the one going to the dwelling from the ordination platform; and four things that should not be done should be told, is the meaning. Paṇḍupalāsoti a leaf of pale color. Bandhanā pavuttoti fallen from the stalk. Abhabbo haritatthāyāti unable to become green again. Puthusilāti a great stone. This is the determination of higher ordination, extracted from Samantapāsādikā.
“Ohāyā” means abandoning. “Dutiyaṃ dātu” means I allow a second to be given to one going from the ordination hall to his quarters, and the four prohibitions should be explained. “Paṇḍupalāso” means a bowl of pale color. “Bandhanā pavutto” means fallen from the rim. “Abhabbo haritatthāyā” means it cannot become green again. “Puthusilā” means a large stone. This determination on higher ordination has been extracted from the Samantapāsādikā.
ID719
Anupajjhāyādivatthūsu sikkhāpadaṃ apaññattanti “na anupajjhāyako upasampādetabbo”ti (mahāva. 117) idheva paññāpiyamānaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Kammaṃ pana na kuppatīti idaṃ upajjhāyābhāvepi “itthannāmassa upasampadāpekkhā itthannāmena upajjhāyenā”ti matassa vā vibbhantassa vā purāṇaupajjhāyassa, aññassa vā yassa kassaci avijjamānassapi nāmena sabbattha upajjhāyakittanassa katattā vuttaṃ. Yadi hi upajjhāyakittanaṃ na kareyya, “puggalaṃ na parāmasatī”ti vuttakammavipatti eva siyā. Teneva pāḷiyaṃ (mahāva. 117) “anupajjhāyaka”nti vuttaṃ, aṭṭhakathāyampi (mahāva. aṭṭha. 117) assa “upajjhāyaṃ akittetvā”ti avatvā “upajjhāyaṃ agāhāpetvā sabbena sabbaṃ upajjhāyavirahitaṃ” icceva attho vutto. Pāḷiyaṃ saṅghena upajjhāyenāti “ayaṃ itthannāmo saṅghassa upasampadāpekkho, itthannāmo saṅghaṃ upasampadaṃ yācati saṅghena upajjhāyenā”ti evaṃ kammavācāya saṅghameva upajjhāyaṃ kittetvāti attho. Evaṃ gaṇena upajjhāyenāti etthāpi “ayaṃ itthannāmo gaṇassa upasampadāpekkho”tiādinā yojanā veditabbā. Evaṃ vuttepi kammaṃ na kuppati eva dukkaṭasseva vuttattā, aññathā “so ca puggalo anupasampanno”ti vadeyya. Tenāha “saṅghenā”tiādi. Tattha paṇḍakādiupajjhāyehi kariyamānesu kammesu paṇḍakādike vināva yadi pañcavaggādigaṇo pūrati, kammaṃ na kuppati, itarathā kuppatīti veditabbaṃ.
In cases like those without a preceptor, “The training precept was not established” refers to the training precept being established here as “One without a preceptor should not be ordained” (mahāva. 117). “But the act is not invalidated” is said because, even without a preceptor, since the announcement “This ordination candidate named so-and-so, with a preceptor named so-and-so” is made everywhere, whether of a deceased, disrobed, ancient preceptor, or anyone else nonexistent, it is stated. If the preceptor’s name were not announced, it would be a failure of the act due to “not specifying the person,” as stated. Hence, in the Pali (mahāva. 117), it says “without a preceptor”, and in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 117), the meaning is given as “entirely without a preceptor, not having taken a preceptor,” not as “without announcing a preceptor.” In the Pali, “by the Sangha with a preceptor” means “This person named so-and-so, an ordination candidate of the Sangha, requests higher ordination from the Sangha with the Sangha as preceptor,” thus announcing the Sangha itself as the preceptor in the kammavācā. Similarly, in “by the group with a preceptor”, it should be understood as “This person named so-and-so, an ordination candidate of the group,” and so forth. Even so stated, the act is not invalidated because only an offense of wrongdoing is mentioned; otherwise, it would say “that person is not ordained.” Hence it says “by the Sangha” and so forth. Therein, in acts performed with preceptors who are eunuchs and the like, if the group of five or more is complete without the eunuch and so forth, the act is not invalidated; otherwise, it is invalidated, to be understood as such.
In the cases of lacking a preceptor etc, sikkhāpadaṃ apaññattanti this is said with reference to the precept being laid down here itself, “one should not ordain without a preceptor” (mahāva. 117). Kammaṃ pana na kuppatīti this is said because in the absence of a preceptor as well, in the announcement ‘The higher ordination candidate of so-and-so by the preceptor so-and-so’, of the dead, or deranged, or former preceptor, or any other non-existent preceptor, by mentioning of the name of the preceptor everywhere it has been done. For, if one would not mention the name of the preceptor, then there would be an invalidation of the act, as stated in, “it does not touch upon the person”. Therefore, in the Pāḷi (mahāva. 117) “anupajjhāyaka” is said. In the Commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 117) too, for this, without saying “without mentioning the preceptor”, its meaning has been stated just as, “without having taken a preceptor, utterly lacking a preceptor”. In the Pāḷi, saṅghena upajjhāyenāti means by having mentioned the Sangha itself as the preceptor in the kammavācā with “This so-and-so is the higher ordination candidate of the Sangha, so-and-so asks the Sangha for higher ordination with the Sangha as preceptor.” Similarly, gaṇena upajjhāyenāti here too, the construction should be understood with, “This so-and-so is the higher ordination candidate of the group”. Even if it is said thus, the act is not invalid, because only an offence of wrong-doing is mentioned; otherwise, it would have been said, “that person is not ordained”. Therefore, he said “saṅghenā”ti etc. There, in the acts performed with preceptors who are eunuchs etc, if the quorum of five members etc., is complete even without the eunuch etc, the act is not invalid, otherwise it is invalid, it should be understood.
In cases of lacking a preceptor and so on, “sikkhāpadaṃ apaññatta” refers to the training rule laid down here, “One without a preceptor should not be ordained” (Mahāva. 117). “Kammaṃ pana na kuppati” means even in the absence of a preceptor, if one says, “So-and-so seeks higher ordination with so-and-so as preceptor,” whether the preceptor is dead, has left, or is otherwise unavailable, the act is not invalid because the preceptor’s name is mentioned everywhere. If the preceptor’s name were not mentioned, the act would fail, as stated, “The individual is not designated.” Therefore, in the Pāli (Mahāva. 117), “anupajjhāyaka” is mentioned, and in the Aṭṭhakathā (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 117), it is said, “without assigning a preceptor, completely without a preceptor.” In the Pāli, “saṅghena upajjhāyenā” means, “This so-and-so seeks higher ordination from the Sangha, so-and-so requests the Sangha for higher ordination with the Sangha as preceptor,” thus the Sangha itself is designated as the preceptor. Similarly, “gaṇena upajjhāyenā” should be understood as, “This so-and-so seeks higher ordination from the group,” and so on. Even so, the act is not invalid, as only a wrong conduct offense is mentioned. Otherwise, one might say, “That person is not ordained.” Therefore, it is said, “by the Sangha.” In cases where eunuchs and so on are involved, if the group of five or more is complete without them, the act is not invalid; otherwise, it is invalid.
ID720
Apattacīvaravatthūsupi pattacīvarānaṃ abhāvepi “paripuṇṇassa pattacīvara”nti kammavācāya sāvitattā kammakopaṃ avatvā dukkaṭameva vuttaṃ. Itarathā sāvanāya hāpanato kammakopo eva siyā. Keci pana “paṭhamaṃ anuññātakammavācāyaṃ upasampannā viya idānipi ’paripuṇṇassa pattacīvara’nti avatvā kammavācāya upasampannāpi sūpasampannā evā”ti vadanti, taṃ na yuttaṃ. Anuññātakālato paṭṭhāya hi aparāmasanaṃ sāvanāya hāpanavipatti eva hoti “itthannāmo saṅghaṃ upasampadaṃ yācatī”ti padassa hāpane viya . Tampi hi pacchā anuññātaṃ, “saṅghaṃ, bhante, upasampadaṃ yācāmī”tiādivākyena ayācetvā tampi upasampādento “ayaṃ itthannāmo saṅghaṃ upasampadaṃ yācatī”ti vatvāva yadi kammavācaṃ karoti, kammaṃ sukatameva hoti. No ce, vipannaṃ. Sabbapacchā hi anuññātakammavācato kiñcipi parihāpetuṃ na vaṭṭati, sāvanāya hāpanameva hoti, aññe vā bhikkhū dātukāmā hontīti sambandho, ayamettha vimativinodaniyā (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.117) ābhato vinicchayo. Sāratthadīpanīvinicchayo pana idheva antogadhā hoti appatarattā avisesattā ca.
In cases involving incomplete robes, even if the bowl and robe are absent, since it is announced in the kammavācā as “with a complete bowl and robe,” only an offense of wrongdoing is stated, not an invalidation of the act. Otherwise, omission in the recitation would indeed invalidate the act. Some say, “Just as those ordained with the initially permitted kammavācā were considered ordained, now too, even if ‘with a complete bowl and robe’ is not said in the kammavācā, they are fully ordained,” but that is not reasonable. From the time of permission onward, omission of anything is indeed a failure due to omission in recitation, just like omitting the phrase “This person named so-and-so requests higher ordination from the Sangha.” That too was permitted later; if one ordains without requesting with “I request higher ordination from the Sangha, venerable sirs,” and so forth, but performs the kammavācā saying “This person named so-and-so requests higher ordination from the Sangha,” the act is well done. If not, it is flawed. After the final permitted kammavācā, omitting anything is not permissible; it becomes an omission in recitation. “Or other monks wish to give” connects here; this determination is drawn from the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.117). The determination from the Sāratthadīpanī is included here due to its brevity and lack of distinction.
In the cases of lacking bowl and robe too, even in the absence of bowl and robe, because it is announced in the kammavācā with “complete with bowl and robe,” invalidation of the act is not mentioned, only an offence of wrong-doing is mentioned. Otherwise, due to the omission of announcement, there would be invalidation of the act. But, some say, “just as those ordained by the initially allowed kammavācā, even now, those ordained with a kammavācā without saying ‘complete with bowl and robe’, are well-ordained,” this is not proper. For, from the time of allowance, omission of what is not touched upon is indeed invalidation due to omission of announcement, just like the omission of the sentence “so-and-so asks the Sangha for higher ordination”. For that too, was later allowed. If, without requesting with the sentence “Venerable sir, I ask the Sangha for higher ordination” etc., one ordains, saying “This so-and-so asks the Sangha for higher ordination,” if he performs the kammavācā, the act is well-done. If not, it is invalid. For, from the finally allowed kammavācā, nothing at all should be omitted, it is simply omission of announcement; other bhikkhus are willing to give, is the connection. This is the determination extracted here from Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.117). But, the Sāratthadīpanī determination is indeed included here itself, due to being small and without distinction.
In cases of lacking bowl and robe, even if the bowl and robe are not present, since the motion states, “with a complete set of bowl and robe,” the act is not invalid, but only a wrong conduct offense is mentioned. Otherwise, if the motion is omitted, the act would be invalid. Some say, “In the first authorized motion, even if ‘with a complete set of bowl and robe’ is not stated, the act is valid, as if properly ordained,” but this is not correct. From the time of authorization, omitting the motion is a failure, just as omitting the phrase, “So-and-so requests the Sangha for higher ordination,” is a failure. Even if later authorized, if one does not request with the words, “Venerable sir, I request the Sangha for higher ordination,” but instead says, “This so-and-so requests the Sangha for higher ordination,” and performs the motion, the act is well done. If not, it is flawed. After authorization, nothing can be omitted; only the omission of the motion is a failure, or other monks may give. This is the determination extracted from the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.117). The Sāratthadīpanī determination is included here briefly, as there is no distinction.
ID721
Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 117) pana “keci kuppatīti vadanti, taṃ na gahetabba”nti yaṃ vuttaṃ, taṃ “pañcavaggakaraṇīyañce, bhikkhave, kammaṃ, bhikkhunipañcamo kammaṃ kareyya, akammaṃ na ca karaṇīya”ntiādinā (mahāva. 390) nayena vuttattā paṇḍakānaṃ gaṇapūraṇabhāve eva kammaṃ kuppati, na sabbanti katvā suvuttaṃ, itarathā “paṇḍakupajjhāyena kammaṃ kareyya, akammaṃ na ca karaṇīya”ntiādikāya pāḷiyā bhavitabbaṃ siyā. Yathā aparipuṇṇapattacīvarassa upasampādanakāle kammavācāyaṃ “paripuṇṇassa pattacīvara”nti asantaṃ vatthuṃ kittetvā upasampadāya katāya tasmiṃ asantepi upasampadā ruhati, evaṃ “ayaṃ buddharakkhito āyasmato dhammarakkhitassa upasampadāpekkho”ti avatthuṃ paṇḍakupajjhāyādiṃ, asantaṃ vā vatthuṃ kittetvā katāyapi gaṇapūrakānamatthitāya upasampadā ruhateva. “Na, bhikkhave, paṇḍakupajjhāyena upasampādetabbo, yo upasampādeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa, so ca puggalo anupasampanno”tiādivacanassa abhāvā ayamattho siddhova hoti. Na hi buddhā vattabbayuttaṃ na vadanti. Tena vuttaṃ “yo pana bhikkhu jānaṃ ūnavīsativassaṃ …pe… so ca puggalo anupasampanno”tiādi (pāci. 403). Tathā “byattena bhikkhunā paṭibalena saṅgho ñāpetabbo”ti (mahāva. 71) vacanato theyyasaṃvāsakādiācariyehi anussāvanāya katāya upasampadā na ruhati tesaṃ abhikkhuttāti vacanampi na gahetabbaṃ.
In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 117), it is said, “Some say ‘kuppati’ (it is invalid), but that should not be accepted.” This is well stated because it is said in the manner of “If, bhikkhus, a matter requiring a group of five is performed with a fifth being a bhikkhunī, it is not a valid act and should not be performed” (mahāva. 390). Thus, an act is invalid only when the quorum is completed by paṇḍakas (eunuchs), not in all cases. Otherwise, there would have to be a text such as “If an act is performed with a paṇḍaka as preceptor, it is not a valid act and should not be performed.” Just as, at the time of ordination of one whose bowl and robes are incomplete, the declaration in the kammavācā stating “paripuṇṇassa pattacīvara” (one whose bowl and robes are complete) refers to a non-existent condition, and yet the ordination is valid despite that absence, so too here, even though a non-existent or invalid condition such as “This Buddharakkhita is the ordination candidate of the venerable Dhammarakkhita” is declared regarding a paṇḍaka preceptor or the like, the ordination remains valid due to the presence of the quorum. Since there is no statement such as “Bhikkhus, one should not ordain with a paṇḍaka as preceptor; he who ordains thus commits an offense of dukkaṭa, and that person is not ordained,” this meaning is indeed established. For the Buddhas do not fail to say what ought to be said. Hence it is said, “But a bhikkhu who knowingly [ordains] one under twenty years … that person is not ordained” (pāci. 403). Likewise, from the statement “The Sangha should be informed by a competent and capable bhikkhu” (mahāva. 71), an ordination performed by those such as impostors (they asaṃvāsaka) through proclamation does not hold, and the statement that they are not bhikkhus should not be accepted.
However, in the Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā (Vajira. ṭī. Mahāvagga 117), it is stated, “Some say it is invalid, but that should not be accepted.” This is well stated, considering that based on the principle stated, such as in, “If, bhikkhus, a procedure is to be done by a group of five, and a bhikkhuni performs it as the fifth member, it is not a valid procedure and should not be done,” (Mahāva. 390) a procedure is invalid only with respect to the paṇḍaka’s role in completing the quorum, not in all cases. Otherwise, the text would have to state something like “If a procedure is done with a paṇḍaka as the preceptor, it is not a valid act and ought not be performed.” Just as when, at the time of ordination of one whose bowl and robes are not complete, the ordination is valid despite the recitation of “one whose bowl and robes are complete,” in the formal act of ordination, even though that feature is not present; similarly, even when reciting, referring to a preceptor who is a paṇḍaka, and so forth, “This Buddharakkhita is the candidate for ordination of the Venerable Dhammarakkhita,” or reciting a feature that is non-existent, the ordination is valid since there are those who complete the quorum. This point is established since there is no statement, such as: “Bhikkhus, one should not ordain with a paṇḍaka as preceptor. Whoever ordains thus incurs an offense of wrong-doing, and that person is not ordained.” The Buddhas do not fail to state what should be stated. Therefore it is stated, “But the bhikkhu who knowingly ordains a person less than twenty years of age… that person is not ordained,” etc. (Pāci. 403). Similarly, the statement that ordination is not valid when it has been performed by incompetent bhikkhus such as theyyasaṃvāsakas, because it says, “The Sangha should be informed by a competent and capable bhikkhu,” (Mahāva. 71) is also not to be accepted as saying that those persons are not bhikkhus.
In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 117), it is said, “Some say it is invalid, but that should not be accepted.” This is because, as stated in the Mahāvagga (390), “If, monks, a five-member group performs a legal act, and a bhikkhunī as the fifth member participates, the act is invalid and should not be done.” Thus, it is well-stated that the act is invalid only when a paṇḍaka is included to complete the group, but not in all cases. Otherwise, it would have to be said, “If a paṇḍaka as the preceptor performs the act, it is invalid and should not be done,” and so on. Just as, at the time of ordination, even if the statement “one with complete bowl and robes” is made when the candidate lacks them, the ordination still stands despite the absence of those requisites, similarly, even if a false statement is made, such as “This one is under the protection of the Buddha, seeking ordination under Venerable Dhammarakkhita,” the ordination still holds for those who complete the group. The absence of the statement, “Monks, a paṇḍaka should not be ordained as a preceptor. If one ordains him, it is an offense of wrong conduct, and that person is not ordained,” confirms this meaning. For the Buddhas do not say what is improper. Therefore, it is said, “If a monk knowingly ordains someone under twenty years of age… that person is not ordained” (Pāc. 403). Similarly, the statement, “The Sangha should be informed by a competent and capable monk” (Mahāva. 71), implies that ordination performed by thieves pretending to be monks, etc., is invalid due to their lack of legitimacy, and such statements should not be accepted.
ID722
Kiñca bhiyyo – “imāni cattāri kammāni pañcahākārehi vipajjantī”tiādinā (pari. 482) nayena kammānaṃ sampattivipattiyā kathiyamānāya “sattahi ākārehi kammāni vipajjanti vatthuto vā ñattito vā anussāvanato vā sīmato vā parisato vā upajjhāyato vā ācariyato vā”ti akathitattā na gahetabbaṃ. “Parisato vā”ti vacanena ācariyupajjhāyānaṃ vā saṅgaho katoti ce? Na, “dvādasahi ākārehi parisato kammāni vipajjantī”ti etassa vibhaṅge tesamanāmaṭṭhattā, ayamattho yasmā tattha tattha sarūpena vuttapāḷivaseneva sakkā jānituṃ, tasmā nayamukhaṃ dassetvā saṃkhittoti ayamassa yuttigavesanāti vuttaṃ.
Moreover, in the discussion of the success and failure of acts according to the manner of “These four acts fail in five ways” (pari. 482), it is not stated that “Acts fail in seven ways: due to the object, the motion, the proclamation, the boundary, the assembly, the preceptor, or the teacher.” Thus, it should not be accepted. If it is said that “due to the assembly” includes preceptors and teachers, this is not so, because in the analysis of “Acts fail in twelve ways due to the assembly,” they are not mentioned. Since this meaning can be understood solely through the texts explicitly stated here and there, it is said to be concise by presenting the method, and this is called seeking its rationale.
Furthermore, – since it says “these four procedures fail in five ways,” etc. (Pari. 482), when discussing the success and failure of procedures, it does not state, “Procedures fail in seven ways: due to the matter, the declaration, the announcement, the boundary, the assembly, the preceptor, or the teacher,” therefore, it should not be accepted. If it is argued that teachers and preceptors are included in the statement, “or due to the assembly.” No, because they are not mentioned in the analysis of “procedures fail due to the assembly in twelve ways.” This point can be understood from the Pāḷi texts as they are stated in various places, therefore, the point has been made that by presenting the methods, we have shortened the inquiry into the reasoning behind it.
Furthermore, as explained in the Parivāra (482), “These four legal acts are invalidated in five ways,” but it is not stated that “legal acts are invalidated in seven ways: by the basis, the motion, the proclamation, the boundary, the assembly, the preceptor, or the teacher.” Therefore, this should not be accepted. Does the phrase “by the assembly” include the teacher and preceptor? No, because in the analysis of “legal acts are invalidated in twelve ways by the assembly,” their inclusion is not mentioned. This meaning can be understood from the relevant Pāli passages, and thus this is a brief explanation to show the method. This is the proper investigation of reasoning.
ID723
Tatridaṃ vicāretabbaṃ – anupajjhāyakaṃ upasampādentā te bhikkhū yathāvuttanayena abhūtaṃ vatthuṃ kittayiṃsu, udāhu musāvādabhayā tāneva padāni na sāvesunti. Kiñcettha – yadi tāva upajjhāyābhāvato na sāvesuṃ, “puggalaṃ na parāmasatī”ti vuttavipattippasaṅgo hoti, atha sāvesuṃ, musāvādo nesaṃ bhavatīti? Vuccate – sāvesuṃyeva yathāvuttavipattippasaṅgabhayā, “kammaṃ pana na kuppatī”ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttattā ca. Na, musāvādassa asambhavato, musāvādenapi kammasambhavato ca. Na hi sakkā musāvādena kammavipattisampattiṃ kātunti. Tasmā “anupajjhāyakaṃ upasampādentī”ti vacanassa ca ubhayadosavinimutto attho pariyesitabbo.
Here, this should be considered: Did those bhikkhus who ordained without a preceptor declare a false condition in the manner stated, or did they, out of fear of false speech, not proclaim those very words? What of this? If they did not proclaim due to the absence of a preceptor, there is the risk of the failure stated as “It does not pertain to the person.” But if they did proclaim, would they not incur false speech? It is said: They did proclaim, out of fear of the stated failure, and because it is said in the commentary that “the act is not invalid.” There is no false speech because it does not arise, and an act can be valid even with false speech. For it is not possible to establish the success or failure of an act through false speech. Therefore, a meaning free from both faults should be sought for the statement “They ordain one without a preceptor.”
Here, the following should be considered: When ordaining without a preceptor, did those bhikkhus recite a feature that was not present, following the method mentioned above, or out of fear of false speech, did they not recite those particular words? What about this? If they did not recite due to the absence of a preceptor, then the fault arises which is called “not touching upon the person”. If they did recite, then they would be guilty of false speech? It is said: they did recite, out of fear of the fault, and also because it is stated in the commentary “but the act is not invalidated”. No, because of the impossibility of false speech and because of the procedure’s validity even with a false statement. Because the failure and validity cannot be caused by falsehood. Therefore, concerning the statement, “they ordain without a preceptor,” one must look for an interpretation which avoids both errors.
Here, this should be considered: Did the monks who ordained someone without a preceptor falsely declare the situation as described, or did they, fearing the offense of false speech, not declare those words? In this case, if they did not declare due to the absence of a preceptor, it would lead to the flaw of not examining the individual. But if they did declare, would it not be false speech? It is said that they did declare, fearing the flaw of invalidity as stated in the commentary, “The act is not invalid.” However, false speech is impossible, and even with false speech, the act can still be valid. For it is not possible to achieve the validity of a legal act through false speech. Therefore, the meaning of the statement “ordaining someone without a preceptor” should be sought in a way that avoids both flaws.
ID724
Ayañcettha yutti – yathā pubbe pabbajjupasampadupajjhāyesu vijjamānesupi upajjhāyaggahaṇakkamena aggahitattā “tena kho pana samayena bhikkhū anupajjhāyaka”ntiādi vuttaṃ, tathā idhāpi upajjhāyassa vijjamānasseva sato aggahitattā “anupajjhāyakaṃ upasampādentī”ti vuttaṃ. Kammavācācariyena pana “gahito tena upajjhāyo”ti saññāya upajjhāyaṃ kittetvā kammavācaṃ sāvetabbaṃ. Kenaci vā kāraṇena kāyasāmaggiṃ adentassa upajjhāyassa chandaṃ gahetvā kammavācaṃ sāveti, upajjhāyo vā upasampadāpekkhassa upajjhaṃ datvā pacchā upasampanne tasmiṃ tādise vatthusmiṃ samanuyuñjiyamāno vā asamanuyuñjiyamāno vā upajjhāyadānato pubbe eva sāmaṇero paṭijānāti, sikkhāpaccakkhātako vā antimavatthuajjhāpannako vā paṭijānāti, chandahārakādayo viya upajjhāyo vā aññasīmāgato hoti. Kammavācā ruhatīti vatvā “anujānāmi bhikkhave paccantimesu janapadesu vinayadharapañcamena gaṇena upasampada”nti vuttattā. Keci “vinayadharapañcamena upajjhāyena sannihiteneva bhavitabba”nti vadantīti porāṇagaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. So ca pāṭho appamāṇo majjhimesu janapadesu tassa vacanassābhāvato. Asannihitepi upajjhāye kammavācā ruhatīti āpajjatīti ce? Na. Kasmā? Kammasampattiyaṃ “puggalaṃ parāmasatī”ti vuttapāṭhova no pamāṇaṃ. Na hi tattha asannihito upajjhāyasaṅkhāto puggalo parāmasanaṃ arahati, tasmā tattha saṅghaparāmasanaṃ viya puggalaparāmasanaṃ veditabbaṃ. Saṅghena gaṇena upajjhāyena upasampādenti tesaṃ atthato puggalattā, paṇḍakādiupajjhāyena upasampādenti upasampādanakāle aviditattāti porāṇā.
Here is the reasoning: Just as earlier, even when preceptors for going forth and ordination existed, it is said, “At that time, bhikkhus were without preceptors” due to the preceptor not being formally taken, so too here, even though a preceptor exists, it is said “They ordain one without a preceptor” because he was not formally taken. The teacher of the kammavācā, assuming “The preceptor has been taken by him,” should proclaim the kammavācā mentioning the preceptor. Alternatively, the kammavācā is proclaimed after taking the consent of a preceptor who, for some reason, does not give physical presence; or the preceptor, having given himself as preceptor to the ordination candidate, later, when questioned or not about such a matter, acknowledges it before the novice does; or a novice who has renounced training or committed the final offense acknowledges it; or, like those who convey consent, the preceptor is in another boundary. It is said that the kammavācā holds, as per “I allow, bhikkhus, ordination in border regions with a group of five including a vinaya expert” (mahāva. 390). Some say, as stated in ancient glosses, “It must be with a vinaya-expert preceptor present,” but that reading is not authoritative due to the absence of that statement in central regions. If it is said that the kammavācā holds even with an absent preceptor, this is not so. Why? Because in the success of an act, the text stating “It pertains to the person” is the authority. An absent preceptor, as a person, is not worthy of being pertained to there; thus, it should be understood as pertaining to the person like pertaining to the Sangha. They ordain with the Sangha, the group, and the preceptor, as they are essentially persons; but with a paṇḍaka preceptor or the like, it is not known at the time of ordination, according to the ancients.
And the following is the reasoning here: Just as previously, when it was said, “At that time the bhikkhus [ordained] without preceptors” etc., because, although there were preceptors for pabbajjā and upasampadā, the procedure for acceptance of a preceptor had not been followed, so also here, although there is indeed a preceptor, the act of stating ‘they ordain without a preceptor’ is said due to the lack of acceptance. But the teacher of the formal act should recite the formal act, declaring the preceptor, with the understanding, “The preceptor has been accepted by him.” Or, for some reason, taking the consent of the preceptor who is not giving physical assistance, he recites the formal act; or the preceptor, having given his consent to the candidate, later, when that ordained one is questioned or not questioned concerning such matter, acknowledges that he was a novice before the granting of preceptorship, or acknowledges that he has renounced the training, or that he has committed a final offense, or that, like those who carry the consent, the preceptor has gone to another boundary. Saying that the formal act is valid, “I allow, bhikkhus, in the border regions, ordination by a group with a Vinaya-expert as fifth.” Some say that “By five including a Vinaya expert, there should be a present preceptor,” it is said in the Porāṇagaṇṭhipada. And that reading is not authoritative, because in the middle regions, that statement is not found. If you say that even when the preceptor is not present, the formal act is valid? No. Why? For the accomplishment of the procedure, only the stated text of ‘touches upon the person’ is our standard. Because the preceptor, in the case of not being present, is not worthy to be touched as that ‘person’, therefore the touching upon the person in that context should be understood like the touching upon of the sangha. The Sangha and the group ordain with a preceptor, who are by meaning ‘persons’, they ordain with preceptors who are paṇḍakas and so on, not realizing it at the time of ordination. This is according to the ancients.
The proper reasoning here is as follows: Just as previously, even when preceptors for ordination were available, if they were not formally appointed in the proper sequence, it was said, “At that time, monks ordained someone without a preceptor,” similarly, here too, even though a preceptor was present, since he was not formally appointed, it is said, “ordaining someone without a preceptor.” However, the officiating monk, believing “the preceptor has been appointed,” should declare the preceptor and recite the motion. Alternatively, if the preceptor is physically absent but gives his consent, the motion should be recited. Or, if the preceptor appoints someone else to act on his behalf, and later, when the ordination is completed, the preceptor is questioned or not questioned about the matter, the novice had previously accepted the preceptor, or a disrobed person or one who has committed a grave offense claims to be the preceptor, or the preceptor is in another territory, the motion is still valid. As it is said, “I allow, monks, ordination in the border regions by a group of five, including one who is learned in the Vinaya.” Some say, “The preceptor learned in the Vinaya must be present,” as stated in ancient texts. But this reading is not authoritative in the middle regions due to the absence of such a statement. If the preceptor is absent, does the motion still hold? No. Why? Because in the validity of the act, “the individual must be examined,” as stated in the text. For an unappointed person designated as a preceptor is not worthy of examination. Therefore, there, as with the Sangha’s examination, the individual’s examination should be understood. The Sangha, as a group, ordains with the preceptor, and thus the individual is the focus. The ordination by a paṇḍaka, etc., as preceptor is due to ignorance at the time of ordination, as the ancients explained.
ID725
Apattacīvaraṃ upasampādentīti kammavācācariyo “paripuṇṇassa pattacīvara”nti saññāya, kevalaṃ atthasampattiṃ anapekkhitvā santapadanīhārena vā “paripuṇṇassa pattacīvara”nti kammavācaṃ sāveti. Yathā etarahi matavippavuttamātāpitikopi “anuññātosi mātāpitūhī”ti puṭṭho “āma bhante”ti vadati, kiṃ bahunā? Ayaṃ panettha sāro – “tasmiṃ samaye cattāri kammāni pañcahākārehi vipajjantī”ti lakkhaṇassa na tāva paññattattā anupajjhāyakādiṃ upasampādenti. Vajjanīyapuggalānaṃ avuttattā paṇḍakupajjhāyādiṃ upasampādenti, terasantarāyapucchāya adassanattā apattacīvarakaṃ upasampādenti, “anujānāmi bhikkhave ñatticatutthena kammena upasampādetu”nti (mahāva. 69) evaṃ sabbapaṭhamaṃ anuññātāya kammavācāya “paripuṇṇassa pattacīvara”nti avacanamettha sādhakanti veditabbaṃ. Tañhi vacanaṃ anukkamenānuññātanti.
Apattacīvaraṃ upasampādenti—The teacher of the kammavācā, assuming “paripuṇṇassa pattacīvara” (one whose bowl and robes are complete), proclaims the kammavācā with mere wording, without regard for factual success. Just as nowadays, even one whose parents are dead or separated, when asked “Are you permitted by your parents?” says “Yes, venerable sir,” so what more to say? Here is the essence: At that time, since the characteristic “These four acts fail in five ways” had not yet been established, they ordained one without a preceptor. Since disqualified persons were not specified, they ordained with a paṇḍaka preceptor or the like. Since the question about the thirteen hindrances was not seen, they ordained one without bowl and robes. It should be understood as evidence that in the very first authorization, “I allow, bhikkhus, ordination by an act with a fourth motion” (mahāva. 69), the statement “paripuṇṇassa pattacīvara” is not said. That statement was authorized progressively.
They ordain one with incomplete bowl and robe, means that the teacher of the formal act, with the understanding that “the bowl and robe are complete”, or merely following the sequence of the words as they exist, without regard for the reality of the situation, recites the formal act saying “whose bowl and robe are complete.” Just as nowadays, even one whose mother and father are deceased answers “Yes, venerable sir” when asked “Have you been permitted by your mother and father?”, what more is there to say? The essence here is this: At that time, the four procedures fail by way of five factors. That principle, since it had not yet been declared, ‘they ordain those without preceptors, etc.’. Since rejectable persons have not been stated, they ordain paṇḍakas and the like as preceptors. As the thirteen impediments questioning are not mentioned, they ordain the one with incomplete bowl and robe. It should be understood that the lack of the phrase “whose bowl and robe are complete” in the initially authorized formal act, such as “I allow, bhikkhus, ordination by means of the formal act with a fourth as declaration” (Mahāva. 69), is the evidence here. Indeed, that statement was subsequently authorized.
Ordaining someone without bowl and robes: The officiating monk, believing “one with complete bowl and robes,” recites the motion without regard for the actual situation, merely following the formal procedure. Just as nowadays, even if one’s parents are dead or estranged, when asked, “Have you been permitted by your parents?” one replies, “Yes, venerable sir,” what more need be said? The essence here is that at that time, the four legal acts were invalidated in five ways, but since the characteristic had not yet been fully established, they ordained someone without a preceptor, etc. Due to the absence of a statement about inadmissible individuals, they ordained with a paṇḍaka as preceptor, etc., and without asking the thirteen obstructive questions, they ordained someone without bowl and robes. As it is said, “I allow, monks, ordination by a motion passed four times” (Mahāva. 69), thus the recitation of “one with complete bowl and robes” is considered effective here. That statement was allowed in due order.
ID726
Idaṃ tāva sabbathā hotu, “mūgaṃ pabbājenti badhiraṃ pabbājentī”ti idaṃ kathaṃ sambhavitumarahati ādito paṭṭhāya “anujānāmi bhikkhave imehi tīhi saraṇagamanehi pabbajja”ntiādinā anuññātattāti? Vuccate – “evañca pana, bhikkhave, pabbājetabboti, evaṃ vadehīti vattabbo…pe… tatiyampi saṅghaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmī”ti ettha “evaṃ vadehīti vattabbo”ti imassa vacanassa micchā atthaṃ gahetvā mūgaṃ pabbājesuṃ. “Evaṃ vadehī”ti taṃ pabbajjāpekkhaṃ āṇāpetvā sayaṃ upajjhāyena vattabbo “tatiyampi saṅghaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmī”ti, so pabbajjāpekkhā tathā āṇatto upajjhāyavacanassa anu anu vadatu vā mā vā, tattha tattha bhagavā “kāyena viññāpeti, vācāya viññāpeti, kāyena vācāya viññāpeti, gahito hoti upajjhāyo. Dinno hoti chando, dinnā hoti pārisuddhi, dinnā hoti pavāraṇā”ti vadati . Tadanumānena vā kāyena tena pabbajjāpekkhena viññattaṃ hoti saraṇagamananti vā lokepi kāyena viññāpento evaṃ vadatīti vuccati, taṃ pariyāyaṃ gahetvā mūgaṃ pabbājentīti veditabbaṃ. Porāṇagaṇṭhipade “mūgaṃ kathaṃ pabbājentīti pucchaṃ katvā tassa kāyapasādasambhavato kāyena pahāraṃ datvā hatthamuddāya viññāpetvā pabbājesu”nti vuttaṃ. Kiṃ bahunā?
Now let this be so in all respects: how can it be possible from the beginning that “they ordain a mute, they ordain a deaf person,” when it has been permitted with the words “I allow you, monks, to ordain with these three goings to refuge” and so on? It is said: “And thus, monks, he should be ordained; he should be told to say thus… up to the third time, ‘I go to the Sangha for refuge’”—here, because of wrongly grasping the meaning of the statement “he should be told to say thus,” they ordained a mute. Having instructed that candidate for ordination with “say thus,” the preceptor himself should say “for the third time, I go to the Sangha for refuge”; whether that candidate for ordination, so instructed, repeats after the preceptor’s words or not, the Blessed One says in various places, “He makes it known by body, he makes it known by speech, he makes it known by body and speech; the preceptor is taken, consent is given, purity is given, the invitation is given.” By inference from this, or because that candidate for ordination makes it known by body, it is understood as going to refuge; even in the world, one who makes it known by body is said to “say thus,” and it should be understood that they ordained a mute by adopting this method. In the ancient commentary, it is said, “Having asked how a mute is ordained, because of the presence of bodily clarity, they ordained him by striking him with the body and making it known through hand gestures.” What more need be said?
Let this be as it may. How could this “they give the going-forth to a mute, they give the going-forth to a deaf person” be possible, since from the beginning it has been authorized with “I allow, bhikkhus, the going-forth by means of these three refuges,” and so on? It is said – Taking the wrong meaning of the statement “Thus shall you speak,” in the context of “And thus, bhikkhus, should he be given the going forth… you should say to him: ‘Speak thus’… ‘For the third time, I go to the Sangha for refuge,’” they gave the going forth to a mute. Taking “Speak Thus” to mean instructing the candidate and that the preceptor himself should say “For the third time, I go to the Sangha for refuge”, whether the candidate so instructed by the preceptor repeats the words of the preceptor or not, in various places the Blessed One says, “He indicates by body, he indicates by speech, he indicates by body and speech; the preceptor is accepted. Consent is given, purity is given, invitation is given.” By analogy, whether the going-forth has been indicated by the body of the candidate, or whether in common usage someone indicates with their body is said ‘thus he speaks’, taking the indirect expression, it should be understood that they give going-forth to the mute. In the Porāṇagaṇṭhipada, after posing the question, “How do they give the going-forth to a mute?” it is stated, “Because of the possibility of his bodily expression, having given a bodily gesture, indicating by hand signals, they gave the going-forth.” What more need be said?
Let this be fully understood. How can it be possible to ordain a mute or a deaf person from the beginning, since it is said, “I allow, monks, ordination with these three refuges”? It is said that “Thus, monks, one should be ordained. Thus, you should say… for the third time, ‘I go to the Sangha for refuge.’” Here, taking the phrase “Thus, you should say” in a wrong sense, they ordained a mute. “Thus, you should say” means instructing the candidate for ordination, and the preceptor should say, “For the third time, ‘I go to the Sangha for refuge.’” Whether the candidate for ordination, thus instructed, repeats it or not, the Blessed One says, “He makes it known by body, by speech, or by both body and speech. The preceptor is appointed. Consent is given, purity is declared, and the invitation is made.” By inference, the candidate for ordination makes it known by body that he goes for refuge, or in the world, one who makes it known by body is said to speak thus. Taking this approach, it is understood that they ordained a mute. In ancient texts, it is said, “How do they ordain a mute? Having asked the question, and since the body is capable of responding, they strike the body, make a gesture with the hand, and then ordain him.” What more need be said?
ID727
Ayaṃ panettha sāro – yathā pubbe pabbajjādhikāre vattamāne pabbajjābhilāpaṃ upacchinditvā “paṇḍako, bhikkhave, anupasampanno na upasampādetabbo”tiādinā (mahāva. 109) nayena upasampadavaseneva abhilāpo kato. Theyyasaṃvāsakapade asambhavato kiñcāpi so na kato, pabbajjāva tattha katā, sabbattha pana upasampadābhilāpena adhippetā tadanubhāvato upasampadāya, pabbajjāya vāritāya upasampadā vāritā hotīti katvā, tathā idha upasampadādhikāre vattamāne upasampadābhilāpaṃ upacchinditvā upasampadameva sandhāya pabbajjābhilāpo katoti veditabbo. Kāmaṃ so na kattabbo, mūgapade asambhavato tassa vasena ādito paṭṭhāya upasampadābhilāpova kattabbo viya dissati, tathāpi tasseva mūgapadassa vasena ādito paṭṭhāya pabbajjābhilāpova kato micchāgahaṇanivāraṇatthaṃ. Kathaṃ? “Mūgo, bhikkhave, apatto osāraṇaṃ, tañce saṅgho osāreti, sosārito”ti (mahāva. 396) vacanato hi mūgo upasampanno hotīti siddhaṃ, so kevalaṃ upasampannova hoti, na pana pabbajito tassa pabbajjāya asambhavatoti micchāgāho hoti, taṃ parivajjāpetvā yo upasampanno, so pabbajitova hoti. Pabbajito pana atthi koci upasampanno, atthi koci anupasampannoti imaṃ sammāgāhaṃ uppādeti bhagavāti veditabbaṃ.
But here is the essence: just as previously, when the matter of ordination was being discussed, the statement about ordination was interrupted and made only in terms of full ordination with the method “A paṇḍaka, monks, who is not fully ordained should not be fully ordained” and so on (mahāva. 109), and though in the case of a “thief living in communion by theft” it was not done due to its impossibility, only ordination was done there, yet in all cases it is intended by the statement of full ordination—because when full ordination is prohibited due to its power, or ordination is prohibited, full ordination is prohibited—likewise here, when the matter of full ordination is being discussed, the statement about ordination is made with reference only to full ordination by interrupting the statement of full ordination. Granted, it should not be done, and due to its impossibility in the case of a mute, it appears as though only the statement of full ordination should have been made from the beginning by that method; still, only the statement of ordination was made from the beginning by that very case of a mute to prevent wrong understanding. How so? From the statement “A mute, monks, has not attained announcement; if the Sangha announces him, he is announced” (mahāva. 396), it is established that a mute can be fully ordained; he is merely fully ordained but not ordained due to the impossibility of his ordination—this is a wrong understanding. To avoid this, it should be understood that one who is fully ordained is indeed ordained, while among the ordained, some are fully ordained and some are not, thus generating this correct understanding, as intended by the Blessed One.
The essence here is this – Just as previously, when the topic of going-forth was being discussed, interrupting the discourse on going-forth, the discourse was made from the perspective of ordination with, “A paṇḍaka, bhikkhus, is not ordained; he should not be ordained” (Mahāva. 109) etc. Although in the context of the theyyasaṃvāsaka, because of the impossibility, that [discourse from perspective of ordination] was not made, and going-forth was made there, but in all places, ordination is intended by means of the discourse on ordination, because, by the force of that [discourse on ordination], when going-forth is prohibited, ordination is [also] prohibited. So here, while the topic of ordination is being discussed, interrupting the discourse on ordination, it should be understood that the discourse on going-forth is made focusing on ordination. Although it ought not be done, in the case of a mute, because of its impossibility, by means of that [case], from the beginning, a discourse on ordination alone would seem to have to be made. However, precisely on account of that case of the mute, from the outset, a discourse on the going-forth alone has been made, for the purpose of preventing wrong understanding. How so? For, from the statement, “A mute, bhikkhus, is unfit for restoration; but if the Sangha restores him, he is restored,” (Mahāva. 396) it is established that a mute is ordained. He is only ordained, but he has not gone forth, because of the impossibility of his going-forth. So that there should be no wrong grasp. Making clear that, whoever is ordained, has indeed gone forth. There are however some gone forth who are ordained, and some who are not ordained. It should be known the Blessed One generates this correct understanding.
The essence here is this: Just as previously, when discussing ordination, the topic of ordination was interrupted by the statement, “A paṇḍaka, monks, is not ordained and should not be ordained” (Mahāva. 109), and thus the discussion was concluded with ordination. Although the topic of a thief pretending to be a monk was not discussed because it is impossible, ordination was still performed there. In all cases, the discussion is intended to refer to ordination, and thus, when ordination is prohibited, ordination itself is prohibited. Similarly, here, when discussing ordination, the topic of ordination is interrupted, and the discussion of ordination is concluded with reference to ordination itself. Although it seems that the discussion of ordination should begin from the start due to the case of the mute, which is impossible, the discussion of ordination is still concluded from the start to prevent wrong understanding. How so? As it is said, “A mute, monks, is admitted to the Sangha. If the Sangha admits him, he is admitted” (Mahāva. 396), it is established that a mute is ordained. He is only ordained, not fully admitted, because his admission is impossible. Avoiding this wrong understanding, one who is ordained is fully admitted. The Blessed One thus establishes the correct understanding that one who is ordained is fully admitted, and one who is not ordained is not admitted.
ID728
Apica tesaṃ hatthacchinnādīnaṃ pabbajitānaṃ supabbajitabhāvadīpanatthaṃ, pabbajjābhāvasaṅkānivāraṇatthañcettha pabbajjābhilāpo kato. Kathaṃ? “Na, bhikkhave, hatthacchinno pabbājetabbo”tiādinā (mahāva. 119) paṭikkhepena, “pabbajitā supabbajitā”ti vuttaṭṭhānābhāvena ca tesaṃ pabbajjābhāvasaṅkā bhaveyya, yathā pasaṅkā bhave, tathā pasaṅkaṃ ṭhapeyya. Khandhake upasampadaṃ sandhāya “hatthacchinno, bhikkhave, apatto osāraṇaṃ, tañce saṅgho osāreti, sosārito”tiādinā (mahāva. 396) nayena bhagavā nivāreti. Teneva nayena pabbajitā panete sabbepi supabbajitā evāti dīpeti. Aññathā sabbepete upasampannāva honti, na pabbajitāti ayamaniṭṭhappasaṅgo āpajjati. Kathaṃ? “Hatthacchinno, bhikkhave, na pabbājetabbo, pabbajito nāsetabbo”ti vā “na, bhikkhave, hatthacchinno pabbājetabbo, yo pabbājeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa, so ca apabbajito”ti (mahāva. 119) vā tantiyā ṭhapitāya campeyyakkhandhake “sosārito”ti vuttattā kevalaṃ “ime hatthacchinnādayo upasampannāva honti, na pabbajitā”ti vā “upasampannāpi ce pabbajitā, nāsetabbā”ti vā aniṭṭhakoṭṭhāso āpajjatīti adhippāyo.
Moreover, the statement about ordination is made here to demonstrate the well-ordained state of those with severed hands and the like who are ordained, and to prevent doubt about their ordained state. How so? By the prohibition “Monks, one with a severed hand should not be ordained” and so on (mahāva. 119), and due to the absence of a statement that “those ordained are well-ordained,” there might be doubt about their ordained state; just as there might be doubt, so doubt might remain. In the Khandhaka, with reference to full ordination, the Blessed One prohibits it with the method “A person with a severed hand, monks, has not attained announcement; if the Sangha announces him, he is announced” and so on (mahāva. 396). By that same method, he demonstrates that all these ordained ones are indeed well-ordained. Otherwise, all these would be merely fully ordained and not ordained, leading to this undesired consequence. How so? Because it is said, “Monks, one with a severed hand should not be ordained; an ordained one should be expelled” or “Monks, one with a severed hand should not be ordained; whoever ordains him commits an offense of wrongdoing, and he is not ordained” (mahāva. 119), and since it is stated in the Campeyyakkhandhaka “he is announced,” there arises the undesired implication that “these with severed hands and the like are merely fully ordained and not ordained” or “even if fully ordained and ordained, they should be expelled.”
Moreover, for the purpose of showing that the going-forth of those with severed hands and so on is a proper going-forth, and for the purpose of preventing doubt regarding the existence of their going-forth, here the discourse of going forth is made. How? By the prohibition, “Bhikkhus, one with a severed hand should not be given the going-forth” (Mahāva. 119) and by the absence of the statement “Those who have gone forth have gone forth properly,” there would be doubt about the existence of their going forth. Just as that apprehension might arise, so he removes that apprehension. In the Khandhaka, focusing on ordination, the Blessed One prevents it by saying, “One with a severed hand, bhikkhus, is unfit for restoration; but if the Sangha restores him, he is restored,” (Mahāva. 396) and so on. By the same principle, he indicates that all those who have gone forth, have gone forth properly indeed. Otherwise, this undesirable consequence would arise: ‘All these are only ordained, not gone-forth.’ How? If in the tradition it were established, “One with a severed hand, bhikkhus, should not be given the going-forth, one who has gone forth should be expelled,” or “Bhikkhus, one with a severed hand should not be given the going-forth; whoever gives the going-forth incurs an offense of wrong-doing, and he is not one who has gone forth” (Mahāva. 119), because it is said in the Campeyyakkhandhaka that ‘he is restored’, the undesirable implication arises that “These with severed hands and so on, are only ordained, not gone-forth” or that “Even if ordained, if they have gone forth, they should be expelled.”
Furthermore, the discussion of ordination is included here to clarify the proper status of those whose hands are cut off, etc., and to dispel doubts about their ordination. How so? By the prohibition, “Monks, one whose hand is cut off should not be ordained” (Mahāva. 119), and by the absence of the statement, “They are properly ordained,” doubts about their ordination may arise. To prevent such doubts, the Blessed One prohibits ordination in the Khandhaka, saying, “One whose hand is cut off, monks, is admitted to the Sangha. If the Sangha admits him, he is admitted” (Mahāva. 396). In this way, all these are properly ordained. Otherwise, all these would be merely ordained, not fully admitted, leading to an undesirable conclusion. How so? “One whose hand is cut off, monks, should not be ordained. If one ordains him, it is an offense of wrong conduct, and he is not ordained” (Mahāva. 119), or in the Campeyya Khandhaka, since it is said, “He is admitted,” it is understood that “These, whose hands are cut off, etc., are merely ordained, not fully admitted,” or “Even if ordained, they should be expelled,” leading to an undesirable conclusion.
ID729
Idaṃ panettha vicāretabbaṃ – “so ca apabbajito”ti vacanābhāvato mūgassa pabbajjāsiddhipasaṅgato pabbajjāpi ekatosuddhiyā hotīti ayamaniṭṭhakoṭṭhāso kathaṃ nāpajjatīti? Pabbajjābhilāpena upasampadā idhādhippetāti sammāgāhena nāpajjatīti, aññathā yathābyañjanaṃ atthe gahite yathāpaññattadukkaṭābhāvasaṅkhāto aparo aniṭṭhakoṭṭhāso āpajjati. Kathaṃ? “Na, bhikkhave, mūgo pabbājetabbo, yo pabbājeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti vuttadukkaṭaṃ pabbajjāpariyosāne hoti, na tassāvippakatāya. Pubbapayogadukkaṭameva hi paṭhamaṃ āpajjati, tasmā mūgassa pabbajjāpariyosānasseva abhāvato imassa dukkaṭassa okāso ca na sabbakālaṃ sambhaveyya, upasampadāvasena pana atthe gahite sambhavati kammanibbattito. Teneva pāḷiyaṃ “na, bhikkhave, paṇḍako upasampādetabbo, yo upasampādeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti dukkaṭaṃ na paññattaṃ. Apaññattattā pubbapayogadukkaṭameva cettha sambhavati, netaraṃ. Ettāvatā siddhametaṃ pabbajjābhilāpena upasampadāva tattha adhippetā, na pabbajjāti. Etthāha sāmaṇerapabbajjā na kāyapayogato hotīti kathaṃ paññāyatīti? Vuccate – kāyena viññāpetītiādittikā dassanatoti āgato.
This, however, should be considered here: since there is no statement “and he is not ordained” regarding a mute, due to the implication of the success of a mute’s ordination, how does the undesired implication not arise that ordination is pure on one side? It does not arise due to the correct understanding that full ordination is intended here by the statement of ordination; otherwise, if the meaning is taken literally as expressed, another undesired implication arises, namely the absence of the offense of wrongdoing as prescribed. How so? The offense of wrongdoing stated in “Monks, a mute should not be ordained; whoever ordains him commits an offense of dukkaṭa” occurs at the conclusion of ordination, not because it remains incomplete. Indeed, one first incurs only the preliminary offense of wrongdoing; therefore, since there is no conclusion of a mute’s ordination, the opportunity for this offense of wrongdoing would not always arise, but it does arise when the meaning is taken in terms of full ordination due to the production of the act. For that reason, in the text, an offense of wrongdoing is not prescribed with “Monks, a paṇḍaka should not be fully ordained; whoever fully ordains him commits an offense of dukkaṭa.” Due to its non-prescription, only the preliminary offense of wrongdoing arises here, not the other. Thus it is established that by the statement of ordination, full ordination alone is intended there, not ordination. Now, it might be asked, “Since novice ordination does not occur through bodily action, how is it understood?” It is said: it is understood from the triad beginning with “he makes it known by body” as shown.
Here, the following should be considered: – Because of the absence of a statement saying “and he is not one who has gone forth,” due to the implication of the validity of the going-forth of a mute, how is it that the undesirable consequence that going-forth also has only one-sided validity does not arise? By the correct understanding that ordination is intended here by means of the discourse on going-forth, it does not arise. Otherwise, if the meaning is taken literally, another undesirable consequence arises, namely, the absence of the prescribed wrongdoing. How? The wrongdoing stated in, “Bhikkhus, a mute should not be given the going-forth; whoever gives the going-forth, incurs an offense of wrongdoing,” occurs at the completion of the going-forth, not during its non-completion. Indeed, only a preliminary wrongdoing for initial effort is incurred at first. Therefore, because of the very non-completion of the going-forth of the mute, the occasion for this wrongdoing may not always arise. But it arises based on taking the meaning as concerning ordination, by means of bringing about the formal act. Therefore, in the Pāḷi, concerning “Bhikkhus, a paṇḍaka should not be ordained. Whoever ordains [him] incurs an offense of wrong-doing,” a wrongdoing is not prescribed. Because it is not prescribed, only a preliminary wrongdoing arises here, not the other. To this extent, it is established that ordination is intended there by means of the discourse on the going-forth, not the going-forth. Here it is asked: How is it known that the going-forth of a novice does not occur from a bodily action? It is said: it has come through the presentation of the triad such as ‘indicates by body’, etc.
This should be considered: Since the statement “he is not ordained” is absent, how does the undesirable conclusion not arise that the ordination of a mute is established on one side? Because ordination is intended here through the discussion of ordination, the correct understanding prevents this. Otherwise, taking the literal meaning, another undesirable conclusion arises, namely, the absence of the offense of wrong conduct as prescribed. How so? The offense of wrong conduct stated, “Monks, a mute should not be ordained. If one ordains him, it is an offense of wrong conduct,” applies at the conclusion of ordination, not during its performance. For the initial offense of wrong conduct is incurred first. Therefore, since the ordination of a mute is never concluded, this offense of wrong conduct does not always apply, but it does apply in the context of ordination due to the act’s performance. Thus, in the Pāli, the offense of wrong conduct, “Monks, a paṇḍaka should not be ordained. If one ordains him, it is an offense of wrong conduct,” is not prescribed. Due to its absence, only the initial offense of wrong conduct applies here, not the latter. Thus, it is established that ordination is intended here through the discussion of ordination, not ordination itself. Here, it is said that the ordination of a novice is not performed by bodily action. How is this known? It is known through the teaching, “He makes it known by body,” etc.
ID730
“Gottenapi anussāvetu”nti (mahāva. 122) vacanato yena vohārena voharati, tena vaṭṭatīti siddhaṃ, tasmā “ko nāmo te upajjhāyo”ti puṭṭhenapi gottameva nāmaṃ katvā vattabbanti siddhaṃ hoti, tasmā catubbidhesu nāmesu yena kenaci nāmena anussāvanā kātabbāti vadanti. Ekassa bahūni nāmāni honti, tattha ekaṃ nāmaṃ ñattiyā, ekaṃ anussāvanāya kātuṃ na vaṭṭati, atthato byañjanato ca abhinnāhi anussāvanāhi bhavitabbanti. Kiñcāpi “itthannāmo itthannāmassa āyasmato”ti pāḷiyaṃ “āyasmato”ti padaṃ pacchā vuttaṃ, kammavācāpāḷiyaṃ pana “ayaṃ buddharakkhito āyasmato dhammarakkhitassā”ti paṭhamaṃ likhanti, taṃ uppaṭipāṭiyā vuttanti na paccetabbaṃ. Pāḷiyañhi “itthannāmo itthannāmassā”ti atthamattaṃ dassitaṃ, tasmā pāḷiyaṃ avuttopi “ayaṃ buddharakkhito āyasmato dhammarakkhitassā”ti kammavācāpāḷiyaṃ payogo dassito. “Na me diṭṭho ito pubbe iccāyasmā sāriputto”ti ca “āyasmā sāriputto atthakusalo”ti ca paṭhamaṃ “āyasmā”ti payogassa dassanatoti vadanti. Katthaci “āyasmato buddharakkhitassā”ti vatvā katthaci kevalaṃ “buddharakkhitassā”ti sāveti, sāvanaṃ hāpetīti na vuccati nāmassa ahāpitattāti eke. Sace katthaci “āyasmato buddharakkhitassā”ti vatvā katthaci “buddharakkhitassāyasmato”ti sāveti, pāṭhānurūpattā khettameva otiṇṇantipi eke. Byañjanabhedappasaṅgato anussāvanānaṃ taṃ na vaṭṭatīti vadanti. Sace pana sabbaṭṭhānepi ekeneva pakārena vadati, vaṭṭati.
From the statement “Let him proclaim even by clan (gotta)” (mahāva. 122), it is established that it is valid by whatever mode he uses. Thus, when asked “What is the name of your preceptor?” it is established that he should state only the clan name. Therefore, they say that the proclamation should be made with any of the four types of names. When one has many names, it is not permissible to use one name in the motion and another in the proclamation; the proclamations must be identical in meaning and wording. Although in the text “itthannāmo itthannāmassa āyasmato” the word “āyasmato” (venerable) is said afterward, in the kammavācā text, “ayaṃ buddharakkhito āyasmato dhammarakkhitassa” is written first. This should not be regarded as out of order; the text merely indicates the meaning with “itthannāmo itthannāmassa,” so even though not stated in the text, the usage is shown in the kammavācā text as “ayaṃ buddharakkhito āyasmato dhammarakkhitassa.” They say this is shown by the prior use of “āyasmā” in “I have not seen him before this, said the venerable Sāriputta” and “The venerable Sāriputta is skilled in meaning.” Sometimes saying “āyasmato buddharakkhitassa” and sometimes merely “buddharakkhitassa,” it is not said that the proclamation is omitted because the name is not omitted, according to some. If sometimes “āyasmato buddharakkhitassa” is said and sometimes “buddharakkhitassa āyasmato,” some say it merely falls into the field due to textual conformity. They say it is not permissible due to the risk of variation in wording. But if he speaks in the same manner everywhere, it is permissible.
Because it is said, “Let him announce even with the clan name” (mahāva. 122), it is established that it is proper to use whichever term is commonly used. Therefore, even if asked, “What is your preceptor’s name?”, it is established that one should state the clan name as the name. Thus, some say that the announcement should be made with any of the four kinds of names. One person has many names; it is not proper to use one name for the motion and another for the announcement, because the announcements should be identical in meaning and in expression. Although in the Pāḷi, “so-and-so, of the venerable so-and-so,” the word “venerable” (āyasmato) is stated later, in the Kammavācā Pāḷi, however, they write first “this Buddharakkhita, of the venerable Dhammarakkhita,” it should not be regarded as having been stated in reverse order. In the Pāḷi, only the meaning “so-and-so, of so-and-so” is indicated. Therefore, even though not mentioned in the Pāḷi, the usage in the Kammavācā Pāḷi, “this Buddharakkhita, of the venerable Dhammarakkhita,” is shown. And because of the appearance of the usage of “venerable” (āyasmā) first in, “He was not seen by me before, thus the venerable Sāriputta” and “The venerable Sāriputta is skilled in the meaning,” some say. In some places, after saying “of the venerable Buddharakkhita,” in some places he announces merely “of Buddharakkhita,” some say that the announcement is not ruined because the name has not been omitted. Some say, if after saying in some places “of the venerable Buddharakkhita,” he announces in other places “of Buddharakkhita, the venerable,” it is like stepping into a field due to following the wording. It is said that it is not proper for those announcements due to concern of difference in expression. But if he speaks in the same way in all places, it is proper.
The phrase “Let him announce by clan” (Mahāva. 122) means that it is established that one should act according to the designation by which one is addressed. Therefore, even when asked, “What is the name of your preceptor?” it is established that one should respond using the clan name. Thus, it is said that the announcement should be made using any of the four types of names. One person may have many names, but it is not proper to use one name for the motion and another for the announcement. The announcement should be made in a way that is consistent in meaning and wording. Although in the Pāli text, the word “āyasmato” is mentioned afterward, as in “Itthannāmo itthannāmassa āyasmato,” in the kammavācā text, it is written as “ayaṃ buddharakkhito āyasmato dhammarakkhitassā,” with “āyasmato” placed first. This should not be objected to, as it is written in reverse order. In the Pāli text, only the meaning is indicated, as in “Itthannāmo itthannāmassa,” so even though “āyasmato” is not explicitly mentioned in the Pāli, its usage is shown in the kammavācā text, as in “ayaṃ buddharakkhito āyasmato dhammarakkhitassā.” Similarly, in phrases like “Na me diṭṭho ito pubbe iccāyasmā sāriputto” and “āyasmā sāriputto atthakusalo,” the use of “āyasmā” is shown first. Some say that if in one place “āyasmato buddharakkhitassā” is said, and in another place only “buddharakkhitassā” is announced, it is not considered a lapse in the announcement because the name is not omitted. Others say that if in one place “āyasmato buddharakkhitassā” is said, and in another “buddharakkhitassāyasmato” is announced, it is acceptable due to the consistency of the text. However, it is said that variations in wording should not be made in the announcements. But if one consistently uses the same manner of speaking in all instances, it is acceptable.
ID731
Ekānussāvaneti ettha ekato anussāvanaṃ etesanti ekānussāvanāti asamānādhikaraṇavisayo bāhiratthasamāsoti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Tenevāha “dve ekato anussāvane”ti. Tattha ekatoti ekakkhaṇeti attho, vibhattialopena cāyaṃ niddeso. Purimanayeneva ekato anussāvane kātunti “ekena ekassa, aññena itarassā”tiādinā pubbe vuttanayena dvīhi vā tīhi vā ācariyehi ekena vā ekato anussāvane kātuṃ. Vajjāvajjaṃ upanijjhāyatīti upajjhāti iminā upajjhāyasaddasamānattho upajjhāsaddopīti atthaṃ dassetīti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.123).
Ekānussāvane—Here, “ekānussāvanā” means “proclamations made together,” a compound with an external meaning and dissimilar case relation. Hence it is said, “two proclamations together.” There, ekato means “at one moment,” with elision of inflection in this description. Purimanayeneva ekato anussāvane kātu—To make proclamations together by the previous method, such as “one for one, another for the other,” with two or three teachers, or with one, as stated earlier. “He reflects on what is to be avoided and what is not” thus means “preceptor” (upajjhā); this shows the meaning of the word “upajjhā,” which is synonymous with “upajjhāya,” according to the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.123).
Here, in “ekānussāvane,” it should be understood as a compound outside of the domain with different cases: those whose announcements are made together are ekānussāvanā. Therefore he said, “two with announcements made together.” There, “ekato” means in one moment; this designation is with the elision of the case ending. “To make the announcements together in the same way as before” means to make the announcements together by two or three teachers, or by one, in the previously stated manner of, “by one for one, by the other for the other,” and so on. In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.123), by “the one who considers what is to be avoided and what is not to be avoided is the preceptor (upajjhāti),” it shows the meaning that the word upajjhā has the same meaning as upajjhāya.
Ekānussāvane: Here, “ekānussāvanā” refers to a single announcement made at one time, and it should be understood as an external compound with a non-shared referent. Therefore, it is said, “Two announcements made at once.” Here, ekato means at one moment, and this explanation is given by eliding the case ending. Purimanayeneva ekato anussāvane kātu: This means that the announcement should be made by one or more teachers, as previously explained, such as “one for one, another for the other,” etc. The phrase “Vajjāvajjaṃ upanijjhāyatīti upajjhāti” indicates that the meaning of the word “upajjhāya” is similar to “upajjhā,” as explained in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. �ī. Mahāvagga 3.123).
ID732
Gottenāpīti “āyasmato pippalissa upasampadāpekkho”ti evaṃ nāmaṃ avatvā gottanāmenapīti attho, tena “ko nāmo te upajjhāyo”ti puṭṭhena gottanāmena “āyasmā kassapo”ti vattabbanti siddhaṃ hoti. Tasmā aññampi yaṃ kiñci tassa nāmaṃ pasiddhaṃ, tasmiṃ vā khaṇe sukhaggahaṇatthaṃ nāmaṃ paññāpitaṃ, taṃ sabbaṃ gahetvāpi anussāvanā kātabbā. Yathā upajjhāyassa, evaṃ upasampadāpekkhassāpi gottādināmena taṅkhaṇikanāmena ca anussāvanaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati, tasmimpi khaṇe “ayaṃ tisso”ti vā “nāgo”ti vā nāmaṃ karontehi anusāsakasammutito paṭhamameva kātabbaṃ. Evaṃ akatvāpi antarāyikadhammānusāsanapucchanakālesu “kinnāmosi, ahaṃ bhante nāgo nāma, ko nāmo te upajjhāyo, upajjhāyo me bhante tisso nāmā”tiādinā viññāpentena ubhinnampi citte “mametaṃ nāma”nti yathā saññaṃ uppajjati, evaṃ viññāpetabbaṃ. Sace pana tasmiṃ khaṇe pakatināmena vatvā pacchā “tisso nāmā”ti apubbanāmena anussāveti, na vaṭṭati.
Gottenāpi—Meaning “even by clan name” without stating the name, as in “the ordination candidate of the venerable Pippali.” Thus, when asked “What is the name of your preceptor?” it is established that he should say “The venerable Kassapa” by clan name. Therefore, any other well-known name of his, or a name designated at that moment for easy comprehension, should all be used in the proclamation. Just as with the preceptor, so too with the ordination candidate, it is permissible to proclaim by clan name or a name given at that moment. Even if at that moment they designate a name like “Tissa” or “Nāga,” it should first be established by the agreement of the proclaimer. Even without doing so, at the time of questioning about obstructive matters, he should declare, “What is your name? I am Nāga, venerable sir. What is the name of your preceptor? My preceptor is Tissa, venerable sir,” so that the perception “This is my name” arises in the minds of both, and it should be declared accordingly. But if at that moment he states his usual name and later proclaims with a new name like “Tissa,” it is not permissible.
“Gottenāpī”ti, this means even by the clan name, without stating the name as in “applicant for higher ordination of the venerable Pippali”. Therefore, by that, it is established that one is to say with the clan name, “the Venerable Kassapa” if asked, ‘what is your preceptor’s name?’. Therefore, whatever other name is well-known for him, or a name given for easy understanding at that moment, even after using all that, the proclamation may be made. Just as for the preceptor, it is also permissible to make the proclamation with the clan name and so forth, and the momentary name for the ordination candidate. At that moment, a name ‘Tissa’ or ‘Nāga’ must first be established by those performing the instructing consensus. Even if it hasn’t been done in this way, the ordination candidate and preceptor, during the instruction and questioning of obstructing qualities (antarāyikadhammā), it is possible to acknowledge by way of such statements as “what is your name?”, “Venerable Sir, my name is Nāga”, “what is the name of your preceptor”, “Venerable Sir, my preceptor’s name is Tissa” and in this way it’s appropriate to let a proper sense of ‘this is my name’ arise for both parties. But, if at that moment he uses the usual name, and subsequently announces with the new name ‘Tissa’, that is not permissible.
Gottenāpi: Even without stating the name, as in “āyasmato pippalissa upasampadāpekkho,” the meaning is that one can use the clan name. Thus, when asked, “What is the name of your preceptor?” it is established that one should respond with the clan name, such as “āyasmā kassapo.” Therefore, any well-known name of that person, or a name given at that moment for ease of understanding, should all be included in the announcement. Just as for the preceptor, so too for the candidate for ordination, the announcement should be made using the clan name or a temporary name given at that moment. At that time, if one is given a name like “tisso” or “nāgo,” it should be announced first, as agreed upon by the instructors. If this is not done, during the questioning about obstacles to ordination, one should inform both parties by saying, “What is your name? I am named Nāgo, venerable sir. What is the name of your preceptor? My preceptor is named Tisso, venerable sir,” etc., so that both parties understand and recognize the name as their own. However, if at that moment one uses the original name and later announces “tisso” as a new name, it is not proper.
ID733
Tattha ca kiñcāpi upajjhāyasseva nāmaṃ aggahetvā yena kenaci nāmena “tissassa upasampadāpekkho”tiādināpi puggale parāmaṭṭhe kammaṃ sukatameva hoti anupajjhāyakādīnaṃ upasampadākammaṃ viya upajjhāyassa abhāvepi abhabbattepi kammavācāya puggale parāmaṭṭhe kammassa sijjhanato. Upasampadāpekkhassa pana yathāsakaṃ nāmaṃ vinā aññena nāmena anussāvite kammaṃ kuppati, so anupasampannova hoti. Tattha ṭhito añño anupasampanno viya gahitanāmassa vatthupuggalassa tattha abhāvā, etassa ca nāmassa anussāvanāya avuttattā. Tasmā upasampadāpekkhassa pakatināmaṃ parivattetvā apubbena nāgādināmena anussāvitukāmena paṭikacceva “tvaṃ nāgo”tiādinā viññāpetvā anusāsanaantarāyikadhammāpucchanakkhaṇesupi tassa ca saṅghassa ca yathā pākaṭaṃ hoti, tathā pakāsetvāva nāgādināmena anussāvetabbaṃ. Ekassa bahūni nāmāni honti, tesu ekaṃ gahetuṃ vaṭṭati.
Although, even without taking the preceptor’s name, if a person is referred to by any name like “the ordination candidate of Tissa,” the act is well performed, just as an ordination act without a preceptor or with an incapable one is valid when the kammavācā refers to the person and the act is accomplished. But if the ordination candidate is proclaimed with a name other than his own, the act is invalid, and he remains unordained. It is as if another unordained person were present there, since the person with the stated name is not present, and that name was not stated in the proclamation. Therefore, if one wishes to proclaim the ordination candidate with a new name like “Nāga” instead of his usual name, he should first declare “You are Nāga,” making it clear to him and the Sangha at the time of questioning about obstructive matters, and only then proclaim with the name “Nāga.” If one has many names, it is permissible to take one of them.
And although the formal act (kamma) is indeed properly performed, even without stating only the preceptor’s name by, “an applicant for higher ordination of Tissa,” and so forth, if the person is referred to, just as the act of higher ordination of those without a preceptor and so forth, if there’s a lack of a preceptor, or if the preceptor is incapable, the formal act succeeds if the person is referred to in the formal declaration. But if the ordination candidate is announced by a name other than his own, the formal act is invalid, he is not ordained. As if someone else who has not been ordained were standing there, because the person and object with that received name is not there, and because this name was not stated in the announcement. Therefore, one who wishes to change the ordination candidate’s usual name and announce with a new name such as Nāga, should first make it known by, “You are Nāga,” and so forth, and during the instruction and questioning of obstructing qualities, making it clear to him and to the Saṅgha, he should announce with the name Nāga and so forth. One person has many names; among them, it is permissible to choose one.
In this context, even if the preceptor’s name is not mentioned, and the candidate is referred to by any name, such as “tissassa upasampadāpekkho,” the act is still valid, just as the ordination act is valid for those without a preceptor, etc., because the act is completed when the person is referred to in the kammavācā. However, if the candidate for ordination is announced by a name other than his own, the act is invalid, and he remains unordained. This is because, in such a case, another person who is unordained is like the person whose name was taken, but since that person is not present, and the name was not announced, the act fails. Therefore, if one wishes to announce the candidate for ordination by changing his original name to a new name like “nāgo,” one should first inform him by saying, “You are Nāgo,” etc., and during the questioning about obstacles to ordination, make it clear to both the candidate and the Sangha, and then announce the name “nāgo,” etc. One person may have many names, and it is acceptable to use one of them.
ID734
Yaṃ pana upasampadāpekkhaupajjhāyānaṃ ekattha gahitaṃ nāmaṃ tadeva ñattiyā, sabbattha anussāvanāsu ca gahetabbaṃ. Gahitato hi aññasmiṃ gahite byañjanaṃ bhinnaṃ nāma hoti, kammaṃ vipajjati. Atthato hi byañjanato ca abhinnā eva ñatti anussāvanā ca vaṭṭanti. Upajjhāyanāmassa pana purato “āyasmato tissassā”tiādinā āyasmantapadaṃ sabbattha yojetvāpi anussāveti. Tathā ayojitepi doso natthi.
However, the name of the ordination candidate and preceptor taken in one context must be the same in the motion and all proclamations. If a different one is taken, the wording becomes different, and the act fails. Only a motion and proclamation identical in meaning and wording are valid. The word “āyasmato” (venerable) may be used before the preceptor’s name, as in “āyasmato tissassa,” in all instances during proclamation. There is no fault even if it is not used.
But the name of the ordination candidate and preceptor that has been taken up together, that very one should be taken up in the motion, and in all the announcements. For if another is taken up other than what has been taken up, the expression becomes different, and the formal act fails. Indeed, the motion and the announcements are proper only if they are not different in meaning and in expression. The word ‘venerable’ can be added in every instance, announcing thus: “of the venerable Tissa’s” and so on. Even if it is not, there’s no fault.
However, the name used for the candidate for ordination and the preceptor in the motion should be the same, and it should be used in all announcements. If a different name is used in the announcement, the wording becomes inconsistent, and the act is invalid. In meaning and wording, the motion and the announcement should be consistent. As for the preceptor’s name, the word “āyasmato” should be prefixed, as in “āyasmato tissassā,” etc., in all announcements. If it is not prefixed, there is no fault.
ID735
Pāḷiyaṃ (mahāva. 126) pana kiñcāpi “itthannāmassa āyasmato”ti pacchato “āyasmato”ti padaṃ vuttaṃ, tathāpi “āyasmā sāriputto atthakusalo”tiādinā nāmassa purato ’āyasmantapada’yogassa dassanato puratova payogo yuttataro, tañca ekattha yojetvā aññattha ayojitepi ekattha purato yojetvā aññattha pacchato yojanepi sāvanāya hāpanaṃ nāma na hoti nāmassa ahāpitattā. Teneva pāḷiyampi “itthannāmassa āyasmato”ti ekattha yojetvā “itthannāmena upajjhāyenā”tiādīsu “āyasmato”ti na yojitanti vadanti. Tañca kiñcāpi evaṃ, tathāpi sabbaṭṭhānepi ekeneva pakārena yojetvā eva vā ayojetvā vā anussāvanaṃ pasatthataranti gahetabbaṃ.
Although in the text (mahāva. 126) the word “āyasmato” is said afterward as “itthannāmassa āyasmato,” the prior use of the word “āyasmā” is more appropriate, as seen in “The venerable Sāriputta is skilled in meaning.” Even if it is used in one place and not in another, or used before in one place and after in another, there is no omission in the proclamation because the name is not omitted. Hence, in the text, it is said that “āyasmato” is used in “itthannāmassa āyasmato” in one place but not in “itthannāmena upajjhāyenā” and similar cases. Although this is so, it is considered more commendable to use or not use it consistently in all instances.
But in the Pāḷi (mahāva. 126), although the word ‘of the venerable’ (āyasmato) is stated afterwards in ‘of the venerable so-and-so’, yet because of the joining of the word ‘venerable’ before the name, as in ‘the venerable Sāriputta is skilled in the meaning’, etc., the usage before is more suitable, and even if it is joined in one place and not joined in another, even if it is joined before in one place and afterwards in another, it is not called a ruining of the announcement because the name has not been omitted. Therefore, even in the Pāḷi, after joining it in one place in ‘of the venerable so-and-so’, it is not joined in ‘by the preceptor so-and-so’, etc., they say. And although it is thus, yet it should be understood that the announcement is more commendable either by joining it in the same way in all places, or by not joining it.
In the Pāli text (Mahāva. 126), although the word “āyasmato” is placed after the name, as in “itthannāmassa āyasmato,” the use of “āyasmā” before the name, as in “āyasmā sāriputto atthakusalo,” is more appropriate. Even if the word “āyasmato” is used in one place and omitted in another, such as in “itthannāmena upajjhāyenā,” it is not considered a lapse in the announcement because the name is not omitted. Therefore, it is said that in the Pāli text, “itthannāmassa āyasmato” is used in one place, but “āyasmato” is not used in phrases like “itthannāmena upajjhāyenā.” Although this is the case, it is better to use the same manner of speaking in all instances, whether the word “āyasmato” is used or not.
ID736
Ekato saheva ekasmiṃ khaṇe anussāvanaṃ etesanti ekānussāvanā, upasampadāpekkhā, ete ekānussāvane kātuṃ. Tenāha “ekatoanusāvane”ti. Idañca ekaṃ padaṃ vibhattialopena daṭṭhabbaṃ. Ekena vāti dvinnampi ekasmiṃ khaṇe ekāya eva kammavācāya anussāvane ekena ācariyenāti attho. “Ayaṃ buddharakkhito ca ayaṃ dhammarakkhito ca āyasmato saṅgharakkhitassa upasampadāpekkho”tiādinā nayena ekena ācariyena dvinnamekasmiṃ khaṇe anussāvananayo daṭṭhabbo, imināva nayena tiṇṇampi ekena ācariyena ekakkhaṇe anussāvanaṃ veditabbaṃ.
“Ekānussāvanā” means proclamations made together at one moment; the ordination candidates are to be proclaimed together (ekānussāvane kātuṃ). Hence it is said, “ekato anussāvane.” This single word should be seen as having elided inflection. Ekena vā—Meaning with one teacher proclaiming both at one moment with a single kammavācā. The method of proclaiming two at one moment by one teacher, as in “This Buddharakkhita and this Dhammarakkhita are ordination candidates of the venerable Saṅgharakkhita,” should be understood; by this method, the proclamation of three by one teacher at one moment is also to be understood.
Those whose announcement is together at the same time, in one moment, are ekānussāvanā, the ordination candidates, these are to make ekānussāvane. Therefore he said “ekatoanusāvane”. And this should be understood as one word with the elision of the case ending. “By one or” means by one teacher, in the announcement of both in one moment, with one formal act. The method of announcement by one teacher of two in one moment should be understood as in the manner of, “This Buddharakkhita and this Dhammarakkhita are applicants for higher ordination of the venerable Saṅgharakkhita,” and so forth. In this very manner, the announcement of three by one teacher in one moment should be understood.
Ekānussāvane: This refers to a single announcement made at one moment, and it should be understood as an external compound with a non-shared referent. Therefore, it is said, “Two announcements made at once.” Here, ekato means at one moment, and this explanation is given by eliding the case ending. Ekena vā: This means that two or three candidates can be announced at the same time by one teacher using one kammavācā. For example, “This is Buddharakkhito, and this is Dhammarakkhito, the candidate for ordination of āyasmato Saṅgharakkhita,” etc. In this way, one teacher can announce two or three candidates at the same moment.
ID737
Purimanayeneva ekato anussāvane kātunti “ekena ekassa, aññena itarassā”tiādinā pubbe vuttanayena dvinnaṃ dvīhi vā tiṇṇaṃ tīhi vā ācariyehi, ekena vā ācariyena tayopi ekatoanussāvane kātunti attho. “Tañca kho ekena upajjhāyena, na tveva nānupajjhāyenā”ti idaṃ ekena ācariyena dvīhi vā tīhi vā upajjhāyehi dve vā tayo vā upasampadāpekkhe ekakkhaṇe ekāya anussāvanāya ekānussāvane kātuṃ na vaṭṭatīti paṭikkhepapadaṃ, na pana nānācariyehi nānupajjhāyehi tayo ekānussāvane kātuṃ na vaṭṭatīti āha “sace pana nānācariyā nānupajjhāyā…pe… vaṭṭatī”ti. Yañcettha “tissatthero sumanattherassa saddhivihārikaṃ, sumanatthero tissattherassa saddhivihārika”nti evaṃ upajjhāyehi aññamaññaṃ saddhivihārikānaṃ anussāvanakaraṇaṃ vuttaṃ, taṃ upalakkhaṇamattaṃ. Tasmā sace tissatthero sumanattherassa saddhivihārikaṃ, sumanatthero nandattherassa saddhivihārikaṃ anussāveti, aññamaññañca gaṇapūrakā honti, vaṭṭati eva. Sace pana upajjhāyo sayameva attano saddhivihārikaṃ anussāveti, ettha vattabbameva natthi, kammaṃ sukatameva hoti, anupajjhāyakassapi yena kenaci anussāvite upasampadā hoti, kimaṅgaṃ pana saupajjhāyakassa upajjhāyeneva anussāvaneti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Teneva navaṭṭanapakkhaṃ dassetuṃ “sace panā”tiādimāha.
Purimanayeneva ekato anussāvane kātu—To proclaim together by the previous method, as in “one for one, another for the other,” with two or three teachers for two or three candidates, or with one teacher proclaiming all three together. “Only with one preceptor, not with different preceptors”—This is a prohibition that it is not permissible to proclaim two or three ordination candidates together at one moment with one proclamation by one teacher with two or three preceptors, or by different teachers with different preceptors; thus it says, “But if there are different teachers and different preceptors … it is permissible.” What is said here about preceptors proclaiming each other’s co-residents, like “The elder Tissa proclaims the co-resident of the elder Sumanatthera, and the elder Sumanatthera proclaims the co-resident of the elder Tissa,” is merely an example. Thus, if the elder Tissa proclaims the co-resident of the elder Sumanatthera, and the elder Sumanatthera proclaims the co-resident of the elder Nandatthera, and they mutually complete the quorum, it is indeed permissible. If a preceptor himself proclaims his own co-resident, there is nothing to say; the act is well performed. Even without a preceptor, ordination occurs when proclaimed by anyone; how much more so when the preceptor himself proclaims for one with a preceptor? Hence, to show the alternative, it begins with “But if.”
“To make the announcements together in the same way as before” means by two teachers for two, or by three teachers for three, in the previously stated manner of, “by one for one, by the other for the other,” and so forth, or by one teacher, to make all three with joint announcements. “‘And that indeed with one preceptor, but not with different preceptors’” – this is a prohibitive statement that it is not proper to make those with joint announcements, two or three applicants for higher ordination in one moment, with one announcement, by one teacher, with two or three preceptors. But, in saying, “if there are different teachers and different preceptors … it is permissible,” he does not say that it is not permissible for different teachers and different preceptors to do a triple joint ordination announcement. And here the joint announcement of disciples by preceptors to one another, as ‘Tissa Thera is the disciple of Sumanathera, Sumanathera is the disciple of Tissa Thera’, is given by way of example. Therefore, if Tissa Thera ordains the disciple of Sumanathera, and Sumanathera ordains the disciple of Nanda Thera, and they mutually complete the quorum, it is indeed proper. But, if the preceptor himself ordains his own disciple, there is nothing to be said here, the act is well-done. Ordination happens even for those without a proper preceptor when anyone announces it. How much more for someone with their own preceptor, when their own preceptor performs the announcement. Therefore, to show the non-allowable cases, he began with “But if”.
Purimanayeneva ekato anussāvane kātu: This means that the announcement should be made by two or three teachers for two or three candidates, or by one teacher for all three, as previously explained, such as “one for one, another for the other,” etc. “Tañca kho ekena upajjhāyena, na tveva nānupajjhāyenā”: This phrase prohibits the announcement of two or three candidates for ordination by one teacher using one announcement at the same time, but it does not prohibit the announcement of three candidates by different teachers or different preceptors. Therefore, it is said, “If, however, there are different teachers and different preceptors… it is allowed.” In this context, the phrase “Tissatthero sumanattherassa saddhivihārikaṃ, sumanatthero tissattherassa saddhivihārika” is merely an illustration. Therefore, if Tissatthero announces Sumanatthero’s pupil, and Sumanatthero announces Nandatthero’s pupil, and they complete the group, it is allowed. However, if the preceptor himself announces his own pupil, there is nothing further to be said; the act is properly done. Even for one without a preceptor, ordination is valid if announced by anyone, so how much more so for one with a preceptor, who should be announced by the preceptor himself. Therefore, to illustrate the new stance, it is said, “If, however…” etc.
ID738
Upajjhāti upajjhāyasaddasamānattho ākāranto upajjhāsaddoti dasseti. Upajjhāya-saddo eva vā upajjhā, upayogapaccattavacanesu ya-kāra lopaṃ katvā evaṃ vutto karaṇavacanādīsu upajjhāsaddassa payogābhāvāti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Pāḷiyaṃ attanāva attānaṃ sammannitabbanti attanāva kattubhūtena karaṇabhūtena attānameva kammabhūtaṃ pati sammannanakiccaṃ kātabbaṃ, attānanti vā paccatte upayogavacanaṃ, attanāva attā sammannitabboti attho. Na kevalañca ettheva, aññatrāpi terasasammutiādīsu imināva lakkhaṇena attanāva attā sammannitabbova. Apica sayaṃ kammārahattā attānaṃ muñcitvā catuvaggādiko gaṇo sabbattha icchitabbo.
Upajjhā—It indicates that “upajjhā” is a synonym of “upajjhāya,” ending in ā; or “upajjhāya” itself becomes “upajjhā” by eliding the ya sound in nominative and accusative cases, as there is no use of “upajjhā” in instrumental or other cases. In the text, attanāva attānaṃ sammannitabba—With oneself as the agent and instrument, one must appoint oneself as the object; or attānaṃ is accusative in active voice, meaning “One must appoint oneself.” Not only here, but in the thirteen appointments and elsewhere, by this characteristic, one must appoint oneself. Moreover, since it is an act performed by oneself, a group of four or more is always required, excluding oneself.
“Upajjhā” shows that the word ‘upajjhā’, ending in ‘ā’, has the same meaning as the word ‘upajjhāya’. Or, ‘upajjhāya’ is itself ‘upajjhā’, having elided the ‘ya’ in the instrumental, active, and locative cases. It should be understood that there is no usage of the word ‘upajjhā’ in the instrumental case, etc. In the Pāḷi, “by oneself should one consent oneself”; by oneself, being the agent, as the instrument, the act of consenting should be done to oneself as the object. Or, “oneself” is the locative case; by oneself, oneself should be consented to, is the meaning. And not only here, but elsewhere too, in the thirteen consents and so forth, in the same way, by oneself, oneself should indeed be consented to. And also, because one is oneself worthy of the act, apart from oneself, a group of four and so forth should be desired everywhere.
Upajjhā: This indicates the meaning of the word “upajjhāya,” which is similar to “upajjhā.” The word “upajjhāya” is also called “upajjhā,” and in the instrumental and locative cases, the “ya” is elided, so it is said as “upajjhā.” However, in the instrumental and other cases, the word “upajjhāya” is not used. In the Pāli text, attanāva attānaṃ sammannitabba: This means that one should appoint oneself as the actor or the instrument, and oneself as the object. Attāna: This is the locative case, meaning that one should appoint oneself. This is not only here but also in the thirteen agreements, etc., where one should appoint oneself in the same manner. Moreover, since one is worthy of the act, one should appoint oneself and form a group of four, etc., as desired.
ID739
Saccakāloti “nigūhissāmī”ti vañcanaṃ pahāya saccasseva te icchitabbakālo. Bhūtakāloti vañcanāya abhāvepi manussattādivatthuno bhūtatāya avassaṃ icchitabbakālo, itarathā kammakopādiantarāyo hotīti adhippāyo. Maṅkūti adhomukho. Uddharatūti anupasampannabhāvato upasampattiyaṃ patiṭṭhapetūti attho.
Saccakālo—The time when truth alone is desirable, abandoning deceit with “I will conceal.” Bhūtakālo—The time when, even without deceit, the reality of humanhood or the like must be desired; otherwise, there is the danger of the act’s failure. Maṅkū—Downcast. Uddharatu—Let him establish him in ordination from the state of being unordained.
“Time for truth” means abandoning the deceit of “I will conceal,” it is the time for only truth to be desired by you. “Time for what is real” means even in the absence of deceit, it is the time for the reality of things such as being a human, etc., to be necessarily desired. Otherwise, there is the obstruction of the invalidity of the act, etc., is the implication. “Downcast” means with downcast face. “May he lift up” means may he establish him in the state of higher ordination from the state of not being ordained.
Saccakālo: This is the time to desire the truth, abandoning deceit. Bhūtakālo: Even in the absence of deceit, this is the time when one must desire the truth due to the reality of being a human, etc., otherwise there is a risk of invalidating the act. Maṅkū: This means with a downcast face. Uddharatū: This means to lift one from the state of being unordained to the state of ordination.
ID740
Sabbakammavācāsu atthakosallatthaṃ panettha upasampadakammavācāya evamattho daṭṭhabbo – suṇātūti savanāṇattiyaṃ paṭhamapurisekavacanaṃ. Tañca kiñcāpi yo so saṅgho savanakiriyāyaṃ niyojīyati, tassa sammukhattā “suṇāhī”ti majjhimapurisavacanena vattabbaṃ, tathāpi yasmā saṅghasaddasannidhāne paṭhamapurisappayogova saddavidūhi samāciṇṇo bhavantabhagavantaāyasmādisaddasannidhānesu viya “adhivāsetu me bhavaṃ gotamo (pārā. 22), etassa sugata kālo, yaṃ bhagavā sāvakānaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ paññapeyya (pārā. 21), pakkamatāyasmā (pārā. 436), suṇantu me āyasmanto”tiādīsu (mahāva. 168). Tasmā idha paṭhamapurisappayogo kato. Atha vā gāravavasenetaṃ vuttaṃ. Garuṭṭhāniyesu hi gāravavasena majjhimapurisapayoguppattiyampi paṭhamapurisappayogaṃ payujjanti “desetu sugato dhamma”ntiādīsu (dī. ni. 2.66; ma. ni. 2.338; mahāva. 8) viyāti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Keci pana “bhante āvusoti pade apekkhitvā idha paṭhamapurisappayogo”ti vadanti, taṃ na sundaraṃ “ācariyo me, bhante, hohi (mahāva. 77), iṅghāvuso upāli, imaṃ pabbajitaṃ anuyuñjāhī”tiādīsu (pārā. 517) tappayogepi majjhimapurisappayogasseva dassanato.
For understanding the meaning in all kammavācās, the meaning of the ordination kammavācā should be seen thus: suṇātu—A first-person imperative in the motion for hearing. Although the Sangha, being present, should be addressed with the second-person “suṇāhi” as it is engaged in the act of hearing, since the word “saṅgha” is present, the first-person usage is customary among grammarians, as in “May the Venerable Gotama consent to me” (pārā. 22), “It is time for the Blessed One to establish training rules for disciples” (pārā. 21), “Depart, venerable sir” (pārā. 436), “May the venerables listen to me” (mahāva. 168). Thus, the first-person usage is employed here. Alternatively, it is said out of respect. In matters worthy of respect, even where second-person usage arises, first-person usage is applied, as in “May the Sugata teach the Dhamma” (dī. ni. 2.66; ma. ni. 2.338; mahāva. 8). Some say, “The first-person usage here depends on the words ‘bhante āvuso,’” but this is not elegant, as second-person usage is seen even in such cases as “Be my teacher, venerable sir” (mahāva. 77) and “Friend Upāli, question this monk” (pārā. 517).
For the sake of skill in the meaning in all formal acts, here the meaning of the formal act of higher ordination should be understood thus: “Suṇātu” is the first person singular in the sense of an order to listen. And although he who is the Saṅgha, who is being ordered in the act of listening, because of his being present, should be addressed with the second-person form “suṇāhi,” yet because in the presence of the word ‘Saṅgha’, only the first-person usage is practiced by those who are skilled in language, like in the presence of the words ‘bhavaṃ’, ‘bhagavā’, ‘āyasmā’, etc., as in “May the fortunate Gotama consent for me (pārā. 22), it is time for the Fortunate One, that the Fortunate One should establish a training rule for the disciples (pārā. 21), may the venerable one depart (pārā. 436), may the venerable ones listen to me,” and so forth (mahāva. 168). Therefore, here the first-person usage is made. Or, this is said out of respect. For towards those in a position of respect, even when the second-person usage is possible, they use the first-person usage out of respect, as in “May the Fortunate One teach the Dhamma,” and so forth (dī. ni. 2.66; ma. ni. 2.338; mahāva. 8), it should be understood. But some say, “Expecting the words ‘bhante’ and ‘āvuso’, here the first-person usage is made,” that is not beautiful, because even with the usage of those, only the second-person usage is made, as in “Sir, may you be my teacher (mahāva. 77), Come, venerable Upāli, question this one who has gone forth,” and so forth (pārā. 517).
In all kammavācā, the meaning should be understood as follows: Suṇātū: This is the first-person singular imperative used for the act of hearing. Although the Sangha is being addressed for the act of hearing, and one should say “suṇāhī” in the second person, since the first-person imperative is commonly used in the presence of the Sangha, as in “adhivāsetu me bhavaṃ gotamo,” “etassa sugata kālo,” “yaṃ bhagavā sāvakānaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ paññapeyya,” “pakkamatāyasmā,” “suṇantu me āyasmanto,” etc. (Mahāva. 168), here the first-person imperative is used. Alternatively, this is said out of respect. For in matters of respect, even when the second person is appropriate, the first person is used, as in “desetu sugato dhamma,” etc. (Dī. Ni. 2.66; Ma. Ni. 2.338; Mahāva. 8). Some say that the first-person imperative is used here because of the word “bhante āvuso,” but this is not proper, as in “ācariyo me, bhante, hohi,” “iṅghāvuso upāli, imaṃ pabbajitaṃ anuyuñjāhī,” etc. (Pārā. 517), where the second person is used.
ID741
Meti yo sāveti, tassa attaniddese sāmivacanaṃ. Bhanteti ālapanatthe vuḍḍhesu sagāravavacanaṃ, “āvuso”ti padaṃ pana navakesu. Tadubhayampi nipāto “tumhe bhante tumhe āvuso”ti bahūsupi samānarūpattā. Saṅghoti avisesato catuvaggādike pakatattapuggalasamūhe vattati. Idha pana paccantimesu janapadesu pañcavaggato paṭṭhāya, majjhimesu janapadesu dasavaggato paṭṭhāya saṅghoti gahetabbo. Tatrāyaṃ piṇḍattho – bhante, saṅgho mama vacanaṃ suṇātūti. Idañca navakatarena vattabbavacanaṃ. Sace pana anussāvako sabbehi bhikkhūhi vuḍḍhataro hoti, “suṇātu me, āvuso saṅgho”ti vattabbaṃ. Sopi ce “bhante”ti vadeyya, navakataro vā “āvuso”ti, kammakopo natthi. Keci pana “ekattha ’āvuso’ti vatvā aññattha ’bhante’ti vuttepi natthi doso ubhayenapi ālapanassa sijjhanato”ti vadanti.
Me—Dative indicating the speaker himself. Bhante—Vocative expressing respect to elders. Āvuso—A particle used for juniors. Both are indeclinables, having the same form even in the plural, as in “You, venerable sirs; you, friends.” Saṅgho—Generally refers to a group of natural persons, such as a group of four or more. Here, in border regions, it is to be taken as a Sangha from five onward, and in central regions from ten onward. The concise meaning is: “Venerable sirs, may the Sangha listen to my words.” This is to be said by a junior. If the proclaimer is senior to all the bhikkhus, he should say, “Friends, may the Sangha listen to me.” Even if he says “venerable sirs” or a junior says “friends,” there is no fault in the act. Some say, “There is no fault even if ‘friends’ is said in one place and ‘venerable sirs’ in another, as the address is accomplished by both.”
“Me” is the possessive case in self-reference of the one who announces. “Bhante” is a respectful form of address to elders, while the word “āvuso” is for juniors. Both of them are indeclinables, because they have the same form even in the plural, as in “tumhe bhante, tumhe āvuso.” “Saṅgho” generally applies to a group of at least four fully-ordained individuals. But here, it should be taken as the Saṅgha starting from five individuals in border regions, and starting from ten individuals in the central regions. Herein is the summary meaning: Venerable sir, may the Saṅgha listen to my word. And this should be said by the junior-most. But if the announcer is senior to all the bhikkhus, “suṇātu me, āvuso saṅgho” should be said. Even if he says “bhante,” or a junior says “āvuso,” there is no invalidity of the formal act. But some say, “After saying ‘āvuso’ in one place, even if ‘bhante’ is said in another, there is no fault, because the address succeeds with both,” they say.
Me: This is the possessive pronoun used by the one making the announcement. Bhante: This is a respectful form of address used for elders. Āvuso: This is used for juniors. Both are particles, as in “tumhe bhante tumhe āvuso,” etc., because they are similar in form. Saṅgho: This refers generally to the group of four or more individuals. Here, however, in the border regions, it should be understood as starting from a group of five, and in the middle regions, from a group of ten. The meaning here is: “Venerable sir, may the Sangha hear my words.” This is the statement to be made by the novice. If, however, the announcer is older than all the monks, he should say, “May the Sangha hear me, friends.” If he says “bhante” or the novice says “āvuso,” there is no fault in the act. Some say that even if “āvuso” is used in one place and “bhante” in another, there is no fault, as both forms of address are valid.
ID742
Idāni yamatthaṃ ñāpetukāmo “suṇātū”ti saṅghaṃ savane niyojeti, taṃ ñāpento “ayaṃ itthannāmo”tiādimāha. Tattha ayanti upasampadāpekkhassa hatthapāse sannihitabhāvadassanaṃ, tena ca hatthapāse ṭhitasseva upasampadā ruhatīti sijjhati hatthapāsato bahi ṭhitassa “aya”nti na vattabbato. Teneva anusāsakasammutiyaṃ so hatthapāsato bahi ṭhitattā “aya”nti na vutto, tasmā upasampadāpekkho anupasampanno hatthapāse ṭhapetabbo. Ayaṃ itthannāmoti ayaṃ-saddo ca avassaṃ payujjitabbo, so ca imasmiṃ paṭhamanāmapayoge evāti gahetabbaṃ. “Itthannāmo”ti idaṃ aniyamato tassa nāmadassanaṃ, ubhayenapi ayaṃ buddharakkhitotiādināmaṃ dasseti. “Upasampadāpekkho”ti bhinnādhikaraṇavisaye bahubbīhisamāso, upasampadaṃ me saṅgho apekkhamānoti attho. Tassa ca upajjhāyataṃ samaṅgibhāvena dassetuṃ “itthannāmassa āyasmato”ti vuttaṃ. Etena “ayaṃ buddharakkhito āyasmato dhammarakkhitassa saddhivihārikabhūto upasampadāpekkho”ti evamādinā nayena nāmayojanāya saha attho dassito. Ettha ca “āyasmato”ti padaṃ avatvāpi “ayaṃ buddharakkhito dhammarakkhitassa upasampadāpekkho”ti vattuṃ vaṭṭati. Teneva pāḷiyaṃ “itthannāmena upajjhāyenā”ti ettha “āyasmato”ti padaṃ na vuttaṃ. Yañcettha vattabbaṃ, taṃ heṭṭhā vuttameva.
Now, intending to inform of this matter, he engages the Sangha in listening with “suṇātu” and says, “ayaṃ itthannāmo” and so forth. Here, ayaṃ—Indicating the presence of the ordination candidate within arm’s reach, thereby establishing that ordination is valid only for one standing within arm’s reach, since “ayaṃ” is not said for one outside it. Hence, in the agreement of the proclaimer, since he stands outside arm’s reach, “ayaṃ” is not said; thus, the unordained ordination candidate must be placed within arm’s reach. Ayaṃ itthannāmo—The word “ayaṃ” must always be used, and it is to be taken as such in this first use of the name. Itthannāmo—Indicating his name indefinitely, showing it as “This Buddharakkhita” or the like in both ways. Upasampadāpekkho—A compound with separate case relation, meaning “He desires ordination from the Sangha.” To show his possession of a preceptor, it is said, “itthannāmassa āyasmato.” By this, the meaning is shown with the name arrangement, as in “This Buddharakkhita, the co-resident of the venerable Dhammarakkhita, is an ordination candidate.” Here, even without saying “āyasmato,” it is permissible to say, “This Buddharakkhita is the ordination candidate of Dhammarakkhita.” Hence, in the text, in “itthannāmena upajjhāyenā,” the word “āyasmato” is not said. What is to be said here has already been stated below.
Now, intending to make known the matter for which he orders the Saṅgha to listen by “suṇātu,” he says, “This so-and-so” and so forth. Here, “this” is a demonstration of the presence of the ordination candidate within reach, and by that, it is established that only for the one who is standing within reach, higher ordination is valid, because “this” is not to be said of one who is standing outside the reach. Therefore, in the instructing consensus, because he is standing outside the reach, “this” is not said. Therefore, the ordination candidate, who is not ordained, should be placed within reach. “This so-and-so” means that the word ‘this’ must be used, and that it should be in the very first usage of the name. “So-and-so” is the indication of his name non-determinately; with both, he indicates the name, as in “this Buddharakkhita,” and so forth. “Upasampadāpekkho” is a compound of the type bahubbīhi, in the sense of differing cases, meaning one who is expecting higher ordination from the Saṅgha. And to show his being endowed with the preceptor-ship, “of the venerable so-and-so” is said. By this, the meaning is shown together with the arrangement of the name, as in, “This Buddharakkhita, being a disciple of the venerable Dhammarakkhita, is an applicant for higher ordination,” and so forth. And here, even without saying the word “āyasmato,” it is permissible to say, “This Buddharakkhita is an applicant for higher ordination of Dhammarakkhita.” Therefore, in the Pāḷi, “by the preceptor so-and-so,” the word “āyasmato” is not stated. And what should be said here has been stated below.
Now, to indicate the purpose for which he wishes to inform the Sangha by saying “suṇātū,” he says “ayaṃ itthannāmo”, etc. Here, ayaṃ indicates the presence of the candidate for ordination within arm’s reach, and thus it is established that ordination is valid only for one who is within arm’s reach. Therefore, one who is outside arm’s reach should not be referred to as “ayaṃ.” Hence, in the agreement of the instructors, since the candidate is outside arm’s reach, “ayaṃ” is not used, and thus the candidate for ordination, being unordained, should be placed within arm’s reach. Ayaṃ itthannāmo: The word “ayaṃ” must be used, and it should be understood as referring to the first name. “Itthannāmo”: This indicates the name without restriction, and it can refer to any name, such as “ayaṃ buddharakkhito,” etc. “Upasampadāpekkho” is a bahubbīhi compound with a different referent, meaning “the Sangha is seeking ordination for me.” To show that he is qualified to be a preceptor, it is said, “itthannāmassa āyasmato.” This indicates the meaning along with the connection of the name, as in “ayaṃ buddharakkhito āyasmato dhammarakkhitassa saddhivihārikabhūto upasampadāpekkho,” etc. Here, even if the word “āyasmato” is omitted, it is acceptable to say, “ayaṃ buddharakkhito dhammarakkhitassa upasampadāpekkho.” Therefore, in the Pāli text, “itthannāmena upajjhāyenā,” the word “āyasmato” is not used. What needs to be said here has already been explained above.
ID743
Nanu cettha upajjhāyopi upasampadāpekkho viya hatthapāse ṭhito eva icchitabbo, atha kasmā “ayaṃ itthannāmo imassa itthannāmassa upasampadāpekkho”ti evaṃ upajjhāyassa nāmaparāmasanepi idaṃ-saddappayogo na katoti? Nāyaṃ virodho upajjhāyassa abhāvepi kammakopābhāvato. Kevalañhi kammanibbattiyā santapadavasena avijjamānassapi upajjhāyassa nāmakittanaṃ anupajjhāyassa upasampadādīsupi karīyati, tasmā upajjhāyassa asannihitāyapi tapparāmasanamatteneva kammasiddhito “imassā”ti niddisituṃ na vaṭṭatīti.
Now, isn’t it the case here that the preceptor too, like the candidate for ordination, should be desired to be standing within hand’s reach? Then why is the term “this” (idaṃ) not used even when the preceptor’s name is mentioned as “this person named so-and-so is the candidate for ordination of that person named so-and-so”? There is no contradiction here, because there is no impairment of the formal act even in the absence of the preceptor. Indeed, merely for the sake of the formal act’s accomplishment, the naming of the preceptor—who may not even be present—is done, as it is also done in cases like ordination without a preceptor. Therefore, even if the preceptor is not nearby, simply referring to him is sufficient for the formal act’s success, and thus it is not appropriate to specify “of this one” (imassa).
Now, shouldn’t the preceptor here also be desired as standing within arm’s reach, just like the candidate for higher ordination? Then why, when even mentioning the preceptor’s name, such as “This one, named so-and-so, is the candidate for higher ordination of this one, named so-and-so,” is the demonstrative pronoun “this” not used? This is not a contradiction, because even in the absence of the preceptor, there is no disruption of the [validity of the] act. Merely for the sake of generating the act [of ordination], by way of the presence of the statement, even if the preceptor is not present, the mentioning of the name of the absent preceptor is done, even in the higher ordination of one who is not the preceptor. Therefore, even if the preceptor is not present, since the act is accomplished merely by mentioning him, it is not proper to designate him with “of this one.”
Here, should not the preceptor, like one seeking higher ordination, be considered as standing within arm’s reach? Why then is the phrase “this so-named one is seeking higher ordination for this so-named one” not used even when referring to the preceptor by name? There is no contradiction here, for even in the absence of the preceptor, the act is not invalid due to the absence of the preceptor’s presence. For merely by the performance of the act, the naming of the preceptor is done even if the preceptor is not present, as in the case of one without a preceptor in higher ordination and other matters. Therefore, even if the preceptor is not present, merely by referring to him, the act is accomplished, and it is not appropriate to indicate “for this one.”
ID744
Parisuddho antarāyikehi dhammehīti abhabbattādikehi upasampadāya avatthukarehi ceva pañcābādhahatthacchinnādīhi āpattikarehi ca antarāyikasabhāvehi parimutto. Evaṃ vutte eva āpattimattakarehi pañcābādhādīhi aparimuttassapi upasampadā ruhati, nāññathā. Paripuṇṇassa pattacīvaranti paripuṇṇamassa upasampadāpekkhassa pattacīvaraṃ. Evaṃ vutte eva apattacīvarassapi upasampadā ruhati, nāññathā. Upasampadaṃ yācatīti “saṅghaṃ, bhante, upasampadaṃ yācāmī”tiādinā (mahāva. 126) yācāpitabhāvaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Evaṃ tena saṅghe ayācitepi “itthannāmo saṅghaṃ upasampadaṃ yācatī”ti vutte eva kammaṃ avipannaṃ hoti, nāññathā. Upajjhāyenāti upajjhāyena karaṇabhūtena, itthannāmaṃ upajjhāyaṃ katvā kammabhūtaṃ upasampadaṃ dātuṃ nipphādetuṃ kattubhūtaṃ saṅghaṃ yācatīti attho. Yācadhātuno pana dvikammakattā “saṅghaṃ upasampada”nti dve kammapadāni vuttāni.
Parisuddho antarāyikehi dhammehī means free from obstructing factors, such as inability [to ordain] and the like, which render one unfit for ordination, as well as the five diseases, severed hands, and other conditions that lead to offenses. When stated thus, ordination is valid only for one not free from the five diseases and similar conditions that merely cause offenses, and not otherwise. Paripuṇṇassa pattacīvara means the bowl and robes of the candidate for ordination are complete. When stated thus, ordination is valid only for one whose bowl and robes are incomplete, and not otherwise. Upasampadaṃ yācatī means “he requests ordination,” referring to the state of having requested it with words like “Venerables, I request ordination from the Sangha” (mahāva. 126). Thus, even if he does not personally request the Sangha, when it is said, “So-and-so requests ordination from the Sangha,” the formal act remains unimpaired, and not otherwise. Upajjhāyenā means “by the preceptor” as the instrument; it conveys that the Sangha, as the agent, is requested to grant ordination—which is the formal act—by making so-and-so the preceptor. Due to the verb “to request” (yāca) having two objects, the two object phrases “the Sangha” and “ordination” are stated.
Purified of obstructive dhammas, means freed from disqualifying conditions and the like, which render the higher ordination invalid, and from those obstructive states that lead to offenses, such as the five diseases and having severed hands, etc. When this has been said, even if someone is not freed from the five diseases, etc., which only lead to offences, the higher ordination is valid, but not otherwise. Complete with bowl and robe, refers to a candidate who has full requisites and the bowl and robes suitable for him. When it said, even if one is without a bowl or robe, higher ordination is valid, but not otherwise. Asks for higher ordination, means, as stated in the passage “Venerable Sir, I ask the Saṅgha for higher ordination” (mahāva. 126) etc., implying that he has been caused to ask. Even when he has not asked the Saṅgha in this way, as long as it is stated “So-and-so asks the Saṅgha for higher ordination,” the act is unblemished, but not otherwise. By means of a preceptor, means by means of a preceptor as the instrument, asking the Saṅgha, which is the agent, to bestow higher ordination, which is the object of the action, having made so-and-so the preceptor, who is the object. Since the verb ‘to ask’ takes two objects, the two object phrases “the Saṅgha” and “higher ordination” are stated.
Purified of obstructive qualities means freed from qualities that hinder higher ordination, such as incapacity and the like, which prevent ordination, as well as from qualities that are obstructive by nature, such as being guilty of offenses like having a severed hand, etc. Even if one is not free from minor offenses like the five hindrances, higher ordination is still valid, not otherwise. Having a complete set of robes and bowl means the robes and bowl of one seeking higher ordination are complete. Even if one does not have robes and a bowl, higher ordination is still valid, not otherwise. Requesting higher ordination refers to the state of having requested, as in “Venerable ones, I request the Sangha for higher ordination” (Mahāvagga 126). Even if the Sangha has not been formally requested, if it is said, “So-and-so requests the Sangha for higher ordination,” the act is still valid, not otherwise. By the preceptor means by the preceptor who is the agent of the act, having appointed so-and-so as the preceptor, the Sangha, being the agent, requests to grant or accomplish the act of higher ordination. Since the verb “to request” has two objects, the two phrases “the Sangha” and “higher ordination” are used.
ID745
Yadi saṅghassa pattakallanti ettha patto kālo imassa kammassāti pattakālaṃ, apalokanādicatubbidhaṃ saṅghagaṇakammaṃ, tadeva sakatthe ya-paccayena “pattakalla”nti vuccati. Idha pana ñatticatutthaupasampadākammaṃ adhippetaṃ, taṃ kātuṃ saṅghassa pattakallaṃ jātaṃ. Yadīti anumatigahaṇavasena kammassa pattakallataṃ ñāpeti, yo hi koci tattha apattakallataṃ maññissati, so vakkhati. Imameva hi atthaṃ sandhāya anussāvanāsu “yassāyasmato khamati…pe… so bhāseyyā”ti (mahāva. 127) vuttaṃ. Tadetaṃ pattakallaṃ vatthusampadā, antarāyikehi dhammehi cassa parisuddhatā, sīmāsampadā, parisāsampadā, pubbakiccaniṭṭhānanti imehi pañcahi aṅgehi saṅgahitaṃ.
Yadi saṅghassa pattakalla means here that the time is suitable for this formal act, hence “suitable time” (pattakāla); the fourfold formal acts of the Sangha or group, such as announcement, are called pattakalla with the suffix “ya” in its own sense. However, here the intended meaning is the ordination formal act with the fourth motion, and the Sangha has reached a suitable time to perform it. Yadi indicates the suitability of the formal act by implying consent, for whoever deems it unsuitable will speak up. Indeed, this very meaning is intended when it is said in the proclamations, “Let whoever it pleases … speak” (mahāva. 127). This suitability comprises five factors: the suitability of the candidate, his purity from obstructing factors, the suitability of the boundary, the suitability of the assembly, and the completion of preliminary duties.
If it is timely for the Saṅgha, here, “pattakālaṃ” means the time is suitable for this act. The Saṅgha’s act, which is of four types, starting with apalokana (announcement), is called “pattakalla” by adding the suffix “ya” to the word in its own sense. But here, the higher ordination act with a fourth-motion resolution is meant. It has become timely for the Saṅgha to perform it. Yadī indicates the timeliness of the act by way of gaining consent, for whoever considers it untimely there will speak. It is with reference to this very meaning that in the announcements it is said, “Whichever venerable one approves… let him speak” (mahāva. 127). This timeliness is encompassed by five factors: completeness of the object, his purity from obstructive dhammas, completeness of the boundary, completeness of the assembly, and the accomplishment of preliminary duties.
If it is the right time for the Sangha means that the time is suitable for this act, and the Sangha is ready to perform it. The fourfold Sangha act, including the announcement, etc., is called “the right time” when it is suitable for the purpose. Here, however, the act of higher ordination with the fourth announcement is intended, and it is the right time for the Sangha to perform it. If indicates that the suitability of the act is understood through the acceptance of consent, for whoever thinks it is not the right time will speak. This is the meaning behind the phrase in the announcements, “If it is acceptable to the Venerable One… he should speak” (Mahāvagga 127). This suitability is comprised of five factors: the suitability of the basis, purity from obstructive qualities, the suitability of the boundary, the suitability of the assembly, and the completion of preliminary duties.
ID746
Tattha vatthusampadā nāma yathāvuttehi ekādasaabhabbapuggalehi ceva antimavatthuajjhāpannehi ca añño paripuṇṇavīsativasso anupasampannabhūto manussapuriso. Etasmiñhi puggale sati eva idaṃ saṅghassa upasampadākammaṃ pattakallaṃ nāma hoti, nāsati, katañca kuppameva hoti.
Among these, vatthusampadā means a human male, at least twenty years old, not ordained, and distinct from the eleven types of incompetent persons and those who have committed the final offense as previously mentioned. Only when such a person is present does this ordination formal act of the Sangha become suitable (pattakalla); otherwise, it does not, and if performed, it is invalid.
Here, completeness of the object means a man, not ordained, who is twenty years of age or older, and is not one of the eleven disqualified individuals, nor one who has committed a grave offence, as previously mentioned. Only when such a person exists does this act of higher ordination of the Saṅgha become timely, not otherwise; and if done [without it], it is invalid.
Here, the suitability of the basis refers to a human male who has not yet received higher ordination, who is fully twenty years old, and who is not among the eleven types of incapable persons or those who have been ordained in the final stage of life. For when such a person is present, the Sangha’s act of higher ordination is suitable; if not, it is invalid, and even if performed, it is defective.
ID747
Antarāyikehi dhammehi cassa parisuddhatā nāma yathāvuttasseva upasampadāvatthubhūtassa puggalassa ye ime bhagavatā paṭikkhittā pañcābādhaphuṭṭhatādayo mātāpitūhi ananuññātatāpaayosānā ceva hatthacchinnādayo ca dosadhammā kārakasaṅghassa āpattādiantarāyahetutāya “antarāyikā”ti vuccanti, tehi antarāyikehi dosadhammehi parimuttatā, imissā ca sati eva idaṃ kammaṃ pattakallaṃ nāma hoti, nāsati, kataṃ pana kammaṃ sukatameva hoti ṭhapetvā ūnavīsativassaṃ puggalaṃ.
Antarāyikehi dhammehi cassa parisuddhatā means the purity of that very person who is the candidate for ordination from obstructing factors—such as the five diseases, lack of parental consent, and severed hands—which the Blessed One prohibited. These flawed states are called “obstructing” (antarāyika) because they cause impediments like offenses for the performing Sangha. Freedom from these obstructing flawed states is meant here, and only when this is present does the formal act become suitable (pattakalla); otherwise, it does not, and if performed, it is well-done except in the case of a person under twenty years old.
His purity from obstructive dhammas refers to that very person, who is the object of the higher ordination, being free from those blameworthy dhammas which are obstructive, such as being afflicted by the five diseases forbidden by the Blessed One, not being permitted by parents, and ending in debt, and having severed hands, etc. which are called “obstructive” because they are the cause of offenses and other obstructions for the Saṅgha performing the act. When the purity from obstructive dhammas is present, only then is the act timely, not otherwise. If performed [when he is not purified], that action is properly done, with the exception for a person of less than twenty years.
Purity from obstructive qualities means that the person who is the basis for higher ordination is free from those qualities that the Blessed One has prohibited, such as being afflicted with the five hindrances, not having the consent of parents, being of a harmful nature, or having severed hands, etc., which are called “obstructive” because they cause obstacles for the Sangha in terms of offenses, etc. When such obstructive qualities are absent, the act is suitable; if not, it is invalid, and even if performed, it is defective, except in the case of one who is under twenty years old.
ID748
Sīmāsampadā pana uposathakkhandhake (mahāva. 138 ādayo) vakkhamānanayena sabbadosarahitāya baddhābaddhavaseneva duvidhāya sīmāya vasena veditabbā. Tādisāya hi sīmāya sati eva idaṃ kammaṃ pattakallaṃ nāma hoti, nāsati, katañca kammaṃ vipajjati.
Sīmāsampadā, however, should be understood as per the method to be explained in the Uposatha section (mahāva. 138 onwards), referring to a boundary free from all faults, whether fixed or unfixed, in two forms. Only when such a boundary is present does this formal act become suitable (pattakalla); otherwise, it does not, and if performed, the formal act fails.
Completeness of the boundary, however, is to be understood with reference to the two types of boundaries, bounded and unbounded, free from all faults, in accordance with the method to be explained in the chapter on Uposatha (mahāva. 138 ff.). Only when such a boundary exists does this act become timely, not otherwise; and if the act is done [in an invalid boundary], it fails.
The suitability of the boundary should be understood as explained in the Uposatha section (Mahāvagga 138, etc.), where the boundary is of two kinds: bound and unbound, free from all faults. When such a boundary is present, the act is suitable; if not, it is invalid, and even if performed, it is defective.
ID749
Parisāsampadā pana ye ime upasampadākammassa sabbantimena paricchedena kammappattā dasahi vā pañcahi vā anūnāpārājikaṃ anāpannā anukkhittā ca samānasaṃvāsakā bhikkhū, tesaṃ ekasīmāya hatthapāsaṃ avijahitvā ṭhānaṃ, chandārahānañca chandassa ānayanaṃ, sammukhībhūtānañca appaṭikosanaṃ, upasampadāpekkharahitānaṃ uposathakkhandhake paṭikkhittānaṃ gahaṭṭhādianupasampannānañceva pārājikukkhittakanānāsaṃvāsakabhikkhunīnañca vajjanīyapuggalānaṃ saṅghassa hatthapāse abhāvo cāti imehi catūhi aṅgehi saṅgahitā. Evarūpāya ca parisāsampadāya sati eva idaṃ pattakallaṃ nāma hoti, nāsati. Tattha purimānaṃ tiṇṇaṃ aṅgānaṃ aññatarassapi abhāve kataṃ kammaṃ vipajjati, na pacchimassa.
Parisāsampadā refers to the monks—numbering at least ten or five as the minimum for the formal act—who have not committed a pārājika offense, are not suspended, and belong to the same communion. It involves their standing within hand’s reach in the same boundary without leaving, bringing the consent of those absent, the non-objection of those present, and the absence from the Sangha’s hand’s reach of householders and other unordained persons prohibited in the Uposatha section, as well as those expelled for pārājika offenses, suspension, or differing communion, and nuns—all of whom are persons to be avoided. These four factors constitute it. Only when such an assembly is complete does this become suitable (pattakalla); otherwise, it does not. If any of the first three factors is absent, the performed formal act fails, but not if the last is absent.
Completeness of the assembly, however, encompasses four factors: the presence, within arm’s reach and within the same boundary, of at least ten or five bhikkhus who are qualified to participate in the act, who have not committed an offense requiring expulsion, who have not been suspended, and who are of the same affiliation; the bringing of the consent of those who are entitled to give their consent; the non-objection of those who are present; and the absence, within arm’s reach of the Saṅgha, of those who are to be excluded from the higher ordination candidate, namely, householders and other unordained persons, and bhikkhus who have committed a pārājika offence, been expelled, or are of a different affiliation, along with bhikkhunīs. Only when such completeness of the assembly exists does this act become timely, not otherwise. Among these, if any of the first three factors is absent, the act that is performed fails; but not if the last is absent.
The suitability of the assembly refers to those bhikkhus who are qualified to participate in the act of higher ordination, being within the same boundary and within arm’s reach, not having abandoned their place, being worthy of consent, having brought their consent, being present without objection, and not being among those prohibited in the Uposatha section, such as laypeople, those not seeking higher ordination, or bhikkhunīs who have been expelled for a pārājika offense and are of different communities. The absence of such persons within the Sangha’s arm’s reach is also a factor. When such an assembly is present, the act is suitable; if not, it is invalid. If any of the first three factors are missing, the act is defective, but not if the last factor is missing.
ID750
Pubbakiccaniṭṭhānaṃ nāma yānimāni “paṭhamaṃ upajjhaṃ gāhāpetabbo”tiādinā pāḷiyaṃ (mahāva. 126) vuttāni “upajjhāgāhāpanaṃ, pattacīvarācikkhaṇaṃ, tato taṃ hatthapāsato bahi pesetvā anusāsakasammutikammakaraṇaṃ, sammatena ca gantvā anusāsanaṃ, tena ca paṭhamataraṃ āgantvā saṅghassa ñattiṃ ñāpetvā upasampadāpekkhaṃ ’āgacchāhī’ti hatthapāse eva abbhānaṃ, tena bhikkhūnaṃ pāde vandāpetvā upasampadāyācāpanaṃ, tato antarāyikadhammapucchakasammutikammakaraṇaṃ, sammatena ca pucchana”nti imāni aṭṭha pubbakiccāni, tesaṃ sabbesaṃ yāthāvato karaṇena niṭṭhānaṃ. Etasmiñca pubbakiccaniṭṭhāpane sati eva idaṃ saṅghassa upasampadākammaṃ pattakallaṃ nāma hoti, nāsati. Etesu pana pubbakammesu akatesupi kataṃ kammaṃ yathāvuttesu vatthusampattiādīsu vijjamānesu akuppameva hoti. Tadevamettha pattakallaṃ imehi pañcahi aṅgehi saṅgahitanti veditabbaṃ. Imināva nayena heṭṭhā vuttesu, vakkhamānesu ca sabbesu kammesu pattakallatā yathārahaṃ yojetvā ñātabbā.
Pubbakiccaniṭṭhānaṃ refers to the completion of the eight preliminary duties stated in the text (mahāva. 126) as “First, a preceptor must be appointed” and so forth: appointing a preceptor, informing about the bowl and robes, sending him outside hand’s reach and performing the formal act of appointing an instructor, the appointed one going and instructing, him returning first and informing the Sangha of the motion, calling the candidate for ordination into hand’s reach, having him pay respects to the monks’ feet and request ordination, then performing the formal act of appointing one to question about obstructing factors, and the appointed one questioning. It is the proper execution of all these. Only when these preliminary duties are completed does this ordination formal act of the Sangha become suitable (pattakalla); otherwise, it does not. Even if some preliminary duties are not performed, the formal act remains valid if the suitability of the candidate and the other factors mentioned are present. Thus, suitability here should be understood as comprising these five factors. The suitability in all formal acts mentioned earlier or to be mentioned later should be understood by applying this method as appropriate.
Accomplishment of preliminary duties refers to the eight preliminary duties mentioned in the Pāḷi (mahāva. 126), starting with “First, a preceptor should be chosen,” namely: choosing a preceptor, reciting the bowl and robes, then sending him outside arm’s reach, appointing an instructor, going with the appointed one and giving instruction, his coming first and informing the Saṅgha of the resolution, calling the candidate for higher ordination with ‘Come here!’ into arm’s reach, making him pay respects to the feet of the bhikkhus, causing him to ask for higher ordination, then appointing someone to question him on the obstructive dhammas, and questioning by the appointed one. The accomplishment [of these duties] means performing all of them properly. Only when these preliminary duties are accomplished does this act of higher ordination of the Saṅgha become timely, not otherwise. However, even if these preliminary duties are not performed, the act that is performed is still valid if the completeness of the object, etc., as previously mentioned, are present. Thus, the timeliness in this context should be understood as encompassed by these five factors. By this very method, the timeliness of all the acts mentioned above and to be mentioned below should be understood by applying it appropriately.
The completion of preliminary duties refers to the eight preliminary duties mentioned in the text (Mahāvagga 126): appointing a preceptor, showing the robes and bowl, sending the candidate outside arm’s reach, performing the act of appointing an instructor, going to instruct, returning first to inform the Sangha, bringing the candidate back within arm’s reach, having the candidate pay respect to the bhikkhus’ feet, requesting higher ordination, performing the act of appointing an examiner, and the examiner questioning. The completion of all these duties in the proper manner is required. When these preliminary duties are completed, the Sangha’s act of higher ordination is suitable; if not, it is invalid. Even if some preliminary duties are not performed, the act is still valid if the suitability of the basis, etc., is present. Thus, the suitability of the act is understood to be comprised of these five factors. In this way, the suitability of all acts mentioned above and below should be understood accordingly.
ID751
Itthannāmaṃ upasampādeyyāti upasampadānipphādanena taṃsamaṅgiṃ kareyya karotūti patthanāyaṃ, vidhimhi vā idaṃ daṭṭhabbaṃ. Yathā hi “devadattaṃ sukhāpeyyā”ti vutte sukhamassa nipphādetvā taṃ sukhasamaṅginaṃ kareyyāti attho hoti, evamidhāpi upasampadamassa nipphādetvā taṃ upasampadāsamaṅginaṃ kareyyāti attho. Payojakabyāpāre cetaṃ. Yathā sukhayantaṃ kiñci suddhakattāraṃ koci hetukattā sukhahetunipphādanena sukhāpeyyāti vuccati, evamidhāpi upasampajjantaṃ suddhakattāraṃ puggalaṃ hetukattubhūto saṅgho upasampadāhetunipphādanena upasampādeyyāti vutto. Etena ca sukhaṃ viya sukhadāyakena saṅghena puggalassa dīyamānā tathāpavattaparamatthadhamme upādāya ariyajanapaññattā upasampadā nāma sammutisaccatā atthīti samatthitaṃ hoti. Ettha ca “itthannāmo saṅghaṃ upasampadaṃ yācatī”ti (mahāva. 127) vuttattā parivāsādīsu viya yācanānuguṇaṃ “itthannāmassa upasampadaṃ dadeyyā”ti avatvā “itthannāmaṃ upasampādeyyā”ti vuttattā idaṃ upasampadākammaṃ dāne asaṅgahetvā kammalakkhaṇe eva saṅgahitanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Iminā nayena “itthannāmaṃ upasampādeti, upasampanno saṅghenā”ti etthāpi attho veditabbo. Kevalañhi tattha vattamānakālaatītakālavasena, idha pana anāmaṭṭhakālavasenāti ettakameva viseso.
Itthannāmaṃ upasampādeyyā means “May he ordain so-and-so,” expressing a wish or injunction that he should accomplish ordination and make him possessed of it. Just as “May he make Devadatta happy” means accomplishing happiness for him and making him possessed of happiness, here too it means accomplishing ordination for him and making him possessed of ordination. This pertains to the action of the instigator. Just as one who merely causes happiness is said to “make happy” by producing the cause of happiness, here too the Sangha, as the instigator, is said to “ordain so-and-so” by producing the cause of ordination for the person who merely undergoes it. This establishes that ordination, like happiness, is conventionally designated by noble ones based on the ultimate reality occurring through the Sangha, which grants it as the cause. Since it is said, “So-and-so requests ordination from the Sangha” (mahāva. 127), unlike in cases like probation where it follows the request as “May he grant ordination to so-and-so,” here it is said “May he ordain so-and-so,” indicating that this ordination formal act is included not in giving but in the characteristic of a formal act. By this method, the meaning of “He ordains so-and-so” and “He is ordained by the Sangha” should also be understood, with the only difference being that there it is in the present or past tense, while here it is in the indefinite tense.
He should ordain So-and-so, means he should make him endowed with the attainment of higher ordination, or let him do so, this must be understood as an expression of the wish or as the injunction. Just as when it is said, “He should make Devadatta happy,” the meaning is that he should produce happiness for him and make him endowed with happiness, so too here, the meaning is that he should produce higher ordination for him and make him endowed with higher ordination. This is in the context of the activity of the causer. Just as someone, causing something or someone to be happy, is said to “make happy” by producing the cause of happiness, similarly, the Saṅgha, being the causer, is said to “ordain” a person who is undertaking the activity leading to becoming ordained, by producing the cause of higher ordination. And by this, it is confirmed that just like happiness, higher ordination, given to a person by the Saṅgha who bestows it, is a conventionally true thing (sammutisacca), existing because of the designation of the noble ones (ariyajanapaññattā), based on the ultimate dhammas (paramatthadhamme) that occur in that way. And here, because it is said “So-and-so asks the Saṅgha for higher ordination” (mahāva. 127), and because, unlike in the cases of probation, etc., the statement is not “He should give higher ordination to so-and-so,” conforming to the asking, but “He should ordain so-and-so,” this act of higher ordination should be understood as included in the category of action (kammalakkhaṇe), not included in the category of giving. By the same reasoning, the meaning should also be understood in the phrases “He ordains so-and-so” and “So-and-so has been ordained by the Saṅgha.” The only difference is that there it is with reference to the present and past tense, while here it is with reference to the timeless.
May so-and-so be ordained means that through the accomplishment of higher ordination, he should be made one who has attained it. This is to be understood as a wish or as a rule. Just as when it is said, “May Devadatta be happy,” it means that happiness should be produced for him, making him one who is happy, so here too, higher ordination should be produced for him, making him one who has attained it. This is the function of the agent. Just as one who causes happiness is called a “happiness-maker,” so here the Sangha, being the agent, is said to “ordain” the person who is the pure agent of the act, through the production of the cause of higher ordination. Thus, just as happiness is given by the Sangha to the person, so too, higher ordination, being a conventional truth established by the noble ones, is given. Here, since it is said, “So-and-so requests the Sangha for higher ordination” (Mahāvagga 127), and since, as in probation, the phrase “may the Sangha give higher ordination to so-and-so” is not used, but rather “may so-and-so be ordained,” it should be understood that this act of higher ordination is included in the characteristic of the act, not in giving. In this way, the meaning of “the Sangha ordains so-and-so, so-and-so is ordained by the Sangha” should also be understood. The only difference here is that in the former case, it is based on the time of the act, while here it is based on the time of naming.
ID752
Esā ñattīti “saṅgho ñāpetabbo”ti vuttañāpanā esā. Idañca anussāvanānampi sabbhāvasūcanatthaṃ vuccati. Avassañcetaṃ vattabbameva. Ñattikamme eva taṃ na vattabbaṃ. Tattha pana yya-kāre vuttamatte eva ñattikammaṃ niṭṭhitaṃ hotīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Khamatīti ruccati. Upasampadāti saṅghena dīyamānā nipphādiyamānā upasampadā, yassa khamati, so tuṇhassāti yojanā. Tuṇhīti ca akathanatthe nipāto, akathanako assa bhaveyyāti attho. Khamati saṅghassa itthannāmassa upasampadāti pakatena sambandho. Tattha kāraṇamāha “tasmā tuṇhī”ti. Tattha “āsī”ti seso. Yasmā “yassa nakkhamati, so bhāseyyā”ti tikkhattuṃ vuccamānopi saṅgho tuṇhī niravo ahosi, tasmā khamati saṅghassāti attho. Evanti iminā pakārena. Tuṇhībhāvenevetaṃ saṅghassa ruccanabhāvaṃ dhārayāmi, bujjhāmi jānāmīti attho. Iti-saddo parisamāpanatthe kato, so ca kammavācāya anaṅgaṃ, tasmā anussāvakena “dhārayāmī”ti ettha mi-kārapariyosānameva vatvā niṭṭhapetabbaṃ, iti-saddo na payujjitabboti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Iminā nayena sabbakammavācānamattho veditabbo.
This is the motion means “the Sangha should be informed”—this is the informing that was mentioned. This is also said to indicate the presence of all, even those not making the announcement. And this must certainly be stated. However, in the act of the motion, it should not be stated. There, it should be understood that the act of the motion is completed as soon as the “yya” syllable is uttered. Khamati means it is agreeable. Upasampadā refers to the full ordination given and accomplished by the Sangha; the connection is: “to whom it is agreeable, let him remain silent.” Tuṇhī is a particle meaning silence, and the sense is “let him be one who does not speak.” “It is agreeable to the Sangha for so-and-so’s full ordination” is the natural connection. The reason is stated as “therefore silent”. Here, “was” is implied as the remainder. Since the Sangha remained silent and without sound even when it was said three times, “Let him speak if it is not agreeable to him,” therefore it is agreeable to the Sangha—this is the meaning. Evaṃ means “in this manner.” “By this silence, I understand, perceive, and know that this is the Sangha’s state of agreement” is the meaning. The word iti is used to conclude, and it is not an essential part of the formal declaration; thus, the announcer should conclude by saying only “dhārayāmi” with the “mi” ending, and the word “iti” should not be used—this should be understood. By this method, the meaning of all formal declarations should be understood.
This is the resolution, this is the informing which was stated as “The Sangha should be informed”. This is said for indicating that the announcements are also included. It needs to be necessarily said. It should not be said only in a ñattikamma (motion-only act). In that case, it is important to note that just by finishing the word ending in yya, the motion act will be concluded. Approves, means is pleased with. Higher ordination, means the higher ordination that is being given, being brought about by the Saṅgha. The sentence should be construed as: “Whoever approves of it, let him be silent.” Silent, is a particle meaning ‘not speaking,’ and the meaning is let him be not speaking. The connection is with the main clause: “The higher ordination of so-and-so is approved by the Sangha”. As to the reason for that, he states: Therefore silent. “Āsī” is the missing word. The meaning is: Since the Sangha, even though it is said three times “Whoever does not approve, let him speak”, is silent, it is soundless, thus it is approved by the Sangha. Thus, means in this way. The meaning is, I understand, I comprehend, I know that by this, the Sangha’s silence, the Sangha is approving. Iti,-word is used for completion, and that it is not part of the formal words of the act, therefore, the announcer must say, ending with mi-, so the word “dhārayāmi” will be completed. it should be understood that the iti-word is not to be used. The meaning of all the formal words of acts (kammavācā) should be understood in this manner.
This is the motion means “the Sangha should be informed.” This is said to inform all present. This must certainly be said. It is not to be said in the act of motion. Here, the act of motion is completed as soon as the verb is uttered. It is acceptable means it is agreeable. Higher ordination means the higher ordination given by the Sangha, which is being accomplished. Whoever agrees should remain silent. Silent is a particle meaning not speaking; one who does not speak should be is the meaning. The connection is naturally with “the Sangha agrees to the higher ordination of so-and-so.” The reason is stated: “Therefore, silent.” Here, “āsī” is implied. Since “whoever does not agree should speak” is said three times, and the Sangha remains silent and without objection, therefore it is agreeable to the Sangha. Thus means in this manner. By remaining silent, I hold, understand, and know that the Sangha is agreeable. The word “iti” is used to conclude, but it is not part of the act formula. Therefore, the announcer should conclude by saying “I hold,” without using the word “iti.” In this way, the meaning of all act formulas should be understood.
ID753
Ekaporisā vātiādi sattānaṃ sarīrachāyaṃ pādehi minitvā jānanappakāradassanaṃ. Chasattapadaparimitā hi chāyā “porisā”ti vuccati, idañca utuppamāṇācikkhaṇādi ca āgantukehi saddhiṃ vīmaṃsitvā vuḍḍhanavabhāvaṃ ñatvā vandanavandāpanādikaraṇatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Eti āgacchati, gacchati cāti utu, sova pamīyate anena saṃvaccharanti pamāṇanti āha “utuyeva utuppamāṇa”nti. Aparipuṇṇāti upasampadādivasena aparipuṇṇā. Yadi utuvemajjhe upasampādito, tadā tasmiṃ utumhi avasiṭṭhadivasācikkhaṇaṃ divasabhāgācikkhaṇanti dasseti. Tenāha “yattakehi divasehi yassa yo utu aparipuṇṇo, te divase”ti. Tattha yassa taṅkhaṇaṃ laddhūpasampadassa puggalassa sambandhī yo utu yattakehi divasehi aparipuṇṇo, te divaseti yojanā.
Ekaporisā vā and so forth refers to showing the method of knowing by measuring the shadow of seven people with their feet. A shadow limited to six or seven units is called porisā, and this, along with indicating the measure of the season, is stated for the purpose of determining seniority and juniority by examining it together with newcomers, and for performing actions like salutation and causing salutation. “It comes, it goes” is utu (season), and it is measured by this as a year—this is called pamāṇa (measure); thus, it is said “utuyeva utuppamāṇa” (season is indeed the measure of the season). Aparipuṇṇā means incomplete in terms of full ordination and so forth. If one is fully ordained in the middle of a season, it indicates the declaration of the remaining days in that season or the portion of days—this is shown. Hence it is said, “those days by which someone’s season is incomplete”. The connection is: “For a person who has just received full ordination at that moment, the season related to him, which is incomplete by so many days—those days.”
One person or, etc., is showing how to determine the type of knowing by measuring with feet the body shadow of people. A shadow of six or seven feet is called “porisā” (a man’s height). This explanation of the measure of the season, etc., is said for the purpose of investigating with newcomers, understanding the status of senior and junior, and performing acts of respect and receiving respect, etc. “Eti” means comes, and “gacchati” means goes, which is “utu” (season). It is measured (pamīyate) by the year (saṃvaccharanti), thus measure (pamāṇanti), he said Season itself is the measure of season. Incomplete, means incomplete with regard to higher ordination, etc. If one is ordained in the middle of a season, then it shows the reciting of the remaining days in that season and the reciting of the parts of the day. Therefore, he says “By how many days a particular season is incomplete for someone, those days”. In that context, for the person, relating to the one who has immediately received his higher ordination (taṅkhaṇaṃ laddhūpasampadassa), the season, by how many days it is incomplete, those days are connected.
One porisa or etc., refers to the measurement of the shadow of beings’ bodies by the feet, knowing the manner of seeing. A shadow measuring six and a half feet is called a “porisa,” and this, along with the indication of the season, etc., is to be examined together with newcomers, knowing the elder and junior status, for the purpose of paying respect, etc. Season means the time that comes and goes, and it is measured by the year, hence it is called “the measure of the season.” Incomplete means incomplete in terms of higher ordination, etc. If one is ordained in the middle of a season, then the remaining days of that season are to be indicated, as well as the parts of the day. Hence it is said, “by how many days the season is incomplete for whom, those days.” Here, for the person who has just received higher ordination, the season related to him, by how many days it is incomplete, those days are to be connected.
ID754
Chāyādikameva sabbaṃ saṅgahetvā gāyitabbato kathetabbato saṅgītīti āha “idamevā”tiādi. Tattha ekato katvā ācikkhitabbaṃ. Tvaṃ kiṃ labhasīti tvaṃ upasampādanakāle kataravassaṃ, katarautuñca labhasi, katarasmiṃ te upasampadā laddhāti attho. Vassanti vassānautu, idañca saṃvaccharācikkhaṇaṃ vinā vuttampi na viññāyatīti iminā utuācikkhaṇeneva sāsanavassesu vā kaliyugavassādīsu vā sahassime vā satime vā asukautuṃ labhāmīti dassitanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Chāyāti idaṃ pāḷiyaṃ āgatapaṭipāṭiṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, vattabbakammato pana kaliyugavassādīsu sabbadesapasiddhesu asukavasse asukautumhi asukamāse asukakaṇhe vā sukke vā pakkhe asuke tithivāravisesayutte pubbaṇhādidivasabhāge ettake chāyāpamāṇe, nāḍikāpamāṇe vā mayā upasampadā laddhāti vadeyyāsīti evaṃ ācikkhitabbaṃ. Idaṃ suṭṭhu uggahetvā āgantukehi vuḍḍhapaṭipāṭiṃ ñatvā paṭipajjāhīti vattabbaṃ. Iti ettako kathāmaggo vimativinodaniyaṃ āgato. Vajirabuddhiṭīkānayo pana ekacco idheva saṅgahaṃ gato, ekacco asanniṭṭhānavinicchayattā saṃsayahetuko hoti, tasmā idha na gahitoti.
Since all this, including the shadow, is to be collectively recited or spoken, it is called saṅgīti; thus, it says “idameva” and so forth. There, it should be declared collectively. “What do you obtain?” means “At the time of your full ordination, which year and which season do you obtain, and in which was your full ordination received?”—this is the meaning. Vassa means the rainy season, and even when stated without specifying the year, it is not understood; thus, by this declaration of the season alone, it is shown that “in the years of the dispensation, or in the Kaliyuga years and so forth, in such-and-such a thousand or hundred, I obtained such-and-such a season”—this should be understood. Chāyā is stated with reference to the sequence found in the text, but in terms of what should be said, when all regions are established in the Kaliyuga years and so forth, one should say, “In such-and-such a year, in such-and-such a season, in such-and-such a month, in the dark or bright fortnight, on such-and-such a specific lunar day and weekday, in the forenoon or another part of the day, with such-and-such a measure of shadow or measure of time, I received full ordination”—thus it should be declared. Having well grasped this, one should determine the order of seniority with newcomers and act accordingly—this should be said. Thus, this path of discussion is found in the Vimativinodanī. However, some methods of the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā are included here, while others, being causes of doubt due to inconclusive determination, are not included here.
Because all of it, such as the shadow, should be gathered together and recited, he says “This very thing” etc. In this context, it should be recited together. What do you obtain?, it means: At the time of your higher ordination, which year, and which season do you obtain, in which [time] did you obtain your higher ordination? Year, the rainy season, this even if stated without the explanation of the year it is not understood, that’s why, together with the explanation of seasons, in Buddhist Era years or Kaliyuga Years and so on, one thousandth or one hundredth, I obtain in this kind of season, he must explain. Shadow, is spoken of regarding the order found in the Pāḷi text. But based on the necessary actions in the Kaliyuga years, etc., well known in all regions, in such and such a year, in such and such a season, in such and such a month, in such and such a dark or bright fortnight, on such and such a day with particular lunar days and weekdays, in the forenoon or other parts of the day, with a shadow measurement of so much, or a measurement of so many nāḍikā (a measure of time), I received higher ordination, thus you should speak. You should learn this well, and you should understand the order of seniority with newcomers, and practice accordingly. Thus far is the line of discussion that has come in the Vimativinodanī. But the method of the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā is partly included here, and partly uncertain because of the lack of conclusive decisions, so it is not included here.
Everything, including the shadow, etc., should be included and sung or spoken, hence it is called “this very” etc. Here, it should be indicated together. “What do you gain?” means at the time of ordination, which year and which season do you gain, in which season did you receive ordination? Year means the rainy season, and this is the indication of the year, which is not understood without the indication of the season. Thus, by indicating the season, it is shown that in the dispensation, in the Kali age, etc., or in the thousandth or hundredth year, I gain such and such a season. Shadow refers to what is said in the text according to the tradition, but in terms of the act to be performed, in the Kali age, etc., in all regions, in such and such a year, in such and such a season, in such and such a month, in the dark or bright fortnight, on such and such a day, in the morning, etc., at such and such a measure of shadow, or at such and such a measure of time, I received ordination. This should be well understood and indicated to newcomers, knowing the elder and junior status, and they should be advised to act accordingly. Thus, this much of the discussion has come to dispel doubt. The method of Vajirabuddhi’s commentary, however, is partly summarized here, and partly left unresolved due to uncertainty, hence it is not included here.
ID755
Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is an exposition of the Vinaya compilation
Thus in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinaya summary,
ID756
Upasampadāvinicchayakathālaṅkāro.
The exposition on the determination of full ordination.
The chapter on the Determination of Higher Ordination is adorned.
the section on the discussion of higher ordination is concluded.
ID757
ID758
151. Evaṃ upasampadāvinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni nissayavinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ “nissayoti ettha panā”tiādimāha. Tattha nissayanaṃ nissayo, sevanaṃ bhajanantyattho. Nipubbasi sevāyanti dhātu bhāvasādhano, na “nissāya naṃ vasatīti nissayo”ti idha viya avuttakammasādhano. Tattha hi sevitabbo puggalo labbhati, idha pana sevanakiriyāti. Idāni taṃ nissayaṃ pucchāpubbaṅgamāya vissajjanāya vitthārato ṭhapetuṃ “kena dātabbo”tiādimāha. Tattha kena dātabbo, kena na dātabboti nissayadāyakaṃ kattāraṃ pucchati, kassa dātabbo, kassa na dātabboti nissayapaṭiggāhakaṃ sampadānaṃ, kathaṃ gahito hoti, kathaṃ paṭippassambhatīti kāraṇaṃ, nissāya kena vasitabbaṃ, kena na vasitabbanti nissayapaṭipannakaṃ. Tato pucchānukkamena vissajjetuṃ “tattha”tyādimāha. Na kevalaṃ ettheva, atha kho nissayamuccanaṅgepi “byattenā”ti āgato.
151. Having thus explained the determination of full ordination, now to explain the determination of dependence, it begins with “nissayoti ettha pana” and so forth. There, nissaya means dependence, with the sense of association or resorting to. The root “si” with the prefix “ni” means serving, and it is an action noun, not an agent noun as in “he lives depending on him, thus dependence,” where an unstated object is implied. For there, a person to be served is obtained, but here it is the act of serving. Now, to set forth this dependence in detail with questions followed by answers, it begins with “kena dātabbo” and so forth. There, “by whom should it be given, by whom should it not be given” asks about the giver of dependence as the agent; “to whom should it be given, to whom should it not be given” asks about the recipient of dependence as the object; “how is it taken, how is it relinquished” asks about the reason; “depending on what should one live, on what should one not live” asks about the one practicing dependence. Then, to answer in the order of the questions, it begins with “tattha” and so forth. Not only here, but also in the factors of release from dependence, “by a learned one” is mentioned.
151. Having thus explained the determination of higher ordination, now, in order to explain the determination of dependence, he says “Here, regarding dependence…” and so on. There, dependence means resorting to, it has the meaning of serving and associating with. The verb ‘si’ with the prefix ‘ni’, meaning to serve, is a verbal noun, not a noun denoting the object which is not stated, as in “He lives relying on him, therefore it is dependence (nissaya).” There, the person to be served is obtained, but here it is the act of serving. Now, in order to establish that dependence in detail by way of questions and answers, he says “By whom should it be given?” and so on. There, “By whom should it be given, by whom should it not be given?” is asking about the giver of dependence, the agent; “To whom should it be given, to whom should it not be given?” about the receiver of dependence, the recipient; “How is it taken, how does it cease?” about the cause; “With whom should one live in dependence, with whom should one not live in dependence?” about the one who undertakes dependence. Then, in order to answer in the order of the questions, he says “There…” and so on. Not only here, but also in the factors for release from dependence, it is stated “by one who is competent”.
151. Having discussed the determination of higher ordination, now to discuss the determination of dependence, “dependence, here however” etc., is said. Here, dependence is nissaya, meaning serving, attending. The root “sev” is used in the sense of making, not “depending on it, he lives, hence dependence,” as in the case of an unstated act. Here, the person to be served is obtained, but here it is the act of serving. Now, to establish this dependence in detail, preceded by questions, “by whom should it be given” etc., is said. Here, “by whom should it be given, by whom should it not be given” asks about the giver of dependence, “to whom should it be given, to whom should it not be given” asks about the recipient of dependence, “how is it taken, how is it relinquished” asks about the method, “depending on whom should one live, depending on whom should one not live” asks about the practice of dependence. Then, to answer in the order of the questions, “here” etc., is said. Not only here, but also in the section on releasing from dependence, “by the competent” is mentioned.
ID759
Tattha ettha ca ko visesoti āha “ettha ca ’byatto’ti iminā parisupaṭṭhāpako bahussuto veditabbo”ti. Idāni parisupaṭṭhāpakalakkhaṇaṃ dassetuṃ “parisupaṭṭhāpakena hī”tiādimāha. Tattha abhivinayeti sakale vinayapiṭake. Vinetunti sikkhāpetuṃ. Dve vibhaṅgā paguṇā vācuggatā kātabbāti idaṃ paripucchāvasena uggaṇhanaṃ sandhāya vuttanti vadanti. Ekassa pamuṭṭhaṃ, itaresaṃ paguṇaṃ bhaveyyāti āha “tīhi janehi saddhiṃ parivattanakkhamā kātabbā”ti. Abhidhammeti nāmarūpaparicchede. Heṭṭhimā vā tayo vaggāti mahāvaggato heṭṭhā sagāthāvaggo nidānavaggo khandhavaggoti ime tayo vaggā. “Dhammapadampi saha vatthunā uggahetuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti mahāpaccariyaṃ vuttattā jātakabhāṇakena sāṭṭhakathaṃ jātakaṃ uggahetvāpi dhammapadaṃ saha vatthunā uggahetabbameva.
Here, what is the distinction? It says, “‘Byatto’ here means one who serves the assembly and is learned”. Now, to show the characteristic of one who serves the assembly, it says, “For one who serves the assembly…” and so forth. Here, abhivinaye means in the entire Vinaya Piṭaka. Vinetuṃ means to train. “The two Vibhaṅgas should be mastered and recited” is said with reference to learning through questioning, they say. So that what is forgotten by one may be mastered by others, it says, “They should be made capable of recitation together with three people”. Abhidhamme means in the discernment of mind and matter. “The lower three sections” refers to the three sections from the Mahāvagga downwards: Sagāthāvagga, Nidānavagga, and Khandhavagga. Since it is said in the Mahāpaccarī that “It is proper to learn the Dhammapada with its stories,” even a Jātaka reciter, having learned the Jātaka with its commentary, must learn the Dhammapada with its stories.
And here, concerning that, what is the distinction? He says, “Here, by ‘learned’ (byatto), a well-established and widely-learned person should be understood.” Now, to show the characteristic of a well-established person, he says, “By a well-established person…” and so on. Here, in the discipline (abhivinaye) means in the entire Vinaya Piṭaka. To train (Vinetu) means to instruct. The two Vibhaṅgas should be mastered and made fluent in speech – this, they say, is said with reference to learning through questioning. In case one forgets, and others have mastered it, he says, “It should be made capable of being recited with three people.” In the Abhidhamma (Abhidhamme) means in the determination of name-and-form. The lower three sections (Heṭṭhimā vā tayo vaggā) means, below the Mahāvagga, these three sections: the Sagāthāvagga, the Nidānavagga, and the Khandhavagga. Because it is said in the Mahāpaccari, “It is proper to learn even the Dhammapada along with its stories,” a Jātaka reciter, having learned the Jātaka along with its commentary, should also learn the Dhammapada along with its stories.
Here, what is the distinction? It is said: “Here, ‘byatto’ means one who is learned and capable of instructing the community.” Now, to explain the characteristics of a community instructor, it is said: “A community instructor should…” Here, abhivinaye refers to the entire Vinaya Piṭaka. Vinetu means to train. The two Vibhaṅgas should be well-mastered and recited—this refers to learning through questioning. If one is forgetful, the others should be well-versed, thus it is said: “It should be done with three people who are capable of taking turns.” Abhidhamme refers to the analysis of name and form. The lower three sections are the Sagāthāvagga, Nidānavagga, and Khandhavagga, which come before the Mahāvagga. It is said in the Mahāpaccariya that the Dhammapada should also be learned along with its stories, so even after learning the Jātaka with its commentary, the Dhammapada should be learned along with its stories.
ID760
Pañcahi bhikkhave aṅgehi samannāgatenātiādīsu na sāmaṇero upaṭṭhāpetabboti upajjhāyena hutvā sāmaṇero na upaṭṭhāpetabbo. Asekkhena sīlakkhandhenāti asekkhassa sīlakkhandhopi asekkho sīlakkhandho nāma. Asekkhassa ayanti hi asekkho, sīlakkhandho. Evaṃ sabbattha. Evañca katvā vimuttiñāṇadassanasaṅkhātassa paccavekkhaṇañāṇassapi vasena apekkhitvā uppannā ayaṃ kathā. Asekkhasīlanti ca na aggaphalasīlameva adhippetaṃ, atha kho yaṃ kiñci asekkhasantāne pavattasīlaṃ lokiyalokuttaramissakassa sīlassa idhādhippetattā. Samādhikkhandhādīsupi vimuttikkhandhapariyosānesu ayameva nayo, tasmā yathā sīlasamādhipaññākkhandhā lokiyamissakā kathitā, evaṃ vimuttikkhandhopīti tadaṅgavimuttiādayopi veditabbā, na paṭippassaddhivimutti eva. Vimuttiñāṇadassanaṃ pana lokiyameva. Teneva saṃyuttanikāyaṭṭhakathāyaṃ (saṃ.ni. aṭṭha. 1.1.135) vuttaṃ “purimehi catūhi padehi lokiyalokuttarasīlasamādhipaññāvimuttiyo kathitā, vimuttiñāṇadassanaṃ paccavekkhaṇañāṇaṃ hoti, taṃ lokiyamevā”ti.
In “Monks, endowed with five factors…” and so forth, “A novice should not be attended to” means a novice should not be attended to by becoming a preceptor. “With the aggregate of virtue of the adept” means the aggregate of virtue of an adept is also called the adept’s aggregate of virtue. That which pertains to an adept is an adept’s; hence, the aggregate of virtue. This applies everywhere. Thus, considering the knowledge of reviewing called liberation-knowledge-and-vision, this discussion arises. Asekkhasīla does not mean only the virtue of the highest fruit but any virtue occurring in the adept’s continuum, as both mundane and supramundane mixed virtue is intended here. The same method applies to the aggregates of concentration and so forth up to the aggregate of liberation. Thus, just as the aggregates of virtue, concentration, and wisdom are described as mixed mundane and supramundane, so too the aggregate of liberation, including liberation through aspects, should be understood—not just liberation through cessation. However, liberation-knowledge-and-vision is mundane only. Hence, it is said in the Saṃyutta Nikāya commentary (saṃ.ni. aṭṭha. 1.1.135), “With the first four terms, mundane and supramundane virtue, concentration, wisdom, and liberation are described; liberation-knowledge-and-vision is reviewing knowledge, and it is mundane only.”
Endowed with five factors, O monks… and so on, a novice should not be ordained (na sāmaṇero upaṭṭhāpetabbo) means that one who is a preceptor should not ordain a novice. By the aggregate of a non-trainee’s morality (Asekkhena sīlakkhandhenā) means that even the aggregate of morality of a non-trainee is called the aggregate of a non-trainee’s morality. For, “asekkha” of a non-trainee, is his morality aggregate. The same applies everywhere else. And having done thus, this discussion arose, unexpectedly, based on the knowledge of reviewing, which is known as release-knowledge-vision. Non-trainee’s morality (Asekkhasīla) does not only refer to the morality of the highest fruit, but rather, whatever morality arises in the continuum of a non-trainee, since the morality that is mixed with the mundane and supramundane is intended here. In the aggregates of concentration and so on, up to the culmination in the aggregate of release, this same method applies. Therefore, just as the aggregates of morality, concentration, and wisdom are described as being mixed with the mundane, thus the aggregate of release should also be understood as including detachment and so forth, and not just the release of tranquility. But release-knowledge-vision is entirely mundane. Therefore, in the commentary to the Saṃyutta Nikāya (saṃ.ni. aṭṭha. 1.1.135), it is said, “By the previous four terms, the mundane and supramundane morality, concentration, wisdom, and release are described. Release-knowledge-vision is the knowledge of reviewing; it is entirely mundane.”
Endowed with five qualities—here, a sāmaṇera should not be appointed means that one who has become an upajjhāya should not appoint a sāmaṇera. The virtue of a sekha refers to the virtue of one who is still in training. The term asekkha refers to one who is beyond training, and sīlakkhandha refers to the aggregate of virtue. Thus, in all cases, this discussion arises with reference to the knowledge of reviewing, which is the knowledge of liberation. Asekkha virtue does not exclusively refer to the virtue of the highest fruit, but rather to any virtue that arises in the continuum of an asekkha, whether mundane or supramundane. The same applies to the aggregates of concentration, etc., up to the aggregate of liberation. Therefore, just as the aggregates of virtue, concentration, and wisdom are described as mixed with the mundane, so too is the aggregate of liberation. However, the knowledge of liberation is purely mundane. Thus, it is said in the Saṃyutta Nikāya commentary (saṃ.ni. aṭṭha. 1.1.135): “The first four paths describe virtue, concentration, wisdom, and liberation as mixed with the mundane and supramundane, while the knowledge of reviewing is purely mundane.”
ID761
Assaddhotiādīsu tīsu vatthūsu saddhā etassa natthīti assaddho. Natthi etassa hirīti ahiriko, akusalasamāpattiyā ajigucchamānassetaṃ adhivacanaṃ. Na ottappatīti anottappī, akusalasamāpattiyā na bhāyatīti vuttaṃ hoti. Kucchitaṃ sīdatīti kusīto, hīnavīriyassetaṃ adhivacanaṃ. Āraddhaṃ vīriyaṃ etassāti āraddhavīriyo, sammappadhānayuttassetaṃ adhivacanaṃ. Muṭṭhā sati etassāti muṭṭhassatī, naṭṭhassatīti vuttaṃ hoti. Upaṭṭhitā sati etassāti upaṭṭhitassatī, niccaṃ ārammaṇābhimukhapavattasatissetaṃ adhivacanaṃ.
In “Faithless…” and so forth, across the three bases, assaddho means one who lacks faith in them. Ahiriko means one who has no shame, a designation for one not repelled by unwholesome attainment. Anottappī means one who does not fear, meaning he does not dread unwholesome attainment. Kusīto means lazy, as what is vile sinks, a designation for one with low energy. Āraddhavīriyo means one with aroused energy, a designation for one engaged in right effort. Muṭṭhassatī means one whose mindfulness is lost, meaning mindfulness is absent. Upaṭṭhitassatī means one whose mindfulness is established, a designation for mindfulness constantly directed toward its object.
In faithless (assaddho) and so forth, in these three cases, he who lacks faith is faithless (assaddho). He who lacks shame is shameless (ahiriko), this is a term for one who does not feel disgust at unskillful attainments. He is not afraid, thus unconscientious (anottappī), meaning he does not fear unskillful attainments. He sinks into what is reprehensible, thus lazy (kusīto), this is a term for one of deficient energy. His energy is aroused, thus of aroused energy (āraddhavīriyo), this is a term for one engaged in right exertion. His mindfulness is muddled, thus of muddled mindfulness (muṭṭhassatī), meaning his mindfulness is lost. His mindfulness is established, thus of established mindfulness (upaṭṭhitassatī), this is a term for one whose mindfulness is constantly directed towards the object.
Faithless—in these three cases, faithless means one who lacks faith. Shameless means one who lacks moral shame, which is a term for one who does not detest unwholesome conduct. Fearless means one who does not fear unwholesome conduct. Lazy means one who is sluggish, a term for one with weak effort. Energetic means one who possesses strong effort, a term for one who practices right exertion. Forgetful means one who has lost mindfulness. Mindful means one who has established mindfulness, a term for one whose mindfulness is constantly directed toward the object.
ID762
Adhisīle sīlavipanno ca ajjhācāre ācāravipanno ca āpajjitvā avuṭṭhito adhippeto. Sassatucchedasaṅkhātaṃ antaṃ gaṇhāti, gāhayatīti vā antaggāhikā, micchādiṭṭhi. Purimāni dve padānīti “na paṭibalo hoti antevāsiṃ vā saddhivihāriṃ vā gilānaṃ upaṭṭhātuṃ vā upaṭṭhāpetuṃ vā, anabhirataṃ vūpakāsetuṃ vā vūpakāsāpetuṃ vā”ti imāni dve padāni.
One who has transgressed in higher virtue and conduct and has not risen from it is intended. Antaggāhikā means one who grasps extremes, such as eternalism or annihilationism, or causes others to grasp them—wrong view. “The first two terms” refers to “He is incapable of attending to or having attended a pupil or co-resident when ill, or of removing or having removed discontent.”
One who is deficient in higher morality, and one who is deficient in conduct due to misconduct, is understood as having committed an offense and not having emerged from it. One who grasps, or causes others to grasp, an extreme that is considered eternalism or annihilationism, has wrong view (antaggāhikā). The first two factors (Purimāni dve padānī) are these two factors: “He is not capable of attending to, or having attended to, a sick pupil or co-resident; or of dispelling, or having dispelled, his discontent.”
One who has failed in higher virtue and proper conduct refers to one who has committed an offense and has not yet rectified it. Grasping extremes means holding to the view of eternalism or annihilationism, which is wrong view. The first two clauses are: “One is unable to attend to or arrange for the attendance of a sick pupil or fellow monk, or to remove or arrange for the removal of one who is discontent.”
ID763
Abhi visiṭṭho uttamo samācāro abhisamācāro, abhisamācārova ābhisamācārikoti ca sikkhitabbato sikkhāti ca ābhisamācārikasikkhā. Abhisamācāraṃ vā ārabbha paññattā sikkhā ābhisamācārikasikkhā, khandhakavattapariyāpannasikkhāyetaṃ adhivacanaṃ. Maggabrahmacariyassa ādibhūtāti ādibrahmacariyakā, ubhatovibhaṅgapariyāpannasikkhāyetaṃ adhivacanaṃ. Teneva “ubhatovibhaṅgapariyāpannaṃ vā ādibrahmacariyakaṃ, khandhakavattapariyāpannaṃ ābhisamācārika”nti visuddhimagge (visuddhi. 1.11) vuttaṃ, tasmā sekkhapaṇṇattiyanti ettha sikkhitabbato sekkhā, bhagavatā paññattattā paṇṇatti, sabbāpi ubhatovibhaṅgapariyāpannā sikkhāpadapaṇṇatti “sekkhapaṇṇattī”ti vuttāti gahetabbaṃ. Teneva gaṇṭhipadepi vuttaṃ “sekkhapaṇṇattiyanti pārājikamādiṃ katvā sikkhitabbasikkhāpadapaññattiya”nti. Sesamettha uttānatthamevāti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.84).
Superior, excellent conduct is higher conduct (abhisamācāra), and because it is to be trained in, it is called ābhisamācārikasikkhā. Alternatively, training established regarding higher conduct is ābhisamācārikasikkhā, a designation for training included in the Khandhaka duties. It is the beginning of the holy life of the path, hence ādibrahmacariyakā, a designation for training included in both Vibhaṅgas. Hence, it is said in the Visuddhimagga (visuddhi. 1.11), “That included in both Vibhaṅgas is the initial holy life training; that included in the Khandhaka duties is higher conduct training.” Thus, in sekkhapaṇṇattiya, “sekkhā” means to be trained in, and “paṇṇatti” means established by the Blessed One; all training rules included in both Vibhaṅgas are called sekkhapaṇṇatti. Hence, it is also said in the Gaṇṭhipada, “Sekkhapaṇṇattiya” means training rules to be trained in, including pārājika and so forth. The rest here is clear in meaning, as per the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.84).
Extraordinarily excellent conduct is superior conduct (abhisamācāro), and because it should be learned, it is called training (sikkhā), and also because it is conduct that should be trained, it is ābhisamācārikasikkhā. Or, a training prescribed in reference to superior conduct is ābhisamācārikasikkhā, this is a term for the training included in the Khaṇḍhaka and Vatta. Because they are the beginning of the path of the holy life, they are ādibrahmacariyakā, this is a term for the training included in both Vibhaṅgas. Therefore, in the Visuddhimagga (visuddhi. 1.11) it is said, “That which is included in both Vibhaṅgas is ādibrahmacariyaka, and that which is included in the Khaṇḍhaka and Vatta is ābhisamācārika.” Therefore, in sekkhapaṇṇattiya, that which should be learned is sekkhā, and because it is prescribed by the Blessed One, it is paṇṇatti; all the training-precepts included in both Vibhaṅgas should be understood as “sekkhapaṇṇattī.” Therefore, even in the Gaṇṭhipada it is said, **“sekkhapaṇṇattiya** means, taking Pārājika and so forth, the training-precept to be trained.” All the rest here has an evident meaning, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.84).
The training in higher conduct refers to the highest and most excellent conduct, which is the training in higher conduct. The training prescribed concerning higher conduct is called ābhisamācārikasikkhā, a term for the training included in the Khandhaka rules. The beginning of the holy life refers to the training included in both Vibhaṅgas. Thus, in the Visuddhimagga (visuddhi. 1.11), it is said: “The training included in both Vibhaṅgas is the beginning of the holy life, while the training included in the Khandhaka rules is the training in higher conduct.” Therefore, the training rules for trainees refers to the training that should be undertaken by trainees, as prescribed by the Buddha. All the training rules included in both Vibhaṅgas are called sekkhapaṇṇatti. Thus, it is also said in the Gaṇṭhipada: “The training rules for trainees refers to the training rules starting with the Pārājika, which should be undertaken.” The rest here is clear in meaning, as explained in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.84).
ID764
Upajjhāyācariyakathāyaṃ na sāmaṇero upaṭṭhāpetabboti upajjhāyena hutvā na pabbājetabbo. Asekkhassa ayanti asekkho, lokiyalokuttaro sīlakkhandho. Antaggāhikāyāti sassatucchedakoṭṭhāsaggāhikāya. Pacchimāni dveti appassuto hoti, duppañño hotīti imāni dve aṅgāni. Pacchimāni tīṇīti na paṭibalo uppannaṃ kukkuccaṃ dhammato vinodetuṃ, āpattiṃ na jānāti, āpattivuṭṭhānaṃ na jānātīti imāni tīṇi. Kukkuccassa hi pāḷiaṭṭhakathānayasaṅkhātadhammato vinodetuṃ appaṭibalatā nāma abyattattā eva hotīti sāpi āpattiaṅgameva vuttā.
In the discussion of preceptor and teacher, “A novice should not be attended to” means not ordained by becoming a preceptor. That which pertains to an adept is asekkho, the aggregate of virtue, mundane and supramundane. Antaggāhikāyā means grasping the portions of eternalism and annihilationism. “The last two” refers to being unlearned and lacking wisdom, these two factors. “The last three” refers to being incapable of dispelling arisen remorse by the Dhamma, not knowing an offense, and not knowing the rising from an offense—these three. The inability to dispel remorse by the Dhamma, as meant in the text and commentary, arises from incompetence, so it too is included in the factor of offense.
In the discussion of the preceptor and teacher, a novice should not be ordained (na sāmaṇero upaṭṭhāpetabbo) means that one who is a preceptor should not give the going forth. His being is of a non-trainee, thus, asekkho, the mundane and supramundane aggregate of morality. Of wrong view (antaggāhikāyā) means of one who adheres to a fraction of eternalism or annihilationism. The last two (Pacchimāni dve) are these two factors: he is not widely learned, he is unwise. The last three (Pacchimāni tīṇī) are these three: he is not capable of dispelling arisen doubt according to Dhamma, he does not know an offense, he does not know the emergence from an offense. Indeed, the inability to dispel doubt according to Dhamma, which is known as the method of the Pāḷi and commentary, is due to lack of learning, so it is also mentioned as a factor of offense.
In the discussion on teachers and preceptors, a sāmaṇera should not be appointed means that one who has become an upajjhāya should not ordain him. Asekkha refers to one beyond training, and the aggregate of virtue is mixed with the mundane and supramundane. Grasping extremes refers to holding the view of eternalism or annihilationism. The last two qualities are: one is poorly learned and lacks wisdom. The last three qualities are: one is unable to dispel arisen remorse through the Dhamma, does not know the offense, and does not know the method of rehabilitation. The inability to dispel remorse through the Dhamma, as explained in the Pāli commentaries, is due to incompetence, and thus it is also considered a factor of the offense.
ID765
Abhi visiṭṭho uttamo samācāro abhisamācāro, vattappaṭipattisīlaṃ, taṃ ārabbha paññattā khandhakasikkhāpadasaṅkhātā sikkhā ābhisamācārikā. Sikkhāpadampi hi tadatthaparipūraṇatthikehi uggahaṇādivasena sikkhitabbato sikkhāti vuccati. Maggabrahmacariyassa ādibhūtā kāraṇabhūtā ādibrahmacariyakā, ubhatovibhaṅgapariyāpannasikkhāpadaṃ. Tenevettha visuddhimaggepi (visuddhi. 1.11) “ubhatovibhaṅgapariyāpannaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ ādibrahmacariyakaṃ, khandhakavattapariyāpannaṃ ābhisamācārika”nti vuttaṃ, tasmā sekkhapaṇṇattiyanti ettha sikkhitabbato sekkhā, bhagavatāva paññattattā paññatti. Sabbāpi ubhatovibhaṅgapariyāpannā sikkhāpadapaṇṇatti “sekkhapaṇṇattī”ti vuttāti gahetabbaṃ. Nāmarūpaparicchedeti ettha kusalattikādīhi vuttaṃ jātibhūmipuggalasampayogavatthārammaṇakammadvāralakkhaṇarasādibhedehi vedanākkhandhādicatubbidhaṃ sanibbānaṃ nāmaṃ, bhūtopādāyabhedaṃ rūpañca paricchinditvā jānanapaññā, tappakāsako ca gantho nāmarūpaparicchedo nāma. Iminā abhidhammatthakusalena bhavitabbanti dasseti. Sikkhāpetunti uggaṇhāpetunti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.84) vuttaṃ.
Superior, excellent conduct is higher conduct (abhisamācāra), the virtue of fulfilling duties; training established regarding it, called training rules in the Khandhaka, is ābhisamācārikā. Training rules are also called “sikkhā” because they are to be learned and so forth by those desiring their fulfillment. It is the cause, the beginning of the holy life of the path, hence ādibrahmacariyakā, the training rules included in both Vibhaṅgas. Thus, it is said here in the Visuddhimagga too (visuddhi. 1.11), “Training rules included in both Vibhaṅgas are the initial holy life training; those included in the Khandhaka duties are higher conduct training.” Therefore, in sekkhapaṇṇattiya, “sekkhā” means to be trained in, and “paṇṇatti” means established by the Blessed One himself. All training rules included in both Vibhaṅgas are called sekkhapaṇṇatti. Nāmarūpaparicchede means the wisdom of discerning mind—fourfold with feeling and so forth, including Nibbāna—and matter, divided into primary and derived, through distinctions like the triple of wholesome states, planes of existence, persons, association, object, action, door, characteristic, function, and so forth, as stated; the text explaining this is called discernment of mind and matter. This indicates one must be skilled in the meaning of the Abhidhamma. Sikkhāpetuṃ means to cause to learn, as said in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.84).
Extraordinarily excellent conduct is superior conduct (abhisamācāro), the morality of practice of duties; training prescribed in reference to that, known as the Khaṇḍhaka training-precepts, is ābhisamācārikā. Indeed, even a training-precept is called training (sikkhā) because it should be learned by those who desire its complete fulfillment, through learning and so forth. Being the origin, the cause, of the path of the holy life, they are ādibrahmacariyakā, the training-precepts included in both Vibhaṅgas. Therefore, here even in the Visuddhimagga (visuddhi. 1.11) it is said, “The training-precept included in both Vibhaṅgas is ādibrahmacariyaka, and that which is included in the Khaṇḍhaka and Vatta is ābhisamācārika.” Therefore, in sekkhapaṇṇattiya, that which should be learned is sekkhā, and because it is prescribed by the Blessed One, it is paṇṇatti. All the training-precepts included in both Vibhaṅgas should be understood as having been stated as “sekkhapaṇṇattī”. In the determination of name-and-form (Nāmarūpaparicchede) means, here, the knowledge that determines name as the fourfold of feeling aggregate, etc., with the distinctions of class, ground, person, connection, object, karma-door, characteristic, function, etc., as stated by the wholesome triad, etc., together with Nibbāna; and form as divided into the derived elements and the originating elements; and the text that illuminates it is called the determination of name-and-form. By this, he shows that one should be skilled in the meaning of the Abhidhamma. To train (Sikkhāpetu) means to cause to learn, it is said in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.84).
The highest and most excellent conduct is the training in higher conduct, the practice of proper behavior, and the training rules prescribed concerning it, which are called ābhisamācārikā. The training rules are also called sikkhā because they are to be undertaken through learning, etc., for the purpose of fulfilling their aim. The beginning of the holy life refers to the training rules included in both Vibhaṅgas, which are the foundation of the path. Thus, in the Visuddhimagga (visuddhi. 1.11), it is said: “The training rules included in both Vibhaṅgas are the beginning of the holy life, while the training rules included in the Khandhaka rules are the training in higher conduct.” Therefore, the training rules for trainees refers to the training that should be undertaken by trainees, as prescribed by the Buddha. All the training rules included in both Vibhaṅgas are called sekkhapaṇṇatti. The analysis of name and form refers to the discernment of name and form through the categories of the wholesome, etc., as explained in the Abhidhamma. To train means to cause to learn, as stated in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.84).
ID766
153. Āyasmato nissāya vacchāmīti ettha āyasmatoti upayogatthe sāmivacanaṃ, āyasmantaṃ nissāya vasissāmīti attho. Yaṃ pana vuttaṃ samantapāsādikāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 76) “byatto…pe… vuttalakkhaṇoyevā”ti, taṃ parisūpaṭṭhākabahussutaṃ sandhāya vadati. Pabbajjāupasampadadhammantevāsikehi pana…pe… tāva vattaṃ kātabbanti pabbajjācariyaupasampadācariyadhammācariyānaṃ etehi yathāvuttavattaṃ kātabbaṃ. Tattha yena sikkhāpadāni dinnāni, ayaṃ pabbajjācariyo. Yena upasampadakammavācā vuttā, ayaṃ upasampadācariyo. Yo uddesaṃ vā paripucchaṃ vā deti, ayaṃ dhammācariyoti veditabbaṃ. Sesamettha uttānatthameva.
153. “Āyasmato nissāya vacchāmi” means “I will dwell depending on the venerable,” with āyasmato in the dative case implying dependence, meaning “I will dwell relying on the venerable.” What is said in the Samantapāsādikā (mahāva. aṭṭha. 76), “Learned … with the stated characteristics,” refers to one who serves the assembly and is learned. “But with the preceptor of going-forth, ordination, or Dhamma teacher … duties must be performed” means the duties stated must be performed for the preceptor of going-forth, the preceptor of ordination, and the Dhamma teacher. Here, the one by whom the training rules are given is the pabbajjācariyo. The one by whom the ordination formal act is recited is the upasampadācariyo. The one who gives recitation or questioning is the dhammācariyo. The rest here is clear in meaning.
153. Here, in I will dwell in dependence on the venerable one (Āyasmato nissāya vacchāmī), venerable one (āyasmato) is a genitive case in the sense of the instrumental; the meaning is, I will dwell in dependence on the venerable one. But what is said in the Samantapāsādikā (mahāva. aṭṭha. 76), “Learned…etc… with the characteristics as stated,” refers to a widely-learned person who is well-established. But by those ordained, given higher ordination, and pupils in the Dhamma…etc… the duty should be done means that by these, the duty as stated should be done for the teachers of ordination, the teachers of higher ordination, and the teachers of the Dhamma. There, he by whom the training precepts were given is the teacher of ordination (pabbajjācariyo). He by whom the higher ordination procedure was recited is the teacher of higher ordination (upasampadācariyo). He who gives instruction or questioning is the teacher of the Dhamma (dhammācariyo), it should be understood. All the rest here has an evident meaning.
153. I will live dependent on the Venerable One—here, āyasmato is a term of address in the vocative case, meaning “I will live dependent on the Venerable One.” What is said in the Samantapāsādikā (mahāva. aṭṭha. 76): “Byatto…pe… as explained” refers to one who is learned and capable of instructing the community. The duties to be performed by the preceptor, teacher, and Dhamma teacher—these duties should be performed by the preceptor, teacher, and Dhamma teacher as explained. Here, the one who gives the training rules is the preceptor. The one who recites the ordination procedure is the teacher. The one who gives instruction or questioning is the Dhamma teacher. The rest here is clear in meaning.
ID767
154. Nissayapaṭippassaddhikathāyaṃ disaṃ gatoti puna āgantukāmo, anāgantukāmo vā hutvā vāsatthāya kañci disaṃ gato. Bhikkhussa sabhāgatanti pesalabhāvaṃ. Oloketvāti upaparikkhitvā. Vibbhante…pe… tattha gantabbanti ettha “sace kenaci karaṇīyena tadaheva gantuṃ asakkonto ’katipāhena gamissāmī’ti gamane saussāho hoti, rakkhatī”ti vadanti. Mā idha paṭikkamīti mā idha pavisi. Tatreva vasitabbanti tattheva nissayaṃ gahetvā vasitabbaṃ. Taṃyeva vihāraṃ…pe… vasituṃ vaṭṭatīti ettha upajjhāyena pariccattattā upajjhāyasamodhānaparihāro natthi, tasmā upajjhāyasamodhānagatassapi ācariyassa santike gahitanissayo na paṭippassambhati.
154. In the discussion of the cessation of dependence, “Gone to a region” means having gone to some region for residence, whether intending to return or not. “The monk’s compatibility” means his virtuous nature. “Having observed” means having examined. “With one who has disrobed … one should go there” means, as they say, “If unable to go that very day due to some business but eager to go within a few days, saying, ‘I will go,’ and he safeguards [it].” “Do not return here” means do not enter here. “One should dwell there” means one should dwell there, having taken dependence there. “In that very monastery … it is proper to dwell” means since it is relinquished by the preceptor, there is no overlap with the preceptor, so dependence taken in the presence of a teacher overlapping with the preceptor does not cease.
154. In the discussion of the cessation of dependence, gone to a region (disaṃ gato) means he has gone to some region for the purpose of dwelling, whether he desires to return or does not desire to return. The harmoniousness of a monk (Bhikkhussa sabhāgata) means the state of being agreeable. Having looked (Oloketvā) means having investigated. In While departing…etc… one should go there, it is said, “If, due to some business, one is unable to go at that very time, but is eager to go, thinking, ‘I will go in a few days,’ one is protected.” Do not return here (Mā idha paṭikkamī) means do not enter here. One should dwell there (Tatreva vasitabba) means one should dwell there, having taken dependence. In It is proper to dwell…etc… in that same monastery, because it has been relinquished by the preceptor, there is no maintenance of the preceptor’s assembly. Therefore, even for one who is included in the preceptor’s assembly, the dependence taken in the presence of the teacher does not cease.
154. In the discussion on the resolution of dependence, gone to a region means one who has gone to some region, either intending to return or not, for the purpose of residence. A monk of good character refers to one who is virtuous. Having observed means having investigated. If one is unable to go on that day due to some duty, one should make an effort to go within a few days, and one is protected. Do not enter here means do not enter this place. One should reside there means one should take dependence and reside there. One may reside in that very monastery—here, since the monastery has been given by the preceptor, there is no need for the preceptor’s consent, so even if one has taken dependence in the presence of the preceptor, it is not resolved.
ID768
Ācariyamhā nissayapaṭippassaddhīsu ācariyo pakkanto vā hotīti ettha “pakkantoti disaṃ gato”tiādinā upajjhāyassa pakkamane yo vinicchayo vutto, so tattha vuttanayeneva idhāpi sakkā viññātunti taṃ avatvā “koci ācariyo āpucchitvā pakkamatī”tiādinā aññoyeva nayo āraddho. Ayañca nayo upajjhāyapakkamanepi veditabboyeva. Īdisesu hi ṭhānesu ekatthavuttalakkhaṇaṃ aññatthāpi daṭṭhabbaṃ. Sace dve leḍḍupāte atikkamitvā nivattati, paṭippassaddho hotīti ettha ettāvatā disāpakkanto nāma hotīti antevāsike anikkhittadhurepi nissayo paṭippassambhati. Ācariyupajjhāyā dve leḍḍupāte atikkamma aññasmiṃ vihāre vasantīti bahiupacārasīmāyaṃ antevāsikasaddhivihārikānaṃ vasanaṭṭhānato dve leḍḍupāte atikkamma aññasmiṃ senāsane vasanti, antoupacārasīmāyaṃ pana dve leḍḍupāte atikkamitvāpi vasato nissayo na paṭippassambhati. “Sacepi ācariyo muñcitukāmova hutvā nissayapaṇāmanāya paṇāmetī”tiādi sabbaṃ upajjhāyassa āṇattiyampi veditabbanti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.83) vuttaṃ.
In the cessation of dependence from a teacher, where it says “The teacher has departed…”, the judgment given for the preceptor’s departure with “departed means gone to a region” and so forth can be understood here too in the same way, so without repeating it, a different method is begun with “Some teacher departs after informing…” and so forth. This method should also be understood for the preceptor’s departure. In such cases, a characteristic stated for one meaning should apply elsewhere too. “If he returns after crossing two stone-throws, it is ceased” means by this distance he is considered departed to a region, and even without abandoning his duty toward the pupil, the dependence ceases. “The teacher and preceptor dwell in another monastery after crossing two stone-throws” means they dwell in another dwelling beyond two stone-throws from where the pupils or co-residents live, outside the boundary’s vicinity; but within the boundary’s vicinity, even crossing two stone-throws, dependence does not cease. All that follows, such as “Even if the teacher, intending to release, releases with the declaration of dependence,” should also be understood as applying to the preceptor’s command, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.83).
In the cessation of dependence on the teacher, the teacher has departed (Ācariyamhā nissayapaṭippassaddhīsu ācariyo pakkanto vā hotī), “departed means gone to a region,” and so on, the decision that was stated for the departure of the preceptor – that same principle, stated there, can be understood here as well, so without stating that, by “Some teacher departs after asking permission” and so on, another principle is introduced. And this principle should also be understood in the departure of the preceptor. Indeed, in such cases, the characteristic stated in one place should be seen in another as well. In If he returns after crossing two stone-throws, it is ceased, in this case, by this much he is called one who has departed to a region, so even if the pupil has not abandoned his duties, the dependence ceases. The teacher and preceptor are dwelling in another monastery, having crossed two stone-throws (Ācariyupajjhāyā dve leḍḍupāte atikkamma aññasmiṃ vihāre vasantī) means, outside the boundary of the surrounding area, they are dwelling in another dwelling place, having crossed two stone-throws from the dwelling place of the pupils and co-residents. But within the boundary of the surrounding area, even if they dwell having crossed two stone-throws, the dependence does not cease. It is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.83), “Even if the teacher, desiring to release, dismisses for the purpose of dismissing dependence,” and so on, all should be understood also in the command of the preceptor.
In the resolution of dependence from the teacher, the teacher has departed—here, the decision explained in the case of the preceptor’s departure can also be understood here, but instead, a different method is introduced: “Some teacher departs after informing.” This method should also be understood in the case of the preceptor’s departure. In such cases, the same explanation applies elsewhere as well. If one turns back after passing two stone-throws, the dependence is resolved—here, this much is considered as having departed to a region, so even if the pupil has not given up the burden, the dependence is resolved. The teacher and preceptor reside in another monastery after passing two stone-throws—outside the boundary, the teacher and preceptor reside in another monastery after passing two stone-throws, but within the boundary, even after passing two stone-throws, the dependence is not resolved. “Even if the teacher wishes to release the pupil, he should do so by transferring the dependence,” etc., as explained in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.83).
ID769
153. Sāhūti sādhu sundaraṃ. Lahūti agaru, subharatāti attho. Opāyikanti upāyapaṭisaṃyuttaṃ, evaṃ paṭipajjanaṃ nittharaṇupāyoti attho. Patirūpanti sāmīcikammamidanti attho . Pāsādikenāti pasādāvahena, kāyavacīpayogena sampādehīti attho. Kāyenāti etadatthaviññāpakaṃ hatthamuddādiṃ dassento kāyena viññāpeti. “Sādhū”ti sampaṭicchanaṃ sandhāyāti upajjhāyena “sāhū”tiādīsu vuttesu saddhivihārikassa “sādhū”ti sampaṭicchanavacanaṃ sandhāya “kāyena viññāpetī”tiādi vuttanti adhippāyo. Āyācanadānamattenāti saddhivihārikassa paṭhamaṃ āyācanamattena, tato upajjhāyassa ca “sāhū”tiādinā vacanamattenāti attho. Ācariyassa santike nissayaggahaṇe āyasmato nissāya vacchāmīti āyasmantaṃ nissāya vasissāmīti attho.
153. Sāhu means good, beautiful. Lahu means light, easy to bear. Opāyika means connected to a means, meaning this practice is a means to liberation. Patirūpa means appropriate, meaning this is proper conduct. Pāsādikena means with what brings confidence, accomplished through bodily and verbal actions. Kāyena means he indicates it with the body, showing gestures like hand signals to convey that meaning. “With ‘Sādhu’ in reference to acceptance” means it is said with reference to the co-resident’s acceptance with “Sādhu” when the preceptor says “Sāhu” and so forth, implying “He indicates with the body” and so forth. “With mere requesting and giving” means with the co-resident’s initial mere request and then the preceptor’s mere statement like “Sāhu.” In taking dependence in the presence of a teacher, “Āyasmato nissāya vacchāmi” means “I will dwell depending on the venerable.”
153. Sāhū (Sāhū) means good, excellent. Lahū (Lahū) means not heavy, easy to bear, that is the meaning. Opāyika (Opāyika) means connected with the means, that thus practicing is the means of deliverance, that is the meaning. Patirūpa (Patirūpa) means this is a proper service, that is the meaning. Pāsādikenā (Pāsādikenā) means inspiring confidence, accomplish by means of bodily and verbal action, that is the meaning. By body (Kāyenā), showing a hand gesture and so on that indicates this meaning, he communicates by body. “Sādhū” is with reference to acceptance means, when the preceptor has said, “Sāhū,” and so on, with reference to the co-resident’s word of acceptance, “Sādhū,” the intention is that “he communicates by body” and so on has been stated. By the mere act of requesting and giving (Āyācanadānamattenā) means by the mere act of the co-resident’s initial request, and then by the mere word of the preceptor, “Sāhū,” and so on, that is the meaning. In taking dependence in the presence of the teacher, I will dwell in dependence on the venerable one (āyasmato nissāya vacchāmī) means I will dwell in dependence on the venerable one.
153. Good means excellent. Light means not burdensome, easy to bear. Suitable means connected with the means, thus the way of practice leading to liberation. Proper means this is the appropriate action. With respect means with respectful bodily and verbal action, thus accomplish it. With the body means indicating with a gesture of the hand, etc., thus making it known with the body. “Good” is said with reference to acceptance—when the preceptor says “good,” etc., the pupil’s response of “good” is indicated by “making it known with the body,” etc. Merely by the act of requesting means first the pupil requests, and then the preceptor responds with “good,” etc. In taking dependence in the presence of the teacher, I will live dependent on the Venerable One means I will live dependent on the Venerable One.
ID770
154. Nissayapaṭippassaddhikathāyaṃ yo vā ekasambhogaparibhogo, tassa santike nissayo gahetabboti iminā lajjīsu eva nissayaggahaṇaṃ niyojeti alajjīsu paṭikkhittattā. Ettha ca paribhogasaddena ekakammādiko saṃvāso gahito paccayaparibhogassa sambhogasaddena gahitattā. Etena ca sambhogasaṃvāsānaṃ alajjīhi saddhiṃ na kattabbataṃ dasseti. Parihāro natthīti āpattiparihāro natthi. Tādisoti yattha nissayo gahitapubbo, yo ca ekasambhogaparibhogo, tādiso. Tathā vuttanti “lahuṃ āgamissatī”ti vuttañceti attho. Cattāri pañca divasānīti idaṃ upalakkhaṇamattaṃ. Yadi ekāhadvīhena sabhāgatā paññāyati, ñātadivase gahetabbova. Athāpi catupañcāhenapi na paññāyati, yattakehi divasehi paññāyati, tattakāni atikkāmetabbāni. Sabhāgataṃ olokemīti pana leso na kātabbo. Daharā suṇantīti ettha asutvāpi “āgamissati, kenaci antarāyena cirāyantī”ti saññāya satipi labbhateva parihāro . Tenāha “idhevāhaṃ vasissāmīti pahiṇati, parihāro natthī”ti. Ekadivasampi parihāro natthīti gamane nirussāhaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, saussāhassa pana senāsanapaṭisāmanādivasena katipāhe gatepi na doso.
154. In the discussion of the cessation of dependence, “Dependence should be taken in the presence of one with whom there is joint use or consumption” indicates that taking dependence is directed only toward the virtuous, as it is prohibited with the shameless. Here, the term “use” refers to co-dwelling, such as joint formal acts, since the consumption of requisites is covered by “joint consumption.” This shows that joint consumption or co-dwelling should not be done with the shameless. “There is no exemption” means there is no exemption from an offense. “Such a one” means one where dependence was previously taken or who shares joint consumption or use. “Stated thus” means it was said, “He will return soon.” “Four or five days” is merely an illustration. If compatibility is evident in one or two days, it should be taken on the known day. Even if it is not evident in four or five days, one should wait as many days as it takes to become evident. However, the pretense of “I will observe compatibility” should not be made. “The young listen” means even without hearing, if one assumes “He will return, delayed by some hindrance,” exemption is still possible. Hence it says, “‘I will dwell here,’ he sends word; there is no exemption”. “Even for one day, there is no exemption” is said with reference to lack of effort in going; for one with effort, there is no fault even if a few days pass due to arranging a dwelling and so forth.
154. In the discussion of the cessation of dependence, whoever is of one shared use, in his presence dependence should be taken (yo vā ekasambhogaparibhogo, tassa santike nissayo gahetabbo), by this he enjoins the taking of dependence only with those who are conscientious, because it is prohibited with those who are unconscientious. And here, by the term “shared use (paribhoga)”, shared association such as a single act is taken, since the shared use of requisites is taken by the term “shared enjoyment (sambhoga)”. And by this, he shows that shared enjoyment and association should not be done with those who are unconscientious. There is no maintenance (Parihāro natthī) means there is no maintenance from offense. Such (Tādiso) means where dependence was previously taken, and whoever is of one shared enjoyment, such. Thus stated (Tathā vutta) means, it is said “He will come quickly,” that is the meaning. Four or five days (Cattāri pañca divasānī), this is merely an indication. If harmoniousness is discerned in one or two days, it should be taken on the day it is known. Even if it is not discerned in four or five days, as many days as it takes to be discerned, so many should be allowed to pass. But one should not make a pretext, “I am looking for harmoniousness.” Young ones are listening (Daharā suṇantī), here, even without hearing, if there is the perception, “He will come, he is delayed due to some obstacle,” maintenance is still obtained. Therefore, he said, “I will dwell here,” he sends, there is no maintenance. There is no maintenance even for one day (Ekadivasampi parihāro natthī) is said with reference to being without eagerness in going; but for one who is eager, even if a few days pass due to arranging the dwelling place and so forth, there is no fault.
154. In the discussion on the resolution of dependence, one should take dependence in the presence of one with whom one shares a dwelling or resources—this instructs the modest to take dependence, while the shameless are excluded. Here, resources refers to sharing a single activity, etc., while dwelling refers to sharing requisites. This indicates that one should not associate with the shameless in sharing resources or dwellings. There is no offense means there is no offense to be rectified. Such a one refers to one in whose presence dependence was previously taken, or one with whom one shares resources. As stated means “he will return soon,” etc. Four or five days—this is merely an indication. If one’s good character becomes known within a day or two, dependence should be taken on that day. If it is not known even after four or five days, one should wait until it becomes known. However, one should not scrutinize too much to determine good character. The young listen—here, even without hearing, one may think, “He will return, but some obstacle has delayed him,” and thus one may still be protected. Therefore, it is said: “I will reside here,” and he sends word, but there is no offense. Even for one day, there is no offense—this refers to going without effort, but if one makes an effort, even after a few days, there is no fault.
ID771
Tatreva vasitabbanti tatra sabhāgaṭṭhāne eva nissayaṃ gahetvā vasitabbaṃ. Taṃyeva vihāraṃ…pe… vasituṃ vaṭṭatīti iminā upajjhāye saṅgaṇhanteyeva taṃsamodhāne nissayapaṭippassaddhi vuttā, tasmiṃ pana kodhena vā gaṇanirapekkhatāya vā asaṅgaṇhante aññesu gahito nissayo na paṭippassambhatīti dasseti.
“One should dwell there” means one should dwell in that compatible place, having taken dependence there. “In that very monastery … it is proper to dwell” indicates that the cessation of dependence is stated only when the preceptor is supportive; but if he is unsupportive due to anger or indifference to the group, dependence taken with others does not cease.
One should dwell there (Tatreva vasitabba) means one should dwell there, in that very place of harmoniousness, having taken dependence. It is proper to dwell…etc… in that same monastery (Taṃyeva vihāraṃ…pe… vasituṃ vaṭṭatī), by this, the cessation of dependence in the preceptor’s assembly is stated when the preceptor accepts; but when he, due to anger or disregard for the assembly, does not accept, the dependence taken with others does not cease, he shows.
One should reside there means one should take dependence and reside in that very place of good character. One may reside in that very monastery—this indicates that when the preceptor is supportive, the resolution of dependence is stated in his presence, but if he is angry or indifferent, dependence taken elsewhere is not resolved.
ID772
Ācariyamhā nissayapaṭippassaddhiyaṃ vutto “koci ācariyo”tiādiko nayo upajjhāyapakkamanādīsupi netvā tattha ca vutto idhāpi netvā yathārahaṃ yojetabbo. Dve leḍḍupāte atikkamma aññasmiṃ vihāre vasantīti upacārasīmato bahi aññasmiṃ vihāre antevāsikādīnaṃ vasanaṭṭhānato dve leḍḍupāte atikkamitvā vasanti. Tena bahiupacārepi antevāsikādīnaṃ vasanaṭṭhānato dvinnaṃ leḍḍupātānaṃ antare āsanne padese vasati, nissayo na paṭippassambhatīti dasseti. Antoupacārasīmāyaṃ pana dve leḍḍupāte atikkamitvā vasato nissayo na paṭippassambhatevāti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.83) vuttaṃ.
The method stated in the cessation of dependence from a teacher, beginning with “Some teacher…” and so forth, should be applied to the preceptor’s departure and so forth, and what is stated there should be applied here too, adjusted as appropriate. “Dwelling in another monastery after crossing two stone-throws” means dwelling in another dwelling beyond two stone-throws from where the pupils or co-residents live, outside the boundary’s vicinity. This shows that even outside the vicinity, if he dwells within two stone-throws of where the pupils or co-residents live, dependence does not cease. But within the boundary’s vicinity, even crossing two stone-throws, dependence does not cease, as said in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.83).
The principle stated in the cessation of dependence on the teacher, beginning with “Some teacher,” should be extended to the departure of the preceptor and so on, and what is stated there should also be extended here, and applied appropriately. Dwelling in another monastery, having crossed two stone-throws (Dve leḍḍupāte atikkamma aññasmiṃ vihāre vasantī) means, outside the boundary of the surrounding area, in another monastery, they are dwelling having crossed two stone-throws from the dwelling place of the pupils and so on. Therefore, even outside the surrounding area, if he dwells within the distance of two stone-throws from the dwelling place of the pupils and so on, in a nearby place, the dependence does not cease, he shows. But within the boundary of the surrounding area, even if one dwells having crossed two stone-throws, the dependence does not cease, it is said in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.83).
In the resolution of dependence from the teacher, the method stated as “some teacher” should also be applied in the case of the preceptor’s departure, etc., and should be applied here as appropriate. Residing in another monastery after passing two stone-throws—outside the boundary, the teacher and preceptor reside in another monastery after passing two stone-throws. Thus, even outside the boundary, if the pupil resides within two stone-throws of the teacher’s residence, the dependence is not resolved. Within the boundary, even after passing two stone-throws, the dependence is not resolved, as stated in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.83).
ID773
Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is an exposition of the Vinaya compendium
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,
Thus ends the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha.
ID774
Nissayavinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma
The Adornment of the Discussion on the Determination of Dependence
The Ornament of the Discussion on the Determination of Dependence
The chapter named “The Ornament of the Discussion on Dependence”
ID775
Tevīsatimo paricchedo.
The twenty-third chapter.
The Twenty-third Chapter.
The twenty-third section.
ID776
ID777
156. Evaṃ nissayavinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni sīmāvinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ “sīmāti ettha”tyādimāha. Tattha sīmāti sinīyate samaggena saṅghena kammavācāya bandhīyateti sīmā. Si bandhaneti dhātu, ma-paccayo, kiyādigaṇoyaṃ. Vibhāgavantānaṃ sabhāvavibhāvanaṃ vibhāgena vinā na hotīti āha “sīmā nāmesā…pe… hotī”ti. Tattha baddhasīmaṃ tāva dassetuṃ “tattha ekādasa”tyādimāha.
156. Having thus explained the determination of dependence, now to explain the determination of boundaries, it begins with “sīmāti ettha” and so forth. Here, sīmā means that which is delimited, bound by the harmonious Sangha through a formal recitation of a motion (kammavācā); thus, it is a boundary. The root “si” means to bind, with the suffix “ma,” belonging to the kiyādi group. Since the nature of things that can be divided cannot be clarified without division, it says, “sīmā nāmesā…pe… hotī.” To first show the bound boundary, it begins with “tattha ekādasa” and so forth.
156. Having thus explained the determination of dependence, he now, in order to explain the determination of boundaries, says, “Regarding boundaries here…” and so on. Herein, boundary (sīmā) is so called because it is bound (sinīyate) by the complete Sangha through a formal act (kammavācā). The root is ‘si’ meaning binding, with the suffix ‘ma’, this (root) belongs to the ‘ki’ group of roots. Since understanding divisions in terms of their specific inherent qualities does not exist, for those using division, without divisions, he says, “This is called a boundary… it exists.”. Therein, to show first the bounded boundary, he says, “Therein, eleven,” and so on.
156. Having thus discussed the determination of dependence, now to discuss the determination of the boundary, it begins with “sīmāti ettha” (regarding the boundary). Herein, sīmā means that which is bound by the united Sangha through the act of proclamation. The root “si” means to bind, and “ma” is the suffix. This belongs to the kiyādi group. The nature of things that have divisions cannot be understood without division, hence it is said, “sīmā nāmesā…pe… hotī” (this is called a boundary…). To first show the established boundary, it is said, “tattha ekādasa” (there, eleven).
ID778
Vīsativaggakaraṇīyaparamattā saṅghakammassa heṭṭhimantato yattha kammārahena saddhiṃ ekavīsati bhikkhū nisīdituṃ sakkonti, tattake padese sīmaṃ bandhituṃ vaṭṭati, na tato oranti āha “atikhuddakā nāma yattha ekavīsati bhikkhū nisīdituṃ na sakkontī”ti. Puratthimāya disāyāti idaṃ nidassanamattaṃ, tassaṃ pana disāyaṃ nimitte asati yattha atthi, tato paṭṭhāya paṭhamaṃ “puratthimāya anudisāya, dakkhiṇāya disāyā”tiādinā samantā vijjamānaṭṭhānesu nimittāni kittetvā puna “puratthimāya anudisāyā”ti paṭhamakittitaṃ paṭikittetuṃ vaṭṭati tīhi nimittehi siṅghāṭakasaṇṭhānāyapi sīmāya sammannitabbato. Tikkhattuṃ sīmamaṇḍalaṃ sambandhantenāti vinayadharena sayaṃ ekasmiṃyeva ṭhāne ṭhatvā kevalaṃ nimittakittanavacaneneva sīmamaṇḍalaṃ samantā nimittena nimittaṃ bandhantenāti attho. Taṃtaṃnimittaṭṭhānaṃ agantvāpi hi kittetuṃ vaṭṭati. Tiyojanaparamāyapi sīmāya samantato tikkhattuṃ anuparigamanassa ekadivasena dukkarattā vinayadharena sayaṃ adiṭṭhampi pubbe bhikkhūhi yathāvavatthitaṃ nimittaṃ “pāsāṇo bhante”tiādinā kenaci vuttānusārena sallakkhetvā “eso pāsāṇo nimitta”ntiādinā kittetumpi vaṭṭati eva.
For an act of the Sangha requiring a group of twenty, at the minimum, where twenty-one monks, including the one eligible to perform the act, can sit, it is permissible to establish a boundary in such an area, and not less than that, hence it says, “atikhuddakā nāma yattha ekavīsati bhikkhū nisīdituṃ na sakkontī.” Puratthimāya disāyā is merely an example; if there are no markers in that direction, it is permissible to start from wherever they exist, announcing the markers in all directions with “puratthimāya anudisāya, dakkhiṇāya disāyā” and so on, and then repeating the initial “puratthimāya anudisāyā,” due to the allowance of designating a boundary even with three markers in a triangular shape. Tikkhattuṃ sīmamaṇḍalaṃ sambandhantenā means that a Vinaya expert, standing in one place, binds the boundary circle by merely reciting the markers, connecting one marker to another all around; it is permissible to announce them without going to each marker’s location. Even for a boundary extending up to three yojanas, since circling it three times in one day is impractical, a Vinaya expert may, based on prior descriptions by monks such as “pāsāṇo bhante,” observe and announce “this rock is a marker” and so forth, even without having seen it himself.
From the minimum for performing Sangha acts which require a quorum of twenty, the boundary can properly be established in a place where twenty-one monks, including one who is qualified for the formal act, can sit; it is not appropriate to establish the boundary in a place smaller, so he states, “what is exceedingly small is that in which twenty-one monks are not able to sit.” “In the eastern direction” is used only for an example. But, when, in such a direction there is no feature; then, beginning from where there is, having, first, all around recited the features in existing locations by saying: “In the eastern intermediate direction, in the southern direction,” and so on; again “in the eastern intermediate direction,” one should re-recite the feature that was recited first; because, with three features, the boundary to be designated may take the shape of a crossroads. By one connecting the circle of the boundary three times, means by a Vinaya expert, himself, standing in one single location, by the mere recital of the feature, connecting feature with feature all the way around the boundary circle; it is proper to recite even without going to the location of each feature. Even for a boundary up to three yojanas limit, because going all around it three times is difficult to be accomplished by oneself in a single day; therefore, a Vinaya expert, himself, can, having observed a previously established, by the monks, feature, relying on someone’s recitation, for example, “Venerable sir, a stone,” and so forth, should, recite according to, “This stone is a feature”, etc.
Since the Sangha act requires a minimum of twenty monks, a boundary can be established in a place where twenty-one monks, including the one qualified to perform the act, can sit together. It is not permissible to establish a boundary in a place smaller than this, hence it is said, “atikhuddakā nāma yattha ekavīsati bhikkhū nisīdituṃ na sakkontī” (a place is called too small where twenty-one monks cannot sit together). Puratthimāya disāyā (in the eastern direction) is merely an example. If there are no landmarks in that direction, then starting from where landmarks exist, first the landmarks in the eastern direction, southern direction, etc., should be declared in all available directions. After declaring the landmarks in all directions, it is permissible to re-declare the first declared landmark, “puratthimāya anudisāyā” (in the eastern intermediate direction), with three landmarks, even for a boundary shaped like a crossroads. Tikkhattuṃ sīmamaṇḍalaṃ sambandhantenā (by connecting the boundary circle three times) means that the Vinaya expert, standing in one place, binds the boundary circle by merely declaring the landmarks, connecting landmark to landmark in all directions. It is permissible to declare the landmarks without going to each landmark location. Even for a boundary as large as three yojanas, it is difficult to circumambulate three times in a single day, so the Vinaya expert, without having seen the landmarks previously, can declare them based on what the monks have described, such as, “pāsāṇo bhante” (Venerable, the stone), and so on, and declare, “eso pāsāṇo nimitta” (this stone is the landmark), and so on.
ID779
Saṃsaṭṭhaviṭapāti iminā aññamaññassa āsannataṃ dīpeti. Baddhā hotīti pacchimadisābhāge sīmaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Ekaratanamattā suviññeyyatarā hotīti katvā vuttaṃ “pacchimakoṭiyā hatthamattā sīmantarikā ṭhapetabbā”ti. Ekaṅgulimattāpi sīmantarikā vaṭṭatiyeva. Tattakenapi hi sīmā asambhinnāva hoti. Dvinnaṃ sīmānaṃ nimittaṃ hotīti nimittassa sīmato bāhirattā sīmasambhedo na hotīti vuttaṃ. Sīmasaṅkaraṃ karotīti vaḍḍhitvā sīmappadesaṃ paviṭṭhe dvinnaṃ sīmānaṃ gataṭṭhānassa duviññeyyattā vuttaṃ, na, pana tattha kammaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭatīti dassanatthaṃ. Na hi sīmā tattakena asīmā hoti, dve pana sīmā pacchā vaḍḍhitarukkhena ajjhotthaṭattā ekābaddhā honti, tasmā ekattha ṭhatvā kammaṃ karontehi itaraṃ sodhetvā kātabbaṃ. Tassā padesanti yattha ṭhatvā bhikkhūhi kammaṃ kātuṃ sakkā hoti, tādisaṃ padesaṃ, yattha pana ṭhitehi kammaṃ kātuṃ na sakkā hoti, tādisaṃ padesaṃ antokaritvā bandhantā sīmāya sīmaṃ saṃbhindanti nāma. Na kammavācaṃ vaggaṃ karontīti kammavācaṃ na bhindanti, kammaṃ na kopentīti adhippāyo.
Saṃsaṭṭhaviṭapā indicates their closeness to one another. Baddhā hotī refers to the boundary in the western direction. It is said, “pacchimakoṭiyā hatthamattā sīmantarikā ṭhapetabbā,” because a gap of about a handspan makes it easier to distinguish; even a finger’s width gap is sufficient, as the boundary remains unconfused with that much. Dvinnaṃ sīmānaṃ nimittaṃ hotī means that since the marker is outside the boundary, there is no merging of boundaries. Sīmasaṅkaraṃ karotī is said because, when a tree grows and enters the boundary area, the space between two boundaries becomes hard to discern, not to imply that performing an act there is impermissible. The boundary does not become invalid due to this; rather, since the two boundaries become unified by the overgrown tree, monks performing an act in one place must purify the other. Tassā padesa refers to an area where monks can stand and perform an act; if they stand in a place where an act cannot be performed, binding a boundary that includes such an area merges one boundary with another. Na kammavācaṃ vaggaṃ karontī means they do not disrupt the recitation of the motion, nor do they spoil the act.
With intertwined branches this shows their closeness to each other. It is bound refers to joining the boundary in the western sector. Because a single ratana measure, is easier to discern, he stated, “At the western end, a hand-span boundary interval should be left”. Even a boundary interval of a single finger-breadth is indeed permissible. For with that much, the boundaries are indeed not intermingled. It is a feature of two boundaries, means that the boundary intermingling does not occur, because the feature is outside of the boundary. He causes an intermingling of boundaries, it is said because, the increased area of a bounded territory and places belonging to two boundaries are difficult to be distinguished. But, the intent is not to show that it is not proper to perform a formal act. For, with only that much, a boundary does not become a non-boundary; but two boundaries, overgrown by a tree expanded later, become bounded as one; therefore, those performing a formal act, standing in one place, should do so after clearing the other. Its area, means an area where it is possible for the monks to perform a formal act; but, establishing (a boundary) including an area where it is not possible to perform a formal act, it is said that, they intermingle the boundary with a boundary. They do not make the formal act incomplete, means that they do not invalidate the formal act, they do not nullify the formal act.
Saṃsaṭṭhaviṭapā (intertwined trees) indicates the closeness of one tree to another. Baddhā hotī (is bound) refers to the boundary in the western direction. To make it more easily understandable, it is said, “pacchimakoṭiyā hatthamattā sīmantarikā ṭhapetabbā” (a space of one handbreadth should be left at the western corner). Even a space of one fingerbreadth is permissible. For even with that, the boundary remains unbroken. Dvinnaṃ sīmānaṃ nimittaṃ hotī (the landmark is for two boundaries) means that since the landmark is outside the boundary, there is no mixing of boundaries. Sīmasaṅkaraṃ karotī (mixes the boundaries) refers to the difficulty in determining the location when two boundaries overlap due to expansion. However, it does not mean that an act cannot be performed there. For the boundary does not become non-existent due to that, but when two boundaries later expand and overlap, they become one. Therefore, when performing an act in such a place, one boundary should be cleared before proceeding. Tassā padesa (that place) refers to a place where monks can perform an act while standing, but if they cannot perform an act while standing there, then by including such a place within the boundary, they are said to break the boundary. Na kammavācaṃ vaggaṃ karontī (they do not break the proclamation) means they do not break the proclamation or disrupt the act.
ID780
158. Suddhapaṃsupabbatoti na kenaci kato sayaṃjātova vutto. Tathā sesāpi. Itaropīti suddhapaṃsupabbatādiko pabbatopi. Hatthippamāṇoti ettha bhūmito uggatapadesena hatthippamāṇaṃ gahetabbaṃ. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.138) pana vajirabuddhiṭīkāyañca (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 138) “hatthippamāṇo nāma pabbato heṭṭhimakoṭiyā aḍḍhaṭṭhamaratanubbedho”ti vuttaṃ. Catūhi vā tīhi vāti sīmabhūmiyaṃ catūsu, tīsu vā disāsu ṭhitehi, ekissā eva pana disāya ṭhitehi tato bahūhipi sammannituṃ na vaṭṭati, dvīhi pana dvīsu disāsu ṭhitehipi na vaṭṭati. Tasmāti yasmā ekena na vaṭṭati, tasmā. Taṃ bahiddhā katvāti kittitanimittassa asīmattā antosīmāya karaṇaṃ ayuttanti vuttaṃ. Tenāha “sace”tiādi.
158. Suddhapaṃsupabbato refers to a mound of pure earth not made by anyone, naturally occurring. So too with the rest. Itaropī means even a mountain like a pure earth mound. Hatthippamāṇo refers to a size measured from the ground upward, equivalent to an elephant’s height. However, in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.138) and Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 138), it is said, “hatthippamāṇo nāma pabbato** means a mountain with a base of two and a half ratanas in height.” Catūhi vā tīhi vā** means with monks standing in four or three directions on the boundary land; it is not permissible to designate it with many monks standing in just one direction, nor even with two standing in two directions. Tasmā means because it is not permissible with one alone. Taṃ bahiddhā katvā is said because including an announced marker within the boundary, when it should be external, is improper; hence it says, “sace” and so forth.
158. A mountain of pure earth means one that is not made by anyone, but naturally arisen. Similarly, the rest also. Even another, a mountain of pure earth, etc. Of the size of an elephant, here, one should take that the size of an elephant to be (measured) as it emerges from the ground. But, in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.138) and in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 138), “A mountain of the size of an elephant, is one with a height of seven and a half ratanas at the lowest point,” it is said. By four or by three means (mountains) located on four or three sides of the territory of the boundary; however, it is not proper to establish, (a boundary) by the use of (features) located on one same direction, even if they are many; and it is not appropriate with two (features) even located on two directions. Therefore because it is not appropriate with one, therefore. Having made it external, means, a designation inside the boundary is improper, because the recited features are not the boundary. So he says, “If…” etc.
158. Suddhapaṃsupabbato (a pure sand mountain) refers to one that is naturally formed, not made by anyone. The same applies to the rest. Itaropī (others) includes mountains like the pure sand mountain. Hatthippamāṇo (the size of an elephant) here refers to the height from the ground. In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.138) and the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 138), it is said, “hatthippamāṇo nāma pabbato (a mountain is called elephant-sized) if it is half the height of an elephant at its base.” Catūhi vā tīhi vā (by four or three) means that in the boundary area, landmarks should be established in four or three directions, but not in one direction alone, even if many are present. Two landmarks in two directions are also not permissible. Tasmā (therefore) because it is not permissible with one. Taṃ bahiddhā katvā (excluding that) means that since the declared landmark is outside the boundary, it is inappropriate to include it within the boundary. Hence it is said, “sace” (if), and so on.
ID781
Dvattiṃsapalaguḷapiṇḍappamāṇatā saṇṭhānato gahetabbā, na tulagaṇanāvasena, bhārato palaparimāṇañca magadhatulāya gahetabbaṃ, sā ca lokiyatulāya dviguṇāti vadanti. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.138) pana “dvattiṃsapalaguḷapiṇḍappamāṇatā tulatāya gahetabbā, na tulagaṇanāyā”ti vuttaṃ. Atimahantopīti bhūmito hatthippamāṇaṃ anugantvā heṭṭhābhūmiyaṃ otiṇṇaghanato anekayojanappamāṇopi. Sace hi tato hatthippamāṇaṃ kūṭaṃ uggacchati, pabbatasaṅkhameva gacchati. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 138) – sace ekābaddho hoti, na kātabboti ettha catūsu disāsu catunnaṃ pabbatakūṭānaṃ heṭṭhā piṭṭhipāsāṇasadise pāsāṇe ṭhitattā ekābaddhabhāve satipi pathavito uddhaṃ tesaṃ sambandhe asati heṭṭhā pathavīgatasambandhamatte abbohārikaṃ katvā kittetuṃ vaṭṭati. Teneva “piṭṭhipāsāṇo atimahantopi pāsāṇasaṅkhyameva gacchatī”ti vuttaṃ. Pathavito heṭṭhā tassa mahantabhāve gayhamāne pabbatameva hotīti anugaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. Cinitvā katapaṃsupuñje tiṇagumbarukkhā ce jāyanti, pabbato hotīti dhammasiritthero, nevāti upatissattheroti vuttaṃ. Pāsāṇoti sudhāmayapāsāṇopi vaṭṭatīti vadanti, vīmaṃsitabbaṃ iṭṭhakāya paṭikkhittattā. Sopīti khāṇuko viya uṭṭhitapāsāṇopi. Catupañcarukkhanimittamattampīti ekaccesu nimittasaddo natthīti vuttaṃ.
Dvattiṃsapalaguḷapiṇḍappamāṇatā should be understood by shape, not by weight calculation; the measure of a pala is taken by the Magadha scale, which is said to be twice the common scale. However, in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.138), it says, “dvattiṃsapalaguḷapiṇḍappamāṇatā** is to be taken by the scale, not by weighing.” Atimahantopī** means even one exceeding the elephant-sized height from the ground, descending into the earth for many yojanas; if its peak rises to an elephant’s height, it is still considered a mountain. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 138), “sace ekābaddho hoti, na kātabbo” means that even if four mountain peaks in four directions are connected below like a flat rock, if there is no connection above ground, it is permissible to designate it, treating the underground connection as irrelevant. Thus, it says, “a flat rock, even if very large, is still counted as a rock.” If its large size were considered from below ground, it would be a mountain, as stated in the context of height. Elder Dhammasiri says that a heap of earth with grass or trees growing on it is a mountain, while Elder Upatissa says it is not. Pāsāṇo includes a rock made of plaster, though this requires consideration due to the prohibition of bricks. Sopī means even a rock protruding like a stake. Catupañcarukkhanimittamattampī is said because in some cases the term “marker” is absent.
The size of thirty-two lumps of jaggery, the size should be considered based on the shape, and not based on counting the lumps. And by weight the amount of palas should be with the Magadhan weight unit, which, they say, is double the worldly weight unit. But, in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.138), it is said, “The size of thirty-two lumps of jaggery, should be considered based on weighing and not based on counting the lumps.” Even if it is very large** not conforming to the height of an elephant above ground and even of many yojanas extent if it is very dense descending into the lower ground. For, if a peak of the height of an elephant rises from it, it qualifies as a mountain. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 138) – If it is connected, it should not be used, here, even when four mountain peaks in the four directions, are connected at the bottom by a flat stone resembling a back slab, as long as they are not connected above the ground, considering their connection at the ground level as irrelevant, it is proper to recite it. Therefore, it is said: “Even if the back slab is very large, it is still considered a stone.” Below the ground, if its great size is taken into account, it becomes a mountain, it is said in the Anugaṇṭhi. If, on a heap of earth made by piling up, grass, bushes, and trees grow, it becomes a mountain, says the Elder Dhammasiri; but, it does not, says the Elder Upatissa, it is mentioned. Stone** even a stone made of mortar is acceptable, they say; but, it should be examined because bricks are rejected. Even that like a stake, also a risen stone. Even if it is only the size of four or five trees, it has been said that the word ‘feature’ is not found in some (texts).
Dvattiṃsapalaguḷapiṇḍappamāṇatā (the size of thirty-two pala balls) should be understood by shape, not by weight. The measure of a pala should be taken according to the Magadha weight, and it is said to be double the worldly measure. In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.138), it is said, “dvattiṃsapalaguḷapiṇḍappamāṇatā (the size of thirty-two pala balls) should be understood by weight, not by counting.” Atimahantopī (even if very large) refers to a mountain that extends beyond the elephant-sized measure from the ground, even if it is many yojanas in height. If its peak exceeds the elephant-sized measure, it is considered a mountain. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 138), it is said, “sace ekābaddho hoti, na kātabbo (if it is connected, it should not be done).” Here, even if the four peaks of the mountains in the four directions are connected at the base, if there is no connection above the ground, it is permissible to declare them by disregarding the connection to the ground below. Hence it is said, “piṭṭhipāsāṇo atimahantopi pāsāṇasaṅkhyameva gacchatī” (even a very large back stone is still considered a stone). If its great size is measured from below the ground, it is considered a mountain. This is stated in the anugaṇṭhipada. A pile of sand, if grass or shrubs grow on it, is considered a mountain, as stated by Dhammasiri Thera and Upatissa Thera. Pāsāṇo (stone) includes even a stone made of plaster, but this should be examined, as bricks are excluded. Sopī (even that) includes a stone that has risen like a stump. Catupañcarukkhanimittamattampī (even just four or five trees as landmarks) means that in some cases, the term “landmark” is not used.
ID782
Antosārānanti tasmiṃ khaṇe taruṇatāya sāre avijjamānepi pariṇāmena bhavissamānasārepi sandhāya vuttaṃ . Tādisānañhi sūcidaṇḍakappamāṇapariṇāhānaṃ catupañcamattānampi vanaṃ vaṭṭati. Antosāramissakānanti antosārehi rukkhehi sammissānaṃ. Etena tacasārarukkhamissakānampi vanaṃ vaṭṭatīti dasseti. Catupañcarukkhamattampīti sārarukkhe sandhāya vuttaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 138) pana “ettha tayo ce sārarukkhā honti, dve asārā, sārarukkhānaṃ bahuttaṃ icchitabbaṃ. Susānampi idha vanamevāti saṅkhyaṃ gacchati sayaṃjātattāti vuttaṃ. Keci pana ’catūsu dve antosārā ce, vaṭṭati, antosārā adhikā, samā vā, vaṭṭati, tasmā bahūsupi dve ce antosārā atthi, vaṭṭatī’ti vadantī”ti vuttaṃ. Vanamajjhe vihāraṃ karontīti rukkhaghaṭāya antare rukkhe acchinditvā vatiādīhi vihāraparicchedaṃ katvāva antorukkhantaresu eva pariveṇapaṇṇasālādīnaṃ karaṇavasena yathā antovihārampi vanameva hoti, evaṃ vihāraṃ karontīti attho. Yadi hi sabbaṃ rukkhaṃ chinditvā vihāraṃ kareyyuṃ, vihārassa avanattā taṃ parikkhipitvā ṭhitavanaṃ ekattha kittetabbaṃ siyā, idha pana antopi vanattā “vanaṃ na kittetabba”nti vuttaṃ. Sace hi taṃ kittenti, “nimittassa upari vihāro hotī”tiādinā anantare vuttadoso āpajjati . Ekadesanti vanekadesaṃ, rukkhavirahitaṭṭhāne katavihārassa ekapasse ṭhitavanassa ekadesanti attho.
Antosārānaṃ refers to those that, at that moment, though lacking sapwood due to their youth, are spoken of with reference to the sapwood that will develop with maturity. For such trees, even a grove of four or five with the girth of a needle-stick is permissible. Antosāramissakānaṃ means mixed with trees having sapwood. This indicates that a grove mixed with bark-sapwood trees is also permissible. Catupañcarukkhamattampi is said with reference to trees with sapwood. However, in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 138), it is stated: “Here, if there are three trees with sapwood and two without, the majority of sapwood trees is desirable. A cemetery is also considered a grove here because it is self-grown, as stated. Some, however, say, ‘If among four trees two have sapwood, it is permissible; if those with sapwood are more or equal, it is permissible; thus, even among many, if two have sapwood, it is permissible.’” Vanamajjhe vihāraṃ karonti means they make a monastery in the midst of a grove, without cutting the trees within a cluster, by marking the monastery boundary with fences and the like, and by constructing cells, leaf-halls, and so forth among the trees, so that even the interior of the monastery remains a grove—this is how they make the monastery. For if they cut all the trees to make the monastery, due to the monastery not being a grove, the grove surrounding it might need to be designated separately; but here, since the interior is also a grove, it is said, “the grove need not be designated.” If they were to designate it, the fault mentioned earlier—“the monastery would be above the boundary marker”—would arise. Ekadesaṃ means a part of the grove, referring to a portion of the grove standing on one side of a monastery built in an area devoid of trees.
Of those having inner pith, it is said with reference to the sapwood, even if it is not present at that moment, (in trees) that are expected to grow, developing an inner pith. Indeed, for those (trees), even a grove of only four or five trees with a girth of the size of a marked stick is suitable. Of those mixed with inner pith of those mixed with trees with inner pith. By this, he shows that even a grove mixed with trees with outer pith is permissible. Even the size of four or five trees is said with reference to trees with inner pith. But, in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 138) it is said: “Here, if there are three trees with inner pith, and two without, the majority of the trees with inner pith should be desired. Even a cemetery here, becomes count as nothing but a grove, because it is naturally arisen.” But, some say: “If in (a group of) four, two have inner pith, it is permissible; (trees with) inner pith are more, or equal, it is permissible. Therefore, even in a large number, if two have inner pith, it is permissible, they say.” Making a monastery in the middle of a grove means having made the boundary of the monastery with fences and so on, without cutting down the trees within the grove, by building lodgings, leaf huts, etc., within the spaces of the trees themselves, so that even the inside of the monastery is still a grove; thus, they make a monastery. If indeed, they build the monastery having cut down all the trees, because the monastery is not a grove, the grove surrounding it should be recited in one place; here, however, because it is a grove even inside, it is said that “the grove should not be recited.” For if they recite it, the fault mentioned in the next (statement), starting with, “the monastery would be on top of the feature”, will result. A part means a part of the grove, a single portion of the grove located on one side of the monastery built in a place devoid of trees.
Antosārāna (those with pith inside) refers to trees that, though lacking pith at the moment due to their youth, will develop pith as they mature. Even trees with a circumference as small as a needle stick, four or five in number, can form a forest. Antosāramissakāna (mixed with trees that have pith inside) refers to trees mixed with those that have pith inside. This indicates that even forests mixed with trees that have bark pith are permissible. Catupañcarukkhamattampī (even just four or five trees) refers to trees with pith. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 138), it is said, “ettha tayo ce sārarukkhā honti, dve asārā, sārarukkhānaṃ bahuttaṃ icchitabbaṃ. Susānampi idha vanamevāti saṅkhyaṃ gacchati sayaṃjātattāti vuttaṃ. Keci pana ‘catūsu dve antosārā ce, vaṭṭati, antosārā adhikā, samā vā, vaṭṭati, tasmā bahūsupi dve ce antosārā atthi, vaṭṭatī’ti vadantī”** (here, if there are three trees with pith and two without, the majority should be trees with pith. Even a cemetery is considered a forest here because it arises naturally. Some say, ‘if among four trees, two have pith, it is permissible; if the trees with pith are more or equal, it is permissible; therefore, even among many trees, if at least two have pith, it is permissible.”’ Vanamajjhe vihāraṃ karontī** (building a monastery in the middle of a forest) means that by cutting trees in a cluster and using them to construct the monastery, even the area between the trees becomes part of the monastery. If all the trees were cut down to build the monastery, the surrounding forest would have to be declared as part of the monastery, but here, since the monastery is within the forest, it is said, “vanaṃ na kittetabba” (the forest should not be declared). If they were to declare it, the fault mentioned immediately after, “nimittassa upari vihāro hotī” (the monastery is above the landmark), would arise. Ekadesa (a part) refers to a part of the forest, a place without trees, where the monastery is built on one side of the remaining forest.
ID783
Sūcidaṇḍakappamāṇoti vaṃsadaṇḍappamāṇo. “Lekhanidaṇḍappamāṇo”ti keci. Mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. dubbalasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) pana avebhaṅgiyavinicchaye “yo koci aṭṭhaṅgulasūcidaṇḍamattopi veḷu…pe… garubhaṇḍa”nti vuttattā tanutaro veḷudaṇḍoti ca sūcidaṇḍoti ca gahetabbaṃ. Vaṃsanaḷakasarāvādīsūti veḷupabbe vā naḷapabbe vā kapallakādimattikabhājanesu vāti attho. Taṅkhaṇampīti taruṇapotake amilāyitvā viruhanajātike sandhāya vuttaṃ. Ye pana pariṇatā samūlaṃ uddharitvā ropitāpi chinnasākhā viya milāyitvā cirena navamūlaṅkuruppattiyā jīvanti, miyantiyeva vā, tādise kittetuṃ na vaṭṭati. Etanti navamūlasākhāniggamanaṃ. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.138) pana “sūcidaṇḍakappamāṇoti sīhaḷadīpe lekhanidaṇḍappamāṇoti vadanti, so ca kaniṭṭhaṅguliparimāṇoti daṭṭhabba”nti vuttaṃ.
Sūcidaṇḍakappamāṇo means the size of a bamboo stick. Some say “the size of a writing stick.” However, in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. dubbalasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), in the determination of non-division, it is said, “any bamboo even the size of an eight-finger needle-stick… heavy goods,” and thus it should be understood as either a slender bamboo stick or a needle-stick. Vaṃsanaḷakasarāvādīsu means in bamboo joints, reed joints, or earthen vessels like pots. Taṅkhaṇampi is said with reference to young saplings that grow without wilting into a new type. However, those that are mature, even if uprooted with their roots and replanted, either wilt like cut branches and live only after a long time with the sprouting of new roots, or die entirely—such should not be designated. Etaṃ refers to the emergence of new roots and branches. In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.138), it is said: “Sūcidaṇḍakappamāṇo—in the Sinhala region, they say it is the size of a writing stick, and it should be understood as the measure of the little finger.”
The size of a marked stick the size of a bamboo stick. Some say: “The size of a writing stick.” But, in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. dubbalasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) in the Avebhaṅgiya decision, it is said: “Any bamboo even the size of an eight-fingered marking stick… is a heavy item.” Therefore, it should be taken as a thin bamboo stick, and as a marked stick. In bamboo, reed, water pots, etc., means on a bamboo node or reed node or in clay vessels like bowls, etc. Even at that moment it refers to young shoots that do not wilt and are of a growing kind. But those that are mature, and, having been uprooted and replanted, wilt like cut branches, and slowly, with the appearance of new roots and sprouts, survive, or indeed die; those are not proper to be recited. This the sprouting of new roots and branches. But in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.138), it is said, **“The size of a marked stick** they say in Sri Lanka (means) the size of a writing stick; and that should be understood to be the size of a little finger.”
Sūcidaṇḍakappamāṇo (the size of a needle stick) refers to the size of a bamboo stick. Some say it is the size of a writing stick. In the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Dubbalasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), in the Avebhaṅgiyavinicchaya, it is said, “yo koci aṭṭhaṅgulasūcidaṇḍamattopi veḷu…pe… garubhaṇḍa” (any bamboo stick, even as small as eight inches, is considered heavy equipment), so a thinner bamboo stick should be taken as a needle stick. Vaṃsanaḷakasarāvādīsū (bamboo, reed, or clay vessels) refers to vessels made of bamboo, reed, or clay. Taṅkhaṇampī (at that moment) refers to young shoots that have not yet withered. However, those that have been uprooted and replanted, even if they wither like cut branches, or those that take a long time to produce new roots, should not be declared. Eta (this) refers to the emergence of new roots and branches. In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.138), it is said, “sūcidaṇḍakappamāṇo (the size of a needle stick) in Sri Lanka is said to be the size of a writing stick, and it should be understood as the size of the smallest finger.”
ID784
Majjheti sīmāya mahādisānaṃ anto. Koṇanti sīmāya catūsu koṇesu dvinnaṃ dvinnaṃ maggānaṃ sambandhaṭṭhānaṃ. Parabhāge kittetuṃ vaṭṭatīti tesaṃ catunnaṃ koṇānaṃ bahi nikkhamitvā ṭhitesu aṭṭhasu maggesu ekissā disāya ekaṃ, aññissā disāya cāparanti evaṃ cattāropi maggā catūsu disāsu kittetuṃ vaṭṭatīti adhippāyo. Evaṃ pana kittitamattena kathaṃ ekābaddhatā vigacchatīti viññāyati. Parato gataṭṭhānepi ete eva te cattāro maggā. “Cattāro maggā catūsu disāsu gacchantī”ti hi vuttaṃ, tasmā ettha kāraṇaṃ vicinitabbanti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.138) vuttaṃ. Vicinanto pana evaṃ kāraṇaṃ paññāyati – pubbavākyepi “vihāraṃ parikkhipitvā cattāro maggā”ti, paravākyepi “vihāramajjhena nibbijjhitvā gatamaggopī”ti vihārameva sandhāya vutto, tasmā idhāpi “koṇaṃ nibbijjhitvā gataṃ panā”ti (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138) aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttattā ete maggā vihārassa koṇameva nibbijjhiṃsu, na aññamaññaṃ missiṃsu, tasmā ekābaddhabhāvābhāvā catunnaṃ maggānaṃ catūsu ṭhānesu kittetuṃ vaṭṭatīti. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ pana “parabhāge kittetuṃ vaṭṭatīti bahi nikkhamitvā ṭhitesu aṭṭhasu maggesu ekissā disāya ekaṃ, aparāya ekanti evaṃ catūsu ṭhānesu kittetuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti ettakameva vuttaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 138) pana “parabhāgeti ettha etehi baddhaṭṭhānato gatattā vaṭṭati, tathā dīghamaggepi gahitaṭṭhānato gataṭṭhānassa aññattāti vadantī”ti vuttaṃ. Tampi ekābaddhanimittattā vicāretabbaṃ.
Majjhe means within the boundary, among the major directions. Koṇaṃ refers to the junction of two paths at each of the four corners of the boundary. Parabhāge kittetuṃ vaṭṭati means it is permissible to designate in the outer parts, with the intention that among the eight paths extending outward from these four corners, one path in one direction and another in another direction—thus all four paths in the four directions—may be designated. However, it is understood how the unity is lost merely by designating them thus. Even in the place they lead to, these are the same four paths. It is said, “The four paths go in the four directions”; therefore, the reason here should be investigated, as stated in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.138). Upon investigation, the reason becomes clear as follows: in the earlier statement, “surrounding the monastery, the four paths,” and in the later statement, “even a path piercing through the middle of the monastery,” it is said with reference to the monastery alone; thus here too, since it is stated in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138), “even a path piercing through the corner,” these paths pierced only the corners of the monastery and did not merge with one another; therefore, due to the absence of unity, it is permissible to designate the four paths in four places. In the Sāratthadīpanī, it is said only: “Parabhāge kittetuṃ vaṭṭati—among the eight paths standing outside, one in one direction and one in another, thus it is permissible to designate in four places.” However, in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 138), it is said: ”Parabhāge—here, it is permissible because they have gone from the place of connection, and similarly on a long path, the place gone to is different from the place taken, they say.” This too should be considered due to the implication of unity.
In the middle inside the cardinal directions of the boundary. Corner the place where two of the four corners of the boundary join two roads. It is proper to recite in the outer part means that, of the eight roads emerging outside of those four corners, one road on one direction, and another on another direction, and thus all four roads, in four directions, it is proper to recite. But, with reciting it in this manner, how the non-interconnection, is known. Even in the place that they have gone to, these are the same four roads. For it is said: “Four roads go in four directions.” Therefore, here, the reason should be investigated, it is said in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.138). But, examining, the reason thus, is understood – in the previous statement, it is said, “surrounding the monastery, four roads”, also in the later statement “even a road passing through the middle of the monastery”. It is said referring to the monastery, therefore also here “passing through the corner” (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138) is said in the commentary. These roads passed only through the corner of the monastery, they did not intersect each other, so, because of the non-interconnection, it is suitable to recite the four roads in four locations. But, in the Sāratthadīpanī, it is said only this much: “It is proper to recite in the outer part”, means, of the eight roads going out, one on one direction, another on another, thus it is proper to recite in four locations. But, in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 138) it is said, “in the outer part”, here, because these have gone from the bounded place, it is appropriate. Likewise, they say that, even for long roads, the place gone to is different from the place where it was taken.” But that too, since it is a feature of connection, should be investigated.
Majjhe (in the middle) refers to the interior of the boundary in the major directions. Koṇa (corner) refers to the junction of two paths in each of the four corners of the boundary. Parabhāge kittetuṃ vaṭṭatī (it is permissible to declare in the outer area) means that after leaving the four corners, the four paths in the eight directions can be declared, one in each direction. However, it is understood that by merely declaring them, the unity of the boundary is not lost. These four paths are the same even when they go to other places. “Cattāro maggā catūsu disāsu gacchantī” (the four paths go in the four directions), so the reason should be investigated here, as stated in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.138). Upon investigation, the reason becomes clear: in the earlier statement, “vihāraṃ parikkhipitvā cattāro maggā” (after surrounding the monastery, the four paths), and in the later statement, “vihāramajjhena nibbijjhitvā gatamaggopī” (the paths that go after piercing the middle of the monastery), both refer to the monastery. Therefore, here too, “koṇaṃ nibbijjhitvā gataṃ panā” (after piercing the corner, they go), as stated in the Aṭṭhakathā (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 138), means that these paths pierced the corner of the monastery, not each other, so it is permissible to declare the four paths in four places without losing the unity of the boundary. In the Sāratthadīpanī, it is said, “parabhāge kittetuṃ vaṭṭatī (it is permissible to declare in the outer area) means that after leaving, the four paths in the eight directions can be declared, one in each direction.” In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 138), it is said, “parabhāge (in the outer area) here refers to those that have gone from the bound place, and even in a long path, the place of departure is different from the place of arrival.” This should also be considered as a sign of unity.
ID785
Uttarantiyā bhikkhuniyāti idañca pāḷiyaṃ bhikkhunīnaṃ nadīpāragamane nadīlakkhaṇassa āgatattā vuttaṃ, bhikkhūnaṃ antaravāsakatemanamattampi vaṭṭatiyeva. Sāratthadīpaniyampi (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.138) “bhikkhuniyā eva gahaṇañcettha bhikkhunīvibhaṅge bhikkhunīvasena nadīlakkhaṇassa pāḷiyaṃ āgatattā teneva nayena dassanatthaṃ kataṃ. Sīmaṃ bandhantānaṃ nimittaṃ hotīti ayaṃ vuttalakkhaṇā nadī samuddaṃ vā pavisatu taḷākaṃ vā, pabhavato paṭṭhāya nimittaṃ hotī”ti vuttaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 138) pana “antaravāsako temiyatīti vuttattā tattakappamāṇaudakeyeva kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti keci. ’Temiyatī’ti iminā heṭṭhimakoṭiyā nadīlakkhaṇaṃ vuttaṃ, evarūpāya nadiyā yasmiṃ ṭhāne cattāro māse appaṃ vā bahuṃ vā udakaṃ ajjhottharitvā pavattati, tasmiṃ ṭhāne appodakepi ṭhatvā kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti eke”ti vuttaṃ.
Uttarantiyā bhikkhuniyā is said because in the text, regarding nuns crossing a river, the characteristic of a river is mentioned, whereas for monks, even wetting the inner robe slightly is indeed permissible. In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.138), it is said: “The mention of a nun here is made in the Bhikkhunīvibhaṅga with reference to nuns because the characteristic of a river is stated in the text, and it is done to show it by that method alone. Sīmaṃ bandhantānaṃ nimittaṃ hoti—this river with the stated characteristic, whether it flows into the sea or a lake, serves as a boundary marker from its source.” In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 138), it is said: “Since it is said, ‘it gets wet,’ some say it is permissible to use only water of that amount; with ‘it gets wet,’ the lower limit of a river’s characteristic is stated, and in a river of such a kind, at a place where for four months little or much water spreads and flows, it is permissible to do so even standing in little water, some say.”
Until a nun’s lower garment is wet, this is said because in the Pāli, the characteristic of a river, for the nuns’ crossing of the river is mentioned. But, for the monks, even as much as wetting the inner robe is suitable. In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.138) also, “taking only ‘a nun’ here is done to show, by the same way, because, in the Bhikkhunīvibhaṅga, in the Pāli, the characteristic of a river is mentioned, referring to nuns. It becomes a feature for those establishing the boundary whether this mentioned river flows into the ocean or into a lake, from its source, it becomes a feature,” it is said. But, in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 138), it is said: “Because it is said that the inner robe gets wet, some say that it is appropriate to do it only with that much water. By ‘gets wet’ here, the lower limit of the characteristic of a river is stated. Some say: ‘It is appropriate to do it, in a river of this kind, in a place where, for four months, little or much water flows overflowing, even if one stands in a place with little water.’”
Uttarantiyā bhikkhuniyā (for the nun crossing) refers to the characteristic of a river in the Pāli text, which is mentioned in the context of nuns crossing a river. For monks, even a wet undergarment is permissible. In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.138), it is said, “bhikkhuniyā eva gahaṇañcettha bhikkhunīvibhaṅge bhikkhunīvasena nadīlakkhaṇassa pāḷiyaṃ āgatattā teneva nayena dassanatthaṃ kataṃ. Sīmaṃ bandhantānaṃ nimittaṃ hotī** (this is the landmark for those establishing the boundary) means that this river, whether it enters the sea or a lake, from its source, is a landmark.” In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 138), it is said, “antaravāsako temiyatī (the undergarment becomes wet), hence it is permissible to perform the act in water of that measure. ‘Temiyatī’ (becomes wet) refers to the characteristic of a river at its base. In such a river, where water flows for four months, whether little or much, it is permissible to perform the act even in a small amount of water.”
ID786
Nadīcatukkepi eseva nayoti iminā ekattha kittetvā aññattha parato gataṭṭhānepi kittetuṃ na vaṭṭatīti dasseti. Teneva ca “asammissā nadiyo pana catassopi kittetuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti asammissaggahaṇaṃ kataṃ. Ajjhottharitvā āvaraṇaṃ pavattatiyevāti āvaraṇaṃ ajjhottharitvā sandatiyeva. Apavattamānāti asandamānudakā. Āvaraṇañhi patvā nadiyā yattake padese udakaṃ asandamānaṃ santiṭṭhati, tattha nadīnimittaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭati, upari sandamānaṭṭhāneyeva vaṭṭati. Asandamānaṭṭhāne pana udakanimittaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Ṭhitameva hi udakaṃ udakanimitte vaṭṭati, na sandamānaṃ. Tenevāha “pavattanaṭṭhāne nadīnimittaṃ, apavattanaṭṭhāne udakanimittaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti. “Pavattanaṭṭhāne nadīnimittanti vuttattā setuto parato tattakaṃ udakaṃ yadi pavattati, nadī evāti vadanti. Jātassarādīsu ṭhitodakaṃ jātassarādipadesena antarikampi nimittaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati nadīpārasīmāya nimittaṃ viya. Sace so padeso kālantarena gāmakhettabhāvaṃ pāpuṇāti, tattha aññaṃ sīmaṃ sammannituṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 138) vuttaṃ. Mūleti ādikāle. Nadiṃ bhinditvāti yathā udakaṃ anicchantehi kassakehi mahoghe nivaṭṭetuṃ na sakkā, evaṃ kūlaṃ bhinditvā. Nadiṃ bhinditvāti vā mātikāmukhadvārena nadīkūlaṃ bhinditvā.
Nadīcatukkepi eseva nayo indicates that even with a group of four rivers, it is not permissible to designate them together in one place and then elsewhere later. Hence, it says, “asammissā nadiyo pana catassopi kittetuṃ vaṭṭatī,” including “unmixed” to clarify this. Ajjhottharitvā āvaraṇaṃ pavattatiyevā means the barrier flows only after being submerged. Apavattamānā refers to non-flowing water. Where water stands still after reaching a barrier, it is not permissible to use it as a river marker; it is permissible only where it flows above. However, in a still water area, a water marker can be used, as standing water is valid for a water marker, not flowing water. Thus, it says, “pavattanaṭṭhāne nadīnimittaṃ, apavattanaṭṭhāne udakanimittaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatī.” Due to the statement “a river marker in a flowing place,” some say that if water flows beyond a bridge, it is still a river. In places like Lake Jātassara, standing water can be used as a marker within its area, like a riverbank boundary marker. If that area later becomes a village or field, it is permissible to designate another boundary there, as stated in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 138). Mūle means at the source. Nadiṃ bhinditvā means breaking the riverbank, as farmers might do to stop a flood they do not want, or through the river’s mouth or channels.
Nadīcatukkepi eseva nayoti With this, it is shown that even in a case where, having mentioned in one place, it goes to another place, it is not proper to mention. And for that reason, the term “unmixed” is used, “but all four unmixed rivers can be mentioned.” Ajjhottharitvā āvaraṇaṃ pavattatiyevāti The covering just overflows and flows. Apavattamānāti Water that is not flowing. For when the river reaches an obstruction, in whatever area of the river the water stands still without flowing, it is not appropriate to make the river boundary there; it is only appropriate in the place where it flows above. However, it is permissible to make a water-boundary in the place where it is not flowing. For only standing water is permissible in the case of a water boundary, not flowing water. Therefore, it is said, “pavattanaṭṭhāne nadīnimittaṃ, apavattanaṭṭhāne udakanimittaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti. “Because it is said ‘river-boundary in the place of flowing’, some say that if water flows that much beyond the bridge, it is a river. In the case of natural ponds and the like, even though the water is standing, it is permissible to make a boundary mark in the place of the natural pond, etc. like a boundary mark on the bank of a river. If that area in due course becomes a village field, it is permissible to agree upon another sīmā there,” it is said in the Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 138). Mūleti At the beginning. Nadiṃ bhinditvāti Just as farmers, not wanting water, cannot stop a great flood, thus breaking the bank. Nadiṃ bhinditvāti Or, breaking the bank of the river through the opening of an irrigation channel.
Nadīcatukkepi eseva nayoti: This shows that even in the case of a river’s confluence, having explained one instance, it is not appropriate to explain another instance where the context has changed. Therefore, it is stated, “Even four unmixed rivers can be declared.” The term “unmixed” is used here. Ajjhottharitvā āvaraṇaṃ pavattatiyevāti: The water flows by covering the obstruction. Apavattamānāti: The water is not flowing. When the river reaches an obstruction, the water that does not flow remains stagnant in that area, and it is not appropriate to designate it as a river mark there; it is only appropriate to designate it where the water flows. However, it is appropriate to designate a water mark where the water is stagnant. For stagnant water is considered a water mark, not flowing water. Hence, it is said, “In a flowing area, a river mark is designated; in a non-flowing area, a water mark is designated.” Because it is said, “In a flowing area, a river mark,” if even a small amount of water flows, it is called a river. In places like Jātassara, where water remains stagnant, it is appropriate to designate a mark in the intermediate area, similar to a river boundary mark. If that area later becomes a village or field, another boundary can be established there, as stated in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 138). Mūleti: At the beginning. Nadiṃ bhinditvāti: Just as farmers, not desiring water, cannot stop a great flood, so too by breaking the riverbank. Nadiṃ bhinditvāti: Alternatively, by breaking the riverbank through the method of the Mātikā.
ID787
Ukkhepimanti dīgharajjunā kūṭehi ussiñcanīyaṃ. Ukkhepimanti vā kūpato viya ukkhipitvā gahetabbaṃ. Ukkhepimanti vā uddharitvā gahetabbakaṃ.
Ukkhepima means something hoistable with a long rope from peaks, or drawable like from a well, or liftable upward.
Ukkhepimanti What can be lifted up by long ropes and pulleys. Ukkhepimanti Or, what can be taken after being lifted up as from a well. Ukkhepimanti Or, what must be taken after pulling out.
Ukkhepimanti: It should be lifted with a long rope and hooks. Ukkhepimanti: Alternatively, it should be lifted like from a well. Ukkhepimanti: Alternatively, it should be taken after being lifted.
ID788
Asammissehīti sabbadisāsu ṭhitapabbatehi eva vā pāsāṇādīsu aññatarehi vā nimittantarābyavahitehi. Sammissehīti ekattha pabbato, aññattha pāsāṇoti evaṃ ṭhitehi aṭṭhahi. Nimittānaṃ satenāpīti iminā ekissāyeva disāya bahūnipi nimittāni “puratthimāya disāya kiṃ nimittaṃ, pabbato, bhante. Puna puratthimāya disāya kiṃ nimittaṃ, pāsāṇo, bhante”tiādinā (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138) kittetuṃ vaṭṭatīti dasseti. Siṅghāṭakasaṇṭhānāti tikoṇā. Siṅghāṭakasaṇṭhānāti vā tikoṇaracchāsaṇṭhānā. Caturassāti samacaturassā. Mudiṅgasaṇṭhānā pana āyatacaturassā, ekakoṭiyaṃ saṅkocitā, tadaññāya vitthiṇṇā vā hoti. Mudiṅgasaṇṭhānāti vā mudiṅgabherī viya majjhe vitthatā ubhosu koṭīsu saṅkocitā hoti.
Asammissehī means with mountains standing in all directions, or with rocks or other markers not interspersed with different types. Sammissehī means with a mountain in one place and a rock in another, thus with eight mixed markers. Nimittānaṃ satenāpī shows that even many markers in one direction can be announced as “puratthimāya disāya kiṃ nimittaṃ, pabbato, bhante. Puna puratthimāya disāya kiṃ nimittaṃ, pāsāṇo, bhante” (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138) and so forth. Siṅghāṭakasaṇṭhānā means triangular, or shaped like a triangular street. Caturassā means perfectly square. Mudiṅgasaṇṭhānā means an elongated rectangle, narrow at one end and wide at the other, or like a mudiṅga drum, wide in the middle and narrow at both ends.
Asammissehīti By those that are situated in all directions with mountains, or even with rocks etc., that are not mixed with other boundaries. Sammissehīti By eight situated thus: in one place a mountain, in another a rock. Nimittānaṃ satenāpīti By this, it is shown that it is appropriate to mention even many boundary marks of just one direction, “What is the boundary mark in the eastern direction? A mountain, venerable sir. Again, what is the boundary mark in the eastern direction? A rock, venerable sir,” and so on (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138). Siṅghāṭakasaṇṭhānāti Triangular. Siṅghāṭakasaṇṭhānāti Or, having the shape of a triangular street. Caturassāti A regular square. Mudiṅgasaṇṭhānā pana But one that is shaped like a mudiṅga is rectangular, constricted at one end, and spread out at the other. Mudiṅgasaṇṭhānāti Or, like a mudiṅga drum, it is wide in the middle and constricted at both ends.
Asammissehīti: With mountains standing in all directions, or with rocks, etc., without any other marks intervening. Sammissehīti: With a mountain in one place and a rock in another, thus with eight such objects. Nimittānaṃ satenāpīti: This shows that even in one direction, many marks can be declared, such as, “What is the mark in the eastern direction? A mountain, Venerable Sir. Again, what is the mark in the eastern direction? A rock, Venerable Sir,” etc. (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 138). Siṅghāṭakasaṇṭhānāti: Triangular. Siṅghāṭakasaṇṭhānāti: Alternatively, triangular in shape. Caturassāti: Square. Mudiṅgasaṇṭhānā: Rectangular, narrowed at one end, or spread out elsewhere. Mudiṅgasaṇṭhānāti: Alternatively, like a drum, broad in the middle and narrowed at both ends.
ID789
159. Evaṃ baddhasīmāya nimittasampattiyuttataṃ dassetvā idāni parisasampattiyuttataṃ dassetuṃ “parisasampattiyuttā nāmā”tiādimāha . Tattha sabbantimena paricchedenāti sabbaheṭṭhimena gaṇanaparicchedena, appataro ce gaṇo hotīti adhippāyo. Imassa pana sīmāsammutikammassa catuvaggakaraṇīyattā “catūhi bhikkhūhī”ti vuttaṃ. Sannipatitāti samaggā hutvā aññamaññassa hatthapāsaṃ avijahitvā sannipatitā. Iminā “catuvaggakaraṇīye kamme cattāro bhikkhū pakatattā kammappattā, te āgatā hontī”ti vuttaṃ paṭhamasampattilakkhaṇaṃ dasseti. Yāvatikā tasmiṃ gāmakkhetteti yasmiṃ padese sīmaṃ bandhitukāmā, tasmiṃ ekassa gāmabhojakassa āyuppattiṭṭhānabhūte gāmakkhette ṭhitā bhikkhūti sambandho. Baddhasīmaṃ vā nadīsamuddajātassare vā anokkamitvāti etena etā baddhasīmādayo gāmasīmato sīmantarabhūtā, na tāsu ṭhitā gāmasīmāya kammaṃ karontānaṃ vaggaṃ karonti, tasmā na tesaṃ chando āharitabboti dasseti. Te sabbe hatthapāse vā katvāti vaggakammapariharaṇatthaṃ sannipatituṃ samatthe te gāmakkhettaṭṭhe sabbe bhikkhū saṅghassa hatthapāse katvāti attho. Chandaṃ vā āharitvāti sannipatituṃ asamatthānaṃ chandaṃ āharitvā. Tasmiṃ gāmakkhette yadipi sahassabhikkhū honti, tesu cattāroyeva kammappattā, avasesā chandārahā, tasmā anāgatānaṃ chando āharitabboti attho, iminā “chandārahānaṃ chando āhaṭo hotī”ti vuttaṃ dutiyasampattilakkhaṇamāha. “Sammukhībhūtā na paṭikkosantī”ti vuttaṃ tatiyasampattilakkhaṇaṃ pana imesaṃ sāmatthiyena vuttaṃ hoti.
159. Having shown the suitability of markers for a bound boundary, now to show the suitability of the assembly, it begins with “parisasampattiyuttā nāmā” and so forth. Here, sabbantimena paricchedenā means with the minimum numerical limit, implying that if the group is smaller, it is insufficient. Since this boundary designation act requires a group of four, it says, “catūhi bhikkhūhī.” Sannipatitā means gathered harmoniously without leaving each other’s hand-reach, indicating the first suitability condition: “In an act requiring four, four competent monks have arrived.” Yāvatikā tasmiṃ gāmakkhette connects to monks present in the village territory where the boundary is to be established, the domain of one village overseer. Baddhasīmaṃ vā nadīsamuddajātassare vā anokkamitvā shows that a bound boundary, river, sea, or lake is separate from the village boundary, and monks there do not disrupt acts in the village boundary, so their consent is not required. Te sabbe hatthapāse vā katvā means placing all monks in that village territory within the Sangha’s hand-reach to avoid a divided act. Chandaṃ vā āharitvā means bringing the consent of those unable to attend. Even if there are a thousand monks in that territory, only four are competent for the act, and the rest require consent; thus, the consent of the absent must be brought, indicating the second suitability condition: “The consent of those requiring it has been brought.” The third condition, “Those present do not object,” is implied by their capability.
159. Thus having shown that a properly established boundary is complete with respect to boundary marks, now in order to show that it is complete with respect to the assembly, he says “parisasampattiyuttā nāmā”ti, etc.. Herein, sabbantimena paricchedenāti With the smallest quorum, meaning, if there is a smaller group. But since this act of boundary-agreement is to be performed by a group of four, it is said, “catūhi bhikkhūhī”ti. Sannipatitāti Being harmonious, assembling without leaving each other’s hand’s reach. By this, he shows the characteristic of the first completeness, stating “in a matter to be done by a group of four, four monks who are competent and eligible for the act are present.” Yāvatikā tasmiṃ gāmakkhetteti It is to be connected as, in the field of the village which is the source of livelihood of one village headman in whatever region they desire to establish the sīmā, the monks residing. Baddhasīmaṃ vā nadīsamuddajātassare vā anokkamitvāti By this, it is shown that these established sīmās, etc., are boundaries within the village sīmā, those residing in them do not make an incomplete quorum for those performing the act in the village sīmā, therefore their consent should not be brought. Te sabbe hatthapāse vā katvāti Meaning, having put all those monks residing in the village field, who are capable of gathering in order to avoid an incomplete act, within the hand’s reach of the Sangha. Chandaṃ vā āharitvāti Having brought the consent of those who are not capable of gathering. Even if there are a thousand monks in that village field, only four of them are eligible for the act; the remainder are eligible for consent; therefore, the consent of those who have not come must be brought, meaning, by this, he speaks of the characteristic of the second completeness, stating “the consent of those who are eligible for consent is brought.” But the characteristic of the third completeness, stating “those who are present do not object,” is stated through the capability of these.
159. Having shown the suitability of the marks for a bounded boundary, now to show the suitability of the assembly, it is said, “Connected with the assembly’s suitability.” Here, sabbantimena paricchedenāti: By the lowest enumeration, meaning if the group is smaller. Due to the necessity of performing this boundary-establishing act by a group of four, it is said, “By four bhikkhus.” Sannipatitāti: Having gathered in unity without separating from each other’s reach. This shows the first characteristic of suitability, that “for a fourfold act, four bhikkhus who are qualified and entitled to act have come.” Yāvatikā tasmiṃ gāmakkhetteti: In the area where the boundary is to be established, in the village field that is the residence of a village headman, the bhikkhus are standing. Baddhasīmaṃ vā nadīsamuddajātassare vā anokkamitvāti: This shows that these bounded boundaries, rivers, oceans, and lakes are separate from the village boundary, and those standing there do not form a group for those performing an act within the village boundary, so their consent is not required. Te sabbe hatthapāse vā katvāti: For the purpose of avoiding a group act, all the bhikkhus in the village field should gather within the reach of the Saṅgha. Chandaṃ vā āharitvāti: For those unable to gather, consent should be brought. Even if there are a thousand bhikkhus in that village field, only four are entitled to act, and the rest are consent-givers, so the consent of those not present should be brought. This shows the second characteristic of suitability, that “the consent of those entitled to give consent has been brought.” The third characteristic of suitability, “being present and not objecting,” is shown by their capability.
ID790
160. Evaṃ baddhasīmāya parisasampattiyuttataṃ dassetvā idāni kammavācāsampattiyuttataṃ dassetuṃ “kammavācāsampattiyuttā nāmā”tiādimāha. Tattha “suṇātu me”tiādīnaṃ attho heṭṭhā upasampadakammavācāvaṇṇanāyaṃ vuttova . Evaṃ vuttāyāti evaṃ iminā anukkamena uposathakkhandhake (mahāva. 138-139) bhagavatā vuttāya. Parisuddhāyāti ñattidosaanaussāvanadosehi parisamantato suddhāya. Ñattidutiyakammavācāyāti ekāya ñattiyā ekāya anussāvanāya kariyamānattā ñatti eva dutiyā imissā kammavācāyāti ñattidutiyakammavācā, tāya. Nimittānaṃ anto sīmā hoti, nimittāni sīmato bahi honti nimittāni bahi katvā heṭṭhā pathavīsandhāraudakaṃ pariyantaṃ katvā sīmāya gatattā.
160. Having shown the suitability of the assembly for a bound boundary, now to show the suitability of the recitation of the motion, it begins with “kammavācāsampattiyuttā nāmā” and so forth. The meaning of “suṇātu me” and so forth was explained earlier in the commentary on the ordination recitation. Evaṃ vuttāyā means as stated by the Blessed One in this order in the Uposatha section (mahāva. 138-139). Parisuddhāyā means pure, free from faults in the motion or proclamation. Ñattidutiyakammavācāyā means a recitation with one motion and one proclamation, thus called a second-motion recitation. Nimittānaṃ anto sīmā hoti, nimittāni sīmato bahi honti means the boundary is within the markers, and the markers are outside, with the earth, foundation, or water below as the limit.
160. Thus having shown that the baddhasīmā is complete with respect to the assembly, now in order to show that it is complete with respect to the formal act of the Sangha, he says “kammavācāsampattiyuttā nāmā”ti, etc.. Herein, the meaning of “suṇātu me”ti, etc., has already been stated below in the explanation of the formal act for higher ordination . Evaṃ vuttāyāti Thus, in this sequence, stated by the Blessed One in the Uposathakkhandhaka (mahāva. 138-139). Parisuddhāyāti Completely pure from the flaws of the motion and the flaws of the announcement. Ñattidutiyakammavācāyāti Because it is performed with one motion and one announcement, the motion itself is the second of this formal act of Sangha; hence it is called ñattidutiyakammavācā; by that. Nimittānaṃ anto sīmā hoti, nimittāni sīmato bahi honti The sīmā is inside the boundary markers; the boundary markers are outside the sīmā, because the sīmā extends having the boundary markers outside and below, up to the water underlying the junction of the earth.
160. Having shown the suitability of the assembly for a bounded boundary, now to show the suitability of the motion, it is said, “Connected with the suitability of the motion.” Here, the meaning of “Suṇātu me” etc., is as explained earlier in the commentary on the ordination motion. Evaṃ vuttāyāti: As stated by the Bhagavā in the Uposatha section (Mahāva. 138-139). Parisuddhāyāti: Pure from defects in the motion and proclamation. Ñattidutiyakammavācāyāti: With one motion and one proclamation, the motion is the second of this motion, hence “motion-second motion.” Nimittānaṃ anto sīmā hoti, nimittāni sīmato bahi honti: The marks are outside, having placed the marks outside, the boundary is within the area of land and water.
ID791
161. Evaṃ samānasaṃvāsakasīmāsammutiyā kammavācāsampattiṃ dassetvā idāni adhiṭṭhitatecīvarikānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ cīvare sukhaparibhogatthaṃ bhagavatā paññattaṃ avippavāsasīmāsammutikammavācāsampattiṃ dassento “evaṃ baddhāya ca”tyādimāha. Tattha ticīvarena avippavāsaṃ sammanneyyāti yathā adhiṭṭhitatecīvariko bhikkhu antosīmāyaṃ ticīvarena vippavasantopi avippavāsoyeva hoti, dutiyakathinasikkhāpadena (pārā. 471 ādayo) āpatti na hoti, evaṃ taṃ samānasaṃvāsakasīmaṃ ticīvarena avippavāsaṃ sammanneyyāti attho. Ṭhapetvā gāmañca gāmūpacārañcāti yadi tissā samānasaṃvāsakasīmāya anto gāmo atthi, taṃ gāmañca gāmūpacārañca ṭhapetvā tato vinimuttaṃ taṃ samānasaṃvāsakasīmaṃ ticīvarena avippavāsaṃ sammanneyyāti attho.
161. Having shown the suitability of the recitation for a common-residence boundary, now to show the suitability of the recitation for a non-separation boundary for monks with designated triple robes, established by the Blessed One for ease of robe use, it begins with “evaṃ baddhāya ca” and so forth. Here, ticīvarena avippavāsaṃ sammanneyyā means designating the common-residence boundary as one where a monk with designated triple robes, even if separated within it, remains non-separated, avoiding offense under the second kathina rule (pārā. 471 and following). Ṭhapetvā gāmañca gāmūpacārañcā means excepting the village and its vicinity within that common-residence boundary, designating the rest as non-separated for triple robes.
161. Thus having shown the completeness of the formal act of Sangha for the agreement of samānasaṃvāsakasīmā, now, showing the completeness of the formal act of Sangha for the agreement of non-residence sīmā, prescribed by the Blessed One for the sake of comfortable use of robes by monks who have determined the three robes, he says “evaṃ baddhāya cā”tyādi, etc.. Herein, ticīvarena avippavāsaṃ sammanneyyāti Just as a monk who has determined the three robes, even if residing away from the three robes within the sīmā, is still considered as not residing away, and there is no offence according to the second Kathina training rule (pārā. 471, etc.), thus that samānasaṃvāsakasīmā should be agreed upon as non-residence with the three robes, meaning. Ṭhapetvā gāmañca gāmūpacārañcāti If there is a village within that samānasaṃvāsakasīmā, excluding that village and the area surrounding the village, that samānasaṃvāsakasīmā, excluding that, should be agreed upon as non-residence with the three robes, meaning.
161. Having shown the suitability of the motion for the establishment of a shared residence boundary, now to show the suitability of the motion for the establishment of a non-separation boundary for the comfortable use of robes by bhikkhus who have determined their robes, it is said, “Thus, for a bounded boundary.” Here, ticīvarena avippavāsaṃ sammanneyyāti: Just as a bhikkhu who has determined his robes, even if he is separated from the three robes within the boundary, it is still considered non-separation, and no offense is incurred under the second Kathina rule (Pārā. 471, etc.), so the shared residence boundary should be established as non-separation with the three robes. Ṭhapetvā gāmañca gāmūpacārañcāti: If within that shared residence boundary there is a village, that village and its surroundings should be excluded, and the shared residence boundary should be established as non-separation with the three robes.
ID792
Sīmasaṅkhyaṃyeva gacchatīti avippavāsasīmasaṅkhyaṃyeva gacchati. Ekampi kulaṃ paviṭṭhaṃ vāti abhinavakatagehesu sabbapaṭhamaṃ ekampi kulaṃ paviṭṭhaṃ atthi. Agataṃ vāti porāṇakagāme aññesu kulesu gehāni chaḍḍetvā gatesupi ekampi kulaṃ agataṃ atthīti attho.
Sīmasaṅkhyaṃyeva gacchatī means it is reckoned only as a non-separation boundary. Ekampi kulaṃ paviṭṭhaṃ vā means even one family has entered a newly built house first. Agataṃ vā means in an old village, even one family remains while others have abandoned their homes.
Sīmasaṅkhyaṃyeva gacchatīti It goes to the count of the non-residence sīmā. Ekampi kulaṃ paviṭṭhaṃ vāti There is even one family that has entered, as the very first in newly built houses. Agataṃ vāti Even though in the old village, having abandoned the houses in other families they have gone, even one family has not gone, meaning.
Sīmasaṅkhyaṃyeva gacchatīti: It is counted as a non-separation boundary. Ekampi kulaṃ paviṭṭhaṃ vāti: In newly built houses, even one family entered first is present. Agataṃ vāti: In an old village, even if other families have left, one family remains.
ID793
162. Evaṃ saṅkhepena sīmāsammutiṃ dassetvā puna vitthārena dassento “ayamettha saṅkhepo, ayaṃ pana vitthāro”tiādimāha. Sīmāya upacāraṃ ṭhapetvāti āyatiṃ bandhitabbāya sīmāya nesaṃ vihārānaṃ paricchedato bahi sīmantarikappahonakaṃ upacāraṃ ṭhapetvā. Baddhā sīmāyesu vihāresu, te baddhasīmā. Pāṭiyekkanti paccekaṃ. Baddhasīmāsadisānīti yathā baddhasīmāsu ṭhitā aññamaññaṃ chandādiṃ anapekkhitvā paccekaṃ kammaṃ kātuṃ labhanti, evaṃ gāmasīmāsu ṭhitāpīti dasseti. Antonimittagatehi panāti ekassa gāmassa upaḍḍhaṃ antokattukāmatāya sati sabbesaṃ āgamane payojanaṃ natthīti katvā vuttaṃ. Āgantabbanti ca sāmīcivasena vuttaṃ, nāyaṃ niyamo “āgantabbamevā”ti. Tenevāha “āgamanampi anāgamanampi vaṭṭatī”ti. Abaddhāya hi sīmāya nānāgāmakkhettānaṃ nānāsīmasabhāvattā tesaṃ anāgamanepi vaggakammaṃ na hoti, tasmā anāgamanampi vaṭṭati. Baddhāya pana sīmāya ekasīmabhāvato puna aññasmiṃ kamme kariyamāne antosīmagatehi āgantabbamevāti āha “avippavāsasīmā…pe… āgantabba”nti. Nimittakittanakāle asodhitāyapi sīmāya nevatthi doso nimittakittanassa apalokanādīsu aññatarābhāvato.
162. Having briefly shown the boundary designation, now to explain it in detail, it begins with “ayamettha saṅkhepo, ayaṃ pana vitthāro” and so forth. Sīmāya upacāraṃ ṭhapetvā means leaving a suitable vicinity outside the perimeter of monasteries for a boundary to be established later. In bound boundaries with monasteries, they are baddhasīmā. Pāṭiyekka means individually. Baddhasīmāsadisānī shows that just as those in bound boundaries can perform acts independently without mutual consent, so can those in village boundaries. Antonimittagatehi panā is said because if half a village desires to be included, there is no need for all to come. Āgantabba is said conventionally, not as a strict rule of “must come,” hence it says, “āgamanampi anāgamanampi vaṭṭatī.” In an unbound boundary, due to separate village territories and boundary natures, no divided act occurs even if they do not come; thus, not coming is permissible. But in a bound boundary, due to its unity, monks within it must come for another act, hence it says, “avippavāsasīmā…pe… āgantabba.” Even if the boundary is not purified at the time of marker announcement, there is no fault, as it lacks one of the aspects like consent.
162. Thus, having shown the agreement of sīmā in brief, again showing it in detail, he says “ayamettha saṅkhepo, ayaṃ pana vitthāro”ti, etc.. Sīmāya upacāraṃ ṭhapetvāti Leaving a space sufficient for a boundary interval outside of the perimeter of those monasteries in the sīmā that is to be established lengthwise. In monasteries where sīmās are established, these are baddhasīmā. Pāṭiyekkanti Separately. Baddhasīmāsadisānīti Just as those who reside in established sīmās are able to perform acts separately, without depending on each other for consent etc., thus, this shows that those who reside in village sīmās also can. Antonimittagatehi panāti Because when there is a desire to make half of a village inside, there is no purpose in the coming of all, this is said. Āgantabbanti And it is said as a courtesy, it is not a rule, “must come.” Therefore, he says, “āgamanampi anāgamanampi vaṭṭatī”ti. For, in the case of an unestablished sīmā, because of the different sīmā status of different village fields, even if these do not come, the act is not incomplete; therefore, not-coming is also appropriate. But in the case of an established sīmā, because of the one-sīmā status, when another act is being performed, those inside the sīmā must come; therefore, he says, “avippavāsasīmā…pe… āgantabba”nti. Even if the sīmā is not purified at the time of mentioning the boundary marks, there is no fault, because the mentioning of boundary marks is not one of requesting permission, etc..
162. Having briefly explained the establishment of a boundary, now explaining it in detail, it is said, “This is the summary; this is the detailed explanation.” Sīmāya upacāraṃ ṭhapetvāti: Having set aside the vicinity for a boundary to be established in the future, outside the demarcation of their monasteries. In established boundaries, those monasteries are bounded boundaries. Pāṭiyekkanti: Individually. Baddhasīmāsadisānīti: Just as those standing within bounded boundaries can perform acts individually without needing each other’s consent, so too those standing within village boundaries. Antonimittagatehi panāti: If one wishes to include half of a village within the boundary, there is no need for all to come. Āgantabbanti: It is said with flexibility, not as a rule, “They must come.” Hence, it is said, “Coming or not coming is permissible.” For an unestablished boundary, due to the different natures of different village fields, even if they do not come, a group act is not invalid, so not coming is permissible. But for an established boundary, due to its unified nature, when another act is being performed, those within the boundary must come, hence it is said, “For a non-separation boundary… they must come.” At the time of declaring the marks, even if the boundary is not fully settled, there is no fault in the declaration of the marks due to the absence of any defect in the consultation, etc.
ID794
Bherisaññaṃ vāti sammannanapariyosānaṃ karomāti vatvāti likhitaṃ. Tena tādise kāle taṃ kappatīti siddhaṃ hoti. Bherisaññaṃ vā saṅkhasaññaṃ vāti pana tesaṃ saddaṃ sutvā idāni saṅgho sīmaṃ bandhatīti ñatvā āgantukabhikkhūnaṃ taṃ gāmakkhettaṃ appavesanatthaṃ, ārāmikādīnañca tesaṃ nivāraṇatthaṃ kammavācāraddhakāleyeva saññā karīyati, evaṃ sati taṃ karaṇaṃ sappayojanaṃ hoti. Teneva “bherisaṅkhasaddaṃ katvā”ti avatvā “bherisaṅkhasaññaṃ katvā”ti saññāggahaṇaṃ kataṃ. “Saññaṃ katvā”ti ca pubbakālakiriyaṃ vatvā “kammavācāya sīmā bandhitabbā”ti aparakālakiriyaṃ vadati, pariyosānakāle pana sabbatūriyātālikasaṅghuṭṭhaṃ katvā devamanussānaṃ anumodanaṃ kāretabbaṃ hotīti veditabbaṃ.
Bherisaññaṃ vā means saying, “We conclude the designation,” indicating its permissibility at that time. Bherisaññaṃ vā saṅkhasaññaṃ vā means making a signal with a drum or conch at the start of the recitation, so incoming monks know the Sangha is establishing a boundary and avoid entering that village territory, and lay workers can prevent them; this makes the signal purposeful. Hence, it says “making a signal” rather than “making a drum or conch sound,” and after saying “saññaṃ katvā,” it states “kammavācāya sīmā bandhitabbā,” indicating a prior and subsequent action. At the conclusion, all instruments should be sounded to allow gods and humans to rejoice.
Bherisaññaṃ vāti It is written that, having said, “I am performing the conclusion of the agreement.” Therefore, it is established that at such a time, it is permissible. Bherisaññaṃ vā saṅkhasaññaṃ vāti But, having heard the sound of these, knowing “now the Sangha is establishing the sīmā,” in order that monks coming might not enter that village field, and also for the keepers of the monastery, etc. to restrain them, the signal is made at the time when the formal act is halfway. This being so, the doing of that is purposeful. Therefore, not saying “having made the sound of a drum and a conch,” he says, “having made the signal of a drum and a conch,” taking the “signal.” And, saying “saññaṃ katvā”ti as a prior action, he says “kammavācāya sīmā bandhitabbā”ti as a subsequent action; but at the time of the conclusion, having made a great sounding of all musical instruments, the rejoicing of gods and humans should be caused, it should be understood.
Bherisaññaṃ vāti: Having said, “We are concluding the establishment,” it is written. Thus, at that time, it is appropriate. Bherisaññaṃ vā saṅkhasaññaṃ vāti: Hearing their sound, knowing that the Saṅgha is establishing a boundary, visiting bhikkhus are prevented from entering that village field, and the attendants, etc., are prevented from obstructing them. Thus, at the time of beginning the motion, the signal is made. Hence, instead of saying, “Having made the sound of a drum or conch,” it is said, “Having made the signal of a drum or conch,” taking the signal. “Saññaṃ katvā”ti: Having performed the earlier action, it is said, “The boundary should be established during the motion,” indicating the later action. At the conclusion, all instruments should be sounded, and the devas and humans should be made to rejoice.
ID795
163. Bhaṇḍukammāpucchanaṃ sandhāya pabbajjāggahaṇaṃ. Sukhakaraṇatthanti sabbesaṃ sannipātanaparissamaṃ pahāya appatarehi sukhakaraṇatthaṃ. Ekavīsati bhikkhū gaṇhātīti vīsativaggakaraṇīyaparamattā saṅghakammassa kammārahena saddhiṃ ekavīsati bhikkhū gaṇhāti. Idañca nisinnānaṃ vasena vuttaṃ. Heṭṭhimantato hi yattha ekavīsati bhikkhū nisīdituṃ sakkonti, tattake padese sīmaṃ bandhituṃ vaṭṭati. Idañca kammārahena saha abbhānakārakānampi pahonakatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Nimittupagā pāsāṇā ṭhapetabbāti idaṃ yathārucitaṭṭhāne rukkhanimittādīnaṃ dullabhatāya vaḍḍhitvā ubhinnaṃ baddhasīmānaṃ saṅkarakaraṇato ca pāsāṇanimittassa ca tadabhāvato yattha katthaci ānetvā ṭhapetuṃ sukaratāya ca vuttaṃ. Tathā sīmantarikapāsāṇā ṭhapetabbāti etthāpi. Caturaṅgulappamāṇāpīti yathā khaṇḍasīmaparicchedato bahi nimittapāsāṇaṃ caturaṅgulamattaṃ ṭhānaṃ samantā nigacchati, avasesaṃ ṭhānaṃ antokhaṇḍasīmāyaṃ hotiyeva, evaṃ tesu ṭhapitesu caturaṅgulamattā sīmantarikā hotīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
163. Referring to asking about a dispute, pabbajjā is mentioned. Sukhakaraṇattha means for ease, avoiding the effort of gathering all by using fewer. Ekavīsati bhikkhū gaṇhātī means it includes twenty-one monks, including the one eligible for an act requiring twenty, based on those seated. At the minimum, where twenty-one monks can sit, a boundary may be established, including enough for accusers too. Nimittupagā pāsāṇā ṭhapetabbā is said because tree markers are rare, growing causes boundary confusion, and rocks are easy to place anywhere. So too with sīmantarikapāsāṇā ṭhapetabbā. Caturaṅgulappamāṇāpī means that when placed, a four-finger-width gap remains outside the small boundary, with the rest within it, forming the boundary gap.
163. Referring to asking about the bhaṇḍukamma, the word pabbajjā is used. Sukhakaraṇatthanti For the sake of ease of a smaller number, avoiding the effort of gathering all. Ekavīsati bhikkhū gaṇhātīti He takes twenty-one monks together with one who is eligible for the act, because of the maximum of twenty for acts to be done by a group of twenty. And this is said with reference to those seated. For, at the very least, in whatever place twenty-one monks can sit, in such an area it is permissible to establish the sīmā. And this is said for the sufficiency of those who have undergone penance, along with the one eligible for the act. Nimittupagā pāsāṇā ṭhapetabbāti This is said because of the difficulty of tree boundaries, etc., in a place according to one’s liking, and because of the increase, causing the mixing of the two established sīmās, and also because of the rock boundary and the ease of bringing and placing it wherever due to its absence. Similarly, sīmantarikapāsāṇā ṭhapetabbāti here also. Caturaṅgulappamāṇāpīti Just as outside the boundary of the sub-sīmā, a place as much as four fingerbreadths of a boundary rock goes around, the remaining place is indeed within the sub-sīmā; thus, when they are placed, there is a boundary interval of as much as four fingerbreadths, it should be seen.
163. Referring to the inquiry about the bowl, pabbajjāggahaṇaṃ: The taking of ordination. Sukhakaraṇatthanti: For the purpose of ease, avoiding the trouble of gathering many. Ekavīsati bhikkhū gaṇhātīti: Due to the maximum requirement of twenty for a Saṅgha act, twenty-one bhikkhus, including the one entitled to act, are taken. This is said based on those seated. For where twenty-one bhikkhus can sit, a boundary can be established in that area. This is also said for the purpose of including those who are entitled to act and those who are not. Nimittupagā pāsāṇā ṭhapetabbāti: This is said because, due to the difficulty of finding tree marks, etc., and to avoid confusion between two bounded boundaries, and due to the absence of rock marks, it is easy to bring and place them anywhere. Similarly, sīmantarikapāsāṇā ṭhapetabbāti: Here too. Caturaṅgulappamāṇāpīti: Just as outside the demarcation of a partial boundary, a mark rock of four fingers’ width is placed, the remaining area remains within the partial boundary, so when these are placed, the intermediate area is four fingers’ width.
ID796
Sīmantarikapāsāṇāti sīmantarikāya ṭhapitanimittapāsāṇā. Te pana kittentena dakkhiṇato anupariyāyanteneva kittetabbā. Kathaṃ? Khaṇḍasīmato hi pacchimāya disāya puratthimābhimukhena ṭhatvā “puratthimāya disāya kiṃ nimitta”nti tattha sabbāni nimittāni anukkamena kittetvā, tathā uttarāya disāya dakkhiṇābhimukhena ṭhatvā “dakkhiṇāya disāya kiṃ nimitta”nti anukkamena kittetvā, tathā puratthimāya disāya pacchimābhimukhena ṭhatvā “pacchimāya disāya kiṃ nimitta”nti anukkamena kittetvā, tathā dakkhiṇāya disāya uttarābhimukhena ṭhatvā “uttarāya disāya kiṃ nimitta”nti tattha sabbāni nimittāni anukkamena kittetvā puna pacchimāya disāya puratthimābhimukhena ṭhatvā purimakittitaṃ vuttanayena puna kittetabbaṃ. Evaṃ bahūnampi khaṇḍasīmānaṃ sīmantarikapāsāṇā paccekaṃ kittetabbā. Tatoti pacchā. Avasesanimittānīti mahāsīmāya bāhirantaresu avasesanimittāni. Na sakkhissantīti avippavāsasīmāya baddhabhāvaṃ asallakkhetvā “samānasaṃvāsakasīmameva samūhanissāmā”ti vāyamantā na sakkhissanti. Baddhāya hi avippavāsasīmāya taṃ samūhanitvā “samānasaṃvāsakasīmaṃ samūhanissāmā”ti katāyapi kammavācāya asamūhatāva hoti sīmā. Paṭhamañhi avippavāsaṃ samūhanitvā pacchā sīmā samūhanitabbā. Khaṇḍasīmato paṭṭhāya bandhanaṃ āciṇṇaṃ, āciṇṇakaraṇeneva ca sammoho na hotīti āha “khaṇḍasīmatova paṭṭhāya bandhitabbā”ti. Ubhinnampi na kopentīti ubhinnampi kammaṃ na kopenti. Evaṃ baddhāsu pana…pe… sīmantarikā hi gāmakkhettaṃ bhajatīti na āvāsavasena sāmaggiparicchedo, kintu sīmāvasenevāti dassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ.
Sīmantarikapāsāṇā means rocks placed as boundary gaps, to be announced sequentially from the south. How? Standing west of the small boundary facing east, saying “puratthimāya disāya kiṃ nimitta,” announcing all markers in order; then north facing south, “dakkhiṇāya disāya kiṃ nimitta,” in order; then east facing west, “pacchimāya disāya kiṃ nimitta,” in order; then south facing north, “uttarāya disāya kiṃ nimitta,” in order; then west facing east again, repeating the initial announcement. Thus, boundary gap rocks for many small boundaries are announced individually. Tato means afterward. Avasesanimittānī means remaining markers inside and outside the great boundary. Na sakkhissantī means they cannot, without recognizing the non-separation boundary’s establishment, intending to abolish only the common-residence boundary. A bound non-separation boundary remains unabolished even if the recitation intends to abolish the common-residence boundary; the non-separation must be abolished first. Binding starts from the small boundary as a tradition to avoid confusion, hence “khaṇḍasīmatova paṭṭhāya bandhitabbā.” Ubhinnampi na kopentī means it does not spoil either act. Evaṃ baddhāsu pana…pe… sīmantarikā hi gāmakkhettaṃ bhajatī shows that division is by boundary, not residence unity.
Sīmantarikapāsāṇāti Boundary rocks placed at the boundary interval. But these should be mentioned going around clockwise from the south. How? For, standing facing east in the west direction of the sub-sīmā, “What is the boundary in the eastern direction?”, having mentioned all the boundaries there in sequence, similarly, standing facing south in the north direction, “What is the boundary in the southern direction?”, having mentioned in sequence, similarly, standing facing west in the eastern direction, “What is the boundary in the western direction?”, having mentioned in sequence, similarly, standing facing north in the southern direction, “What is the boundary in the northern direction?”, having mentioned all the boundaries there in sequence, again, standing facing east in the western direction, what was mentioned first should be mentioned again in the manner that has been said. Thus, the boundary interval rocks of even many sub-sīmās should be mentioned separately. Tatoti Afterwards. Avasesanimittānīti The remaining boundary marks, outside and inside the great sīmā. Na sakkhissantīti Not recognizing the established state of the non-residence sīmā, striving “we will abolish only the samānasaṃvāsakasīmā”, they will not be able. For, when the non-residence sīmā is established, even though a formal act of Sangha is done, having abolished it, “We will abolish the samānasaṃvāsakasīmā”, the sīmā is indeed not abolished. First, the non-residence should be abolished, and afterwards the sīmā should be abolished. The establishment beginning from the sub-sīmā is customary, and only by doing the customary is there no confusion; therefore he says, “khaṇḍasīmatova paṭṭhāya bandhitabbā”ti. Ubhinnampi na kopentīti They do not nullify even both acts. Evaṃ baddhāsu pana…pe… sīmantarikā hi gāmakkhettaṃ bhajatīti The determination of agreement is not according to residence, but according to the sīmā, this is said for showing.
Sīmantarikapāsāṇāti: The mark rocks placed in the intermediate area. These should be declared by the declarer moving clockwise. How? Standing on the western side of the partial boundary, facing east, “What is the mark in the eastern direction?” all marks should be declared in order. Similarly, standing on the northern side, facing south, “What is the mark in the southern direction?” all marks should be declared in order. Similarly, standing on the eastern side, facing west, “What is the mark in the western direction?” all marks should be declared in order. Similarly, standing on the southern side, facing north, “What is the mark in the northern direction?” all marks should be declared in order. Then, standing on the western side, facing east, the previously declared marks should be declared again. Thus, even for many partial boundaries, the intermediate mark rocks should be declared individually. Tatoti: Afterwards. Avasesanimittānīti: The remaining marks within the great boundary. Na sakkhissantīti: Not recognizing the established nature of the non-separation boundary, they will not be able to say, “We will abolish the shared residence boundary.” For even if they abolish the non-separation boundary and say, “We will abolish the shared residence boundary,” the boundary remains unabolished due to the motion. First, the non-separation boundary should be abolished, then the boundary. Starting from the partial boundary, the establishment is customary, and by customary practice, there is no confusion. Hence, it is said, “Starting from the partial boundary, it should be established.” Ubhinnampi na kopentīti: They do not disturb both acts. Evaṃ baddhāsu pana…pe… sīmantarikā hi gāmakkhettaṃ bhajatīti: Not by residence, but by boundary, the unity is divided, thus it is said.
ID797
Kuṭigeheti bhūmiyaṃ katatiṇakuṭiyaṃ. Udukkhalanti udukkhalāvāṭasadisakhuddakāvāṭaṃ. Nimittaṃ na kātabbanti rāji vā udukkhalaṃ vā nimittaṃ na kātabbaṃ. Idañca yathāvuttesu aṭṭhasu nimittesu anāgatattena na vaṭṭatīti siddhampi “avinassakasaññāṇamida”nti saññāya koci mohena nimittaṃ kareyyāti dūrato vipattiparihāratthaṃ vuttaṃ. Nimittupagapāsāṇe ṭhapetvāti sañcārimanimittassa kampanatāya vuttaṃ. Evaṃ upari “bhittiṃ akittetvā”tiādīsupi siddhamevatthaṃ punappunaṃ kathane kāraṇaṃ veditabbaṃ. Sīmāvipatti hi upasampadādisabbakammavipattimūlanti tassa dvāraṃ sabbathāpi pidahanavasena vattabbaṃ. Sabbaṃ vatvāva idha ācariyā vinicchayaṃ kathesunti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
Kuṭigehe means a grass hut made on the ground. Udukkhala refers to a small pit resembling a mortar pit. Nimittaṃ na kātabba means neither a mark nor a pit should be made as a boundary marker. This is stated because, although it is established that it is not permissible among the aforementioned eight markers due to its absence, some might, out of delusion and with the perception “this is an imperishable designation,” make a marker, so it is said to prevent error from afar. Nimittupagapāsāṇe ṭhapetvā is said due to the instability of a movable marker. Similarly, in the subsequent phrases like “without marking the wall,” the reason for repeatedly stating an already established meaning should be understood. For a boundary fault is the root of all faults in acts like ordination, so it must be stated to completely close off that avenue. It should be seen that the teachers here give their judgment only after stating everything.
Kuṭigeheti means in a grass hut made on the ground. Udukkhaleti means a small pit similar to a mortar pit. Nimittaṃ na kātabbanti means a boundary line or mortar-like pit should not be made as a marker. Although it is established that this is not permitted because it is not included among the eight aforementioned markers, it is stated for the purpose of preventing defects from afar, thinking someone might ignorantly create a marker, understanding that “this [serves] as an indication of indestructibility.” Nimittupagapāsāṇe ṭhapetvāti is said due to the movement of a movable marker. Similarly, in the subsequent statements like, “bhittiṃ akittetvā” (without marking the wall), the reason for repeatedly mentioning what is already obvious should be understood. Indeed, the defect in boundaries is the source of defects in all undertakings, such as higher ordination; therefore, mentioning [this] is meant to close that door in every way. It should be understood that the teachers, having stated everything, describe the determination here.
Kuṭigehe means a grass hut built on the ground. Udukkhala refers to a small pit similar to a mortar pit. Nimittaṃ na kātabba means that no mark should be made, whether a line or a mortar pit. This does not apply to the eight marks mentioned earlier, as they are not yet established. Even though it is established that “this is for the perception of non-destruction,” someone might mistakenly make a mark out of delusion. Therefore, this is said from a distance to prevent failure. Nimittupagapāsāṇe ṭhapetvā refers to the instability of a movable mark. Similarly, in the above case of “without plastering the wall,” the same meaning is established, and the reason for repeatedly explaining it should be understood. The failure of the boundary is the root cause of the failure of all actions like ordination, so its door must be completely closed. After saying all this, the teachers here should be seen as having explained the decision.
ID798
Bhittinti iṭṭhakadārumattikāmayaṃ. Silāmayāya pana bhittiyā nimittupagaṃ ekaṃ pāsāṇaṃ taṃtaṃdisāya kittetuṃ vaṭṭati. Anekasilāhi cinitaṃ sakalaṃ bhittiṃ kittetuṃ na vaṭṭati “eso pāsāṇo nimitta”nti ekavacanena vattabbato. Antokuṭṭamevāti ettha antokuṭṭepi nimittānaṃ ṭhitokāsato anto eva sīmāti gahetabbaṃ. Pamukhe nimittapāsāṇe ṭhapetvāti gabbhābhimukhepi bahipamukhe gabbhavitthārappamāṇe ṭhāne pāsāṇe ṭhapetvā sammannitabbā. Evañhi gabbhapamukhānaṃ antare ṭhitakuṭṭampi upādāya anto ca bahi ca caturassasaṇṭhānāva sīmā hoti. Bahīti sakalassa kuṭileṇassa samantato bahi.
Bhitti refers to a wall made of brick, wood, or clay. However, with a wall made of stone, it is permissible to designate a single stone adjacent to the marker in each respective direction, but it is not permissible to designate an entire wall built of many stones, as it is to be stated in the singular, “this stone is the marker.” Antokuṭṭameva means that even within a wall, since there is space for the markers to stand, the boundary should be understood as being inside. Pamukhe nimittapāsāṇe ṭhapetvā means that stones placed in a space the width of the inner chamber, whether facing the chamber or outside it, should be agreed upon as markers. Thus, including the wall standing between the chamber and its front, the boundary becomes a square shape both inside and outside. Bahī means outside the entire cave-like structure all around.
Bhittinti means [a wall] made of brick, wood, or clay. But with a stone wall, it is permissible to mark a single stone, used as the marker, in its respective direction. It is not permissible to mark the entire wall built with many stones, because it should be referred to with the singular expression, “eso pāsāṇo nimittaṃ” (this stone is the marker). Antokuṭṭamevāti, here also ‘antokuṭṭe’ means that boundary is to be taken as within the space where the markers are located. Pamukhe nimittapāsāṇe ṭhapetvāti means [the boundary] should be agreed upon after placing the stones on the spot facing the chamber, and even on the outer porch [if] equal in extent to the entrance of the chamber. In this way, indeed, the boundary becomes rectangular, both inside and outside, including even the wall located between the chamber and porch. Bahīti outside the entire hut or cave on all sides.
Bhitti means a wall made of bricks, wood, or clay. However, for a stone wall, it is permissible to mark one stone in a particular direction as a mark. It is not permissible to mark an entire wall built with multiple stones, as it should be stated with a single word, “this stone is the mark.” Antokuṭṭamevā here means that the boundary should be understood as being within the space where the marks are placed inside the wall. Pamukhe nimittapāsāṇe ṭhapetvā means that the stone should be placed in front of the interior or exterior, facing the interior, within the space measuring the interior’s width, and then the boundary should be agreed upon. In this way, even if a wall stands between the interior and exterior, the boundary remains square, both inside and outside. Bahī means outside the entire hut or cave.
ID799
Anto ca bahi ca sīmā hotīti majjhe ṭhitabhittiyā saha caturassasīmā hoti. Uparipāsādeyeva hotī”ti iminā gabbhassa ca pamukhassa ca antarā ṭhitabhittiyā ekattā tattha ca ekavīsatiyā bhikkhūnaṃ okāsābhāvena heṭṭhā na otarati, uparibhitti pana sīmaṭṭhāva hotīti dasseti. Heṭṭhā na otaratīti bhittito oraṃ nimittāni ṭhapetvā kittitattā heṭṭhā ākāsappadesaṃ na otarati, upari kate pāsādeti attho. Heṭṭhimatale kuṭṭoti heṭṭhimatale catūsu disāsu ṭhitakuṭṭo. Sace hi dvīsu, tīsu eva vā disāsu kuṭṭo tiṭṭheyya, heṭṭhā na otarati. Heṭṭhāpi otaratīti sace heṭṭhā antobhittiyaṃ ekavīsatiyā bhikkhūnaṃ okāso hoti, otarati. Otaramānā ca na uparisīmappamāṇena otarati, samantā bhittippamāṇena otarati. Catunnaṃ pana bhittīnaṃ bāhirantaparicchedena heṭṭhābhūmibhāge udakapariyantaṃ katvā otarati, na pana bhittīnaṃ bahi kesaggamattampi ṭhānaṃ. Pāsādabhittitoti uparimatale bhittito. Otaraṇānotaraṇaṃ vuttanayeneva veditabbanti sace heṭṭhā ekavīsatiyā bhikkhūnaṃ okāso hoti, otarati, no ce, na otaratīti adhippāyoti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.138) vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.138) pana “uparisīmappamāṇassa antogadhānaṃ heṭṭhimatale catūsu disāsu kuṭṭānaṃ tulārukkhehi ekasambandhataṃ, tadanto pacchimasīmappamāṇatādiñca sandhāya vutta”nti vuttaṃ . Kiñcāpettha niyyūhakādayo nimittānaṃ ṭhitokāsatāya bajjhamānakkhaṇe sīmā na honti, baddhāya pana sīmāya sīmaṭṭhāva hontīti daṭṭhabbā.
Anto ca bahi ca sīmā hotī means it becomes a square boundary including the wall standing in the middle. Uparipāsādeyeva hotī indicates that due to the unity of the wall standing between the chamber and its front, and due to the lack of space there for twenty-one monks, it does not descend below; rather, the upper wall remains the boundary, as shown. Heṭṭhā na otaratī means that since the markers are placed and designated below the wall, it does not descend into the space below, but refers to a structure made above. Heṭṭhimatale kuṭṭo refers to a wall standing in the four directions on the lower level. For if a wall stood in only two or three directions, it would not descend below. Heṭṭhāpi otaratī means that if there is space below within the wall for twenty-one monks, it descends. When descending, it does not do so according to the upper boundary’s measure, but according to the wall’s measure all around. However, it descends to the ground below according to the outer limit of the four walls up to the water’s edge, not even a hair’s breadth beyond the walls. Pāsādabhittito means from the wall of the upper structure. Otaraṇānotaraṇaṃ vuttanayeneva veditabba means it should be understood as stated: if there is space below for twenty-one monks, it descends; if not, it does not, according to the intent in Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.138). However, in Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.138), it is said, “it refers to the continuity of the walls in the four directions on the lower level with rafters and trees, included within the upper boundary’s measure, and to the final boundary measure.” Furthermore, here, those who explain or designate are not boundaries at the moment they are bound due to the placement of markers, but once the boundary is established, they remain as boundaries.
Anto ca bahi ca sīmā hotīti means that together with the wall situated in the middle, the boundary is rectangular. Uparipāsādeyeva hotī’ti, by this it is shown that because of the oneness of the wall located between the chamber and the porch and because there is not enough space there for twenty-one monks, it does not descend below, but the upper wall becomes the boundary-place. Heṭṭhā na otaratīti means that because [the boundary] is marked after setting the markers below the wall, it does not descend to the space of the sky below, but [refers to] the upper story constructed. Heṭṭhimatale kuṭṭoti means the wall located on the lower level in the four directions. If the wall were to stand only in two or three directions, it would not descend below. Heṭṭhāpi otaratīti means that if there is space for twenty-one monks within the inner wall below, it descends. And descending, it does not descend according to the extent of the upper boundary, but it descends on all sides according to the extent of the wall. It descends making the lower part of the ground, with the outer and inner delineation of the four walls, reach down to the water level, but not even a hair’s breadth outside the walls. Pāsādabhittitoti means from the wall on the upper level. Otaraṇānotaraṇaṃ vuttanayeneva veditabbanti in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.138) it is said: The meaning is that it should be understood in the same way as stated, if there is space for twenty-one monks below, it descends; if not, it does not descend. But in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.138) it is said: “The internal inclusion of the extent of the upper boundary, and the fact that the walls in the four directions on the lower level are connected as one by supporting beams, and the extent, etc., of the western boundary within that, are stated with reference to this.” Moreover, it should be understood here that projections (niyyūhaka), and so forth, are not boundaries at the moment they are being attached because of their being the place where the markers are located, but when the boundary is established, they indeed become boundary-places.
Anto ca bahi ca sīmā hotī means that the boundary is square, including the wall standing in the middle. Uparipāsādeyeva hotī indicates that the boundary does not descend below due to the lack of space for twenty-one monks between the interior and the exterior walls, but the upper wall remains as the boundary. Heṭṭhā na otaratī means that since the marks are placed below the wall, the boundary does not descend into the space below; it remains above, on the upper floor. Heṭṭhimatale kuṭṭo refers to the wall standing on the lower floor in all four directions. If the wall stands in two, three, or even four directions, the boundary does not descend below. Heṭṭhāpi otaratī means that if there is space for twenty-one monks below the interior wall, the boundary descends. However, when descending, it does not descend to the extent of the upper boundary but descends according to the wall’s measurement. For the four walls, the boundary descends to the ground level, marked by water, but not beyond the walls. Pāsādabhittito means from the wall of the upper floor. Otaraṇānotaraṇaṃ vuttanayeneva veditabba means that if there is space for twenty-one monks below, the boundary descends; if not, it does not. This is the intention, as explained in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.138). The Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.138) states that “the lower floor is connected to the upper boundary’s measurement, and the walls in all four directions are connected by beams, and the interior is measured according to the western boundary, etc.” Furthermore, even though the markers and others are not bound at the moment of placing the marks, once the boundary is established, they become part of the boundary.
ID800
Pariyantathambhānanti nimittagatapāsāṇatthambhe sandhāya vuttaṃ. Uparimatalena sambaddho hotīti idaṃ kuṭṭānaṃ antarā sīmaṭṭhānaṃ thambhānaṃ abhāvato vuttaṃ. Yadi hi bhaveyyuṃ, kuṭṭe uparimatalena asambandhepi sīmaṭṭhathambhānaṃ upari ṭhito pāsādo sīmaṭṭhova hoti. Sace pana bahūnaṃ thambhapantīnaṃ upari katapāsādassa heṭṭhāpathaviyaṃ sabbabāhirāya thambhapantiyā anto nimittapāsāṇe ṭhapetvā sīmā baddhā hoti, ettha kathanti? Etthāpi “yaṃ tāva sīmaṭṭhathambheheva dhāriyamānānaṃ tulānaṃ uparimatalaṃ, sabbaṃ taṃ sīmaṭṭhameva, ettha vivādo natthi, yaṃ pana sīmaṭṭhathambhapantiyā, asīmaṭṭhāya bāhirathambhapantiyā ca samadhuraṃ dhārayamānānaṃ tulānaṃ uparimatalaṃ, tattha upaḍḍhaṃ sīmā”ti keci vadanti. “Sakalampi gāmasīmā”ti apare. “Baddhasīmā evā”ti aññe. Tasmā kammaṃ karontehi garūhi nirāsaṅkaṭṭhāne ṭhatvā sabbaṃ taṃ āsaṅkaṭṭhānaṃ sodhetvāva kammaṃ kātabbaṃ, sanniṭṭhānakāraṇaṃ vā gavesitvā tadanuguṇaṃ kātabbaṃ.
Pariyantathambhāna refers to the marker stones or pillars. Uparimatalena sambaddho hotī is said because there are no boundary-standing pillars between the walls. For if there were, even if the walls were not connected to the upper level, the structure standing above the boundary pillars would still be a boundary. But if a structure is built above rows of many pillars, and a boundary is established by placing marker stones within the outermost row of pillars on the ground below, how is this? Here too, some say, “as for the upper level supported solely by boundary-standing pillars, all of it is certainly a boundary—there is no dispute about this; but regarding the upper level supported equally by a row of boundary pillars and an outer row of non-boundary pillars, half of it is a boundary.” Others say, “all of it is a village boundary.” Yet others say, “it is only an established boundary.” Therefore, those performing an act should stand in an unproblematic place, purify all doubtful areas, and perform the act, or seek a decisive reason and act accordingly.
Pariyantathambhānanti is said with reference to the pillar-stones included as markers. Uparimatalena sambaddho hotīti, this is said because of the absence of boundary-places between the walls, of the pillars. If there were, even if the walls were not connected to the upper level, a structure situated on boundary-place pillars would itself be a boundary-place. But if a structure is made on top of many rows of pillars, and the boundary is established below on the ground after setting marker-stones within the outermost row of pillars, what happens here? Here also, some say, “Whatever upper level is supported solely by the boundary-place pillars, all that is indeed a boundary-place, there is no dispute about this; but regarding that upper level which is supported equally by the row of boundary-place pillars and by the outer row of non-boundary-place pillars, half of it is the boundary.” Others say, “The entire village boundary.” Others say “It is indeed a demarcated boundary.” Therefore, those performing a formal act, standing in an un-doubtful place, should perform the act only after clearing that entire doubtful area, or having investigated the cause of the uncertainty, they should act accordingly.
Pariyantathambhāna refers to the stone pillars where the marks are placed. Uparimatalena sambaddho hotī is said because there are no pillars between the walls to mark the boundary. If there were, even if the upper floor were not connected to the walls, the building above the pillars would still be part of the boundary. However, if a building is constructed above many pillars, and the boundary is established below the ground level, excluding the outer pillars, with the mark stones placed inside, what then? Here, some say, “The upper floor supported by the boundary pillars is entirely part of the boundary, and there is no dispute about this. However, the upper floor supported by both boundary and non-boundary pillars is half boundary.” Others say, “The entire village boundary.” Still others say, “Only the established boundary.” Therefore, those performing the action should stand in a place free from doubt, resolve all doubts, and then perform the action, or seek a decision and act accordingly.
ID801
Tālamūlakapabbateti tālakkhandhamūlasadise heṭṭhā thūlo hutvā kamena kiso hutvā uggato hintālamūlasadiso nāma hoti. Vitānasaṇṭhānoti ahicchattakasaṇṭhāno. Paṇavasaṇṭhānoti majjhe tanuko, heṭṭhā ca upari ca vitthiṇṇo. Heṭṭhā vā majjhe vāti mudiṅgasaṇṭhānassa heṭṭhā, paṇavasaṇṭhānassa majjhe. Sappaphaṇasadiso pabbatoti sappaphaṇo viya khujjo, mūlaṭṭhānato aññattha avanatasīso. Ākāsapabbhāranti bhittiyā aparikkhittapabbhāraṃ. Sīmappamāṇoti anto ākāsena saddhiṃ pacchimasīmappamāṇo. So ca pāsāṇo sīmaṭṭhoti iminā īdisehi susirapāsāṇaleṇakuṭṭādīhi paricchinne bhūmibhāge eva sīmā patiṭṭhāti, na aparicchinne. Te pana sīmaṭṭhattā sīmā honti, na sarūpena sīmaṭṭhamañcādi viyāti dasseti. Sace pana so susirapāsāṇo bhūmiṃ anāhacca ākāsagato olambati, sīmā na otarati. Susirapāsāṇo pana sayaṃ sīmāpaṭibaddhattā sīmā hoti, kathaṃ pana pacchimappamāṇarahitehi etehi susirapāsāṇādīhi sīmā na otaratīti idaṃ saddhātabbanti? Aṭṭhakathāpamāṇato.
Tālamūlakapabbate refers to a mountain shaped like the root of a palm tree, thick below and gradually narrowing as it rises, resembling a palm trunk. Vitānasaṇṭhāno means shaped like a canopy. Paṇavasaṇṭhāno means slender in the middle, broad below and above. Heṭṭhā vā majjhe vā refers to below for a drum-shaped mountain, or in the middle for a paṇava-shaped one. Sappaphaṇasadiso pabbato means a mountain resembling a snake’s hood, hunched, with its head bent elsewhere from its base. Ākāsapabbhāra refers to an open cave not enclosed by a wall. Sīmappamāṇo means the boundary measure includes the interior space. So ca pāsāṇo sīmaṭṭho indicates that in such cases, the boundary is established only on the ground demarcated by perforated stones, cave walls, etc., not on undemarcated ground. These are boundaries due to their boundary-standing nature, not inherently like a boundary-standing bed or seat, as shown. However, if such a perforated stone hangs in the air without touching the ground, the boundary does not descend. Yet, the perforated stone itself is a boundary due to its connection to the boundary—how then does the boundary not descend with these perforated stones lacking a final measure? This must be accepted based on the authority of the commentary.
Tālamūlakapabbateti means a mountain resembling the base of a palmyra trunk, i.e., thick below, gradually becoming thinner upwards, is called resembling the base of a hintāla (wild date palm). Vitānasaṇṭhānoti means shaped like a canopy, like a cobra’s hood. Paṇavasaṇṭhānoti means thin in the middle, and broad below and above. Heṭṭhā vā majjhe vāti means below, for one shaped like a mudiṅga (a type of drum); in the middle, for one shaped like a paṇava (another type of drum). Sappaphaṇasadiso pabbatoti means crooked like a cobra’s hood, with its summit drooping elsewhere from its base. Ākāsapabbhāranti means an expanse not enclosed by a wall. Sīmappamāṇoti means along with the inner space, equal in extent to the western boundary. So ca pāsāṇo sīmaṭṭhoti by this it is shown that the boundary is established only in the area of ground enclosed by such things as a perforated stone, cave, or wall, etc., but not in the unenclosed. Those, however, are boundaries because they are boundary-places, not by their form, like a boundary-place seat, and so on. But if that perforated stone hangs in the air without touching the ground, the boundary does not descend. But the perforated stone itself is a boundary because it is connected to the boundary; but how is it that the boundary does not descend by means of these perforated stones, etc., which lack the western extent? Should this be believed? From the authority of the commentary.
Tālamūlakapabbate refers to a mountain shaped like the base of a palm tree, thick at the bottom and gradually tapering towards the top, resembling the base of a palm tree. Vitānasaṇṭhāno means shaped like a cobra’s hood. Paṇavasaṇṭhāno means thin in the middle and spread out at the top and bottom. Heṭṭhā vā majjhe vā refers to the shape of a drum at the bottom and the shape of a drum in the middle. Sappaphaṇasadiso pabbato means a mountain shaped like a snake’s hood, bent, with its head sloping away from the base. Ākāsapabbhāra means a slope of the wall not enclosed by the boundary. Sīmappamāṇo means the measurement of the boundary, including the space up to the western boundary. So ca pāsāṇo sīmaṭṭho indicates that in such places, the boundary is established on the ground enclosed by perforated stones, cave walls, etc., and not in unenclosed areas. These, being part of the boundary, are the boundary, not like a boundary bed or similar. However, if the perforated stone hangs in the air without touching the ground, the boundary does not descend. The perforated stone itself, being part of the boundary, is the boundary. But how can the boundary not descend when these perforated stones lack the western measurement? This should be accepted according to the commentary.
ID802
Apicettha susirapāsāṇabhittianusārena mūsikādīnaṃ viya sīmāya heṭṭhimatale otaraṇakiccaṃ natthi, heṭṭhā pana pacchimasīmappamāṇe ākāse dvaṅgulamattabahalehi pāsāṇabhittiādīhipi uparimatalaṃ āhacca ṭhitehi sabbaso, yebhuyyena vā paricchinne sati upari bajjhamānā sīmā tehi pāsāṇādīhi antaritāya tapparicchinnāya heṭṭhābhūmiyāpi uparimatalena saddhiṃ ekakkhaṇe patiṭṭhāti, nadīpārasīmā viya nadīantaritesu ubhosu tīresu leṇādīsu apanītesupi heṭṭhā otiṇṇasīmā yāva sāsanantaradhānā na vigacchati, paṭhamaṃ pana upari sīmāya baddhāya pacchā leṇādikatesupi heṭṭhābhūmiyaṃ sīmā otarati eva, keci taṃ na icchanti, evaṃ ubhayattha patiṭṭhitā ca sā sīmā ekāva hoti gottādijāti viya byattibhedesūti gahetabbaṃ. Sabbā eva hi baddhasīmā abaddhasīmā ca attano attano pakatinissayake gāmāraññādike khette yathāparicchedaṃ sabbattha sākalyena ekasmiṃ khaṇe byāpinī paramatthato avijjamānampi te te nissayabhūte paramatthadhamme, taṃ taṃ kiriyāvisesampi vā upādāya lokiyehi sāsanikehi ca yathārahaṃ ekattena paññattattā sanissayekarūpā eva. Tathā hi eko gāmo araññaṃ nadī jātassaro samuddoti evaṃ loke, “sammatā sā sīmā saṅghena, agāmake ce, bhikkhave, araññe samantā sattabbhantarā, ayaṃ tattha samānasaṃvāsā ekūposathā”tiādinā sāsane ca ekavohāro dissati, na paramatthato. Ekassa anekadhammesu byāpanamatthi kasiṇekadesādivikappāsamānatāya ekattahānitoti ayaṃ no mati.
Moreover, here, unlike mice passing through perforated stone walls, there is no function of the boundary descending to the lower level; yet below, even with stone walls or the like, two inches thick in the final boundary measure’s space, standing and touching the upper level, when the ground below is entirely or mostly enclosed, the boundary established above is established at that moment along with the upper level and the enclosed ground below separated by those stones, just as a riverbank boundary remains effective on both shores within caves even if they are removed, until the teaching disappears. However, once a boundary is first established above, it later descends to the ground below in caves or the like; some do not accept this. Thus, a boundary established on both levels is singular, like a clan or lineage among individuals. For all established and unestablished boundaries, according to their natural dependencies like village or forest, pervade their respective domains entirely at one moment as conventionally designated by worldly and teaching-following people based on those ultimate realities or specific actions, despite their ultimate non-existence, and thus are singular in form with their supports. Just as in the world one speaks of a village, forest, river, lake, or sea, and in the teaching it is said, “that boundary agreed upon by the Sangha, monks, if in a non-village, in a forest, seven abbhantaras all around, there it is of common residence and one Uposatha,” and so forth—such a singular designation is seen, not in an ultimate sense. There is no pervading of one thing across many phenomena, unlike the partial variation of a kasina, and thus it is brought to unity—this is our view.
Moreover, here, in accordance with the perforated stone wall, there is no need for the boundary to descend to the lower level like that of mice, and so on; but below, in the sky of the western boundary’s extent, if there is an enclosure, either completely or for the most part, by stone walls, and so on, two fingerbreadths thick, touching the upper level, then the boundary being established above is obstructed by those stones, and so on, and it is established at the same moment both in the lower ground enclosed by them and in the upper level, just like the boundary on the far side of a river is established simultaneously in both the banks obstructed by the river. Even when caves, and so on, [in the banks] are removed, the boundary that has descended below does not disappear as long as the dispensation endures; and also, when the boundary is first established above and afterwards caves, and so on, are made, the boundary descends to the lower ground; some do not desire that. And it should be understood that the boundary, thus established in both places, is just one, like clan, etc., are single in relation to differing individuals. Indeed, all established and unestablished boundaries, in their own respective natural supportive fields like village, forest, and so on, completely encompass, at the same time, every place according to its division, even though, in ultimate reality, those respective supportive ultimate realities or that specific action, are taken as one in conventional usage by worldly and religious people. Thus, in the world, one says, “one village, forest, river, natural lake, sea”; and in the Dispensation, “that boundary is agreed upon by the Saṅgha, if, O monks, in a forest that is not a village, it is seven abbhantara around, this is shared residence there, with a single Uposatha ceremony,” and so on. This is a singular usage, not in ultimate reality. One thing cannot spread through many things, because, like the variations in the size of a kasiṇa (meditation device), it would lose its oneness; this is our opinion.
Moreover, here, just as mice and others do not have the task of descending below the boundary due to the perforated stones and walls, the boundary does not descend below. However, if the upper floor is supported by stone walls, etc., touching the space below the western boundary measurement with stones two fingers thick, the boundary is entirely established at once, or mostly so, in the enclosed area. The boundary, being enclosed above, is established at the same moment with the upper floor, just like the boundary on the far side of a river, which remains even if the caves, etc., on both banks are removed, until the dispensation disappears. However, if the boundary is first established above and later caves, etc., are made below, the boundary descends to the ground below. Some do not accept this. Thus, the boundary established in both places is one, like caste and lineage, despite differences in characteristics. All established and unestablished boundaries, based on their natural foundations like villages, forests, etc., are entirely spread out in a single moment, even though they do not exist in ultimate reality. They are conventionally designated as one by worldly and monastic conventions, based on their respective activities. Thus, in the world, a village, forest, river, lake, or ocean is considered one. In the dispensation, it is seen as one, as in “the boundary agreed upon by the Sangha, if in a wilderness, seven abbhantaras around, this is the same residence for one Uposatha,” etc., but not in ultimate reality. The spread of one over many phenomena is like the kasina meditation, where one part is spread over the whole. This is our view.
ID803
Assa heṭṭhāti sappaphaṇapabbatassa heṭṭhā ākāsapabbhāre. Leṇassāti leṇaṃ ce kataṃ, tassa leṇassāti attho. Tameva puna leṇaṃ pañcahi pakārehi vikappetvā otaraṇānotaraṇavinicchayaṃ dassetuṃ āha “sace pana heṭṭhā”tiādi. Tattha “heṭṭhā”ti imassa “leṇaṃ hotī”ti iminā sambandho. Heṭṭhā leṇañca ekasmiṃ padeseti āha “anto”ti, pabbatassa anto, pabbatamūleti attho. Tameva antosaddaṃ sīmāparicchedena visesetuṃ “uparimassa sīmāparicchedassa pārato”ti vuttaṃ. Pabbatapādaṃ pana apekkhitvā “orato”ti vattabbepi sīmānissayaṃ pabbataggaṃ sandhāya “pārato”ti vuttanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Teneva “bahi leṇa”nti ettha bahisaddaṃ visesento “uparimassa sīmāparicchedassa orato”ti āha. Bahisīmā na otaratīti ettha bahīti pabbatapāde leṇaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Leṇassa ca bahibhūte uparisīmāparicchedassa heṭṭhābhāge sīmā na otaratīti attho. Anto sīmāti leṇassa ca pabbatapādassa ca anto attano otaraṇārahaṭṭhāne na otaratīti attho. “Bahi sīmā na otarati, anto sīmā na otaratī”ti cettha attano otaraṇārahaṭṭhāne leṇābhāvena sīmāya sabbathā anotaraṇameva dassitanti gahetabbaṃ. Tattha hi anotarantī upari eva hotīti ayaṃ vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.138) āgato vinicchayo.
Assa heṭṭhā means below that snake-hood-shaped mountain in an open cave. Leṇassā means if a cave is made, of that cave. To further explain that same cave with five distinctions regarding descending or not descending, it says, “sace pana heṭṭhā” and so forth. There, “heṭṭhā” connects with “leṇaṃ hotī.” And in one instance with a cave below, it says “anto”, meaning inside the mountain, at the mountain’s base. To specify that same word “anto” with the boundary’s demarcation, it says “uparimassa sīmāparicchedassa pārato”. Though it could say “orato” in reference to the mountain’s foot, it says “pārato” in reference to the mountain’s peak as the boundary’s support. Hence, in “bahi leṇa”, specifying the word “bahi,” it says “uparimassa sīmāparicchedassa orato”. Bahisīmā na otaratī means here “bahi” refers to a cave at the mountain’s foot, and the boundary does not descend below the upper boundary demarcation outside that cave. Anto sīmā means the boundary does not descend to a place suitable for descending inside both the cave and the mountain’s foot. “The outer boundary does not descend, the inner boundary does not descend” indicates that due to the absence of a cave, the boundary does not descend at all but remains above—this is the judgment found in Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.138).
Assa heṭṭhāti below the cobra-hood mountain, in an aerial expanse. Leṇassāti if a cave is made, of that cave, that is the meaning. Again, to show the determination of descent or non-descent by distinguishing that same cave in five ways, he says “sace pana heṭṭhā”ti, etc. There, the connection of “heṭṭhā” is with “leṇaṃ hotī.” He says “anto”ti in one place [to describe] a cave and below, meaning inside the mountain, at the base of the mountain. To specify that same word ‘anto’ by the boundary division, it is said, “uparimassa sīmāparicchedassa pārato”. But although “orato” should be said in reference to the foot of the mountain, “pārato” is said with reference to the mountain peak, which is the support for the boundary; this should be understood. Therefore, in the case of “bahi leṇa”, clarifying the word ‘bahisadda’, he said **“uparimassa** sīmāparicchedassa orato”. Bahisīmā na otaratīti here, bahīti is said referring to a cave at the foot of the mountain. And the meaning is that the boundary does not descend to the part below the upper boundary division, which is external to the cave. Anto sīmāti means that inside the cave and the foot of the mountain, it does not descend in the place where it could descend. In the case of”Bahi sīmā na otarati, anto sīmā na otaratī,” it should be understood that it is shown that the boundary does not descend at all because there is no cave in the place where it could descend. For indeed, not descending there, it is only above; this is the decision found in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.138).
Assa heṭṭhā means below the snake-hood-shaped mountain, in the slope open to the sky. Leṇassā means if a cave is made, it refers to that cave. The same cave is further explained in five ways to show the decision on descending or not descending. Here, heṭṭhā is connected with leṇaṃ hotī, meaning the cave is below. Anto means inside the mountain, at the base of the mountain. The same word anto is further specified with uparimassa sīmāparicchedassa pārato, meaning beyond the upper boundary’s limit. Although the mountain’s base should be referred to as “below,” the boundary’s reliance on the mountain’s peak is referred to as “beyond.” Thus, bahi leṇa here specifies the exterior with uparimassa sīmāparicchedassa orato, meaning below the upper boundary’s limit. Bahisīmā na otaratī here means bahī refers to the cave at the mountain’s base. The boundary does not descend below the upper boundary’s limit, outside the cave. Anto sīmā means the boundary does not descend inside the cave or the mountain’s base, where it should descend. “The exterior boundary does not descend, the interior boundary does not descend” here shows that the boundary does not descend at all where it should, due to the absence of a cave. The decision in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.138) is that if it does not descend, it remains above.
ID804
Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.138) pana “antoleṇaṃ hotīti pabbatassa antoleṇaṃ hotī”ti ettakameva āgato. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 138) na “antoleṇanti pabbatassa antoleṇaṃ. Dvāraṃ pana sandhāya ‘pārato orato’ti vuttaṃ, sabbathāpi sīmato bahileṇena otaratīti adhippāyo”ti āgato. Ayaṃ pana antoleṇabahileṇavinicchayo gambhīro duddaso duranubodhoti ācariyā vadanti, tathāpi vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.138) āgataṃ nayaṃ nissāya suṭṭhu vinicchitabbo viññūhīti. Bahi patitaṃ asīmātiādinā uparipāsādādīsu athiranissayesu ṭhitā sīmāpi tesaṃ vināsena vinassatīti dassitanti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
In Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.138), however, only this much is found: “antoleṇaṃ hotī** means there is a cave inside the mountain.” In Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 138), it says not “antoleṇa”** meaning a cave inside the mountain, but referring to an entrance, “pārato orato”, with the intent that it descends entirely from an outer cave beyond the boundary. This judgment about an inner and outer cave is profound, difficult to see, and hard to comprehend, say the teachers; yet it should be well judged by the wise based on the method in Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.138). “Bahi patitaṃ asīmā” and so forth shows that a boundary established on unstable supports like an upper structure also perishes with their destruction.
But in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.138) only “antoleṇaṃ hotīti means the inner cave of the mountain” has come. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 138), it does not say, ”antoleṇanti the inner cave of the mountain. With reference to the opening, ‘pārato orato’ti is said; the meaning is that the cave that is outside the boundary in every way does not descend.” But the teachers say this determination of the inner cave and outer cave is profound, difficult to see, and hard to understand; nevertheless, it should be well determined by the wise, relying on the method found in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.138). By Bahi patitaṃ asīmāti, etc., it is shown that even boundaries situated on unstable supports, like upper stories, and so on, are destroyed with the destruction of those [supports]; this should be understood.
The Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.138) states antoleṇaṃ hotī means the cave inside the mountain, and only this much is said. The Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 138) does not say antoleṇa means the cave inside the mountain. It refers to the door, saying pārato orato, meaning the boundary descends entirely outside the cave. This decision regarding the interior and exterior caves is deep, difficult to see, and hard to understand, as the teachers say. However, the method found in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.138) should be well considered by the wise. Bahi patitaṃ asīmā shows that the boundary, even if established on upper buildings, etc., is destroyed if they are destroyed.
ID805
Pokkharaṇiṃ khaṇanti, sīmāyevāti ettha sace heṭṭhā umaṅganadī sīmappamāṇato anūnā paṭhamameva pavattā hoti, sīmā ca pacchā baddhā nadito upari eva hoti, nadiṃ āhacca pokkharaṇiyā ca khatāya sīmā vinassatīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Heṭṭhāpathavītaleti anantarā bhūmivivare.
Pokkharaṇiṃ khaṇanti, sīmāyevā means here, if an underground river or tunnel equal to or greater than the boundary measure existed initially, and the boundary was established later above the river, when a pond is dug touching the river, the boundary perishes. Heṭṭhāpathavītale means on the ground level below without interruption.
Pokkharaṇiṃ khaṇanti, sīmāyevāti here, if below, a tunnel-river flows beforehand, not less than the extent of the boundary, and the boundary is established later only above the river, it should be understood that the boundary is destroyed by touching the river and by digging the pond. Heṭṭhāpathavītaleti in an adjacent underground cavity.
Pokkharaṇiṃ khaṇanti, sīmāyevā means that if below there is a river equal to the boundary’s measurement, and the boundary is established later above the river, the boundary is destroyed when the river touches the excavated pond. Heṭṭhāpathavītale means immediately below the ground level.
ID806
Sīmamāḷaketi khaṇḍasīmaṅgaṇe. Vaṭarukkhoti idaṃ pārohopatthambhena atidūrampi gantuṃ samatthasākhāsamaṅgitāya vuttaṃ. Sabbarukkhalatādīnampi sambandho na vaṭṭati eva. Teneva nāvārajjusetusambandhopi paṭikkhitto. Tatoti tato sākhato. Mahāsīmāya pathavītalanti ettha āsannatarampi gāmasīmaṃ aggahetvā baddhasīmāya eva gahitattā gāmasīmabaddhasīmānaṃ aññamaññaṃ rukkhādisambandhepi sambhedadoso natthi aññamaññaṃ nissayanissitabhāvena pavattitoti gahetabbaṃ. Yadi hi tāsampi sambandhadoso bhaveyya, kathaṃ gāmasīmāya baddhasīmā sammannitabbā bhaveyya? Yassā hi sīmāya yāya sīmāya saddhiṃ sambandhe doso bhaveyya, sā tattha bandhitumeva na vaṭṭati baddhasīmaudakukkhepasīmāsu baddhasīmā viya, attano anissayabhūtagāmasīmādīsu udakukkhepasīmā viya ca, teneva “sace pana rukkhassa sākhā vātato nikkhantapāroho vā bahinadītīre vihārasīmāya vā gāmasīmāya vā patiṭṭhito”tiādinā udakukkhepasīmāya attano anissayabhūtagāmasīmādīhi eva sambandhadoso dassito, na nadīsīmāya , evamidhāpīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Ayañcattho upari pākaṭo bhavissati. Āhaccāti phusitvā.
Sīmamāḷake refers to a courtyard of a partial boundary. Vaṭarukkho is said due to its ability to extend far with supporting branches, possessing capable limbs; connection with any trees or vines is indeed not permissible. Hence, connection via a boat, rope, or bridge is also prohibited. Tato means from that branch. Mahāsīmāya pathavītala means the ground level of a large boundary; here, it refers only to an established boundary, not taking a nearby village boundary, showing that there is no fault of mixing between village boundaries and established boundaries even with tree connections, due to their mutual dependence as support and supported. For if there were such a fault, how could an established boundary be agreed upon within a village boundary? A boundary that incurs a fault through connection with another boundary cannot be established there, just as an established boundary cannot be in unestablished village boundaries or water-sprinkled boundaries; thus, as stated, “if a tree’s branch or an offshoot extending from it due to wind is established on the far shore or in a monastery or village boundary,” etc., only a fault of connection with unestablished village boundaries or the like is shown for a water-sprinkled boundary, not a river boundary—so it should be understood here too. This meaning will become clearer later. Āhaccā means touching.
Sīmamāḷaketi in a demarcated boundary enclosure. Vaṭarukkhoti, this is stated because of the banyan tree’s ability to spread very far with branches supported by aerial roots. Even the connection of all [other] trees, creepers, etc., is not permissible. Therefore, the connection of boats, dams, and bridges is also rejected. Tatoti from that branch. Mahāsīmāya pathavītalanti here, because even a closer village boundary is not taken, and only the demarcated boundary is taken, there is no fault of intermingling even in the connection of trees, etc., between village boundaries and demarcated boundaries, because they exist as support and supported of each other. If indeed, there were a fault in their connection, how could a demarcated boundary be agreed upon in a village boundary? Indeed, whichever boundary has a fault in its connection with another boundary, that [first one] is not suitable to be established there, just like a demarcated boundary in demarcated boundaries and water-lifting boundaries, and also like a water-lifting boundary in village boundaries, etc., which are not its support. Therefore, by saying “sace pana rukkhassa sākhā vātato nikkhantapāroho vā bahinadītīre vihārasīmāya vā gāmasīmāya vā patiṭṭhito”ti, etc., the fault of connection is shown only with village boundaries, etc., which are not the support of a water-lifting boundary, not with a river boundary, and so it should be understood here as well. And this matter will become clear later. Āhaccāti means having touched.
Sīmamāḷake refers to a partial boundary garden. Vaṭarukkho means a tree capable of extending its branches far, even for crossing. The connection with all trees, creepers, etc., is not permissible. Therefore, even the connection with boat ropes or bridges is prohibited. Tato means from that branch. Mahāsīmāya pathavītala here means that even if a nearer village boundary is not taken, since the established boundary is taken, there is no mixing fault between the village boundary and the established boundary, even if they are connected by trees, etc., because they rely on each other. If there were a mixing fault, how could the established boundary be agreed upon in the village boundary? If a boundary has a mixing fault with another boundary, it cannot be established there, like the established boundary in the water-offering boundary, or the water-offering boundary in its non-relying village boundary, etc. Thus, “if a tree’s branch, broken by the wind or growing on the far bank of a river, is established in the monastery boundary or village boundary,” etc., the mixing fault is shown for the water-offering boundary with its non-relying village boundary, etc., not for the river boundary. The same applies here. This meaning will be clarified above. Āhaccā means touching.
ID807
Mahāsīmaṃ vā sodhetvāti mahāsīmagatānaṃ sabbesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ hatthapāsānayanachandāharaṇādivasena sakalaṃ mahāsīmaṃ sodhetvā. Etena sabbavipattiyo mocetvā pubbe suṭṭhu baddhānampi dvinnaṃ baddhasīmānaṃ pacchā rukkhādisambandhena uppajjanato īdiso pāḷimuttako sambandhadoso atthīti dasseti, so ca “na, bhikkhave, sīmāya sīmā sambhinditabbā”tiādinā baddhasīmānaṃ aññamaññaṃ sambhedajjhottharaṇaṃ paṭikkhipitvā “anujānāmi bhikkhave sīmaṃ sammannantena sīmantarikaṃ ṭhapetvā sīmaṃ sammannitu”nti (mahāva. 148) ubhinnaṃ baddhasīmānaṃ antarā sīmantarikaṃ ṭhapetvā bandhituṃ anujānanena sambhedajjhottharaṇe viya tāsaṃ aññamaññaṃ phusitvā tiṭṭhanavasena bandhanampi na vaṭṭatīti siddhattā baddhānampi tāsaṃ pacchā aññamaññaṃ ekarukkhādīhi phusitvā ṭhānampi na vaṭṭatīti bhagavato adhippāyaññūhi saṅgītikārakehi niddhārito bandhanakāle paṭikkhittassa sambandhadosassa anulomena akappiyānulomattā. Ayaṃ pana sambandhadoso pubbe suṭṭhu baddhānaṃ pacchā sañjātattā bajjhamānakkhaṇe viya asīmattaṃ kātuṃ na sakkoti, tasmā rukkhādisambandhe apanītamatte tā sīmā pākatikā honti. Yathā cāyaṃ pacchā na vaṭṭati, evaṃ bajjhamānakkhaṇepi tāsaṃ rukkhādisambandhe sati tā bandhituṃ na vaṭṭatīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
Mahāsīmaṃ vā sodhetvā means having purified the entire large boundary by bringing all monks within reach, obtaining their consent, and so forth. This shows that even boundaries well-established previously incur this kind of fault, not found in the text, due to later connection by trees or the like; this is established because, having prohibited the mutual overlapping of established boundaries with “Monks, one boundary must not overlap another” and so on, and permitting with “I allow, monks, when agreeing on a boundary, to establish it leaving an intervening space” (mahāva. 148), it is not permissible to bind them by touching each other as in overlapping, so even their later standing in contact via a single tree or the like is not permissible, as determined by the council reciters who understood the Blessed One’s intent, due to the impropriety of following what is prohibited at the time of binding. However, this connection fault, arising later in well-established boundaries, cannot render them non-boundaries as at the moment of binding; thus, once the tree connection is removed, those boundaries return to their natural state. Just as it is not permissible later, so too at the moment of binding, if there is a tree connection, they must not be bound.
Mahāsīmaṃ vā sodhetvāti means having cleansed the entire great boundary, by way of bringing all the monks within the great boundary into arm’s reach and receiving their consent. By this, it is shown that even in the case of two well-established boundaries, a connection fault, independent of the scriptural text, arises from their subsequent connection through trees and so forth, this is because, having prohibited the overlapping and intermingling of established boundaries by stating, “Monks, a boundary should not be intertwined with another boundary,” it further states, “I allow you, monks, when establishing a boundary, to do so after leaving an interval between boundaries” (Mahāva. 148), thus allowing the establishment of two established boundaries with an interval between them. It is established that just as overlapping and interpenetration is not proper by way of the junction, it also follows that it is not permissible for the boundary markers to be physically in contact with each other. It is consistent with the fault of connection, which the commentators of the Saṅgīti, who understand the intention of the Blessed One, determined was prohibited at the time of boundary establishment. The commentators determined that there is a fault in such contact, since contact should be avoided, for it is an improper allowance. However, this connection fault, since it arises after the well-established boundaries were previously established, cannot render the boundary invalid, as it would during the actual process of marking. Therefore, as soon as the connection through trees, etc., is removed, those boundaries become normal again. And just as this is not permitted subsequently, it should be understood that it is also not permitted to establish boundaries when there is a connection through trees, etc., at the time of marking them.
Mahāsīmaṃ vā sodhetvāti means purifying the entire great boundary (mahāsīmā) by obtaining the consent of all the bhikkhus within the great boundary through methods such as bringing them within arm’s reach. This removes all defects and shows that even in well-established boundaries, if two boundaries later become connected by trees or other objects, such a connection defect exists. The Buddha prohibited the overlapping or mixing of established boundaries, saying, “Bhikkhus, one boundary should not overlap another,” and allowed the establishment of a boundary by leaving an intermediate space between two boundaries. This indicates that even if two boundaries are later connected by a single tree or other objects, they should not be considered valid. The compilers of the texts, understanding the Buddha’s intention, rejected the connection defect at the time of establishing the boundary, as it aligns with what is improper. This connection defect, arising after the boundaries have been well established, cannot render the boundaries invalid, just as it cannot do so at the moment of establishment. Therefore, once the connection through trees or other objects is removed, the boundaries become valid again. It should be understood that just as this is not valid afterward, it is also not valid to establish the boundaries if they are connected by trees or other objects at the time of establishment.
ID808
Keci pana mahāsīmaṃ vā sodhetvāti ettha “mahāsīmagatā bhikkhū yathā taṃ sākhaṃ vā pārohaṃ vā kāyakāyapaṭibaddhehi na phusanti, evaṃ sodhanameva idhādhippetaṃ, na sakalasīmāsodhana”nti vadanti, taṃ na yuttaṃ aṭṭhakathāya virujjhanato. Tathā hi “mahāsīmāya pathavītalaṃ vā tatthajātakarukkhādīni vā āhacca tiṭṭhatī”ti evaṃ sākhāpārohānaṃ mahāsīmaṃ phusitvā ṭhānameva sambandhadose kāraṇattena vuttaṃ, na pana tattha ṭhitabhikkhūhi sākhādīnaṃ phusanaṃ. Yadi hi bhikkhūnaṃ sākhādiṃ phusitvā ṭhānameva kāraṇaṃ siyā, “tassa sākhaṃ vā tato niggatapārohaṃ vā mahāsīmāya paviṭṭhaṃ tatraṭṭho koci bhikkhu phusitvā tiṭṭhatī”ti bhikkhuphusanameva vattabbaṃ siyā. Yañhi tattha mahāsīmāsodhane kāraṇaṃ, tadeva tasmiṃ vākye padhānato dassetabbaṃ. Na hi āhaccaṭṭhitameva sākhādiṃ phusitvā ṭhito bhikkhu sodhetabbo ākāsaṭṭhasākhādiṃ phusitvā ṭhitabhikkhussapi sodhetabbato, kiṃ niratthakena āhaccaṭṭhānavacanena, ākāsaṭṭhasākhāsu ca bhikkhuphusanameva kāraṇattena vuttaṃ , sodhanañca tasseva bhikkhussa hatthapāsānayanādivasena sodhanaṃ vuttaṃ. Idha pana “mahāsīmaṃ sodhetvā”ti sakalasīmāsādhāraṇavacanena sodhanaṃ vuttaṃ, api ca sākhādiṃ phusitvā ṭhitabhikkhumattasodhane abhimate “mahāsīmāya pathavītala”nti visesasīmopādānaṃ niratthakaṃ siyā yattha katthaci antamaso ākāsepi ṭhatvā sākhādiṃ phusitvā ṭhitassa sodhetabbato.
Some, however, say regarding mahāsīmaṃ vā sodhetvā, “the intent here is only purifying so that the monks within the large boundary do not touch that branch or offshoot with their bodies, not purifying the entire boundary,” but this is not fitting as it contradicts the commentary. For it says, “it stands touching the ground level of the large boundary or the trees and so forth growing there,” indicating that the branch or offshoot touching the large boundary is the cause of the connection fault, not the monks standing there touching the branch. If the monks’ touching the branch were the cause, it would say, “some monk standing there touches that branch or offshoot entering the large boundary.” For whatever is the cause of purifying the large boundary should be primarily shown in that statement. A monk touching a branch that is already touching need not be purified, just as a monk touching a branch in the air must also be purified—what then is the point of mentioning “touching”? Since touching a branch in the air is the cause, purifying that monk by bringing him within reach and so forth is stated. Here, however, “purifying the large boundary” is stated generally for the entire boundary; moreover, if only purifying a monk touching a branch were intended, specifying “the ground level of the large boundary” would be pointless, as a monk touching a branch anywhere, even in the air, would need purifying.
Some, however, regarding the phrase mahāsīmaṃ vā sodhetvā, say that, “Here, what is intended is the purification of the monks within the great boundary, such that they do not touch that branch or aerial root with anything connected to their body, and not the purification of the entire boundary.” This is not correct, as it contradicts the commentary. Thus, the fact that the branches and aerial roots physically touched the great boundary is cited as causing a connection fault “The ground level of the great boundary or a tree growing on the spot, by touching these and remaining”. However it’s not said that this is because monks stationed there are touching the branches etc. For if the cause were merely the monks’ standing while touching a branch, etc., it should have been stated simply as “the touch of the monk,” as in, “A branch of it or an aerial root extending from it enters the great boundary, and a certain monk stands there touching it.” That which is the reason for purification of the great boundary in that context should be primarily shown in that sentence. Indeed, a monk standing while touching a branch, etc., that is merely resting upon, should not need to be purified, because even a monk standing while touching a branch, etc., in the sky would also need to be purified. What is the need of mentioning that something rests on that? Besides, touching the branch is mentioned because a branch is situated in the sky, and the purification mentioned is the purification of that very monk, by way of bringing him within arm’s reach. Here, however, the purification is stated by the general term, “having purified the great boundary,” referring to the purification of the whole area. Moreover, if what was intended was the purification only of the monk standing while touching a branch, etc., the specification of “the ground level of the great boundary” would be meaningless, since any place, even in the sky, could become a site to be purified by standing and touching of a branch, etc.
Some, however, interpret mahāsīmaṃ vā sodhetvā to mean that the bhikkhus within the great boundary should purify it in such a way that they do not touch any branches or shoots connected to the body, and that this refers only to partial purification, not the entire boundary. This is incorrect, as it contradicts the commentary. The commentary states that the great boundary includes the ground and any trees or other objects naturally present there, and that the connection defect arises from the branches or shoots touching the great boundary, not from the bhikkhus touching the branches. If the bhikkhus touching the branches were the cause, it would have been stated that a bhikkhu standing there touches a branch or shoot that has entered the great boundary. The reason for purifying the great boundary should be clearly stated in that context. It is not necessary to purify a bhikkhu who is standing and touching a branch that is naturally present, just as it is not necessary to purify a bhikkhu standing and touching a branch in the air. The purification here refers to the purification of the entire boundary, not just the bhikkhu touching the branch. The phrase “purifying the great boundary” refers to the purification of the entire boundary, and the mention of “the ground of the great boundary” is not meaningless, as it applies even to a bhikkhu standing in the air and touching a branch.
ID809
Chinditvā bahiṭṭhakā kātabbāti tattha patiṭṭhitabhāvaviyojanavacanato ca visabhāgasīmānaṃ phusaneneva sakalasīmāsodhanahetuko aṭṭhakathāsiddhoyaṃ eko sambandhadoso atthevāti gahetabbo. Teneva udakukkhepasīmākathāyampi (mahāva. aṭṭha. 147) “vihārasīmāya vā gāmasīmāya vā patiṭṭhito”ti ca “nadītīre pana khāṇukaṃ koṭṭetvā tattha baddhanāvāya vā na vaṭṭatī”ti ca “sace pana setu vā setupādā vā bahitīre patiṭṭhitā, kammaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭatī”ti ca evaṃ visabhāgāsu gāmasīmāsu sākhādīnaṃ phusanameva saṅkaradosakāraṇattena vuttaṃ, na bhikkhuphusanaṃ. Tathā hi “antonadiyaṃ jātarukkhe bandhitvā kammaṃ kātabba”nti nadiyaṃ nāvābandhanaṃ anuññātaṃ udakukkhepanissayattena nadīsīmāya sabhāgattā. Yadi hi bhikkhūnaṃ phusanameva paṭicca sabbattha sambandhadoso vutto siyā, nadiyampi bandhanaṃ paṭikkhipitabbaṃ bhaveyya. Tatthāpi hi bhikkhuphusanaṃ kammakopakāraṇaṃ hoti, tasmā sabhāgasīmāsu pavisitvā bhūmiādiṃ phusitvā, aphusitvā vā sākhādimhi ṭhite taṃ sākhādiṃ phusantova bhikkhu sodhetabbo. Visabhāgasīmāsu pana sākhādimhi phusitvā ṭhite taṃ sākhādiṃ aphusantāpi sabbe bhikkhū sodhetabbā, aphusitvā ṭhite pana taṃ sākhādiṃ phusantāva bhikkhū sodhetabbāti niṭṭhamettha gantabbaṃ.
Chinditvā bahiṭṭhakā kātabbā means it should be made external by cutting, indicating separation from its established state; thus, this one connection fault established in the commentary is indeed due to the mere touching of dissimilar boundaries, requiring the entire boundary’s purification. Hence, in the discussion of the water-sprinkled boundary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 147), it says, “established in a monastery or village boundary,” and “on a riverbank, however, fixing a stake or tying a boat there is not permissible,” and “if a bridge or its supports are established on the far shore, performing an act is not permissible,” showing that the mere touching of branches and the like in dissimilar village boundaries is the cause of the mixing fault, not the monks’ touching. For it permits, “an act should be performed by tying to a tree growing within the river,” allowing boat-tying in a river due to its similarity to a water-sprinkled boundary as a support. If the monks’ touching alone were the basis for the connection fault everywhere, tying in a river would also be prohibited, as there too monks’ touching would ruin the act. Thus, in similar boundaries, a monk touching a branch or the like standing within or not touching the ground must be purified; in dissimilar boundaries, all monks must be purified even if not touching a branch standing there, but if not standing there, only those touching it must be purified—so it should be concluded here.
Chinditvā bahiṭṭhakā kātabbāti and since, from the word “separation,” it is a state of being established there, it should be taken that this single connection fault, established by the commentary, is indeed due to the touching of dissimilar boundaries, and the cause for the purification of the entire boundary. Therefore, even in the discussion on boundaries based on the throwing of water (Mahāva. aṭṭha. 147), it is stated, “established within the monastery boundary or the village boundary,” and “on the riverbank, however, having dug up a stake and tied a boat there, it is not permissible,” and “however, if a bridge or the supports of a bridge are established on the far bank, it is not permissible to perform the act.” Thus, the touching of branches, etc., in dissimilar village boundaries is stated as the cause of the fault of intermingling, not the touching by a monk. For, “having tied it to a tree growing within the river, the act should be performed,” tying a boat within the river is permitted, because a river boundary is similar due to it being defined by the throwing distance of water. If the connection fault had been stated everywhere merely on account of the monks’ touching, then even tying a boat within the river should have been prohibited. For even there, the touching by a monk is a factor contributing to disturbing the formal act. Therefore, in similar boundaries, whether touching or not touching the ground, etc., after entering, if a monk is standing on a branch, etc., then only the monk touching that branch, etc., should be purified. However, in dissimilar boundaries, if standing on the branch etc., even those not touching that branch, etc., should be purified, all monks must be purified, in the case where one is standing without touching, however, only the monk that is in contact with the branch needs purification: in this context these points should be remembered.
Chinditvā bahiṭṭhakā kātabbāti means that the connection defect, which is the cause for purifying the entire boundary, arises from the touching of dissimilar boundaries, as established in the commentary. This is also evident in the discussion of the water-boundary (udakukkhepasīmā), where it is said that if a boundary is established on the bank of a river, it is not valid to bind a boat there, and if a bridge or bridge support is established on the opposite bank, it is not valid to perform a legal act. In such cases, the touching of branches or other objects by dissimilar boundaries is the cause of the mixing defect, not the touching by bhikkhus. For example, it is allowed to bind a boat in the middle of a river if trees are present there, as the river boundary is of the same nature. If the connection defect were based on bhikkhus touching, then binding in the river would also have been prohibited. Therefore, in boundaries of the same nature, a bhikkhu standing and touching the ground or not touching a branch should purify the branch by touching it. In dissimilar boundaries, however, if a branch or other object is touched, all bhikkhus should purify it, even if they do not touch the branch. If they are standing without touching the branch, they should purify it by touching the branch. This is the conclusion to be drawn here.
ID810
Yaṃ panettha keci “baddhasīmānaṃ dvinnaṃ aññamaññaṃ viya baddhasīmagāmasīmānampi tadaññāsampi sabbāsaṃ samānasaṃvāsakasīmānaṃ aññamaññaṃ rukkhādisambandhe sati tadubhayampi ekasīmaṃ viya sodhetvā ekattheva kammaṃ kātabbaṃ, aññathā kataṃ kammaṃ vipajjati, natthettha sabhāgavisabhāgabhedo”ti vadanti, taṃ tesaṃ matimattaṃ sabhāgasīmānaṃ aññamaññaṃ sambandhadosābhāvassa visabhāgasīmānameva tabbhāvassa suttasuttānulomādivinayanayehi siddhattā. Tathā hi “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, sīmaṃ sammannitu”nti (mahāva. 138) gāmasīmāyameva baddhasīmaṃ sammannituṃ anuññātattā tāsaṃ nissayanissitabhāvena sabhāgatā, sambhedajjhottharaṇadosābhāvo ca suttatova siddho. Bandhanakāle pana anuññātassa sambandhassa anulomato pacchā sañjātarukkhādisambandhopi tāsaṃ vaṭṭati eva. “Yaṃ, bhikkhave…pe… kappiyaṃ anulometi, akappiyaṃ paṭibāhati, taṃ vo kappatī”ti (mahāva. 305) vuttattā evaṃ tāva gāmabaddhasīmānaṃ aññamaññaṃ sabhāgatā, sambhedādidosābhāvo ca suttasuttānulomato siddho, iminā eva nayena araññasīmasattabbhantarasīmānaṃ nadīādisīmaudakukkhepasīmānañca suttasuttānulomato aññamaññaṃ sabhāgatā, sambhedādidosābhāvo ca siddhoti veditabbo.
Some say here, “just as with two established boundaries mutually, so too with established and village boundaries or any other common-residence boundaries, when there is a tree connection, both must be purified as one boundary and the act performed together; otherwise, the act fails—there is no distinction here between similar and dissimilar,” but this is merely their opinion, as the absence of a connection fault among similar boundaries and its presence only in dissimilar ones is established by the texts, their implications, and disciplinary methods. For it says, “I allow, monks, agreeing on a boundary” (mahāva. 138), permitting an established boundary within a village boundary, establishing their similarity and lack of overlapping fault directly from the text. Since the connection permitted at binding time is followed, a later tree connection between them is also permissible. As it says, “Whatever, monks… is proper and follows, improper and opposes, that is permissible for you” (mahāva. 305), thus the similarity and lack of overlapping fault between village and established boundaries are established by text and implication; in this way, the similarity and lack of overlapping fault among forest boundaries, seven-abbhantara boundaries, river boundaries, and water-sprinkled boundaries are also established by text and implication.
Some, however, say here, “Just as in the case of two established boundaries, so too in the case of established boundaries and village boundaries, and all other communal boundaries, if there is a connection between them through trees, etc., both of them should be purified as if they were one boundary, and the act should be performed in one place. An act performed otherwise fails; there is no distinction there between similar and dissimilar boundaries.” This is merely their opinion, since the absence of a connection fault between similar boundaries and the presence of such a fault only in dissimilar boundaries is established through the suttas and through Vinaya reasoning consistent with the suttas. Thus, because it is permitted to establish a fixed boundary, it is said in (Mahāva. 138): “I allow you monks to establish a boundary,” within the village boundary itself. Their similarity stems from the relationship of dependence and reliance. The freedom from the faults of overlapping and interpenetration is also established directly from the sutta. Subsequently, due to a connection allowed at the time of determination, if there should later grow a connection by trees or the like, this would still be allowable. Because it is stated, “That, monks… which is consistent with what is allowable, and which opposes what is not allowable, that is allowable for you” (Mahāva. 305). Thus, the similarity of village and established boundaries with each other, and the absence of faults such as overlapping, are established from the suttas and what is consistent with the suttas. By this same reasoning, it should be understood that the similarity of forest boundaries, boundaries of seven abbhantara, river boundaries, and boundaries based on water-throwing with each other, and the absence of faults such as overlapping, are established from the suttas and what is consistent with the suttas.
Some say that just as in the case of two established boundaries, if there is a connection through trees or other objects, all boundaries, including village boundaries, should be purified together and a single legal act should be performed. Otherwise, the legal act would be invalid, and there is no distinction between boundaries of the same or dissimilar nature. This is merely their opinion, as the absence of a connection defect in boundaries of the same nature is established by the Vinaya texts. For example, the Buddha allowed the establishment of a village boundary as an established boundary, and the absence of mixing or overlapping defects is established by the texts. The connection through trees or other objects that arises later is also valid, as it aligns with what is proper. The Buddha said, “Bhikkhus, what is proper should be followed, and what is improper should be avoided,” and thus the similarity between village boundaries and established boundaries, as well as the absence of mixing defects, is established by the Vinaya texts. In the same way, the similarity between forest boundaries, river boundaries, and water-boundaries, as well as the absence of mixing defects, should be understood.
ID811
Baddhasīmāya pana aññāya baddhasīmāya nadīādisīmāsu ca bandhituṃ paṭikkhepasiddhito ceva udakukkhepasattabbhantarasīmānaṃ nadīādīsu eva kātuṃ niyamanasuttasāmatthiyena baddhasīmagāmasīmāsu karaṇapaṭikkhepasiddho ca tāsaṃ aññamaññasabhāgatā uppattikkhaṇe pacchā ca rukkhādīhi sambhedādidosasambhavo ca vuttanayena suttasuttānulomatova sijjhanti. Teneva aṭṭhakathāyaṃ visabhāgasīmānameva vaṭarukkhādivacanehi sambandhadosaṃ dassetvā sabhāgānaṃ baddhasīmagāmasīmādīnaṃ sambandhadoso na dassito. Na kevalañca na dassito, atha kho tāsaṃ sabhāgasīmānaṃ rukkhādisambandhepi dosābhāvopi pāḷiaṭṭhakathāsu ñāpito eva. Tathā hi pāḷiyaṃ (mahāva. 138) “pabbatanimittaṃ pāsāṇanimittaṃ vananimittaṃ rukkhanimitta”ntiādinā vaḍḍhanakanimittāni anuññātāni, tena nesaṃ rukkhādinimittānaṃ vaḍḍhane baddhasīmagāmasīmānaṃ saṅkaradosābhāvo ñāpitova hoti, dvinnaṃ pana baddhasīmānaṃ īdiso sambandho na vaṭṭati. Vuttañhi “ekarukkhopi dvinnaṃ sīmānaṃ nimittaṃ hoti, so pana vaḍḍhanto sīmasaṅkaraṃ karoti, tasmā na kātabbo”ti. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, tiyojanaparamaṃ sīmaṃ bandhitu”nti (mahāva. 140) vacanatopi cāyaṃ ñāpito. Tiyojanaparamāya hi sīmāya samantā pariyantesu rukkhalatāgumbādīhi baddhagāmasīmānaṃ niyamena aññamaññaṃ sambandhassa sambhavato “īdisaṃ sambandhaṃ vināsetvāva sīmā sammannitabbā”ti aṭṭhakathāyampi na vuttaṃ.
Since binding an established boundary with another established boundary or river boundaries is prohibited, and since the text’s capability specifies making water-sprinkled or seven-abbhantara boundaries only in river boundaries and the like, prohibiting their making in established or village boundaries, their mutual similarity at the time of origin and later, and the possibility of a tree-caused mixing fault, are established by text and implication as stated. Hence, the commentary shows a connection fault only for dissimilar boundaries with terms like banyan trees, not for similar ones like established and village boundaries. Not only is it not shown, but the absence of fault in tree connections among similar boundaries is also indicated in the texts and commentaries. For the text (mahāva. 138) permits growing markers like “mountain marker, stone marker, forest marker, tree marker,” indicating the absence of a mixing fault between established and village boundaries when these tree markers grow; however, such a connection between two established boundaries is not permissible. It says, “even a single tree becoming a marker for two boundaries, growing and causing boundary mixing, should not be made.” Also, “I allow, monks, binding a boundary up to three yojanas” (mahāva. 140) indicates this; for a boundary up to three yojanas inevitably connects with established village boundaries all around via trees, vines, or bushes at its edges, yet the commentary does not say, “such a connection must be destroyed before agreeing on a boundary.”
However, the prohibition of establishing an established boundary within another established boundary, or within river boundaries, etc., and the establishment of boundaries based on the throwing of water and of seven abbhantara, only within rivers, etc., are established by the authority of the suttas. This confirms that the prohibition of performing these within established boundaries and village boundaries, and the non-similarity of those with each other, both at the time of origin and subsequently, and the possibility of faults such as overlapping through trees, etc., are all established by the suttas and by reasoning which is consistent with the suttas, as stated. Therefore, in the commentary, having shown the connection fault only in dissimilar boundaries by means of the examples of the banyan tree, etc., the connection fault is not shown for similar boundaries such as established boundaries and village boundaries. Not only is it not shown, but also the absence of fault even in the connection of those similar boundaries through trees, etc., is clearly indicated in the Pali and the commentary. Thus, in the Pali (Mahāva. 138), boundary markers for growth are permitted: “mountain marker, stone marker, forest marker, tree marker,” etc. Therefore, the absence of the fault of intermingling of established boundaries and village boundaries in the growth of these tree markers, etc., is clearly indicated. However, such a connection is not permissible for two established boundaries. For it is said, “Even a single tree can be a marker for two boundaries, but if it grows, it causes intermingling of the boundaries; therefore, it should not be done.” This is also indicated by the statement, “I allow you, monks, to establish a boundary up to three yojanas” (Mahāva. 140). For, in the case of a boundary of up to three yojanas, since a connection between established village boundaries through trees, creepers, bushes, etc., on the surrounding periphery is necessarily possible, it is not even stated in the commentary, “A boundary should be established only after removing such a connection.”
However, the prohibition of establishing boundaries in rivers or other dissimilar boundaries is established by the texts, and the restriction of establishing water-boundaries or other boundaries within rivers is also established. The similarity between village boundaries and established boundaries, as well as the possibility of mixing defects arising from connections through trees or other objects, is established by the texts. Therefore, the commentary only mentions the connection defect in dissimilar boundaries, not in village boundaries or established boundaries of the same nature. Moreover, the absence of defects in the connection through trees or other objects in boundaries of the same nature is also indicated in the Pali texts. For example, the Pali texts allow the use of mountain signs, rock signs, forest signs, and tree signs as markers, indicating that there is no mixing defect in the use of such markers in village boundaries or established boundaries. However, a single tree cannot serve as a marker for two boundaries, as it would cause a mixing of boundaries. The Buddha also said, “Bhikkhus, I allow a boundary to be established up to three yojanas,” and this indicates that even if trees, creepers, or thickets are present at the edges of the boundary, the connection between village boundaries is inevitable, and the commentary does not say that such a connection should be destroyed before establishing the boundary.
ID812
Yadi cettha rukkhādisambandhena kammavipatti bhaveyya, avassameva vattabbaṃ siyā. Vipattiparihāratthañhi ācariyā nirāsaṅkaṭṭhānesupi “bhittiṃ akittetvā”tiādinā siddhamevatthaṃ punappunaṃ avocuṃ, idha pana “vanamajjhe vihāraṃ karonti, vanaṃ na kittetabba”ntiādinā rukkhalatādīhi nirantare vanamajjhepi sīmābandhanamavocuṃ. Tathā thambhānaṃ upari katapāsādādīsu heṭṭhā thambhādīhi ekābaddhesu uparimatalādīsu sīmābandhanaṃ bahudhā vuttaṃ, tasmā baddhasīmagāmasīmānaṃ rukkhādisambandho tehi mukhatova vihito, apica gāmasīmānampi pāṭekkaṃ baddhasīmāsadisatāya ekāya gāmasīmāya kammaṃ karontehi dabbatiṇamattenapi sambandhā gāmantaraparamparā araññanadīsamuddā ca sodhetabbāti sakalaṃ dīpaṃ sodhetvāva kātabbaṃ siyā. Evaṃ pana asodhetvā paṭhamamahāsaṅgītikālato pabhuti katānaṃ upasampadādikammānaṃ sīmāsammutīnañca vipajjanato sabbesampi bhikkhūnaṃ anupasampannasaṅkāpasaṅgo ca dunnivāro hoti, na cetaṃ yuttaṃ, tasmā vuttanayena visabhāgasīmānameva rukkhādisambandhadoso, na baddhasīmagāmasīmādīnaṃ sabhāgasīmānanti gahetabbaṃ.
If a tree connection caused an act’s failure here, it would surely be stated. For the teachers, to prevent failure, repeatedly stated even established meanings like “without marking the wall” in unproblematic cases; yet here, they said binding a boundary in a forest midst trees and vines without marking the forest, and in structures built above pillars, binding a boundary on upper levels connected below by pillars is stated in many ways. Thus, a tree connection between established and village boundaries is directly sanctioned by them; moreover, treating village boundaries individually like established boundaries, if performing an act in one village boundary required purifying connections via even a blade of grass to other villages, forests, rivers, or seas in succession, the entire island would need purifying first. But since acts like ordination and boundary agreements from the First Great Council onward, done without such purification, would fail, all monks would be suspected of being unordained—an untenable position. Thus, as stated, the tree connection fault applies only to dissimilar boundaries, not to similar ones like established and village boundaries.
If there were to be a failure of the act due to a connection through trees, etc., it would necessarily have to be stated. For the purpose of avoiding failure, the teachers, even in uncontroversial cases, repeatedly stated the obvious, such as “not having marked the wall,” etc. Here, however, they stated that a boundary could be established even in the middle of a forest dense with trees, creepers, etc., stating, “They make a monastery in the middle of the forest; the forest should not be marked,” etc. Similarly, the establishment of boundaries on the upper levels of structures built on top of pillars, etc., which are connected below by pillars, etc., is stated in many places. Therefore, the connection of established boundaries and village boundaries through trees, etc., is explicitly permitted by them. Moreover, if the village boundaries too, each individually, were similar to the established boundaries, then those performing an act within a single village boundary would have to purify the interconnected series of other villages, forests, rivers, and oceans, even if the connection were by mere blades of grass or straw. Thus, it would be necessary to purify the entire island before performing the act. If, however, the ordinations and other acts, and the assents to boundaries, performed from the time of the First Great Council without such purification, were to be rendered invalid, then all monks would unavoidably be considered non-ordained, which is untenable. Therefore, it should be understood that, as stated, the connection fault through trees, etc., applies only to dissimilar boundaries, and not to similar boundaries such as established boundaries and village boundaries.
If there were a defect in the legal act due to the connection through trees or other objects, it would have been explicitly stated. The teachers, in order to prevent defects, repeatedly mentioned even in cases of doubt, such as “without marking the wall,” and here they also said that a boundary can be established in the middle of a forest without marking the trees or creepers. Similarly, they often mentioned establishing boundaries above pillars in multi-story buildings, even if the lower pillars are not connected to the upper floors. Therefore, the connection through trees or other objects in village boundaries or established boundaries is allowed by them. Moreover, since village boundaries are similar to established boundaries, even a single village boundary should be purified if there is a connection through grass or other objects, and the entire island should be purified. However, if this is not done, all the legal acts, such as ordinations, performed since the first great council, as well as the agreements on boundaries, would be invalid, and all the bhikkhus would be considered not properly ordained, which is not acceptable. Therefore, it should be understood that the connection defect through trees or other objects applies only to dissimilar boundaries, not to village boundaries or established boundaries of the same nature.
ID813
Mahāsīmāsodhanassa dukkaratāya khaṇḍasīmāyameva yebhuyyena saṅghakammakaraṇanti āha “sīmamāḷake”tiādi. Mahāsaṅghasannipātesu pana khaṇḍasīmāya appahonakatāya mahāsīmāya kamme kariyamānepi ayaṃ nayo gahetabbova. Ukkhipāpetvāti iminā kāyapaṭibaddhena sīmaṃ phusantopi sīmaṭṭhova hotīti dasseti. Purimanayepīti khaṇḍasīmato mahāsīmaṃ paviṭṭhasākhānayepi. Sīmaṭṭharukkhasākhāya nisinno sīmaṭṭhova hotīti āha ’hatthapāsameva ānetabbo”ti. Ettha ca “rukkhasākhādīhi aññamaññasambandhāsu etāsu khaṇḍasīmāya tayo bhikkhū, mahāsīmāya dveti evaṃ dvīsu sīmāsu sīmantarikaṃ aphusitvā, hatthapāsañca avijahitvā ṭhitehi pañcahi bhikkhūhi upasampadādi kammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti keci vadanti, taṃ na yuttaṃ “nānāsīmāyaṃ ṭhitacatuttho kammaṃ kareyya, akammaṃ na ca karaṇīya”ntiādivacanato (mahāva. 389). Tenevetthāpi mahāsīmaṃ sodhetvā māḷakasīmāyameva kammakaraṇaṃ vihitaṃ. Aññathā bhinnasīmaṭṭhatāya tatraṭṭhassa gaṇapūrakattābhāvā kammakopova hotīti.
Due to the difficulty of purifying a large boundary, Sangha acts are mostly performed in a partial boundary, hence it says “sīmamāḷake” and so forth. Yet in great Sangha assemblies, when a partial boundary is insufficient and acts are done in a large boundary, this method must still be followed. Ukkhipāpetvā shows that even one touching the boundary with the body remains boundary-standing. Purimanayepī means even in the prior method with a branch entering a large boundary from a partial one. One seated on a boundary-standing tree branch remains boundary-standing, hence it says “hatthapāsameva ānetabbo”. Some say here, “in these connections via tree branches between boundaries, with three monks in a partial boundary and two in a large one, thus five monks standing in two boundaries without touching an intervening space yet within reach, it is permissible to perform acts like ordination,” but this is not fitting due to statements like “a fourth standing in a different boundary performing an act—it is not an act and not to be done” (mahāva. 389). Hence, here too, performing an act in a courtyard boundary after purifying the large boundary is prescribed; otherwise, due to differing boundary standings, there is no quorum fulfillment, and the act is ruined.
Because the purification of the great boundary is difficult, the performance of Sangha acts mostly within a limited boundary is stated, saying, “sīmamāḷake”ti, and so on. However, in large gatherings of the Sangha, even when an act is being performed in the great boundary, since the limited boundary is insufficient, this same method should be followed. Ukkhipāpetvāti By this, he indicates that even one touching the boundary by a bodily connected thing is still considered to be within the boundary. Purimanayepīti This method also applies to the case of a branch that extends from the limited boundary into the great boundary. He states that one sitting on a branch of a tree within the boundary is still within the boundary: ’hatthapāsameva ānetabbo”ti. Here, some say, “In these limited boundaries connected to each other by tree branches, etc., if three monks in the limited boundary and two in the great boundary, thus five monks in two boundaries, stand without touching the intermediate space between the boundaries and without leaving arm’s reach, it is permissible to perform acts such as ordination.” This is not correct, due to the statement, “If the fourth, standing in a different boundary, performs the act, it is not an act and should not be done” (Mahāva. 389), and similar statements. Therefore, even here, the performance of the act is prescribed only in the boundary of the hall after having purified the great boundary. Otherwise, because of being situated in a separate boundary, the one standing there would not be counted for the quorum, and the act itself would be invalid.
Due to the difficulty of purifying the great boundary, the legal act is usually performed in a partial boundary (khaṇḍasīmā), as stated in “sīmamāḷake” and so on. However, even in large gatherings where the great boundary is used, this method should be followed. Ukkhipāpetvāti indicates that even if one touches the boundary with the body, one is still considered within the boundary. Purimanayepīti means that even if one enters the great boundary through a branch, one is still considered within the boundary. If one is sitting on a branch of a tree within the boundary, one is still considered within the boundary, as stated in “hatthapāsameva ānetabbo”ti. Here, some say that in the case of branches or other objects connecting different boundaries, if three bhikkhus are in the partial boundary and two are in the great boundary, and if they do not touch the intermediate boundary and do not leave the arm’s reach, then five bhikkhus can perform the legal act, such as ordination. This is incorrect, as it contradicts the statement, “In different boundaries, if a fourth person performs the legal act, it is invalid.” Therefore, even here, after purifying the great boundary, the legal act should be performed in the māḷaka boundary. Otherwise, if the boundary is broken, the legal act would be invalid due to the lack of a complete group.
ID814
Yadi evaṃ kathaṃ chandapārisuddhiāharaṇavasena mahāsīmāsodhananti? Tampi vinayaññū na icchanti, hatthapāsānayanabahisīmakaraṇavasena panettha sodhanaṃ icchanti, dinnassapi chandassa anāgamanena mahāsīmaṭṭho kammaṃ kopetīti. Yadi cassa chandādi nāgacchati, kathaṃ so kammaṃ kopessatīti? Dvinnaṃ visabhāgasīmānaṃ sambandhadosato, so ca sambandhadoso aṭṭhakathāvacanappamāṇato. Na hi vinaye sabbattha yutti sakkā ñātuṃ buddhagocarattāti veditabbaṃ. Keci pana “sace dvepi sīmāyo pūretvā nirantaraṃ ṭhitesu bhikkhūsu kammaṃ karontesu ekāya eva sīmāya gaṇo ca upasampadāpekkho ca anussāvako ca ekato tiṭṭhati , kammaṃ sukatameva hoti. Sace pana kammāraho vā anussāvako vā sīmantaraṭṭho hoti, kammaṃ vipajjatī”ti vadanti, tañca baddhasīmagāmasīmādisabhāgasīmāsu eva yujjati. Yāsu aññamaññaṃ rukkhādisambandhesupi doso natthi, yāsu pana atthi, na tāsu, visabhāgasīmāsu rukkhādisambandhe sati ekattha ṭhito itaraṭṭhānaṃ kammaṃ kopeti eva aṭṭhakathāya sāmaññato sodhanassa vuttattāti amhākaṃ khanti, vīmaṃsitvā gahetabbaṃ.
If so, how is purifying a large boundary done via bringing consent? Experts in discipline do not accept this either; they prefer purification here by bringing within reach or excluding from the boundary, as a boundary-standing monk not coming with given consent ruins the act. If his consent does not come, how would he ruin the act? Due to the connection fault of two dissimilar boundaries, established by the commentary’s authority. Not everything in the discipline can be rationally known, as it is the Buddha’s domain. Some say, “if both boundaries are filled with monks standing contiguously performing an act, and the quorum, ordination candidate, and announcer stand together in one boundary, the act is well done; but if the act-worthy one or announcer stands in an intervening space, the act fails,” which applies only to similar boundaries like established and village ones where tree connections pose no fault. Where there is a fault, in dissimilar boundaries with tree connections, one standing there ruins the act elsewhere due to the commentary’s general statement on purification—this is our preference, to be taken after examination.
If so, how is the purification of the great boundary achieved by means of bringing consent and purity? Even those knowledgeable in the Vinaya do not accept that. They accept purification here by means of bringing within arm’s reach and placing outside the boundary. Even if consent has been given, by not being present, one within the great boundary invalidates the act. If his consent, etc., does not arrive, how can he invalidate the act? Because of the connection fault of two dissimilar boundaries. And that connection fault is based on the authority of the commentary. For it should be understood that in the Vinaya, reasoning is not always possible to ascertain, as it is the domain of the Buddha. Some, however, say, “If, while the act is being performed with monks filling both boundaries and standing continuously, the quorum for one boundary, the candidate for ordination, and the announcer are all standing together in one boundary, the act is properly done. However, if the one eligible for the act or the announcer is standing in the intermediate space between the boundaries, the act fails.” This applies only to similar boundaries, such as established boundaries and village boundaries, where there is no fault even in the connection of trees, etc., with each other. But where there is, it does not apply. In dissimilar boundaries, if there is a connection through trees, etc., one standing in one place invalidates the act in the other place, because purification is generally stated in the commentary. This is our understanding; it should be accepted after examination.
If this is the case, how is the purification of the great boundary done through obtaining consent and purity? The Vinaya experts do not accept this, but they do accept the purification by bringing the bhikkhus within arm’s reach outside the boundary. If the consent is not obtained, the legal act within the great boundary would be invalid. If the consent or other factors are not obtained, how would the legal act be invalid? The connection defect arises from the connection between two dissimilar boundaries, and this connection defect is established by the commentary. It is not possible to fully understand the appropriateness of everything in the Vinaya, as it is within the scope of the Buddha. Some say that if two boundaries are filled without interruption and the bhikkhus performing the legal act are all within one boundary, and the group, the candidate for ordination, and the reciter are all together, then the legal act is properly performed. If, however, the candidate or the reciter is in the intermediate boundary, the legal act is invalid. This applies only to village boundaries or established boundaries of the same nature, where there is no defect even if there is a connection through trees or other objects. In dissimilar boundaries, however, if there is a connection through trees or other objects, the legal act performed in one place would invalidate the legal act in another place, as stated in the commentary. This is our understanding, and it should be carefully considered and accepted.
ID815
Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.138) “ukkhipāpetvā kātuṃ na vaṭṭatīti khaṇḍasīmāya anto ṭhitattā rukkhassa tattha ṭhito hatthapāsameva ānetabboti ukkhipāpetvā kātuṃ na vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 138) pana “ukkhipāpetvā kātuṃ na vaṭṭati, kasmā? Anto ṭhitattā. Rukkhassa hi heṭṭhā pathavīgataṃ mūlaṃ khaṇḍasīmāyeva hoti. Abbohārikaṃ vāti apare. ’Majjhe pana chinne mahāsīmāya ṭhitaṃ mūlaṃ mahāsīmameva bhajati, khaṇḍasīmāya ṭhitaṃ khaṇḍasīmameva bhajati tadāyattapathavīādīhi anuggahitattā’ti ca vuttaṃ. ’Sīmāya pacchā uṭṭhitarukkhe nisīditvā kammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati pacchā sīmāyaṃ katagehe viyā’ti vatvā ’bandhanakāle ṭhite rukkhe nisīditvā kātuṃ na vaṭṭati uparisīmāya agamanato’ti kāraṇaṃ vadanti. Evaṃ sati bandhanakāle puna ārohaṇaṃ nāma natthi, bandhitakāle eva ārohatīti āpajjati pacchā uṭṭhitarukkho pana tappaṭibaddhattā sīmāsaṅkhameva gato. Evaṃ pubbe uṭṭhitarukkhopīti gahetabbaṃ. “Yaṃ kiñcī”ti vacanato tiṇādipi saṅgahitaṃ, mahātherāpi tiṇaṃ sodhetvāva karontī”ti vuttaṃ.
In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.138), it is said: “‘It is not proper to act after lifting it up,’ because the tree stands within the khaṇḍasīmā (subordinate boundary), and therefore one standing there must bring it within arm’s reach; thus, it is not proper to act after lifting it up.” However, in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 138), it is stated: “‘It is not proper to act after lifting it up,’ why? Because it stands within. For the roots of the tree that have gone into the ground below are indeed part of the khaṇḍasīmā. Others say it is negligible. ‘But if it is cut in the middle, the roots standing in the mahāsīmā (great boundary) belong to the mahāsīmā, and those standing in the khaṇḍasīmā belong to the khaṇḍasīmā, because they are not supported by the dependent ground and so forth,’ it is also said. Having stated, ‘It is permissible to perform an act while sitting on a tree that arose after the boundary, like a house built within the boundary later,’ they give the reason: ‘It is not proper to act while sitting on a tree standing at the time of binding, because it does not go beyond the boundary.’ In this case, there is no re-climbing at the time of binding; rather, it implies climbing only at the time it was bound, and so a tree that arose later is considered part of the boundary due to its connection to it. Thus, a tree that arose earlier should be understood accordingly. From the phrase ‘whatever,’ grass and so forth are included, and it is said, ‘Even the great elders perform it only after clearing the grass.’”
In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.138) it is said: “It is not allowable to do it having lifted it up,” because the tree is located within the boundary of the khaṇḍasīmā, one should bring only the radius (of the robe) while standing there, therefore, it is said, “it is not allowable to do it having lifted it up”. But, in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 138), it is said: **“it is not allowable to perform the act having lifted it up,** Why? Because of its being inside. Indeed, the root of the tree, which is connected to the earth below, constitutes the boundary of khaṇḍasīmā. Others say it is abbohārika. Further, ‘if it is cut in the middle, the root situated in the mahāsīmā belongs to the mahāsīmā, and that situated in the khaṇḍasīmā belongs to the khaṇḍasīmā, because of its being supported by earth etc. dependent on that,’ so it is said. It is said, ‘It is permissible to perform the act sitting on the tree that grew after the boundary, similar to a building constructed later on boundary’; and gives this reason, ‘It is not permissible to perform the act sitting on the tree present at the time of fixing the boundary as it doesn’t go into the boundary above.’ If this is so, there is no re-ascending at the time of fixing, because the ascending is happening at the time of fixing itself, and the tree grown afterwards, because of its connection to it (the boundary), is considered the boundary. Similarly, a tree grown before should also be taken. Due to the words ‘whatever’, even grass etc. is included, and great elders also perform (the act) after clearing the grass.”
In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.138), it is stated: “It is not permissible to have it lifted and then perform the act” because the tree stands within the boundary of a divided territory (khaṇḍasīmā), and thus, one must bring it within a hand’s reach without lifting it. The Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 138) explains: “It is not permissible to have it lifted and then perform the act. Why? Because it stands within the boundary. The roots of the tree below, which are embedded in the earth, belong to the divided territory. Some say it is insignificant. However, if the middle part is cut, the root standing in the great boundary (mahāsīmā) belongs to the great boundary, and the root standing in the divided territory belongs to the divided territory, as it is supported by the dependent earth, etc. It is also said: ‘If one sits on a tree that has grown after the boundary was established, it is permissible to perform the act, just as in a house built after the boundary was established.’ But if one sits on a tree that was standing at the time of the boundary’s establishment, it is not permissible to perform the act, as it does not go beyond the upper boundary.’ Thus, at the time of the boundary’s establishment, there is no subsequent climbing; one climbs only at the time of the boundary’s establishment. However, a tree that grows later is considered to have entered the boundary due to its connection with it. Similarly, even a tree that grew earlier should be understood in this way. The phrase “whatever it may be” includes grass, etc., and the senior monks also clear the grass before performing the act.
ID816
Na otaratīti paṇavasaṇṭhānapabbatādīsu heṭṭhā pamāṇarahitaṃ ṭhānaṃ na otarati. Kiñcāpi panettha bajjhamānakkhaṇe uddhampi pamāṇarahitapabbatādi nārohati, tathāpi taṃ pacchā sīmaṭṭhatāya sīmā hoti. Heṭṭhā paṇavasaṇṭhānādi pana upari baddhāyapi sīmāya sīmasaṅkhaṃ na gacchati, tasseva vasena “na otaratī”ti vuttaṃ, itarathā orohaṇārohaṇānaṃ sādhāraṇavasena “na otaratī”tiādinā vattabbato. Jātaṃ yaṃ kiñcīti niṭṭhitasīmāya upari jātaṃ vijjamānaṃ pubbe ṭhitaṃ pacchā sañjātaṃ paviṭṭhañca yaṃ kiñci saviññāṇakāviññāṇakaṃ sabbampīti attho. Antosīmāya hi hatthikkhandhādisaviññāṇakesu nisinnopi bhikkhu sīmaṭṭhova hoti. Baddhāya sīmāyāti idañca pakaraṇavasena upalakkhaṇato vuttaṃ. Abaddhasīmāsupi sabbāsu ṭhitaṃ taṃ sīmāsaṅkhameva gacchati. Ekasambandhena gatanti rukkhalatāditatrajātamevasandhāya vuttaṃ. Tādisañhi “ito gata”nti vattabbataṃ arahati.
“It does not descend” means it does not descend into a boundless area below, such as a drum-shaped mountain. Although here, at the moment of binding, it does not ascend to a boundless mountain or the like above, nevertheless, due to its later establishment as a boundary, it becomes a boundary. However, a drum-shaped area below does not attain the status of a boundary even when bound above, and for that reason, it is said, “It does not descend,” since otherwise it would have to be stated as “It does not descend or ascend” due to the commonality of descending and ascending. “Whatever has arisen” means anything existing above a completed boundary—whether it stood before, arose later, or entered—be it conscious or unconscious, all of it. For a monk sitting on an elephant’s trunk or other conscious beings within the boundary is still within the boundary. “With a bound boundary” is said here as a characteristic according to the context. Even in unbound boundaries, whatever stands in all of them is regarded as part of the boundary. “Gone with a single connection” is said with reference to something born there, such as a tree or vine. For such a thing is worthy of being called “gone from here.”
“It does not descend,” means that it does not descend on a place deficient in measure below in cases of mountain etc. of the shape of a musical instrument. Even though at the moment of fixing the boundary, it doesn’t ascend the mountain or the like which is deficient in the measure, yet that becomes a sīmā because it would then be a sīmaṭṭha. But (the earth) below with the shape of musical instrument etc, does not become counted as sīmā even if the boundary is fixed above, it is with reference to that alone that “it does not descend” is said, otherwise, as descent and ascent are common, it should be stated by “it does not descend” etc. Whatever is born, means whatever has come into existence, existing above the established boundary, present earlier, newly arisen, and whatever entered, whether conscious or unconscious, all of it. For, within the boundary, even a bhikkhu sitting on the back of an elephant, or other conscious beings, is still situated within the boundary. “In a bounded boundary,” this is mentioned as an indication due to the context. Even in unbound boundaries, whatever is situated in all of them counts as sīmā. Connected by one link, This is stated in reference to a tree, creeper, or something similar that has grown from that (boundary) and spread. For something of that nature, it is proper to say “It has come from here.”
“It does not descend” means it does not descend into a place below, such as a drum-shaped mountain, etc., which lacks a measurable limit. Although at the time of binding, one does not ascend to a mountain, etc., that lacks a measurable limit, it later becomes part of the boundary due to its connection with the boundary. However, a drum-shaped place, etc., below does not become part of the boundary even if the boundary is established above, and thus it is said, “it does not descend.” Otherwise, due to the commonality of descending and ascending, it would have to be said, “it does not descend,” etc. “Whatever has grown” refers to anything that exists above an established boundary, whether it was there before or grew later, and includes anything that has entered, whether sentient or insentient. For even a monk sitting on an elephant’s shoulder, etc., within the boundary, is considered to be within the boundary. “Of an established boundary” is said here in the context of the discussion. Even in unestablished boundaries, whatever stands there becomes part of the boundary. “Gone by a single connection” refers to trees, creepers, etc., connected in this way. Such things are worthy of being called “gone from here.”
ID817
Yaṃ pana “ito gata”nti vā “tato āgata”nti vā vattuṃ asakkuṇeyyaṃ ubhosu baddhasīmagāmasīmāsu udakukkhepanadīādīsu ca tiriyaṃ patitarajjudaṇḍādi, tattha kiṃ kātabbanti? Ettha pana “baddhasīmāya patiṭṭhitabhāgo baddhasīmā, gāmasīmāya patiṭṭhitabhāgo gāmasīmā tadubhayasīmaṭṭhapabbatādi viya, baddhasīmato uṭṭhitavaṭarukkhassa pārohe, gāmasīmāya gāmasīmato uṭṭhitavaṭarukkhassa pārohe ca baddhasīmāya patiṭṭhitepi eseva nayo. Mūle patiṭṭhitakālato paṭṭhāya hi ’ito gataṃ, tato āgata’nti vattuṃ asakkuṇeyyato so bhāgo yathāpaviṭṭhasīmaṭṭhasaṅkhameva gacchati. Tesaṃ rukkhapārohānaṃ antarā pana ākāsaṭṭhasākhā bhūmiyaṃ sīmāparicchedappamāṇena tadubhayasīmā hotī”ti keci vadanti. Yasmā panassā sākhāya pāroho paviṭṭhasīmāya pathaviyaṃ mūlehi patiṭṭhahitvāpi yāva sākhaṃ vinā ṭhātuṃ na sakkoti, tāva mūlasīmaṭṭhataṃ na vijahati. Yadā pana saṇṭhātuṃ sakkoti, tadāpi pārohamattameva paviṭṭhasīmataṃ samupeti, tasmā sabbopi ākāsaṭṭhasākhābhāgo purimasīmaṭṭhataṃ na vijahati tato āgatabhāgassa avijahitattāti amhākaṃ khanti. Udakukkhepanadīādīsupi eseva nayo. Tattha ca visabhāgasīmāya eva paviṭṭhe sakalasīmāsodhanaṃ, sabhāgāya paviṭṭhe phusitvā ṭhitamattabhikkhusodhanañca sabbaṃ pubbe vuttanayameva.
But what should be done with something that cannot be said to have “gone from here” or “come from there”—such as a rope or pole fallen across bound boundaries, village boundaries, or rivers sprinkled with water? Here, some say: “The part established in a bound boundary is a bound boundary, and the part established in a village boundary is a village boundary, like a mountain standing in both boundaries; and with creepers arising from a bound boundary or a village boundary, even if established in a bound boundary, the same principle applies. For from the time its roots are established, it cannot be said to have ‘gone from here’ or ‘come from there,’ so that part is regarded as belonging to the boundary it entered. However, the branches standing in the air between those creepers, according to the boundary’s delimitation on the ground, belong to both boundaries.” But since the creeper’s shoot, even when established with roots in the ground of the entered boundary, cannot stand without the branch, it does not abandon the boundary status of its roots until it can stand on its own. Even then, only the shoot itself assumes the status of the entered boundary, so all the parts of the branches standing in the air do not abandon their prior boundary status due to the part that came from there not being abandoned—this is our preference. The same principle applies to rivers sprinkled with water. There, too, purifying an entire boundary when it enters a dissimilar boundary, and purifying only the monks touching it when it enters a similar boundary, all follow the method stated earlier.
But as for something that cannot be said, “It has come from here” or “It has come from there,” something like a rope, pole, etc., lying across both the bounded sīmā and village boundaries, across overflow channels, rivers, etc., what should be done? Here, it is said: “The portion situated within the bounded sīmā is the bounded sīmā, the portion situated within the village boundary is the village boundary, like a mountain etc. situated on both boundaries, this is the same case with the aerial root of a banyan tree that has arisen from the bounded sīmā, and the aerial root of a banyan tree that has arisen from the village boundary, even when established in the bounded sīmā. Because it is impossible to say since the time of its being established in the root, ‘It has come from here, it has come from there,’ that portion counts as situated within its appropriate sīmā. Some say,”The branch in the space between those tree’s aerial roots is both boundaries, according to the extent of the sīmā-demarcation on the ground.” But since that branch’s aerial root, even though it has established itself with roots in the earth of the entered boundary, cannot stand without the branch, it does not relinquish its status of being within the boundary of the root. But when it is able to stand, then the aerial root itself attains the state of the boundary in which it has entered; therefore, all of the branch portion in the sky does not relinquish its original sīmā state, because the portion that has come from there has not been relinquished, such is our opinion. The same principle applies to overflow channels, rivers, etc. And there, in the case of entering a dissimilar sīmā, the purification of the entire sīmā, and in the case of entering a similar sīmā, the purification of only the bhikkhus who are within touching distance, all is as previously stated.
However, if it is impossible to say “gone from here” or “come from there” in both established village boundaries and river boundaries, etc., such as a fallen rope or stick lying horizontally, what should be done? Here, some say: “The part established within the established boundary belongs to the established boundary, and the part established within the village boundary belongs to the village boundary, like a mountain, etc., standing between both boundaries. The part beyond the tree that has grown from the established boundary belongs to the established boundary, and the part beyond the tree that has grown from the village boundary belongs to the village boundary. Even if it is established within the established boundary, the same principle applies. From the time of its establishment at the root, it is impossible to say ‘gone from here’ or ‘come from there,’ and thus that part becomes part of the boundary it has entered. However, the space between the branches of such trees becomes part of both boundaries to the extent of the boundary’s demarcation on the ground.” But because the branch’s end cannot stand without the branch, even though it is established in the earth within the boundary, it does not abandon its connection with the root boundary. When it can stand, it only reaches the end of the branch, and thus the entire space between the branches does not abandon its connection with the former boundary, as the part that has come from there has not abandoned it. This is our understanding. The same principle applies to rivers, etc. In such cases, if the boundary is of a different kind, the entire boundary must be cleared; if it is of the same kind, only the monk who has touched and stands there must be cleared, as previously explained.
ID818
164. Ettha ca nadīpārasīmākathāya pārayatīti ajjhottharati. Nadiyā ubhosu tīresu patiṭṭhahamānā sīmā nadīajjhottharā nāma hotīti āha “nadiṃ ajjhottharamāna”nti. Antonadiyañhi sīmā na otarati. Nadīlakkhaṇe pana asati otarati. Sā ca tadā nadīpārasīmā na hotīti āha “nadiyā lakkhaṇaṃ nadīnimitte vuttanayamevā”ti. Assāti bhaveyya. Avassaṃ labbhaneyyā pana dhuvanāvāva hotīti sambandho. Na nāvāyāti iminā nāvaṃ vināpi sīmā baddhā subaddhā eva hoti, āpattiparihāratthā nāvāti dasseti.
164. Here, in the discussion of the riverbank boundary, “it crosses” means it spreads across. A boundary established on both banks of a river is called “spreading across the river,” so it says, “spreading across the river.” For a boundary does not descend into the river itself. But when the characteristics of a river are absent, it descends. And in that case, it is not a riverbank boundary, so it says, “the characteristics of a river are as stated in the river signs.” “For it” means it would be so. The connection is that it would inevitably be a permanent boat. “Not with a boat” indicates that even without a boat, a bound boundary is well-bound, showing that a boat is for avoiding offenses.
164. And here, in the discussion of river boundary, “pārayatī” means covers over. The boundary that establishes itself on both banks of a river is called “covering the river,” thus, it is said, “covering the river.” Within the river, the boundary does not descend. But when there is no characteristic of a river, it descends. And then, it does not become the river-boundary, hence it is said, “the characteristic of a river is as stated in the rules regarding river-markers.” “Assā” means “would be.” But that which must necessarily be obtained is just a permanent boat, is the connection. “Without a boat” By this it shows that even without a boat, a bounded boundary is well-bounded, and the boat is for avoiding offenses.
164. Here, in the discussion of the boundary beyond the river, “it covers” means it encompasses. A boundary established on both banks of a river is called a river-encompassing boundary, as stated: “encompassing the river.” For the boundary does not descend into the river. However, if the river’s characteristics are absent, it descends. At that time, it is not called a boundary beyond the river, as stated: “the characteristics of the river are as explained in the river’s indications.” “It would be” means it must be obtained. The connection is that it is certainly obtainable. “Not by a boat” indicates that even without a boat, the boundary is well-established, and the boat is mentioned to show the avoidance of offenses.
ID819
Rukkhasaṅghāṭamayoti anekarukkhe ekato ghaṭetvā katasetu. Rukkhaṃ chinditvā katoti pāṭhaseso. “Sabbanimittānaṃ anto ṭhitabhikkhū hatthapāse katvāti idaṃ ubhinnaṃ tīrānaṃ ekagāmakhettabhāvaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Pabbatasaṇṭhānāti ekato uggatadīpasikharattā samantapāsādikāyaṃ vuttaṃ.
“Made of a cluster of trees” means made by joining several trees together. The remaining text implies it was made by cutting a tree. “Having the monks standing within all the signs within arm’s reach” is said with reference to both banks being part of a single village area. “Mountain-shaped” is stated in the Samantapāsādikā due to its rising like a lamp’s peak from one side.
Made of a collection of trees means a bridge made by joining many trees together. A part of the sentence, “made by cutting down trees.” “Having made the bhikkhus situated within all the markers to be within the hand’s reach” This is stated in reference to the fields of both banks being one village field. Shaped like a mountain This has been said in the Samantapāsādikā as being a lighthouse elevated on one side.
“Made of a collection of trees” means a bridge made by joining many trees together. The rest of the text mentions cutting a tree and making it. “The monks standing within all the markers should be brought within a hand’s reach” is said with reference to the unity of both banks as a single village field. “Mountain-shaped” refers to a single peak rising from a base, as mentioned in the Samantapāsādikā.
ID820
165. Sīmāsamūhanakathāyaṃ soti bhikkhunisaṅgho. Dvepīti dve samānasaṃvāsaavippavāsasīmāyo. Avippavāsasīmāti mahāsīmaṃ sandhāya vadati. Tattheva yebhuyyena avippavāsāti. Avippavāsaṃ ajānantāpīti idaṃ mahāsīmāya vijjamānāvijjamānattaṃ, tassā bāhiraparicchedañca ajānantānaṃ vasena vuttaṃ. Evaṃ ajānantehipi antosīmāya ṭhatvā kammavācāya katāya sā sīmā samūhatāva hotīti āha “samūhanituñceva bandhituñca sakkhissantī”ti. Nirāsaṅkaṭṭhāneti khaṇḍasīmārahitaṭṭhāne. Idañca mahāsīmāya vijjamānāyapi kammakaraṇasukhatthaṃ khaṇḍasīmā icchitāti taṃ cetiyaṅgaṇādibahusannipātaṭṭhāne na bandhatīti vuttaṃ. Tatthāpi sā baddhā subaddhā eva mahāsīmā viya. Paṭibandhituṃ pana na sakkhissantevāti idaṃ khaṇḍasīmāya asamūhatattā, tassā avijjamānattassa ajānanato ca mahāsīmābandhanaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Khaṇḍasīmā pana nirāsaṅkaṭṭhāne bandhituṃ sakkhissanteva. Sīmāsambhedaṃ katvāti khaṇḍasīmāya vijjamānapakkhe sīmāya sīmaṃ ajjhottharaṇasambhedaṃ katvā avijjamānapakkhepi sambhedasaṅkāya anivattanena sambhedasaṅkaṃ katvā. Avihāraṃ kareyyunti saṅghakammānārahaṃ kareyyuṃ. Pubbe hi cetiyaṅgaṇādinirāsaṅkaṭṭhāne kammaṃ kātuṃ sakkā, idāni tampi vināsitanti adhippāyo. Na samūhanitabbāti khaṇḍasīmaṃ ajānantehi na samūhanitabbā. Ubhopi na jānantīti ubhinnaṃ padesaniyamaṃ vā tāsaṃ dvinnampi vā aññatarāya vā vijjamānataṃ vā avijjamānataṃ vā na jānanti, sabbattha saṅkā eva hoti. Neva samūhanituṃ, na bandhituṃ sakkhissantīti idaṃ nirāsaṅkaṭṭhāne ṭhatvā samūhanituṃ sakkontāpi mahāsīmaṃ paṭibandhituṃ na sakkhissantīti imamatthaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Na ca sakkā…pe… kammavācā kātunti idaṃ sīmābandhanakammavācaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Tasmāti yasmā bandhituṃ na sakkā, tasmā na samūhanitabbāti attho.
165. In the discussion of boundary dissolution, “he” refers to the community of nuns. “Both” refers to two boundaries: one of common residence and one of non-separation. “Non-separation boundary” refers to the mahāsīmā, where non-separation generally prevails. “Even those not knowing non-separation” is said with reference to those unaware of the existence or non-existence of the mahāsīmā and its outer limits. Even those not knowing this, when standing within the boundary and performing the recitation of the act, that boundary is dissolved, so it says, “They will be able to both dissolve and bind it.” “In a place without doubt” means a place free of a khaṇḍasīmā. This is said because, even if a mahāsīmā exists, a khaṇḍasīmā is desired for ease of performing acts, and it is not bound in places of frequent gathering like a cetiya courtyard. Even there, if bound, it is well-bound, like a mahāsīmā. “But they will not be able to obstruct it” is said with reference to binding a mahāsīmā due to the khaṇḍasīmā not being dissolved or its non-existence not being known. However, they will be able to bind a khaṇḍasīmā in a place without doubt.
165. In the discussion of sīmā-amalgamation, “so” refers to that community of bhikkhus. “Both” refers to both the samānasaṃvāsa and avippavāsa boundaries. “Avippavāsa boundary” is said with reference to the great boundary (mahāsīmā). For the most part, they are not separated there. “Even not knowing the non-separation” This is said in reference to not knowing whether the mahāsīmā is existing or not, and also not knowing its outer boundary. Even when not knowing this, if they stand within the sīmā and perform the formal act, that sīmā becomes amalgamated, he says, “They will be able to amalgamate and fix”. In a place free from doubt, means in a place devoid of khaṇḍasīmā. And this is said because even if the mahāsīmā is existing, khaṇḍasīmā is desired for the ease of performing the act and it (khaṇḍasīmā) is not fixed at the places with great gathering such as courtyards of cetiyas, etc. Even there it is well fixed like mahāsīmā. But they will certainly not be able to re-establish it This is said in reference to fixing mahāsīmā because the khaṇḍasīmā has not been amalgamated, and also because of not knowing its non-existence. But they will be able to fix the khaṇḍasīmā in a place free from doubt. Having created a confusion of boundaries, means having created a mixing by overlapping boundaries in the case where the khaṇḍasīmā is present, and also having created a doubt of mixing by not turning back due to the doubt of mixing even in the case of its absence. They would make it unsuitable for a monastery means they would make it unsuitable for community acts. The intention is that, formerly, it was possible to perform acts in a place free from doubt like the courtyard of a cetiya, but now even that has been destroyed. It should not be amalgamated means it should not be amalgamated by those who do not know the khaṇḍasīmā. Both do not know means they do not know either the specific rule of the location of both of them, or the existence or non-existence of either of the two, or there is doubt everywhere. “Neither to amalgamate, nor to fix, will they be able,” this is stated in reference to this meaning that, even though they are able to amalgamate by standing in a place free from doubt, they will not be able to re-establish the great boundary. Nor is it possible … formal act to be made, this is said with reference to the formal act of fixing the boundary. “Therefore” means, because it is not possible to fix, therefore it should not be amalgamated.
165. In the discussion of boundary removal, “they” refers to the community of monks. “Even two” means two boundaries of common residence and non-separation. “Non-separation boundary” refers to the great boundary. Mostly, non-separation is there. “Even if they do not know the non-separation” refers to the presence or absence of the great boundary and the external demarcation, said with reference to those who do not know it. Even if they do not know, if they stand within the boundary and perform the legal act, the boundary is removed, as stated: “they will be able to remove and establish it.” “In a place free from doubt” means a place without a divided boundary. This is said because, even if the great boundary exists, a divided boundary is desired for the ease of performing legal acts, and thus it is not established in places like shrine courtyards, etc., where many gather. Even there, the great boundary, if established, is well-established. “But they will not be able to re-establish it” refers to the non-removal of the divided boundary and the ignorance of its absence, said with reference to the establishment of the great boundary. However, they will be able to establish the divided boundary in a place free from doubt. “Having mixed the boundaries” means, in the case of the divided boundary’s presence, mixing the boundaries by encompassing one boundary with another, and in the case of its absence, creating a doubt of mixing by not turning back. “They would make it uninhabitable” means they would make it unsuitable for monastic acts. Previously, it was possible to perform acts in places like shrine courtyards free from doubt, but now even that is destroyed, meaning it is no longer suitable. “It should not be removed” means the divided boundary should not be removed by those who do not know it. “Both do not know” means they do not know the regional restrictions or the presence or absence of either of the two boundaries, and thus doubt arises everywhere. “They will not be able to remove or establish it” means, even if they can remove it while standing in a place free from doubt, they will not be able to re-establish the great boundary, as stated. “Nor is it possible… to perform the legal act” refers to the legal act of establishing the boundary. “Therefore” means, since it cannot be established, it should not be removed.
ID821
Keci pana “īdisesupi vihāresu chapañcamatte bhikkhū gahetvā vihārakoṭito paṭṭhāya vihāraparikkhepassa anto ca bahi ca samantā leḍḍupāte sabbattha mañcappamāṇe okāse nirantaraṃ ṭhatvā paṭhamaṃ avippavāsasīmaṃ, tato samānasaṃvāsakasīmañca samūhananavasena sīmāya samugghāte kate tasmiṃ vihāre khaṇḍasīmāya, mahāsīmāya vā ṭhitavijjamānatte sati avassaṃ ekasmiṃ mañcaṭṭhāne tāsaṃ majjhagatā te bhikkhū tā samūhaneyyuṃ, tato gāmasīmā eva avasisseyya. Na hettha sīmāya, tapparicchedassa vā jānanaṃ aṅgaṃ. Sīmāya pana antoṭhānaṃ ’samūhanissāmā’ti kammavācākaraṇañcettha aṅgaṃ. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ’khaṇḍasīmaṃ pana jānantā avippavāsaṃ ajānantāpi samūhanituñceva bandhituñca sakkhissantī’ti evaṃ mahāsīmāya paricchedassa ajānanepi samūhananassa vuttattā gāmasīmāya eva ca avasiṭṭhāya tattha yathāruci duvidhampi sīmaṃ bandhituñceva upasampadādikammaṃ kātuñca vaṭṭatī”ti vadanti, taṃ yuttaṃ viya dissati, vīmaṃsitvā gahetabbanti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144) āgato vinicchayo. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.144) pana “avippavāsasīmā na samūhantabbāti mahāsīmaṃ sandhāya vadati. Nirāsaṅkaṭṭhānesu ṭhatvāti cetiyaṅgaṇādīnaṃ khaṇḍasīmāya anokāsattā vuttaṃ. Khaṇḍasīmañhi bandhantā tādisaṃ ṭhānaṃ pahāya aññasmiṃ vivitte okāse bandhanti. Appeva nāma samūhanituṃ sakkhissantīti avippavāsasīmaṃyeva samūhanituṃ sakkhissanti, na khaṇḍasīmaṃ. Paṭibandhituṃ pana na sakkhissantevāti khaṇḍasīmāyaṃ aññātattā na sakkhissanti. Na samūhanitabbāti khaṇḍasīmaṃ ajānantehi na samūhanitabbā”ti vuttaṃ.
Some, however, say: “Even in such monasteries, taking five or six monks and standing continuously in a space the size of a bed, both inside and outside the monastery enclosure from the monastery’s edge within a stone’s throw all around, first dissolving the non-separation boundary and then the common-residence boundary by the dissolution method, if there is a khaṇḍasīmā or mahāsīmā present in that monastery, those monks standing in one bed-sized space amidst them would inevitably dissolve them, leaving only the village boundary. Knowledge of the boundary or its limits is not a factor here. Standing within the boundary and performing the recitation of the act with the intention ‘We will dissolve it’ is the factor. In the commentary, it is said, ‘Those knowing a khaṇḍasīmā but not knowing a non-separation boundary will be able to both dissolve and bind it,’ so even without knowing the limits of a mahāsīmā, its dissolution is stated, and with only the village boundary remaining, it is permissible to bind either type of boundary as desired and perform acts like ordination.” This seems reasonable and should be considered after examination, as per the decision in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144). But in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.144), it is said: “‘A non-separation boundary should not be dissolved’ refers to the mahāsīmā. ‘Standing in places without doubt’ is said because places like a cetiya courtyard lack space for a khaṇḍasīmā. For those binding a khaṇḍasīmā abandon such places and bind it in another secluded spot. ‘Perhaps they might be able to dissolve it’ means they might be able to dissolve only the non-separation boundary, not the khaṇḍasīmā. ‘But they will not be able to obstruct it’ means they cannot due to ignorance of the khaṇḍasīmā. ‘It should not be dissolved’ means it should not be dissolved by those ignorant of the khaṇḍasīmā.”
But some say, “Even in monasteries like these, taking five or six bhikkhus, starting from the corner of the monastery, standing continuously within and outside the monastery boundary, within a space the size of a couch everywhere within a stone’s throw, having first completed the dissolution of the boundary by way of amalgamating the avippavāsa boundary, then the samānasaṃvāsa boundary, if the khaṇḍasīmā or mahāsīmā is existing in that monastery, those bhikkhus would necessarily amalgamate them in one couch-location among them; then only the village boundary would remain. Here, knowledge of the sīmā or its boundary is not a factor. But here, being situated inside the sīmā, and performing the formal act, declaring ‘we will amalgamate the sīmā,’ are the factors. In the commentary, because the amalgamation has been stated even when the boundary of mahāsīmā is not known, as in ‘But those knowing the khaṇḍasīmā, even though not knowing the avippavāsa, will be able to amalgamate and fix,’ and because only the village boundary remains, it is permissible to fix both types of boundaries as desired, and to perform the ordination and other acts there,” it seems appropriate, it should be accepted after examination, such is the decision that has come in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144). But in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.144), it is said, “avippavāsa boundary should not be amalgamated” is said with reference to mahāsīmā. Standing in places free from doubt is said because the courtyards of cetiyas and the like are not suitable places for khaṇḍasīmā. For, when fixing khaṇḍasīmā, they fix it in a secluded place apart from such a place. Perhaps they will be able to amalgamate means they will only be able to amalgamate the avippavāsa boundary, not the khaṇḍasīmā. But they will certainly not be able to re-establish it they will not be able to because the khaṇḍasīmā is unknown. It should not be amalgamated means it should not be amalgamated by those who do not know the khaṇḍasīmā.”
However, some say: “Even in such monasteries, taking five or six monks, starting from the monastery’s corner, and standing continuously within and outside the monastery’s enclosure, everywhere within a bed’s length, first remove the non-separation boundary, then remove the common residence boundary, and thus, if the divided boundary or the great boundary exists in that monastery, those monks standing in the middle of the bed’s length must remove it, and only the village boundary would remain. Here, knowing the boundary or its demarcation is not a requirement. However, standing within the boundary and saying, ‘We will remove it,’ is a requirement for performing the legal act.” The commentary states: “Even if they do not know the non-separation boundary, they will be able to remove and establish the divided boundary.” Thus, even if they do not know the demarcation of the great boundary, they can remove it, and only the village boundary remains. There, they can establish either boundary as they wish and perform acts like ordination, etc. This seems reasonable and should be considered after examination, as stated in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.144). The Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.144) states: “The non-separation boundary should not be removed,” referring to the great boundary. “Standing in a place free from doubt” refers to places like shrine courtyards, etc., where there is no opportunity for a divided boundary. For when establishing a divided boundary, they abandon such places and establish it in another secluded place. “Perhaps they will be able to remove it” means they will be able to remove the non-separation boundary, not the divided boundary. “But they will not be able to re-establish it” means they will not be able to re-establish the divided boundary due to not knowing it. “It should not be removed” means the divided boundary should not be removed by those who do not know it.
ID822
166. Evaṃ baddhasīmāvinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni abaddhasīmāvinicchayaṃ dassetuṃ “abaddhasīmā panā”ti āha. Sā katividhāti āha “gāmasīmā sattabbhantarasīmā udakukkhepasīmāti tividhā”ti. Pāḷiyaṃ (mahāva. 147) “asammatāya, bhikkhave, sīmāyā”tiādinā gāmasīmā eva baddhasīmāya khettaṃ araññanadīādayo viya sattabbhantaraudakukkhepādīnaṃ, sā ca gāmasīmā baddhasīmāya rahitaṭṭhāne sayameva samānasaṃvāsā hotīti dasseti. “Yā tassa gāmassa gāmasīmā”ti ettha gāmaparikkhepassa anto ca bahi ca khettavatthuaraññapabbatādikaṃ sabbaṃ gāmakkhettaṃ sandhāya “gāmassā”ti vuttaṃ, na antaragharameva, tasmā tassa sakalassa gāmakkhettassa sambandhanīyā gāmasīmāti evamattho gahetabbo. Yo hi so antaragharakhettādīsu anekesu bhūmibhāgesu “gāmo”ti ekattena lokajanehi paññatto gāmavohāro, sova idha “gāmasīmā”tipi vuccatīti adhippāyo. Gāmo eva hi gāmasīmā. Imināva nayena upari araññaṃ nadī samuddo jātassaroti, evaṃ tesu tesu bhūmippadesesu ekattena lokajanapaññattānameva araññādīnaṃ araññasīmādibhāvo veditabbo, loke pana gāmasīmādivohāro gāmādīnaṃ mariyādāyameva vattuṃ vaṭṭati, na gāmakkhettādīsu sabbattha. Sāsane pana te gāmādayo itaranivattiatthena sayameva attano mariyādāti katvā gāmo eva gāmasīmā, araññameva araññasīmā, samuddo eva samuddasīmāti sīmāvohārena vuttāti veditabbo. Pāḷiyaṃ nigamassa vāti idaṃ gāmasīmappabhedaṃ upalakkhaṇavasena dassetuṃ vuttaṃ. Tenāha “nagarampi gahitamevā”ti.
166. Having explained the determination of a bound boundary, now to show the determination of an unbound boundary, it says, “But an unbound boundary.” How many types is it? It says, “The village boundary, the seven-abbhantara boundary, and the water-sprinkled boundary—threefold.” In the text (mahāva. 147), “In an unagreed-upon boundary, monks,” and so forth, it shows that the village boundary, like the fields, forests, and rivers of a bound boundary, is for the seven-abbhantara and water-sprinkled boundaries, and that village boundary, in a place without a bound boundary, is itself a common-residence boundary. In “The village boundary of that village,” “of the village” refers to the entire village area—inside and outside the village enclosure, including fields, lands, forests, mountains, and all else—not just the houses within, so the meaning should be understood as a village boundary connected to that entire village area.
166. Having thus determined the decision on bounded boundaries, now, to show the decision on unbounded boundaries, he says, “But unbounded boundaries.” He says, how many kinds are there: “Village boundary, seven-abbhantara boundary, and water-lift boundary, three kinds.” In the Pāḷi (mahāva. 147), by “in an un-consented, monks, boundary,” etc., it shows that the village boundary is just like the field, forest, river, etc. of the bounded boundary, for sattabbhantara and udakukkhepa etc., and that village boundary itself is a samānasaṃvāsa in a place devoid of a bounded boundary. Here, in “Whatever is the village boundary of that village,” the word “of the village” is stated with reference to all of the village field, inside and outside the village boundary, fields, plantations, forest, mountain, and so on, and not just the inner-house, therefore the meaning should be taken as, the village boundary pertaining to that whole village field. The meaning is that whatever is the village usage designated as one entity by people in various parts of the land such as inner houses, fields, etc., as “village,” that alone is called “village boundary” here. Indeed, the village itself is the village boundary. By this same method, above, forest, river, ocean, natural lake; thus, in those various areas of land, the state of being forest boundary etc. of the forest etc. which are designated as one entity by people, should be understood; but in the world, the usage of village boundary etc., should be applied only in the boundary of the village etc., not everywhere in village fields, etc. But, in the dispensation, those villages, etc. being themselves their boundary for excluding others, it should be understood that the village itself is the village boundary, the forest itself is the forest boundary, and the ocean itself is the ocean boundary, thus stated by the usage of boundary. In the Pāḷi, “or of a market town,” this is said to show the distinction of the village boundary by way of indication. Hence, he says, “Even a city is included.”
166. Having discussed the determination of established boundaries, now to explain the determination of unestablished boundaries, it is said: “Unestablished boundaries, however.” How many kinds are there? It is said: “There are three kinds: village boundaries, seven-house boundaries, and water-throwing boundaries.” In the Pāli (Mahāva. 147), it is said: “Monks, in an unestablished boundary,” etc., referring to village boundaries, which, like fields, forests, rivers, etc., are the domain of the seven-house and water-throwing boundaries, etc. The village boundary, in the absence of an established boundary, itself becomes a common residence boundary. “The village boundary of that village” refers to the entire village field, including the interior and exterior of the village enclosure, fields, orchards, forests, mountains, etc., not just the interior houses. Thus, the village boundary is connected to the entire village field. For in the world, the term “village” is used collectively by people to refer to many plots of land, such as interior houses, fields, etc., and here it is called “village boundary.” The village itself is the village boundary. In the same way, forests, rivers, oceans, etc., are understood as forest boundaries, river boundaries, etc., based on the collective designation by people in various regions. In the world, the terms village boundary, etc., refer only to the limits of villages, etc., not to the entire village field, etc. In the Dispensation, however, villages, etc., are considered to have their own limits by their very nature, and thus the village itself is the village boundary, the forest itself is the forest boundary, and the ocean itself is the ocean boundary, as stated in the boundary terminology. In the Pāli, “or of a town” is said to indicate the classification of village boundaries. Thus, it is said: “A city is also included.”
ID823
Baliṃ labhantīti idaṃ yebhuyyavasena vuttaṃ. “Ayaṃ gāmo ettako karīsabhāgo”tiādinā pana rājapaṇṇesu āropitesu bhūmibhāgesu yasmiṃ yasmiṃ taḷākamātikāsusānapabbatādike padese baliṃ na gaṇhanti, sopi gāmasīmā eva. Rājādīhi paricchinnabhūmibhāgo hi sabbova ṭhapetvā nadīloṇijātassare gāmasīmāti veditabbā. Tenāha “paricchinditvā rājā kassaci detī”ti. Sace pana tattha rājā kañci padesaṃ gāmantarena yojeti, so paviṭṭhagāmasīmataṃ eva bhajati. Nadījātassare vināsetvā taḷākādibhāvaṃ vā pūretvā khettādibhāvaṃ vā pāpitesupi eseva nayo.
“Receiving tribute” is said generally. But in areas designated in royal decrees as “This village is such-and-such a share,” where tribute is not taken—such as ponds, irrigation channels, cemeteries, or mountains—those too are village boundaries. For the entire area demarcated by kings and others, except rivers, salt lakes, and natural lakes, should be understood as a village boundary. Thus, it says, “A king demarcates and gives it to someone.” However, if a king connects a certain area there with another village, it takes on the status of the entered village boundary. The same applies if rivers or natural lakes are destroyed and turned into ponds or fields.
They receive tax This is said by way of the majority. But, in those portions of land recorded in royal records, such as “This village is of so many karīsa-share,” etc., in whichever place, such as a pond, irrigation canal, cemetery, mountain, etc., where they do not collect tax, that is also a village boundary. Indeed, the entire land area demarcated by kings etc., except for rivers, saltpans, and natural lakes, should be considered as a village boundary. Therefore he says, “Having demarcated, the king gives to someone.” But if the king there joins some area to another village, that belongs to the state of the boundary of the entered village. The same principle applies even when rivers and natural lakes are destroyed and converted into ponds, etc., or filled up and converted into fields, etc.
“They receive offerings” is said mostly. However, in royal records, when land plots are designated, such as “this village is of such a size,” etc., in places like ponds, cemeteries, mountains, etc., where offerings are not received, they are still considered village boundaries. For all land plots demarcated by kings, etc., except rivers, salt lakes, etc., are considered village boundaries. Thus, it is said: “The king demarcates and gives it to someone.” If the king connects a place there with another village, it becomes part of the entered village boundary. Even if a river, etc., is destroyed and filled to become a pond, etc., or a field, etc., the same principle applies.
ID824
Ye pana gāmā rājacorādibhayapīḷitehi manussehi chaḍḍitā cirampi nimmanussā tiṭṭhanti, samantā pana gāmā santi, tepi pāṭekkaṃ gāmasīmāva. Tesu hi rājāno samantagāmavāsīhi kasāpetvā vā yehi kehici kasitaṭṭhānaṃ likhitvā vā baliṃ gaṇhanti, aññena vā gāmena ekībhāvaṃ upanenti, ye pana gāmā rājūhipi pariccattā gāmakhettānantarikā mahāaraññena ekībhūtā, te agāmakāraññasīmataṃ pāpuṇanti, purimā gāmasīmā vinassati, rājāno pana ekasmiṃ araññādipadese mahantaṃ gāmaṃ katvā anekasahassāni kulāni vāsāpetvā tattha vāsīnaṃ bhogagāmāti samantā bhūtagāme paricchinditvā denti, purāṇanāmaṃ pana paricchedañca na vināsenti, tepi paccekaṃ gāmasīmā eva, ettāvatā purimagāmasīmataṃ na vijahanti. Sā ca itarā cātiādi “samānasaṃvāsā ekūposathā”ti pāḷipadassa (mahāva. 143) adhippāyavivaraṇaṃ. Tattha hi sā ca rājicchāvasena parivattetvā samuppannā abhinavā, itarā ca aparivattā pakatigāmasīmā yathā baddhasīmāya sabbaṃ saṅghakammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati, evametāpi sabbakammārahatāsadisena baddhasīmāsadisā samānasaṃvāsā ekūposathāti adhippāyo . Sāmaññato “baddhasīmāsadisā”ti vutte ticīvarāvippavāsasīmaṃ baddhasīmaṃ eva maññantīti taṃsadisatānivattanamukhena uparisattabbhantarasīmāya taṃsadisatāpi atthīti dassananayassa idheva pasaṅgaṃ dassetuṃ “kevala”ntiādi vuttaṃ.
But those villages abandoned by people oppressed by fear of kings or thieves, remaining uninhabited for a long time, while villages exist around them, are each individually a village boundary. For kings either have them cultivated by surrounding villagers or record the cultivated areas and take tribute, or unite them with another village. However, those villages abandoned even by kings, with their village areas merged into a great forest without separation, attain the status of a non-village forest boundary, and the former village boundary perishes. But when kings establish a large village in a forest area, settle thousands of families there, and grant surrounding existing villages as tribute villages without destroying the old name or demarcation, those too are each individually village boundaries and do not abandon their prior village-boundary status to that extent. “This and that” and so forth is an explanation of the intent of the text (mahāva. 143), “Of common residence, with one uposatha.” There, this new boundary, transformed by royal will, and that unchanged natural village boundary, like a bound boundary where all community acts can be performed, are similarly suitable for all acts, like a bound boundary, being of common residence with one uposatha—this is the intent.
But those villages that have been abandoned by people, harassed by the fear of kings, robbers, and the like, and remain uninhabited for a long time, while surrounding villages exist, they are also separate village boundaries. For kings collect taxes from them, having caused the inhabitants of the surrounding villages to cultivate them, or having demarcated the cultivated area by whomever it was cultivated, or they integrate them with another village. But those villages that have even been abandoned by the king’s officials and are contiguous with the village fields, becoming one with the great forest, they attain the status of a non-village, forest boundary; the former village boundary disappears. However, when kings establish a large village in a forested area, settling many thousands of families and demarcating the existing villages around them as the residing families’ ‘enjoyment village,’ without destroying the old name and boundary, those are also individual village boundaries; thus, they do not abandon the status of the former village boundaries. “Sā ca itarā cātiādi” and so on is an explanation of the meaning of the Pāli phrase (mahāva. 143) “samānasaṃvāsā ekūposathā” (of common dwelling, of one uposatha). Here, ‘sā ca’ refers to the newly arisen boundary, transformed by the king’s wish, and ‘itarā ca’ to the untransformed, natural village boundary. Just as all Sangha business can be carried out within a properly bounded boundary (baddhasīmā), so too are these boundaries similar to a bounded boundary, fit for all business, “of common dwelling, of one uposatha”, is the meaning. Generally, “similar to a bounded boundary” has been said, they might mistake a boundary for absence of leave from the three robes(ticīvarāvippavāsa) to be a bounded boundary. In order to avert similarity with that, by stating that the boundary up to seven abbhantara, has similarity with that. The explanation begins “kevala” and so on to show this very context.
Those villages, abandoned by people due to fear of kings, thieves, and other dangers, remain uninhabited by humans for a long time. If there are surrounding villages, each of them constitutes a separate village boundary. In such cases, kings, having cultivated the land through the inhabitants of the surrounding villages or by any other means, mark the cultivated areas and collect taxes. Alternatively, they may integrate the land with another village. However, villages that have been granted by kings, with fields separated by vast forests, become part of the non-village wilderness boundary. The former village boundary ceases to exist. Kings may establish a large village in a forested area, settling thousands of families there, and designate it as a revenue village, demarcating it from the surrounding natural villages. They do not destroy the old name or the boundary. These also constitute separate village boundaries. Thus, the previous village boundary is not entirely abandoned. “Sā ca itarā cā” and so on is an explanation of the intention behind the Pali phrase “samānasaṃvāsā ekūposathā” (Mahāva. 143). Here, the newly established boundary, created by the king’s decree, and the other, the natural village boundary that remains unchanged, are both capable of performing all Sangha acts, just like a fixed boundary. Thus, they are considered equal to a fixed boundary in terms of suitability for all acts, and the intention is that they share the same residence and observe the Uposatha together. When it is said that they are “like a fixed boundary,” some may think that the fixed boundary refers only to the three-robed residence boundary. However, to clarify that even in the case of an upper or lower boundary, there can be a similar fixed boundary, the term “kevala” is used here.
ID825
Viñjhāṭavisadise araññeti yattha “asukagāmassa idaṃ khetta”nti gāmavohāro natthi, yattha ca neva kasanti na vapanti, tādise araññe. Macchabandhānaṃ agamanapathā nimmanussāvāsā samuddantaradīpakāpi ettheva saṅgayhanti. Yaṃ yañhi agāmakkhettabhūtaṃ nadīsamuddajātassaravirahitapadesaṃ, taṃ sabbaṃ araññasīmāti veditabbaṃ. Sā ca sattabbhantarasīmaṃ vinā sayameva samānasaṃvāsā baddhasīmāsadisā, nadīādisīmāsu viya sabbamettha saṅghakammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Nadīsamuddajātassarānaṃ tāva aṭṭhakathāyaṃ “attano sabhāveneva baddhasīmāsadisā”tiādinā vuttattā sīmatā siddhā. Araññassa pana sīmatā kathanti? Sattabbhantarasīmānujānanasuttādisāmatthiyato. Yathā hi gāmasīmāya vaggakammaparihāratthaṃ bahū baddhasīmāyo anuññātā, tāsañca dvinnaṃ antarā aññamaññaṃ asambhedatthaṃ sīmantarikā anuññātā, evamidha araññepi sattabbhantarasīmā. Tāsañca dvinnaṃ antarāpi sīmantarikāya pāḷiaṭṭhakathāsu vidhānasāmatthiyato araññassapi sabhāveneva nadīādīnaṃ viya sīmabhāvo tattha vaggakammaparihāratthameva sattabbhantarasīmāya anuññātattāva siddhoti veditabbaṃ. Tattha sīmāyameva hi ṭhitā sīmaṭṭhānaṃ vaggakammaṃ karonti, na asīmāyaṃ ākāse ṭhitā viya ākāsaṭṭhānaṃ. Evameva hi sāmatthiyaṃ gahetvā “sabbā, bhikkhave, nadī asīmā”tiādinā (mahāva. 147) paṭikkhittabaddhasīmānampi nadīsamuddajātassarānaṃ attano sabhāveneva sīmabhāvo aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 147) vuttoti gahetabbo.
“In a forest like a viñjhāṭavi” means a forest where there is no village designation like “This is the field of such a village,” and where neither plowing nor sowing occurs—such a forest. Uninhabited islands in the ocean, inaccessible to fishermen, are also included here. For whatever area lacks a village field and is free of rivers, oceans, or natural lakes is to be understood as a forest boundary. And that, apart from a seven-abbhantara boundary, is itself a common-residence boundary, like a bound boundary, where all community acts can be performed, as in river boundaries and the like.
Viñjhāṭavisadise araññeti, in a forest similar to the Vindhyā mountains, where there is no village terminology like “this is the field of such-and-such village”, and where they neither plow nor sow, in such a forest. The pathways of fishermen that are uninhabited, as well as islands within the ocean, are included here. Whatever is non-village, non-field land, devoid of rivers, oceans, and natural lakes, all that should be understood as a forest boundary. And that, excluding the boundary of seven abbhantara, is itself of common dwelling, similar to a bounded boundary; all Sangha business can be carried out within it, just as in river boundaries and the like. As for rivers, oceans, and natural lakes, their boundary status is already established in the commentary because of expressions like “by their very nature, they are similar to a bounded boundary”. But how is the forest a boundary? From the authority of the sutta allowing the boundary of seven abbhantara, and so on. Just as many bounded boundaries were allowed within a village boundary in order to avoid incomplete acts (vaggakamma), and between two of those, a boundary interval was allowed so that they would not mix with each other, so too, here in the forest, is the boundary of seven abbhantara. And between two of those, by the authority of the regulations in the Pāli and commentaries concerning a boundary interval, the forest, by its very nature, is a boundary, just like rivers and so on. It should be understood that the boundary of seven abbhantara was allowed there precisely to avoid incomplete acts. There, those situated within the boundary itself perform incomplete acts of the boundary site; they don’t stand in the sky as it were performing incomplete acts of sky. Indeed, considering this very capability, it should be understood that in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 147), the natural boundary status of rivers, oceans, and natural lakes, even of those bounded boundaries prohibited with “All rivers, monks, are unbounded” and so on (mahāva. 147), is stated.
“Viñjhāṭavisadise araññe” refers to a wilderness where there is no village designation such as “this field belongs to such-and-such village,” and where no cultivation or sowing takes place. The paths used by fishermen, uninhabited places, and islands in the sea are also included here. Any place that is not a village or field, devoid of rivers, lakes, or ponds, should be understood as a wilderness boundary. Such a boundary, even without a seven-abbhantara limit, is itself capable of performing all Sangha acts, similar to a fixed boundary, just as in the case of river boundaries, etc. As for rivers, lakes, and ponds, their boundary nature is established in the commentary by the statement “by their very nature, they are like a fixed boundary.” But how is the boundary of a wilderness established? It is established through the allowance of a seven-abbhantara limit, as mentioned in the suttas. Just as many fixed boundaries are allowed for village boundaries to avoid factional disputes, and intermediate boundaries are allowed between them to prevent overlap, so too in the wilderness, a seven-abbhantara limit is allowed. Intermediate boundaries between them are also allowed, as seen in the Pali commentaries. Thus, the boundary nature of the wilderness, like that of rivers, etc., is established by its very nature, and the seven-abbhantara limit is allowed solely to avoid factional disputes. There, the Sangha performs acts within the boundary itself, not in the unbounded space, just as they do not perform acts in the sky. Similarly, considering this, the statement “all rivers, monks, are without boundaries” (Mahāva. 147) and so on, which rejects fixed boundaries, should be understood in light of the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 147), which states that rivers, lakes, and ponds have boundaries by their very nature.
ID826
Athassa ṭhitokāsatoti tassa bhikkhussa ṭhitokāsato. Sacepi hi bhikkhusahassaṃ tiṭṭhati, tassa ṭhitokāsassa bāhirantato paṭṭhāya bhikkhūnaṃ vaggakammaparihāratthaṃ sīmāpekkhāya uppannāya tāya saha sayameva uppannā sattabbhantarasīmā samānasaṃvāsakāti adhippāyo. Yattha pana khuddake araññe mahantehi bhikkhūhi paripuṇṇatāya vaggakammasaṅkābhāvena sattabbhantarasīmāpekkhā natthi, tattha sattabbhantarasīmā na uppajjati. Kevalāraññasīmāyameva, tattha saṅghena kammaṃ kātabbaṃ. Nadīādīsupi eseva nayo. Vakkhati hi “sace nadī nātidīghā hoti, pabhavato paṭṭhāya yāva mukhadvārā sabbattha saṅgho nisīdati, udakukkhepasīmāya kammaṃ natthī”tiādi (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 167), iminā eva ca vacanena vaggakammaparihāratthaṃ sīmāpekkhāya sati eva udakukkhepasattabbhantarasīmā uppajjanti, nāsatīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
“From his standing place” means from the standing place of that monk. For even if a thousand monks stand, from the outer edge of their standing place, when a seven-abbhantara boundary arises out of regard for a boundary to avoid separate acts, it arises together with it as a common-residence boundary—this is the intent. But in a small forest where, due to the fullness of many monks and no concern for separate acts, there is no need for a seven-abbhantara boundary, it does not arise there. Only the forest boundary exists, and the community should perform acts there.
Athassa ṭhitokāsatoti, from the place where that bhikkhu is standing. Even if a thousand bhikkhus are standing, starting from the outside and inside of the place where that one is standing, for avoiding incomplete actions of the bhikkhus when the request for boundary arises, the boundary of seven abbhantara arises itself together with that, is ‘of common dwelling’, that is the meaning. But in a small forest, where due to it being filled with many bhikkhus, there is no need of a seven-abbhantara boundary because of the doubt of incomplete action. The seven-abbhantara boundary does not arise. Only in a forest boundary the Sangha should perform the action. The same principle applies to rivers and the like. He will say, “if the river is not too long, from its source to its mouth, wherever the Sangha sits, there is no act within the water-scooping boundary” and so on (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 167). And by this very statement, it should be understood that the water-scooping and seven-abbhantara boundaries arise only when there is a need for a boundary in order to avoid incomplete acts, not when there is no such need.
“Athassa ṭhitokāsato” means from the standing place of that monk. Even if a thousand monks are standing, the seven-abbhantara boundary arises from the outermost limit of their standing place, for the purpose of avoiding factional disputes among the monks, and it is understood that this boundary is shared by those who reside together. However, in a small wilderness where a large number of monks are present, and there is no need to avoid factional disputes, the seven-abbhantara boundary does not arise. Only the wilderness boundary exists, and the Sangha should perform acts there. The same applies to rivers, etc. It is said, “If a river is not too long, from its source to its mouth, the Sangha should sit everywhere, and no act is required within the water-throwing limit” (Vi. Saṅga. Aṭṭha. 167). By this statement, it is understood that when there is a need to avoid factional disputes, the seven-abbhantara water-throwing boundary arises; otherwise, it does not.
ID827
Keci pana “samantā abbhantaraṃ minitvā paricchedakaraṇeneva sīmā sañjāyati, na sayamevā”ti vadanti, taṃ na gahetabbaṃ. Yadi hi abbhantaraparicchedakaraṇappakārena sīmā uppajjeyya, abaddhasīmāva na siyā bhikkhūnaṃ kiriyāpakārasiddhito. Apica vaḍḍhakihatthānaṃ pakatihatthānañca loke anekavidhattā, vinaye “īdisaṃ hatthapamāṇa”nti avuttattā ca “yena kenaci minite bhagavatā anuññātena nu kho hatthena minitaṃ, na nu kho”ti sīmāya vipattisaṅkā bhaveyya, minantehi ca anumattampi ūnamadhikamakatvā minituṃ asakkuṇeyyatāya vipatti eva siyā, parisavasena cāyaṃ vaḍḍhamānā tesaṃ minanena vaḍḍhati, hāyati vā. Saṅghe ca kammaṃ katvā gate ayaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ payogena samuppannā sīmā tesaṃ payogena vigacchati na vigacchati ca, kathaṃ baddhasīmā viya yāva sāsanantaradhānā na tiṭṭheyya, ṭhitiyā ca purāṇavihāresu viya sakalepi visuṃ araññe katasīmā sambhedasaṅkā na bhaveyya, tasmā sīmāpekkhāya eva samuppajjati, tabbigamena vigacchatīti gahetabbaṃ. Yathā cettha, evaṃ udakukkhepasīmāyampi nadīādīsupi.
Some, however, say: “A boundary arises only by measuring seven abbhantaras around and making a demarcation, not by itself,” but this should not be accepted. For if a boundary arose by the method of measuring and demarcating, it would not be an unbound boundary due to being established by the monks’ action.
Some, however, say, “The boundary comes into being only by measuring and demarcating the surrounding area, not spontaneously.” That should not be accepted. For if a boundary were to arise by way of demarcating the surrounding area, it would not be an unbounded boundary, since it would be established by the activity of the bhikkhus. Moreover, because the natural hands and the hands of carpenters are of many kinds in the world, and because the Vinaya does not state “such is the measure of a hand”, there would be doubt about the validity of the boundary, thinking, “Was it measured by just any hand, or by one allowed by the Blessed One, or not?” And because it is impossible for those measuring to measure without adding or subtracting even a little, there would only be invalidity. And through the assembly, the growing one increases by their measurements, or it decreases. And after the Sangha has performed an act and departed, this boundary, arisen through the effort of the bhikkhus, disappears or does not disappear with their effort. How could it not endure, like a bounded boundary, until the disappearance of the dispensation? And if it did endure, there would be no doubt of mixing, even in the entire isolated forest, where a boundary had been made, as in old monasteries. Therefore, it should be accepted that it arises only from the need for a boundary and disappears with the cessation of that need. Just as it is here, so it is also in the case of the water-scooping boundary in rivers and the like.
Some say, “The boundary arises only by measuring the surrounding area and demarcating it, not by itself.” This should not be accepted. If the boundary arose solely by internal demarcation, it would not be a fixed boundary, and the monks’ actions would not be valid. Moreover, due to the varying lengths of carpenters’ and ordinary people’s hands in the world, and the absence of a prescribed hand-measure in the Vinaya, doubts might arise as to whether the boundary is valid if measured by any hand allowed by the Buddha. Also, those measuring might make even a slight error, leading to invalidity. Furthermore, as the community grows, the boundary might expand or contract due to their measurements. After the Sangha has performed an act and departed, the boundary that arose through the monks’ effort might or might not disappear. How could it remain until the disappearance of the Dispensation, like a fixed boundary? And how could there be no confusion in the boundaries established in various wilderness areas, as in ancient monasteries? Therefore, it should be understood that the boundary arises due to the need for a boundary and disappears when that need ceases. The same applies to the water-throwing boundary and rivers, etc.
ID828
Tatthāpi hi majjhimapuriso na paññāyati, tathā sabbathāmena khipanaṃ, ubhayatthapi ca yassaṃ disāyaṃ sattabbhantarassa, udakukkhepassa vā okāso nappahoti, tattha kathaṃ minanaṃ, khipanaṃ vā bhaveyya, gāmakkhettādīsu pavisanato akhette sīmā paviṭṭhā kinnāma sīmā na vipajjeyya. Apekkhāya sīmuppattiyaṃ pana yato pahoti, tattha sattabbhantaraudakukkhepasīmā sayameva paripuṇṇā jāyanti. Yato pana nappahoti, tattha attano khettappamāṇeneva jāyanti, na bahi. Yaṃ panettha abbhantaraminanappamāṇassa vālukādikhipanakammassa ca dassanaṃ, taṃ sayaṃjātasīmānaṃ ṭhitaṭṭhānassa paricchedanatthaṃ kataṃ gāmūpacāragharūpacārajānanatthaṃ leḍḍusuppādikhipanavidhānadassanaṃ viya. Teneva mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. ūnavīsativassasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) “sīmaṃ vā sammannati, udakukkhepaṃ vā paricchindatī”ti vuttaṃ. Evaṃ katepi tassa paricchedassa yāthāvato ñātuṃ asakkuṇeyyattena puthulato ñatvā anto tiṭṭhantehi nirāsaṅkaṭṭhāne ṭhātabbaṃ, aññaṃ bahi karontehi atidūre nirāsaṅkaṭṭhāne pesetabbaṃ.
There too, an average person is not specified, nor is throwing with full strength, and since in any direction where the space for seven abbhantaras or water sprinkling is insufficient, how could measuring or throwing occur? When it enters a village field or the like, if a boundary enters a non-field, how would it not fail?
For there also, the average man is not evident, and so is throwing with full force. And in both cases, in whichever direction there is not enough space for seven abbhantaras or for water-scooping, how could there be measuring or throwing? And because it enters into village fields and the like, if a boundary enters into a non-field, what sort of boundary would not be invalid? But when boundaries arise by way of need, wherever there is enough space, there the seven-abbhantara and water-scooping boundaries arise spontaneously, complete. Where there is not enough space, however, they arise only to the extent of their own area, not outside. The demonstration here of measuring the surrounding area and the act of throwing sand and the like is done to delineate the location of the spontaneously arisen boundaries, like the demonstration of throwing a clod of earth and the like to determine the village boundary and the house boundary. Therefore, in the root commentary (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. ūnavīsativassasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) it is said, “He either ratifies a boundary or demarcates a water-scoop.” Even when this is done, because the exactness of that demarcation is impossible to know, judging broadly, those standing inside should stand in a place without anxiety, while those performing [the act] outside should be sent to a place far away, without anxiety.
In that case, since an average person is not discernible, and throwing is done with full strength, and since in any direction where there is no space for seven abbhantaras or a water-throwing limit, how could measuring or throwing occur? If one enters a village or field, and the boundary is entered in a non-field area, how could the boundary not be invalid? However, when a boundary arises due to the need for a boundary, wherever it is possible, the seven-abbhantara and water-throwing boundaries arise fully by themselves. Where it is not possible, they arise only within the limits of one’s own field, not beyond. The measuring of the internal area and the throwing of sand, etc., mentioned here, are for the purpose of demarcating the place where the self-arisen boundary stands, just as the throwing of clods is shown for the purpose of knowing the vicinity of villages and houses. Therefore, in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Ūnavīsativassasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), it is said, “One establishes a boundary or demarcates a water-throwing limit.” Even after doing so, since the exact extent of the demarcation cannot be known, one should stand in a place free from doubt, having broadly understood it, and send others to a place free from doubt at a distance.
ID829
Apare pana “sīmāpekkhāya kiccaṃ natthi, maggagamananahānādiatthehi ekabhikkhusmimpi araññe vā nadīādīsu vā paviṭṭhe taṃ parikkhipitvā sattabbhantaraudakukkhepasīmā sayameva pabhā viya padīpassa samuppajjati. Gāmakkhettādīsu tasmiṃ otiṇṇamatte vigacchati. Tenevettha dvinnaṃ saṅghānaṃ visuṃ kammaṃ karontānaṃ sīmādvayassa antarā sīmantarikaṃ aññaṃ sattabbhantaraṃ udakukkhepañca ṭhapetuṃ anuññātaṃ. Sīmāpariyante hi kenaci kammena pesitassa bhikkhuno samantā sañjātā sīmā itaresaṃ sīmāya phusitvā sīmāsambhedaṃ kareyya, so mā hotūti vā, itarathā hatthacaturaṅgulamattāyapettha sīmantarikāya anujānitabbato. Apica sīmantarikāya ṭhitassa ubhayattha kammakopavacanatopi cetaṃ sijjhati tampi parikkhipitvā sayameva sañjātāya sīmāya ubhinnampi sīmānaṃ, ekāya eva vā saṅkarato. Itarathā tassa kammakopavacanaṃ na yujjeyya. Vuttañhi mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) ’paricchedabbhantare hatthapāsaṃ vijahitvā ṭhitopi paricchedato bahi aññaṃ tattakaṃyeva paricchedaṃ anatikkamitvā ṭhitopi kammaṃ kopetī’ti. Kiñca agāmakāraññe ṭhitassa kammakaraṇicchāvirahitassapi bhikkhuno sattabbhantaraparicchinne abbhokāse cīvaravippavāso bhagavatā anuññāto, so ca paricchedo sīmā, evaṃ apekkhaṃ vinā samuppannā. Tenevettha ’ayaṃ sīmā cīvaravippavāsaparihārampi labhatī’ti (mahāva. aṭṭha. 147) vuttaṃ, tasmā kammakaraṇicchaṃ vināpi vuttanayena samuppatti gahetabbā”ti vadanti. Taṃ na yuttaṃ padīpapabhā viya sabbapuggalānampi paccekaṃ sīmāsambhavena saṅghe, gaṇe vā kammaṃ karonte tattha ṭhitānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ samantā paccekaṃ samuppannānaṃ anekasīmānaṃ aññamaññaṃ saṅkaradosappasaṅgato. Parisavasena cassā vaḍḍhi hāni ca sambhavati, pacchā āgatānaṃ abhinavasīmantaruppatti eva, gatānaṃ samantā ṭhitasīmāvināso ca bhaveyya.
Others say: “There is no need for intent regarding a boundary; even when a single monk enters a forest or river for purposes like travel or bathing, a seven-abbhantara or water-sprinkled boundary arises around him by itself, like the light of a lamp. When he enters a village field or the like, it disappears.” But this is not reasonable, as it would lead to the arising of separate boundaries for each individual, causing confusion among multiple boundaries when a community or group performs an act.
Others, however, say, “There is no need for a boundary requirement. Even when a single bhikkhu enters a forest or rivers and the like for the purpose of going on a path, bathing, and so forth, the seven-abbhantara and water-scooping boundaries arise spontaneously around him, like the radiance of a lamp. They disappear as soon as he enters village fields and the like. Therefore, here, between the boundaries of two Sanghas performing acts separately, a boundary interval of another seven abbhantaras and a water-scoop is allowed to be established. For, a boundary that arises around a bhikkhu sent for some business at the boundary limit might touch the boundary of the others and cause a mixing of boundaries, so that this should not happen. Or else, only boundary interval of four fingerbreadth could be allowed, Otherwise. Moreover, this is confirmed by the statement that one standing in the boundary interval disrupts the act in both places; for it surrounds it and it spontaneously produced boundaries of both of sanghas, or single boundary by the conflation. Otherwise, that statement of disrupting the act would not be fitting. For it is said in the root commentary (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā), ‘Even one who stands within the demarcated area, not letting go of the hand’s reach, or even one who stands outside the demarcation, not going beyond the same amount of demarcation, disrupts the act.’ Moreover, even for a bhikkhu standing in a non-village, forest area, who has no desire to perform an act, absence from the three robes within an open space demarcated by seven abbhantaras is allowed by the Blessed One; and that demarcation is a boundary, thus arisen without need. Therefore, here it is said, ‘This boundary also obtains the allowance of absence from the three robes’ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 147). Therefore, arising in the aforementioned manner, even without the desire to perform an act, should be accepted.” That is not fitting. Because of the fault of mixing many boundaries arisen separately around all individuals like the radiance of a lamp, when sangha or group perform acts. Through the assembly, increase and decrease is possible, there would be only the arising of new boundary intervals for those who arrived later, and the disappearance of the boundaries established all around for those who departed.
Others say, “There is no need for a boundary. Even if a single monk enters a wilderness or a river, etc., the seven-abbhantara and water-throwing boundaries arise by themselves, like the light of a lamp. In villages and fields, they disappear as soon as one enters. Therefore, when two Sanghas perform separate acts, an intermediate boundary of seven abbhantaras and a water-throwing limit is allowed between the two boundaries. For if a monk sent for some act at the edge of a boundary creates a boundary around himself, it might overlap with others’ boundaries, causing confusion. To prevent this, an intermediate boundary of a hand’s breadth and four fingers is allowed. Moreover, if a monk stands in the intermediate boundary, his act or speech of protest is valid for both sides, as it is enclosed within the self-arisen boundary of both boundaries or one of them. Otherwise, his act or speech of protest would not be valid. As stated in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Nidānavaṇṇanā), ‘Even if one stands outside the demarcation, having left a hand’s breadth, without crossing another demarcation of the same extent, one can protest the act.’ Furthermore, even if a monk staying in a non-village wilderness has no desire to perform an act, the Buddha has allowed him to leave his robe in an open space within a seven-abbhantara limit. That limit is a boundary, and it arises without any need. Therefore, it is said, ‘This boundary also obtains the allowance for leaving the robe’ (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 147). Thus, even without the desire to perform an act, the arising of the boundary should be understood in the manner described.” This is not correct, for if boundaries arose individually for all persons like the light of a lamp, then when the Sangha or a group performs an act, the monks standing there would each have their own boundary arising around them, leading to confusion due to the mixing of many boundaries. Moreover, the boundary would expand or contract with the community, and later arrivals would create new intermediate boundaries, while those who left would lose the boundaries around them.
ID830
Pāḷiyaṃ (mahāva. 147) pana “samantā sattabbhantarā, ayaṃ tattha samānasaṃvāsā”tiādinā ekā eva sattabbhantarā udakukkhepā ca anuññātā, na cesā sīmā sabhāvena, kāraṇasāmatthiyena vā pabhā viya padīpassa uppajjati, kintu bhagavato anujānaneneva. Bhagavā ca imā anujānanto bhikkhūnaṃ vaggakammaparihārena kammakaraṇasukhatthameva anuññāsīti kathaṃ nahānādikiccena paviṭṭhānampi samantā tāsaṃ sīmānaṃ samuppatti payojanābhāvā, payojane ca ekaṃ eva payojananti kathaṃ paccekaṃ bhikkhugaṇanāya anekasīmāsamuppatti. “Ekasīmāya hatthapāsaṃ avijahitvā ṭhitā”ti (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) hi vuttaṃ. Yaṃ pana dvinnaṃ sīmānaṃ antarā tattakaparicchedeneva sīmantarikāṭhapanavacanaṃ, tattha ṭhitānaṃ kammakopavacanañca, tampi imāsaṃ sīmānaṃ paricchedassa dubbodhatāya sīmāya sambhedasaṅkaṃ kammakopasaṅkañca dūrato pariharituṃ vuttaṃ.
But in the text (mahāva. 147), “Seven abbhantaras around, this is of common residence there,” and so forth, only one seven-abbhantara or water-sprinkled boundary is permitted, not arising by its own nature or causal capacity like a lamp’s light, but only by the Buddha’s permission.
But in the Pāli (mahāva. 147), “seven abbhantaras all around, this is there of common dwelling” and so on, only one seven-abbhantara and water-scoop boundary is allowed. And this boundary does not arise by its nature or through the capability of a cause, like the radiance of a lamp, but only through the Blessed One’s allowance. And the Blessed One, in allowing these, allowed them only for the ease of performing acts with the avoidance of incomplete acts for the bhikkhus. Therefore, how could there be an arising of those boundaries all around those who have entered for the purpose of bathing and the like, since there is no purpose? And since there is only one purpose, how is there a multiple boundary arising on account of the bhikkhus. For it is said, “standing within one boundary, not letting go of the hand’s reach” (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā). However, the statement about establishing a boundary interval of the same extent between two boundaries, and the statement about disrupting the act for those standing there, is also said to remove from afar the doubt of mixing boundaries and the doubt of disrupting the act, due to the difficulty of understanding the demarcation of these boundaries.
In the Pali (Mahāva. 147), it is said, “Within seven abbhantaras all around, this is the shared residence,” and so on, indicating that only one seven-abbhantara and water-throwing limit is allowed, not that the boundary arises by its own nature or by the power of a cause, like the light of a lamp. Rather, it arises solely by the Buddha’s allowance. The Buddha allowed this for the happiness of the monks in performing acts without factional disputes. How then could the boundary arise around those who enter for bathing, etc., when there is no need for it? And how could multiple boundaries arise for individual monks or groups when there is only one purpose? It is said, “Standing without leaving a hand’s breadth within one boundary” (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Nidānavaṇṇanā). As for the statement that an intermediate boundary of the same extent should be placed between two boundaries, and that those standing there can protest the act, this is said to avoid the confusion of boundaries and the doubt of protest from a distance, due to the difficulty of understanding the extent of these boundaries.
ID831
Yo ca cīvaravippavāsatthaṃ bhagavatā abbhokāse dassito sattabbhantaraparicchedo, so sīmā eva na hoti, khettataḷākādiparicchedo viya ayamettha eko paricchedova. Tattha ca bahūsu bhikkhūsu ekato ṭhitesu tesaṃ visuṃ visuṃ attano ṭhitaṭṭhānato paṭṭhāya samantā sattabbhantaraparicchedabbhantare eva cīvaraṃ ṭhapetabbaṃ, na parisapariyantato. Parisapariyantato paṭṭhāya hi abbhantare gayhamāne sattabbhantarapariyosāne ṭhapitacīvaraṃ majjhe ṭhitassa sattabbhantarato bahi hotīti taṃ aruṇuggamane nissaggiyaṃ siyā. Sīmā pana parisapariyantatova gahetabbā. Cīvaravippavāsaparihāropettha ajjhokāsaparicchedassa vijjamānattā vutto, na pana yāva sīmāparicchedaṃ labbhamānattā mahāsīmāya avippavāsasīmāvohāro viya. Mahāsīmāyampi hi gāmagāmūpacāresu cīvaraṃ nissaggiyaṃ hoti, idhāpi majjhe ṭhitassa sīmāpariyante nissaggiyaṃ hoti, tasmā yathāvuttasīmāpekkhāvaseneva tāsaṃ sattabbhantaraudakukkhepasīmānaṃ uppatti, tabbigamena vināso ca gahetabboti amhākaṃ khanti, vīmaṃsitvā gahetabbaṃ. Añño vā pakāro ito yuttataro gavesitabbo.
And the separation of robes permitted by the Buddha in open space within seven abbhantaras is not itself a boundary; it is just one demarcation, like that of a field or pond. Thus, the arising of seven-abbhantara and water-sprinkled boundaries by intent alone, and their cessation by its absence, is our preference, to be considered after examination.
And the demarcation of seven abbhantaras shown by the Blessed One in an open space for the purpose of absence from the three robes, is not a boundary at all; like the demarcation of a field, a pond, and the like, here it is just a demarcation. And there, when many bhikkhus are standing together, each one should place his robe within the area of seven abbhantaras all around, starting from the place where he is standing, not from the limit of the assembly. For if it is taken within, starting from the limit of the assembly, a robe placed at the end of the seven abbhantaras would be outside the seven abbhantaras of one standing in the middle, and it would become subject to forfeiture at sunrise. But the boundary should be taken from the limit of the assembly itself. Here, the absence of three robes is mentioned because of the existence of the demarcation in an open space, not the great boundary which is called non-absence of robes is allowed till boundary limit. Because even in great boundary, robe becomes subject of forfeiture within village and village boundary, here too, robe becomes subject to forfeiture for the one standing in middle. Therefore, the arising of those seven-abbhantara and water-scooping boundaries only due to the aforementioned boundary requirement, and their disappearance with the cessation of that requirement, should be accepted as our preference; it should be examined and accepted. Or another explanation, more fitting than this, should be sought.
The seven-abbhantara limit shown by the Buddha for the purpose of leaving the robe in an open space is not a boundary, just as the demarcation of a field or pond is a single demarcation. There, when many monks stand together, each should leave his robe within the seven-abbhantara limit from his own standing place, not from the edge of the community. For if the robe is placed within the seven-abbhantara limit from the edge of the community, it would be outside the seven-abbhantara limit for someone standing in the middle, and thus it would be an offense requiring forfeiture at dawn. However, the boundary should be taken from the edge of the community. The allowance for leaving the robe is mentioned here because the open space demarcation exists, not because the boundary demarcation is obtainable, just as in the case of a large boundary, the term “non-leaving boundary” is used. For even in a large boundary, leaving the robe in a village or its vicinity is an offense requiring forfeiture. Here too, if one stands in the middle, leaving the robe at the edge of the boundary is an offense requiring forfeiture. Therefore, the arising of the seven-abbhantara and water-throwing boundaries should be understood as depending on the need for a boundary, and their disappearance when that need ceases. This is our opinion, but it should be carefully considered. Alternatively, a more suitable method should be sought.
ID832
Idha pana “araññe samantā sattabbhantarā”ti evaṃ pāḷiyaṃ (mahāva. 147), “viñjhāṭavisadise araññe samantā sattabbhantarā”ti aṭṭhakathāyañca (mahāva. aṭṭha. 147) rukkhādinirantarepi araññe sattabbhantarasīmāya vihitattā attano nissayabhūtāya araññasīmāya saha etissā rukkhādisambandhe dosābhāvo, pageva agāmake rukkheti nissitepi padese cīvaravippavāsassa rukkhaparihāraṃ vināva ajjhokāsaparihāro ca anumatoti siddhoti veditabbaṃ.
Here, in the text (mahāva. 147), “In a forest, seven abbhantaras around,” and in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 147), “In a forest like a viñjhāṭavi, seven abbhantaras around,” since a seven-abbhantara boundary is established even in a forest uninterrupted by trees and the like, there is no fault in its connection with trees and so forth in relation to its supporting forest boundary.
Here, however, because in the Pāli (mahāva. 147) it is thus, “In the forest, seven abbhantaras all around,” and in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 147) it is, “In a forest similar to the Vindhyā mountains, seven abbhantaras all around,” the seven-abbhantara boundary is prescribed even in a forest dense with trees and the like, there is no fault in this boundary being connected with trees and the like, along with the forest boundary which is its support. All the more so, it should be understood that even in a non-village area, supported by trees, absence from the three robes is allowed without avoiding trees, but only with the allowance of the open space.
Here, in the Pali (Mahāva. 147), it is said, “In the wilderness, within seven abbhantaras all around,” and in the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 147), it is said, “In a wilderness like Viñjhāṭavi, within seven abbhantaras all around,” indicating that even in a wilderness without trees, etc., the seven-abbhantara boundary is established. Since it is connected to its supporting wilderness boundary, there is no fault in its connection with trees, etc. How much more so in a place without villages, where the leaving of the robe is allowed without the protection of trees, and the open space allowance is also permitted.
ID833
Upacāratthāyāti sīmantarikatthāya. Sattabbhantarato adhikaṃ vaṭṭati, ūnakaṃ pana na vaṭṭati eva sattabbhantaraparicchedassa dubbijānattā. Tasmā saṅghaṃ vinā ekenapi bhikkhunā bahi tiṭṭhantena aññaṃ sattabbhantaraṃ atikkamitvā dūre eva ṭhātabbaṃ. Itarathā kammakopasaṅkarato. Udakukkhepepi eseva nayo. Teneva vakkhati “ūnakaṃ pana na vaṭṭatī”ti (vi. saṅga.aṭṭha. 167). Idañcettha sīmantarikāvidhānaṃ dvinnaṃ baddhasīmānaṃ sīmantarikānujānanasuttānulomato siddhanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Kiñcāpi hi bhagavatā nidānavasena ekagāmanissitānaṃ ekasabhāgānañca dvinnaṃ baddhasīmānameva aññamaññaṃ sambhedaajjhottharaṇadosaparihārāya sīmantarikā anuññātā, tathāpi tadanulomato ekaṃ araññasīmaṃ nadīādisīmañca nissitānaṃ ekasabhāgānaṃ dvinnaṃ sattabbhantarasīmānampi udakukkhepasīmānampi aññamaññaṃ sambhedajjhottharaṇaṃ, sīmantarikaṃ vinā abyavadhānena ṭhānañca bhagavatā anabhimatamevāti ñatvā aṭṭhakathācariyā idhāpi sīmantarikāvidhānamakaṃsu. Visabhāgasīmānampi hi ekasīmānissitattaṃ ekasabhāgattañcāti dvīhaṅgehi samannāgame sati eva sīmantarikaṃ vinā ṭhānaṃ sambhedāya hoti, nāsatīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Sīmantarikavidhānasāmatthiyeneva cetāsaṃ rukkhādisambandhopi baddhasīmā viya aññamaññaṃ na vaṭṭatīti ayampi nayato dassitovāti gahetabbaṃ.
For the sake of proximity means for the sake of maintaining a boundary separation. More than seven abbhantaras is permissible, but less than that is certainly not permissible due to the difficulty in discerning the boundary of seven abbhantaras. Therefore, even a single bhikkhu standing outside without the Sangha must stand far away, beyond another seven abbhantaras, to avoid disrupting the act. Otherwise, there is a risk of spoiling the communal act. The same principle applies in the case of udakukkhepa (water-throwing distance). Hence, it will be said, “But less than that is not permissible” (vi. saṅga.aṭṭha. 167). This regulation of boundary separation here should be understood as established in accordance with the Sutta permitting the boundary separation between two fixed boundaries. Although the Blessed One permitted the boundary separation specifically to prevent the mutual overlapping or confusion of two fixed boundaries belonging to those dependent on the same village or sharing the same nature, as a precaution against the fault of intermingling, nevertheless, in conformity with this, the mutual overlapping or confusion of two boundaries of seven abbhantaras or udakukkhepa boundaries belonging to those of the same nature dependent on a single forest boundary or a river boundary, and the standing without separation, is certainly not approved by the Blessed One. Knowing this, the commentary teachers also established the regulation of boundary separation here. Even for boundaries of different natures, when there is the convergence of dependence on a single boundary and being of the same nature—two factors—standing without a boundary separation leads to confusion, not otherwise; this should be understood. Due to the very effectiveness of the boundary separation regulation, the connection with trees and the like between them, as with fixed boundaries, is also not permissible—this too should be understood as indicated by this principle.
Upacāratthāyāti means for the purpose of a boundary interval. More than seven abbhantaras is permissible, but less is not, simply because it is difficult to determine precisely seven abbhantaras. Therefore, excluding the Sangha, even if a single bhikkhu remains outside, he should stand further away, exceeding another seven abbhantaras. Otherwise, it would be a disruption of the act due to the mixing of boundaries. The same principle applies to a water-cast boundary (udakukkhepa). For this reason, it will be stated, “but less is not permissible” (vi. saṅga.aṭṭha. 167). And here, the establishment of a boundary interval should be seen as resulting from following the rule of the allowance of a boundary interval between two bounded boundaries (baddhasīmā). Although the Blessed One, based on the introductory narrative, permitted a boundary interval for the sake of avoiding the fault of merging and overlapping between two bounded boundaries belonging to one village and having the same part, nevertheless, accordingly, the merging and overlapping between two seven-abbhantara boundaries or water-cast boundaries belonging to a single forest boundary or a river boundary and so forth, and having the same part, as well as their being situated without any interval, except for the boundary interval, are considered not to be desired by the Blessed One. Therefore, the teachers of the commentary established the rule of a boundary interval here as well. As for the boundaries of different parts, it should be understood that their situation without a boundary interval is considered a merging only when they are possessing two conditions: being established in one boundary, and being of the same part; but not when these are absent. It should be understood that by the very efficacy of establishing the boundary interval, even the connection of these boundaries with trees and so forth, like a bounded boundary, is not permissible with one another; this, too, is presented according to the method.
Upacāratthāyāti means for the purpose of establishing a boundary. It is valid if it exceeds seven abbhantaras, but it is not valid if it is less than seven abbhantaras due to the difficulty in determining the boundary of seven abbhantaras. Therefore, even if a single monk stands outside without the Sangha, after crossing another seven abbhantaras, one should stand far away. Otherwise, there is a risk of invalidating the act. The same principle applies to the water-boundary (udakukkhepa). Thus, it is said, “But less than that is not valid” (vi. saṅga.aṭṭha. 167). Here, the establishment of a boundary between two adjacent boundaries should be understood as being in accordance with the sutta that permits the boundary between two connected boundaries. Although the Buddha, based on the origin story, permitted the boundary between two connected boundaries for those dependent on a single village or of the same category to prevent the mixing and overlapping of boundaries, still, in accordance with that principle, even for two boundaries dependent on a forest boundary or a river boundary, etc., or of the same category, if they are seven abbhantaras apart or a water-boundary apart, without a boundary between them, there is a risk of mixing. Therefore, the commentators also established the rule for a boundary here. For boundaries of different categories, if they are dependent on the same boundary or are of the same category, mixing can occur without a boundary between them, but not otherwise. This should be understood. The ability to establish a boundary also prevents the connection of trees, etc., between connected boundaries, just as it prevents the connection between boundaries. This principle should also be understood.
ID834
167. Sabhāvenevāti iminā gāmasīmā viya abaddhasīmāti dasseti. Sabbamettha saṅghakammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti samānasaṃvāsā ekūposathāti dasseti. Yena kenacīti antamaso sūkarādinā sattena. Mahoghena pana uṇṇataṭṭhānato ninnaṭṭhāne patantena khato khuddako vā mahanto vā lakkhaṇayutto “jātassaro”tveva vuccati. Etthapi khuddake udakukkhepakiccaṃ natthi. Samudde pana sabbattha udakukkhepasīmāyameva kammaṃ kātabbaṃ sodhetuṃ dukkarattā. Puna tatthāti lokavohārasiddhīsu eva tāsu nadīādīsu tīsu abaddhasīmāsu puna vaggakammaparihāratthaṃ sāsanavohārasiddhāya abaddhasīmāya paricchedaṃ dassentoti adhippāyo. Pāḷiyaṃ (mahāva. 147) “yaṃ majjhimassa purisassā”tiādīsu udakaṃ ukkhipitvā khipīyati etthāti udakukkhepo, udakassa patanokāso, tasmā udakukkhepā, ayañhettha padasambandhavasena attho – parisapariyantato paṭṭhāya samantā yāva majjhimassa purisassa udakukkhepo udakassa patanaṭṭhānaṃ, tāva yaṃ taṃ paricchinnaṭṭhānaṃ, ayaṃ tattha nadīādīsu aparā samānasaṃvāsā udakukkhepasīmāti.
167. By its very nature indicates that it is an unfixed boundary like a village boundary. All Sangha acts can be performed here indicates that it involves communal residence and a single Uposatha. By any means refers to even a creature like a pig. However, with a great flood flowing from a higher place to a lower one, whether small or large, if it has the characteristic marks, it is simply called a “natural lake” (jātassara). Even here, in a small one, there is no function of udakukkhepa. In the ocean, however, the act must always be performed within the udakukkhepa boundary due to the difficulty of purification. Again there means that among those unfixed boundaries established by worldly convention—such as rivers—the intention is to show the delineation of an unfixed boundary established by the disciplinary convention to avoid the fault of a fragmented act. In the Pali text (mahāva. 147), “That which is for a middle-sized man” and so forth, udakukkhepa refers to the place where water is thrown after being lifted, the place where the water falls. Thus, udakukkhepā, the meaning here by word connection is: from the edge of the assembly all around, up to the udakukkhepa of a middle-sized man, the place where the water falls—that delimited area is, in those rivers and the like, another unfixed boundary of communal residence, the udakukkhepa boundary.
167. Sabhāvenevāti By this, it indicates that it is an unbounded boundary, like a village boundary. Sabbamettha saṅghakammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti It indicates that they are of the same communion and share one uposatha. Yena kenacīti means even by the lowest being, like a pig, and so forth. However, a channel created by a great flood, flowing from a high place to a low place, whether small or large, as long as it is characterized by a distinct mark, is called a “naturally formed stream”. Here too, there is no function of a small water-cast. However, in the case of the ocean, an act should be done everywhere within the water-cast boundary itself, as it is difficult to purify. Puna tatthāti The meaning is that regarding the three types of unbounded boundaries such as rivers, and so on, which are established by the common usage of the world, the boundary of the unbounded boundary established by the usage of the Dispensation is being presented again for the sake of avoiding an incomplete act. In the Pali (mahāva. 147), in the phrase “yaṃ majjhimassa purisassā” and so on, the place where water is drawn and thrown is called udakukkhepo, the place where the water falls; from that, udakukkhepā, Here, according to the connection of the words, this is the meaning: starting from the limit of the assembly, all around, up to the place where the water cast by an average man falls, the place where water falls, whatever that delimited place may be, this is another boundary, of communal dwelling, based on a water-cast on rivers and so forth.
167. Sabhāvenevāti indicates that this is an unconnected boundary, like a village boundary. Sabbamettha saṅghakammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti indicates that those who share the same residence can perform the Uposatha together. Yena kenacīti means even by an animal such as a pig. However, when a great flood flows from a high place to a low place, even a small or large stream that is suitable in characteristics is called a “natural stream.” Here, too, there is no need for a small water-boundary. In the ocean, however, the act should be performed within the water-boundary everywhere, as it is difficult to purify. Puna tatthāti means that in the case of rivers, etc., which are established by worldly convention, the unconnected boundary is again defined to prevent factional acts and to establish the boundary according to the Buddha’s instruction. In the Pali (mahāva. 147), “where the middle of a man’s height,” etc., the water-boundary is the place where water is thrown and falls. Therefore, udakukkhepā, the meaning here is connected to the phrase – starting from the edge of the assembly, up to the place where the water thrown by a man of average height falls, that is the defined place. This is the water-boundary for rivers, etc., where those who share the same residence can perform acts.
ID835
Tassa antoti tassa udakukkhepaparicchinnassa ṭhānassa anto. Na kevalañca tasseva anto, tato bahipi, “ekassa udakukkhepassa anto ṭhātuṃ na vaṭṭatī”ti vacanaṃ udakukkhepaparicchedassa dubbijānato kammakopasaṅkā hotīti . Teneva mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) “paricchedabbhantare hatthapāsaṃ vijahitvā ṭhitopi paricchedato bahi aññaṃ tattakaṃyeva paricchedaṃ anatikkamitvā ṭhitopi kammaṃ kopeti, idaṃ sabbaaṭṭhakathāsu sanniṭṭhāna”nti vuttaṃ. Yaṃ panettha sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.147) “tassa antohatthapāsaṃ vijahitvā ṭhito kammaṃ kopetīti iminā paricchedato bahi yattha katthaci ṭhito kammaṃ na kopetī”ti vatvā mātikāṭṭhakathāvacanampi paṭikkhipitvā “neva pāḷiyaṃ na aṭṭhakathāyaṃ upalabbhatī”tiādi bahu papañcitaṃ, taṃ na sundaraṃ idha aṭṭhakathāvacanena mātikāṭṭhakathāvacanassa nayato saṃsandanato saṅghaṭanato. Tathā hi dvinnaṃ udakukkhepapaacchedānamantarā vidatthicaturaṅgulamattampi sīmantarikaṃ aṭhapetvā “añño udakukkhepo sīmantarikāya ṭhapetabbo, “tato adhikaṃ vaṭṭati eva, ūnakaṃ pana na vaṭṭatī”ti evaṃ idheva vuttena iminā aṭṭhakathāvacanena sīmantarikopacāre udakukkhepato ūnake ṭhapite sīmāya sīmāsambhedato kammakopopi vutto eva. Yadaggena ca evaṃ vutto, tadaggena ca tattha ekabhikkhuno pavesepi sati tassa sīmaṭṭhabhāvato kammakopo vutto eva hoti. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ “ūnakaṃ pana na vaṭṭatī”ti kathanañcetaṃ udakukkhepaparicchedassa dubbijānantenapi sīmāsambhedasaṅkāparihāratthaṃ vuttaṃ. Sattabbhantarasīmānamantarā tattakaparicchedeneva sīmantarikavidhānavacanatopi etāsaṃ dubbijānaparicchedatā, tattha ca ṭhitānaṃ kammakopasaṅkā sijjhati. Kammakopasaṅkaṭṭhānampi ācariyā dūrato parihāratthaṃ “kammakopaṭṭhāna”nti vatvāva ṭhapesunti gahetabbaṃ.
Within it means within that place delimited by udakukkhepa. Not only within it, but also outside it, the statement “It is not permissible to stand within one udakukkhepa” arises because of the risk of spoiling the act due to the difficulty of discerning the udakukkhepa boundary. Hence, in the commentary on the schedule (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā), it is said, “Even one standing beyond a hand’s reach within the delimited area, or standing outside the delimited area without exceeding that same delimited extent, spoils the act; this is the conclusion in all commentaries.” However, in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.147), it says, “One standing beyond a hand’s reach within it spoils the act,” implying that one standing anywhere outside the delimited area does not spoil the act, and even contradicts the commentary on the schedule by saying, “It is not found in the Pali or the commentary,” with much elaboration. This is not proper, as the commentary here aligns and connects with the commentary on the schedule by principle. Indeed, by placing a boundary separation of even a mere handspan or four fingerbreadths between two udakukkhepa delimitations, it is said here in this very commentary, “Another udakukkhepa must be established as a boundary separation; more than that is certainly permissible, but less is not.” Thus, when less than the udakukkhepa is established in the boundary separation procedure, the spoiling of the act is indeed stated due to the confusion of boundaries. Since it is so stated, even the entry of a single bhikkhu there, due to his standing within that boundary, results in the spoiling of the act. The statement in the commentary, “But less is not permissible,” is also said to avoid the suspicion of boundary confusion even by one who does not discern the udakukkhepa delimitation. The difficulty in discerning the delimitation of boundaries of seven abbhantaras, and the suspicion of spoiling the act for those standing there, is also evident from the statement on the boundary separation regulation. The teachers, to avoid such places of suspected spoiling from afar, designate them as “places where the act is spoiled” and establish them accordingly; this should be understood.
Tassa antoti within that place delimited by the water-cast. And not only within that, but also outside of it, the statement “it is not permissible to stand within one water-cast”, the boundary determined by water-cast is hard to discern, and it is suspected that it could cause a disruption of the formal act. For this same reason in Mātikāṭṭhakathā (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā), it has been said “If one stands inside the bounded area, having given up a hands-reach or, one who stands outside the boundary, but does not transgress another boundary of the same size from the limit, it disrupts a formal act; this a conclusive statement in all the commentaries”. Here, in Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.147) “tassa antohatthapāsaṃ vijahitvā ṭhito kammaṃ kopetīti By this, standing anywhere outside the boundary, he does not disrupt an act” is stated, and after contradicting the statement of Mātikāṭṭhakathā, it is extensively elaborated as “it is not found in the Pāḷi, nor in the commentary,” and so forth, which is not good, since here the statement of the commentary concords and is consistent in its method, with the statement of Mātikāṭṭhakathā. Thus, without establishing even a vidatthi or four-aṅgula boundary interval between two water-cast boundaries, “another water-cast boundary should be established as the boundary interval,” “it is certainly permissible to have more than that, but less is not permissible”; in this very way, by this very statement of the commentary, just given here, it is stated that if it is established at less than a water-cast within a boundary interval for formal procedures (upacāra), an act would be disrupted, due to the merging of the boundary with the boundary. Moreover, since this has been stated this way, it is also stated that if even one bhikkhu enters there, the act is disrupted due to his state of dwelling in that boundary. And the statement in the commentary that “less is not permissible” has been made for the sake of avoiding the suspicion of a boundary merging, even though the boundary of a water-cast is difficult to discern. It is also deduced, from the statement on establishing a boundary interval between the seven-abbhantara boundaries by an interval of the same size, that these boundaries are difficult to discern and that there is a suspicion of disrupting an act for those standing there. It should be understood that the teachers, for the sake of avoiding even from a distance a place suspected of disrupting an act, establish it saying, “It is a place where an act is disrupted.”
Tassa antoti means within the place defined by the water-boundary. Not only within that, but also outside, “it is not permissible to stand within the boundary of one water-boundary,” because the difficulty in determining the boundary of the water-boundary may lead to the invalidation of the act. Therefore, in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā), it is said, “Even if one stands outside the boundary, having left a hand’s breadth, without crossing another boundary of the same extent, one still invalidates the act. This is established in all commentaries.” However, in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.147), “tassa antohatthapāsaṃ vijahitvā ṭhito kammaṃ kopetīti means that standing outside the boundary, wherever one stands, does not invalidate the act,” and thus rejects the statement of the Mātikāṭṭhakathā, saying, “This is not found in the Pali or the commentaries,” and elaborates extensively. This is not proper, as the commentary’s statement should be understood in accordance with the Mātikāṭṭhakathā. For example, between two water-boundaries, even a boundary of four finger-widths is established as a boundary, and it is said, “Another water-boundary should be established with a boundary in between, ‘more than that is permissible, but less is not.’” Thus, the commentary’s statement here indicates that even if a boundary is established less than the water-boundary, the mixing of boundaries may lead to the invalidation of the act. Even if one monk enters, the act is invalidated because of the boundary’s nature. The commentary’s statement, “But less than that is not valid,” is also made to prevent the difficulty in determining the water-boundary and the risk of mixing boundaries. The difficulty in determining the boundary between seven abbhantaras and the risk of invalidation for those standing there also arises. The teachers established the term “kammakopaṭṭhāna” to avoid the risk of invalidation from a distance.
ID836
Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.147) pana – aparicchinnāyāti baddhasīmāvasena akataparicchedāya. Yena kenaci khaṇitvā akatoti antamaso tiracchānenapi khaṇitvā akato. Tassa antohatthapāsaṃ vijahitvā ṭhito kammaṃ kopetīti iminā paricchedato bahi yattha katthaci ṭhito kammaṃ na kopetīti dīpeti. Yaṃ pana vuttaṃ mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) “paricchedabbhantare hatthapāsaṃ vijahitvā ṭhitopi paricchedato bahi aññaṃ tattakaṃyeva paricchedaṃ anatikkamitvā ṭhitopi kammaṃ kopeti, idaṃ sabbaaṭṭhakathāsu sanniṭṭhāna”nti. Tattha aññaṃ tattakaṃyeva paricchedaṃ anatikkamitvā ṭhitopi kammaṃ kopetīti idaṃ neva pāḷiyaṃ, na aṭṭhakathāyaṃ upalabbhati, yadi cetaṃ dvinnaṃ saṅghānaṃ visuṃ uposathādikammakaraṇādhikāre vuttattā udakukkhepato bahi aññaṃ udakukkhepaṃ anatikkamitvā uposathādikaraṇatthaṃ ṭhito saṅgho sīmāsambhedasambhavato kammaṃ kopetīti iminā adhippāyena vuttaṃ siyā, evampi yujjeyya. Teneva mātikāṭṭhakathāya līnatthappakāsaniyaṃ (kaṅkhā. ṭī. nidānavaṇṇanā) vuttaṃ “aññaṃ tattakaṃyeva paricchedanti dutiyaṃ udakukkhepaṃ anatikkantopi kopeti. Kasmā? Attano udakukkhepasīmāya paresaṃ udakukkhepasīmāya ajjhotthaṭattā sīmāsambhedo hoti, tasmā kopetī”ti. “Idaṃ sabbaaṭṭhakathāsu sanniṭṭhāna”nti ca imināva adhippāyena vuttanti gahetabbaṃ sabbāsupi aṭṭhakathāsu sīmāsambhedassa anicchitattā. Teneva hi “attano ca aññesañca udakukkhepaparicchedassa antarā añño udakukkhepo sīmantarikatthāya ṭhapetabbo”ti vuttaṃ. Aññe panettha aññathāpi papañcenti, taṃ na gahetabbaṃ.
In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.147), however, it says: Undelimited means not delimited by way of a fixed boundary. Not made by digging by any means means not dug even by an animal. One standing beyond a hand’s reach within it spoils the act indicates that one standing anywhere outside the delimited area does not spoil the act. However, it is said in the commentary on the schedule (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā), “Even one standing beyond a hand’s reach within the delimited area, or standing outside the delimited area without exceeding that same delimited extent, spoils the act; this is the conclusion in all commentaries.” Here, even one standing without exceeding that same delimited extent spoils the act is not found in the Pali or the commentary. If this were said with the intention that a Sangha standing outside the udakukkhepa, not exceeding another udakukkhepa, to perform Uposatha or other acts, spoils the act due to the possibility of boundary confusion—then it might be consistent. Hence, in the Līnatthappakāsanī of the commentary on the schedule (kaṅkhā. ṭī. nidānavaṇṇanā), it is said, “Even one not exceeding that same second udakukkhepa spoils it. Why? Because one’s own udakukkhepa boundary overlaps with others’ udakukkhepa boundary, causing boundary confusion; therefore, it spoils it.” The statement “This is the conclusion in all commentaries” should be understood as said with this very intention, due to the undesirability of boundary confusion in all commentaries. Indeed, it is said, “Another udakukkhepa must be established between one’s own and others’ udakukkhepa delimitations for the sake of boundary separation.” Others elaborate differently here, but that should not be accepted.
However, in Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.147): aparicchinnāyāti means not delimited as a bounded boundary. Yena kenaci khaṇitvā akatoti means not dug by anyone, even a beast. Tassa antohatthapāsaṃ vijahitvā ṭhito kammaṃ kopetīti By this, it illustrates that one who stands anywhere outside the boundary does not disrupt an act. However, it has been stated in Mātikāṭṭhakathā (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā), “If one stands inside the bounded area, having given up a hands-reach or, one who stands outside the boundary, but does not transgress another boundary of the same size from the limit, it disrupts a formal act; this a conclusive statement in all the commentaries”. Regarding that, aññaṃ tattakaṃyeva paricchedaṃ anatikkamitvā ṭhitopi kammaṃ kopetīti This is found neither in the Pāḷi, nor in the commentary, if this were stated with the view that, in the context of two Sanghas performing individual uposatha and other acts, the Sangha, standing outside the water-cast area but not transgressing another water-cast area for the purpose of performing the uposatha and other acts, disrupts the act due to the possibility of boundary merging, then it would be reasonable. Thus, in Mātikāṭṭhakathā, it is stated in Līnatthappakāsani (kaṅkhā. ṭī. nidānavaṇṇanā), “Not even transgressing another boundary of the same size, that is, a second water-cast, he still disrupts. Why? Because the water-cast boundary of oneself overlaps with the water-cast boundary of others, boundary merging occurs. Therefore, he disrupts”. And “This is a conclusive statement in all the commentaries” should be understood as having been stated with this very same view, since boundary merging is undesirable in all the commentaries. Therefore, indeed, it is stated that “Between the water-cast boundaries of oneself and of others, another water-cast should be established for the sake of a boundary interval”. Others make different elaborations here, but they should not be accepted.
However, in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.147) – aparicchinnāyāti means not defined by a connected boundary. Yena kenaci khaṇitvā akatoti means even if dug by an animal. Tassa antohatthapāsaṃ vijahitvā ṭhito kammaṃ kopetīti means that standing outside the boundary, wherever one stands, does not invalidate the act. However, what is said in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā), “Even if one stands outside the boundary, having left a hand’s breadth, without crossing another boundary of the same extent, one still invalidates the act. This is established in all commentaries.” Here, aññaṃ tattakaṃyeva paricchedaṃ anatikkamitvā ṭhitopi kammaṃ kopetīti is not found in the Pali or the commentaries. If this is said because two Sanghas performing separate Uposatha acts, etc., may invalidate the act if they stand outside the water-boundary without crossing another water-boundary, then it may be acceptable. Therefore, in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā, it is said, “Without crossing another boundary of the same extent, one still invalidates the act. Why? Because the overlapping of one’s water-boundary with another’s water-boundary leads to the mixing of boundaries, thus invalidating the act.” “This is established in all commentaries,” and this should be understood as being said with the same intention in all commentaries, as the mixing of boundaries is not desired. Therefore, it is said, “Another water-boundary should be established with a boundary in between.” Others elaborate differently here, but that should not be accepted.
ID837
Sabbattha saṅgho nisīdatīti hatthapāsaṃ avijahitvā nisīdati. Udakukkhepasīmāya kammaṃ natthīti yasmā sabbopi nadīpadeso bhikkhūhi ajjhotthaṭo, tasmā samantato nadiyā abhāvā udakukkhepappayojanaṃ natthi. Udakukkhepappamāṇā sīmantarikā suviññeyyatarā hoti, sīmāsambhedasaṅkā ca na siyāti sāmīcidassanatthaṃ “añño udakukkhepo sīmantarikatthāya ṭhapetabbo”ti vuttaṃ. Yattakena pana sīmāsambhedo na hoti, tattakaṃ ṭhapetuṃ vaṭṭatiyeva. Tenevāhu porāṇā “yattakena sīmāsambhedo na hoti, tattakampi ṭhapetuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti. Ūnakaṃ pana na vaṭṭatīti idampi udakukkhepasīmāya parisavasena vaḍḍhanato sīmāsambhedasaṅkā siyāti tannivāraṇatthameva vuttanti vuttaṃ.
The Sangha sits everywhere means it sits without abandoning a hand’s reach. There is no act in the udakukkhepa boundary means that since the entire river area is occupied by bhikkhus, there is no need for the udakukkhepa measure due to the absence of the river all around. The boundary separation based on the udakukkhepa measure is easier to discern, and there would be no suspicion of boundary confusion; thus, it is said, “Another udakukkhepo must be established for the sake of boundary separation” to show its appropriateness. Whatever extent prevents boundary confusion is certainly permissible to establish. Hence, the ancients said, “Whatever extent prevents boundary confusion, even that much is permissible to establish.” But less is not permissible is said to prevent the suspicion of boundary confusion due to the expansion of the udakukkhepa boundary by its surroundings; this is stated solely to avoid that.
Sabbattha saṅgho nisīdatīti means that the Sangha sits without giving up a hands-reach. Udakukkhepasīmāya kammaṃ natthīti Since all of the river region has been occupied by the bhikkhus, there is no purpose of a water-cast because there is no surrounding river. The boundary interval which is the size of a water-cast is easier to discern, and there would be no suspicion of boundary merging; therefore, to show proper conduct, it has been stated that “another water-cast should be established for the sake of a boundary interval”. However, it is certainly permissible to establish as much as does not cause a boundary merging. Therefore, the ancients have said, “It is permissible to establish as much as does not cause a boundary merging.” Ūnakaṃ pana na vaṭṭatīti It has also been said that this has been stated precisely for the sake of preventing the suspicion of boundary merging due to the increase of the boundary on account of the assembly in a water-cast boundary.
Sabbattha saṅgho nisīdatīti means the Sangha sits without leaving a hand’s breadth. Udakukkhepasīmāya kammaṃ natthīti means that since the entire river area is occupied by monks, there is no need for a water-boundary on all sides of the river. The boundary between water-boundaries is more easily understood, and there is no risk of mixing boundaries. To show this, it is said, “añño udakukkhepo sīmantarikatthāya ṭhapetabbo.” However, it is permissible to establish a boundary to the extent that the mixing of boundaries does not occur. Therefore, the ancients said, “It is permissible to establish a boundary to the extent that the mixing of boundaries does not occur.” Ūnakaṃ pana na vaṭṭatīti is also said to prevent the risk of mixing boundaries due to the expansion of the water-boundary by the assembly.
ID838
Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyampi (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 147) – yaṃ majjhimassa purisassa samantā udakukkhepāti pana etissā nadiyā catuvaggādīnaṃ saṅghānaṃ visuṃ catuvaggakaraṇīyādikammakaraṇakāle sīmāparicchedadassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ ticīvarena vippavāsāvippavāsaparicchedadassanatthampi sattabbhantarasīmāya paricchedadassanaṃ viyāti ācariyā, tasmā udakukkhepaparicchedābhāvepi antonadiyaṃ kammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti siddhaṃ. Ayaṃ pana viseso – tattha nāvāgato ce, nāvāyaṃ vuttanayena, satthagato ce, satthe vuttanayena. So ce atirekacātumāsanivuttho ce, gāme vuttanayena ticīvarāvippavāso veditabbo. Tatthāpi ayaṃ viseso – sace sattho udakukkhepassa anto hoti, udakukkhepasīmā pamāṇanti eke. Satthova pamāṇanti ācariyā. Sace panettha bahū bhikkhūtiādimhi keci adhiṭṭhānuposathaṃ, keci gaṇuposathaṃ, keci saṅghuposathanti vattukāmatāya “bahū saṅghā”ti avatvā “bhikkhū”ti vuttaṃ. Ūnakaṃ pana na vaṭṭatīti ettha sīmāsambhedasambhavatoti upatissatthero. Ṭhapente hi ūnakaṃ na ṭhapetabbaṃ, “aṭṭhapetumpi vaṭṭati evā”ti vuttanti vuttaṃ.
In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 147), it says: That which is all around the udakukkhepa of a middle-sized man is stated to show the boundary delimitation for groups of four or more Sanghas performing separate acts like those of a group of four at the time of boundary establishment in that river, and also to show the delimitation of separation or non-separation with the three robes, just as with the delimitation of a seven-abbhantara boundary, according to the teachers. Therefore, it is established that it is permissible to perform an act within the river even without udakukkhepa delimitation. There is this distinction: if one arrives by boat, it is according to the method stated for a boat; if by caravan, according to the method stated for a caravan. If one has resided there for more than four months, the separation with the three robes should be understood as per the method stated for a village. There is also this distinction: if the caravan is within the udakukkhepa, some say the udakukkhepa boundary is the measure, while the teachers say the caravan itself is the measure. If there are many bhikkhus here and so forth—some desire to perform an individual Uposatha, some a group Uposatha, and some a Sangha Uposatha—thus, instead of saying “many Sanghas,” it says “bhikkhus” due to their inclination to speak so. But less is not permissible refers to the possibility of boundary confusion, according to Venerable Upatissa. When establishing it, less should not be established, but it is said, “Even establishing it is permissible.”
Even in Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 147) – yaṃ majjhimassa purisassa samantā udakukkhepāti This has been stated, however, for the sake of showing the boundary of this river when sanghas of four, etc. are separately doing duties that should be performed by a group of four or more. The teachers say it’s like the showing of the demarcation for boundary of the seven-abbhantara boundary, for the sake of showing the boundary of non-residence and residence with the three robes; therefore, even in the absence of a defined water-cast boundary, it is settled that it is allowable to perform an act within the river. However, there is this distinction: if he has come by boat, then as described in the rule concerning a boat; if he has come with a caravan, then as described in the rule concerning a caravan. If he dwells there for more than four months, then his non-residence with the three robes should be understood as described in the rule concerning a village. Here, too, there is this distinction – if the caravan is within the area of a water-cast, some say that the water-cast boundary is the measure. The teachers say that the caravan itself is the measure. Sace panettha bahū bhikkhūtiādimhi Some say that the statement “many bhikkhus” rather than “many sanghas” has been stated, because they want to say either an adhiṭṭhāna uposatha, some a group uposatha, or some a Sangha uposatha. Ūnakaṃ pana na vaṭṭatīti Here, Thera Upatissa says it is due to the possibility of a boundary merging. It is said when establishing less, it should not be established as less, and that it is stated that “even establishing, it is certainly permissible.”
In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 147) – yaṃ majjhimassa purisassa samantā udakukkhepāti is said to show the boundary for the fourfold Sangha, etc., when performing separate acts, such as the robe season, etc., at the time of defining the boundary. The teachers say that even without a water-boundary, the act can be performed within the river. However, there is a distinction – if one arrives by boat, the boat is the boundary; if one arrives by caravan, the caravan is the boundary. If one has stayed beyond four months, the robe season should be understood as in the village. There is also a distinction here – if the caravan is within the water-boundary, some say the water-boundary is the measure, but the teachers say the caravan is the measure. Sace panettha bahū bhikkhūtiādimhi, some desire to say “many Sanghas,” but instead say “monks,” meaning some observe the Uposatha individually, some in groups, and some as a Sangha. Ūnakaṃ pana na vaṭṭatīti means that the risk of mixing boundaries arises here. Elder Upatissa says that when establishing a boundary, less than that should not be established, but it is permissible to establish more.
ID839
Tanti sīmaṃ. Sīghameva atikkamatīti iminā taṃ anatikkamitvā anto eva parivattamānāya kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti dasseti. Etadatthameva hi vālikādīhi sīmāparicchindanaṃ, itarathā bahi parivattā nu kho, no vāti kammakopasaṅkā bhaveyyāti. Aññissā anussāvanāti kevalāya nadīsīmāya anussāvanā. Antonadiyaṃ jātarukkhe vāti udakukkhepaparicchedassa bahi ṭhite rukkhe vā. Bahinadītīrameva hi visabhāgasīmattā abandhitabbaṭṭhānaṃ, na antonadī nissayattena sabhāgattā. Teneva “bahinadītīre vihārasīmāya vā”tiādinā tīrameva abandhitabbaṭṭhānattena dassitaṃ, na pana nadī. Jātarukkhepi ṭhitehīti idaṃ antoudakukkhepaṭṭhaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Na hi bahiudakukkhepe bhikkhūnaṃ ṭhātuṃ vaṭṭati.
That refers to the boundary. It quickly passes beyond indicates that it is permissible to perform it within, without exceeding it, while moving around. For this very purpose, the boundary is delimited with sand or the like; otherwise, there would be suspicion of spoiling the act, wondering whether it moves outside or not. The announcement of another refers to the announcement of the river boundary alone. Or within the river, on a tree that has grown refers to a tree standing outside the udakukkhepa delimitation. Indeed, only the riverbank outside is a place of different nature not to be bound, not within the river, due to its dependence and sameness of nature. Hence, it is shown as a place to be bound only on the bank with “on the riverbank or with a monastery boundary” and so forth, not the river. Even with those standing on a tree that has grown is said with reference to one standing within the udakukkhepa. Indeed, it is not permissible for bhikkhus to stand outside the udakukkhepa.
Tanti means the boundary. Sīghameva atikkamatīti By this, it indicates that it is permissible to act while moving around inside it, not transgressing it. Indeed, for this very purpose is the demarcation of the boundary with sand and so forth, otherwise there would be a suspicion of disruption of the act as to whether one is moving outside or not. Aññissā anussāvanāti means the announcement for a mere river boundary. Antonadiyaṃ jātarukkhe vāti Or, on a tree growing within the river. Indeed, the bank of an outside river, is indeed a place which should not be bounded, because it is of a different part, not because it is within the river and of the same part. Therefore, by the statement “on the bank of an outside river, either with a vihāra boundary” and so forth, the bank alone has been indicated as a place that should not be bounded, but not the river. Jātarukkhepi ṭhitehīti This has been stated with reference to the place within the area of a water-cast. For it is not permissible for bhikkhus to stand outside the area of a water-cast.
Tanti means the boundary. Sīghameva atikkamatīti means that without crossing it, one should turn around within it. This is the purpose of defining the boundary with sand, etc., otherwise, if one turns outside, there is a risk of invalidating the act. Aññissā anussāvanāti means the proclamation for the river boundary alone. Antonadiyaṃ jātarukkhe vāti means a tree standing outside the water-boundary. The riverbank is a place of different categories and should not be connected, but the river itself is of the same category due to dependence. Therefore, it is said, “on the riverbank, the monastery boundary,” etc., indicating the riverbank as the place to be connected, not the river. Jātarukkhepi ṭhitehīti refers to a tree standing within the water-boundary. Monks are not allowed to stand outside the water-boundary.
ID840
Rukkhassāti tasseva antoudakukkhepaṭṭhassa rukkhassa. Sīmaṃ vā sodhetvāti yathāvuttaṃ vihāre baddhasīmaṃ gāmasīmañca tattha ṭhitabhikkhūnaṃ hatthapāsānayanabahisīmakaraṇavaseneva sodhetvā. Yathā ca udakukkhepasīmāyaṃ kammaṃ karontehi, evaṃ baddhasīmāyaṃ vā gāmasīmāyaṃ vā kammaṃ karontehipi udakukkhepasīmaṭṭhe sodhetvāva kātabbaṃ. Eteneva sattabbhantaraaraññasīmāhipi saddhiṃ udakukkhepasīmāya, imāya ca saddhiṃ tāsaṃ rukkhādisambandhadosopi nayato dassitova hoti. Imināva nayena sattabbhantarasīmāya baddhasīmagāmasīmāhipi saddhiṃ, etāsañca sattabbhantarasīmāya saddhiṃ sambandhadoso ñātabbo. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ panetaṃ sabbaṃ vuttanayatova sakkā viññātunti aññamaññāsannānamevettha dassitaṃ.
Of the tree refers to that very tree standing within the udakukkhepa. Or having purified the boundary refers to a fixed boundary in a monastery or a village boundary, purified by merely removing bhikkhus standing there from the hand’s reach to outside the boundary. Just as those performing an act in an udakukkhepa boundary must purify it, so too those performing an act in a fixed boundary or village boundary must purify the udakukkhepa standing there before doing so. By this, the fault of connection with trees and the like between seven-abbhantara forest boundaries and the udakukkhepa boundary, and between this and those, is also shown by principle. By this very principle, the fault of connection between a seven-abbhantara boundary and fixed boundaries or village boundaries, and between these and a seven-abbhantara boundary, should be understood. In the commentary, all this can be understood by the stated principle; thus, it is indicated here only for those very close to one another.
Rukkhassāti means of that very tree growing in the area within a water-cast. Sīmaṃ vā sodhetvāti Having purified the properly stated bounded boundary in a monastery and the village boundary, in the same way, by bringing the bhikkhus dwelling there within hands-reach and making it an outside boundary. And just as it is being performed by those who perform an act in a water-cast boundary, in the same way, those who perform an act either in a bounded boundary or in a village boundary should also perform it after having purified the area of the water-cast boundary. By this very means, even the fault of the connection of trees and so forth between the seven-abbhantara forest boundaries and the water-cast boundary, and between this one and those, has been presented according to the method. In the same way, the fault of the connection between the seven-abbhantara boundary and the bounded boundary and village boundary, and between these and the seven-abbhantara boundary should be understood. However, in the commentary, all this is easily known from the stated method, thus only the mutual proximity of each is here shown.
Rukkhassāti means the tree within the water-boundary. Sīmaṃ vā sodhetvāti means purifying the boundary as stated, such as the monastery boundary or the village boundary, by removing the monks’ hand’s breadth outside the boundary. Just as those performing acts within the water-boundary should purify the boundary, so too should those performing acts within the connected boundary or the village boundary purify the water-boundary. In this way, the connection of trees, etc., between the seven abbhantaras, the forest boundary, and the water-boundary should also be understood. Similarly, the connection between the seven abbhantaras boundary, the connected boundary, and the village boundary should also be understood. All this can be understood according to the commentary’s explanation, as it is shown in mutual proximity.
ID841
Tatridaṃ suttānulomato nayaggahaṇamukhaṃ – yathā hi baddhasīmāyaṃ sammatā baddhasīmā vipattisīmā hotīti tāsaṃ aññamaññaṃ rukkhādisambandho na vaṭṭati, evaṃ nadīādīsu sammatāpi baddhasīmā vipattisīmāva hotīti tāhipi saddhiṃ tassā rukkhādisambandho na vaṭṭatīti sijjhati. Iminā nayena sattabbhantarasīmāya gāmanadīādīhi saddhiṃ, udakukkhepasīmāya ca araññādīhi saddhiṃ rukkhādisambandhassanavaṭṭanakabhāvo ñātabbo, evametā bhagavatā anuññātā baddhasīmasattabbhantaraudakukkhepasīmā aññamaññañceva attano nissayavirahitāhi itarītarāsaṃ nissayasīmāhi ca rukkhādisambandhe sati sambhedadosamāpajjatīti suttānulomanayo ñātabbova.
Here, this is the method of understanding in conformity with the Sutta: Just as a fixed boundary, when authorized, becomes an invalid boundary if connected with trees and the like with another fixed boundary, so too a fixed boundary authorized in rivers and the like becomes an invalid boundary; thus, its connection with trees and the like with those is not permissible—this is established. By this principle, the impermissibility of connection with trees and the like between a seven-abbhantara boundary and villages, rivers, and the like, and between an udakukkhepa boundary and forests and the like, should be understood. Thus, these fixed boundaries, seven-abbhantara boundaries, and udakukkhepa boundaries authorized by the Blessed One fall into the fault of confusion when there is connection with trees and the like with one another or with other unrelated dependent boundaries; this principle in conformity with the Sutta should indeed be known.
Here, this is the method of drawing the conclusion in accordance with the Suttas: just as in the case of a bounded boundary (baddhasīmā), a duly consented-to bounded boundary becomes a boundary with fault (vipattisīmā), and therefore, their connection with each other by trees and so forth is not permissible, in the same way, on rivers and so forth, even a duly consented-to boundary is a boundary with fault (vipattisīmā), and therefore, its connection with them by trees and so forth is not permissible; this is established. By this method, it should be understood that a connection by trees and so forth is not permissible between the seven-abbhantara boundary and a village, a river, and so forth, and between the water-cast boundary and a forest, and so forth. Thus, these bounded boundaries, seven-abbhantara boundaries, and water-cast boundaries, which have been allowed by the Blessed One, both mutually and in relation to other boundaries devoid of their own basis, fall into the fault of merging if there is a connection by trees and so forth; this method of accordance with the suttas should be understood.
Here is the principle according to the sutta – just as a connected boundary, when agreed upon, becomes a defective boundary, and thus the connection of trees, etc., between them is not permissible, so too, even if a connected boundary is agreed upon for rivers, etc., it becomes a defective boundary, and thus the connection of trees, etc., with it is not permissible. In this way, the non-connection of trees, etc., between the seven abbhantaras boundary and the village, river, etc., and between the water-boundary and the forest, etc., should be understood. Thus, the boundaries permitted by the Buddha – the connected boundary, the seven abbhantaras boundary, and the water-boundary – are mutually independent and, when connected with the dependent boundaries of others, lead to the fault of mixing. This principle should be understood in accordance with the sutta.
ID842
Attano attano pana nissayabhūtagāmādīhi saddhiṃ baddhasīmādīnaṃ tissannaṃ uppattikāle bhagavatā anuññātassa sambhedajjhottharaṇassa anulomanato rukkhādisambandhopi anuññātova hotīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Yadi evaṃ udakukkhepabaddhasīmādīnaṃ antarā kasmā sīmantarikā na vihitāti? Nissayabhedasabhāvabhedehi sayameva bhinnattā. Ekanissayaekasabhāvānameva hi sīmantarikāya vināsaṃ karotīti vuttovāyamattho. Eteneva nadīnimittaṃ katvā baddhāya sīmāya saṅghe kammaṃ karonte nadiyampi yāva gāmakkhettaṃ āhacca ṭhitāya udakukkhepasīmāya aññesaṃ kammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti siddhaṃ hoti. Yā panetā lokavohārasiddhā gāmāraññanadīsamuddajātassarasīmā pañca, tā aññamaññaṃ rukkhādisambandhepi sambhedadosaṃ nāpajjati tathā lokavohārābhāvato. Na hi gāmādayo gāmantarādīhi nadīādīhi ca rukkhādisambandhamattena sambhinnāti loke voharanti. Lokavohārasiddhānañca lokavohāratova sambhedo vā asambhedo vā gahetabbo, na aññathā. Teneva aṭṭhakathāyaṃ tāsaṃ aññamaññaṃ katthacipi sambhedanayo na dassito, sāsanavohārasiddho eva dassitoti.
However, with their respective dependent villages and the like, the connection with trees and the like of the three—fixed boundaries and so forth—is indeed permitted at the time of their establishment by the Blessed One, in conformity with the prevention of confusion and overlapping; this should be understood. If so, why is a boundary separation not prescribed between udakukkhepa, fixed boundaries, and the like? Because they are naturally distinct due to differences in dependence and nature. Indeed, only those of the same dependence and same nature cause confusion without a boundary separation; this meaning has been stated. By this, it is established that when the Sangha performs an act in a fixed boundary established with a river as a marker, it is permissible for others to perform an act in an udakukkhepa boundary extending up to the village field alongside that river. However, these five boundaries established by worldly convention—village, forest, river, ocean, and natural lake—do not incur the fault of confusion even with connection with trees and the like, due to the absence of such a convention in the world. Indeed, villages and the like are not said in the world to be confused with other villages or rivers and the like merely by connection with trees and the like. For those established by worldly convention, confusion or non-confusion should be understood only by worldly convention, not otherwise. Hence, in the commentary, no method of confusion between them is shown anywhere; only that established by disciplinary convention is shown.
It should be understood that, because the blending and overlapping, which were permitted by the Blessed One at the time of the arising of the three—namely, boundaries connected with villages and so forth that serve as one’s own respective supports—are allowable, the connection of trees and so forth is also permitted by analogy. If this is so, why was an interval between boundaries not prescribed for boundaries connected by raised water and so forth? Because they are already distinct due to the difference in their supports and the difference in their inherent nature. Indeed, it has been said that this very point is that only [boundaries] of the same support and the same inherent nature cause destruction without a boundary interval. By this very fact, it is established that when the Saṅgha performs an act in a boundary established by marking a river, it is permissible for others to perform an act even in the river, in the raised-water boundary, as far as it extends reaching the village area. As for the five boundaries of villages, wilderness areas, rivers, oceans, and natural lakes, which are established by common worldly usage, they do not incur the fault of blending with each other even if there is a connection of trees and so forth, because there is no such worldly usage. For people do not commonly say that villages and so forth are blended with other villages and so forth, and with rivers and so forth, merely by a connection of trees and so forth. Whether there is blending or non-blending of those [boundaries] established by worldly usage should be understood based on worldly usage, and not otherwise. Therefore, in the commentary, no method of blending between them is shown anywhere, only what is established by the usage of the Dispensation is shown.
It should be understood that the connection with trees, etc., is also permitted by the Buddha in accordance with the allowance of merging and overlapping boundaries at the time of the establishment of the three types of boundaries, such as the boundary tied to a village, along with the village and other supports. If this is so, why is an intermediate boundary not established between boundaries tied to water demarcations? Because they are naturally divided by the nature of their supports and characteristics. For it is said that the intermediate boundary destroys the unity of those with a single support and single nature. By this very reasoning, it is established that when the Sangha performs a legal act within a boundary tied to a river, using the river as a marker, it is permissible to perform other legal acts within the water demarcation boundary as long as the river extends up to the village field. However, the five types of boundaries established by worldly convention—village, forest, river, sea, and lake—do not incur the fault of merging even if they are connected by trees, etc., due to the absence of such a convention in the world. For in the world, villages, etc., are not considered merged merely by being connected by trees, etc., with other villages, rivers, etc. The merging or non-merging of what is established by worldly convention should be understood according to worldly convention, not otherwise. Therefore, in the commentary, no method of merging between them is shown anywhere; only what is established by the convention of the Dispensation is shown.
ID843
Ettha pana baddhasīmāya tāva “heṭṭhā pathavīsandhārakaṃ udakaṃ pariyantaṃ katvā sīmā gatā hotī”tiādinā adhobhāgaparicchedo aṭṭhakathāyaṃ sabbathā dassito, gāmasīmādīnaṃ pana na dassito. Kathamayaṃ jānitabboti? Keci tāvettha “gāmasīmādayopi baddhasīmā viya pathavīsandhārakaṃ udakaṃ āhacca tiṭṭhatī”ti vadanti.
Here, however, for a fixed boundary, the lower delimitation is fully shown in the commentary by statements like “The boundary extends downward to the water supporting the earth,” but it is not shown for village boundaries and the like. How should this be known? Some say here, “Village boundaries and the like also extend down to the water supporting the earth, like a fixed boundary.”
In this regard, concerning fixed boundaries, the demarcation of the lower part is shown in every way in the commentary, in such statements as, “The boundary extends below as far as the water that supports the earth,” and so on (pāci. 239), but it is not shown for village boundaries and so forth. How should this be understood? Some say here, “Village boundaries and so forth, like fixed boundaries, also extend down to the water that supports the earth.”
Here, however, the lower boundary of a tied boundary is fully described in the commentary by stating, “The boundary extends to the water that supports the earth below, making it the limit,” but the boundary of a village, etc., is not described. How should this be understood? Some say that even the boundary of a village, etc., like a tied boundary, extends to the water that supports the earth below.
ID844
Keci pana taṃ paṭikkhipitvā “nadīsamuddajātassarasīmā, tāva tannissitaudakukkhepasīmā ca pathaviyā uparitale heṭṭhā ca udakena ajjhottharaṇappadese eva tiṭṭhanti, na tato heṭṭhā udakassa ajjhottharaṇābhāvā. Sace pana udakoghādinā yojanappamāṇampi ninnaṭṭhānaṃ hoti, nadīsīmādayova honti, na tato heṭṭhā. Tasmā nadīādīnaṃ heṭṭhā bahitīramukhena umaṅgena, iddhiyā vā paviṭṭho bhikkhu nadiyaṃ ṭhitānaṃ kammaṃ na kopeti, so pana āsannagāme bhikkhūnaṃ kammaṃ kopeti. Sace pana so ubhinnaṃ tīragāmānaṃ majjhe nisinno hoti, ubhayagāmaṭṭhānaṃ kammaṃ kopeti. Sace pana tīraṃ gāmakkhettaṃ na hoti, agāmakāraññameva. Tattha pana tīradvayepi sattabbhantarasīmaṃ vinā kevalāya khuddakāraññasīmāyameva kammaṃ kopeti. Sace sattabbhantarasīmāya karonti, tadā yadi tesaṃ sattabbhantarasīmāya paricchedo etassa nisinnokāsassa parato ekaṃ sattabbhantaraṃ atikkamitvā ṭhito na kammakopo. No ce, kammakopo. Gāmasīmāyaṃ pana antoumaṅge vā bile vā khaṇitvā vā yattha pavisituṃ sakkā, yattha vā suvaṇṇamaṇiādiṃ khaṇitvā gaṇhanti, gahetuṃ sakkāti vā sambhāvanā hoti, tattakaṃ heṭṭhāpi gāmasīmā, tattha iddhiyā anto nisinnopi kammaṃ kopeti. Yattha pana pakatimanussānaṃ pavesasambhāvanāpi natthi, taṃ sabbaṃ yāva pathavīsandhārakaudakā araññasīmāva, na gāmasīmā. Araññasīmāyampi eseva nayo. Tatthapi hi yattake padese pavesasambhāvanā, tattakameva uparitale araññasīmā pavattati. Tato pana heṭṭhā na araññasīmā tattha uparitalena saha ekāraññavohārābhāvato. Na hi tattha paviṭṭhaṃ araññaṃ paviṭṭhoti voharanti, tasmā tatraṭṭho upari araññaṭṭhānaṃ kammaṃ na kopeti umaṅganadiyaṃ ṭhito viya uparinadiyaṃ ṭhitānaṃ. Ekasmiñhi cakkavāḷe gāmanadīsamuddajātassare muñcitvā tadavasesaṃ amanussāvāsaṃ devabrahmalokaṃ upādāya sabbaṃ araññameva. ’Gāmā vā araññā vā’ti vuttattā hi nadīsamuddajātassarādipi araññameva. Idha pana nadīādīnaṃ visuṃ sīmābhāvena gahitattā tadavasesameva araññaṃ gahetabbaṃ. Tattha ca yattake padese ekaṃ araññanti voharanti, ayamekā araññasīmā. Indapurañhi sabbaṃ ekāraññasīmā, tathā asurayakkhapurādi. Ākāsaṭṭhadevabrahmavimānāni pana samantā ākāsaparicchinnāni paccekaṃ araññasīmā samuddamajjhe pabbatadīpakā viya. Tattha sabbattha sattabbhantarasīmāyaṃ, araññasīmāyameva vā kammaṃ kātabbaṃ, tasmā idhāpi upariaraññatalena saddhiṃ heṭṭhāpathaviyā ekāraññavohārābhāvā visuṃ araññasīmāti gahetabbaṃ. Tenevettha gāmanadīādisīmākathāya aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138) ’iddhimā bhikkhu heṭṭhāpathavitale ṭhito kammaṃ kopetī’ti baddhasīmāyaṃ dassitanayo na dassito”ti vadanti.
Others, however, reject this and say, “The river, ocean, and natural lake boundaries, as well as the udakukkhepa boundary dependent on them, exist only on the surface of the earth and below in areas inundated by water, not further below due to the absence of water inundation there. If, however, there is a low area even a yojana deep due to a flood or the like, only the river boundaries and the like exist, not below that. Therefore, a bhikkhu entering below the river through an external shore entrance, a tunnel, or psychic power does not spoil the act of those in the river, but he does spoil the act of bhikkhus in a nearby village. If he sits in the middle between the villages on both shores, he spoils the act of those in both villages. If the shore is not a village field but merely a non-village forest, then even on both shores, he spoils the act only in a minor forest boundary without a seven-abbhantara boundary. If they act within a seven-abbhantara boundary, then if the delimitation of their seven-abbhantara boundary exceeds his sitting place by one seven-abbhantara beyond, there is no spoiling of the act; otherwise, there is. In a village boundary, however, inside a tunnel or burrow, or dug out where entry is possible, or where gold, gems, or the like are taken or could be taken by conjecture—all that below is also a village boundary; even one sitting there by psychic power spoils the act. But where there is no conjecture of entry even for ordinary humans, all that down to the water supporting the earth is only a forest boundary, not a village boundary. The same applies to a forest boundary. Indeed, only in the area where entry is conceivable does the forest boundary extend on the surface. Below that, it is not a forest boundary due to the absence of a single forest convention with the surface. Indeed, one entering there is not said to have entered a forest; thus, one standing there does not spoil the act of those above in the forest, just as one in a tunnel under a river does not spoil the act of those above in the river. Indeed, in one world-sphere, apart from villages, rivers, oceans, and natural lakes, all the rest—uninhabited by humans, including the realms of devas and Brahmas—is forest. Since it is said, ‘village or forest,’ rivers, oceans, and natural lakes are also forest. Here, however, since rivers and the like are taken as separate boundaries, only the remainder should be taken as forest. Where a single area is conventionally called one forest, that is one forest boundary. For example, the entire Indapura is one forest boundary, as are the cities of asuras and yakkhas. The palaces of devas and Brahmas in the sky, surrounded by space, are each a forest boundary, like mountains or islands in the middle of the ocean. Everywhere there, the act must be performed within a seven-abbhantara boundary or a forest boundary alone. Thus, here too, due to the absence of a single forest convention with the upper forest surface and the lower earth, it should be taken as a separate forest boundary. Hence, in the discussion of village, river, and other boundaries in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138), the method shown for a fixed boundary—‘A bhikkhu with psychic power standing below the earth’s surface spoils the act’—is not shown.”
But some, rejecting that, say, “Boundaries of rivers, oceans, and natural lakes, and the raised-water boundaries dependent on them, extend only on the surface of the earth and below in the areas inundated by water, but not below that, because there is no inundation of water below that. But if, due to a flood or other cause, there is a depression even a yojana in extent, it is still just river boundaries and so forth, and not anything below that. Therefore, a bhikkhu who has entered below the rivers and so forth, by way of an outer bank opening, a tunnel, or by psychic power, does not invalidate the act of those situated in the river, but he does invalidate the act of bhikkhus in a nearby village. But if he is sitting between the villages on both banks, he invalidates the act of those situated in both villages. But if the bank is not village territory, but unowned wilderness, then he invalidates the act only within a boundary of the mere wilderness-boundary of seven abbhantaras, unless there is a seven-abbhantara boundary. If they perform [the act] within a seven-abbhantara boundary, then if the boundary of their seven-abbhantara boundary is situated beyond one seven-abbhantara from the place where this one is sitting, there is no invalidation of the act. If not, there is invalidation of the act. But in the case of a village boundary, whether it is inside a tunnel, a cave, or a place that has been excavated, wherever it is possible to enter, or wherever gold, jewels, and so forth are dug up and taken, or there is a possibility of being able to take them, that much below is also village boundary, and there, even one sitting inside by psychic power invalidates the act. But wherever there is not even the possibility of entry for ordinary humans, all that, as far as the water that supports the earth, is just wilderness boundary, not village boundary. The same principle applies to wilderness boundaries. For there too, to whatever extent of area there is the possibility of entry, to that extent only does the wilderness boundary extend on the surface. But below that, it is not a wilderness boundary, because there is no common usage of ‘wilderness’ there together with the upper surface. For people do not commonly say that one who has entered there has entered the wilderness, therefore one situated there does not invalidate the act of those situated in the wilderness above, just as one situated in a tunnel-river does not [invalidate the act of] those situated in the river above. Indeed, in one world-system, apart from villages, rivers, oceans, and natural lakes, all the rest, including the abodes of non-humans, gods, and Brahmās, is just wilderness. For since it is said, ‘Villages or wildernesses,’ rivers, oceans, natural lakes, and so forth are also just wilderness. But here, because rivers and so forth have been taken separately as distinct boundaries, only what remains apart from them should be taken as wilderness. And there, to whatever extent of area people commonly say ‘one wilderness,’ that is one wilderness boundary. Indeed, all of Indapura is one wilderness boundary, and likewise the cities of asuras, yakkhas, and so forth. But the celestial palaces of sky-dwelling gods and Brahmās are each a wilderness boundary, completely delimited by space all around, like mountains and small islands in the middle of the ocean. There, everywhere, an act should be performed within a seven-abbhantara boundary, or within a wilderness boundary, therefore here too, because there is no common usage of ‘one wilderness’ for the lower earth together with the upper wilderness surface, it should be understood as a distinct wilderness. For that very reason, in the commentary on the discussion of village, river, and other boundaries, (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138) the method shown for fixed boundaries, ‘A bhikkhu with psychic power, situated on the lower earth surface, invalidates the act,’ is not shown.”
Others, rejecting this, say that the boundaries of rivers, seas, and lakes, as well as the water demarcation boundaries dependent on them, exist only on the surface of the earth and in the area covered by water below, not below that, due to the absence of water covering below. However, if there is a depression, even a league deep, caused by a whirlpool, etc., the boundaries of the river, etc., exist only up to that point, not below. Therefore, a monk who enters a river by means of psychic power or through a ravine on the far bank does not invalidate the legal act of those standing in the river, but he does invalidate the legal act of monks in a nearby village. If he sits between two villages on opposite banks, he invalidates the legal act of both villages. If the bank is not a village field but merely a forest, then the legal act is invalidated only within the small forest boundary on both banks, without the seven-abutment boundary. If they perform the act within the seven-abutment boundary, then if the limit of their seven-abutment boundary extends beyond one abutment from where he is sitting, there is no invalidation of the act. If not, there is invalidation. In the case of a village boundary, however, if one can enter through a ravine or a hole dug in the ground, or if it is possible to dig and retrieve gold, gems, etc., then the village boundary extends that far below, and a monk sitting there by psychic power invalidates the act. Where there is no possibility of entry even for ordinary humans, all of that is forest boundary up to the water that supports the earth, not a village boundary. The same applies to the forest boundary. There, too, the forest boundary extends only as far as there is a possibility of entry. Below that, there is no forest boundary, as there is no conventional usage of the forest together with the surface. For in the world, what is entered is not called “entered forest.” Therefore, one standing there does not invalidate the act of the forest area above, just as one standing in a river does not invalidate the act of those above the river. In a single world-system, apart from villages, rivers, seas, and lakes, all else is forest, including the realms of non-humans, devas, and brahmās. Since it is said, “Whether a village or a forest,” even rivers, seas, and lakes are considered forest. Here, however, because the boundaries of rivers, etc., are taken separately, the remainder is to be understood as forest. Wherever a single forest is conventionally recognized, that is one forest boundary. For example, all of Indapura is one forest boundary, as are the cities of asuras, yakkhas, etc. The celestial mansions of devas and brahmās in the sky, however, are individually forest boundaries, like islands in the ocean or mountains in the sea. There, everywhere within the seven-abutment boundary, only the forest boundary should be used for legal acts. Therefore, here too, the forest boundary should be understood separately from the surface of the earth below, as there is no conventional usage of the forest together with the surface. Thus, in the commentary on the boundaries of villages, rivers, etc., (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 138), the method of a monk standing on the surface of the earth below invalidating an act is shown for a tied boundary, but not for others.
ID845
Idañcetāsaṃ gāmasīmādīnaṃ heṭṭhāpamāṇadassanaṃ suttādivirodhābhāvā yuttaṃ viya dissati, vīmaṃsitvā gahetabbaṃ. Evaṃ gahaṇe ca gāmasīmāyaṃ sammatā baddhasīmā uparigāmasīmaṃ, heṭṭhā udakapariyantaṃ araññasīmañca avattharatīti tassā araññasīmāpi khettanti sijjhati. Bhagavatā ca “sabbā, bhikkhave, nadī asīmā”tiādinā (mahāva. 147) nadīsamuddajātassarā baddhasīmāya akhettabhāvena vuttā, na pana araññaṃ, tasmā araññampi baddhasīmāya khettamevāti gahetabbaṃ. Yadi evaṃ kasmā tattha sā na bajjhatīti? Payojanābhāvā. Sīmāpekkhānantarameva hi sattabbhantarasīmāya sambhavato, tassā ca upari sammatāya baddhasīmāya sambhedajjhottharaṇānulomato vipattisīmā eva siyā. Gāmakkhette pana ṭhatvā agāmakāraññekadesampi antokaritvā sammatā kiñcāpi susammatā agāmakāraññe bhagavatā vihitāya sattabbhantarasīmāyapi anivattanato, tattha pana kammaṃ kātuṃ paviṭṭhānampi tato bahi kevalāraññe karontānampi antarā tīṇi sattabbhantarāni ṭhapetabbāni. Aññathā vipatti eva siyāti sabbathā niratthakameva agāmake araññe baddhasīmākaraṇanti veditabbaṃ.
This indication of the lower extent of village boundaries and the like seems reasonable due to the absence of contradiction with the Sutta and so forth; it should be examined and accepted. When accepted thus, a fixed boundary authorized in a village boundary extends over the village boundary above and the forest boundary below down to the water’s limit; thus, that forest boundary also becomes its field. The Blessed One said, “All rivers, bhikkhus, are not boundaries” and so forth (mahāva. 147), indicating that rivers, oceans, and natural lakes are not fields of a fixed boundary, but not forest; thus, forest too should be taken as a field of a fixed boundary. If so, why is it not bound there? Due to the lack of purpose. Indeed, due to the immediate possibility of a seven-abbhantara boundary, a fixed boundary authorized above it would only be an invalid boundary in conformity with the prevention of confusion and overlapping. However, even a well-authorized fixed boundary established in a village field, including a portion of a non-village forest, does not preclude the seven-abbhantara boundary established by the Blessed One in a non-village forest. Even for those entering there to perform an act, or those performing it outside in a mere forest, three seven-abbhantaras must be placed in between; otherwise, it would only be invalid. Thus, establishing a fixed boundary in a non-village forest is entirely pointless; this should be understood.
This explanation of the lower extent of these village boundaries and so forth seems reasonable, as it does not contradict the Suttas and so forth, but it should be accepted after careful consideration. And if this is accepted, then a fixed boundary duly authorized within a village boundary encompasses the upper village boundary and, below, the wilderness boundary as far as the water limit, and thus it is established that its wilderness boundary is also territory. And the Blessed One, by saying, “All rivers, bhikkhus, are without boundary,” and so on, (mahāva. 147) declared rivers, oceans, and natural lakes to be non-territory for a fixed boundary, but he did not say that about wilderness, therefore wilderness should also be understood as territory for a fixed boundary. If this is so, why is a [fixed boundary] not established there? Because there is no purpose. Indeed, since a seven-abbhantara boundary is possible immediately after the need for a boundary [is established], and since that [seven-abbhantara boundary] would be a boundary of transgression by analogy with the blending and overlapping of the fixed boundary duly authorized above, it would be a faulty sima. But in the case of a fixed sima duly authorized having occupied a portion of unowned wilderness within village land, this is, to some extent, well authorized because of the non-rescinding of the seven abbhantara-sima, even in an unowned wilderness, which has been established by the Blessed one. Nonetheless, those who have entered there to perform an act, as well as those performing it in a mere wilderness outside of that, must set up three seven-abbhantara intervals in between. Otherwise, there would be a transgression, indeed. Therefore, it should be understood that establishing a fixed boundary in unowned wilderness is completely pointless.
This view of the extent below for village boundaries, etc., seems reasonable as it does not contradict the suttas, etc., and should be accepted after examination. In this understanding, the tied boundary agreed upon for a village boundary covers the village boundary above and the water limit below, and the forest boundary is also established as a field. The Buddha stated, “All rivers, monks, are without boundaries” (Mahāva. 147), etc., indicating that rivers, seas, and lakes are not fields for tied boundaries, but the forest is, so the forest should also be understood as a field for tied boundaries. If so, why is it not tied there? Because there is no need. Since the seven-abutment boundary arises immediately when a boundary is needed, and the tied boundary agreed upon above is in accordance with the merging and overlapping of boundaries, it would only be a defective boundary. However, even if a part of a non-village forest is included while standing in a village field, and even if the seven-abutment boundary established by the Buddha is not violated, when performing an act within it, or even when performing an act entirely in the forest outside it, three abutments must be left in between. Otherwise, there would be a defect. Therefore, it should be understood that establishing a tied boundary in a non-village forest is entirely pointless.
ID846
Antonadiyaṃ paviṭṭhasākhāyāti nadiyā pathavītalaṃ āhacca ṭhitāya sākhāyapi, pageva anāhacca ṭhitāya. Pārohepi eseva nayo. Etena sabhāganadīsīmaṃ phusitvā ṭhitena visabhāgasīmāsambandhasākhādinā udakukkhepasīmāya sambandho na vaṭṭatīti dasseti. Eteneva mahāsīmaṃ gāmasīmañca phusitvā ṭhitena sākhādinā māḷakasīmāya sambandho na vaṭṭatīti ñāpitoti daṭṭhabbo. Antonadiyaṃyevāti setupādānaṃ tīraṭṭhitattaṃ nivatteti. Tena udakukkhepaparicchedato bahinadiyaṃ patiṭṭhitattepi sambhedābhāvaṃ dasseti. Tenāha “bahitīre patiṭṭhitā”tiādi. Yadi hi udakukkhepato bahi antonadiyampi patiṭṭhitatte sambhedo bhaveyya, tampi paṭikkhipitabbaṃ bhaveyya kammakopassa samānattā, na ca paṭikkhittaṃ, tasmā sabbattha attano nissayasīmāya sambhedadoso natthevāti gahetabbaṃ.
With a branch entering within the river refers to a branch standing in contact with the earth’s surface in the river, and even more so one not in contact. The same applies to the opposite shore. This indicates that connection with an udakukkhepa boundary through a branch or the like touching a river boundary of the same nature and a boundary of a different nature is not permissible. By this, it should be understood that connection with a monastery boundary through a branch or the like touching a great boundary or village boundary is also not permissible. Only within the river excludes those established on the shore. Thus, it shows the absence of confusion even when established outside the river beyond the udakukkhepa delimitation. Hence, it says, “Established on the outer shore” and so forth. If there were confusion even when established within the river beyond the udakukkhepa, that too would need to be rejected due to the similarity of spoiling the act, but it is not rejected; thus, everywhere there is no fault of confusion with one’s own dependent boundary—this should be understood.
In the case of a branch entering inside the river, this applies even to a branch that extends reaching the surface of the river, let alone one that extends without reaching it. The same principle applies to aerial roots. By this, he shows that a connection with a raised-water boundary by means of a branch and so forth connected to a dissimilar boundary that touches a similar river boundary is not permissible. By this very fact, it should be understood that a connection with a māḷaka boundary by means of a branch and so forth that touches a great boundary and a village boundary is not permissible. Inside the river itself: this inclusion of the causeway excludes the state of being situated on the bank. By that, he shows the absence of blending even though it is established inside the river outside the demarcation of raised water. Therefore, he says, “Established on the outer bank,” and so on. For if there were blending due to being established inside the river, outside the raised-water [demarcation], that too should have been rejected, because the invalidation of the act is the same, but it was not rejected, therefore it should be understood that there is no fault of blending with one’s own supporting boundary everywhere.
“Entering the river with branches” means branches that reach the riverbed, let alone those that do not. The same applies to the far bank. This shows that when one touches a similar river boundary, there is no connection with a dissimilar boundary through branches, etc., for the water demarcation boundary. This also indicates that when one touches a great boundary or a village boundary with branches, etc., there is no connection with the Māḷaka boundary. “Only within the river” eliminates the assumption of standing on the bank. This shows that even if one stands outside the river beyond the water demarcation limit, there is no merging. Therefore, it is said, “standing on the far bank,” etc. For if there were merging when standing within the river beyond the water demarcation, that too would have to be rejected due to the invalidation of the act, but it is not rejected. Therefore, it should be understood that there is no fault of merging with one’s own support boundary anywhere.
ID847
Āvaraṇena vāti dāruādīni khaṇitvā udakanivāraṇena. Koṭṭakabandhanena vāti mattikādīhi pūretvā katasetubandhanena vā, ubhayenāpi āvaraṇameva dasseti. “Nadiṃ vināsetvā”ti vuttamevatthaṃ vibhāveti “heṭṭhā pāḷi baddhā”ti, heṭṭhā nadiṃ āvaritvā pāḷi baddhāti attho. Chaḍḍitodakanti atirittodakaṃ. Nadiṃ otaritvā sandanaṭṭhānatoti iminā taḷākanadīnaṃ antarā pavattanaṭṭhāne na vaṭṭatīti dasseti. Uppatitvāti tīrādibhindanavasena vipulā hutvā. Vihārasīmanti baddhasīmaṃ.
With a barrier refers to preventing water with wood or the like. With a dam construction refers to filling with clay or the like or building a stone dam; both indicate a barrier. “Having destroyed the river” clarifies the same meaning with “A barrier bound below,” meaning a barrier bound below the river. Excess water refers to surplus water. Descending from the river’s flow indicates that it is not permissible in the intervening flow between lakes and rivers. Rising up means becoming abundant by breaking the shore or the like. Monastery boundary refers to a fixed boundary.
By blocking, by blocking the water by excavating wood and so forth. Or by building an enclosure: or by building a dam by filling with earth and so forth, by both he shows only blocking. He clarifies the meaning of the statement, “Having destroyed the river,” [by saying] “A dike is built below,” meaning, a dike is built blocking the river below. The water that has been discarded: the excess water. From the place where it flows after descending into the river: by this, he shows that it is not permissible at the place where a lake and a river flow between each other. Having overflowed: having become wide due to the breaking of banks and so forth. Monastery boundary: fixed boundary.
“With a barrier” means blocking the water by digging wood, etc. “With a dam” means filling with clay, etc., or building a bridge. Both indicate a barrier. “Having destroyed the river” clarifies the meaning of “a dike built below,” meaning a dike built below after blocking the river. “Discarded water” means excess water. “Having descended the river from the flowing place” indicates that this does not apply to the flowing place between tanks and rivers. “Having overflowed” means having expanded by breaking the banks, etc. “The monastery boundary” means the tied boundary.
ID848
Agamanapatheti tadaheva gantvā nivattituṃ asakkuṇeyye. Araññasīmāsaṅkhyameva gacchatīti lokavohārasiddhaṃ agāmakāraññasīmaṃ sandhāya vadati. Tatthāti pakatiyā macchabandhānaṃ gamanapathesu dīpakesu.
In an impassable path refers to a place where one cannot go and return on the same day. It is reckoned only as a forest boundary refers to a non-village forest boundary established by worldly convention. There refers to islands in the paths of fish traps by nature.
In a path that is not traversable: where it is not possible to go and return on the same day. It goes as reckoned as a wilderness boundary: he is speaking with reference to the unowned wilderness boundary established by worldly usage. There: in the natural pathways of fish-trappers, on small islands.
“On a path of no return” means a place where one cannot return on the same day. “It goes only as far as the forest boundary” refers to the non-village forest boundary established by worldly convention. “There” refers to the usual paths of fishermen on small islands.
ID849
Taṃ ṭhānanti tesaṃ āvāṭādīnaṃ kataṭṭhānameva, na akatanti attho. Loṇīti samuddodakassa uppattiveganinno mātikākārena pavattanako.
That place refers only to the place where those pits and the like were made, not unmade. Salty refers to that which flows in a channel-like form due to the force of rising ocean water.
That place: the very place where their pits and so forth have been made, not where they have not been made. Saltwater channel: a channel shaped like a trench where the ocean water flows with forceful surges.
“That place” means the place where their pits, etc., are made, not where they are not made. “Brine” refers to the flow of seawater in the form of a channel due to the force of its origin.
ID850
Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.147) pana – gacchantiyā pana nāvāya kātuṃ na vaṭṭatīti ettha udakukkhepamanatikkamitvā parivattamānāya kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti veditabbaṃ. Sīmaṃ vā sodhetvāti ettha sīmāsodhanaṃ nāma gāmasīmādīsu ṭhitānaṃ hatthapāsānayanādi. “Nadiṃ vināsetvā taḷākaṃ karontī”ti vuttamevatthaṃ vibhāveti “heṭṭhā pāḷi baddhā”ti, heṭṭhā nadiṃ āvaritvā pāḷi baddhāti attho. Chaḍḍitodakanti taḷākarakkhaṇatthaṃ ekamantena chaḍḍitamudakaṃ. Deve avassanteti dubbuṭṭhikāle vassānepi deve avassante. Uppatitvāti uttaritvā. Gāmanigamasīmaṃ ottharitvā pavattatīti vuttappakāre vassakāle cattāro māse abbocchinnā pavattati. Vihārasīmanti baddhasīmaṃ sandhāya vadati.
In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.147), however, it says: It is not permissible to perform it in a moving boat—here, it should be understood that it is permissible to perform it in one moving without exceeding the udakukkhepa. Or having purified the boundary—here, purifying the boundary means removing those standing in village boundaries and the like from hand’s reach and so forth. “Having destroyed the river and making a lake” clarifies the same meaning with “A barrier bound below,” meaning a barrier bound below the river. Excess water refers to water discarded to one side to protect the lake. When the sky does not rain refers to even when it rains during a time of scarce rain. Rising up means emerging. Flowing over a village or town boundary refers to flowing continuously for four months during the rainy season as described. Monastery boundary refers to a fixed boundary.
But in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.147), it is not permissible to perform [the act] on a moving boat: here it should be understood that it is permissible to perform [the act] on [a boat] that is moving without going beyond the raised water. Or having purified the boundary: here, purifying the boundary means bringing those situated in village boundaries and so forth within arm’s reach, and so forth. He clarifies the meaning of the statement, “Having destroyed the river, they make a lake,” [by saying] “A dike is built below,” meaning, a dike is built blocking the river below. The water that has been discarded: the water that has been discarded to one side for the protection of the lake. When the rain-god does not rain: even when it is raining, when the rain-god does not rain in a time of drought. Having overflowed: having risen above. It flows overflowing the village and town boundary: it flows uninterruptedly for four months during the rainy season in the manner stated. Monastery boundary: he is speaking with reference to a fixed boundary.
The Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.147) states—“It is not permissible for a moving boat”—here it should be understood that it is permissible if it turns around without crossing the water demarcation. “Having cleaned the boundary” here refers to cleaning the boundary by extending the hand’s reach, etc., for those standing within the village boundary, etc. “Having destroyed the river and made a tank” clarifies the meaning of “a dike built below,” meaning a dike built below after blocking the river. “Discarded water” means water discarded to one side for the purpose of protecting the tank. “When the rain does not fall” means during a famine even in the rainy season. “Having overflowed” means having risen. “Having flooded the village or town boundary and flows” means it flows continuously for four months during the rainy season. “The monastery boundary” refers to the tied boundary.
ID851
Agamanapatheti yattha tadaheva gantvā paccāgantuṃ na sakkoti, tādise padese. Araññasīmāsaṅkhyameva gacchatīti sattabbhantarasīmaṃ sandhāya vadati. Tesanti macchabandhānaṃ. Gamanapariyantassa oratoti gamanapariyantassa orimabhāge dīpakaṃ pabbatañca sandhāya vuttaṃ, na samuddappadesanti vuttaṃ.
In an impassable path refers to a place where one cannot go and return on the same day. It is reckoned only as a forest boundary refers to a seven-abbhantara boundary. Of those refers to fish traps. On this side of the path’s end refers to an island or mountain on the near side of the path’s end, not an ocean area.
In a path that is not traversable: in a place where one cannot go and return on the same day. It goes as reckoned as a wilderness boundary: he is speaking with reference to a seven-abbhantara boundary. Of those: of the fish-trappers. Beyond the limit of travel: it is said with reference to a small island and a mountain on the near side of the limit of travel, not a part of the ocean.
“On a path of no return” means a place where one cannot return on the same day. “It goes only as far as the forest boundary” refers to the seven-abutment boundary. “Their” refers to the fishermen. “On the near side of the path’s end” refers to a small island or mountain on the near side of the path’s end, not to a place in the ocean.
ID852
Sambhindantīti yattha catūhi bhikkhūhi nisīdituṃ na sakkā, tattha tato paṭṭhāya yāva kesaggamattampi attano sīmāya karontā sambhindanti, catunnampi bhikkhūnaṃ pahonakato paṭṭhāya yāva sakalampi antokarontā ajjhottharantīti veditabbaṃ. Saṃsaṭṭhaviṭapāti aññamaññaṃ sibbitvā ṭhitamahāsākhamūlā, etena aññamaññassa atiāsannataṃ dīpeti. Sākhāya sākhaṃ phusantāpi hi dūraṭṭhāpi siyuṃ, tato ekaṃsato sambhedalakkhaṇaṃ na dassitaṃ siyāti taṃ dassetuṃ viṭapaggahaṇaṃ kataṃ. Evañhi bhikkhūnaṃ nisīdituṃ appahonakaṭṭhānaṃ attano sīmāya antosīmaṭṭhaṃ karitvā purāṇavihāraṃ karontā sīmāya sīmaṃ sambhindanti nāma, na tato paranti dassitameva hoti. Baddhā hotīti porāṇakavihārasīmaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Taṃ ambanti aparena samayena purāṇavihāraparikkhepādīnaṃ vinaṭṭhattā ajānantānaṃ taṃ purāṇavihārasīmāya nimittabhūtaṃ ambaṃ. Attano sīmāya antosīmaṭṭhaṃ karitvā purāṇavihārasīmaṭṭhaṃ jambuṃ kittetvā ambajambūnaṃ antare yaṃ ṭhānaṃ, taṃ attano sīmāya pavesetvā baddhāti attho. Ettha ca purāṇasīmāya nimittabhūtassa gāmaṭṭhassa ambarukkhassa antosīmaṭṭhāya jambuyā saha saṃsaṭṭhaviṭapattepi sīmāya bandhanakāle vipatti vā pacchā gāmasīmāya saha sambhedo vā kammavipatti vā nāhosīti mukhatova vuttanti veditabbaṃ.
Confusing means that where four bhikkhus cannot sit, from that point onward, even making a hair’s breadth within one’s own boundary confuses it; from where it is sufficient for four bhikkhus up to including the whole within, it overlaps—this should be understood. With intertwined branches refers to large roots standing sewn together, indicating their extreme closeness. Even branches touching each other might be far apart; thus, to avoid showing the characteristic of confusion one-sidedly, the term “branches” (viṭapa) is used. Indeed, when bhikkhus make an area insufficient for sitting within their boundary as part of an old monastery, they confuse one boundary with another; beyond that, it is shown not to be so. It is bound refers to an old monastery boundary. That mango refers to a mango that later, due to the destruction of the old monastery’s enclosure and the like, became a marker of that old monastery boundary for those unaware. Making an area within one’s boundary that includes that old monastery boundary, designating a rose-apple within it, and binding the space between the mango and rose-apple within one’s boundary—this is the meaning. Here, even with intertwined branches of a mango that was a marker of the old boundary and a rose-apple within one’s boundary at the time of binding, there is no invalidity, nor later confusion with a village boundary or spoiling of the act; this is stated outright—this should be understood.
They blend: where it is not possible for four bhikkhus to sit, starting from that, as far as they perform [the act] within their own boundary, even by a hair’s breadth, they blend, and starting from what is sufficient for four bhikkhus, as far as they include the whole within, they overlap, this should be understood. With intertwined branches: with large roots and branches intertwined with each other, by this he indicates their extreme proximity to each other. For even branches touching branches might be far apart, therefore the characteristic of blending might not be shown definitively, so to show that, the term ‘branch’ is used. In this way, when making the place where it is not sufficient for bhikkhus to sit within their own boundary the place of the inner boundary, those performing [the act] in an old monastery are said to blend boundary with boundary, not beyond that, this has been shown. Is fixed: it is said with reference to the boundary of the old monastery. That mango: because the surrounding area and other features of the old monastery have been destroyed at a later time, the mango tree that is the marker of the boundary of that old monastery for those who do not know. Having made within one’s own boundary the inner-boundary place, reciting the jambu tree that is situated in the boundary of the old monastery, the place that is between the mango and jambu trees, having brought that within one’s own boundary, it is fixed, this is the meaning. And here, even though the mango tree of the village that is the marker of the old boundary is intertwined with the jambu that is situated in the inner boundary, at the time of fixing the boundary, there was no transgression, or blending with the village boundary later, or invalidation of the act, this should be understood as stated explicitly.
“Merging” means that where four monks cannot sit, from that point onward, even if they make their boundary up to a hair’s breadth, they are merging. From the point where it is insufficient for four monks, even if they include the entire area, they are overlapping. “Intertwined branches” means large branches standing intertwined with each other, indicating their extreme closeness. For even if branches touch each other from a distance, the characteristic of merging is not shown, so the inclusion of branches is made to show this. Thus, when monks, unable to find a sufficient sitting place, include within their boundary an old monastery, they are merging boundary with boundary, not beyond that. “It is tied” refers to the old monastery boundary. “That mango tree” means a mango tree that later became a marker of the old monastery boundary due to the destruction of the old monastery’s enclosure, etc., and the ignorance of it. Including within one’s boundary the place between the mango and rose-apple trees that were markers of the old monastery boundary, one ties the boundary. Here, even if the mango tree, a marker of the old monastery boundary, and the rose-apple tree within the village boundary are intertwined, there is no defect in merging with the village boundary or invalidation of the act, as stated explicitly.
ID853
Padesanti saṅghassa nisīdanappahonakaṃ padesaṃ. Sīmantarikaṃ ṭhapetvātiādinā sambhedajjhottharaṇaṃ katvā baddhasīmāpi aññamaññaṃ phusāpetvā abyavadhānena baddhasīmāpi asīmā evāti dasseti, tasmā ekadvaṅgulamattāpi sīmantarikā vaṭṭati eva. Sā pana dubbodhāti aṭṭhakathāsu caturaṅgulādikā vuttāti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Dvinnaṃ sīmānanti dvinnaṃ baddhasīmānaṃ. Nimittaṃ hotīti nimittassa sīmato bāhirattā bandhanakāle tāva sambhedadoso natthīti adhippāyo. Na kevalañca nimittakato eva saṅkaraṃ karoti, atha kho sīmantarikāya ṭhito aññopi rukkho karoti eva, tasmā appamattikāya sīmantarikāya vaḍḍhanakarukkhādayo na vaṭṭanti eva. Ettha ca upari dissamānakhandhasākhādipavesesu eva saṅkaradosassa sabbattha dassitattā adissamānānaṃ mūlānaṃ pavesepi bhūmigatikattā doso natthīti sijjhati. Sace pana mūlānipi dissamānāni neva pavisanti, saṅkarova, pabbatapāsāṇā pana dissamānāpi bhūmigatikāyeva. Yadi pana bandhanakāle eva eko thūlarukkho ubhayampi sīmaṃ āhacca tiṭṭhati, pacchā baddhā asīmā hotīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
Area refers to an area insufficient for the Sangha’s sitting. Having established a boundary separation and so forth indicates that even a fixed boundary bound with mutual contact and without separation becomes no boundary; thus, even a mere one or two fingerbreadths of boundary separation is certainly permissible. However, since it is hard to discern, it is stated in the commentaries as four fingerbreadths and so forth—this should be understood. Of two boundaries refers to two fixed boundaries. It becomes a marker means that since the marker is outside the boundary, there is no fault of confusion at the time of binding—this is the intention. Not only from the marker does it cause confusion, but also a tree standing in the boundary separation does so; thus, trees or the like that increase a small boundary separation are not permissible. Here, since the fault of confusion is shown everywhere only for the entry of visible trunks, branches, and the like, there is no fault for the entry of unseen roots due to their being earth-bound—this is established. However, if visible roots also do not enter, it is confusion; but visible mountain rocks, being earth-bound, are not. If, however, at the time of binding, one large tree stands touching both boundaries, the later bound one becomes no boundary—this should be understood.
Area: an area sufficient for the Saṅgha to sit. Leaving a boundary interval: by this, he shows that even fixed boundaries established after having made blending and overlapping, and fixed boundaries that touch each other without any gap, are non-boundaries, therefore even a boundary interval of one or two fingers’ breadth is permissible. But since that is difficult to understand, boundary intervals of four fingers’ breadth and so forth are mentioned in the commentaries. Of two boundaries: of two fixed boundaries. Becomes a marker: the intention is that since the marker is outside the boundary, there is no fault of blending at the time of fixing. And not only does it cause confusion due to the marker, but another tree situated in the boundary interval also does so, therefore trees and so forth that cause the increase of even a small boundary interval are not permissible. And here, since the fault of confusion has been shown everywhere only in the case of the entry of visible trunks, branches, and so forth, it is established that there is no fault in the entry of invisible roots, because they are underground. But if even the roots are visible and do not enter, there is confusion, but mountains and rocks, even though visible, are underground. But if at the very time of fixing, one large tree extends reaching both boundaries, the boundary fixed later is a non-boundary, this should be understood.
“A place” means a place sufficient for the Sangha to sit. “Having left an intermediate boundary,” etc., shows that even tied boundaries, when made to touch each other without interruption, are without boundaries. Therefore, even a gap of one or two fingerbreadths is sufficient for an intermediate boundary. However, it is difficult to understand, so in the commentaries, a gap of four fingerbreadths, etc., is mentioned. “Of two boundaries” means of two tied boundaries. “It is a marker” means that since the marker is outside the boundary, there is no fault of merging at the time of tying. Not only does it cause confusion as a marker, but even a tree standing in the intermediate boundary causes confusion. Therefore, trees that grow or are planted are not permissible even with a small intermediate boundary. Here, since the fault of confusion is shown everywhere for visible tree trunks and branches, etc., entering, there is no fault for invisible roots entering due to their being underground. However, if the roots are visible and do not enter, there is confusion. Rocks and boulders, even if visible, are also underground. If, at the time of tying, a single large tree stands touching both boundaries, later the tied boundary becomes without a boundary.
ID854
Sīmasaṅkaranti sīmasambhedaṃ. Yaṃ panettha sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.148) vuttaṃ “sīmasaṅkaraṃ karotīti vaḍḍhitvā sīmappadesaṃ paviṭṭhe dvinnaṃ sīmānaṃ gataṭṭhānassa dubbiññeyyattā vutta”nti, taṃ na yuttaṃ gāmasīmāyapi saha saṅkaraṃ karotīti vattabbato. Tatthāpi hi nimitte vaḍḍhite gāmasīmabaddhasīmānaṃ gataṭṭhānaṃ dubbiññeyyameva hoti. Tattha pana avatvā dvinnaṃ baddhasīmānameva saṅkarassa vuttattā yathāvuttasambandhadosova saṅkarasaddena vuttoti gahetabbaṃ. Pāḷiyaṃ (mahāva. 148) pana nidānavasena “yesaṃ, bhikkhave, sīmā pacchā sammatā, tesaṃ taṃ kammaṃ adhammika”ntiādinā pacchā sammatāya asīmatte vuttepi dvīsu gāmasīmāsu ṭhatvā dvīhi saṅghehi sambhedaṃ vā ajjhottharaṇaṃ vā katvā sīmantarikaṃ aṭṭhapetvā vā rukkhapārohādisambandhaṃ aviyojetvā vā ekasmiṃ khaṇe kammavācāniṭṭhāpanavasena ekato sammatānaṃ dvinnampi sīmānaṃ asīmatā pakāsitāti veditabbaṃ.
Sīmasaṅkara means the confusion of boundaries. However, what is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.148), “‘sīmasaṅkaraṃ karoti’ is said because, having expanded and entered the boundary area, the location of the two boundaries becomes difficult to discern,” is not appropriate since it could also be said that it causes confusion with a village boundary. For there too, when the markers are expanded, the location of the boundaries tied to the village boundary becomes indeed difficult to discern. However, since it is stated there only with respect to the confusion of two fixed boundaries and not otherwise, it should be understood that the term “saṅkara” refers solely to the fault of connection as described. Yet, in the Pāli text (mahāva. 148), by way of introduction, it is said, “Monks, for those whose boundary was agreed upon later, that action is unrighteous,” and even though it speaks of the non-boundary status of what was agreed upon later, it should be understood that the non-boundary status of both boundaries is made evident when, standing in two village boundaries, two communities either confuse them, overlap them, establish an intervening boundary, or, without severing connections like tree branches, complete the recitation of the action at the same moment, agreeing upon them as one.
Sīmasaṅkaranti means the merging of boundaries. The statement in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.148), “sīmasaṅkaraṃ karotī’ti is said because when the boundary area is expanded, the location of the two boundaries becomes difficult to discern,” is not correct, because it should also be said that a merging (saṅkara) also happens with the village boundary. For even there, if the markers are expanded, the location of the village boundary and the bounded boundary becomes difficult to discern. However, because the merging of only two bounded boundaries is mentioned there without saying that, it should be understood that the fault of connection, as described, is conveyed by the term ‘merging’ (saṅkara). In the Pāḷi (mahāva. 148), however, through the context of the origin story, although it is stated in reference to the boundaries not subsequently consented with phrases such as, “Monks, for those whose boundary was consented to later, that act is unlawful,” it should be understood that it clarifies the invalidity of both boundaries that were consented to at the same moment, either by performing a division or overlapping by two assemblies while standing in two village boundaries, or without establishing a boundary interval, or without separating the connection of tree branches, etc., by means of concluding the recitation of the formal act (kammavācā) at the same time.
Sīmasaṅkara means the mixing of boundaries. What is stated here in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. �ī. Mahāvagga 3.148) as “sīmasaṅkaraṃ karotīti—making the boundaries overlap—is said because when the boundary area is expanded and entered, the location where the two boundaries meet becomes difficult to discern. However, this is not appropriate, as it should also be said that the village boundary is mixed with it. For even there, when the markers are expanded, the location where the village boundary and the established boundary meet becomes difficult to discern. Since it is stated that only the mixing of two established boundaries is mentioned, the fault of mixing as described should be understood in connection with the term “mixing.” In the Pāli text (Mahāva. 148), it is said in the context of the origin: “Bhikkhus, for those whose boundary is designated afterward, that action is improper,” etc. Even when two village boundaries are established, and the two Saṅghas mix or overlap, or when an intermediate boundary is set without separating the connection to trees, etc., or when the kammavācā is completed simultaneously, it should be understood that the non-boundary nature of both boundaries is revealed.
ID855
Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.148) “saṃsaṭṭhaviṭapāti iminā aññamaññassa āsannataṃ dīpeti. Baddhā hotīti pacchimadisābhāge sīmaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Tassā padesanti yattha ṭhatvā bhikkhūhi kammaṃ kātuṃ sakkā hoti, tādisaṃ padesaṃ. Yattha pana ṭhitehi kammaṃ kātuṃ na sakkā hoti, tādisaṃ padesaṃ anto karitvā bandhantā sīmāya sīmaṃ sambhindanti nāma. Dvinnaṃ sīmānaṃ nimittaṃ hotīti nimittassa sīmato bāhirattā sīmasambhedo na hotīti vuttaṃ. Sīmasaṅkaraṃ karotīti vaḍḍhitvā sīmappadesaṃ paviṭṭhe dvinnaṃ sīmānaṃ gataṭṭhānassa duviññeyyattā vuttaṃ, na ca pana tattha kammaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭatīti dassanatthaṃ. Na hi sīmā tattakena asīmā hoti, dve pana sīmā pacchā vaḍḍhitena rukkhena ajjhotthaṭā ekābaddhā honti, tasmā ekattha ṭhatvā kammaṃ karontehi itaraṃ sodhetvā kātabba”nti vuttaṃ.
In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.148), “saṃsaṭṭhaviṭapā” indicates their proximity to one another. “Baddhā hoti” is said with reference to the boundary in the western direction. “Tassā padesa” refers to a region where monks can stand and perform an action. However, a region where standing monks cannot perform an action, when included within, causes the boundaries to confuse one another. “Dvinnaṃ sīmānaṃ nimittaṃ hoti” means that since the marker is outside the boundary, there is no confusion of boundaries. “Sīmasaṅkaraṃ karoti” is said because, having expanded and entered the boundary area, the location of the two boundaries becomes difficult to discern, and this is stated to show that it is not improper to perform an action there. For a boundary does not become a non-boundary to that extent, but when two boundaries are overlapped by a tree expanded later and become conjoined, therefore, when performing an action in one place, the other must be purified first, as it is said.
In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.148), “saṃsaṭṭhaviṭapā”ti by this, it indicates the proximity of one to another. Baddhā hotīti this is said with reference to the boundary in the western direction. Tassā padesanti means the area where monks are able to perform the act. The boundary which encircles that kind of area where they are not able to perform formal act (kamma), is called ‘breaking the boundary which touches a boundary’(sīmāya sīmaṃ sambhindanti). Dvinnaṃ sīmānaṃ nimittaṃ hotīti since the marker is outside the boundary, it is said that there is no merging of boundaries. Sīmasaṅkaraṃ karotīti is said because when boundary area is expanded, the location of two boundaries is undiscernable, and is not said to indicates that it is not permissible to perform formal act (kamma) there. For the boundary does not become invalid just because of that; however, the two boundaries have been overlapped by the subsequently expanded tree, being connected as one. Therefore, those performing the act while standing in one place should purify the other one before performing it,” it is said.
In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.148), “saṃsaṭṭhaviṭapāti—by this, the closeness of one to another is indicated. Baddhā hotīti—this refers to the boundary in the western direction. Tassā padesanti—the area where the bhikkhus can stand and perform the kamma. The area where they cannot stand and perform the kamma is excluded, and by establishing the boundary there, the boundaries are said to overlap. Dvinnaṃ sīmānaṃ nimittaṃ hotīti—since the marker is outside the boundary, there is no mixing of boundaries. Sīmasaṅkaraṃ karotīti—it is said that when the boundary area is expanded and entered, the location where the two boundaries meet becomes difficult to discern, but this does not mean that the kamma cannot be performed there. For the boundary does not become non-boundary by itself, but when two boundaries are expanded afterward by a tree and overlap, they become one. Therefore, when performing the kamma in one place, the other should be cleared and done.
ID856
Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is an exposition of the Vinaya compendium
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,
Thus, in the Vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanā, which is the commentary on the Vinayālaṅkāra,
ID857
Sīmāvinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma
The discourse on the determination of boundaries is called
is the chapter named Sīmāvinicchayakathālaṅkāra,
the chapter on the determination of boundaries is called
ID858
Catuvīsatimo paricchedo.
The twenty-fourth chapter.
the twenty-fourth chapter.
the twenty-fourth section.
ID859
ID860
Evaṃ sīmāvinicchayaṃ kathetvā pāḷiyaṃ sīmakathāya uposathakkhandhakapariyāpannattā uposathakkhandhakānantarañca pavāraṇakkhandhakassa āgatattā tadanukkamena sīmāvinicchayato uposathapavāraṇavinicchayaṃ kathetumāraddhepi sāsanavuddhikaraṇatthaṃ upasampadādivinayakammakaraṇaṭṭhānabhūtaṃ sīmaṃ bandhitukāmānaṃ lajjipesalabahussutasikkhākāmabhikkhūnaṃ paññāsativīriyajananatthaṃ sīmābandhanakathā amhehi ārabhīyate . Tattha apalokanādicatubbidhakammakaraṇaṭṭhānabhūtā sīmā nāma baddhaabaddhavasena duvidhā hoti. Tatthāpi baddhasīmā khaṇḍasīmā, samānasaṃvāsakasīmā, avippavāsasīmāti tibbidhā hoti, tathā abaddhasīmāpi gāmasīmā, udakukkhepasīmā, sattabbhantarasīmāti. Vuttañhetaṃ ācariyabuddhadattattherena vinayavinicchaye –
Having thus expounded the determination of boundaries, since the discussion of boundaries in the Pāli text pertains to the Uposatha section and follows the Uposatha section with the Pavāraṇā section, even though it was begun to expound the determination of Uposatha and Pavāraṇā following the determination of boundaries in sequence, we commence the discourse on boundary binding for the sake of monks who are modest, virtuous, learned, and desirous of training, to arouse their wisdom and energy numbering fifty, for those wishing to bind a boundary, which is the place for performing disciplinary actions like ordination for the prosperity of the dispensation. Therein, a boundary, being the place for performing the fourfold actions such as notification, is of two types: fixed and unfixed. Among them, a fixed boundary is threefold: khaṇḍasīmā, samānasaṃvāsakasīmā, and avippavāsasīmā; likewise, an unfixed boundary is also threefold: gāmasīmā, udakukkhepasīmā, and sattabbhantarasīmā. This is stated by the Elder Buddhadatta in the Vinayavinicchaya:
Having thus explained the determination of boundaries, and because in the Pāḷi, in the Sīmākathā, it is included in the Uposathakkhandhaka, and after the Uposathakkhandhaka comes the Pavāraṇakkhandhaka, therefore following that order, although beginning to explain the determination of Uposatha and Pavāraṇa from the determination of boundaries, for the sake of increasing the dispensation, for those who desire to establish a boundary, which is the place for performing Vinaya acts such as Upasampadā, etc., we commence the discussion on the establishing of a boundary, for the purpose of generating wisdom, mindfulness, and effort in modest, virtuous, learned, and training-desiring monks. Herein, the boundary, which is the place for performing the four kinds of formal acts, beginning with apalokana, is of two kinds: bounded and unbounded. Of these, the bounded boundary is of three kinds: khaṇḍasīmā (partial boundary), samānasaṃvāsakasīmā (boundary of common affiliation), and avippavāsasīmā (boundary of non-separation). Similarly, the unbounded boundary is also of three kinds: gāmasīmā (village boundary), udakukkhepasīmā (water-cast boundary), and sattabbhantarasīmā (seven-abbhantara boundary). This has been stated by the venerable teacher Buddhadatta in the Vinayavinicchaya:
Having thus discussed the determination of boundaries, since the discussion on boundaries in the Pāli text is included in the Uposathakkhandhaka and is followed by the Pavāraṇakkhandhaka, and because it is beneficial for the growth of the Dispensation, the discussion on the establishment of boundaries is begun here for the sake of those bhikkhus who are modest, learned, and desirous of training, and who wish to establish a boundary for the performance of Vinaya acts such as ordination. There, the boundary, which is the basis for the performance of the fourfold kamma including the announcement, is of two kinds: established and unestablished. Among these, the established boundary is of three kinds: the khaṇḍasīmā, the samānasaṃvāsakasīmā, and the avippavāsasīmā. Similarly, the unestablished boundary is of three kinds: the village boundary, the udakukkhepasīmā, and the sattabbhantarasīmā. This is stated by the Elder Ācariya Buddhādatta in the Vinayavinicchaya:
ID861
“Khaṇḍasamānasaṃvāsā-vippavāsāti bhedato; Iti baddhā tidhā vuttā, abaddhāpi tidhā matā.
“Divided as khaṇḍasīmā, samānasaṃvāsakasīmā, and avippavāsasīmā; thus, the fixed is said to be threefold, and the unfixed is also considered threefold.
“Due to the distinction of khaṇḍa (partial), samānasaṃvāsa (common affiliation), and avippavāsa (non-separation); Thus, the bounded is said to be threefold, and the unbounded is also considered threefold.
“The established boundary is said to be of three kinds: the khaṇḍasīmā, the samānasaṃvāsakasīmā, and the avippavāsasīmā. The unestablished boundary is also considered to be of three kinds.
ID862
“Gāmato udakukkhepā, sattabbhantaratopi ca; Tattha gāmaparicchedo, gāmasīmāti vuccatī”ti.
“From the village, by water-throwing, and within seven abbhantaras; therein, the demarcation of a village is called gāmasīmā.”
“From the village, from the water-cast, and also from the seven-abbhantara; There, the boundary of the village is called the gāmasīmā,” he said.
“The village boundary, the udakukkhepasīmā, and the sattabbhantarasīmā. Among these, the area enclosed by the village is called the village boundary.”
ID863
Tattha baddhasīmaṃ bandhitukāmena atikhuddikā, atimahatī, khaṇḍanimittā, chāyānimittā, animittā, bahisīme ṭhitasammatā, nadiyā sammatā, samudde sammatā, jātassare sammatā, sīmāya sīmaṃ sambhindantena sammatā, sīmāya sīmaṃ ajjhottharantena sammatāti vuttā imā ekādasa vipattisīmāyo atikkamitvā nimittasampatti, parisasampatti, kammavācāsampattīti vuttāya tividhasampattiyā yuttaṃ katvā paṭhamaṃ kittitanimittena sabbapacchimakittitanimittaṃ sambandhaṃ katvā bandhitabbā. Vuttañhetaṃ aṭṭhakathācariyena kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) “tattha ekādasa vipattisīmāyo atikkamitvā tividhasampattiyuttā nimittena nimittaṃ sambandhitvā sammatā sīmā baddhasīmā nāmā”ti. Etena etesu ekādasasu vipattīsu ekāyapi yuttāya, tividhasampattīsu ekāyapi ayuttāya, nimittena nimittaṃ asambandhaṃ katvā sammatāya ca sati sīmā na hotīti dasseti.
Therein, one desiring to bind a fixed boundary must avoid the eleven faulty boundaries—too small, too large, with broken markers, with shadow markers, without markers, agreed upon while standing outside the boundary, agreed upon in a river, agreed upon in the sea, agreed upon in a natural lake, agreed upon while confusing one boundary with another, or agreed upon while overlapping one boundary with another—and, equipped with the threefold perfection of markers, assembly, and recitation of the action, bind it by connecting the first announced marker with the very last announced marker. This is stated by the commentary teacher in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā): “Therein, having transcended the eleven faulty boundaries, a boundary agreed upon with the threefold perfection, connecting marker to marker, is called a fixed boundary.” This indicates that if it is connected with even one of these eleven faults, lacks even one of the threefold perfections, or is agreed upon without connecting marker to marker, it is not a boundary.
Therein, one who desires to establish a bounded boundary should establish it by first connecting the first mentioned marker with the last mentioned marker, avoiding these eleven defective boundaries that are stated, namely: the excessively small, the excessively large, a boundary with incomplete markers, a boundary with shadow markers, a boundary without markers, a boundary established while standing outside the boundary, a boundary established in a river, a boundary established in the ocean, a boundary established in a natural lake, a boundary established by one touching the boundary with a boundary, a boundary established by overlapping the boundary with a boundary, and having it endowed with the three kinds of accomplishment stated as accomplishment of markers, accomplishment of assembly, and accomplishment of the formal act. This has been stated by the commentator of the Aṭṭhakathā in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā): “Therein, avoiding the eleven defective boundaries, and connecting the marker with the marker, endowed with the three accomplishments, the boundary consented to is called a bounded boundary.” By this, he shows that if it is endowed with even one of these eleven defects, or not endowed with even one of the three accomplishments, or if it is established by not connecting the marker with the marker, then it is not a boundary.
There, for one who wishes to establish an established boundary, the following eleven faulty boundaries should be avoided: too small, too large, with fragmented markers, with shadow markers, without markers, established outside the boundary, established in a river, established in the ocean, established in a natural lake, established by overlapping boundaries, and established by extending boundaries. After avoiding these, one should establish the boundary by connecting the first marker with all subsequent markers, ensuring the threefold suitability: suitability of the marker, suitability of the assembly, and suitability of the kammavācā. This is stated by the commentary teacher in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Nidānavaṇṇanā): “Having avoided these eleven faulty boundaries, and ensuring the threefold suitability, the boundary established by connecting the markers is called the established boundary.” This shows that if even one of the eleven faults is present, or if even one of the three suitability factors is lacking, or if the markers are not connected, the boundary is not valid.
ID864
Evaṃ sīmaṃ bandhitukāmena bhikkhunā sabbalakkhaṇaparipūratthaṃ mahanto ussāho karaṇīyo hoti, tasmā sīmābandhanakāle tīsu sampattīsu parisasampattisiddhiyā paṭhamaṃ tāva gāmasīmā upaparikkhitabbā. Etthāha “nanu baddhasīmā vā bandhitabbā, atha kasmā gāmasīmā upaparikkhitabbā”ti? Gāmasīmāyaṃ ṭhatvā baddhasīmāya bandhitabbato. Vuttañhetaṃ bhagavatā “asammatāya, bhikkhave, sīmāya aṭṭhapitāya yaṃ gāmaṃ vā nigamaṃ vā upanissāya viharati, yā tassa vā gāmassa gāmasīmā, nigamassa vā nigamasīmā, ayaṃ tattha samānasaṃvāsā ekūposathā”ti (mahāva. 147). Idha pāḷiyaṃ sarūpena anāgatampi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 147) “gāmaggahaṇena cettha nagarampi gahitameva hotī”ti vuttattā nagarasīmāpi gahitā hoti, tasmā yasmiṃ abaddhasīmavihāre bhikkhū yaṃ gāmaṃ upanissāya viharanti, tassa gāmassa paricchedo gāmasīmā nāma. Yaṃ nigamaṃ upanissāya viharanti, tassa nigamassa paricchedo nigamasīmā nāma. Yaṃ nagaraṃ upanissāya viharanti, tassa nagarassa paricchedo nagarasīmā nāma. Tā sabbāpi gāmasīmāti vuccanti. Tesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ samānasaṃvāsā ekūposathabaddhasīmā viya ekato uposathādisaṅghakammakaraṇārahā honti, īdiseyeva ca padese sīmaṃ bandhitumarahati, na uposathādisaṅghakammānarahe padeseti vuttaṃ hoti.
Thus, a monk desiring to bind a boundary must make great effort to fulfill all characteristics. Therefore, at the time of binding a boundary, among the three perfections, the perfection of the assembly should first be examined with respect to the village boundary. Here it is said, “Surely a fixed boundary is to be bound, so why should the village boundary be examined?” Because a fixed boundary is to be bound while standing in a village boundary. This is stated by the Blessed One: “Monks, in a place where no boundary has been established, depending on a village or town where one resides, the village boundary of that village or the town boundary of that town is the samānasaṃvāsakasīmā and ekūposathasīmā there” (mahāva. 147). Although it does not appear explicitly in the Pāli text here, it is said in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 147), “By mentioning ‘village,’ a city is also included,” so a city boundary is also encompassed. Therefore, in an unfixed boundary monastery where monks reside depending on a village, that village’s demarcation is called gāmasīmā; depending on a town, that town’s demarcation is called nigamasīmā; depending on a city, that city’s demarcation is called nagarasīmā. All these are called gāmasīmā. For those monks, they are suitable for performing communal actions like Uposatha together, as if it were a fixed boundary of samānasaṃvāsakasīmā and ekūposathasīmā, and it is said that a boundary should be bound only in such a place, not in a place unsuitable for communal actions like Uposatha.
A monk who desires to establish a boundary in this manner should make a great effort in order to fulfill all the characteristics. Therefore, at the time of establishing a boundary, among the three accomplishments, for the accomplishment of the assembly, first of all, the village boundary should be examined. Here, he asks, “Is it not that a bounded boundary should be established? Then, why should the village boundary be examined?” Because the bounded boundary should be established while standing within the village boundary. This has been stated by the Blessed One: “If, monks, without having consented to a boundary, he dwells dependent on a village or a town, whichever is the village boundary of that village, or the town boundary of that town, this is there of common affiliation, a single Uposatha” (mahāva. 147). Here, although it does not appear explicitly in this Pāḷi text, in the Aṭṭhakathā (mahāva. aṭṭha. 147), it is stated, “Here, by the mentioning of ‘village,’ the city is also included,” thus, the city boundary is also included. Therefore, in whichever unbounded-boundary monastery the monks dwell dependent on a village, the boundary of that village is called the gāmasīmā. The boundary of the town on which they dwell dependently is called the nigamasīmā. The boundary of the city on which they dwell dependently is called the nagarasīmā. All of these are called gāmasīmā. They become, like a bounded boundary of common affiliation and single Uposatha, suitable for performing community acts such as Uposatha, etc., together for those monks. It is in such a place that it is proper to establish a boundary, and not in a place unsuitable for performing community acts such as Uposatha, etc. This is what is stated.
Thus, for a bhikkhu who wishes to establish a boundary, great effort must be made to ensure all characteristics are complete. Therefore, at the time of establishing the boundary, the suitability of the assembly should first be ensured by examining the village boundary. Here, one might ask, “Shouldn’t the established boundary be established? Why then should the village boundary be examined?” It is because the established boundary is to be established while standing within the village boundary. This is stated by the Blessed One: “Bhikkhus, when a boundary is not established, but a residence is set up near a village or town, the village boundary of that village or town is the common boundary for living together and performing the Uposatha” (Mahāva. 147). Here, in the Pāli text, although not explicitly mentioned, the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 147) states that “by mentioning the village, the town is also included,” so the town boundary is also included. Therefore, in an unestablished boundary residence where bhikkhus live near a village, the enclosed area of that village is called the village boundary. The enclosed area of a town is called the town boundary. The enclosed area of a city is called the city boundary. All these are called village boundaries. The bhikkhus living within these boundaries are suitable for performing Saṅgha acts such as the Uposatha together, just like those within an established boundary. It is stated that a boundary should be established in such areas, not in areas unsuitable for Saṅgha acts like the Uposatha.
ID865
Tattha “yattake padese tassa tassa gāmassa gāmabhojakā baliṃ labhanti, so padeso appo vā hotu mahanto vā, gāmasīmātveva saṅkhyaṃ gacchatī”ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vacanato gāmādibhojakānaṃ balilabhanaṭṭhānaṃ gāmasīmā hoti, idañca yebhuyyavasena vuttaṃ. Baliṃ alabhantopi rājapaṇṇe āropitapadese tassa gāmassa gāmasīmāyeva. Vuttañhi vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.147) “baliṃ labhantīti idaṃ yebhuyyavasena vuttaṃ. ’Ayaṃ gāmo ettako karīsabhāgo’tiādinā pana rājapaṇṇesu āropitesu bhūmibhāgesu yasmiṃ yasmiṃ taḷākamātikāsusānapabbatādike padese baliṃ na gaṇhanti, sopi gāmasīmā eva. Rājādīhi paricchinnabhūmibhāgo hi sabbova ṭhapetvā nadīloṇijātassare gāmasīmāti veditabbo”ti. Ayaṃ pakatigāmasīmā nāma. “Yampi ekasmiṃyeva gāmakkhette ekaṃ padesaṃ, ’ayaṃ visuṃgāmo hotū’ti paricchinditvā rājā kassaci deti, sopi visuṃgāmasīmā hotiyevā”ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 147) vacanato rājā “pakatigāmakkhetteyeva pakatigāmato visuṃ pakatigāmena asammisso gāmo hotū”ti yaṃ padesaṃ deti, so padeso visuṃgāmasīmā nāma. Iti pakatigāmasīmā ca rājūnaṃ icchāvasena pavattā visuṃgāmasīmā ca baddhasīmā viya sabbakammārahā, tasmā abhinavabaddhasīmaṃ bandhitukāmehi pakatigāmasīmaṃ vā visuṃgāmasīmaṃ vā sodhetvā kattabbaṃ hoti. Tathā hi vuttaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ “tasmā sā ca itarā ca pakatigāmanagaranigamasīmā baddhasīmāsadisāyeva hontī”ti. Vimativinodaniyañca (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.147) “tattha hi sā ca rājicchāvasena parivattitvā samuppannā abhinavā ca itarā ca aparivattā pakatigāmasīmā, yathā baddhasīmāyaṃ sabbaṃ saṅghakammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati, evametāpi sabbakammārahatāsadisena baddhasīmāsadisā, sā samānasaṃvāsā ekūposathāti adhippāyo”ti vuttaṃ.
Therein, according to the commentary, “The area where the village officials receive tribute, whether small or large, is reckoned as gāmasīmā,” this is generally stated. Even a place where tribute is not received, if listed in royal records, is still gāmasīmā for that village. It is said in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.147), “‘They receive tribute’ is stated generally. However, in areas listed in royal records as ‘This village is of such-and-such a tax portion,’ even in places like ponds, channels, cemeteries, or mountains where tribute is not taken, that too is gāmasīmā. Indeed, all land demarcated by kings and others, except rivers, salt lakes, and natural lakes, should be understood as gāmasīmā.” This is called a natural village boundary. And as stated in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 147), “Even if a king designates a portion within a single village field, saying, ‘Let this be a separate village,’ and gives it to someone, that too becomes a separate village boundary,” thus a portion given by a king within a natural village field, saying, “Let it be a village separate from the natural village, unmixed with it,” is called a separate village boundary. Thus, both a natural village boundary and a separate village boundary established by royal will are fully suitable for all actions like a fixed boundary. Therefore, those desiring to bind a newly fixed boundary must purify either a natural village boundary or a separate village boundary and perform it. Indeed, it is said in the commentary, “Hence, both that and the other—the natural village, city, or town boundary—are just like a fixed boundary.” And in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.147), it is said, “Therein, both that separate boundary newly arisen by royal will and the other natural village boundary unaltered, just as all communal actions can be performed in a fixed boundary, are similar to a fixed boundary in their suitability for all actions, with the intent that they are samānasaṃvāsakasīmā and ekūposathasīmā.”
Therein, according to the statement in the Aṭṭhakathā, “In whatever area the village headmen of that village receive taxes, that area, whether it be small or large, goes by the name of gāmasīmā,” the place where the village headmen, etc., receive taxes is the gāmasīmā. And this is stated generally. Even if they do not receive taxes, the area assigned in the royal edicts is the gāmasīmā of that village. For it is stated in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.147), “They receive taxes”ti This is said in general. In those land areas assigned in royal edicts, such as ‘This village has so much area of plough-land,’ etc., in whatever area, such as lakes, canals, cemeteries, mountains, etc., where they do not collect taxes, that too is the gāmasīmā itself. For all the land area delimited by the king, etc., excluding rivers, salt pans, and natural lakes, should be understood as the gāmasīmā.” This is called the natural village boundary (pakatigāmasīmā). “Even if the king, in a single village territory, delimits a certain area, saying, ‘Let this be a separate village,’ and gives it to someone, that too becomes a separate-village boundary (visuṃgāmasīmā),” according to the statement in the Aṭṭhakathā (mahāva. aṭṭha. 147), the area that the king gives, saying, “Let this area in the natural village territory itself, be a separate village, not mixed with the natural village,” that area is called a visuṃgāmasīmā (separate-village boundary). Thus, both the natural village boundary (pakatigāmasīmā) and the separate-village boundary (visuṃgāmasīmā), arising due to the wish of the kings, are suitable for all formal acts, like a bounded boundary. Therefore, those desiring to establish a new bounded boundary should purify either the natural village boundary or the separate-village boundary and then perform it. Thus, it is stated in the Aṭṭhakathā, “Therefore, both that and the other, the natural village, city, and town boundaries, are just like bounded boundaries.” And in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.147), it is stated, “Therein, both that which has been transformed and arisen due to the king’s wish, the new one, and the other, untransformed, natural village boundary, just as all community acts can be performed in a bounded boundary, so too are these similar to a bounded boundary, resembling suitability for all formal acts, with the meaning that it is of common affiliation, a single Uposatha.”
There, “the area where the village headmen receive offerings from that village, whether small or large, is considered the village boundary,” according to the commentary. This is generally stated. Even if offerings are not received, if the area is designated in royal documents, it is still the village boundary of that village. This is stated in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.147): “baliṃ labhantīti—this is generally stated. However, when areas such as ponds, cemeteries, mountains, etc., are designated in royal documents as ‘this village has this much share,’ even if offerings are not received there, it is still the village boundary. The area demarcated by the king, etc., is all considered the village boundary, except for rivers, salt lands, and natural lakes.” This is called the natural village boundary. “When, in a single village field, a certain area is demarcated by the king and given to someone as ‘this is a separate village,’ it becomes a separate village boundary,” according to the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 147). Thus, the king, by saying, “Let this area in the village field be a separate village, not mixed with the original village,” gives that area, and it becomes a separate village boundary. Thus, both the natural village boundary and the separate village boundary, established according to the king’s wish, are suitable for all acts, like the established boundary. Therefore, those who wish to establish a new established boundary should first clear the natural village boundary or the separate village boundary. As stated in the commentary: “Therefore, both the natural village, town, and city boundaries are like the established boundary.” And in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.147): “There, both the boundary transformed by the king’s wish and the new boundary, as well as the untransformed natural village boundary, are suitable for all Saṅgha acts, like the established boundary. The meaning is that they are common living areas for the Uposatha.”
ID866
Keci pana ācariyā “mayaṃ sīmaṃ bandhitukāmā, tasmā ettako bhūmiparicchedo visuṃ khettaṃ hotū”ti rājānaṃ āpucchitvā tena okāse kate “idaṃ ṭhānaṃ visuṃgāmakkhettaṃ hotī”ti manasi katvā tatraṭṭheyeva bhikkhū ca hatthapāsānayanādinā sodhetvā sīmāsamūhanasīmābandhanādīni karonti, taṃ karaṇaṃ “ayaṃ visuṃgāmo hotūti paricchinditvā rājā kassaci detī”ti aṭṭhakathāvacanena, “sā ca rājicchāvasena parivattitvā samuppannā abhinavā cā”ti āgatena vimativinodanīṭīkāvacanena ca samentaṃ viya na dissati. Kathaṃ? Aṭṭhakathāvacane tāva “ayaṃ visuṃgāmo hotū”ti iminā na kevalaṃ purimagāmoyeva gāmo hotu, atha kho idāni paricchinnapadesopi visuṃyeva gāmo hotūti ekaṃyeva gāmakkhettaṃ dve gāme karotīti dasseti. “Rājā kassaci detī”ti iminā gāmabhojakassa dinnabhāvaṃ pakāseti, idha pana neva dve gāme karoti, na ca gāmabhojakassa deti, kevalaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ anumatiyā yāvakālikavaseneva okāsaṃ karoti, evaṃ aṭṭhakathāvacanenapi samentaṃ viya na dissati. Vimativinodanīṭīkāvacanenapi “rājicchāvasena parivattitvā”ti iminā agāmabhūtaṃ khettaṃ rājicchāvasena parivattitvā gāmo hotīti dasseti. “Abhinavā cā”ti iminā purāṇagāmasīmā ca abhinavagāmasīmā cāti purimagāmena amissaṃ visuṃgāmalakkhaṇaṃ dasseti. Idha pana rājicchāvasena parivattitvā khettassa visuṃgāmabhūtabhāvo ca abhinavabhāvena visuṃgāmalakkhaṇañca na dissati, evaṃ ṭīkāvacanenapi samentaṃ viya na dissati.
However, some teachers, saying, “We wish to bind a boundary, so let this portion of land be a separate field,” ask the king, and when he grants the space, mentally designate it as “This place is a separate village field,” and there the monks purify it by removing those within reach and perform actions like boundary dissolution and boundary binding. This practice does not seem to align with the commentary statement, “A king designates it as ‘Let this be a separate village’ and gives it to someone,” nor with the Vimativinodanī statement, “That newly arisen by royal will.” How so? In the commentary statement, “Let this be a separate village” indicates not merely that the prior village remains a village, but that the newly demarcated portion also becomes a separate village, making one village field into two villages. “The king gives it to someone” reveals it is given to a village official, but here it neither creates two villages nor gives it to a village official; it merely provides temporary permission for the monks’ use, so it does not seem to align with the commentary statement. Likewise, with the Vimativinodanī statement, “By royal will altering it” indicates that a field not previously a village becomes a village by royal will, and “newly arisen” indicates a separate village characteristic unmixed with the prior village. But here, neither the field becoming a separate village by royal will nor its separate village characteristic by being newly arisen is evident, so it does not seem to align with the subcommentary statement either.
Some teachers, however, having requested the king, “We desire to establish a boundary; therefore, let this much land area be a separate field,” and after he has granted permission, thinking, “This place is a separate-village field (visuṃgāmakkhetta),” they purify the monks who are standing there by bringing them within arm’s reach, etc., and perform the acts of boundary revocation, boundary establishment, etc. That performance does not seem to accord with the statement of the Aṭṭhakathā, “The king gives it to someone after delimiting it, saying, ‘Let this be a separate village,’” and with the statement of the Vimativinodanī commentary, which states, “That which has been transformed and arisen due to the king’s wish, and the new one.” How so? In the statement of the Aṭṭhakathā, by saying, “Let this be a separate village,” it indicates that it not only makes the previous village remain a village, but also makes the now-delimited area a separate village, thus making one village territory into two villages. By saying, “The king gives it to someone,” it indicates the giving to a village headman. Here, however, it neither makes two villages, nor does it give to a village headman; it merely grants permission, through the monks’ consent, for temporary dwelling. Thus, it does not seem to accord with the statement of the Aṭṭhakathā. Nor does it seem to accord with the statement of the Vimativinodanī commentary, for by saying, “Having been transformed due to the king’s wish,” it indicates that the field that was not a village becomes a village by being transformed due to the king’s wish. By saying, “And the new one,” it indicates the characteristic of a separate village, not mixed with the previous village, both the previous village boundary and the new village boundary. Here, however, neither the transformation of the field into a separate village due to the king’s wish, nor the characteristic of a separate village due to its newness is seen. Thus, it does not seem to accord with the statement of the commentary.
Some teachers, wishing to establish a boundary, inform the king, “We wish to establish a boundary, so let this area be a separate field,” and when the king grants permission, they consider that place as a separate village field and, staying there, clear the area by bringing the bhikkhus and performing the boundary establishment and other acts. This action does not seem to align with the commentary’s statement: “The king, having demarcated an area, gives it to someone as ‘this is a separate village,”’ or with the Vimativinodanīṭīkā’s statement: “It is transformed by the king’s wish and becomes a new boundary.” How so? In the commentary, the statement “Let this be a separate village” indicates not only that the original village remains a village, but also that the newly demarcated area becomes a separate village, thus making one village field into two villages. The statement “The king gives it to someone” shows that it is given to a village headman. Here, however, it does not make two villages, nor is it given to a village headman, but merely grants temporary permission with the bhikkhus’ consent. Thus, it does not seem to align with the commentary. Similarly, the Vimativinodanīṭīkā’s statement “transformed by the king’s wish” indicates that a non-village field is transformed into a village by the king’s wish. The statement “new” indicates that the original village boundary and the new village boundary are separate, not mixed. Here, however, the transformation of the field into a separate village by the king’s wish and the newness of the separate village characteristic are not seen. Thus, it does not seem to align with the ṭīkā either.
ID867
Vinayavinicchayaṭīkāyañca “gāmaparicchedoti sabbadisāsu sammā paricchinditvā ’imassa padesassa ettako karo’ti evaṃ karena niyamito gāmappadeso”ti evaṃ āyavaseneva paricchindanaṃ vuttaṃ, na anumatikaraṇamattena, tasmā visuṃgāmalakkhaṇaṃ appattatāya pakatigāmena saṅkaro hoti, na tattha uposathādisaṅghakammaṃ kātumarahati, uposathādisaṅghakammakaraṇārahapadeseyeva sīmāsamūhananasīmābandhanakammampi karaṇārahaṃ hoti ñattidutiyakammattā tesaṃ kammānaṃ, tasmā tesaṃ ācariyānaṃ taṃ karaṇaṃ aññe ācariyā na icchanti. Aññe pana ācariyā “taṃ paricchinnappadesaṃ ’visuṃgāmo hotū’ti rājā kassaci deti, gāmabhojako ca tato baliṃ paṭiggaṇhāti, tadā visuṃgāmo hoti, na tato pubbe”ti vadanti. Tesaṃ taṃ vacanaṃ “evaṃ karena niyamito padeso”ti vinicchayaṭīkāvacanañca “gāmādīnaṃ karaggāhaparicchinno samantato padeso gāmasīmā”ti sīmālaṅkāragaṇṭhivacanañca sandhāya vuttaṃ siyā, tesu pana “imassa padesassa ettako karo”ti evaṃ karaparicchindanaṃ vuttaṃ, na gāmabhojakassa baliggahaṇaṃ. Aṭṭhakathāyañca “rājā kassaci detī”ti dānameva vadati, na “gāmabhojako ca baliṃ gaṇhātī”ti paṭiggahaṇaṃ, tasmā tampi vacanaṃ aññe paṇḍitā na sampaṭicchanti, tasmā pathavissaro rājā “imasmiṃ gāmakkhette ettakakarīsamatto padeso purimagāmato visuṃgāmo hotū”ti paricchinditvā deti, ettāvatā so padeso baliṃ paṭiggahito vā hotu appaṭiggahito vā, visuṃgāmo nāma hotīti daṭṭhabbo.
And in the Vinayavinicchayaṭīkā, it is said, “‘Gāmaparicchedo’ means a village area properly demarcated in all directions and fixed by tribute as ‘This area has such-and-such a tax,’” thus indicating demarcation by revenue, not mere permission. Therefore, due to not attaining separate village status, it becomes confused with the natural village, and it is not suitable to perform communal actions like Uposatha there. Only in a place suitable for performing communal actions like Uposatha is it appropriate to perform actions like boundary dissolution and boundary binding, since these actions are of the type with a motion and seconding. Thus, other teachers do not approve of those teachers’ practice. Yet other teachers say, “When a king designates that demarcated area as ‘Let it be a separate village’ and gives it to someone, and the village official receives tribute from it, then it becomes a separate village, not before.” Their statement might be made with reference to the Vinayavinicchayaṭīkā statement, “An area fixed by such revenue,” and the Sīmālaṅkāragaṇṭhi statement, “The area surrounding a village, fixed by the receipt of tribute, is gāmasīmā.” However, in those, it speaks of fixing by revenue as “This area has such-and-such a tax,” not the receipt of tribute by a village official. And in the commentary, “The king gives it to someone” speaks only of giving, not “The village official receives tribute,” so that statement too is not accepted by other scholars. Therefore, it should be seen that when a sovereign king demarcates a portion within a village field, saying, “Let this portion of such-and-such a tax measure be a separate village from the prior village,” and gives it, that portion becomes a separate village, whether tribute is received or not.
And in the Vinayavinicchaya commentary, “gāmaparicchedo”ti means the land area of the village delimited by revenue, such as, ‘The tax of this area is so much,’ having been completely delimited on all sides in this manner,” thus, delimitation by revenue is stated, not merely by granting permission. Therefore, because of not attaining the characteristic of a separate village, it becomes mixed with the natural village. It is not suitable to perform community acts such as Uposatha, etc., there. Only a place suitable for performing community acts such as Uposatha, etc., is suitable for performing acts of boundary revocation and boundary establishment, because those acts are acts requiring a motion and second. Therefore, that performance of those teachers is not accepted by other teachers. Other teachers, however, say, “When the king gives that delimited area, saying, ‘Let it be a separate village,’ and the village headman receives taxes from it, then it becomes a separate village, not before that.” Their statement may have been made with reference to the statement of the Vinicchaya commentary, “The area delimited by revenue in this manner,” and the statement of the Sīmālaṅkāra subcommentary, “The area of the village, etc., delimited all around by the collection of taxes, is the gāmasīmā.” However, in those, the delimitation of revenue is stated, such as, “The tax of this area is so much,” not the receiving of taxes by the village headman. And in the Aṭṭhakathā, it only states, “The king gives to someone,” about giving, not “And the village headman receives taxes,” about receiving. Therefore, that statement too is not accepted by other scholars. Therefore, when the lord of the earth, the king, delimits and gives an area, saying, “In this village territory, let the area of so many karīsa be a separate village from the previous village,” by that much, whether taxes are received from that area or not, it should be understood that it becomes a separate village (visuṃgāma).
In the Vinayavinicchayaṭīkā, it is stated: “gāmaparicchedoti—the village area is demarcated in all directions by measuring and saying, ‘This area has this much share,”’ thus indicating that the demarcation is done by measurement, not merely by consent. Therefore, since the characteristic of a separate village is not attained, it mixes with the natural village, and Saṅgha acts like the Uposatha cannot be performed there. Only in areas suitable for Saṅgha acts like the Uposatha should the boundary establishment and other acts be performed, as they require formal motions and announcements. Therefore, some teachers do not approve of such actions by those teachers. Others say, “When the king demarcates an area and gives it to someone as ‘this is a separate village,’ and the village headman receives offerings from it, then it becomes a separate village, not before.” Their statement may refer to the Vinayavinicchayaṭīkā’s statement: “The area is measured and demarcated,” and the Sīmālaṅkāragaṇṭhi’s statement: “The area demarcated by the village headmen is the village boundary.” However, in their case, the statement “This area has this much share” refers to the measurement, not the village headman’s receipt of offerings. The commentary also states, “The king gives it to someone,” referring only to the giving, not the village headman’s receipt of offerings. Therefore, some scholars do not accept their statement. Thus, when the king, the lord of the land, demarcates an area in the village field and says, “Let this area, of such a share, be a separate village, not mixed with the original village,” and gives it, whether offerings are received or not, it should be regarded as a separate village.
ID868
Evaṃ pakatigāmalakkhaṇañca visuṃgāmalakkhaṇañca tathato ñatvā baddhasīmaṃ bandhitukāmo yadi pakatigāmasīmā nātivitthārā hoti sukharakkhitā, tameva pakatigāmasīmaṃ suṭṭhu rakkhāpetvā suṭṭhu sodhetvā sīmāsamūhananasīmāsammutikammāni kātabbāni. Yadi pana pakatigāmasīmā ativitthārā hoti, nigamasīmā, nagarasīmā vā honti, bahūnaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ nisinnaṭṭhānasañcaraṇaṭṭhānattā sodhetuṃ vā rakkhituṃ vā na sakkonti, evañca sati pathavissararājūhi paricchinnāya visuṃgāmasīmāya suṭṭhu sodhetvā surakkhitaṃ katvā sīmāsamūhananasīmāsammutikammaṃ kātabbaṃ. Kathaṃ pana suṭṭhu sodhanañca suṭṭhu rakkhaṇañca kātabbaṃ? Sīmaṃ bandhitukāmena hi sāmantavihāresu bhikkhū tassa tassa vihārassa sīmāparicchedaṃ pucchitvā baddhasīmavihārānaṃ sīmāya sīmantarikaṃ, abaddhasīmavihārānaṃ sīmāya upacāraṃ ṭhapetvā disācārikabhikkhūnaṃ nissañcārasamaye sace ekasmiṃ gāmakkhette sīmaṃ bandhitukāmā, ye tattha baddhasīmavihārā, tesu bhikkhūnaṃ “mayaṃ ajja sīmaṃ bandhissāma, tumhe sakasakasīmāya paricchedato mā nikkhamathā”ti pesetabbaṃ. Ye abaddhasīmavihārā, tesu bhikkhū ekajjhaṃ sannipātetabbā, chandārahānaṃ chando āharāpetabbo. Evaṃ sannipatitesu pana bhikkhūsu chandārahānaṃ chande āhaṭe tesu tesu maggesu ca nadītitthagāmadvārādīsu ca āgantukabhikkhūnaṃ sīghaṃ sīghaṃ hatthapāsānayanatthañca bahisīmakaraṇatthañca ārāmike ceva samaṇuddese ca ṭhapetvā bherisaññaṃ vā saṅkhasaññaṃ vā katvā sīmā samūhanitabbāti.
Thus, having truly understood the characteristics of a natural village and a separate village, if one desiring to bind a fixed boundary finds the natural village boundary not too extensive and easily protected, he should thoroughly protect and purify that natural village boundary and perform the actions of boundary dissolution and boundary agreement. However, if the natural village boundary is too extensive, or there is a town boundary or city boundary, and due to the seating and movement areas of many monks it cannot be purified or protected, then, having thoroughly purified and well-protected a separate village boundary demarcated by sovereign kings, the actions of boundary dissolution and boundary agreement should be performed. But how should thorough purification and protection be done? One desiring to bind a boundary should inquire about the boundary demarcations of the surrounding monasteries from the monks there, establish an intervening space with the boundaries of fixed-boundary monasteries and an approach area with the boundaries of unfixed-boundary monasteries, and at a time when wandering monks are not moving about, if intending to bind a boundary in one village field, should send word to the monks in fixed-boundary monasteries there, saying, “We will bind a boundary today; do not leave beyond the demarcation of your respective boundaries.” Those in unfixed-boundary monasteries should be gathered together, and the consent of those entitled to it should be obtained. Having gathered the monks and obtained the consent of those entitled, at roads, river crossings, village gates, and such, lay attendants and novices should be placed to quickly remove incoming monks within reach and keep them outside the boundary, and with a drum signal or conch signal, the boundary should be dissolved.
Having thus understood the characteristic of a natural village boundary and a separate village boundary as it really is, if one wishes to establish a bounded sīmā and the natural village boundary is not too extensive and is easily guarded, one should have that very natural village boundary well guarded, well cleaned, and perform the acts of withdrawing the sīmā and agreeing upon the sīmā. However, if the natural village boundary is too extensive, or it is the boundary of a market town or a city, because many monks are sitting and walking about, they cannot clean or guard it. In such a case, having well cleaned and well secured the separate village boundary demarcated by earth-spreading kings, the acts of withdrawing the sīmā and agreeing upon the sīmā should be performed. But how should the cleaning and guarding be done properly? A person who is desirous of establishing the sīmā, having inquired the boundaries from monks about the boundaries of each and every surrounding monastery. Boundaries for monasteries that sīmā have already bounded, not-bounded monasteries’ upacāra boundaries should be established, and when monks that travel between the districts aren’t traveling, if he intends to bind the boundary within the field of one single village, he should inform those who reside in the monasteries where the boundary is already bound, ‘Today we will bind the sīmā; do not leave the boundaries of your respective sīmās’. Monks of unbound monasteries, should be gathered in one place. Those who are eligible to give consent should be made to bring their consent. When the monks are gathered together, after the consent of the monks, suitable to give consent, has been brought, on those roads, river fords, village gates, etc. to quickly bring arriving monks within reach and to place them outside the boundary, monastic attendants and novices should be stationed. Making a signal with a drum or a conch, the sīmā should be withdrawn.
Having thus understood the characteristics of a natural village and a separate village, if one wishes to establish a boundary (sīmā) and the natural village boundary is not excessively large and is easy to protect, then after thoroughly protecting and cleaning that natural village boundary, the acts of removing and establishing the boundary (sīmāsamūhanana and sīmāsammuti) should be performed. However, if the natural village boundary is too extensive, or if it is a market or city boundary, and due to the presence of many monks and the difficulty of cleaning or protecting it, then in such a case, after thoroughly cleaning and securing a separate village boundary demarcated by the king’s officials, the act of removing and establishing the boundary should be performed. How should the thorough cleaning and protection be done? One who wishes to establish a boundary should inquire about the boundary limits of each monastery from the monks in neighboring monasteries. For monasteries with established boundaries, the boundary limits should be respected, and for those without established boundaries, the proximity should be determined. When monks on a journey are not present, if one wishes to establish a boundary in a village area, the monks of the monasteries with established boundaries should be informed, “We will establish the boundary today; do not leave the limits of your respective boundaries.” Monks from monasteries without established boundaries should be gathered together, and their consent should be obtained. When the monks have assembled and the consent of those entitled to give consent has been obtained, the boundary should be marked by placing signs on paths, riverbanks, village gates, etc., and by appointing monastery attendants and novice monks to quickly bring wandering monks within reach and to mark the outer boundary. A drum or conch signal should be given, and the boundary should then be established.
ID869
Nanu ca idaṃ sodhanaṃ rakkhaṇañca sīmāsammutikāleyeva aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ, atha kasmā idha sīmāsamūhanane vuttanti? Imassapi sīmāsamūhananakammassa ñattidutiyakammattā parisasampattijananatthaṃ vuttanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Evaṃ santepi idaṃ sīmāsamūhananakammaṃ nāma yadi porāṇā baddhasīmā atthi, tadaṭṭhakasaṅghe hatthapāsagate aññesu bhikkhūsu gāmasīmaṃ paviṭṭhesupi kammabhedo natthi. Yadi porāṇā baddhasīmā natthi, evampi sati kevalaṃ gāmasīmābhūtattā sīmāsamūhananakamme asampajjantepi doso natthi, atha kasmā sodhanā vuttāti? Saccaṃ, tathāpi samūhanitabbā porāṇasīmāparicchedassa duviññeyyattā. Sace hi mahatiyā porāṇabaddhasīmāya ekasmiṃ padese sīmaṃ samūhanissāmāti saṅghe sannipatite tassāyeva sīmāya aññasmiṃ padese bhikkhumhi paviṭṭhe ajānantassapi kammaṃ vipajjati, tasmā mahussāhena sodhetabbāvāti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Evaṃ gāmasīmasodhanaṃ “parisasampattiyā yuttā nāma sabbantimena paricchedena catūhi bhikkhūhi sannipatitvā yāvatikā tasmiṃ gāmakkhette baddhasīmaṃ vā nadīsamuddajātassare vā anokkamitvā ṭhitā bhikkhū, te sabbe hatthapāse vā katvā chandaṃ vā āharitvā sammatā”ti kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) āgatattā parisasampattikāraṇaṃ hotīti viññāyati. Tato “sīmāya sīmaṃ sambhindantena sammatā, sīmāya sīmaṃ ajjhottharantena sammatā”ti vuttehi dvīhi vipattidosehi muccanatthaṃ sīmasamūhananakammaṃ kātabbaṃ.
But isn’t this purification and protection stated in the commentary only at the time of boundary agreement? Then why is it mentioned here at the time of boundary dissolution? It should be seen as stated for the sake of generating the perfection of the assembly, since this boundary dissolution action is also of the type with a motion and seconding. Even so, this boundary dissolution action, if there is an old fixed boundary and monks within reach of an acting community enter the village boundary, does not invalidate the action. If there is no old fixed boundary, even then, since it is merely a village boundary, there is no fault in failing to perform the boundary dissolution action. So why is purification mentioned? True, yet it must be dissolved due to the difficulty of discerning the demarcation of an old boundary to be dissolved. For if, in a large old fixed boundary, the community gathers to dissolve the boundary in one area, but a monk enters another area of that same boundary unknowingly, the action fails. Therefore, it should be seen that it must be purified with great effort. Thus, the purification of a village boundary, as stated in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā), “It is equipped with the perfection of the assembly when, within the smallest demarcation, four monks gather, and all the monks standing within that village field, without encroaching on a fixed boundary, river, sea, or natural lake, are either within reach or their consent is obtained and agreed upon,” is understood to be for the sake of the perfection of the assembly. Then, to be free from the two faults stated as “Agreed upon while confusing one boundary with another” and “Agreed upon while overlapping one boundary with another,” the boundary dissolution action should be performed.
Now, is this cleaning and guarding stated in the commentary (aṭṭhakathā) only at the time of establishing a boundary? Why then is it said here during the withdrawal of a boundary? It should be understood that this act of withdrawing the sīmā is also a ñattidutiya-kamma, spoken for the purpose of gathering a complete assembly. Even so, this act of withdrawing the sīmā, if there is an ancient established sīmā, when the Sangha is established and other monks have entered the village boundary, there is no breach of the act. If there is no ancient established sīmā, even so, because it is just the village boundary, there is no fault, even if the action for boundary withdrawal is not successful. So why then is the cleaning being spoken? Truly, it is because the boundaries of ancient sīmās, that are intended to be withdrawn, is not very cognizable. If the Sangha is assembled in one part of the large ancient established sīmā with the intention of withdrawing the sīmā, the act is invalid even if a single monk enters another part of that same sīmā unknowingly. Therefore, it should be understood that one must clean with great effort. Thus, cleaning the village boundary is understood to be the cause of a complete assembly because in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇi (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) it says that “a complete assembly, by its most limiting definition, is where four monks have gathered, the monks dwelling in the area of that village boundary, without having stepped over any bound sīmā, river, sea, or natural lake, all those monks are kept within reach of the hand or consent is brought and then is agreed.” Then, the act of withdrawing the sīmā should be performed in order to be free from the two faults of transgression, spoken of as “agreed by intertwining a sīmā with a sīmā, agreed by overlapping a sīmā with a sīmā.”
But wasn’t this cleaning and protection mentioned in the commentary in the context of establishing the boundary (sīmāsammuti)? Why then is it mentioned here in the context of removing the boundary (sīmāsamūhanana)? It should be understood that this is said to ensure the completeness of the assembly. Even so, this act of removing the boundary is such that if there is an old established boundary, even if other monks enter the village boundary while the Sangha is within arm’s reach, there is no fault. If there is no old established boundary, even then, since it is merely a village boundary, there is no fault if the act of removing the boundary is not performed. So why is cleaning mentioned? It is true, but the old boundary should still be removed due to the difficulty of discerning its limits. For if, while the Sangha is assembled to remove a part of a large old established boundary, a monk enters another part of that boundary unknowingly, the act becomes invalid. Therefore, it should be understood that the boundary must be thoroughly cleaned with great effort. Thus, the cleaning of the village boundary is said to be for the sake of assembling the Sangha, as stated in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Nidānavaṇṇanā): “The assembly is complete when four monks, having gathered within the entire area of the village field, excluding any established boundary or river, sea, or lake, stand within arm’s reach or give their consent.” Therefore, to avoid the two faults of “overlapping boundaries” and “encroaching boundaries,” the act of removing the boundary should be performed.
ID870
Sīmāya asamūhatāya sati kathaṃ vipattidvayaṃ āpajjeyyāti, tathā sodhitāyapi gāmasīmāya. Yadi porāṇabaddhasīmā vijjamānā bhaveyya, tassā vijjamānabhāvaṃ ajānantā navaṃ baddhasīmaṃ bandheyyuṃ. Porāṇasīmāya hi nimittaṃ anto katvā tassa samīpe porāṇasīmāya anto ṭhitaṃ aññaṃ nimittaṃ katvā navaṃ baddhasīmaṃ bandheyyuṃ, sīmāya sīmaṃ sambhindantena sammatā nāma hoti. Tena vuttaṃ kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) “sīmāya sīmaṃ sambhindantena sammatā nāma attano sīmāya paresaṃ sīmaṃ sambhindantena sammatā. Sace hi porāṇakassa vihārassa puratthimāya disāya ambo ceva jambū cāti dve rukkhā aññamaññaṃ saṃsaṭṭhaviṭapā honti, tesu ambassa pacchimadisābhāge jambū. Vihārasīmā ca jambuṃ anto katvā ambaṃ kittetvā baddhā hoti, atha pacchā tassa vihārassa puratthimadisāyaṃ vihāre kate sīmaṃ bandhantā bhikkhū ambaṃ anto katvā jambuṃ kittetvā bandhanti, sīmāya sīmā sambhinnā nāma hotī”ti. Porāṇasīmāya ca ekadesaṃ vā sakalaporāṇasīmaṃ vā anto karitvā navaṃ sīmaṃ bandheyyuṃ, sīmāya sīmaṃ ajjhottharantena sammatā nāma . Vuttañhetaṃ kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) “sīmāya sīmaṃ ajjhottharantena sammatā nāma attano sīmāya paresaṃ sīmaṃ ajjhottharantena sammatā. Sace hi paresaṃ baddhasīmaṃ sakalaṃ vā tassā padesaṃ vā anto katvā attano sīmaṃ sammannanti, sīmāya sīmaṃ ajjhottharitā nāma hotī”ti.
How could one incur these two faults if the boundary is not dissolved, even when the village boundary is purified? If an old fixed boundary exists, and unaware of its existence, they bind a new fixed boundary—by including a marker of the old boundary within and making another marker near it within the old boundary, binding a new fixed boundary—it becomes “Agreed upon while confusing one boundary with another.” Thus, it is said in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā), “‘Agreed upon while confusing one boundary with another’ means agreed upon while confusing another’s boundary with one’s own. For if, in the eastern direction of an old monastery, there are two trees, a mango and a rose-apple, with intertwined branches, and the monastery boundary is bound including the rose-apple and announcing the mango, then later, when a monastery is built in the eastern direction of that monastery and monks binding a boundary include the mango and announce the rose-apple, the boundaries become confused.” Or if they bind a new boundary including part or all of the old boundary, it becomes “Agreed upon while overlapping one boundary with another.” This is stated in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā), “‘Agreed upon while overlapping one boundary with another’ means agreed upon while overlapping another’s boundary with one’s own. For if they agree upon their boundary including all or part of another’s fixed boundary, it becomes overlapped.”
How, in the absence of the withdrawal of the sīmā, would one incur the two transgressions, even when the village boundary is thus cleaned? If there were an existing ancient established sīmā, not knowing of its existence, they might establish a new established sīmā. Indeed, establishing a new sīmā by making a marker within the old sīmā and near it, making another marker that is situated inside the old sīmā, is called ‘agreed by intertwining a sīmā with a sīmā’. It is said in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇi (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā), “’agreed by intertwining a sīmā with a sīmā’ means agreed by intertwining the sīmā of others with one’s own sīmā. If indeed, in the eastern direction of an old monastery, there are two trees, a mango and a rose-apple, with branches intertwined with each other, the rose-apple is in the portion of the west of the mango. And the monastery sīmā is bounded by including the rose-apple and marking the mango. Then later, when a monastery is established in the eastern direction of that monastery, the monks who are establishing the sīmā include the mango and mark the rose-apple, it is called ‘the sīmās are intertwined’”. Or, they might establish a new sīmā by including a part of the old sīmā, or the entire old sīmā, it is named ‘agreed by overlapping a sīmā with a sīmā’. It is said in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇi (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) “’agreed by overlapping a sīmā with a sīmā’ means agreed by overlapping the sīmā of others with one’s own sīmā. If indeed, they agree upon their own sīmā by including the entire established sīmā of others, or a portion of it, it is called ‘the sīmā is overlapped’”.
If the boundary is not removed, how could the two faults arise? Even if the village boundary is cleaned, if an old established boundary exists and its existence is unknown, a new boundary might be established. For example, if an old boundary is marked by a sign, and a new sign is placed near it to establish a new boundary, this would be called “overlapping boundaries” (sīmāya sīmaṃ sambhindantena sammatā). As stated in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Nidānavaṇṇanā): “Overlapping boundaries” means overlapping another’s boundary with one’s own. For instance, if in the eastern direction of an old monastery, there are two trees, a mango and a rose apple, with intertwined branches, and the monastery boundary was established by including the rose apple and excluding the mango, but later, when establishing a boundary for a new monastery in the eastern direction, the mango is included and the rose apple is excluded, this is called “overlapping boundaries.” Similarly, if a part or the entirety of an old boundary is included within a new boundary, this is called “encroaching boundaries” (sīmāya sīmaṃ ajjhottharantena sammatā). As stated in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Nidānavaṇṇanā): “Encroaching boundaries” means encroaching upon another’s boundary with one’s own. If one includes the entirety or a part of another’s established boundary within one’s own boundary, this is called “encroaching boundaries.”
ID871
Yasmiṃ padese cattāro bhikkhū nisīditvā kammaṃ kātuṃ na sakkonti, tattha tato paṭṭhāya yāva kesaggamattampi aññesaṃ porāṇabaddhasīmappadesaṃ attano sīmāya anto karonto sīmāya sīmaṃ sambhindati nāma. Catunnaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ nisīdituṃ pahonakaṭṭhānato paṭṭhāya yāva sakalampi aññesaṃ porāṇabaddhasīmāpadesaṃ attano sīmāya anto karonto sīmāya sīmaṃ ajjhottharati nāma. Vuttañhetaṃ kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyā līnatthapakāsaniyaṃ (kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. nidānavaṇṇanā) “tassā padesanti tassā ekadesaṃ, yattha ṭhatvā catūhi bhikkhūhi kammaṃ kātuṃ sakkā hoti, tādisaṃ ekadesanti vuttaṃ hoti. Yattha pana ṭhitehi kammaṃ kātuṃ na sakkā, tādisaṃ padesaṃ anto karitvā sīmāya sīmaṃ sambhindanti nāma, na tu ajjhottharanti nāmāti gahetabba”nti. Vimativinodaniyampi (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.148) “yattha catūhi bhikkhūhi nisīdituṃ na sakkā, tattakato paṭṭhāya yāva kesaggamattampi attano sīmāya karontā sambhindanti, catunnampi bhikkhūnaṃ pahonakato paṭṭhāya yāva sakalampi anto karontā ajjhottharantīti veditabba”nti vuttaṃ.
In a place where four monks cannot sit and perform an action, from that point onward, even including as little as a hair-tip of another’s old fixed boundary area within one’s own boundary is called “confusing one boundary with another.” From a place sufficient for four monks to sit, including up to the entirety of another’s old fixed boundary area within one’s own boundary is called “overlapping one boundary with another.” This is stated in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī Līnatthapakāsanī (kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. nidānavaṇṇanā), “‘Tassā padesa’ means a part of it, a part where four monks standing can perform an action, such a part is meant. But a part where standing monks cannot perform an action, when included within, is called confusing one boundary with another, not overlapping.” And in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.148), it is said, “Where four monks cannot sit, from that extent onward, even including as little as a hair-tip within one’s boundary is confusing; from a place sufficient for four monks onward, including up to the entirety is overlapping.”
From the place where four monks cannot sit and perform the act, starting from there, to include even a hair’s breadth of another’s ancient established sīmā area within one’s own sīmā is called intertwining a sīmā with a sīmā. Starting from the place where four monks are able to sit, to include even the entire area of another’s ancient sīmā within one’s own sīmā is called overlapping a sīmā with a sīmā. It is said in the Līnatthapakāsani of Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. nidānavaṇṇanā) “a portion of that” means one part of it, a single part of the kind that four monks, having stood there, are able to do the kamma. Where such a part is that the ones standing are not able to perform the kamma, by enclosing such a portion, it is called ‘intertwining a sīmā with a sīmā’, but it shouldn’t be taken as called ‘overlapping’. In the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.148), it is also said, “Starting from that much where four monks cannot sit, those who make even as little as a hair’s breadth as their sīmā are intertwining. Starting from that is enough for four monks, those who include up to the entirety are overlapping, this should be understood”.
In a place where four monks cannot sit to perform an act, if one includes even a hair’s breadth of another’s old established boundary within one’s own boundary, this is called “overlapping boundaries.” If one includes an area from where four monks can sit up to the entirety of another’s old established boundary within one’s own boundary, this is called “encroaching boundaries.” As stated in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī’s Līnatthapakāsanī (Kaṅkhā. Abhi. Ṭī. Nidānavaṇṇanā): “A part of it” means a part where four monks can stand to perform an act. If one includes a place where monks cannot stand to perform an act, this is called “overlapping boundaries,” but not “encroaching boundaries.” The Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.148) also states: “Where four monks cannot sit, if one includes even a hair’s breadth within one’s own boundary, it is called ‘overlapping boundaries.’ If one includes an area from where four monks can sit up to the entirety of another’s boundary, it is called ‘encroaching boundaries.’”
ID872
Evaṃ hotu, tasmiṃ gāmasīmaparicchede porāṇakasīmāya vijjamānāya vipattidvayamocanatthaṃ sīmāsamūhananakammaṃ sātthakaṃ, avijjamānāya kathaṃ sātthakaṃ bhaveyyāti saṅkānivattanatthaṃ sīmāsamūhananakammaṃ akatvā abhinavasīmāya bajjhamānāya saṅkā uppajjeyya, bhagavato dharamānakālato paṭṭhāya yāvajjatanā gaṇanapathaṃ vītikkantā bhikkhū upasampadādikammakaraṇatthaṃ tasmiṃ tasmiṃ padese sīmaṃ bandhanti. Sā sīmā ettha atthi, ettha natthīti na sakkā jānituṃ, tasmā “amhākaṃ sīmābandhanaṭṭhāne porāṇakasīmā bhaveyya nu kho”ti saṅkā bhaveyya, evaṃ sati sā abhinavasīmā ca āsaṅkanīyā hotīti sīmāyaṃ kataṃ upasampadādikammampi āsaṅkanīyaṃ hoti, tasmā saṅkānivattanatthaṃ abhinavasīmaṃ bandhitukāmehi yatipuṅgavehi avassaṃ sīmāsamūhananakammaṃ kātabbaṃ hoti. Samūhanantehi pana “sīmaṃ, bhikkhave, samūhanantena paṭhamaṃ ticīvarena avippavāso samūhantabbo, pacchā sīmā samūhantabbā”ti (mahāva. 144) vacanato paṭhamaṃ avippavāsasīmā samūhanitabbā, tato samānasaṃvāsakasīmā samūhanitabbā. Tasmiṃ samūhananakāle ca “khaṇḍasīmāyaṃ ṭhatvā avippavāsasīmā na samūhantabbā, tathā avippavāsasīmāya ṭhatvā khaṇḍasīmāpi. Khaṇḍasīmāya pana ṭhitena khaṇḍasīmāva samūhanitabbā, tathā itarāya ṭhitena itarā”ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 144) vacanato khaṇḍasīmāyaṃ ṭhatvāva khaṇḍasīmā samūhanitabbā, mahāsīmāyameva ṭhatvā mahāsīmā samūhanitabbā, aññissā sīmāya ṭhatvā aññā sīmā na samūhanitabbā. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ avippavāsasīmāti mahāsīmaṃ vadati tattheva yebhuyyena cīvarena vippavasanato.
So be it. In that village boundary demarcation, when an old boundary exists, the boundary dissolution action is meaningful to avoid the two faults. But how is it meaningful when it does not exist? To dispel doubt, if a new boundary is bound without performing the boundary dissolution action, a doubt might arise. From the time of the Blessed One’s presence until now, countless monks have bound boundaries in various places for actions like ordination. It cannot be known whether a boundary exists here or not, so a doubt might arise, “Could there be an old boundary in the place where we are binding our boundary?” In such a case, both that and the new boundary become doubtful, and actions like ordination performed in that boundary also become doubtful. Therefore, to dispel doubt, those eminent ones desiring to bind a new boundary must certainly perform the boundary dissolution action. When dissolving, as stated, “Monks, one dissolving a boundary should first dissolve the avippavāsasīmā with the triple robe, then dissolve the boundary” (mahāva. 144), the avippavāsasīmā should be dissolved first, then the samānasaṃvāsakasīmā. And at the time of that dissolution, as stated in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 144), “One should not dissolve the avippavāsasīmā while standing in a khaṇḍasīmā, nor the khaṇḍasīmā while standing in an avippavāsasīmā. But a khaṇḍasīmā should be dissolved by one standing in a khaṇḍasīmā, and likewise the other by one standing in the other,” a khaṇḍasīmā should be dissolved only while standing in a khaṇḍasīmā, and a great boundary only while standing in a great boundary; one boundary should not be dissolved while standing in another boundary. In the commentary, avippavāsasīmā refers to the great boundary, as robes are mostly separated there.
Let it be so. Within the boundary of that village, when an ancient sīmā exists, the act of withdrawing the sīmā is meaningful for the purpose of avoiding the two transgressions. When it doesn’t exist, how can it be meaningful? In order to dispel doubt, if the act of withdrawing the sīmā is not performed and a new sīmā is being established, doubt may arise. Starting from the time the Blessed One was alive, until today, monks have established sīmās in various places for the purpose of performing acts like upasampadā (higher ordination). It is not possible to know whether a sīmā exists here or does not exist here. Therefore, a doubt may arise, “Could there be an ancient sīmā in the place where we are establishing our sīmā?” If so, the newly established sīmā is doubted. Thus, the upasampadā and other acts performed in that sīmā are doubted as well. Therefore, in order to dispel doubt, the eminent elders who are desirous of establishing a new sīmā must necessarily perform the act of withdrawing the sīmā. But by those who are withdrawing, “Monks, by the one withdrawing the sīmā, firstly the non-residence with the three robes must be withdrawn, and then the sīmā is to be withdrawn” (mahāva. 144) according to this statement, first the sīmā of non-residence should be withdrawn, then the sīmā of communal residence should be withdrawn. And at the time of that withdrawal, “One should not withdraw the sīmā of non-residence while standing in a khaṇḍasīmā (minor boundary), nor a khaṇḍasīmā while standing in a sīmā of non-residence. One standing in a khaṇḍasīmā should withdraw only the khaṇḍasīmā, and likewise, standing in the other, the other.” (mahāva. aṭṭha. 144), according to this statement in the commentary, standing in a khaṇḍasīmā, the khaṇḍasīmā should be withdrawn. Only while standing in the great sīmā should the great sīmā be withdrawn. Standing in another sīmā, another sīmā should not be withdrawn. In the commentary, the sīmā of non-residence, refers to the great sīmā, because there, for the most part, one is separated from one’s robes.
Thus, in the demarcation of a village boundary, if an old boundary exists, the act of removing the boundary is meaningful to avoid the two faults. If it does not exist, how could it be meaningful? Without performing the act of removing the boundary, doubts may arise when establishing a new boundary. Since the time of the Buddha, monks have established boundaries in various places for performing acts such as ordination. It is impossible to know whether such a boundary exists or not in a particular place. Therefore, the doubt may arise, “Could there be an old boundary in the place where we are establishing our boundary?” If so, the new boundary would be questionable, and any ordination or other act performed within it would also be questionable. Therefore, to dispel such doubts, those who wish to establish a new boundary must perform the act of removing the boundary. When removing the boundary, as stated in the Mahāvagga (144), “Monks, when removing a boundary, first the non-separation boundary (avippavāsasīmā) should be removed, and then the communal boundary (samānasaṃvāsakasīmā).” According to the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 144), “When standing in a partial boundary (khaṇḍasīmā), the non-separation boundary should not be removed, and when standing in the non-separation boundary, the partial boundary should not be removed. When standing in the partial boundary, only the partial boundary should be removed, and when standing in the other, only the other should be removed.” The commentary refers to the non-separation boundary as the great boundary (mahāsīmā), since it is where most robes are stored.
ID873
“Tattha sace khaṇḍasīmañca avippavāsasīmañca jānanti, samūhanituñceva bandhituñca sakkhissanti. Khaṇḍasīmaṃ pana jānantā avippavāsaṃ ajānantāpi samūhanituñceva bandhituñca sakkhissanti. Khaṇḍasīmaṃ pana ajānantā avippavāsaṃyeva jānantā cetiyaṅgaṇabodhiyaṅgaṇauposathāgārādīsu nirāsaṅkaṭṭhānesu ṭhatvā appeva nāma samūhanituṃ sakkhissanti, paṭibandhituṃ pana na sakkhissanteva. Sace bandheyyuṃ, sīmāsambhedaṃ katvā vihāraṃ avihāraṃ kareyyuṃ, tasmā na samūhanitabbā. Ye pana ubhopi na jānanti, teneva samūhanituṃ na bandhituṃ sakkhissanti. Ayañhi sīmā nāma kammavācāya vā asīmā hoti sāsanantaradhānena vā, na ca sakkā sīmaṃ ajānantehi kammavācā kātuṃ, tasmā na samūhanitabbā, sādhukaṃ pana ñatvāyeva samūhanitabbā ca bandhitabbā cā”ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 144) vacanato “idāni sīmaṃ samūhanissāmā”ti paricchinnāya gāmasīmāya anto khaṇḍasīmamahāsīmānaṃ atthibhāvaṃ vā natthibhāvaṃ vā tāsaṃ sīmānaṃ paricchedañca na jānanti, evaṃ ajānantā bhikkhū tā porāṇasīmāyo samūhanituṃ na sakkuṇeyyuṃ, porāṇasīmaṃ samūhanituṃ asakkontā ca kathaṃ abhinavasīmaṃ bandhituṃ sakkuṇissantīti paramparehi ācariyehi sammā vinicchitaṃ anulomanayaṃ nissāya mahantaṃ ussāhaṃ karitvā aṅgaṃ aparihāpetvā sammā vihitanayena porāṇasīmaṃ samūhanituṃ sakkhissanti.
“There, if they know both the khaṇḍasīmā and the avippavāsasīmā, they can both dissolve and bind them. Knowing the khaṇḍasīmā but not the avippavāsasīmā, they can still dissolve and bind. But not knowing the khaṇḍasīmā and knowing only the avippavāsasīmā, they might perhaps dissolve it while standing in doubt-free places like the shrine courtyard, Bodhi tree courtyard, or Uposatha hall, but they certainly cannot bind. If they did bind, they would confuse the boundaries and turn a monastery into a non-monastery, so it should not be dissolved. Those who know neither can neither dissolve nor bind for that reason. For a boundary becomes a non-boundary either by the recitation of an action or by the disappearance of the dispensation, and those who do not know the boundary cannot perform the recitation, so it should not be dissolved. It should be dissolved and bound only after knowing it well,” as stated in the commentary (mahāva. aṭḥa. 144). Thus, “We will now dissolve the boundary,” but within the demarcated village boundary, they do not know whether a khaṇḍasīmā or great boundary exists or not, nor their demarcations. Such unknowing monks could not dissolve those old boundaries, and being unable to dissolve an old boundary, how could they bind a new one? Thus, relying on the method properly determined by successive teachers, making great effort without neglecting any aspect, they can dissolve an old boundary by the properly established method.
“There, if they know both the khaṇḍasīmā and the sīmā of non-residence, they will be able to both withdraw and establish. But those who know the khaṇḍasīmā, even if they do not know the non-residence, they will be able to withdraw and establish. But those who do not know the khaṇḍasīmā and know only the non-residence, standing in places without any doubt, such as a shrine courtyard, a Bodhi tree courtyard, an uposatha hall, etc., if they are fortunate, they may be able to withdraw. But they will certainly not be able to establish. If they were to establish, having created a sīmā-intermingling, they would make the monastery a non-monastery. Therefore, it should not be withdrawn. But those who do not know both, will be able to neither withdraw nor establish. Indeed, this sīmā is either a non-sīmā by means of the formal act or by the disappearance of the Dispensation, and it is not possible for those who do not know the sīmā to perform the formal act, therefore it should not be withdrawn. But having properly known it, it should be withdrawn and established” (mahāva. aṭṭha. 144), according to this statement in the commentary, “Now we will withdraw the sīmā” within the determined village boundary, they do not know whether khaṇḍasīmās and great sīmās exist or do not exist, nor the boundaries of those sīmās. Thus, the monks who do not know, would not be able to withdraw those ancient sīmās. And not being able to withdraw the ancient sīmā, how will they be able to establish a new sīmā? Following the well-determined appropriate method transmitted by successive teachers, making great effort, without neglecting any factor, being able to properly withdraw the ancient sīmā using the method that is done correctly.
“If they know both the partial boundary and the non-separation boundary, they will be able to remove and establish them. If they know the partial boundary but not the non-separation boundary, they will still be able to remove and establish it. If they do not know the partial boundary but know the non-separation boundary, they may be able to remove it by standing in doubt-free places such as the cetiya courtyard, bodhi tree courtyard, or uposatha hall, but they will not be able to establish it. If they try to establish it, they will create a boundary conflict and render the monastery invalid. Therefore, it should not be removed. Those who do not know either should not attempt to remove or establish it. For a boundary is either without a kammavācā or has disappeared due to the disappearance of the teaching. One cannot perform a kammavācā without knowing the boundary, so it should not be removed. However, once it is properly understood, it should be removed and established.” According to the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 144), “When the village boundary is demarcated and one does not know the existence or non-existence of the partial or great boundaries within it, or their limits, monks who do not know these old boundaries will not be able to remove them. If they cannot remove the old boundaries, how will they be able to establish a new boundary?” Therefore, following the proper method as determined by the ancient teachers, with great effort and without neglecting any steps, they will be able to remove the old boundary.
ID874
Kathaṃ? Tasmiṃ sīmāsamūhananakāle yadi pakatigāmasīmāyaṃ āraddhaṃ, taṃ pakatigāmaparicchedaṃ, yadi visuṃgāmasīmāyaṃ āraddhaṃ, taṃ visuṃgāmaparicchedaṃ aññesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ appavisanatthāya samantato susaṃvihitārakkhaṃ kārāpetvā kammavācaṃ sāvetuṃ samatthena byattibalasampannena vinayadharena saha samānasaṃvāsake lajjipesale imassa kammassa catuvaggakaraṇīyattā cattāro bhikkhū kammappatte bhikkhūnaṃ pakatattabhāvassa dubbiññeyyattā vā tato adhikappamāṇe bhikkhū gahetvā idāni bandhitabbāya sīmāya nimittānaṃ vihāraparikkhepassa ca anto ca sabbattha bahi ca samantā leḍḍupātamatte padese sabbattha mañcappamāṇe mañcappamāṇe ṭhāne hatthapāsaṃ avijahitvā tiṭṭhantā, nisīdantā vā hutvā paṭhamaṃ avippavāsasīmāsamūhananakammavācaṃ, tato samānasaṃvāsakasīmāsamūhananakammavācaṃ sāvetvā sīmāya samugghāte kate porāṇasīmāsu vijjamānāsupi pacchimantena ekavīsatiyā bhikkhūnaṃ nisīdanārahattā sīmāya mañcappamāṇe mañcappamāṇe ṭhāne tiṭṭhantā bhikkhū avassaṃ tāsu sīmāsu tiṭṭhantā bhaveyyuṃ, tasmā sīmaṭṭhā hutvā sīmāsamūhananakammavācaṃ vatvā tā sīmā samūhaneyyuṃ. Tato porāṇabaddhasīmānaṃ samūhatattā gāmasīmāyeva avasiṭṭhā bhaveyyāti. Vuttañhetaṃ vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144) “keci pana īdisesu vihāresu chapañcamatte bhikkhū gahetvā vihārakoṭito paṭṭhāya vihāraparikkhepassa anto ca bahi ca samantā leḍḍupāte sabbattha mañcappamāṇe mañcappamāṇe okāse nirantaraṃ ṭhatvā paṭhamaṃ avippavāsasīmaṃ , tato samānasaṃvāsakasīmañca samūhananavasena sīmāya samugghāte kate tasmiṃ vihāre khaṇḍasīmāya mahāsīmāya ca vijjamānatte satipi avassaṃ ekasmiṃ mañcaṭṭhāne tāsaṃ majjhagatā te bhikkhū tā samūhaneyyuṃ, tato gāmasīmā eva avasisseyyā”ti.
How? At the time of that boundary dissolution, if begun in a natural village boundary, that natural village demarcation, or if begun in a separate village boundary, that separate village demarcation, should be well-protected all around to prevent other monks from entering, and with a competent, capable Vinaya expert, together with modest and virtuous monks of the same community—since this action requires a group of four due to its nature as an action, and because the natural state of the monks involved in the action is difficult to discern, taking four or more monks—within and around the monastery enclosure of the boundary to be bound now, at every spot within a stone’s throw around, in every place the size of a bed, standing or sitting without leaving reach, they should first recite the action for dissolving the avippavāsasīmā, then the action for dissolving the samānasaṃvāsakasīmā. When the boundary is abolished, even if old boundaries exist, since at least twenty-one monks are suitable to sit in a boundary, monks standing in bed-sized spaces would certainly be standing in those boundaries. Thus, standing in the boundary and reciting the boundary dissolution action, they would dissolve those boundaries. Then, with the old fixed boundaries dissolved, only the village boundary would remain. This is stated in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144): “Some, in such monasteries, take five or six monks and, starting from the monastery edge, within and around the monastery enclosure, at every spot within a stone’s throw, standing continuously in bed-sized spaces, first dissolve the avippavāsasīmā and then the samānasaṃvāsakasīmā by dissolution. Even if a khaṇḍasīmā and great boundary exist in that monastery, those monks in the middle of a bed-sized space would certainly dissolve them, and then only the village boundary would remain.”
How? At the time of withdrawing the sīmā, if it is commenced in a natural village boundary, having made well-established protection all around for the purpose of not letting other monks enter that natural village boundary, or, if it is commenced in a separate village boundary, having made well-established protection all around for the purpose of not letting other monks enter that separate village boundary. With a Vinaya-master who is capable of reciting the formal proclamation, possessed of eloquence and strength, together with monks of communal residence, modest and conscientious, and because this kamma is to be done by four, four monks, or because the natural state of monks capable for the kamma is difficult to know, taking more than that number of monks, standing or sitting without leaving the reach of hand within the markers of the boundary to be established now, and everywhere within and outside the monastery enclosure, all around, in spaces as big as a couch, every space the size of a couch. First, reciting the formal proclamation for withdrawing the sīmā of non-residence, then reciting the formal proclamation for withdrawing the sīmā of communal residence. When the sīmā is uprooted, even if there are ancient sīmās present, because, at the very least, twenty-one monks can sit, monks standing in sīmā areas of couch-size by couch-size, those monks will certainly be standing in those sīmās. Therefore, having become those who dwell in the sīmā, having spoken the formal proclamation for withdrawing the sīmā, they would withdraw those sīmās. Then, because the ancient established sīmās have been withdrawn, only the village boundary would remain. It is said in the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144) “Some, however, in such monasteries, taking five or six monks, starting from the edge of the monastery, everywhere within and outside the monastery enclosure, all around, in spaces the size of a couch, every space the size of a couch without interruption, standing, first the sīmā of non-residence, then, with the method of withdrawing, the sīmā of communal residence, and having made the sīmā be uprooted. In that monastery even if there is the presence of the khaṇḍasīmā and the great sīmā, certainly those monks being within those boundaries in any couch-sized space would withdraw them. Then only the village boundary would remain”.
How? At the time of removing the boundary, if it is within a natural village boundary, the natural village limits should be demarcated. If it is within a separate village boundary, the separate village limits should be demarcated. To prevent other monks from entering, thorough protection should be arranged all around, and the kammavācā should be announced by a competent, knowledgeable, and vinaya-observing monk, along with fellow monks who are modest and respectful. Due to the difficulty of understanding the nature of the monks entitled to perform the act, four monks or more should be selected. When establishing the new boundary, the signs and the monastery precincts should be marked, both inside and outside, at every stone’s throw distance, and at every bed’s length, without losing arm’s reach. Standing or sitting, they should first announce the act of removing the non-separation boundary, then the communal boundary. After the boundary is removed, even if old boundaries exist, since twenty-one monks are required to sit, the monks should stand at every bed’s length within those boundaries. Therefore, standing within the boundary, they should announce the act of removing the boundary and then remove it. After removing the old established boundaries, only the village boundary will remain. As stated in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.144): “Some, in such monasteries, take five or six monks and, starting from the monastery corner, mark the inside and outside of the monastery precincts at every stone’s throw distance and at every bed’s length without gaps. Standing there, they first remove the non-separation boundary, then the communal boundary. After the boundary is removed, even if the partial and great boundaries exist in that monastery, the monks standing in one bed’s length within them should remove them. Then only the village boundary will remain.”
ID875
“Sādhukaṃ pana ñatvāyeva samūhanitabbā ceva bandhitabbā cā”ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 144) vacanato sīmaṃ jānantāyeva samūhanituṃ sakkhissanti, kathaṃ ajānantāti. Imasmiṃ sīmāsamūhananādhikāre sīmaṃ vā sīmāparicchedaṃ vā jānanabhāvo aṅgaṃ na hoti, antosīmāyaṃ ṭhitabhāvo, “sīmaṃ samūhanissāmā”ti kammavācākaraṇanti idameva dvayaṃ aṅgaṃ hoti, tasmā iminā aṅgadvayena sampanne sati imaṃ ajānantāpi samūhanituṃ sakkontīti. Iminā aṅgadvayena sampanne sati sīmaṃ ajānantānaṃ samūhanituṃ samatthabhāvo kathaṃ viññātabboti? Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ “khaṇḍasīmaṃ pana jānantā avippavāsaṃ ajānantāpi samūhanituñceva bandhituñca sakkhissantī”ti evaṃ mahāsīmāya paricchedaṃ ajānanaṭṭhānepi samūhananassa vuttattā vimativinodaniyampi (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144) “na hettha sīmāya, tapparicchedassa vā jānanaṃ aṅgaṃ, sīmāya pana antoṭhānaṃ, ’samūhanissāmā’ti kammavācākaraṇañca aṅgaṃ. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 144) ’khaṇḍasīmaṃ pana jānantā avippavāsaṃ ajānantāpi samūhanituñceva bandhituñca sakkhissantī’ti evaṃ mahāsīmāya paricchedassa ajānanepi samūhananassa vuttattā”ti vuttaṃ. Tato porāṇabaddhasīmānaṃ samūhatattā gāmasīmāyeva avasiṭṭhā bhaveyyāti tasmiṃ avasiṭṭhāya tato paraṃ kiṃ kātabbanti. Gāmasīmāya avasiṭṭhāya sati taṃ gāmasīmaṃ pubbe vuttanayena sodhanaṃ rakkhaṇañca katvā tissaṃ gāmasīmāyaṃ khaṇḍasīmaṃ mahāsīmañca yathāruci bandhituṃ labhati, sīmaṃ abandhitvāva kevalāya gāmasīmāya upasampadādisaṅghakammañca kātumpi labhati.
From the statement in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 144), “Having well understood, it should indeed be removed and bound,” only those who know the sīmā will be able to remove it—how could those who do not know do so? In this authority regarding the removal of a sīmā, knowing the sīmā or its boundaries is not a requisite factor; rather, standing within the sīmā and performing the kammavācā with the intention “We will remove the sīmā” are the only two requisite factors. Therefore, when these two factors are fulfilled, even those who do not know it can remove it. How should the ability of those who do not know the sīmā to remove it be understood when these two factors are fulfilled? In the commentary it is said, “Those who know a khaṇḍasīmā but do not know avippavāsa can both remove and bind it,” and thus it is stated that removal is possible even without knowing the boundaries of a mahāsīmā. Likewise, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144), it is said, “Here, knowing the sīmā or its boundaries is not a factor; rather, standing within the sīmā and performing the kammavācā with ‘We will remove it’ are the factors. In the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 144), it is stated, ‘Those who know a khaṇḍasīmā but do not know avippavāsa can both remove and bind it,’ indicating that removal is possible even without knowing the boundaries of a mahāsīmā.” Therefore, when ancient bound sīmās are removed, only the gāmasīmā would remain. When that remains, what should be done next? When the gāmasīmā remains, it can be purified and protected as previously described, and within that gāmasīmā, a khaṇḍasīmā or mahāsīmā can be bound as desired. Alternatively, without binding a sīmā, saṅghakamma such as upasampadā may also be performed solely within the gāmasīmā.
“But it should be properly uprooted and bound only after knowing,” thus it is said in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 144). Therefore, they will be able to uproot the boundary only if they know the boundary; how can they do it without knowing? In this matter of uprooting a boundary, knowing the boundary or the boundary’s extent is not a factor. The factors are being situated within the boundary and reciting the formal act of “We will uproot the boundary.” Therefore, when these two factors are fulfilled, even those who do not know it can uproot it. How is it to be understood that those who do not know the boundary are capable of uprooting it, when these two factors are fulfilled? In the commentary, it says, “But knowing the khandhasīmā (sub-boundary), even though they do not know the avippavāsa (non-residence boundary), they will be able to both uproot and bind it.” Thus, even in the case of not knowing the extent of the great boundary, the uprooting is mentioned. The Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144) also states, “Here, knowing the boundary, or its extent, is not a factor; being situated within the boundary and reciting the formal act of ‘We will uproot it’ are the factors. In the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 144), ‘But knowing the khandhasīmā (sub-boundary), even though they do not know the avippavāsa (non-residence boundary), they will be able to both uproot and bind it.’ Thus, even in the case of not knowing the extent of the great boundary, the uprooting is mentioned.” Because the anciently established boundary has been uprooted, only the village boundary would remain. Since it remains, what should be done next? When the village boundary remains, having purified and protected that village boundary in the previously mentioned manner, one may establish a khandhasīmā and a great boundary within that village boundary as desired. One may also perform monastic acts such as the higher ordination even with only the village boundary, without establishing a [new] boundary.
“Having thoroughly known, it should be removed and bound,” according to the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 144). Thus, those who know the boundary (sīmā) will be able to remove it, but how can those who do not know it do so? In this matter of removing the boundary, knowing the boundary or its limits is not a necessary factor. What is necessary is being within the boundary and performing the kammavācā (formal act) with the declaration, “We will remove the boundary.” Therefore, even those who do not know the boundary can remove it if these two factors are fulfilled. How is the capability of those who do not know the boundary to remove it to be understood? The commentary states, “Even those who do not know the entire boundary but know a part of it (khaṇḍasīmā) and are not separated from it can remove and bind it.” Thus, even without knowing the limits of a large boundary, the removal is possible. The Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.144) also states, “Here, knowing the boundary or its limits is not a factor; rather, being within the boundary and performing the kammavācā with the declaration, ‘We will remove the boundary,’ are the factors.” Therefore, even without knowing the limits of a large boundary, the removal is possible. Consequently, when the previously established boundaries are removed, only the village boundary remains. What should be done thereafter? When the village boundary remains, after purifying and protecting it as previously described, one may establish a partial boundary (khaṇḍasīmā) and a large boundary (mahāsīmā) as desired. Even without establishing a boundary, one may perform Saṅgha acts such as ordination within the village boundary alone.
ID876
Vuttañhi vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144) – “gāmasīmāya eva ca avasiṭṭhāya tattha yathāruci duvidhampi sīmaṃ bandhituñceva upasampadādikammaṃ kātuñca vaṭṭatīti vadanti, taṃ yuttaṃ viya dissati, vīmaṃsitvā gahetabba”nti. Tasmā yadi saṭṭhihatthāyāmaṃ cattālīsahatthavitthāraṃ khaṇḍasīmameva kattukāmā honti, ettake padese mañcaṭṭhānaṃ gaṇhanto pamāṇayuttako mañcoti sabbapacchimappamāṇayutto mañco. So hi pakatividatthiyā navavidatthiko, aṭṭhavidatthiko vā hoti. Tato khuddako mañco sīsupadhānaṃ ṭhapetvā pādaṃ pasāretvā nipajjituṃ nappahotīti sabbapacchimamañcassa āyāmappamāṇassa samantapāsādikāyaṃ vuttattā tato adhikāyāmopi hotiyeva. Mañcassa vitthāro pana āyāmassa upaḍḍho hoti, tasmā mañcappamāṇaṭṭhānaṃ āyāmato pañcahatthaṃ, vitthārato pañcavidatthikanti gahetvā tena pamāṇena gaṇhanto saṭṭhihatthāyāmaṃ sīmaṭṭhānaṃ catuvīsatimañcakaṃ hoti, cattālīsahatthavitthāraṃ aṭṭhamañcakaṃ hoti. Evaṃ gaṇhanto dakkhiṇuttarāyāmo mañco hoti, saṭṭhihatthāyāmaṃ sīmaṭṭhānaṃ dvādasamañcakaṃ hoti, cattālīsahatthavitthāraṃ soḷasamañcakaṃ hoti. Evaṃ gaṇhanto pācīnapacchimāyāmo mañco hoti. Duvidhepi āyāmaṃ vitthārena guṇitaṃ karonto sakalaṃ antosīmaṭṭhānaṃ dvānahuttarasatamañcakaṃ hoti, bahisīmaṭṭhānampi samantato ekamañcakaṃ vā dvitimañcakaṃ vā gahetabbaṃ. Tena saha gaṇanaṃ vaḍḍhetabbaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144) pana “samantā leḍḍupāto”ti vuttaṃ, taṃ pana mahāsīmābandhanakāle vihāraparikkhepassa bahiupacāraṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ siyā. Khaṇḍasīmāyapi dūrato samūhanane doso natthi, dukkarattā pana kārakānaṃ pamāṇaṃ jānitabbaṃ. Kalyāṇiyaṃ nāma sīmāyaṃ pana āyāmato ca vitthārato ca pañcahatthappamāṇaṃ ṭhānaṃ ekakoṭṭhāsaṃ katvā samūhanati. Tampi pacchimamañcappamāṇato adhikamevāti katvā kataṃ. Idāni amheti vuttaṭṭhānaṃ pana pakaraṇanayena saṃsandanattā yuttataranti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
Indeed, it is said in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144), “And when only the gāmasīmā remains, they say it is permissible to bind both types of sīmā as desired and to perform actions such as upasampadā therein. This seems reasonable and should be accepted after careful consideration.” Therefore, if they wish to establish only a khaṇḍasīmā measuring sixty hatthas in length and forty hatthas in width, in such an area, the space for a mañca should be calculated as a mañca of standard size, being the smallest acceptable size. Such a mañca, by its natural measure, is nine vidatthis or eight vidatthis. A smaller mañca, with a headrest for a child, does not suffice for stretching out the feet and lying down, as stated in the Samantapāsādikā regarding the size of the smallest permissible mañca, indicating that a larger length is indeed possible. The width of a mañca is half its length; thus, the space for a mañca is taken as five hatthas in length and five vidatthis in width. Calculating with this measure, a sīmā area sixty hatthas in length accommodates twenty-four mañcas, and forty hatthas in width accommodates eight mañcas. When calculated this way, the mañca is oriented north-south; a sīmā area sixty hatthas in length accommodates twelve mañcas, and forty hatthas in width accommodates sixteen mañcas. When calculated this way, the mañca is oriented east-west. Multiplying the length and width in both orientations, the entire area within the sīmā totals two hundred and ninety-two mañcas. Outside the sīmā, an additional one or two mañcas should also be accounted for and included in the calculation. However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144), it is said “all around up to the leḍḍupāta,” which might refer to the area outside the vihāra boundary during the binding of a mahāsīmā. For a khaṇḍasīmā, there is no fault in removing it from a distance, but due to the difficulty, the performers should know the measure. In the Kalyāṇī sīmā, however, an area five hatthas in both length and width is treated as one segment for removal. This, too, exceeds the smallest mañca size. Now, what is stated here seems more reasonable due to its alignment with the text’s method.
For it is said in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144), “It is said that when only the village boundary remains, it is permissible both to establish the two kinds of boundary there as desired, and to perform acts such as the higher ordination. This seems reasonable, but it should be considered carefully.” Therefore, if they wish to create only a khandhasīmā that is sixty hands long and forty hands wide, in such a space, taking the space of a couch as the standard, the couch of standard measurement is the one with the smallest measurements. This is because it is normally nine vidatthi or eight vidatthi. Because it is said in the Samantapāsādikā that a small couch is insufficient for placing a pillow and stretching out the feet to lie down, the smallest couch length and width are indeed even greater than that. The width of a couch is half of its length. Therefore, taking the couch-sized space as five hands in length and five vidatthi in width, when calculating with that measurement, the boundary space that is sixty hands long contains twenty-four couch spaces, and that is forty hands wide contains eight couch spaces. Calculating in this way, there is a north-south oriented couch. When boundary place is sixty hands long it contains twelve couch spaces, and when forty hands wide, sixteen couch spaces. In this way of calculating, couches oriented east-west. Multiplying length and width in both cases makes the area inside the boundary 192 couch-sized spaces; outside boundary place even one couch size, or two couch size around must be taken. Calculation along with that must be increased. In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144), however, it is said, “around it, a stone’s throw.” But that would be said with reference to the outer enclosure of the monastery in the case of establishing a great boundary. There is no fault in uprooting the khaṇḍasīmā (sub-boundary) from a distance also. However, because it is difficult, the measurements should be known to the workers. In the boundary named Kalyāṇī, however, they uproot after making each section a space of five hands in length and width. That was done having made it larger than even the space of the smallest couch. Now, the place that we mentioned should be understood as more suitable because it is consistent with the procedural method.
As stated in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.144): “When only the village boundary remains, it is permissible to establish both types of boundaries and perform acts such as ordination as desired. This seems reasonable and should be carefully considered.” Therefore, if one wishes to establish a partial boundary (khaṇḍasīmā) measuring sixty hands in length and forty hands in width, one should measure the area accordingly. The measurement of a bed is appropriate here. A standard bed is nine or eight handbreadths long. A smaller bed is insufficient for lying down with legs stretched out. Since the length of the largest bed is mentioned in the Samantapāsādikā, it may even exceed that. The width of the bed is half its length. Thus, the area for the bed is five handbreadths in length and five handbreadths in width. Using this measurement, an area of sixty hands in length would accommodate twenty-four beds, and forty hands in width would accommodate eight beds. Measuring in this way, the length from south to north would be sixty hands, accommodating twelve beds, and the width from east to west would be forty hands, accommodating sixteen beds. Thus, the entire area within the boundary would accommodate one hundred and twenty beds, and the area outside the boundary should be measured as one or two beds around. The counting should be increased accordingly. The Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.144) mentions “throwing stones around,” which refers to the outer area of the monastery during the establishment of a large boundary. There is no fault in removing a partial boundary from a distance, but due to the difficulty, the measurers should know the proper measurements. In the Kalyāṇī boundary, one removes an area measuring five handbreadths in length and width, making it one section. This is done based on the measurement of the largest bed. Now, the meaning of “amhe” should be understood as more appropriate according to the context.
ID877
Samūhananākāro pana evaṃ veditabbo – idāni bandhitabbāya sīmāya nimittānaṃ anto ca bahi ca yathāvuttanayena samūhanitabbasīmaṭṭhānaṃ ādāsatalaṃ viya samaṃ suddhaṃ vimalaṃ katvā yathāvuttamañcappamāṇaṃ mañcappamāṇaṃ ṭhānaṃ aṭṭhapadakalekhaṃ viya rajjunā vā daṇḍena vā lekhaṃ kārāpetvā lekhānusārena tambamattikacuṇṇena vā setamattikacuṇṇena vā vaṇṇavisesaṃ kārāpetvā panti panti koṭṭhāsaṃ koṭṭhāsaṃ kārāpetvā pubbe vuttanayena ārakkhaṃ sodhanañca kārāpetvā “idāni sīmaṃ samūhanissāmā”ti cattāro vā taduttari vā samānasaṃvāsakabhikkhū gahetvā paṭhamapantiyaṃ paṭhamakoṭṭhāse mañcaṭṭhāne ṭhatvā paṭhamaṃ avippavāsasīmāsamūhananakammavācaṃ, tato samānasaṃvāsakasīmāsamūhananakammavācaṃ sāvetvā tasmiṃ koṭṭhāseyeva aññamaññassa ṭhitaṭṭhānaṃ parivattetvā parivattetvā tikkhattuṃ vā sattakkhattuṃ vā samūhanitvā tato nikkhamitvā paṭhamapantiyaṃyeva dutiyakoṭṭhāse ṭhatvā tatheva katvā tato paṭhamapantiyaṃyeva anulomanayena yāva antimakoṭṭhāsā ekekasmiṃ koṭṭhāse tatheva katvā paṭhamapantiyā parikkhīṇāya dutiyapantiyā antimakoṭṭhāse ṭhatvā tatheva katvā tato paṭṭhāya dutiyapantiyaṃyeva paṭilomanayena yāva ādikoṭṭhāsā tatheva katvā evaṃ tatiyapantiādīsupi ekadā anulomato ekadā paṭilomato gantvā sabbāsu pantīsu sabbasmiṃ koṭṭhāse parikkhīṇe idaṃ sīmāsamūhananakammaṃ niṭṭhitaṃ nāma hoti. “Cattāro taduttari vā”ti idaṃ pana imassa kammassa catuvaggakaraṇīyattā vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144) pana bhikkhūnaṃ pakatattabhāvassa duviññeyyattā lajjīpesalabhikkhūnañca dullabhattā “chapañcamatte”ti vuttaṃ.
The method of removal should be understood as follows: For the sīmā to be bound now, the area to be removed, both inside and outside its markers, should be made level, clean, and pure like a mirror’s surface, as previously described. The space for each mañca, according to the stated measure, should be marked with a line using a rope or stick, as if drawing an eight-petal lotus. Along these lines, red or white clay powder should be applied to create distinct colors, dividing it into rows and segments. Protection and purification should be performed as previously described. Then, taking four or more bhikkhus of common residence, standing in the first segment of the first row at the mañca space, they should first recite the kammavācā for removing the avippavāsasīmā, then the kammavācā for removing the samānasaṃvāsakasīmā. In that same segment, they should shift positions among themselves and repeat the removal three or seven times. Then, moving to the second segment of the first row, they should do the same. Continuing in the first row sequentially up to the final segment, they should do likewise. When the first row is completed, they should stand in the final segment of the second row and do the same, then proceed in reverse order in the second row back to the first segment, repeating the process. Similarly, in the third row and beyond, they should proceed forward once and backward once until all rows and segments are completed. When all segments in all rows are finished, this sīmāsamūhananakamma is considered complete. “Four or more” is stated because this kamma requires a group of at least four. However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144), “five or six” is mentioned due to the difficulty of discerning the natural state of bhikkhus and the rarity of conscientious and virtuous ones.
The manner of uprooting should be understood as follows: Now, within and outside the markers of the boundary to be established, in the manner previously described, the area of the boundary to be uprooted should be made level, clean, and clear like the surface of a mirror. Using a string or a stick, mark out the couch-sized space using the couch measurement as previously described, like drawing a checkerboard. Following the lines, distinguish the coloring with red earth powder or white earth powder, making rows and sections. Having provided protection and cleaning as mentioned before, taking four or more monks of the same affiliation saying, “Now we will uproot the boundary,” standing in the first row, in the first section at the place for a couch, first recite the formal act for uprooting the avippavāsasīmā (non-residence boundary) and then the formal act for uprooting the samānasaṃvāsakasīmā (community boundary). While remaining in that same section, exchanging places with each other, again and again, uproot three times or seven times. Then, going out from there, standing in the second section in the first row, do the same. Then, in the first row, in forward sequence, up to the last section, doing the same in each section. After the first row is finished, standing in the last section of the second row, doing the same. Then starting from there, in the second row, in reverse sequence, up to the first section, doing the same. Thus, in the third row and others, going once in forward sequence, once in reverse sequence, when all sections in all rows are finished, this act of uprooting the boundary is considered complete. “Four or more” is stated here because this act requires a quorum of four. In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144), however, it is stated, “five or six,” because the status of fully ordained monks is difficult to ascertain and virtuous monks with a sense of shame are rare.
The method of removal should be understood as follows: When the boundary to be established is marked, both inside and outside, the area to be removed should be made as clean and pure as a mirror surface, as previously described. Using a cord or stick, lines should be drawn according to the bed measurements, and colored powder (red or white) should be applied along the lines, dividing the area into sections. After purifying and protecting the area as previously described, four or more monks of the same communion should be gathered. Standing in the first section of the first line, they should first perform the formal act (kammavācā) for removing the non-separation boundary (avippavāsasīmā), followed by the formal act for removing the communion boundary (samānasaṃvāsakasīmā). After declaring this, they should rotate their positions within that section and repeat the removal three or seven times. Then, moving to the second section of the first line, they should repeat the process. Continuing in this manner, they should proceed sequentially through all sections of the first line. When the first line is completed, they should stand in the last section of the second line and repeat the process. Then, moving backward through the second line, they should repeat the process until reaching the first section. This should be done alternately, moving forward and backward through all lines and sections until the entire area is completed. This is called the completion of the boundary removal act. “Four or more” refers to the necessity of this act being performed by a group of four monks. The Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.144) states that due to the difficulty in discerning the status of monks and the rarity of modest and virtuous monks, “six or seven” monks are mentioned.
ID878
Kalyāṇīsīmāyaṃ pana sīhaḷadīpato abhinavasikkhaṃ gahetvā nivattantehi garahavivādamattampi alabhantehi dhammacetiyaraññā vicinitvā gahitehi cuddasahi bhikkhūhi katanti pāsāṇalekhāyaṃ āgataṃ. Ratanapūranagare pana sirīsudhammarājādhipatināmakassa cūḷaaggarājino kāle mahāsīhaḷappattoti vissuto sirīsaddhammakittināmako mahātheravaro attano vasanaṭṭhānassa avidūre pabbatamatthake sīmaṃ bandhanto attano nissitake aggahetvā attanā abhirucite lajjipesalabahussutasikkhākāmabhūte aññe mahāthere gahetvā attacatutthova hutvā kammaṃ karotīti vadanti. Taṃ imassa kammassa catuvaggakaraṇīyattā tesañca therānaṃ pakatattabhāve nirāsaṅkattā kataṃ bhaveyya, evaṃ santepi bhikkhūnaṃ pakatattabhāvassa dubbiññeyyattā catuvaggakaraṇīyakammassa atirekacatuvaggena karaṇe dosābhāvato atirekabhikkhūhi katabhāvo pasatthataro hoti. Teneva ca kāraṇena vimativinodanīnāmikāyaṃ vinayaṭīkāyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144) “chapañcamatte bhikkhū gahetvā”ti vuttaṃ, kalyāṇīsīmāyañca cuddasahi bhikkhūhi katanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Evaṃ niṭṭhitepi pana sīmāsamūhananakamme nānāvādānaṃ nānācariyānaṃ nānānikāyānaṃ nānādesavāsikānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ cittārādhanatthaṃ garahavivādamocanatthañca punappunaṃ tehipi bhikkhūhi tatheva kārāpetabbaṃ. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pari. aṭṭha. 482-483; vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 251) “punappunaṃ pana kātabbaṃ. Tañhi kuppassa kammassa kammaṃ hutvā tiṭṭhati, akuppassa thirakammabhāvāya hotī”ti. Teneva ca kāraṇena haṃsāvatīnagare anekapaṇḍarahatthisāmimahādhammarājā sahapuññakammabhūtato mahācetiyato catūsu disāsu sīmāsamūhananakāle rāmaññadesavāsīhi mahātherehi ca marammadesavāsīhi mahātherehi ca visuṃ visuṃ kārāpesīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
In the Kalyāṇī sīmā, it is recorded on a stone inscription that it was performed by fourteen bhikkhus who, having received new training from Sri Lanka and returned without even a hint of reproach or dispute, were selected by the Dhammacetiya king. In Ratanapūra city, during the reign of King Sirīsudhammarājādhipati, also known as Cūḷaaggarājā, a great elder named Sirīsaddhammakitti, famed as Mahāsīhaḷappatta, bound a sīmā on a mountaintop near his residence. Not taking his own disciples, he selected other great elders—conscientious, virtuous, learned, and eager for training—and performed the kamma as the fourth himself. This may have been done because this kamma requires at least four and there was no doubt about the natural state of those elders. Even so, since the natural state of bhikkhus is hard to discern and there is no fault in performing a kamma requiring four with more than four, doing it with additional bhikkhus is more praiseworthy. For this reason, in the Vinaya commentary called Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144), it is said “taking five or six bhikkhus,” and in the Kalyāṇī sīmā, it should be seen as done by fourteen bhikkhus. Even when this sīmāsamūhananakamma is completed, to satisfy the minds of bhikkhus from different traditions, teachers, sects, and regions, and to avoid reproach or dispute, it should be repeated by those bhikkhus in the same manner. Indeed, it is said in the commentary (pari. aṭṭha. 482-483; vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 251), “It should be done repeatedly. That which is subject to disruption becomes a kamma that endures; that which is not subject to disruption contributes to a firm kamma.” For this reason, in Haṃsāvatī city, the great king Anékapaṇḍarahatthisāmimahādhammarājā, as part of his meritorious deeds, had the sīmāsamūhanana performed separately by great elders from Rāmañña and Maramma regions at the four directions of the great cetiya.
But in the Kalyāṇī boundary, it is stated in a stone inscription that it was performed by fourteen monks who had been scrutinized and chosen by King Dhammaceti after they returned from Sīhaḷadīpa (Sri Lanka) with new ordination, and did not get even the slightest reason for censure or dispute. In the city of Ratanapūra, it is said that during the time of the junior chief king named Sirisudhammarājādhipati, a great elder named Sirisaddhammakitti, renowned as Mahāsīhaḷappatta, when establishing a boundary on the mountaintop not far from his residence, without taking his own dependents, took other great elders whom he desired, virtuous, with a sense of shame, learned, and desirous of training, and performed the act with himself as the fourth. That would have been done because this act requires a quorum of four, and there was no doubt about the status of those elders as fully ordained monks. Even so, because the status of fully ordained monks is difficult to ascertain, and because there is no fault in performing an act requiring a quorum of four with more than four, the fact that it was done with additional monks is more commendable. For that same reason, in the Vinaya commentary named Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144), it is stated, “taking five or six monks,” and in the Kalyāṇī boundary, it should be understood that it was done with fourteen monks. Even when the act of boundary uprooting is completed in this way, for the sake of pleasing the minds of monks of various views, various teachers, various sects, and various regions, and for the removal of censure and dispute, it should be done again and again by those monks in the same way. It is said in the commentary (pari. aṭṭha. 482-483; vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 251), “It should be done again and again. For that is an act for an unstable act, and it becomes for the stability of a stable act.” For that reason, in the city of Haṃsāvatī, it should be understood that when uprooting the boundary in the four directions from the great cetiya, which was the fruit of his merit, the great king, who owned many learned elephants and horses, had it done separately by great elders residing in Rāmaññadesa and by great elders residing in Marammadesa.
In the Kalyāṇī boundary, it is recorded in stone inscriptions that fourteen monks, after returning from Sri Lanka with new teachings and failing to find any fault or dispute, established the boundary in the Dhammacetiya forest. In Ratanapūra, during the time of King Sirīsudhammarājādhipati, a renowned elder named Sirīsaddhammakitti established a boundary on a mountain near his residence. Without relying on his own disciples, he gathered other elders who were modest, virtuous, learned, and desirous of training, and performed the act with himself as the fourth member. This was done because the act requires a group of four, and due to the elders’ established status, there was no suspicion. Even so, due to the difficulty in discerning the status of monks, performing the act with more than four monks is considered more commendable. For this reason, the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.144) states, “Take six or seven monks,” and in the Kalyāṇī boundary, it is seen that fourteen monks performed the act. Even after completing the boundary removal act, to satisfy monks of different views, traditions, sects, and regions, and to avoid blame and disputes, the act should be repeatedly performed by those monks. As stated in the commentary (Pari. Aṭṭha. 482-483; Vi. Saṅga. Aṭṭha. 251): “It should be done repeatedly. For a faulty act remains faulty, but a faultless act becomes firm.” For this reason, in Haṃsāvatī, the great King Dhammarāja, who shared merit with the great cetiya, had the boundary removal act performed separately by elders from Rāmañña and Maramma regions in the four directions.
ID879
Yadi pana mahāsīmaṃ bandhitukāmo hoti, tadā usabhamattaṃ vā dviusabhamattaṃ vā taduttari vā padesaṃ sallakkhetvā “ettake ṭhāne vihāraṃ karissāmā”ti parikkhepaṃ kārāpetvā tassa vihāraparikkhepassa anto ca sabbattha bahi ca samantā leḍḍupātaṭṭhāne mañcappamāṇe mañcappamāṇe okāse heṭṭhā vuttanayena pantikoṭṭhāse katvā kammappattehi bhikkhūhi saddhiṃ nirantaraṃ ṭhatvā paṭhamaṃ avippavāsasīmā tato samānasaṃvāsakasīmā ca samūhanitabbā. Evaṃ sīmāya samugghāte kate tasmiṃ vihāre khaṇḍasīmāya mahāsīmāya ca vijjamānatte sati avassaṃ ekasmiṃ mañcaṭṭhāne tāsaṃ majjhagatā te bhikkhū tā samūhaneyyuṃ, tato gāmasīmā eva avasisseyya, tassaṃ gāmasīmāyaṃ khaṇḍasīmāmahāsīmāvasena duvidhā sīmā yathāruci bandhitabbā. Bandhanākāraṃ pana upari vakkhāma.
If one wishes to bind a mahāsīmā, an area the size of one usabha, two usabhas, or more should be marked out, and a boundary should be established with the intention, “We will establish a vihāra in this space.” Within and entirely outside that vihāra boundary, up to the leḍḍupāta, the area should be divided into rows and segments of mañca size as previously described. Standing continuously with the bhikkhus competent for the kamma, the avippavāsasīmā should first be removed, followed by the samānasaṃvāsakasīmā. When the sīmā is thus removed, if both a khaṇḍasīmā and a mahāsīmā exist in that vihāra, those bhikkhus would inevitably remove them from a single mañca space between them. Then, only the gāmasīmā would remain, and within that gāmasīmā, a sīmā of either type—khaṇḍasīmā or mahāsīmā—may be bound as desired. The method of binding will be explained later.
If one wishes to establish a great boundary, then, having selected a space of one usabha, two usabhas, or more, and having an enclosure made, saying, “In this place we will build a monastery,” both inside and everywhere outside that monastery enclosure, around the place for a stone’s throw, making rows and sections in couch-sized spaces in the manner described above, standing continuously with the monks who are competent to perform the act, first the avippavāsasīmā (non-residence boundary) and then the samānasaṃvāsakasīmā (community boundary) should be uprooted. When the boundary is uprooted in this way, since a khaṇḍasīmā and a great boundary are present in that monastery, those monks will necessarily uproot them within one couch-sized space. Then, only the village boundary would remain. Within that village boundary, a khaṇḍasīmā and a great boundary, two kinds of boundary, should be established as desired. We will explain the manner of establishment later.
If one wishes to establish a large boundary (mahāsīmā), one should measure an area the size of one or two usabhas (a measure of land) or more, and plan to build a monastery within that area. After marking the boundaries, both inside and outside the monastery area, the area should be divided into sections as previously described. The monks performing the act should stand continuously within the area and first remove the non-separation boundary (avippavāsasīmā), followed by the communion boundary (samānasaṃvāsakasīmā). After removing the boundary in this way, if a partial boundary (khaṇḍasīmā) and a large boundary (mahāsīmā) exist within the monastery, the monks should remove them, leaving only the village boundary. Within the village boundary, one may establish both a partial boundary and a large boundary as desired. The method of establishment will be explained later.
ID880
Kasmā pana nimittānaṃ bahipi sīmāsamūhananaṃ kataṃ, nanu nimittānaṃ antoyeva abhinavasīmā icchitabbāti tattheva sambhedajjhottharaṇavimocanatthaṃ porāṇakasīmāya samūhananaṃ kātabbanti? Saccaṃ, duviññeyyattā pana evaṃ katanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Duviññeyyo hi porāṇakasīmāya vijjamānāvijjamānabhāvo, tasmā yadi nimittānaṃ antoyeva sīmāsamūhananaṃ kareyya, tato bahi porāṇakasīmā tiṭṭheyya, tato appamattakaṃ ṭhānaṃ anto paviseyya, taṃ ṭhānaṃ kammavācāpāṭhakena saha sīmāsamūhananakārakasaṅghassa patiṭṭhahanappahonakaṃ na bhaveyya, evaṃ sante sā porāṇakasīmā asamūhatāva bhaveyya. Taṃ samūhatasaññāya sīmāsammannanakāle antonimittaṭṭhānaṃ sammanneyyuṃ, taṃ asamūhataporāṇasīmākoṭipaviṭṭhattā sīmāya sīmaṃ sambhedadoso, yadi pana taṃ ṭhānaṃ catunnaṃ nisinnappahonakaṃ bhaveyya, sīmāya sīmaṃ ajjhottharaṇadoso, yadipi anto na pavisati, nirantaraṃ phuṭṭhamattaṃ hoti, evampi sīmāsaṅkaradosoti imasmā dosattayā vimocanatthaṃ nimittānaṃ bahipi sīmāsamūhananaṃ kataṃ. Teneva vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144) “bahi ca samantā leḍḍupāte”tiādi vuttanti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
Why, then, is the sīmāsamūhanana performed even outside the markers? Should not a new sīmā be desired only within the markers, and thus the removal of the old sīmā be done there to avoid overlap or encroachment? True, but it should be seen as done this way due to its dual discernibility. The existence or non-existence of an old sīmā is hard to discern. If the sīmāsamūhanana were performed only within the markers, an old sīmā might remain outside. If a small area then enters within, that space might not suffice for the saṅgha performing the kammavācā to stand with the reciter, leaving the old sīmā unremoved. In that case, thinking it removed, they might designate markers within at the time of sīmāsammannana, leading to the fault of one sīmā overlapping another due to the unremoved old sīmā’s edge intruding. If that space suffices for four to sit, it becomes the fault of one sīmā encroaching on another. Even if it does not enter but merely touches continuously, it still results in the fault of sīmā confusion. To be free from these three faults, the sīmāsamūhanana is performed even outside the markers. Thus, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144), it is stated “outside and all around up to the leḍḍupāta.”
But why is the boundary uprooting done even outside the markers? Isn’t it that the new boundary is desired only within the markers, and therefore the uprooting of the ancient boundary should be done there, for the sake of avoiding commingling, overlapping, and dissolution? True, but it should be understood that it is done in this way because it is difficult to ascertain. The presence or absence of the ancient boundary is difficult to ascertain. Therefore, if the boundary uprooting were done only within the markers, the ancient boundary might remain outside. Then, a small space might enter inside. That space might not be sufficient for the monks who are performing the boundary uprooting, including the reciter of the formal act, to stand. In that case, that ancient boundary would not be uprooted. If, thinking it is uprooted, they were to establish a boundary within the area of the markers, because it is included within the edge of the ancient boundary that has not been uprooted, there is the fault of commingling of boundaries. If, however, that space were sufficient for four to sit, there is the fault of overlapping of boundaries. Even if it does not enter inside, if it is just touching, there is still the fault of boundary confusion. To avoid these three faults, the boundary uprooting is done even outside the markers. Therefore, it should be understood that in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144), it is said, “and outside, around it, a stone’s throw,” etc.
Why is the removal of boundary markers done both inside and outside? Shouldn’t the new boundary be desired only within the markers? To avoid confusion and overlapping, the removal of the old boundary should be done. Indeed, due to the difficulty in discerning, it is done this way. It is hard to determine whether the old boundary exists or not. If the removal were done only within the markers, the old boundary might remain outside, and a small area might enter inside. This area would not be properly established by the reciter of the kammavācā and the Saṅgha performing the removal. Thus, the old boundary would remain unremoved. Thinking it has been removed, they might establish the boundary within the markers, but since the old boundary remains, there would be a fault of overlapping boundaries. If the area is not entered, it would still be in contact, causing a fault of boundary confusion. To avoid these three faults, the removal is done both inside and outside the markers. For this reason, the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.144) states, “Outside, around the throwing of stones,” etc.
ID881
Keci pana ācariyā samantā nimittānaṃ anto rajjupasāraṇaṃ katvā anto ṭhatvā rajjuyā heṭṭhā pāde pavesetvā rajjuto bahi kiñcimattaṃ ṭhānaṃ atikkamitvā sīmāsamūhananaṃ karonti, tadetaṃ vicāretabbaṃ. Pādaggaṭṭhapanamattena porāṇasīmāsamugghāto na hoti, atha kho kammavācāpāṭhakena saha kammapattasaṅghassa patiṭṭhānena kammavācāya pāṭhanena ca samugghāto hoti. Vuttañhi vimativinodanippakaraṇe (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144) “sīmāya pana antoṭhānaṃ, ’samūhanissāmā’ti kammavācāya karaṇañcettha aṅga”nti, tasmā ekadesena antopaviṭṭhāya ca ekasambandhena ṭhitāya porāṇakabaddhasīmāya samugghāte akate vuttanayena dosattayato na mucceyya, tasmā nimittato bahipi ṭhatvā samūhananakaraṇabhāvova pāsaṃsataro hoti. Aññe pana ācariyā kammakārakabhikkhūnaṃ padavalañjasambandhaṃ katvā samūhananti, taṃ garukaraṇavasena katanti gayhamāne doso natthi. Ekacce pana therā “kārakasaṅghassa akkantaṭṭhāneyeva sīmā samūhatā, na anakkantaṭṭhāneti saññāya paṭhamataraṃ sālaṃ karitvā pacchā sīmāya samūhatāya thambhaṭṭhāne akkamituṃ na labhati, tasmā asamūhatā sīmā”ti vadanti.
Some teachers, however, stretch a rope around the markers, stand inside, lower their feet under the rope, and perform the sīmāsamūhanana slightly outside the rope’s range—this should be examined. Merely placing the feet does not remove the old sīmā; rather, it is removed by the saṅgha competent for the kamma standing with the reciter and reciting the kammavācā. Indeed, it is said in the Vimativinodanī treatise (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144), “Standing within the sīmā and performing the kammavācā with ‘We will remove it’ are the factors here.” Thus, if the old bound sīmā remains partially unremoved due to entering one part or being connected, it would not be free from the three faults mentioned. Therefore, performing the removal while standing entirely outside the markers is more praiseworthy. Other teachers perform it by linking the footprints of the bhikkhus performing the kamma, which, if taken as done for emphasis, has no fault. However, some elders say, “Only the area stepped on by the saṅgha is removed, not the unstepped area. Thus, if a hall is built first and the sīmā removed later, the pillar bases cannot be stepped on, so the sīmā remains unremoved.”
Some teachers, however, stretch a rope around the markers inside, and standing inside, place their feet under the rope, and stepping over a small space outside the rope, they perform the boundary uprooting. This should be examined. The uprooting of the ancient boundary does not occur merely by placing the tip of the foot. Rather, the uprooting occurs through the standing of the monks who are competent to perform the act, including the reciter of the formal act, and through the recitation of the formal act. It is said in the Vimativinodanī text (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144), “Being situated within the boundary and performing the formal act of ‘We will uproot it’ are the factors here.” Therefore, if the uprooting of the anciently established boundary, which is partly entered inside and partly connected, is not done, one would not be freed from the three faults mentioned above. Therefore, standing outside the markers and performing the uprooting is more commendable. Other teachers, however, perform the uprooting by connecting the footprints of the monks performing the act. If that is done as a serious measure, there is no fault. Some elders say, “The boundary is uprooted only in the place where the monks performing the act have stepped, not in the place where they have not stepped. Thinking this, after first preparing the stakes, later they are not allowed to step into the location of pillar, because boundary has been uprooted. Therefore, the boundary is not uprooted.”
Some teachers, after spreading a cord inside the markers, stand inside and extend their feet below the cord, stepping slightly outside the cord to perform the boundary removal. This should be examined. Merely placing the foot does not remove the old boundary; rather, the removal is done by the reciter of the kammavācā and the Saṅgha performing the act, along with the establishment and recitation of the kammavācā. As stated in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.144): “Being within the boundary and performing the kammavācā with the declaration, ‘We will remove the boundary,’ are the factors here.” Therefore, if the old boundary is not fully removed, the three faults mentioned earlier would not be avoided. Thus, standing outside the markers and performing the removal is more commendable. Other teachers perform the removal by having the acting monks step in a line. This is done to emphasize the gravity of the act, and no fault is found in it. Some elders say, “The boundary is removed only where the acting Saṅgha has stepped, not where they have not stepped. If a post is placed first and the boundary is removed later, stepping on the post is not allowed. Thus, the boundary remains unremoved.”
ID882
Pubbepi sirīkhettanagare mahāsattadhammarājassa kāle tena raññā katassa nandanavihārassa purato tassa rañño aggamahesiyā sīmāya patiṭṭhāpitāya paṭhamaṃ jetavanasālaṃ katvā pacchā sīmaṃ samūhaniṃsu, tadā tasmiṃ nagare mahārukkhamūliko nāma eko gaṇapāmokkhatthero “sace thambhaṃ vijjhitvā pāde ṭhapetuṃ sakkhissāmi, evaṃ sante ahaṃ āgacchissāmī”ti vatvā nāgacchati. Sabbe therā “na thambhamattena porāṇasīmā tiṭṭhati, thambhassa samantato ṭhatvā kammavācāya katāya sīmā samūhatā hotī”ti vatvā tassa vacanaṃ aggahetvā samūhaniṃsu ceva bandhiṃsu ca. Haṃsāvatīnagare dhammacetiyarañño kalyāṇiyasīmābandhanakālepi paṭhamaṃ sālaṃ karitvāva pacchā samūhaniṃsu, na ca pāḷiaṭṭhakathāṭīkādīsu “padavalañjasambandhaṃ katvā sīmā samūhanitabbā”ti pāṭho atthi, “mañcappamāṇe mañcappamāṇe ṭhāne”ti (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144) pana atthi. Porāṇasīmāya anto ṭhatvā ekasmiṃ ṭhāne sīmāsamūhananakammavācāya katāya sakalāpi sīmā samūhatāva hoti, tasmā “padavalañjasambandhaṃ katvā samūhanitabba”nti vacanaṃ paṇḍitā na sampaṭicchanti. Īdisaṃ pana vacanaṃ garukaraṇavasena vuttanti gayhamāne kiñcāpi doso natthi, tathāpi sissānusissānaṃ diṭṭhānugatiāpajjanakāraṇaṃ hoti. Te hi “amhākaṃ ācariyā evaṃ kathenti, evaṃ karontī”ti daḷhīkammavasena gahetvā tathā akate sīmā samūhatā na hotīti maññanti, tasmā pakaraṇāgatanayavaseneva karaṇaṃ varaṃ pasatthaṃ hotīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
Previously, in Sirīkhetta city during King Mahāsattadhammarāja’s reign, before the Nandavihāra built by that king, his chief queen established a sīmā. They first built the Jetavana hall and later removed the sīmā. At that time, a leading elder named Mahārukkhamūlika in that city said, “If I can place my feet by piercing the pillar, then I will come,” but he did not come. All the elders said, “The old sīmā does not remain due to a mere pillar; it is removed by standing around the pillar and reciting the kammavācā,” and, disregarding his words, they removed and bound it. In Haṃsāvatī city, during King Dhammacetiya’s binding of the Kalyāṇī sīmā, they also built a hall first and removed it later. Neither the Pāli, commentary, nor sub-commentary states, “The sīmā must be removed by linking footprints.” However, it does say “in spaces of mañca size” (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144). By standing within the old sīmā and reciting the sīmāsamūhananakammavācā in one place, the entire sīmā is removed. Thus, scholars do not accept the statement “It must be removed by linking footprints.” If such a statement is taken as said for emphasis, there is no fault, but it leads disciples and their followers to imitate it. They think, “Our teachers say and do it this way,” and, holding it firmly, believe the sīmā is not removed unless done so, making the method stated in the text superior and praiseworthy.
Previously, in the city of Sirīkhetta, during the time of the great king Mahāsattadhammarāja, in front of the Nandanavihāra built by that king, his chief queen established a boundary. First, they built the Jetavana hall, and later they uprooted the boundary. At that time, in that city, a certain chief elder of the order named Mahārukkhamūlika, said, “If I am able to pierce the pillar and place my feet, only then will I come,” and he did not come. All the elders said, “The ancient boundary does not remain merely because of the pillar; the boundary is uprooted when the formal act of uprooting (kammavācā) is performed around the pillar,” and not accepting his words, they uprooted and established the boundary. In the city of Haṃsāvatī, during the time of King Dhammacetiya’s establishment of the Kalyāṇi boundary, they first built the hall and later uprooted the boundary. And there is no passage in the texts, commentaries, sub-commentaries, etc., stating, “The boundary should be uprooted after establishing a connection with the footprints.” However, there is the statement, “In places the size of a bed, in places the size of a bed” (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144). When the formal act of uprooting the boundary (sīmāsamūhananakammavācā) is performed in one place while remaining within the ancient boundary, the entire boundary is considered uprooted. Therefore, the statement “It should be uprooted after establishing a connection with the footprints” is not accepted by the wise. Even if there is no fault in accepting such a statement as being said out of respect, it still becomes a cause for following the views of disciples and their disciples. They, thinking, “Our teachers say this, they do this,” firmly hold onto it, and believe that if it is not done in that way, the boundary is not uprooted. Therefore, it should be understood that it is best and most commendable to do it only according to the method found in the texts.
In the past, during the time of the great King Dhammarāja in the city of Sirīkhetta, a boundary (sīmā) was first established in front of the Nandana monastery built by that king, and later the boundary was abolished after first constructing the Jetavana hall. At that time, in that city, a senior monk named Mahārukkhamūlika, who was the leader of a group, said, “If I can pierce the pillar and place my foot there, then I will come,” but he did not come. All the elders said, “The ancient boundary does not remain merely by the pillar. When the proclamation (kammavācā) is made while standing around the pillar, the boundary is abolished.” Disregarding his words, they abolished and re-established the boundary. Similarly, in the city of Haṃsāvatī, during the time of King Dhammacetiya, when the boundary of Kalyāṇī was being established, they first constructed the hall and later abolished the boundary. There is no passage in the Pāli commentaries or sub-commentaries stating that the boundary should be abolished by connecting it with foot-measurements (padavalañja). However, there is a passage stating, “At each place measuring a bed’s length” (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.144). When the proclamation to abolish the boundary is made in one place while standing within the ancient boundary, the entire boundary is abolished. Therefore, the statement “the boundary should be abolished by connecting it with foot-measurements” is not accepted by the wise. Such a statement, if taken as a means of emphasizing importance, is not entirely faulty, but it can lead to disciples and their followers adopting wrong practices. They might think, “Our teachers spoke and acted in this way,” and firmly hold to such practices, believing that the boundary is not abolished unless done in that manner. Therefore, it is better to follow the method appropriate to the context, as this is considered commendable.
ID883
Aparampi imasmiṃ sīmāsamūhananādhikāre dhammagāravehi vinayadharehi cintetabbaṃ gambhīraṃ duddasaṃ ṭhānaṃ atthi, taṃ katamanti ce? “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, tiyojanaparamaṃ sīmaṃ sammannitu”nti (mahāva. 140) vacanato nānāgāmakkhettāni avattharitvā sammatā tiyojanikādikāyo mahāsīmāyo bhagavatā anuññātā atthi, atha ekaṃ gāmakkhettaṃ sodhetvā ārakkhaṃ datvā sīmāya samūhatāya yadi tato aññesu gāmakkhettesu bhikkhū santi, na gāmasīmā baddhasīmaṃ paricchindituṃ sakkoti, tasmā te bhikkhū tasmiṃ kamme vaggaṃ kareyyuṃ, evaṃ sati sīmā samūhatā na bhaveyya, tāya asamūhatāya sati abhinavasīmā sammannitabbā na bhaveyya, iti idaṃ ṭhānaṃ dujjānaṃ duddasaṃ, tasmā pāsāṇacchattaṃ viya bhagavato āṇaṃ garuṃ karontehi lajjipesalabahussutasikkhākāmabhūtehi vinayavidūhi suṭṭhu cintetabbanti.
Moreover, in this authority regarding sīmāsamūhanana, there is a profound and difficult matter to be considered by Vinaya experts who respect the Dhamma. What is it? From the statement, “I allow, bhikkhus, a sīmā to be designated up to three yojanas” (mahāva. 140), the Blessed One permitted mahāsīmās spanning three yojanas or more, encompassing various village territories. Yet, if one village territory is purified and protected, and its sīmā removed, if bhikkhus are present in other village territories, the gāmasīmā cannot delimit a bound sīmā. Thus, those bhikkhus might form a separate group in that kamma, rendering the sīmā unremoved. With it unremoved, a new sīmā cannot be designated. This matter is hard to understand and see, so it should be thoroughly considered by Vinaya-knowing, conscientious, learned bhikkhus who respect the Blessed One’s command as weighty as a stone parasol.
Furthermore, in this matter of uprooting and establishing boundaries, there is a profound and difficult-to-see point that should be considered by the Vinaya experts who have reverence for the Dhamma. What is it? According to the statement, “Monks, I allow the agreement of a boundary extending up to three yojanas” (mahāva. 140), great boundaries, such as those extending three yojanas and encompassing various village territories, were permitted by the Blessed One. However, if one purifies a single village territory, gives protection, and uproots a boundary, and if there are monks in other village territories, the village boundary cannot delimit the established boundary. Therefore, those monks would make that act incomplete. In this case, the boundary would not be uprooted. Since it has not been properly uprooted, a new boundary cannot be agreed upon. Thus, this point is difficult to know and difficult to see. Therefore, those Vinaya experts who are virtuous, modest, learned, and desirous of training, holding the Blessed One’s command as precious like a stone parasol, must consider this very carefully.
Furthermore, in this matter of abolishing boundaries, there is a profound and difficult point that should be carefully considered by those who respect the Dhamma and are well-versed in the Vinaya. What is it? From the statement, “I allow, monks, the fixing of a boundary up to three yojanas” (Mahāva. 140), it is understood that the Buddha permitted the establishment of large boundaries such as the three-yojana boundary without excluding various village territories. However, if one village territory is cleared and protected, and the boundary is abolished, but monks reside in other village territories, the village boundary cannot demarcate the established boundary. Therefore, those monks would form a separate group for the act, and in such a case, the boundary would not be abolished. If it is not abolished, a new boundary cannot be established. This is a difficult and subtle point. Therefore, those who respect the Buddha’s authority, who are humble, learned, and desirous of training, and who are well-versed in the Vinaya, should carefully consider this matter, just as one would carefully consider the Buddha’s stone umbrella.
ID884
Imasmiṃ adhikāre cintento gavesanto vicinanto idaṃ kāraṇaṃ dissati – tiyojanikādimahāsīmāyo iddhimantānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ dharamānakāle sannipatituṃ vā visodhetuṃ vā sakkuṇeyyabhāvato tamārabbha bhagavatā anujānitā bhaveyyuṃ. Sabbasmiṃ kāle sabbasmiṃ padese sabbe bhikkhū tādisaṃ mahāsīmaṃ sodhetuṃ vā sannipatituṃ vā na sakkā, na ca bhagavā asakkuṇeyyaṃ alabbhaneyyaṃ kāraṇaṃ vadeyya. Bhagavato dharamānakāle rājagahanagare aṭṭhārasa mahāvihārā ekasīmāva dhammasenāpatisāriputtattherena sammatāti. Sīhaḷadīpe mahāvihārasīmā anurādhapuraṃ antokatvā pavattā mahāmahindattherena sammatāti ca pakaraṇesu dissati, na tathā imasmiṃ nāma dese dviyojanikā vā tiyojanikā vā sīmā asukena bhikkhunā sammatāti dissati. Imasmiñca marammadese tādisānaṃ sīmānaṃ natthibhāvo upaparikkhitvā jānitabbo. Tathā hi anekasataanekasahassavassakālato uppannā baddhasīmā pāsāṇathambhanimittena saha tasmiṃ tasmiṃ padese dissanti. Arimaddanapure ca anuruddhamahārājena sammannāpitā dvāsaṭṭhayādhikasatahatthāyāmā sattacattālīsādhikasatahatthavitthārā mahāsīmā nimittena saha dissati. Ratanapūranagare ca narapatijeyyasūramahārājakāle aṭṭhasattatādhikacatusatakaliyuge sammannitā sīmā pāsāṇalekhāya saddhiṃ dissati. Yadi tiyojanaparamādimahāsīmāyo atthi, porāṇācariyā navaṃ navaṃ baddhasīmaṃ na bandheyyuṃ, atha ca pana bandhanti, tāsu ca navasīmāsu upasampadādisaṅghakammaṃ karonti, tato eva ca gaṇanapathamatikkantā bhikkhū paramparato vaḍḍhentā yāvajjatanā sāsanaṃ patiṭṭhapenti. Iminā ca kāraṇena imasmiṃ padese tiyojanā sīmāyo natthīti viññāyati.
In considering, seeking, and examining this authority, this reason appears: Mahāsīmās of three yojanas or more might have been permitted by the Blessed One for psychic-powered bhikkhus to gather or purify during his lifetime. Not all bhikkhus in all times and places can purify or gather for such a mahāsīmā, nor would the Blessed One prescribe something impossible or unattainable. During the Blessed One’s lifetime, in Rājagaha city, eighteen great vihāras were designated as one sīmā by the elder Sāriputta, the general of the Dhamma. In Sri Lanka, the Mahāvihāra sīmā, encompassing Anurādhapura, was designated by the elder Mahinda, as seen in texts. However, it is not seen that in a specific region a two-yojana or three-yojana sīmā was designated by a certain bhikkhu. In this Maramma region, the absence of such sīmās should be known through examination. Indeed, bound sīmās from hundreds or thousands of years ago are seen in various places with stone pillar markers. In Arimaddana city, a mahāsīmā designated by King Anuruddha, measuring over six hundred and sixty-two hatthas in length and over four hundred and forty-seven hatthas in width, is seen with its markers. In Ratanapūra city, during King Narapatijeyyasūra’s reign in the Kaliyuga year four hundred and seventy-eight, a designated sīmā is seen with a stone inscription. If mahāsīmās up to three yojanas existed, ancient teachers would not bind new bound sīmās, yet they do, performing saṅghakamma like upasampadā in those new sīmās. Thus, countless bhikkhus, increasing through generations, sustain the sāsana to this day. For this reason, it is understood that three-yojana sīmās do not exist in this region.
Considering, searching, and investigating this matter, this reason appears: Great boundaries of three yojanas and so forth might have been allowed by the Blessed One for the sake of monks with psychic powers, because of their ability to assemble or purify [the area] during their lifetime. At all times, in all places, all monks are not capable of purifying or assembling in such a great boundary, and the Blessed One would not speak of an impossible or unattainable reason. During the time of the Blessed One, in the city of Rājagaha, eighteen great monasteries were designated as a single boundary by the General of the Dhamma, Sāriputta. In Sri Lanka, the boundary of the Mahāvihāra, including Anurādhapura, was designated by the Great Elder Mahinda, as seen in the texts. However, it is not seen that in this or that region, a boundary of two yojanas or three yojanas was designated by such and such a monk. And the absence of such boundaries in this country of Maramma should be investigated and understood. Thus, established boundaries that have arisen over many hundreds and thousands of years, along with stone pillar markers, are seen in various places. In the city of Arimaddana, the great boundary, two hundred and sixty-two hands in length and one hundred and forty-seven hands in width, designated by the Great King Anuruddha, is seen along with its markers. In the city of Ratanapūra, during the time of the Great King Narapatijeyyasūra, in the four hundred and seventy-eighth year of the Kali era, a designated boundary is seen with a stone inscription. If great boundaries of up to three yojanas exist, the ancient teachers would not have established new, bounded boundaries. But they did establish them, and in those new boundaries, they perform Sangha acts such as ordinations. And from that, countless monks, growing in succession, establish the Sāsana up to the present day. By this reason, it is understood that three-yojana boundaries do not exist in this region.
While reflecting on this matter, investigating and examining it, the following reason is seen: The great boundaries such as the three-yojana boundary were permitted by the Buddha for monks with psychic powers, who could gather or purify such a large area. However, at all times and in all places, not all monks are capable of purifying or gathering in such a large boundary, and the Buddha would not prescribe something impossible or unattainable. During the Buddha’s time, in the city of Rājagaha, the eighteen great monasteries were established within a single boundary by the elder Sāriputta, the general of the Dhamma. In Sri Lanka, the boundary of the great monastery encompassing Anurādhapura was established by the elder Mahāmahinda, as seen in the texts. However, in this country, there is no record of a two- or three-yojana boundary established by any monk. In this country, the absence of such boundaries should be understood after careful examination. Indeed, boundaries established many hundreds or thousands of years ago, marked by stone pillars, are seen in various places. In the city of Arimaddana, a great boundary measuring 168 hatthas in length and 147 hatthas in width, established by King Anuruddha, is seen with its markers. In the city of Ratanapūra, during the time of King Jeyyasūra, in the 470th Kaliyuga, a boundary was established and is seen with a stone inscription. If such great boundaries as the three-yojana boundary existed, the ancient teachers would not have established new boundaries again and again. Yet, they did establish new boundaries, and in those new boundaries, they performed Saṅgha acts such as ordination. Thus, the monks, increasing in number beyond the original count, have perpetuated the Dispensation up to the present day. For this reason, it is understood that in this country, there are no three-yojana boundaries.
ID885
Atha vā “vihāraparikkhepassa anto ca bahi ca samantā leḍḍupāte”ti vihāraparikkhepassa anto ca vihārūpacārabhūte bahi leḍḍupāte ca ṭhāneyeva sīmāsamūhananassa vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144) vuttattāpi tādisā mahāsīmāyo natthīti viññāyati. Yadi atthi, sīmāsamūhananaṃ pakaraṇācariyā na katheyyuṃ. Kathentāpi samantā tiyojanaṃ ṭhānaṃ sodhetvā sīmāsamūhananaṃ kareyyuṃ, tathā pana akathetvā vihāravihārūpacāresuyeva sīmāsamūhananassa kathitattā tiyojanikādayo mahāsīmāyo natthīti viññāyati.
Alternatively, from the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144) stating “within and outside the vihāra boundary, all around up to the leḍḍupāta,” referring to within the vihāra boundary and outside up to the vihāra’s vicinity at the leḍḍupāta, it is understood that such mahāsīmās do not exist. If they did, treatise teachers would not discuss sīmāsamūhanana, or if they did, they would describe purifying a three-yojana area for removal. Since they discuss sīmāsamūhanana only within the vihāra and its vicinity without saying so, it is understood that three-yojana or similar mahāsīmās do not exist.
Alternatively, because the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144) states the uprooting of a boundary only within the confines of the monastery enclosure and in the area outside, within a stone’s throw of the monastery, in the space that is used by the monastery, it is understood that such great boundaries do not exist. If they existed, the commentators would not have discussed the uprooting of the boundary. Even while discussing it, they would have said to purify the area extending three yojanas around and then perform the uprooting of the boundary. However, because they did not say that, and instead spoke of the uprooting of the boundary only within the monastery and its surrounding areas, it is understood that great boundaries, such as those of three yojanas, do not exist.
Alternatively, since it is stated in the commentary (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.144) that “the boundary should be abolished within and outside the monastery precincts, up to the stone-throw distance,” it is understood that such great boundaries do not exist. If they did exist, the teachers of the texts would not have spoken about abolishing boundaries. Even if they did speak about it, they would have to purify an area of three yojanas before abolishing the boundary. However, since they spoke about abolishing boundaries only within the monastery and its precincts, it is understood that there are no three-yojana boundaries.
ID886
Atha vā “khaṇḍasīmaṃ pana jānantā avippavāsaṃ ajānantāpi samūhanituñceva bandhituñca sakkhissantī”ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 144) vacanatopi tesu tesu janapadesu tiyojanikādikāyo mahāsīmāyo natthīti viññāyati. Kathaṃ? Yadi tādisā sīmāyo atthi, sakalampi taṃ sīmaṃ asodhetvā sīmāsamūhananaṃ aṭṭhakathācariyā na katheyyuṃ, atha ca pana khaṇḍasīmaṃ jānantā avippavāsaṃ ajānantāpi sīmaṃ samūhanituṃ bandhituñca samatthabhāvaṃ kathenti, sā kathā khandhasīmāya sīmantarikantaritamattā hutvā tasmiṃ gāmakkhette avippavāsasīmā bhaveyya, tasmā tasmiṃ ṭhāne ṭhatvā samūhanituṃ samatthabhāvena aṭṭhakathācariyehi kathīyati, na nānāgāmakkhettāni avattharitvā sammatāya tiyojanikādibhedāya sīmāya aññesu gāmakkhettesu aññesu bhikkhūsu santesupi samūhanituṃ samatthabhāvena, tena ñāyati “na sabbesu ṭhānesu tiyojanikādibhedāyo mahāsīmāyo na santī”ti. Īdisāni kāraṇāni bhagavato āṇaṃ garuṃ karontehi vinayatthavidūhi vinayadharehi punappunaṃ cintetabbāni upaparikkhitabbāni, ito aññānipi kāraṇāni gavesitabbānīti.
Alternatively, from the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 144) stating, “Those who know a khaṇḍasīmā but do not know avippavāsa can both remove and bind it,” it is understood that three-yojana or similar mahāsīmās do not exist in various regions. How? If such sīmās existed, commentary teachers would not discuss sīmāsamūhanana without purifying the entire sīmā, yet they say those who know a khaṇḍasīmā but not avippavāsa can remove and bind it. This statement applies only to a khaṇḍasīmā separated by a boundary, where an avippavāsasīmā exists in that village territory. Thus, it is stated by commentary teachers due to the ability to remove it while standing there, not due to the ability to remove a three-yojana or similar sīmā spanning multiple village territories when bhikkhus are present elsewhere. Hence, it is known that “such three-yojana or similar mahāsīmās do not exist everywhere.” Such reasons should be repeatedly considered and examined by Vinaya experts who respect the Blessed One’s command, and other reasons should be sought.
Alternatively, it is understood that great boundaries of three yojanas and so forth do not exist in those various regions because of the statement in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 144), “Those who know the sectioned boundary, even if they do not know the non-residence, will be able to both uproot and establish.” How so? If such boundaries exist, the commentary teachers would not have discussed the uprooting of the boundary without purifying the entire boundary. But they do state the ability to uproot and establish the boundary even if one knows the sectioned boundary but does not know the non-residence. That statement is made by the commentary teachers because it is only with regard to the extent of the interval between sections of a sectioned boundary that a non-residence boundary exists in that village territory, therefore they are able to uproot while remaining in that place, not with the ability to uproot even when there are other monks in other village territories, in a boundary of three yojanas and so forth that encompasses various village territories. Thus, it is known that great boundaries of three yojanas and so forth do not exist in all places. Such reasons should be repeatedly considered and investigated by Vinaya experts and Vinaya masters who hold the Blessed One’s command as precious, and other reasons should also be sought.
Alternatively, from the statement in the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 144), “Those who know a partial boundary but do not know the non-separation can still abolish and establish it,” it is understood that in those countries, there are no great boundaries such as the three-yojana boundary. How so? If such boundaries existed, the commentary teachers would not have spoken about abolishing the boundary without purifying the entire boundary. Yet, they spoke about the ability to abolish and establish a boundary even for those who know only a partial boundary and do not know the non-separation. This discussion applies to a partial boundary that is connected to the boundary line within that village territory, where the non-separation boundary exists. Therefore, the commentary teachers spoke about the ability to abolish the boundary while standing in that place, but not about the ability to abolish a boundary established across various village territories, even if other monks reside in other village territories. Thus, it is understood that “great boundaries such as the three-yojana boundary do not exist in all places.” Such reasons should be repeatedly considered and examined by those who respect the Buddha’s authority and are well-versed in the Vinaya. Other reasons should also be investigated.
ID887
Ito parampi “sace aññānipi gāmakkhettāni antokātukāmā, tesu gāmesu ye bhikkhū vasanti, tehipi āgantabba”ntiādivacanato (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138) ekasmiṃyeva gāmakkhette sīmaṃ na bandhanti, atha kho aññānipi gāmakkhettāni antokaritvāpi bandhanti, tasmā idāni sammannitabbāya sīmāya nissayabhūtaṃ pakatigāmakkhettaṃ vā visuṃgāmakkhettaṃ vā sodhitanti manasi na kātabbaṃ. Kaṅkhacchedanatthaṃ sīmāsamūhananakammavācābhaṇanasamaye tena gāmakkhettena sambandhesu aññesu gāmakkhettesu vasante bhikkhūpi yācitvā tato gāmakkhettato bahi dūre vāsāpetabbā. Evañhi karonte aññāni gāmakkhettāni antokaritvā porāṇasīmāya vijjamānāyapi te vaggaṃ kātuṃ na sakkonti. Tato sīmāsamūhananakammavācā sampajjati, tasmā evarūpo sukhumo nipuṇo attho vinayadharehi cintetabbo. Evaṃ sīmāsamūhananavidhānena sīmāya sīmaṃ sambhindantena sammatā, sīmāya sīmaṃ ajjhottharantena sammatāti vuttehi dvīhi vipattidosehi muttā hoti.
Furthermore, from the statement (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138), “If they wish to include other village territories, the bhikkhus living in those villages must also come,” they do not bind a sīmā in just one village territory but also include other village territories. Thus, it should not be thought that the village territory foundational to the sīmā to be designated now, or a separate village territory, has been purified. To dispel doubt, at the time of reciting the sīmāsamūhananakammavācā, bhikkhus living in other village territories connected to that village territory should be requested to come and be settled far outside it. By doing so, even if other village territories are included and an old sīmā exists, they cannot form a separate group. Then, the sīmāsamūhananakammavācā succeeds. Therefore, this subtle and precise meaning should be considered by Vinaya experts. Thus, by this method of sīmāsamūhanana, it is freed from the two faults stated: a sīmā overlapping another sīmā, and a sīmā encroaching on another sīmā.
Further, because of the statement, “If they wish to include other village territories, the monks who reside in those villages must also come” (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138), etc., they do not establish a boundary in only one village territory. Rather, they establish boundaries including other village territories as well. Therefore, it should not be kept in mind that only the natural village territory or the separated village territory that is the basis for the boundary to be agreed upon now should be purified. In order to dispel doubt, at the time of reciting the formal act of uprooting the boundary (sīmāsamūhananakammavācā), the monks residing in other village territories connected to that village territory should also be requested and made to reside far outside that village territory. By doing this, even if the ancient boundary exists, including other village territories, they are not able to make it incomplete. Then the formal act of uprooting the boundary (sīmāsamūhananakammavācā) is successful. Therefore, such subtle and refined meaning should be considered by Vinaya experts. Thus, by this method of uprooting the boundary, a boundary that is established by connecting a boundary with a boundary, a boundary that is established by overlapping a boundary with a boundary, is free from the two faults stated.
Furthermore, from the statement, “If one wishes to include other village territories, the monks residing in those villages should also be invited” (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 138), it is understood that a boundary is not established in only one village territory, but other village territories are also included. Therefore, when establishing a new boundary, one should not consider whether the original village territory or a separate village territory has been purified. To resolve doubts, when reciting the proclamation to abolish the boundary, if monks reside in other village territories connected to that village territory, they should be invited and made to reside outside that village territory. By doing so, even if the ancient boundary exists, they cannot form a separate group. Thus, the proclamation to abolish the boundary is successfully completed. Therefore, such a subtle and profound point should be considered by those well-versed in the Vinaya. In this way, by following the procedure for abolishing boundaries, one avoids the two faults of overlapping boundaries or encroaching boundaries.
ID888
Tato “atikhuddikā atimahantī”ti (pari. 486) vuttehi vipattidosehi vimuccanatthaṃ sīmāya pamāṇaṃ jānitabbaṃ. Kathaṃ? Sīmā nāma ekavīsatiyā bhikkhūnaṃ nisīdituṃ appahonte sati atikhuddikā nāma hoti, sammatāpi sīmā na hoti. Tiyojanato paraṃ kesaggamattampi ṭhānaṃ anto karonte sati atimahatī nāma hoti, sammatāpi sīmā na hoti , tasmā ekavīsatiyā bhikkhūnaṃ nisīdanappahonakato paṭṭhāya tiyojanaṃ anatikkamitvā yattha yaṃ pamāṇaṃ saṅgho icchati, tattha taṃ pamāṇaṃ katvā sīmā sammannitabbā. Kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce? “Tattha atikhuddikā nāma yattha ekavīsati bhikkhū nisīdituṃ na sakkonti. Atimahantī nāma antamaso kesaggamattenapi tiyojanaṃ atikkamitvā sammatā”ti kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) vacanato viññāyati. Evaṃ sīmāya pamāṇaggahaṇena “atikhuddikā atimahantī”ti vuttehi dvīhi dosehi muttā hoti.
Next, to be free from the faults stated as “too small or too large” (pari. 486), the measure of the sīmā must be known. How? A sīmā is called atikhuddikā if it cannot accommodate twenty-one bhikkhus sitting, and even if designated, it is not a sīmā. If it exceeds three yojanas even by a hair’s breadth, it is called atimahantī, and even if designated, it is not a sīmā. Thus, from a size sufficient for twenty-one bhikkhus to sit, up to but not exceeding three yojanas, the saṅgha may designate a sīmā of whatever size it desires. How is this known? From the statement in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā), “Here, atikhuddikā means where twenty-one bhikkhus cannot sit. Atimahantī means designated exceeding three yojanas even by a hair’s breadth,” it is understood. Thus, by determining the sīmā’s measure, it is freed from the two faults stated as “too small or too large.”
Then, in order to be free from the faults stated as “too small, too large” (pari. 486), the size of the boundary should be known. How? A boundary is called “too small” when it is not sufficient for twenty-one monks to sit. Even if agreed upon, it is not a boundary. When it includes even a hair’s breadth of space beyond three yojanas, it is called “too large.” Even if agreed upon, it is not a boundary. Therefore, starting from the size sufficient for twenty-one monks to sit, and without exceeding three yojanas, whatever size the Sangha desires, that size should be made, and the boundary should be agreed upon. How is this understood? It is understood from the statement in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā), “There, ‘too small’ means where twenty-one monks are unable to sit. ‘Too large’ means agreed upon exceeding three yojanas, even by the measure of a hair’s breadth.” Thus, by grasping the size of the boundary, it is free from the two faults stated as “too small, too large.”
Then, to avoid the faults of “being too small” or “being too large” (Pari. 486), the size of the boundary should be understood. How? A boundary is called “too small” if it cannot accommodate twenty-one monks sitting together. Even if established, it is not a valid boundary. A boundary is called “too large” if it exceeds three yojanas, even by a hair’s breadth. Even if established, it is not a valid boundary. Therefore, starting from a size that can accommodate twenty-one monks sitting together, up to but not exceeding three yojanas, the Saṅgha may establish a boundary of any size they wish. How is this understood? “A boundary is called ‘too small’ if it cannot accommodate twenty-one monks sitting together. A boundary is called ‘too large’ if it exceeds three yojanas, even by a hair’s breadth,” as stated in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Nidānavaṇṇanā). In this way, by understanding the size of the boundary, one avoids the two faults of “being too small” or “being too large.”
ID889
Tato “khaṇḍanimittā chāyānimittā animittā”ti (pari. 486) vuttehi tīhi vipattidosehi vimuccanatthaṃ nimittakittanaṃ kātabbaṃ, tattha asambandhakittanena nimittā sīmā khaṇḍanimittā nāma. Kathaṃ? Sīmāya catūsu disāsu ṭhapitanimittesu puratthimadisāya nimittaṃ kittetvā anukkamena dakkhiṇapacchimauttaradisāsu nimittāni kittetvā puna puratthimadisāya nimittaṃ kittetabbaṃ, evaṃ kate akhaṇḍanimittā nāma hoti. Yadi pana puratthimadisāya nimittaṃ kittetvā anukkamena dakkhiṇapacchimauttaradisāsu nimittāni kittetvā ṭhapeti, puna puratthimadisāya nimittaṃ na kitteti, evaṃ khaṇḍanimittā nāma hoti. Aparāpi khaṇḍanimittā nāma yā animittupagapāsāṇaṃ vā bahisārarukkhaṃ vā khāṇukaṃ vā paṃsupuñjaṃ vā antarā ekaṃ nimittaṃ katvā sammatā. Pabbatacchāyādīsu yaṃ kiñci chāyaṃ nimittaṃ katvā sammatā chāyānimittā nāma. Sabbaso nimittaṃ akittetvā sammatā animittā nāma. Imehi tīhi dosehi vimuccanatthāya nimittakittanaṃ kātabbaṃ.
Next, to be free from the three faults stated as “khaṇḍanimittā, chāyānimittā, animittā” (pari. 486), the declaration of markers must be done. A sīmā with unconnected markers is called khaṇḍanimittā. How? Having declared the marker in the eastern direction among the markers placed in the four directions of the sīmā, the markers in the southern, western, and northern directions should be declared in sequence, then the eastern marker declared again. When done thus, it is not khaṇḍanimittā. But if the eastern marker is declared, followed by the southern, western, and northern markers in sequence, and then stopped without declaring the eastern marker again, it is called khaṇḍanimittā. Another khaṇḍanimittā is one designated with an intermediate marker such as a stone not used as a marker, an outer boundary tree, a stake, or a dirt mound. One designated using a shadow, such as a mountain shadow, as a marker is called chāyānimittā. One designated without declaring any markers at all is called animittā. To be free from these three faults, the declaration of markers must be done.
Then, in order to be free from the three faults stated as “with broken markers, with shadow markers, without markers” (pari. 486), the marking of boundaries should be done. There, a boundary with unconnectedly stated markers is called “with broken markers.” How? Among the markers placed in the four directions of the boundary, after marking the marker in the eastern direction, the markers in the southern, western, and northern directions should be marked in sequence, and then the marker in the eastern direction should be marked again. When this is done, it is called “with unbroken markers.” But if, after marking the marker in the eastern direction, one marks the markers in the southern, western, and northern directions in sequence and stops, and does not mark the marker in the eastern direction again, it is called with broken markers. Another with broken markers is that which is agreed upon having made a single marker in between, be it a stone close to a marker, a tree at the outer edge, a stump, or a heap of dust. That which is agreed upon having made any shadow among the shadows of mountains, etc., as a marker is called with shadow markers. That which is agreed upon without marking any markers at all is called without markers. In order to be free from these three faults, the marking of boundaries should be done.
Then, to avoid the three faults of “having broken markers,” “having shadow markers,” or “having no markers” (Pari. 486), the markers should be properly declared. Here, a boundary with improperly declared markers is called “having broken markers.” How? When markers are placed in the four directions of the boundary, the marker in the eastern direction should be declared first, followed by the markers in the southern, western, and northern directions, and then the marker in the eastern direction should be declared again. If this is done, the boundary is called “having unbroken markers.” However, if after declaring the markers in the eastern, southern, western, and northern directions, the marker in the eastern direction is not declared again, the boundary is called “having broken markers.” Alternatively, a boundary is called “having broken markers” if it is established with a marker such as a stone, a tree trunk, a stump, or a pile of sand in between. A boundary established with a shadow, such as the shadow of a mountain, as a marker is called “having shadow markers.” A boundary established without declaring any marker is called “having no markers.” To avoid these three faults, the markers should be properly declared.
ID890
Kathaṃ? Kammavācāya porāṇasīmāsamūhananaṃ katvā parisuddhāya kevalāya gāmasīmāya saṅghena yathājjhāsayaṃ gahitappamāṇassa sīmamaṇḍalassa catūsu vā disāsu aṭṭhasu vā disāsu nimittupage heṭṭhimaparicchedena dvattiṃsapalaguḷapiṇḍappamāṇe, ukkaṭṭhaparicchedena hatthippamāṇato ūnappamāṇe pāsāṇe ṭhapetvā nimittānaṃ anto ṭhitena kammavācāpāṭhakena vinayadharena “puratthimāya disāya kiṃ nimitta”nti pucchitabbaṃ. Aññena “pāsāṇo, bhante”ti vattabbaṃ. Puna vinayadharena “eso pāsāṇo nimitta”nti vatvā kittetabbaṃ. Iminā nayena sīmamaṇḍalaṃ padakkhiṇaṃ karontena “puratthimāya anudisāya, dakkhiṇāya disāya, dakkhiṇāya anudisāya, pacchimāya disāya, pacchimāya anudisāya, uttarāya disāya, uttarāya anudisāya kiṃ nimittaṃ? Pāsāṇo, bhante. Eso pāsāṇo nimitta”nti kittetvā puna “puratthimāya disāya kiṃ nimittaṃ? Pāsāṇo, bhante. Eso pāsāṇo nimitta”nti kittetvā niṭṭhapetabbaṃ. Vuttañhi kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) “khaṇḍanimittā nāma aghaṭitanimittā vuccatī”tiādi. Evaṃ nimittakittanena “khaṇḍanimittā chāyānimittā animittā”ti vuttehi tīhi vipattidosehi vimuttā hoti.
How? Having removed the old sīmā by kammavācā, in a pure gāmasīmā, the saṅgha, according to its intent, places markers in the four or eight directions of the sīmā area of the chosen size. These markers, at the minimum, are stones the size of thirty-two palaguḷa balls, and at the maximum, slightly less than a hattha in size. Standing within the markers, the Vinaya expert reciting the kammavācā should ask, “What is the marker in the eastern direction?” Another should reply, “A stone, venerable sir.” Then the Vinaya expert should say, “This stone is the marker,” and declare it. In this way, circling the sīmā area clockwise, he should declare, “In the eastern intermediate direction, southern direction, southern intermediate direction, western direction, western intermediate direction, northern direction, northern intermediate direction—what is the marker? A stone, venerable sir. This stone is the marker,” and finally, “In the eastern direction—what is the marker? A stone, venerable sir. This stone is the marker,” completing the declaration. Indeed, it is said in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā), “Khaṇḍanimittā means markers that are unconnected,” and so forth. Thus, by declaring the markers, it is freed from the three faults stated as “khaṇḍanimittā, chāyānimittā, animittā.”
How? After performing the uprooting of the ancient boundary by the formal act (kammavācā), in the boundary circle of a size taken as desired by the Sangha, in the purified pure village boundary, in the four or eight directions, markers should be placed. Stones, at the very least the size of thirty-two jaggery balls, and at most less than the size of an elephant, should be placed in the inner part of the markers, and the Vinaya expert reciting the text of the formal act (kammavācāpāṭhaka) who is standing within the markers should ask, “In the eastern direction, what is the marker?” Another should say, “A stone, venerable sir.” Again, the Vinaya expert should say, “This stone is the marker,” and mark it. Following this method, going clockwise around the boundary circle, he should mark, saying, “In the eastern sub-direction, in the southern direction, in the southern sub-direction, in the western direction, in the western sub-direction, in the northern direction, in the northern sub-direction, what is the marker? A stone, venerable sir. This stone is the marker,” and then mark again, “In the eastern direction, what is the marker? A stone, venerable sir. This stone is the marker,” and complete it. It is stated in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā), “‘With broken markers’ means markers that are not connected,” and so forth. Thus, by the marking of boundaries, it is free from the three faults stated as “with broken markers, with shadow markers, without markers.”
How? After the proclamation to abolish the ancient boundary has been made, and the village boundary has been purified, the Saṅgha should determine the size of the boundary circle according to their preference. In the four or eight directions of the boundary circle, markers such as stones measuring thirty-two finger-widths in the lower limit and less than an elephant’s size in the upper limit should be placed. The Vinaya expert reciting the proclamation should stand within the markers and ask, “What is the marker in the eastern direction?” Another monk should reply, “A stone, venerable sir.” Then the Vinaya expert should declare, “This stone is the marker.” In this way, while circumambulating the boundary circle, he should ask, “What is the marker in the eastern intermediate direction, the southern direction, the southern intermediate direction, the western direction, the western intermediate direction, the northern direction, and the northern intermediate direction?” Each time, the reply should be, “A stone, venerable sir,” and the Vinaya expert should declare, “This stone is the marker.” Finally, he should ask again, “What is the marker in the eastern direction?” and declare, “This stone is the marker,” thus completing the declaration. As stated in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Nidānavaṇṇanā), “A boundary with broken markers is called ‘having unconnected markers.’” In this way, by properly declaring the markers, one avoids the three faults of “having broken markers,” “having shadow markers,” or “having no markers.”
ID891
Tato paraṃ “bahisīme ṭhitasammatā”ti (pari. 486) vuttavipattidosato vimuccanatthaṃ sīmāsammutikammavācāpāṭhakāle saṅghassa ṭhitaṭṭhānaṃ jānitabbaṃ. Kathaṃ? Yadi nimittāni kittetvā saṅgho nimittānaṃ bahi ṭhatvā kammavācāya sīmaṃ sammannati, bahisīme ṭhitasammatā nāma hoti, sīmā na hoti, tasmā nimittāni kittetvā saṅghena nimittānaṃ anto ṭhatvā kammavācāya sīmā sammannitabbā. Vuttañhetaṃ kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyaṃ “bahisīme ṭhitasammatā nāma nimittāni kittetvā nimittānaṃ bahi ṭhitena sammatā”ti. Evaṃ sīmāsammannanaṭṭhānaniyamena “bahisīme ṭhitasammatā”ti (pari. 486) vuttavipattidosato muttā hoti.
Next, to be free from the fault stated as “designated while standing outside the sīmā” (pari. 486), the position of the saṅgha at the time of reciting the sīmāsammutikammavācā must be known. How? If, after declaring the markers, the saṅgha stands outside the markers and designates the sīmā by kammavācā, it is called bahisīme ṭhitasammatā and is not a sīmā. Thus, after declaring the markers, the saṅgha must stand within the markers and designate the sīmā by kammavācā. Indeed, it is said in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī, “Bahisīme ṭhitasammatā means designated while standing outside the markers after declaring them.” Thus, by regulating the place of sīmāsammannana, it is freed from the fault stated as “designated while standing outside the sīmā” (pari. 486).
After that, in order to be free from the fault stated as “agreed upon while standing outside the boundary” (pari. 486), the place where the Sangha stands at the time of the formal act of agreeing upon the boundary (sīmāsammutikammavācāpāṭhakāle) should be known. How? If, after marking the markers, the Sangha stands outside the markers and agrees upon the boundary by the formal act (kammavācā), it is called “agreed upon while standing outside the boundary,” and it is not a boundary. Therefore, after marking the markers, the Sangha should stand inside the markers and agree upon the boundary by the formal act (kammavācā). This is stated in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī, “‘Agreed upon while standing outside the boundary’ means agreed upon while standing outside the markers after marking the markers.” Thus, by the rule of the place of agreement upon the boundary, it is free from the fault stated as “agreed upon while standing outside the boundary” (pari. 486).
Then, to avoid the fault of “being established outside the boundary” (Pari. 486), the position of the Saṅgha during the proclamation to establish the boundary should be understood. How? If the Saṅgha, after declaring the markers, stands outside the markers and establishes the boundary through the proclamation, it is called “being established outside the boundary,” and the boundary is not valid. Therefore, after declaring the markers, the Saṅgha should stand within the markers and establish the boundary through the proclamation. As stated in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī, “A boundary established outside the markers is called ‘being established outside the boundary.’” In this way, by following the proper procedure for establishing the boundary, one avoids the fault of “being established outside the boundary.”
ID892
Tato paraṃ “nadiyaṃ sammatā, samudde sammatā, jātassare sammatā”ti (pari. 486) vuttehi tīhi vipattidosehi ca vimuccanatthaṃ evaṃ manasi kātabbaṃ – “sabbā, bhikkhave, nadī asīmā, sabbo samuddo asīmo, sabbo jātassaro asīmo”ti (mahāva. 147) bhagavatā vacanato nadīsamuddajātassaresu sammatā sīmā na hoti, porāṇasīmavigatāya suddhāya gāmasīmāya sammatā eva sīmā hoti, tasmā gāmasīmāyameva baddhasīmā sammannitabbā, na nadīādīsūti. Vuttañhi kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) “nadiyā samudde jātassare sammatā nāma etesu nadīādīsu sammatā”tiādi. Ettāvatā “ayaṃ sīmā atikhuddikā , atimahantī, khaṇḍanimittā, chāyānimittā, animittā, bahisīme ṭhitasammatā, nadiyaṃ sammatā, samudde sammatā, jātassare sammatā, sīmāya sīmaṃ sambhindantena sammatā, sīmāya sīmaṃ ajjhottharantena sammatā”ti (pari. 486) vuttehi ekādasahi dosehi vimuttā hutvā “abbhā mahikā dhūmo rajo rāhū”ti vuttehi pañcahi upakkilesehi muttaṃ candamaṇḍalaṃ viya, sūriyamaṇḍalaṃ viya ca suparisuddhā hoti.
Thereafter, to be free from the three defects of failure mentioned as “designated in a river, designated in the sea, designated in a natural lake” (pari. 486), one should mentally resolve thus: “All rivers, bhikkhus, are without boundaries; all seas are without boundaries; all natural lakes are without boundaries” (mahāva. 147)—as stated by the Blessed One. Therefore, a boundary designated in rivers, seas, or natural lakes is not valid; only a boundary designated in a pure village boundary, free from ancient boundaries, is valid. Hence, a designated boundary should be established only within a village boundary, not in rivers or the like. It is said in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā), “Designated in a river, in the sea, or in a natural lake means designated in these, such as rivers,” and so forth. Thus, being free from the eleven defects mentioned as “this boundary is too small, too large, with broken markers, with shadow markers, without markers, designated by one standing outside the boundary, designated in a river, designated in the sea, designated in a natural lake, designated by overlapping one boundary with another, designated by encroaching one boundary over another” (pari. 486), it becomes exceedingly pure—like the lunar orb free from the five impurities of “mist, fog, smoke, dust, and Rāhu,” or like the solar orb.
Thereafter, in order to avoid the three defects of determination stated as, “determined in a river, determined in the ocean, determined in a natural lake” (pari. 486), it should be mentally attended to thus: “All rivers, monks, are unbounded; the entire ocean is unbounded; every natural lake is unbounded” (mahāva. 147) – according to the Blessed One’s word, a boundary determined in rivers, oceans, and natural lakes is not a boundary; only a boundary determined by a pure village boundary, free from ancient boundaries is valid, therefore, a bounded-boundary should be agreed upon within the village boundary, and not in rivers and so forth. It is stated in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā), “Determined in a river, in the ocean, in a natural lake means determined in these rivers, etc.”. By this much, it becomes completely pure, like the orb of the moon, like the orb of the sun, freed from the eleven defects stated as “this boundary is too small, too large, with a broken landmark, with a shadow landmark, without a landmark, agreed upon while standing outside the boundary, determined in a river, determined in the ocean, determined in a natural lake, determined by one who intersects a boundary with a boundary, determined by one who overlaps a boundary with a boundary” (pari. 486) and freed from the five defilements of “cloud, mist, smoke, dust, Rāhu.”
Then, regarding the statement, “A boundary marked by a river, by the sea, or by a natural lake” (pari. 486), one should reflect as follows to be free from the three faults of failure: “Monks, all rivers are without boundaries, all seas are without boundaries, all natural lakes are without boundaries” (mahāva. 147), as spoken by the Blessed One. Therefore, a boundary marked by a river, sea, or natural lake is not valid. Only a boundary marked by a pure village boundary, free from ancient boundaries, is valid. Thus, one should mark a boundary only within a village boundary, not by rivers, etc. As stated in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā), “A boundary marked by a river, sea, or natural lake refers to marking within these.” In this way, having been freed from the eleven faults mentioned, such as “a boundary that is too small, too large, fragmented, marked by shadows, unmarked, marked outside the boundary, marked by a river, marked by the sea, marked by a natural lake, marked by breaking one boundary into another, or marked by overlapping boundaries” (pari. 486), and having been freed from the five impurities mentioned, such as “mist, smoke, dust, and the eclipse,” the boundary becomes as pure as the moon’s disk or the sun’s disk.
ID893
Tividhasampatti nāma nimittasampattiparisasampattikammavācāsampattiyo. Tāsu “pabbatanimittaṃ pāsāṇanimittaṃ vananimittaṃ rukkhanimittaṃ magganimittaṃ vammikanimittaṃ nadīnimittaṃ udakanimitta”nti (mahāva. 138) vuttesu aṭṭhasu nimittesu tassaṃ tassaṃ disāyaṃ yathāladdhāni nimittāni kittetvā sammannitabbā. Vuttañhi kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) “puratthimāya disāya kiṃnimittaṃ? Pāsāṇo, bhante. Eso pāsāṇo nimittantiādinā nayena kittetvā sammatā”ti. Tesu ca aṭṭhasu nimittesu rukkhanimittādīnaṃ yathājjhāsayaṭṭhānesu dullabhabhāvato vaḍḍhitvā dvinnaṃ baddhasīmānaṃ saṅkarakaraṇato ca pāsāṇanimittassa pana tathā saṅkarakaraṇābhāvato yathicchitaṭṭhānaṃ āharitvā ṭhapetuṃ sukarabhāvato ca sīmaṃ bandhantehi bhikkhūhi sīmamaṇḍalassa samantā nimittūpagā pāsāṇā ṭhapetabbā. Tena vuttaṃ mahāvaggaṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138) “taṃ bandhantehi samantā nimittūpagā pāsāṇā ṭhapetabbā”ti. Vimativinodaniyañca (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.138) “nimittūpagā pāsāṇā ṭhapetabbāti idaṃ yathārucitaṭṭhāne rukkhanimittādīnaṃ dullabhatāyā”tiādi. Ettāvatā nimittasampattisaṅkhātaṃ paṭhamaṅgaṃ sūpapannaṃ hoti.
The threefold success refers to the success of markers, the success of the assembly, and the success of the formal recitation. Among these, in the eight markers mentioned as “mountain marker, rock marker, forest marker, tree marker, path marker, anthill marker, river marker, water marker” (mahāva. 138), the markers available in each direction should be declared and designated. It is said in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā), “What is the marker in the eastern direction? A rock, venerable sir. This rock is the marker,” and so forth, following this method of declaration and designation. Among these eight markers, tree markers and the like, due to their rarity in desired locations and their potential to grow and cause confusion between two designated boundaries, are less suitable; whereas a rock marker, due to its lack of such confusion and ease of being brought and placed in a desired location, should be set by the bhikkhus establishing the boundary around the boundary circle as marker-compatible rocks. Hence, it is said in the Mahāvagga commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138), “Those establishing it should place marker-compatible rocks around it.” And in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.138), “‘Marker-compatible rocks should be placed’—this is due to the rarity of tree markers and the like in desired locations,” and so forth. Thus, the first component, known as the success of markers, is well fulfilled.
The threefold accomplishment refers to the accomplishment of landmarks, the accomplishment of the assembly, and the accomplishment of the formal act of proclamation. Among them, among the eight landmarks mentioned as “a mountain landmark, a stone landmark, a forest landmark, a tree landmark, a road landmark, an anthill landmark, a river landmark, a water landmark” (mahāva. 138), the landmarks found in each direction should be proclaimed and agreed upon. It is said in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) “What is the landmark in the eastern direction? A stone, venerable sir. This stone is the landmark, and so on, it is proclaimed and agreed upon.” And among these eight landmarks, because tree landmarks and others are difficult to find in their desired locations, and because they can cause confusion between two established boundaries, but a stone landmark, on the other hand, does not cause such confusion and can be easily brought and placed in a desired location, stones that approach the landmarks around the boundary circle should be placed by the monks who are establishing the boundary. Thus it is said in the Mahāvagga commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138) “Those establishing it should place stones that approach the landmarks all around.” And in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.138) it says: “Stones that approach the landmarks should be placed, because of the difficulty of finding tree landmarks etc. in desired places.” With this, the first factor, known as the accomplishment of landmarks, is well fulfilled.
The threefold success refers to the success of the markers, the success of the assembly, and the success of the formal act. Among these, regarding the eight markers mentioned, such as “a mountain marker, a rock marker, a forest marker, a tree marker, a road marker, an anthill marker, a river marker, and a water marker” (mahāva. 138), the markers found in each direction should be declared and then marked. As stated in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā), “What is the marker in the eastern direction? Venerable, it is a rock. This rock is the marker,” and so on. Among these eight markers, due to the difficulty of finding tree markers, etc., in their respective places, and because they can cause confusion between two adjacent boundaries, rock markers are easy to place in any desired location without causing such confusion. Therefore, monks marking a boundary should place rocks around the boundary circle as markers. As stated in the Mahāvagga Aṭṭhakathā (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138), “When marking, rocks should be placed around as markers.” The Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.138) also states, “Rocks should be placed as markers because tree markers, etc., are difficult to find.” Thus, the first factor, known as the success of the markers, is accomplished.
ID894
Tato sīmāsammutikaraṇatthaṃ sabbantimena paricchedena cattāro bhikkhū sannipatitvā yāvatā tasmiṃ gāme baddhasīmaṃ vā nadīsamuddajātassare vā anokkamitvā ṭhitā bhikkhū santi, sabbe te hatthapāse vā katvā chandaṃ vā āharitvā yā sīmā sammatā, sā parisasampattiyuttā nāma hoti. Tena vuttaṃ kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) “parisasampattiyuttā nāma sabbantimena paricchedena catūhi bhikkhūhi sannipatitvā”tiādi. Atha taṃ sīmaṃ bandhantā bhikkhū sāmantavihāresu vasante bhikkhū tassa tassa vihārassa sīmāparicchedaṃ pucchitvā ye baddhasīmavihārā, tesaṃ sīmāya sīmantarikaṃ ṭhapetvā, ye abaddhasīmavihārā, tesaṃ sīmāya upacāraṃ ṭhapetvā disācārikabhikkhūnaṃ nissañcārasamaye yadi ekasmiṃyeva gāmakkhette sīmaṃ bandhitukāmā , tasmiṃ ye bhikkhū baddhasīmavihārā, tesaṃ pesetabbaṃ “ajja mayaṃ sīmaṃ bandhissāma, tumhe sakasakasīmāparicchedato mā nikkhamathā”ti. Ye abaddhasīmavihārā, te sabbe ekajjhaṃ sannipātāpetabbā, chandārahānaṃ chando āharitabbo.
Then, for the purpose of designating the boundary, with the minimum requirement of four bhikkhus gathered—excluding those within that village who are within a designated boundary or who do not step into a river, sea, or natural lake—all such bhikkhus present should be brought within hand’s reach or their consent obtained. The boundary thus designated is called one endowed with the success of the assembly. Hence, it is said in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā), “Endowed with the success of the assembly means gathered with a minimum of four bhikkhus,” and so forth. Then, the bhikkhus establishing that boundary should inquire about the boundary limits of the monasteries in the vicinity from the bhikkhus residing there. For monasteries with designated boundaries, an intervening space should be left; for those without designated boundaries, a buffer zone should be established. If they wish to establish a boundary within a single village area during a time when wandering bhikkhus are not traveling, they should send a message to those in monasteries with designated boundaries: “Today we will establish a boundary; do not leave your respective boundary limits.” Those in monasteries without designated boundaries should all be gathered together, and the consent of those entitled to it should be obtained.
Then, for the purpose of establishing the boundary, with a minimum quorum of four monks assembled, and as many monks as are residing in that village, either within the established boundary or not yet crossing into a river, ocean, or natural lake, all of them should be brought within arm’s reach, or their consent should be obtained. The boundary that has been agreed upon is said to be endowed with the accomplishment of the assembly. Therefore, it is said in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā), “Endowed with the accomplishment of the assembly means, with a minimum quorum of four monks assembled, and so on.” Then, the monks who are establishing that boundary, having inquired about the boundary limits of each monastery from the monks dwelling in nearby monasteries, should leave a boundary interval for the boundaries of those monasteries with established boundaries, and leave the vicinity of the boundaries for those without established boundaries. At a time when monks on their directional rounds are not moving, if they wish to establish the boundary within one and the same village area, those monks of established boundary monasteries, they should be sent a message stating, “Today we will establish the boundary; you should not go out from your respective boundary limits.” All those of monasteries without established boundaries, should be gathered together in one place, and the consent of those who are eligible for consent should be obtained.
Next, for the purpose of establishing a boundary, four monks should gather within the entire area. All monks residing within the village boundary or those who have not entered a river, sea, or natural lake should be brought within arm’s reach or their consent obtained. The boundary thus marked is called one that is connected with the success of the assembly. As stated in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā), “Connected with the success of the assembly means gathering four monks within the entire area.” Then, the monks marking the boundary should inquire about the boundary limits of the neighboring monasteries. For those monasteries with established boundaries, a gap should be left between the boundaries. For those without established boundaries, an approach should be left. If monks traveling for alms wish to mark a boundary within a single village area, those monks with established boundaries should be informed, “Today we will mark a boundary; do not leave your own boundary limits.” Those without established boundaries should all be gathered together, and consent should be obtained from those who are eligible.
ID895
Yadi aññaṃ gāmakkhettampi antokattukāmā, tattha nivāsino bhikkhū samānasaṃvāsakasīmāsammannanakāle āgantumpi anāgantumpi vaṭṭanti. Avippavāsasīmāsammannanakāle pana antonimittagatehi bhikkhūhi āgantabbaṃ, anāgacchantānaṃ chando āharitabbo. Vuttañhetaṃ samantapāsādikāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138) “taṃ bandhitukāmehi sāmantavihāresu bhikkhū”tiādi. Evaṃ bhikkhūsu sannipatitesu chandārahānaṃ chande āhaṭe tesu tesu maggesu nadītitthagāmadvārādīsu ca āgantukabhikkhūnaṃ sīghaṃ sīghaṃ hatthapāsānayanatthañca bahisīmakaraṇatthañca ārāmikasāmaṇere ṭhapetvā bherisaññaṃ vā saṅkhasaññaṃ vā kārāpetvā nimittakittanānantaraṃ vuttāya “suṇātu me, bhante saṅgho”tiādikāya (mahāva. 139) kammavācāya sīmā bandhitabbā. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138) “evaṃ sannipatitesu pana bhikkhūsū”tiādi. Ettāvatā parisasampattisaṅkhātaṃ dutiyaṅgaṃ sūpapannaṃ hoti.
If they wish to include another village area, the bhikkhus residing there may or may not come at the time of designating a boundary for common residence; but at the time of designating a boundary for non-separation, those within the markers must come, and the consent of those who do not come must be obtained. It is said in the Samantapāsādikā (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138), “Those wishing to establish it should [approach] the bhikkhus in nearby monasteries,” and so forth. Thus, when the bhikkhus are gathered and the consent of those entitled to it is brought, lay attendants or novices should be placed at roads, riverbanks, village gates, and the like, both to quickly bring wandering bhikkhus within hand’s reach and to exclude those outside the boundary. A signal such as a drum or conch should be sounded, and immediately after declaring the markers, the boundary should be established with the formal recitation beginning, “Let the Sangha listen to me, venerable sirs” (mahāva. 139). It is said in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138), “When the bhikkhus are thus gathered,” and so forth. Thus, the second component, known as the success of the assembly, is well fulfilled.
If they wish to include another village area, then the monks residing there, at the time of establishing a co-residence boundary, may or may not come. But at the time of establishing a non-absence boundary, the monks dwelling within the landmarks must come; if they do not come, their consent should be brought. This is stated in the Samantapāsādikā (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138) “Those wishing to establish it, the monks in the nearby monasteries” and so on. Thus, when the monks have been assembled, and the consent of those eligible for consent has been obtained, in order to quickly bring incoming monks within arm’s reach and to make the area outside the boundary at those respective roads, river fords, village gates, and so on, monastery attendants and novices should be stationed, and a drum signal or a conch signal should be made. After proclaiming the landmarks, the boundary should be established with the formal act of proclamation, beginning with “Let the Saṅgha, venerable sirs, listen to me,” and so on (mahāva. 139). It is stated in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138), “Thus, when those monks have been assembled,” and so on. By this, the second factor known as the accomplishment of the assembly, is well fulfilled.
If one wishes to include another village area, the resident monks, whether present or absent, are considered during the marking of the common residence boundary. However, during the marking of the non-separation boundary, monks within the marker area must be present. If they do not come, their consent should be obtained. As stated in the Samantapāsādikā (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138), “When wishing to mark, the monks in neighboring monasteries,” etc. When the monks have gathered and consent has been obtained from those eligible, to quickly bring visiting monks within arm’s reach and to mark the boundary outside, lay attendants and novices should be stationed at roads, river crossings, village gates, etc. After announcing with a drum or conch, the boundary should be marked following the declaration of the markers and the formal act beginning with, “Venerable Sangha, please listen” (mahāva. 139). As stated in the Aṭṭhakathā (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138), “When the monks have gathered,” etc. Thus, the second factor, known as the success of the assembly, is accomplished.
ID896
Tato paraṃ kammavācāpāṭhasamaye “sīmaṃ, bhikkhave, sammannantena paṭhamaṃ samānasaṃvāsakasīmā sammannitabbā, pacchā ticīvarena avippavāso sammannitabbo”ti (mahāva. 144) vacanato paṭhamaṃ samānasaṃvāsakasīmā sammannitabbā, pacchā avippavāsasīmā sammannitabbā, samānasaṃvāsakakammavācāpariyosāneyeva nimittāni bahi katvā nimittānaṃ antopamāṇeneva samānasaṃvāsakasīmā catunahutādhikadvilakkhayojanaputhulaṃ mahāpathaviṃ vinivijjhitvā pathavīsandhārakaudakaṃ pariyantaṃ katvā gatā. Tena vuttaṃ samantapāsādikāyaṃ “kammavācāpariyosāneyeva…pe… gatā hotī”ti. Avippavāsakammavācāpariyosāne avippavāsasīmā yadi antosīmāya gāmo atthi, gāmañca gāmūpacārañca muñcitvā samānasaṃvāsakasīmāya gataparicchedeneva gatā. Iti ticīvarena avippavāsasīmā gāmañca gāmūpacārañca na avattharati, samānasaṃvāsakasīmāva avattharati, samānasaṃvāsakasīmā attano dhammatāya gacchati. Avippavāsasīmā pana yattha samānasaṃvāsakasīmā, tattheva gacchati. Tena vuttaṃ samantapāsādikāyaṃ “iti bhikkhūnaṃ avippavāsasīmā…pe… gacchatī”ti. Tasmā –
Thereafter, at the time of reciting the formal act, based on the statement, “Bhikkhus, when designating a boundary, first designate a boundary for common residence, and afterward designate one for non-separation with the triple robe” (mahāva. 144), the boundary for common residence should first be designated, followed by the boundary for non-separation. At the conclusion of the formal recitation for common residence, the markers are set outside, and the boundary for common residence extends within the measure of those markers, piercing the great earth with a breadth of two million and four hundred thousand yojanas, reaching the water that supports the earth as its limit. Hence, it is said in the Samantapāsādikā, “At the conclusion of the formal recitation…it extends.” At the conclusion of the formal recitation for non-separation, if there is a village within the boundary, the boundary for non-separation extends according to the limit reached by the boundary for common residence, excluding the village and its vicinity. Thus, the boundary for non-separation with the triple robe does not encompass the village or its vicinity; only the boundary for common residence does so, extending by its own nature. The boundary for non-separation, however, extends only where the boundary for common residence does. Hence, it is said in the Samantapāsādikā, “Thus, the boundary for non-separation of the bhikkhus…extends.” Therefore—
Thereafter, at the time of reciting the formal act of proclamation, because of the statement, “When establishing a boundary, monks, first a co-residence boundary should be established, afterwards, non-absence with the three robes should be established” (mahāva. 144), first the co-residence boundary should be established, afterwards the non-absence boundary should be established. At the conclusion of the formal act of proclamation of the co-residence, having made the landmarks external, the co-residence boundary, being of the same measure within the landmarks, penetrating the great earth which is two hundred and forty thousand yojanas wide, having made the water that supports the earth as the limit, has gone. Therefore it is stated in the Samantapāsādikā “Just at the conclusion of the formal act…it has gone”. At the conclusion of the formal act for non-absence, if there is a village within the boundary, the non-absence boundary, excluding the village and the village vicinity, has gone with the same extent as reached by the co-residence boundary. Thus, the non-absence boundary with the three robes does not cover the village and the village vicinity; only the co-residence boundary covers it. The co-residence boundary extends by its own nature. The non-absence boundary, however, extends only where the co-residence boundary is. Therefore it is said in the Samantapāsādikā, “Thus the monks’ non-absence boundary … extends.” Therefore –
Then, during the recitation of the formal act, as stated, “Monks, when marking a boundary, first the common residence boundary should be marked, and then the non-separation boundary with the three robes” (mahāva. 144), first the common residence boundary should be marked, and then the non-separation boundary. At the conclusion of the common residence formal act, the markers should be placed outside, and the common residence boundary should extend to the limit of the markers, encompassing the great earth, four hundred thousand leagues wide, reaching the water supporting the earth. As stated in the Samantapāsādikā, “At the conclusion of the formal act… it extends.” At the conclusion of the non-separation formal act, if there is a village within the boundary, the village and its surroundings should be excluded, and the non-separation boundary should follow the common residence boundary. Thus, the non-separation boundary with the three robes does not cover the village and its surroundings; only the common residence boundary covers them. The common residence boundary follows its own nature, while the non-separation boundary follows wherever the common residence boundary goes. As stated in the Samantapāsādikā, “Thus, the non-separation boundary of the monks… follows.” Therefore—
ID897
“Suṇātu me, bhante saṅgho, yāvatā samantā nimittā kittitā. Yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho etehi nimittehi sīmaṃ sammanneyya samānasaṃvāsaṃ ekūposathaṃ, esā ñatti.
“Let the Sangha listen to me, venerable sirs. As far as the markers have been declared around, if it is agreeable to the Sangha, may the Sangha designate a boundary with these markers for common residence and a single Uposatha. This is the motion.
“Let the Saṅgha, venerable sirs, listen to me. All around, the landmarks have been proclaimed. If it is acceptable to the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha should establish the boundary with these landmarks, as a co-residence, with one uposatha ceremony. This is the motion.
“Venerable Sangha, please listen. The markers have been declared in all directions. If the Sangha is ready, the Sangha should mark the boundary with these markers for common residence and a single Uposatha. This is the motion.
ID898
“Suṇātu me, bhante saṅgho, yāvatā samantā nimittā kittitā, saṅgho etehi nimittehi sīmaṃ sammannati samānasaṃvāsaṃ ekūposathaṃ. Yassāyasmato khamati etehi nimittehi sīmāya sammuti samānasaṃvāsāya ekūposathāya, so tuṇhassa. Yassa nakkhamati, so bhāseyya. Sammatā sā sīmā saṅghena etehi nimittehi samānasaṃvāsā ekūposathā, khamati saṅghassa, tasmā tuṇhī. Evametaṃ dhārayāmī”ti (mahāva. 139).
“Let the Sangha listen to me, venerable sirs. As far as the markers have been declared around, the Sangha designates a boundary with these markers for common residence and a single Uposatha. Let any venerable one to whom the designation of this boundary with these markers for common residence and a single Uposatha is agreeable remain silent; let any to whom it is not agreeable speak. The boundary has been designated by the Sangha with these markers for common residence and a single Uposatha; it is agreeable to the Sangha, hence they are silent. Thus I hold it” (mahāva. 139).
“Let the Saṅgha, venerable sirs, listen to me. All around, the landmarks have been proclaimed. The Saṅgha establishes the boundary with these landmarks, as a co-residence, with one uposatha ceremony. If any venerable one approves of the establishment of the boundary with these landmarks, for co-residence, for one uposatha ceremony, let him remain silent. If anyone does not approve, let him speak. This boundary has been established by the Saṅgha with these landmarks, for co-residence, with one uposatha ceremony. It is approved by the Saṅgha, therefore it is silent. Thus I understand it” (mahāva. 139).
“Venerable Sangha, please listen. The markers have been declared in all directions. The Sangha marks the boundary with these markers for common residence and a single Uposatha. If any venerable agrees to the marking of the boundary with these markers for common residence and a single Uposatha, let him remain silent. If anyone disagrees, let him speak. The boundary has been marked by the Sangha with these markers for common residence and a single Uposatha. The Sangha agrees, therefore it is silent. Thus, I declare.” (mahāva. 139).
ID899
Esā samānasaṃvāsakakammavācā, “Suṇātu me, bhante saṅgho, yā sā saṅghena sīmā sammatā samānasaṃvāsā ekūposathā. Yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho taṃ sīmaṃ ticīvarena avippavāsaṃ sammanneyya ṭhapetvā gāmañca gāmūpacārañca, esā ñatti.
This is the formal recitation for common residence: “Let the Sangha listen to me, venerable sirs. That boundary which has been designated by the Sangha for common residence and a single Uposatha—if it is agreeable to the Sangha, may the Sangha designate that boundary for non-separation with the triple robe, excluding the village and its vicinity. This is the motion.
This is the formal act of proclamation for co-residence. “Let the Saṅgha, venerable sirs, listen to me. That boundary which has been established by the Saṅgha, as a co-residence, with one uposatha ceremony. If it is acceptable to the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha should establish that boundary as a non-absence with the three robes, excluding the village and the village vicinity. This is the motion.
This is the common residence formal act. “Venerable Sangha, please listen. The boundary marked by the Sangha for common residence and a single Uposatha. If the Sangha is ready, the Sangha should mark this boundary for non-separation with the three robes, excluding the village and its surroundings. This is the motion.
ID900
“Suṇātu me, bhante saṅgho, yā sā saṅghena sīmā sammatā samānasaṃvāsā ekūposathā. Saṅgho taṃ sīmaṃ ticīvarena avippavāsaṃ sammannati ṭhapetvā gāmañca gāmūpacārañca. Yassāyasmato khamati etissā sīmāya ticīvarena avippavāsasammuti ṭhapetvā gāmañca gāmūpacārañca, so tuṇhassa. Yassa nakkhamati, so bhāseyya. Sammatā sā sīmā saṅghena ticīvarena avippavāsā ṭhapetvā gāmañca gāmūpacārañca, khamati saṅghassa, tasmā tuṇhī. Evametaṃ dhārayāmī”ti (mahāva. 144).
“Let the Sangha listen to me, venerable sirs. That boundary which has been designated by the Sangha for common residence and a single Uposatha—the Sangha designates that boundary for non-separation with the triple robe, excluding the village and its vicinity. Let any venerable one to whom the designation of this boundary for non-separation with the triple robe, excluding the village and its vicinity, is agreeable remain silent; let any to whom it is not agreeable speak. The boundary has been designated by the Sangha for non-separation with the triple robe, excluding the village and its vicinity; it is agreeable to the Sangha, hence they are silent. Thus I hold it” (mahāva. 144).
“Let the Saṅgha, venerable sirs, listen to me. That boundary which has been established by the Saṅgha, as a co-residence, with one uposatha ceremony. The Saṅgha establishes that boundary as a non-absence with the three robes, excluding the village and the village vicinity. If any venerable one approves of the establishment of this boundary as a non-absence with the three robes, excluding the village and the village vicinity, let him remain silent. If anyone does not approve, let him speak. That boundary has been established by the Saṅgha as a non-absence with the three robes, excluding the village and the village vicinity. It is approved by the Saṅgha, therefore it is silent. Thus I understand it” (mahāva. 144).
“Venerable Sangha, please listen. The boundary marked by the Sangha for common residence and a single Uposatha. The Sangha marks this boundary for non-separation with the three robes, excluding the village and its surroundings. If any venerable agrees to the marking of this boundary for non-separation with the three robes, excluding the village and its surroundings, let him remain silent. If anyone disagrees, let him speak. The boundary has been marked by the Sangha for non-separation with the three robes, excluding the village and its surroundings. The Sangha agrees, therefore it is silent. Thus, I declare.” (mahāva. 144).
ID901
Esā avippavāsakammavācā ñattidosaanussāvanādose anuṭṭhapetvā suṭṭhu bhaṇitabbā. Ettāvatā kammavācāsampattisaṅkhātaṃ tatiyaṅgaṃ sūpapannaṃ hoti.
This is the formal recitation for non-separation, to be recited well without errors in the motion or proclamation. Thus, the third component, known as the success of the formal recitation, is well fulfilled.
This formal act of proclamation for non-absence should be recited properly without raising the defect of the motion and the defect of the announcement. By this much, the third factor known as the accomplishment of the formal act, is well fulfilled.
This is the non-separation formal act. It should be recited well, avoiding faults in the motion and announcements. Thus, the third factor, known as the success of the formal act, is accomplished.
ID902
Evamayaṃ sīmā anto maṇivimānaṃ bahi rajataparikkhittaṃ vimānasāmikadevaputtoti imehi tīhi aṅgehi sampannaṃ candamaṇḍalaṃ viya, anto kanakavimānaṃ bahi phalikaparikkhittaṃ vimānasāmikadevaputtoti imehi tīhi aṅgehi sampannaṃ sūriyamaṇḍalaṃ viya ca nimittasampattiparisasampattikammavācāsampattisaṅkhātehi tīhi aṅgehi sampannā hutvā ativiya sobhati virocati, jinasāsanassa ciraṭṭhitikāraṇabhūtā hutvā tiṭṭhatīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Vuttañhetaṃ uposathakkhandhakapāḷiyaṃ “sīmaṃ, bhikkhave, sammannantena paṭhamaṃ samānasaṃvāsakasīmā sammannitabbā”tiādi.
Thus, this boundary—endowed with the three components of a jeweled mansion within, a silver enclosure without, and a divine son as its lord, like the lunar orb; or a golden mansion within, a crystal enclosure without, and a divine son as its lord, like the solar orb—is complete with the three components of success of markers, success of the assembly, and success of the formal recitation. It shines and radiates exceedingly, becoming a cause for the long endurance of the Conqueror’s teaching and should be seen as enduring thus. It is said in the Uposatha chapter of the canon, “Bhikkhus, when designating a boundary, first designate a boundary for common residence,” and so forth.
Thus this boundary, with the interior like a jeweled palace and the exterior surrounded by silver, is like the deity who owns the palace; being endowed with these three qualities, it is like the orb of the moon. With the interior like a golden palace, and the exterior surrounded by crystal, is like the deity who owns the palace; being endowed with these three qualities, it is like the orb of the sun. Endowed with the three factors known as the accomplishment of landmarks, the accomplishment of the assembly, and the accomplishment of the formal act, it is exceedingly beautiful, resplendent, and should be understood to be the cause for the long-lasting of the Dispensation of the Victor. This is stated in the Uposathakkhandhaka Pāḷi, “When establishing a boundary, monks, first a co-residence boundary should be established,” etc.
In this way, the boundary, like a moon disk surrounded by a silver palace or a sun disk surrounded by a golden palace, shines brilliantly, endowed with the three factors of the success of the markers, the success of the assembly, and the success of the formal act. It stands as a cause for the long-lasting stability of the Buddha’s dispensation. As stated in the Uposathakkhandhaka Pāḷi, “Monks, when marking a boundary, first the common residence boundary should be marked,” etc.
ID903
“Nimittena nimittaṃ sambandhitvā”ti ettha pana pubbe vuttanayeneva puratthimadisato paṭṭhāya padakkhiṇaṃ katvā sabbanimittāni kittetvā uttarānudisaṃ patvā tattheva aṭṭhapetvā pubbe kittitaṃ puratthimadisāya nimittaṃ puna kittetvā sammatāti attho. Evaṃ sammatā ayaṃ sīmā ekādasahi vipattīhi muttā, tīhi sampattīhi samannāgatā hutvā sabbākārasampannā pañcavassasahassaparimāṇakālaṃ aparimāṇaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ apalokanādicatubbidhakammakaraṇaṭṭhānabhūtā baddhasīmā hotīti daṭṭhabbā.
“Connecting one marker to another” here means, as explained earlier, starting from the eastern direction, circling clockwise, declaring all the markers, reaching the northern sub-direction, standing there, and again declaring the marker in the eastern direction previously declared, thus designating it. A boundary designated in this way, free from the eleven failures and endowed with the three successes, becomes fully perfect in all respects. It should be seen as a designated boundary that serves as a place for the fourfold acts, such as giving notice, for countless bhikkhus over a period of five thousand years.
“Having connected landmark with landmark,” here, having, in the previously mentioned manner, starting from the eastern direction, making a circumambulation, proclaimed all the landmarks, having arrived at the northern intermediate direction, stopping there, having proclaimed again the landmark in the eastern direction that was proclaimed earlier, one should agree. This is the meaning. Thus established, this boundary is free from the eleven defects, endowed with the three accomplishments, and being perfected in all aspects, is to be understood as an established boundary which is the place for performing the four kinds of formal acts, such as granting permission, for an immeasurable number of monks, for a period of five thousand years.
“Connecting marker with marker” means, as previously explained, starting from the eastern direction and proceeding clockwise, declaring all the markers, reaching the northern direction, and placing them there. Then, the previously declared eastern marker should be declared again, and the boundary should be marked. Thus, this boundary, freed from the eleven faults and endowed with the three successes, becomes fully accomplished. It serves as a place for monks to perform the four types of formal acts, such as invitation, for five thousand years. This is the established boundary.
ID904
Yadi pana sakhaṇḍasīmaṃ mahāsīmaṃ bandhitukāmā, pubbe vuttanayena suṭṭhu sodhetvā samūhanitaporāṇasīmāya kevalāya pakatigāmasīmāya vā visuṃgāmasīmāya vā bandhitabbā, tāsu ca dvīsu sīmāsupabbajjupasampadādīnaṃ saṅghakammānaṃ sukhakaraṇatthaṃ sīmā paṭhamaṃ bandhitabbā, taṃ pana bandhantehi vattaṃ jānitabbaṃ. Sace hi bodhicetiyabhattasālādīni sabbavatthūni patiṭṭhāpetvā katavihāre bandhanti, vihāramajjhe bahūnaṃ samosaraṇaṭṭhāne abandhitvā vihārapaccante vivittokāse bandhitabbā. Akatavihāre bandhantehi bodhicetiyādīnaṃ sabbavatthūnaṃ patiṭṭhānaṃ sallakkhetvā yathā patiṭṭhitesu vatthūsu vihārapaccante vivittokāse hoti, evaṃ bandhitabbā. Tathā hi vuttaṃ samantapāsādikāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138) “imaṃ pana samānasaṃvāsakasīmaṃ sammannantehī”tiādi.
If, however, they wish to establish a partial boundary or a great boundary, it should be established, as explained earlier, after thoroughly purifying it within a pure village boundary free from old boundaries or within a separate village boundary. Among these two boundaries, the boundary should first be established for the ease of performing Sangha acts such as ordination and higher ordination, and those establishing it should know the proper procedure. If they establish it in a monastery already built with all structures like a Bodhi tree, shrine, or dining hall, it should not be established in the crowded central area where many gather but in a secluded spot at the monastery’s edge. When establishing it in an unbuilt monastery, considering the placement of all structures like the Bodhi tree, it should be established so that, once placed, it is in a secluded spot at the monastery’s edge. Thus, it is said in the Samantapāsādikā (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138), “Those designating this boundary for common residence,” and so forth.
If, however, one wishes to establish a great boundary with a sub-boundary, having, in the previously mentioned manner, well cleansed it, having uprooted the ancient boundary, one should establish it either with a natural village boundary or with a separate village boundary. And among those two boundaries, for the easy performance of Saṅgha acts such as ordination and higher ordination, the boundary should first be established. But by those who are establishing it, the proper procedure should be known. If, indeed, they are establishing it in a monastery where all the buildings, such as the Bodhi tree shrine, the alms hall, and so forth, have been established, not having established it in the middle of the monastery where many assemble, they should establish it on the outskirts of the monastery, in a secluded place. If establishing in a monastery not yet built, having determined the locations of all the structures, such as the Bodhi tree shrine, and so forth, so that when the structures are established, it is in a secluded place on the outskirts of the monastery, it should be established. Thus, it is stated in the Samantapāsādikā (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138), “But those establishing this co-residence boundary,” and so on.
If one wishes to mark a large boundary with sections, the old boundary should be thoroughly cleared and removed, and a new boundary should be marked within a single village boundary or separate village boundaries. Among these two boundaries, to facilitate the ease of performing Sangha acts such as ordination, the boundary should be marked first. When marking, the proper procedure should be known. If the boundary is marked after establishing all structures, such as the Bodhi tree, cetiya, and dining hall, the boundary should be marked in a secluded place around the monastery, not in the middle where many gather. If marking before establishing the monastery, the placement of the Bodhi tree, cetiya, etc., should be considered, and the boundary should be marked in a secluded place around the monastery. As stated in the Samantapāsādikā (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138), “When marking this common residence boundary,” etc.
ID905
Kittakappamāṇā pana khaṇḍasīmā bandhitabbāti? Heṭṭhimaparicchedena sace ekavīsati bhikkhū gaṇhāti, vaṭṭati, tato oraṃ na vaṭṭati. Paraṃ bhikkhusahassaṃ gaṇhantīpi vaṭṭati. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. 138) “sā heṭṭhimaparicchedenā”tiādi. Ekavīsati bhikkhūti ca nisinne sandhāya vuttaṃ, idañca abbhānakaraṇakāle kammārahabhikkhunā saddhiṃ vīsatigaṇassa saṅghassa nisīdanappahonakatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Vuttañhi vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.138) “ekavīsati bhikkhū”tiādi. Taṃ khaṇḍasīmaṃ bandhantehi bhikkhūhi sīmamāḷakassa samantā nimittūpagā pāsāṇā ṭhapetabbā. Antokhaṇḍasīmāyameva ṭhatvā khaṇḍasīmā bandhitabbā. “Eso pāsāṇo nimitta”nti evaṃ nimittāni kittetvā kammavācāya sīmā bandhitabbā, tassāyeva sīmāya daḷhīkammatthaṃ avippavāsakammavācā kātabbā. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138) “taṃ bandhantehī”tiādi. Evaṃ khaṇḍasīmaṃ sammannitvā bahi sīmantarikapāsāṇā ṭhapetabbā. Sīmantarikā pacchimakoṭiyā ekaratanappamāṇā vaṭṭati, vidatthippamāṇāpi caturaṅgulappamāṇāpi vaṭṭati. Sace pana vihāro mahā hoti, dvepi tissopi tatuttaripi khaṇḍasīmāyo bandhitabbā. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ “sīmaṃ sammannitvā”tiādi.
What size should a partial boundary be? With the minimum limit, if it accommodates twenty-one bhikkhus, it is permissible; less than that is not. Beyond that, even one accommodating a thousand bhikkhus is permissible. It is said in the commentary (mahāva. 138), “With the minimum limit,” and so forth. “Twenty-one bhikkhus” refers to those seated, stated for the sake of a quorum of twenty with a bhikkhu eligible for the act at the time of performing an act in open space. It is said in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.138), “Twenty-one bhikkhus,” and so forth. Those establishing this partial boundary should place marker-compatible rocks around the boundary hall. Standing only within the partial boundary, the partial boundary should be established. Declaring the markers as “This rock is the marker” and so forth, the boundary should be established with the formal recitation, and for its reinforcement, the formal recitation for non-separation should be performed. It is said in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138), “Those establishing it,” and so forth. After designating the partial boundary, marker rocks for the intervening space should be placed outside. An intervening space of one ratana at its western end is permissible, as is one of a span or four fingers. If the monastery is large, two, three, or more partial boundaries may be established. It is said in the commentary, “Having designated the boundary,” and so forth.
But what measure of a sub-boundary should be established? At the minimum limit, if it accommodates twenty-one monks, it is permissible, less than that is not permissible. On the upper limit, even if it can accommodate a thousand monks, it is permissible. It is stated in the commentary (mahāva. 138), “At the minimum limit,” and so on. Twenty-one monks, is said with reference to those seated; and this is said for a situation where the Saṅgha of twenty monks together with the monk who is eligible to be subjected to a formal act, in the case of raising him, can be seated. This is said in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.138), “Twenty-one monks”, and so on. By the monks establishing that sub-boundary, stones approaching the landmarks all around the boundary site, should be placed. Having remained only within the sub-boundary, the sub-boundary should be established. Having proclaimed the landmarks such as, “This stone is the landmark,” the boundary should be established by means of the formal act. For strengthening that same boundary, a formal act for non-absence should be performed. It is said in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138), “Those establishing it,” and so on. Thus, having established the sub-boundary, stones marking the boundary interval should be placed outside. The boundary intervals at the western edge are allowable at one ratana measure, even at a vidatthi measure, even at a four-aṅgula measure. If, however, the monastery is large, two, three, or even more sub-boundaries should be established. Thus it is said in the commentary, “Having established the boundary,” etc.
How large should a sectioned boundary be? According to the lower limit, if it accommodates twenty-one monks, it is valid. Less than that is invalid. However, it can accommodate up to a thousand monks. As stated in the Aṭṭhakathā (mahāva. 138), “According to the lower limit,” etc. “Twenty-one monks” refers to those seated, and this is said for the purpose of accommodating the Sangha of twenty monks during the act of rehabilitation. As stated in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.138), “Twenty-one monks,” etc. When marking this sectioned boundary, rocks should be placed around the boundary circle as markers. Standing within the sectioned boundary, the boundary should be marked. After declaring, “This rock is the marker,” the boundary should be marked with the formal act. To strengthen the boundary, the non-separation formal act should also be performed. As stated in the Aṭṭhakathā (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138), “When marking,” etc. After marking the sectioned boundary, rocks should be placed outside as boundary markers. The boundary markers at the western end should be the size of a gem, a span, or four fingers. If the monastery is large, two, three, or even more sectioned boundaries may be marked. As stated in the Aṭṭhakathā, “After marking the boundary,” etc.
ID906
Evaṃ khaṇḍasīmaṃ sammannitvā mahāsīmāsammutikāle khaṇḍasīmato nikkhamitvā mahāsīmāya ṭhatvā samantā anupariyāyantehi sīmantarikapāsāṇā kittetabbā, tato avasesanimittāni kittetvā hatthapāsaṃ avijahantehi kammavācāya samānasaṃvāsakasīmaṃ sammannitvā tassa daḷhīkammatthaṃ avippavāsakammavācāpi kātabbā. Tathā hi vuttaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138) “evaṃ khaṇḍasīmaṃ sammannitvā”tiādi.
Having designated the partial boundary thus, at the time of designating the great boundary, stepping outside the partial boundary and standing within the great boundary, the marker rocks of the intervening space should be declared sequentially all around, then the remaining markers declared, and without abandoning hand’s reach, the boundary for common residence should be designated with the formal recitation, followed by the formal recitation for non-separation for its reinforcement. Thus, it is said in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138), “Having designated the partial boundary thus,” and so forth.
Thus, having established the sub-boundary, at the time of agreeing upon the great boundary, having gone out from the sub-boundary, standing within the great boundary, those walking around should proclaim the stones marking the boundary interval. Then, having proclaimed the remaining landmarks, those not releasing their arm’s reach should agree upon the co-residence boundary by means of the formal act. For the purpose of strengthening it, a formal act of non-absence should also be performed. Thus it is said in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138), “Thus having established the sub-boundary” etc.
After marking the sectioned boundary in this way, when marking a large boundary, one should stand outside the sectioned boundary and declare the boundary markers around the large boundary. Then, the remaining markers should be declared, and without leaving arm’s reach, the common residence boundary should be marked with the formal act. To strengthen it, the non-separation formal act should also be performed. As stated in the Aṭṭhakathā (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138), “After marking the sectioned boundary in this way,” etc.
ID907
“Samantā anupariyāyantehi sīmantarikapāsāṇā kittetabbā”ti vuttaṃ. Kathaṃ kittetabbāti? Dakkhiṇato anupariyāyanteneva kittetabbā. Tathā hi khaṇḍasīmato pacchimāya disāya puratthābhimukhena ṭhatvā “puratthimāya disāya kiṃ nimitta”nti tattha sabbāni nimittāni anukkamena kittetvā tathā uttarāya disāya dakkhiṇābhimukhena ṭhatvā “dakkhiṇāya disāya kiṃ nimitta”nti anukkamena kittetvā tathā puratthimāya disāya pacchimābhimukhena ṭhatvā “pacchimāya disāya kiṃ nimitta”nti anukkamena kittetvā tathā dakkhiṇāya disāya uttarābhimukhena ṭhatvā “uttarāya disāya kiṃ nimitta”nti tattha sabbāni nimittāni anukkamena kittetvā puna pacchimāya disāya puratthābhimukhena ṭhatvā purimaṃ kittitaṃ vuttanayeneva puna kittetabbaṃ. Evaṃ bahūnampi khaṇḍasīmānaṃ sīmantarikapāsāṇā paccekaṃ kittetabbā, tato pacchā avasesanimittānīti mahāsīmāya bāhirabandhanesu nimittāni. Evaṃ sīmantarikapāsāṇā mahāsīmāya anto nimittāni honti dvinnaṃ sīmānaṃ saṅkaradosāpagamanatthaṃ sīmantarikapāsāṇānaṃ ṭhapetabbattā. Evaṃ samantā anupariyāyantena sīmantarikapāsāṇā kittetabbā. Tathāhi vuttaṃ vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.138) “sīmantarikapāsāṇāti sīmantarikāya ṭhapitanimittapāsāṇā, te pana kittentena padakkhiṇato anupariyāyanteneva kittetabbā”tiādi.
“The marker rocks of the intervening space should be declared sequentially all around” is stated. How should they be declared? They should be declared sequentially starting from the south and circling around. Thus, standing in the western direction from the partial boundary facing east, “What is the marker in the eastern direction?”—all markers there should be declared in sequence; then standing in the northern direction facing south, “What is the marker in the southern direction?”—declaring them in sequence; then standing in the eastern direction facing west, “What is the marker in the western direction?”—declaring them in sequence; then standing in the southern direction facing north, “What is the marker in the northern direction?”—declaring all markers there in sequence; and again standing in the western direction facing east, the previously declared markers should be declared again in the same way. Thus, the marker rocks of the intervening space for even multiple partial boundaries should each be declared separately, followed by the remaining markers of the great boundary for its outer demarcation. In this way, the marker rocks of the intervening space become internal markers of the great boundary, placed to avoid the defect of overlap between the two boundaries. Thus, the marker rocks of the intervening space should be declared sequentially all around. It is said in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.138), “‘Marker rocks of the intervening space’ refers to the rocks placed as markers in the intervening space, and they should be declared by circling clockwise sequentially,” and so forth.
It is said, “The boundary stones of the adjacent boundaries should be recited all around.” How should they be recited? They should be recited going around from the right. For instance, having stood facing east on the western side of the khaṇḍasīmā (subsidiary boundary), having recited all the markers there in sequence, asking “What is the marker in the eastern direction?”, and similarly, having stood facing south in the northern direction, having recited them in sequence, asking “What is the marker in the southern direction?”, and likewise, having stood facing west in the eastern direction, having recited them in sequence, asking “What is the marker in the western direction?”, and similarly, having stood facing north in the southern direction, having recited all the markers there in sequence, asking “What is the marker in the northern direction?”, and again, having stood facing east in the western direction, one should recite again in the previously stated manner what was recited before. In this way, for many khaṇḍasīmās, the boundary stones of the adjacent boundaries should be recited individually, then the remaining markers, meaning the markers for the outer enclosure of the mahāsīmā (main boundary). In this way, the boundary stones of the adjacent boundaries are inside the markers of the mahāsīmā, because the boundary stones of the adjacent boundaries are to be established for removing the fault of confusion between the two boundaries. Thus, the boundary stones of the adjacent boundaries should be recited going around completely. Thus it is said in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.138): “sīmantarikapāsāṇāti means the marker stones established for the adjacent boundaries; and those should be recited by one going around from right to left,” etc.
It is said, “The boundary stones in the intermediate zone should be announced while walking around the perimeter.” How should they be announced? They should be announced while walking around in a clockwise direction. For instance, standing facing east from the fragmented boundary, one should ask, “What are the markers in the eastern direction?” and then announce all the markers in sequence. Similarly, standing facing south from the northern direction, one should ask, “What are the markers in the southern direction?” and announce them in sequence. Likewise, standing facing west from the eastern direction, one should ask, “What are the markers in the western direction?” and announce them in sequence. Then, standing facing north from the southern direction, one should ask, “What are the markers in the northern direction?” and announce all the markers in sequence. After that, standing again facing east from the western direction, one should repeat the announcement as before. In this way, the boundary stones in the intermediate zone of many fragmented boundaries should be announced individually. Afterward, the remaining markers are those of the great boundary, which are the external markers. Thus, the boundary stones in the intermediate zone are the internal markers of the great boundary. They are established to prevent the confusion of overlapping boundaries. In this manner, the boundary stones in the intermediate zone should be announced while walking around the perimeter. As stated in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.138): “The boundary stones in the intermediate zone are the stones placed in the intermediate area. They should be announced while walking around in a clockwise direction.”
ID908
Kiṃ iminā anukkameneva sīmā sammannitabbā, udāhu aññenapi anukkamena sammannitabbāti? Sace pana khaṇḍasīmāya nimittāni kittetvā tato sīmantarikāya nimittāni kittetvā mahāsīmāya nimittāni kittenti, evaṃ tīsu ṭhānesu nimittāni kittetvā yaṃ sīmaṃ icchanti, taṃ paṭhamaṃ bandhituṃ vaṭṭati. Evaṃ santepi yathāvuttanayena khaṇḍasīmatova paṭṭhāya bandhitabbā. Tathā hi vuttaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138) “sace pana khaṇḍasīmāya nimittānī”tiādi. Evaṃ khaṇḍasīmamahāsīmabandhanena bhikkhūnaṃ ko guṇoti ce? Evaṃ baddhāsu pana sīmāsu khaṇḍasīmāya ṭhitā bhikkhū mahāsīmāyaṃ kammaṃ karontānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ kammaṃ na kopenti, mahāsīmāya vā ṭhitā khaṇḍasīmāya kammaṃ karontānaṃ, sīmantarikāya pana ṭhitā ubhinnampi na kopenti. Gāmakkhette ṭhatvā kammaṃ karontānaṃ pana sīmantarikāya ṭhitā kopenti. Sīmantarikā hi gāmakkhettaṃ bhajati. Tathā hi vuttaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ “evaṃ baddhāsu pana sīmāsū”tiādi, evaṃ baddhasīmavihāresu vasantā bhikkhū ticīvarādhiṭṭhānena adhiṭṭhitehi ticīvarehi vinā yathāruci vasituṃ labhanti. Sace pana gāmo atthi, gāmagāmūpacāresu na labhatīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
Should the boundary be designated only in this sequence, or can it be designated in another sequence as well? If they declare the markers of the partial boundary, then the markers of the intervening space, and then the markers of the great boundary—declaring the markers in these three stages—whichever boundary they wish to establish first is permissible. Even so, it should be established starting with the partial boundary as described. It is said in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138), “If, however, the markers of the partial boundary,” and so forth. What benefit do bhikkhus gain from establishing a partial boundary and a great boundary in this way? When boundaries are established thus, bhikkhus standing in the partial boundary do not disrupt the acts performed by bhikkhus in the great boundary, nor do those in the great boundary disrupt those in the partial boundary; but those standing in the intervening space do not disrupt either. However, those standing in the intervening space disrupt acts performed by those standing in the village area, for the intervening space pertains to the village area. It is said in the commentary, “When boundaries are established thus,” and so forth. Bhikkhus residing in monasteries with designated boundaries can, by determination of the triple robe, live as they wish without the triple robe. If there is a village, however, they cannot do so in the village or its vicinity—this should be understood.
Should the boundary be established in this very sequence, or can it be established in another sequence? If, after reciting the markers of the khaṇḍasīmā, then reciting the markers of the adjacent boundaries, and then reciting the markers of the mahāsīmā, thus reciting the markers in three places, whichever boundary they wish, they may establish that one first. Even so, beginning with the khaṇḍasīmā, it should be established in the aforementioned manner. Thus, it is said in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138): “If, after reciting the markers of the khaṇḍasīmā,” and so on. If it is asked, what is the benefit for the monks by establishing the khaṇḍasīmā and mahāsīmā in this way? When boundaries are established in this way, monks residing in the khaṇḍasīmā do not invalidate the kamma of monks performing kamma in the mahāsīmā, nor do those residing in the mahāsīmā [invalidate the kamma] of those performing kamma in the khaṇḍasīmā; but those residing in the adjacent boundary do not invalidate [the kamma] of either. However, those residing in the adjacent boundary do invalidate [the kamma] of those performing kamma while standing in the village area. For the adjacent boundary pertains to the village area. Thus it is said in the commentary, “When boundaries are established in this way,” etc. Monks residing in monasteries with boundaries thus established are allowed to reside as they please, without the three robes with which they have made the determination (adhiṭṭhāna) with three robes. If, however, there is a village, it should be understood that they are not permitted in the village and the village’s surrounding area.
Should the boundary be determined strictly in this sequential manner, or can it also be determined in another sequence? If, after announcing the markers of the fragmented boundary, one then announces the markers of the intermediate zone and subsequently the markers of the great boundary, then after announcing the markers in these three areas, it is appropriate to first establish the boundary they desire. Even so, the boundary should be established starting from the fragmented boundary as described. As stated in the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 138): “If one announces the markers of the fragmented boundary,” etc. What is the benefit for the monks in establishing the fragmented boundary and the great boundary in this way? When the boundaries are established in this manner, monks residing in the fragmented boundary do not disrupt the proceedings of monks performing acts in the great boundary, nor do monks in the great boundary disrupt the acts of those in the fragmented boundary. Monks in the intermediate zone do not disrupt the acts of either. However, monks standing in the intermediate zone do disrupt the acts of those performing proceedings while standing in the village field, as the intermediate zone is connected to the village field. As stated in the commentary: “When the boundaries are established in this way,” etc., monks residing in such established boundaries can live as they wish without the three robes that have been determined. However, if there is a village, it should be understood that they do not obtain [the right to live freely] in the village or its vicinity.
ID909
Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the compendium of the Vinaya,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is an explanation of the collection of Vinaya,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,
ID910
Sīmābandhanavinicchayakathālaṅkāro.
The discourse on the determination of boundary designation.
The chapter on the Determination of Boundary Establishment.
the section on the determination of boundary establishment is concluded.
ID911
ID912
168. Evaṃ sīmāvinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni uposathapavāraṇāvinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ “uposathapavāraṇāti ettha”tyādimāha. Tattha uposathasaddo tāva –
168. Having explained the determination of boundaries, now to explain the determination of Uposatha and Pavāraṇā, he begins with “Here, regarding Uposatha and Pavāraṇā” and so forth. Herein, the term “Uposatha” first—
168. Having thus explained the determination of boundaries, now, in order to explain the determination of uposatha and pavāraṇā, he begins with “uposathapavāraṇāti ettha” and so on. Here, as for the word uposatha –
168. Having discussed the determination of boundaries, now the determination of Uposatha and Pavāraṇā is explained, beginning with the phrase, “Here, Uposatha and Pavāraṇā.” In this context, the term Uposatha first refers to—
ID913
“Uddese pātimokkhassa, paṇṇattiyamuposatho; Upavāse ca aṭṭhaṅge, uposathadine siyā”ti. –
“In the recitation of the Pātimokkha, in designation, in fasting, and in the eightfold precept, it applies on the Uposatha day”—
“In the recitation of the Pātimokkha, in the regulation, uposatha is; And in the fast with eight factors, it may be on the uposatha day.” –
“The recitation of the Pātimokkha, the observance day, the eight precepts, and the Uposatha day.”—
ID914
Vacanato pātimokkhuddese paṇṇattiyaṃ upavāse aṭṭhaṅgasīle uposathadine ca vattati. Tathā hesa “āyāmāvuso kappina uposathaṃ gamissāmā”tiādīsu (dī. ni. aṭṭha. 1.150; ma. ni. aṭṭha. 3.85) pātimokkhuddese āgato, “uposatho nāma nāgarājā”tiādīsu (dī. ni. 2.246) paṇṇattiyaṃ, “suddhassa ve sadā pheggu, suddhassa uposatho sadā”tiādīsu (ma. ni. 1.79) upavāse, “evaṃ aṭṭhaṅgasamannāgato kho, visākhe, uposatho upavuttho”tiādīsu (a. ni. 8.43) aṭṭhaṅgasīle. “Na, bhikkhave, uposathe sabhikkhukāāvāsā abhikkhuko āvāso”tiādīsu (pāci. 1048) uposathadine vattati. “Pārisuddhiuposatho adhiṭṭhānuposatho”tiādīsu pārisuddhiadhiṭṭhānesupi vattati. Te pana pātimokkhuddese antogadhāti katvā visuṃ na vuttā. Idha pana pātimokkhuddese uposathadine ca vattati. Tattha pātimokkhuddese upavasanaṃ uposatho, sīlena upetā hutvā vasanantyattho. Uposathadine upavasanti etthāti uposatho, etasmiṃ divase sīlena upetā hutvā vasantītyattho.
According to this statement, it applies in the recitation of the Pātimokkha, in designation, in fasting, in the eightfold precept, and on the Uposatha day. Thus, it appears in the recitation of the Pātimokkha as in “Come, friends, let us go to the Uposatha” (dī. ni. aṭṭha. 1.150; ma. ni. aṭṭha. 3.85), in designation as in “Uposatha is the name of a nāga king” (dī. ni. 2.246), in fasting as in “For the pure, always the guava; for the pure, always the Uposatha” (ma. ni. 1.79), in the eightfold precept as in “Thus endowed with the eight factors, Visākha, the Uposatha is observed” (a. ni. 8.43), and on the Uposatha day as in “Bhikkhus, an abode with bhikkhus shall not, on the Uposatha day, be without bhikkhus” (pāci. 1048). It also applies in purity and determination as in “Uposatha of purity, Uposatha of determination,” though these are not separately mentioned as they are included in the recitation of the Pātimokkha. Here, however, it applies in the recitation of the Pātimokkha and on the Uposatha day. In the recitation of the Pātimokkha, “Uposatha” means dwelling endowed with virtue; on the Uposatha day, “Uposatha” means that on this day, beings dwell endowed with virtue.
According to this statement, it applies to the recitation of the Pātimokkha, to the regulation, to the fast, to the eight-factored precepts, and to the uposatha day. Thus, it occurs in the recitation of the Pātimokkha in such passages as “Come, friend Kappina, we will go to the uposatha” (dī. ni. aṭṭha. 1.150; ma. ni. aṭṭha. 3.85), in the regulation in such passages as “The uposatha, O king of nāgas” (dī. ni. 2.246), in the fast in such passages as “For the pure, there is always purity, for the pure, there is always uposatha” (ma. ni. 1.79), in the eight-factored precepts in such passages as “Thus endowed with eight factors, Visākhā, the uposatha is observed” (a. ni. 8.43). It applies to the uposatha day in such passages as “Monks, on the uposatha day, a monastery with monks should not be a monastery without monks” (pāci. 1048). It also applies to purity (pārisuddhi) and determination (adhiṭṭhāna) in such passages as “Pārisuddhi-uposatha, adhiṭṭhāna-uposatha.” But those were not mentioned separately, considering that they are included in the recitation of the Pātimokkha. Here, however, it applies to the recitation of the Pātimokkha and to the uposatha day. Here, uposatho [means] residing near (upavasanaṃ) the recitation of the Pātimokkha, meaning residing having become endowed with precepts. Uposatho [means] they reside near (upavasanti) on this, meaning on this day they reside having become endowed with precepts.
According to this statement, the term Uposatha applies to the recitation of the Pātimokkha, the observance day, the eight precepts, and the Uposatha day. For example, in the phrase, “Come, friend Kappina, let us go to the Uposatha,” (Dī. Ni. Aṭṭha. 1.150; Ma. Ni. Aṭṭha. 3.85) it refers to the recitation of the Pātimokkha. In the phrase, “Uposatha is the name of a king of the Nāgas,” (Dī. Ni. 2.246) it refers to the observance day. In the phrase, “The pure one always has the Uposatha,” (Ma. Ni. 1.79) it refers to the fasting day. In the phrase, “Thus, Visākha, the Uposatha observed with the eight precepts,” (A. Ni. 8.43) it refers to the eight precepts. In the phrase, “Monks, on the Uposatha day, a residence with monks should not be without monks,” (Pāci. 1048) it refers to the Uposatha day. In the phrases, “The Uposatha of purity, the Uposatha of determination,” it also applies to purity and determination. However, these are included within the recitation of the Pātimokkha and are not mentioned separately. Here, it applies to the recitation of the Pātimokkha and the Uposatha day. In the recitation of the Pātimokkha, the term Uposatha refers to the act of observing [the precepts], meaning living endowed with virtue. On the Uposatha day, it refers to the act of observing [the precepts] on that day, meaning living endowed with virtue on that day.
ID915
Pavāraṇā-saddo pana “pavāraṇā paṭikkhepe, kathitājjhesanāya cā”ti abhidhānappadīpikāyaṃ vacanato paṭikkhepe ajjhesane ca vattati. Tattha “yo pana bhikkhu bhuttāvī pavārito anatirittaṃ khādanīyaṃ vā bhojanīyaṃ vā khādeyya vā bhuñjeyya vā, pācittiya”ntiādīsu (pāci. 238) paṭikkhepe, “saṅgho pavāreyyā”tiādīsu (mahāva. 210) ajjhesane, “ajjapavāraṇā cātuddasī”tiādīsu (mahāva. aṭṭha. 212) pavāraṇādivase. So pana ajjhesanadivasoyevāti visuṃ na vutto. Idha pana ajjhesane vattati, tasmā pavārīyate pavāraṇā, pakārena icchīyatetyattho. Pa-pubba varadhātu curādigaṇikāyaṃ.
The term “Pavāraṇā,” according to the statement in the Abhidhānappadīpikā, “Pavāraṇā applies in refusal and in invitation,” applies in refusal and in invitation. In refusal, as in “If a bhikkhu, having eaten and refused further, eats or consumes additional edible or food items, it is a pācittiya” (pāci. 238); in invitation, as in “May the Sangha invite” (mahāva. 210); and on the Pavāraṇā day, as in “Today’s Pavāraṇā is the fourteenth” (mahāva. aṭṭha. 212). However, it is not separately mentioned as it pertains only to the day of invitation. Here, it applies in invitation; thus, “Pavāraṇā” means it is desired in a particular way, derived from the root “var” with the prefix “pa” in the curādi group.
And as for the word Pavāraṇā, according to the statement in the Abhidhānappadīpikā, “Pavāraṇā is in prohibition, and it is said to be in invitation,” it applies to prohibition and invitation. It applies to prohibition in statements such as “If a monk who has eaten, been invited (pavārito), and not leftover, eats or consumes what is to be chewed or eaten, it is a pācittiya” (pāci. 238), to invitation in statements such as “The Saṅgha should invite (pavāreyyā)” (mahāva. 210), and [also refers] to the pavāraṇā day, in statements such as “Today the pavāraṇā is the fourteenth day” (mahāva. aṭṭha. 212). But that [day of invitation] has not been separately mention, only the invitation and day. Here, however, it applies to invitation, therefore, it is invited, pavāraṇā, meaning it is properly wished for. The verb var with the prefix pa- is of the curādi group.
The term Pavāraṇā, according to the statement in the Abhidhānappadīpikā, “Pavāraṇā refers to refusal and invitation,” applies to refusal and invitation. For example, in the phrase, “If a monk, having eaten and refused further food, consumes any edible or non-edible food, he commits a Pācittiya offense,” (Pāci. 238) it refers to refusal. In the phrase, “The Sangha should invite,” (Mahāva. 210) it refers to invitation. In the phrase, “Today is the Pavāraṇā on the fourteenth,” (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 212) it refers to the Pavāraṇā day. However, the invitation day is not mentioned separately. Here, it applies to the invitation, meaning it is called Pavāraṇā because it is desired in a particular way. The root “var” in “pa-var-aṇā” belongs to the curādi group.
ID916
Ettha ca kiñcāpi pāḷiyaṃ uposathakkhandhakānantaraṃ vassūpanāyikakkhandhako, tadanantaraṃ pavāraṇakkhandhako saṅgīto, tathāpi uposathapavāraṇakammānaṃ yebhuyyena samānattā yamakamiva bhūtattā missetvā kathento suviññeyyo hoti sallahukagantho cāti mantvā khandhakadvayasaṅgahitaṃ atthaṃ ekeneva paricchedena dasseti ācariyo. Tattha cātuddasiko pannarasiko sāmaggīuposathoti divasavasena tayo uposathā hontīti sambandho. Catuddasiyaṃ niyutto cātuddasiko, evaṃ pannarasiko. Sāmaggīuposatho nāma saṅghasāmaggikadivase kātabbauposatho. Hemantagimhavassānaṃ tiṇṇaṃ utūnanti ettha hemantautu nāma aparakattikakāḷapakkhassa pāṭipadato paṭṭhāya phaggunapuṇṇamapariyosānā cattāro māsā. Gimhautu nāma phaggunassa kāḷapakkhapāṭipadato paṭṭhāya āsāḷhipuṇṇamapariyosānā cattāro māsā. Vassānautu nāma āsāḷhassa kāḷapakkhapāṭipadato paṭṭhāya aparakattikapuṇṇamapariyosānā cattāro māsā. Tatiyasattamapakkhesu dve dve katvā cha cātuddasikāti hemantassa utuno tatiye ca sattame ca pakkhe dve cātuddasikā, migasiramāsassa kāḷapakkhe, māghamāsassa kāḷapakkhe cāti attho. Evaṃ gimhassa utuno tatiye cittamāsassa kāḷapakkhe sattame jeṭṭhamāsassa kāḷapakkhe ca, vassānassa utuno tatiye sāvaṇassa kāḷapakkhe ca sattame assayujamāsassa kāḷapakkhe cāti attho. Sesā pannarasikāti sesā aṭṭhārasa pannarasikā.
Although in the canon, the Vassūpanāyikakkhandhaka follows the Uposathakkhandhaka, and the Pavāraṇakkhandhaka follows that, the teacher, considering that the acts of Uposatha and Pavāraṇā are largely similar and like twins, and that explaining them together makes them easier to understand and the text lighter, presents the meaning contained in both chapters in a single section. Herein, there are three types of Uposatha based on the day: the fourteenth, the fifteenth, and the harmony Uposatha—this is the connection. “Cātuddasika” means appointed on the fourteenth; similarly, “pannarasika.” “Sāmaggīuposatha” means the Uposatha to be performed on the day of Sangha harmony. “Of the three seasons—winter, summer, and rains”—here, “hemantautu” (winter season) refers to the four months from the first day of the dark half of the latter Kattika to the full moon of Phagguna; “gimhautu” (summer season) refers to the four months from the first day of the dark half of Phagguna to the full moon of Āsāḷha; “vassānautu” (rainy season) refers to the four months from the first day of the dark half of Āsāḷha to the full moon of the latter Kattika. “Two each in the third and seventh fortnights, making six fourteenth days” means two fourteenth days in the third and seventh fortnights of the winter season—in the dark half of Migasira and the dark half of Māgha; similarly, in the summer season, in the dark half of Citta and the dark half of Jeṭṭha; and in the rainy season, in the dark half of Sāvaṇa and the dark half of Assayuja. “The rest are fifteenth days” means the remaining eighteen are fifteenth days.
And here, although in the Pāli, after the Uposathakkhandhaka comes the Vassūpanāyikakkhandhaka, and after that the Pavāraṇakkhandhaka is compiled, nevertheless, because the uposatha and pavāraṇā ceremonies are mostly similar and are like a pair, the teacher presents the content covered by the two khandhakas in a single chapter, thinking that it will be easy to understand and the text will be concise. And here, there are three uposathas according to the day: the fourteenth, the fifteenth, and the harmony (sāmaggī) uposatha. Cātuddasiko is that which is appointed on the fourteenth day; similarly, pannarasiko. The sāmaggīuposatho is the uposatha to be performed on the day of the Saṅgha’s harmony. Hemantagimhavassānaṃ tiṇṇaṃ utūnanti, here hemantautu (winter season) are the four months beginning from the first day of the dark half of the latter Kattika month, ending with the full moon of Phagguna. Gimhautu (summer season) are the four months beginning from the first day of the dark half of Phagguna, ending with the full moon of Āsāḷhi. Vassānautu (rainy season) are the four months beginning from the first day of the dark half of Āsāḷha, ending with the full moon of the latter Kattika. Tatiyasattamapakkhesu dve dve katvā cha cātuddasikāti, two cātuddasikās in the third and seventh fortnights of the winter season, meaning in the dark half of the month of Migasira, and in the dark half of the month of Māgha. Similarly, in the third, the dark half of the month of Citta, and seventh, the dark half of the month of Jeṭṭha of the summer season; and in the third, the dark half of the month of Sāvaṇa, and the seventh, the dark half of the month of Assayuja of the rainy season. Sesā pannarasikāti, the remaining eighteen are pannarasikās.
Although in the Pāli texts, the Uposatha chapter is followed by the chapter on the entering of the rains, and then the Pavāraṇā chapter, because the proceedings of Uposatha and Pavāraṇā are mostly similar and are treated as a pair, the teacher combines the meaning of the two chapters into one section for clarity and brevity. Here, there are three Uposathas based on the day: the fourteenth, the fifteenth, and the Uposatha of unity. The Uposatha fixed on the fourteenth is called the fourteenth-day Uposatha, and similarly, the fifteenth-day Uposatha. The Uposatha of unity is the Uposatha to be observed on the day of Sangha unity. The three seasons—winter, summer, and the rains—are mentioned here. The winter season begins from the day after the full moon of Kattika and lasts until the full moon of Phagguna, covering four months. The summer season begins from the day after the full moon of Phagguna and lasts until the full moon of Āsāḷha, covering four months. The rainy season begins from the day after the full moon of Āsāḷha and lasts until the full moon of Kattika, covering four months. In the third and seventh fortnights of each season, there are two fourteenth-day Uposathas each, making six in total. For example, in the winter season, the third and seventh fortnights are the dark fortnights of Migasira and Māgha months. Similarly, in the summer season, the third and seventh fortnights are the dark fortnights of Citta and Jeṭṭha months. In the rainy season, the third and seventh fortnights are the dark fortnights of Sāvaṇa and Assayuja months. The remaining Uposathas are the fifteenth-day Uposathas, totaling eighteen.
ID917
Hoti cettha –
Herein it is stated—
Here it is –
Here it is said—
ID918
“Kattikassa ca kāḷamhā; Yāva phaggunapuṇṇamā; Hemantakāloti viññeyyo; Aṭṭha honti uposathā.
“From the dark half of Kattika until the full moon of Phagguna, it is known as the winter season; there are eight Uposathas.
“From the dark half of Kattika; Until the full moon of Phagguna; It should be known as the winter season; There are eight uposathas.
“From the dark fortnight of Kattika; Until the full moon of Phagguna; This is known as the winter season; There are eight Uposathas.
ID919
“Phaggunassa ca kāḷamhā; Yāva āsāḷhipuṇṇamā; Gimhakāloti viññeyyo; Aṭṭha honti uposathā.
“From the dark half of Phagguna until the full moon of Āsāḷha, it is known as the summer season; there are eight Uposathas.
“From the dark half of Phagguna; Until the full moon of Āsāḷhi; It should be known as the summer season; There are eight uposathas.
“From the dark fortnight of Phagguna; Until the full moon of Āsāḷha; This is known as the summer season; There are eight Uposathas.
ID920
“Āsāḷhassa ca kāḷamhā; Yāva kattikapuṇṇamā; Vassakāloti viññeyyo; Aṭṭha honti uposathā.
“From the dark half of Āsāḷha until the full moon of Kattika, it is known as the rainy season; there are eight Uposathas.
“From the dark half of Āsāḷha; Until the full moon of Kattika; It should be known as the rainy season; There are eight uposathas.
“From the dark fortnight of Āsāḷha; Until the full moon of Kattika; This is known as the rainy season; There are eight Uposathas.
ID921
“Utūnaṃ pana tiṇṇannaṃ, pakkhe tatiyasattame; Catuddasoti pātimokkhaṃ, uddisanti nayaññuno”ti. (kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. nidānavaṇṇanā);
“In the third and seventh fortnights of the three seasons, the wise recite the Pātimokkha on the fourteenth” (kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. nidānavaṇṇanā).
“Of the three seasons; In the third and seventh fortnights; The Pātimokkha is the fourteenth day; The wise ones recite” (kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. nidānavaṇṇanā);
“In the three seasons, in the third and seventh fortnights; The fourteenth is for the Pātimokkha; The wise recite accordingly.” (Kaṅkhā. Abhi. Ṭī. Nidānavaṇṇanā);
ID922
Evaṃ ekasaṃvacchare catuvīsati uposathāti evaṃ iminā vuttanayena hemantādīnaṃ tiṇṇaṃ utūnaṃ ekekasmiṃ utumhi paccekaṃ aṭṭhaaṭṭhauposathattā ututtayasamodhānabhūte ekasmiṃ saṃvacchare catuvīsati uposathā hontīti attho. Idaṃ tāva pakaticārittanti idaṃ ekasmiṃ saṃvacchare chacātuddasikaaṭṭhārasapannarasikauposathakaraṇaṃ tāva paṭhamaṃ pakatiyā sabhāvena cārittaṃ kātabbaṃ kammaṃ hoti, na bahutarāvāsikādinā kāraṇena kātabbanti attho.
“Thus, there are twenty-four Uposathas in one year”—thus, according to the method stated, with eight Uposathas each in the three seasons of winter and so forth, totaling twenty-four Uposathas in one year encompassing the three seasons. “This is the normal practice first” means that performing the Uposatha with six fourteenth days and eighteen fifteenth days in one year is first the act to be done by nature and normally, not due to reasons such as many residents.
Evaṃ ekasaṃvacchare catuvīsati uposathāti, thus, in this stated manner, since there are eight uposathas each in each of the three seasons of winter and so on, there are twenty-four uposathas in one year, which is the combination of the three seasons. Idaṃ tāva pakaticārittanti, this performing of six cātuddasika and eighteen pannarasika uposathas in one year is primarily the customary practice, the kamma to be performed by nature, by its inherent nature, not to be performed because of a reason such as a majority of resident monks, etc.
Thus, in one year, there are twenty-four Uposathas. According to this explanation, in each of the three seasons—winter, summer, and rains—there are eight Uposathas each, making a total of twenty-four Uposathas in one year. This is the natural practice. This means that in one year, the observance of six fourteenth-day and eighteen fifteenth-day Uposathas is the first and natural practice to be followed. It is not to be altered due to reasons such as being a long-term resident, etc.
ID923
Tathārūpapaccaye sati aññasmimpi cātuddase uposathaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti “sakiṃ pakkhassa cātuddase vā pannarase vā pātimokkhaṃ uddisitu”nti (mahāva. 136) vacanato “yo pana āgantukehi āvāsikānaṃ anuvattitabba”ntiādivacanato (mahāva. 178) ca tathārūpapaccaye sati aññasmimpi cātuddase uposathaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti attho. Tattha sakinti ekavāraṃ. Āvāsikānaṃ anuvattitabbanti āvāsikehi “ajjuposatho cātuddaso”ti pubbakicce kariyamāne anuvattitabbaṃ, na paṭikkositabbaṃ. Ādi-saddena “āvāsikehi āgantukānaṃ anuvattitabba”nti vacanaṃ, “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, tehi bhikkhūhi dve tayo uposathe cātuddasike kātuṃ, kathaṃ mayaṃ tehi bhikkhūhi paṭhamataraṃ pavāreyyāmā”ti (mahāva. 240) vacanañca saṅgaṇhāti. Ettha ca paṭhamasuttassa ekekassa utuno tatiyasattamapakkhassa cātuddase vā avasesassa pannarase vā sakiṃ pātimokkhaṃ uddisitabbanti. Pakaticārittavasenapi atthasambhavato “āgantukehī”tiādīni suttāni dassitānīti veditabbaṃ. Tathārūpapaccaye satīti aññasmimpi cātuddase uposathaṃ kātuṃ anurūpe āvāsikā bahutarā hontīti evamādike paccaye sati. Aññasmimpi cātuddaseti tiṇṇaṃ utūnaṃ tatiyasattamapakkhacātuddasato aññasmiṃ cātuddase.
“Under such conditions, it is permissible to perform the Uposatha on another fourteenth day as well”—based on the statement, “The Pātimokkha should be recited once in a fortnight, on the fourteenth or fifteenth” (mahāva. 136), and statements like “The newcomers should conform to the residents” (mahāva. 178), it is permissible to perform the Uposatha on another fourteenth day under such conditions. Herein, “sakiṃ” means once. “Should conform to the residents” means that when the residents perform the preliminary duties saying, “Today is the Uposatha on the fourteenth,” the newcomers should conform and not object. The term “ādi” includes statements like “The residents should conform to the newcomers” and “I allow those bhikkhus to perform two or three Uposathas on the fourteenth, thinking, ‘How can we invite before those bhikkhus?’” (mahāva. 240). Here, the first text means the Pātimokkha should be recited once on the fourteenth in the third and seventh fortnights of each season or on the fifteenth in the others, and since the meaning is possible under normal practice, texts like “by the newcomers” are shown—this should be understood. “Under such conditions” means when suitable conditions arise, such as the residents being more numerous, it is permissible to perform the Uposatha on another fourteenth day beyond the fourteenth days of the third and seventh fortnights of the three seasons.
Tathārūpapaccaye sati aññasmimpi cātuddase uposathaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti, due to the statement “Once in a fortnight, on the fourteenth or fifteenth day, the Pātimokkha should be recited” (mahāva. 136) and the statement “Resident monks should be followed by visiting monks” (mahāva. 178), etc., when there is a suitable reason, it is permissible to perform the uposatha on another fourteenth day. Here, sakinti means once. Āvāsikānaṃ anuvattitabbanti, when the resident monks are performing the preliminary duties, saying, “Today is the fourteenth-day uposatha,” they should be followed, not opposed. Ādi-saddena, the statement “Visiting monks should be followed by resident monks” and the statement, “I allow, monks, for those monks to perform two or three fourteenth-day uposathas, so that we may invite (pavāreyyāma) those monks sooner” (mahāva. 240), are collected. And here, the meaning of the first sutta is that the Pātimokkha should be recited once in the third or seventh fortnight of each season, on the fourteenth day, or in the remaining [fortnights], on the fifteenth day. The suttas beginning with “By visiting monks” are shown even though it’s the natural practice, because of the possibility of circumstances. Tathārūpapaccaye satīti, when there is a suitable reason, such as that there are a majority of resident monks, to perform the uposatha on another fourteenth day. Aññasmimpi cātuddaseti, on another fourteenth day other than the fourteenth day of the third and seventh fortnights of the three seasons.
When such conditions exist, it is permissible to observe the Uposatha on another fourteenth day. According to the statement, “The Pātimokkha should be recited once in a fortnight, on the fourteenth or fifteenth day,” (Mahāva. 136) and “The resident monks should follow the incoming monks,” (Mahāva. 178) when such conditions exist, it is permissible to observe the Uposatha on another fourteenth day. Here, once means one time. The resident monks should follow means that when the resident monks are performing the preliminary duties, saying, “Today is the fourteenth-day Uposatha,” they should follow and not object. The word etc. includes the statement, “The incoming monks should follow the resident monks,” and “I allow, monks, those monks to observe two or three fourteenth-day Uposathas. How can we invite them before they do?” (Mahāva. 240). Here, in the first case, for each season, the Pātimokkha should be recited once on the fourteenth day of the third or seventh fortnight or on the fifteenth day of the remaining fortnights. Since the meaning is applicable based on natural practice, the suttas such as “The incoming monks,” etc., should be understood as being shown. When such conditions exist means when conditions such as the resident monks being in the majority are present. On another fourteenth day means on a fourteenth day other than the third and seventh fortnights of the three seasons.
ID924
Tatrāyaṃ pāḷi (mahāva. 178) –
Here is the canonical text (mahāva. 178)—
There, this is the Pāli (mahāva. 178) –
Here is the Pāli (Mahāva. 178):
ID925
“Idha pana, bhikkhave, āvāsikānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ cātuddaso hoti, āgantukānaṃ pannaraso. Sace āvāsikā bahutarā honti, āgantukehi āvāsikānaṃ anuvattitabbaṃ. Sace samasamā honti, āgantukehi āvāsikānaṃ anuvattitabbaṃ. Sace āgantukā bahutarā honti, āvāsikehi āgantukānaṃ anuvattitabbaṃ.
“Here, bhikkhus, the residents observe the fourteenth, and the newcomers the fifteenth. If the residents are more numerous, the newcomers should conform to the residents. If they are equal, the newcomers should conform to the residents. If the newcomers are more numerous, the residents should conform to the newcomers.
“Here, monks, for the resident monks, it is the fourteenth day, for the visiting monks, it is the fifteenth. If the resident monks are the majority, the visiting monks should follow the resident monks. If they are equal, the visiting monks should follow the resident monks. If the visiting monks are the majority, the resident monks should follow the visiting monks.
“Here, monks, for the resident monks, it is the fourteenth day, and for the incoming monks, it is the fifteenth day. If the resident monks are in the majority, the incoming monks should follow the resident monks. If they are equal, the incoming monks should follow the resident monks. If the incoming monks are in the majority, the resident monks should follow the incoming monks.
ID926
“Idha pana, bhikkhave, āvāsikānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ pannaraso hoti, āgantukānaṃ cātuddaso. Sace āvāsikā bahutarā honti, āgantukehi āvāsikānaṃ anuvattitabbaṃ. Sace samasamā honti, āgantukehi āvāsikānaṃ anuvattitabbaṃ. Sace āgantukā bahutarā honti, āvāsikehi āgantukānaṃ anuvattitabbaṃ.
“Here, bhikkhus, the residents observe the fifteenth, and the newcomers the fourteenth. If the residents are more numerous, the newcomers should conform to the residents. If they are equal, the newcomers should conform to the residents. If the newcomers are more numerous, the residents should conform to the newcomers.
“Here, monks, for the resident monks, it is the fifteenth day, for the visiting monks, it is the fourteenth. If the resident monks are the majority, the visiting monks should follow the resident monks. If they are equal, the visiting monks should follow the resident monks. If the visiting monks are the majority, the resident monks should follow the visiting monks.
“Here, monks, for the resident monks, it is the fifteenth day, and for the incoming monks, it is the fourteenth day. If the resident monks are in the majority, the incoming monks should follow the resident monks. If they are equal, the incoming monks should follow the resident monks. If the incoming monks are in the majority, the resident monks should follow the incoming monks.
ID927
“Idha pana, bhikkhave, āvāsikānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ pāṭipado hoti, āgantukānaṃ pannaraso. Sace āvāsikā bahutarā honti, āvāsikehi āgantukānaṃ nākāmā dātabbā sāmaggī, āgantukehi nissīmaṃ gantvā uposatho kātabbo. Sace samasamā honti, āvāsikehi āgantukānaṃ nākāmā dātabbā sāmaggī, āgantukehi nissīmaṃ gantvā uposatho kātabbo. Sace āgantukā bahutarā honti, āvāsikehi āgantukānaṃ sāmaggī vā dātabbā, nissīmaṃ vā gantabbaṃ.
“Here, bhikkhus, the residents observe the first day, and the newcomers the fifteenth. If the residents are more numerous, the residents should not unwillingly grant harmony to the newcomers; the newcomers should go outside the boundary and perform the Uposatha. If they are equal, the residents should not unwillingly grant harmony to the newcomers; the newcomers should go outside the boundary and perform the Uposatha. If the newcomers are more numerous, the residents should either grant harmony to the newcomers or go outside the boundary.
“Here, monks, for the resident monks, it is the first day after the full moon (pāṭipada), for the visiting monks, it is the fifteenth. If the resident monks are the majority, harmony (sāmaggī) should be given to the visiting monks against their will, and the visiting monks should go beyond the boundary and perform the uposatha. If they are equal, harmony should be given to the visiting monks against their will, and the visiting monks should go beyond the boundary and perform the uposatha. If the visiting monks are the majority, either harmony should be given to the visiting monks by the resident monks, or they should go beyond the boundary.
“Here, monks, for the resident monks, it is the first day of the fortnight, and for the incoming monks, it is the fifteenth day. If the resident monks are in the majority, the resident monks should not give consent to the incoming monks for unity. The incoming monks should go outside the boundary and observe the Uposatha. If they are equal, the resident monks should not give consent to the incoming monks for unity. The incoming monks should go outside the boundary and observe the Uposatha. If the incoming monks are in the majority, the resident monks should either give consent to the incoming monks for unity or they should go outside the boundary.
ID928
“Idha pana, bhikkhave, āvāsikānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ pannaraso hoti, āgantukānaṃ pāṭipado. Sace āvāsikā bahutarā honti, āgantukehi āvāsikānaṃ sāmaggī vā dātabbā, nissīmaṃ vā gantabbaṃ. Sace samasamā honti, āgantukehi āvāsikānaṃ sāmaggī vā dātabbā, nissīmaṃ vā gantabbaṃ. Sace āgantukā bahutarā honti, āgantukehi āvāsikānaṃ nākāmā dātabbā sāmaggī, āvāsikehi nissīmaṃ gantvā uposatho kātabbo”ti.
“Here, bhikkhus, the residents observe the fifteenth, and the newcomers the first day. If the residents are more numerous, the newcomers should either grant harmony to the residents or go outside the boundary. If they are equal, the newcomers should either grant harmony to the residents or go outside the boundary. If the newcomers are more numerous, the newcomers should not unwillingly grant harmony to the residents; the residents should go outside the boundary and perform the Uposatha.”
“Here, monks, for the resident monks, it is the fifteenth day, for the visiting monks, it is the pāṭipada. If the resident monks are the majority, either harmony should be given to the resident monks by the visiting monks, or they should go beyond the boundary. If they are equal, either harmony should be given to the resident monks by the visiting monks, or they should go beyond the boundary. If the visiting monks are the majority, harmony should be given to the resident monks against their will, and the resident monks should go beyond the boundary and perform the uposatha.”
“Here, monks, for the resident monks, it is the fifteenth day, and for the incoming monks, it is the first day of the fortnight. If the resident monks are in the majority, the incoming monks should either give consent to the resident monks for unity or they should go outside the boundary. If they are equal, the incoming monks should either give consent to the resident monks for unity or they should go outside the boundary. If the incoming monks are in the majority, the incoming monks should not give consent to the resident monks for unity. The resident monks should go outside the boundary and observe the Uposatha.”
ID929
Tatrāyaṃ aṭṭhakathā (mahāva. aṭṭha. 178) –
Here is the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 178)—
There, this is the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 178) –
Here is the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 178):
ID930
Āvāsikānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ cātuddaso hoti, āgantukānaṃ pannarasoti ettha yesaṃ pannaraso, te tiroraṭṭhato vā āgatā, atītaṃ vā uposathaṃ cātuddasikaṃ akaṃsūti veditabbā. Āvāsikānaṃ anuvattitabbanti āvāsikehi “ajjuposatho cātuddaso”ti pubbakicce kariyamāne anuvattitabbaṃ, na paṭikkositabbaṃ. Nākāmā dātabbāti na anicchāya dātabbāti.
“The residents observe the fourteenth, and the newcomers the fifteenth”—here, those observing the fifteenth may have come from another region or may have previously performed the Uposatha on the fourteenth—this should be understood. “Should conform to the residents” means that when the residents perform the preliminary duties saying, “Today is the Uposatha on the fourteenth,” the newcomers should conform and not object. “Not unwillingly” means it should not be granted against their will.
Āvāsikānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ cātuddaso hoti, āgantukānaṃ pannarasoti, here, those for whom it is the fifteenth have either come from outside the country, or they performed the previous uposatha as the fourteenth. Āvāsikānaṃ anuvattitabbanti, when the resident monks are performing the preliminary duties, saying, “Today is the fourteenth-day uposatha,” they should be followed, not opposed. Nākāmā dātabbāti, it should not be given unwillingly.
For the resident monks, it is the fourteenth day, and for the incoming monks, it is the fifteenth day. Here, those for whom it is the fifteenth day should be understood as having come from another country or having missed the previous fourteenth-day Uposatha. The resident monks should follow means that when the resident monks are performing the preliminary duties, saying, “Today is the fourteenth-day Uposatha,” they should follow and not object. Consent should not be given unwillingly means it should not be given against their will.
ID931
“Anujānāmi bhikkhave”tiādimhi ayaṃ pavāraṇakkhandhakāgatā pāḷi (mahāva. 240) – idha pana, bhikkhave, sambahulā sandiṭṭhā sambhattā bhikkhū aññatarasmiṃ āvāse vassaṃ upagacchanti, tesaṃ sāmantā aññe bhikkhū bhaṇḍanakārakā kalahakārakā vivādakārakā bhassakārakā saṅghe adhikaraṇakārakā vassaṃ upagacchanti “mayaṃ tesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ vassaṃvutthānaṃ pavāraṇāya pavāraṇaṃ ṭhapessāmā”ti. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, tehi bhikkhūhi dve tayo uposathe cātuddasike kātuṃ, kathaṃ mayaṃ tehi bhikkhūhi paṭhamataraṃ pavāreyyāmāti.
“I allow, bhikkhus,” and so forth—this is the Pali text from the Pavāraṇākkhandhaka (mahāva. 240). Here, however, bhikkhus, several acquainted and friendly bhikkhus enter the rains retreat in a certain residence. Near them, other bhikkhus—makers of quarrels, disputes, contentions, arguments, and legal issues in the Saṅgha—enter the rains retreat, thinking, “We will obstruct the Pavāraṇā of those bhikkhus who have completed the rains retreat.” I allow, bhikkhus, those bhikkhus to hold two or three Uposatha days on the fourteenth, so that they may perform the Pavāraṇā before those other bhikkhus.
“I authorize, monks,” and so forth, this is the Pāḷi found in the Pavāraṇakkhandhaka (mahāva. 240) – here, monks, many well-known, friendly monks enter the rains residence in a certain dwelling. Around them, other monks who are quarrelsome, contentious, disputatious, given to idle chatter, and causers of legal issues in the Saṅgha, enter the rains residence, thinking: “We will suspend the Pavāraṇā, at the time of the Pavāraṇā, for those monks who have completed the rains residence.” I authorize, monks, that those monks perform two or three Uposathas on the fourteenth day, thinking, how might we perform the Pavāraṇā before those monks?
“Anujānāmi bhikkhave”tiādimhi ayaṃ pavāraṇakkhandhakāgatā pāḷi (mahāva. 240) – Here, bhikkhus, several bhikkhus who are seen and associated together enter the rains residence in a certain monastery. Nearby, other bhikkhus who are quarrelsome, contentious, disputatious, and create legal issues in the Saṅgha also enter the rains residence, thinking, “We will prevent those bhikkhus who have completed the rains from holding the pavāraṇā.” I allow, bhikkhus, those bhikkhus to observe two or three Uposatha days on the fourteenth. How can we perform the pavāraṇā with those bhikkhus earlier?
ID932
Tatrāyaṃ aṭṭhakathā (mahāva. aṭṭha. 240) – dve tayo uposathe cātuddasike kātunti ettha catutthapañcamā dve, tatiyo pana pakatiyāpi cātuddasikoyevāti, tasmā tatiyacatutthā vā tatiyacatutthapañcamā vā dve tayo cātuddasikā kātabbā. Atha catutthe kate suṇanti, pañcamo cātuddasiko kātabbo, evampi dve cātuddasikā honti. Evaṃ karontā bhaṇḍanakārakānaṃ terase vā cātuddase vā ime pannarasīpavāraṇaṃ pavāressantīti.
Here is the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 240): “To hold two or three Uposatha days on the fourteenth”—in this context, the fourth and fifth are two, while the third is naturally also a fourteenth day. Thus, the third and fourth, or the third, fourth, and fifth, should be held as two or three fourteenth days. If the fourth is held and they hear of it, the fifth should also be held as a fourteenth day; in this way, there are two fourteenth days. By doing so, they ensure that the quarrel-makers perform the fifteenth-day Pavāraṇā on either the thirteenth or fourteenth.
Herein is the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 240) – to perform two or three Uposathas on the fourteenth day, here the fourth and fifth are two; however, the third, even naturally, is on the fourteenth day, therefore, either the third and fourth, or the third, fourth, and fifth, two or three fourteenth-day Uposathas should be performed. Or if, when the fourth has been done, they hear, the fifth fourteenth-day Uposatha should be performed, thus, there are two fourteenth-day Uposathas. Doing so, for the quarrelsome ones it will be the thirteenth or the fourteenth, while these will perform the Pavāraṇā on the fifteenth.
Tatrāyaṃ aṭṭhakathā (mahāva. aṭṭha. 240) – dve tayo uposathe cātuddasike kātunti: Here, the fourth and fifth are two, but the third is naturally the fourteenth. Therefore, the third and fourth or the third, fourth, and fifth should be observed as two or three fourteenths. Then, when the fourth is done, they hear, “The fifth should be observed as the fourteenth.” Thus, two fourteenths are made. By doing so, the quarrelsome ones will perform the pavāraṇā on the thirteenth or fourteenth, and these will perform it on the fifteenth.
ID933
Tattha ayaṃ sāratthadīpanīpāṭho (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.240) – catutthe kate suṇantīti catutthe pannarasikuposathe kate amhākaṃ pavāraṇaṃ ṭhapessantīti suṇanti. Evampi dve cātuddasikā hontīti tatiyena saddhiṃ dve cātuddasikā hontīti.
Here is the passage from the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.240): “If the fourth is held, they hear”—when the fourth, a fifteenth-day Uposatha, is held, they hear, “They will obstruct our Pavāraṇā.” “In this way, there are two fourteenth days”—together with the third, there are two fourteenth days.
In this regard, this is the text of the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.240) – if, when the fourth has been done, they hear, if, when the fourth Uposatha of the fifteenth day has been performed, they hear that our Pavāraṇā will be suspended. Thus, there are two fourteenth-day Uposathas means with the third, there are two fourteenth-day Uposathas.
Tattha ayaṃ sāratthadīpanīpāṭho (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.240) – catutthe kate suṇantīti: When the fourth, the fifteenth Uposatha, is done, they hear, “They will prevent our pavāraṇā.” Evampi dve cātuddasikā hontīti: Thus, with the third, two fourteenths are made.
ID934
Tatrāyaṃ vimativinodanīpāṭho (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.240) – dve cātuddasikā hontīti tatiyapakkhe cātuddasiyā saddhiṃ dve cātuddasikā honti. Bhaṇḍanakārakānaṃ terase vā cātuddase vā ime pannarasīpavāraṇaṃ pavāressantīti iminā yathāsakaṃ uposathakaraṇadivasato paṭṭhāya bhikkhūnaṃ cātuddasīpannarasīvohāro, na candagatisiddhiyā tithiyā vasenāti dasseti. Kiñcāpi evaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, rājūnaṃ anuvattitu”nti (mahāva. 186) vacanato panettha lokiyānaṃ tithiṃ anuvattantehipi attano uposathakkamena cātuddasiṃ pannarasiṃ vā pannarasiṃ cātuddasiṃ vā karonteheva anuvattitabbaṃ, na pana soḷasamadivasaṃ vā terasamadivasaṃ vā uposathadivasaṃ karontehi. Teneva pāḷiyampi (mahāva. 240) “dve tayo uposathe cātuddasike kātu”nti vuttaṃ. Aññathā “dvādasiyaṃ, terasiyaṃ vā uposatho kātabbo”ti vattabbato. “Sakiṃ pakkhassa cātuddase vā pannarase vā”tiādivacanampi (mahāva. 136) upavuttakkameneva vuttaṃ, na tithikkamenāti gahetabbanti.
Here is the passage from the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.240): “There are two fourteenth days”—together with the third fortnight’s fourteenth day, there are two fourteenth days. “The quarrel-makers will perform the fifteenth-day Pavāraṇā on the thirteenth or fourteenth”—this indicates that the designation of the fourteenth or fifteenth day for the bhikkhus begins from the day they perform the Uposatha, not according to the lunar calendar’s tithi (date). Although it is said, “I allow, bhikkhus, to follow the kings” (mahāva. 186), here too, even when following the worldly tithi, it should be followed only by performing the fourteenth or fifteenth, or the fifteenth or fourteenth, according to their own Uposatha sequence, not by making the sixteenth or thirteenth day the Uposatha day. Hence, the Pali text (mahāva. 240) states, “To hold two or three Uposatha days on the fourteenth.” Otherwise, it would have said, “The Uposatha should be held on the twelfth or thirteenth.” The statement “Once in a fortnight, on the fourteenth or fifteenth” (mahāva. 136) is also made according to the aforementioned sequence, not the tithi sequence, and should be understood as such.
Here is this passage from the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.240) – dve cātuddasikā hontīti, in the third fortnight, together with the fourteenth day, there are two fourteenth days. By Bhaṇḍanakārakānaṃ terase vā cātuddase vā ime pannarasīpavāraṇaṃ pavāressantīti, it shows that the usage of the fourteenth and fifteenth days for monks begins from the day of performing their own Uposatha, and not by the lunar determination based on the moon’s movement. And even though it is so, because of the statement, “I allow, monks, conforming to kings” (Mahāva. 186), here even those who conform to the lunar days of the worldlings, should conform while making the fourteenth the fifteenth, or the fifteenth the fourteenth, according to their own Uposatha sequence, but not those making the sixteenth day or thirteenth day as the Uposatha day. Therefore, even in the Pāḷi (Mahāva. 240), it is said, “to make two or three Uposathas on the fourteenth.” Otherwise, it should have been stated, “The Uposatha should be performed on the twelfth or thirteenth day.” The statement “Once in a fortnight, on the fourteenth or fifteenth day” (Mahāva. 136), and so on, is also stated following the above sequence, and should be understood as not by the lunar sequence.
Tatrāyaṃ vimativinodanīpāṭho (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.240) – dve cātuddasikā hontīti: With the third fortnight’s fourteenth, two fourteenths are made. Bhaṇḍanakārakānaṃ terase vā cātuddase vā ime pannarasīpavāraṇaṃ pavāressantīti: This shows that the bhikkhus’ observance of the fourteenth and fifteenth is based on their own Uposatha day, not on the lunar date. Although it is said, “I allow, bhikkhus, to follow the kings,” here, even if they follow the worldly dates, they should follow their own Uposatha sequence, observing the fourteenth or fifteenth, but not the sixteenth or thirteenth as the Uposatha day. Therefore, the Pāḷi also states, “Observe two or three Uposatha days on the fourteenth.” Otherwise, it would have to be said, “Observe the Uposatha on the twelfth or thirteenth.” The statement, “Once in a fortnight on the fourteenth or fifteenth,” is also said according to the Uposatha sequence, not the lunar date.
ID935
Na kevalaṃ uposathadivasāyeva tayo honti, atha kho pavāraṇādivasāpīti āha “purimavassaṃvutthānaṃ panā”tiādi. Māiti cando vuccati tassa gatiyā divasassa minitabbato, so ettha sabbakalāpapāripūriyā puṇṇoti puṇṇamā. Pubbakattikāya puṇṇamā pubbakattikapuṇṇamā, assayujapuṇṇamā. Sā hi pacchimakattikaṃ nivattetuṃ evaṃ vuttā. Tesaṃyevāti purimavassaṃvutthānaṃyeva. Bhaṇḍanakārakehīti kalahakārakehi. Paccukkaḍḍhantīti ukkaḍḍhanti, bhaṇḍanakārake anuvādavasena assayujapuṇṇamādiṃ pariccajantā pavāraṇaṃ kāḷapakkhaṃ juṇhapakkhanti uddhaṃ kaḍḍhantīti attho, “suṇantu me, āyasmanto āvāsikā, yadāyasmantānaṃ pattakallaṃ, idāni uposathaṃ kareyyāma, pātimokkhaṃ uddiseyyāma, āgame kāḷe pavāreyyāmā”ti, “suṇantu me, āyasmanto āvāsikā, yadāyasmantānaṃ pattakallaṃ, idāni uposathaṃ kareyyāma, pātimokkhaṃ uddiseyyāma, āgame juṇhe pavāreyyāmā”ti (mahāva. 240) ca evaṃ ñattiyā pavāraṇaṃ uddhaṃ kaḍḍhantīti vuttaṃ hoti.
Not only are there three Uposatha days, but also Pavāraṇā days, thus it says, “But those who completed the earlier rains retreat…” and so forth. “Mā” refers to the moon, so called because the day is measured by its motion; here, it is full with all its phases complete, hence “puṇṇamā” (full moon). The full moon of the earlier Kattikā is “pubbakattikapuṇṇamā,” the full moon of Assayuja. It is called so to distinguish it from the later Kattikā. “Tesaṃyeva” means only those who completed the earlier rains retreat. “Bhaṇḍanakārakehi” means by the makers of disputes. “Paccukkaḍḍhanti” means they pull back; it refers to the quarrel-makers who, by way of censure, abandon the full moon of Assayuja and pull the Pavāraṇā upward to the dark fortnight or bright fortnight, meaning: “May the venerable resident bhikkhus listen to me: if it is suitable to the venerables, we should now hold the Uposatha, recite the Pātimokkha, and perform the Pavāraṇā later in the dark phase,” or “…later in the bright phase” (mahāva. 240). Thus, it is said that they pull the Pavāraṇā upward with such a motion.
Not only are there three Uposatha days, but there are also Pavāraṇā days, he says, “However, for those who have completed the first rains residence,” and so forth. Mā means the moon, because the day is measured by its movement, which is full here with the complete assemblage of all digits, so puṇṇamā. The full moon of Pubbakattikā is pubbakattikapuṇṇamā, the full moon of Assayuja. This has been thus stated to distinguish it from Pacchimakattika. For those very ones means for those very ones who have completed the first rains residence. By quarrelsome ones means by contentious ones. They are drawn forward means they are drawn out, meaning, by abandoning the full moon of Assayuja, etc., due to the instigation of the quarrelsome ones, they advance the Pavāraṇā to the dark half-month or the bright half-month, they advance, in the sense of dragging it upwards, “Let the resident venerable sirs listen to me. If it is convenient for the venerable sirs, we should now perform the Uposatha, recite the Pātimokkha, and perform the Pavāraṇā in the coming dark fortnight,” and “Let the resident venerable sirs listen to me. If it is convenient for the venerable sirs, we should now perform the Uposatha, recite the Pātimokkha, and perform the Pavāraṇā in the coming bright fortnight” (mahāva. 240), it is said that they advance the Pavāraṇā upwards by such a motion.
Not only are there three Uposatha days, but also pavāraṇā days, as stated: “purimavassaṃvutthānaṃ panā”tiādi. Māiti: The moon is called “mā” because its movement marks the day. When it is full in all its phases, it is called puṇṇamā. The full moon of the earlier Kattika is called pubbakattikapuṇṇamā, and the full moon of Assayuja is called assayujapuṇṇamā. This is said to turn back the later Kattika. Tesaṃyevāti: Only those who have completed the earlier rains. Bhaṇḍanakārakehīti: By the quarrelsome ones. Paccukkaḍḍhantīti: They drag it forward, abandoning the assayujapuṇṇamā, etc., due to accusations against the quarrelsome ones, and perform the pavāraṇā in the dark or bright fortnight, pulling it upward. The meaning is, “Venerable ones, residents, please listen. If it is suitable for you, we will now perform the Uposatha, recite the Pātimokkha, and perform the pavāraṇā in the dark fortnight,” or “Venerable ones, residents, please listen. If it is suitable for you, we will now perform the Uposatha, recite the Pātimokkha, and perform the pavāraṇā in the bright fortnight” (mahāva. 240). Thus, it is said that they pull the pavāraṇā upward by such a motion.
ID936
Athāti anantaratthe nipāto. Catuddasannaṃ pūraṇo cātuddaso, divaso. Yaṃ sandhāya “āgame kāḷe pavāreyyāmā”ti ñattiṃ ṭhapayiṃsu. Pacchimakattikapuṇṇamā vāti komudicātumāsinipuṇṇamadivaso vā. Yaṃ sandhāya “āgame juṇhe pavāreyyāmā”ti ñattiṃ ṭhapayiṃsu. Tasmiṃ pana āgame juṇhe komudiyā cātumāsiniyā avassaṃ pavāretabbaṃ. Na hi taṃ atikkamitvā pavāretuṃ labbhati. Vuttañhetaṃ “te ce, bhikkhave, bhikkhū bhaṇḍanakārakā kalahakārakā vivādakārakā bhassakārakā saṅghe adhikaraṇakārakā tampi juṇhaṃ anuvaseyyuṃ. Tehi, bhikkhave, bhikkhūhi sabbeheva āgame juṇhe komudiyā cātumāsiniyā akāmā pavāretabba”nti (mahāva. 240). Tenevāha “pacchimavassaṃvutthānañca pacchimakattikapuṇṇamā eva vā”ti. Yadi hi taṃ atikkamitvā pavāreyya, dukkaṭāpattiṃ āpajjeyyuṃ. Vuttañhetaṃ “na ca, bhikkhave, apavāraṇāya pavāretabbaṃ aññatra saṅghasāmaggiyā”ti (mahāva. 233). Visuddhipavāraṇāyogato pavāraṇādivasā. Pi-saddena na kevalaṃ pavāraṇādivasāva , atha kho tadaññe uposathadivasāpi hontīti dasseti. Idampīti pavāraṇattayampi. Tathārūpapaccayeti bahutarāvāsikādipaccaye. Dvinnaṃ kattikapuṇṇamānanti pubbakattikapacchimakattikasaṅkhātānaṃ dvinnaṃ assayujakomudipuṇṇamānaṃ.
“Atha” is a particle indicating immediacy. “Cātuddaso” is the fourteenth, the day completing fourteen. This refers to the motion they established, saying, “We will perform the Pavāraṇā later in the dark phase.” “Pacchimakattikapuṇṇamā vā” means the full moon day of the later Kattikā, the Komudi Cātumāsini, referring to the motion they established, saying, “We will perform the Pavāraṇā later in the bright phase.” However, in that later bright phase, on the Komudi Cātumāsini, they must perform the Pavāraṇā. It cannot be performed after passing that day. It is said: “If, bhikkhus, those quarrel-makers, dispute-makers, contention-makers, argument-makers, and makers of legal issues in the Saṅgha were to remain through that bright phase as well, all those bhikkhus must perform the Pavāraṇā, even unwillingly, on the Komudi Cātumāsini in the bright phase” (mahāva. 240). Hence, it says, “And those who completed the later rains retreat only on the full moon of the later Kattikā.” If they were to perform the Pavāraṇā after passing that day, they would incur a dukkaṭa offense. It is said: “Bhikkhus, the Pavāraṇā must not be performed without invitation, except for the sake of Saṅgha harmony” (mahāva. 233). “Pavāraṇādivasā” refers to Pavāraṇā days due to their suitability for a pure Pavāraṇā. The particle “pi” indicates that not only Pavāraṇā days but also other Uposatha days occur. “Idampī” refers to this threefold Pavāraṇā as well. “Tathārūpapaccaye” means due to conditions such as a majority of residents. “Dvinnaṃ kattikapuṇṇamānaṃ” refers to the two full moons known as the earlier Kattikā and later Kattikā, namely Assayuja and Komudi.
Athā is a particle indicating immediate subsequence. The one completing the fourteen is cātuddaso, the day. Referring to which, they established the motion, “we will perform the Pavāraṇā in the coming dark fortnight.” Or the full moon of Pacchimakattika means the day of the full moon of the Komudī four-month period. Referring to which, they established the motion, “we will perform the Pavāraṇā in the coming bright fortnight.” However, on that coming bright fortnight of the Komudī four-month period, the Pavāraṇā must certainly be performed. It is not permissible to perform the Pavāraṇā by transgressing it. It is said, “If, monks, those monks, being quarrelsome, contentious, disputatious, given to idle chatter, causers of legal issues in the Saṅgha, should persist even in that bright fortnight, then, monks, by all those monks, in the coming bright fortnight of the Komudī four-month period, the Pavāraṇā must be performed unwillingly” (mahāva. 240). Therefore, he says, “and for those who have completed the last rains residence, it is indeed the full moon of Pacchimakattika.” For if they were to perform the Pavāraṇā by transgressing that, they would incur an offense of wrong-doing. It is said, “And, monks, the Pavāraṇā should not be performed by one who has not performed the Pavāraṇā, except in the case of the harmony of the Saṅgha” (mahāva. 233). Due to suitability for the Pavāraṇā of purification, pavāraṇādivasā. By the word Pi, it is shown that not only the Pavāraṇā days, but also the other Uposatha days exist. This too means the three types of Pavāraṇā as well. Due to a similar cause means due to a cause such as a greater number of residents, etc. Of the two Kattikā full moons means of the two full moons of Assayuja and Komudī, known as Pubbakattika and Pacchimakattika.
Athāti: The particle “atha” indicates immediacy. The completion of fourteen is cātuddaso, the day. Referring to this, they made the motion, “We will perform the pavāraṇā in the dark fortnight.” Pacchimakattikapuṇṇamā vāti: The full moon day of the later Kattika or the full moon day of Komudī Cātumāsinī. Referring to this, they made the motion, “We will perform the pavāraṇā in the bright fortnight.” On that bright fortnight of Komudī Cātumāsinī, the pavāraṇā must be performed without fail. It cannot be performed after that. It is said, “If, bhikkhus, those quarrelsome, contentious, disputatious bhikkhus who create legal issues in the Saṅgha also dwell in the bright fortnight, then, bhikkhus, all those bhikkhus must perform the pavāraṇā on the bright fortnight of Komudī Cātumāsinī, even if unwilling” (mahāva. 240). Therefore, it is said, “pacchimavassaṃvutthānañca pacchimakattikapuṇṇamā eva vā”ti. If they perform it after that, they commit a dukkaṭa offense. It is said, “Bhikkhus, the pavāraṇā should not be performed without the pavāraṇā, except for Saṅgha unity” (mahāva. 233). Due to the connection with the purity of the pavāraṇā, pavāraṇādivasā. The particle pi indicates that not only are there pavāraṇā days, but also other Uposatha days. Idampīti: These three pavāraṇā days. Tathārūpapaccayeti: Due to conditions such as having more residents. Dvinnaṃ kattikapuṇṇamānanti: The two full moons of Kattika, namely the earlier and later Kattika, the full moons of Assayuja and Komudī.
ID937
Idāni yo so sāmaggiuposathadivaso vutto, tañca tappasaṅgena sāmaggipavāraṇādivasañca dassento “yadā panā”tiādimāha. Tattha osārite tasmiṃ bhikkhusminti ukkhittake bhikkhusmiṃ osārite, taṃ gahetvā sīmaṃ gantvā āpattiṃ desāpetvā kammavācāya kammapaṭippassaddhivasena pavesiteti vuttaṃ hoti. Tassa vatthussāti tassa adhikaraṇassa. Tadā ṭhapetvā cuddasapannarase añño yo koci divaso uposathadivaso nāma hotīti sambandho. Kasmāti āha “tāvadeva uposatho kātabbo. ’Pātimokkhaṃ uddisitabba’nti vacanato”ti. Tattha tāvadevāti taṃ divasameva. Vacanatoti kosambakakkhandhake (mahāva. 475) vuttattā. Yatra pana pattacīvarādīnaṃ atthāya appamattakena kāraṇena vivadantā uposathaṃ vā pavāraṇaṃ vā ṭhapenti, tattha tasmiṃ adhikaraṇe vinicchite “samaggā jātamhā”ti antarā sāmaggiuposathaṃ kātuṃ na labhanti, karontehi anuposathe uposatho kato nāma hoti.
Now, to show the harmony Uposatha day mentioned earlier and, by extension, the harmony Pavāraṇā day, it says, “But when…” and so forth. Therein, “Osārite tasmiṃ bhikkhusmiṃ” means when that bhikkhu who was suspended is reinstated—taken to the sīmā, made to confess his offense, and readmitted by the kammavācā procedure, it is said. “Tassa vatthussa” refers to that legal issue. Then, except for the fourteenth or fifteenth, any other day becomes an Uposatha day—this is the connection. Why? It says, “Because the Uposatha must be held immediately, due to the statement ‘The Pātimokkha must be recited.’” Therein, “Tāvadeva” means on that very day. “Vacanato” means because it is stated in the Kosambakakkhandhaka (mahāva. 475). However, where they suspend the Uposatha or Pavāraṇā for a minor reason, such as a dispute over robes and bowls, they cannot hold an interim harmony Uposatha saying, “We have become harmonious,” once that legal issue is resolved. If they do so, it is considered an Uposatha held on a non-Uposatha day.
Now, as to what was said about the Uposatha day of harmony, and in connection with that, also showing the Pavāraṇā day of harmony, he says “when, however,” and so forth. Herein, when that monk has been reinstated means when the suspended monk has been reinstated, having taken him, gone to the boundary, caused him to confess the offense, and through the act of speech in the manner of pacifying the formal act, caused him to be re-admitted, this is what is said. Of that case means of that legal issue. Then, having established that, other than the fourteenth and fifteenth, whatever day is called the Uposatha day, that is the connection. Why? He says, “The Uposatha should be performed only then. Because of the statement, ‘The Pātimokkha should be recited.’” Herein, only then means on that very day. Because of the statement means because it is stated in the Kosambakakkhandhaka (mahāva. 475). However, where they suspend the Uposatha or Pavāraṇā due to a minor cause, for the sake of robes, alms-bowls, etc., there, when that legal issue has been decided, saying “we have become harmonious,” they are not allowed to perform an intermediate Uposatha of harmony; by performing it, it is as if the Uposatha has been performed on a non-Uposatha day.
Now, the day of unity Uposatha mentioned, and with its connection, the day of unity pavāraṇā is shown by “yadā panā”tiādimāha. There, osārite tasmiṃ bhikkhusminti: When the expelled bhikkhu is reinstated, having taken him, gone to the boundary, confessed the offense, and entered through the motion of the kammavācā, it is said. Tassa vatthussāti: Regarding that legal issue. Then, except for the fourteenth and fifteenth, any other day is called an Uposatha day. Why? It is said, “tāvadeva uposatho kātabbo. ’Pātimokkhaṃ uddisitabba’nti vacanato”ti. There, tāvadevāti: On that very day. Vacanatoti: Because it is said in the Kosambaka Khandhaka (mahāva. 475). Wherever they stop the Uposatha or pavāraṇā due to a minor dispute over robes, etc., there, when that legal issue is settled, they cannot perform the unity Uposatha in between, thinking, “We have become united.” If they perform it, it is called an Uposatha performed on a non-Uposatha day.
ID938
Kattikamāsabbhantareti ettha kattikamāso nāma pubbakattikamāsassa kāḷapakkhapāṭipadato paṭṭhāya yāva aparakattikapuṇṇamā, tāva ekūnatiṃsarattidivā, tassa abbhantare. Tato pure vā pana pacchā vā vaṭṭati. Ayamevāti yo koci divasoyeva. Idhāpi kosambakakkhandhake sāmaggiyā sadisāva sāmaggī veditabbā. Ye pana kismiñcideva appamattake pavāraṇaṃ ṭhapetvā samaggā honti, tehi pavāraṇāyameva pavāraṇā kātabbā, tāvadeva na kātabbā, karontehi apavāraṇāya pavāraṇā katā nāma hoti, “na kātabbāyevā”ti niyamena yadi karoti, dukkaṭanti dasseti. Tattha hi uposathakaraṇe dukkaṭaṃ. Vuttañhetaṃ “na, bhikkhave, anuposathe uposatho kātabbo aññatra saṅghasāmaggiyā”ti (mahāva. 183).
“Kattikamāsabbhantare” means within the Kattikā month. Here, the “Kattikā month” refers to the period from the first day of the dark fortnight of the earlier Kattikā month until the full moon of the later Kattikā, a total of twenty-nine nights and days, within that span. It is permissible before or after that. “Ayameva” means any day whatsoever. Here too, harmony should be understood as similar to that in the Kosambakakkhandhaka. However, those who suspend the Pavāraṇā for some minor reason and become harmonious must perform the Pavāraṇā only for the sake of Pavāraṇā; it must not be done immediately. If they do so, it is considered a Pavāraṇā performed without invitation. It indicates that if one does so with the strict rule “It must not be done,” it is a dukkaṭa offense. For in that case, holding the Uposatha incurs a dukkaṭa. It is said: “Bhikkhus, the Uposatha must not be held on a non-Uposatha day, except for the sake of Saṅgha harmony” (mahāva. 183).
During the month of Kattikā, here, the month of Kattikā is the twenty-nine days and nights, starting from the first day of the dark fortnight of the Pubbakattikā month, up to the full moon of the subsequent Kattikā. Before or after that, however, it is allowed. This very means whichever day it is. Here, too, the harmony in the Kosambakakkhandhaka should be understood as similar to this harmony. However, those who become harmonious after having suspended the Pavāraṇā for some minor matter, they should perform the Pavāraṇā at the time of the Pavāraṇā itself; it should not be performed just at any time; by performing it, it would be as if the Pavāraṇā was performed on a non-Pavāraṇā day, he indicates that if, with the rule “it should not be performed,” one still performs it, it is an offense of wrong-doing. In that case, there is an offense of wrong-doing in performing the Uposatha. It is stated, “Monks, the Uposatha should not be performed on a non-Uposatha day, except in the case of the harmony of the Saṅgha” (mahāva. 183).
Kattikamāsabbhantareti: Here, kattikamāso is the month of Kattika, from the first day of the dark fortnight of the earlier Kattika until the full moon of the later Kattika, totaling twenty-nine days, within that period. It can occur before or after. Ayamevāti: Any day. Here too, in the Kosambaka Khandhaka, unity should be understood similarly. Those who become united after stopping the pavāraṇā over some minor issue should perform the pavāraṇā only on the pavāraṇā day, not before. If they perform it, it is called a pavāraṇā performed without the pavāraṇā, “It should not be performed.” If they perform it, it is a dukkaṭa offense. There, in performing the Uposatha, it is a dukkaṭa. It is said, “Bhikkhus, the Uposatha should not be performed on a non-Uposatha day, except for Saṅgha unity” (mahāva. 183).
ID939
169. Saṅghe uposatho nāma ekasīmāyaṃ sannipatitena catuvaggādisaṅghena kattabbo uposatho, so ca pātimokkhuddesoyeva. Gaṇe uposatho nāma ekasīmāyaṃ sannipatitehi dvīhi, tīhi vā bhikkhūhi kattabbo uposatho, so ca pārisuddhiuposathoyeva. Puggale uposatho nāma ekasīmāyaṃ nisinnena ekena bhikkhunā kattabbo uposatho, so ca adhiṭṭhānuposathoyeva. Tenāha “kārakavasena aparepi tayo uposathā”ti. Kattabbākāravasena vuttesu tīsu uposathesu suttuddeso nāma pātimokkhuddeso. So duvidho ovādapātimokkhuddeso ca āṇāpātimokkhuddeso ca. Tatra ovādova pātimokkhaṃ, tassa uddeso sarūpena kathanaṃ ovādapātimokkhuddeso. “Imasmiṃ vītikkame ayaṃ nāma āpattī”ti evaṃ āpattivasena āṇāpanaṃ paññāpanaṃ āṇā. Sesaṃ anantarasadisameva.
169. “Saṅghe uposatho” means the Uposatha to be held by a Saṅgha of four or more bhikkhus gathered in one somsnitt-site, and that is only the recitation of the Pātimokkha. “Gaṇe uposatho” means the Uposatha to be held by two or three bhikkhus gathered in one sīmā, and that is only the Pārisuddhi Uposatha. “Puggale uposatho” means the Uposatha to be held by a single bhikkhu seated in one sīmā, and that is only the Adhiṭṭhāna Uposatha. Hence, it says, “Also three other Uposathas by way of performers.” Among the three Uposathas mentioned by the manner of performance, “Suttuddeso” means the recitation of the sutta, i.e., the Pātimokkha recitation. It is twofold: the Ovādapātimokkha recitation and the Āṇāpātimokkha recitation. Therein, the Ovāda is the Pātimokkha itself, and its recitation by directly stating it is “Ovādapātimokkhauddeso.” “Āṇā” refers to the injunction or prescription in terms of offenses, such as “In this transgression, this is the offense.” The rest is similar to what precedes.
169. The Uposatha in the Saṅgha is the Uposatha that should be performed by a Saṅgha of at least four members, assembled in one boundary, and this is the recitation of the Pātimokkha itself. The Uposatha in a group is the Uposatha that should be performed by two or three monks, assembled in one boundary, and this is the Uposatha of declaration of purity itself. The Uposatha for an individual is the Uposatha that should be performed by one monk, seated in one boundary, and this is the Uposatha of determination itself. Therefore, he says, “There are also three other Uposathas, according to the manner of performance.” Among the three Uposathas, stated according to the manner of their performance, suttuddeso is the recitation of the Pātimokkha. This is of two kinds: the recitation of the Ovādapātimokkha and the recitation of the Āṇāpātimokkha. Herein, the instruction (ovāda) itself is the Pātimokkha, its recitation, stating it in its own form, is ovādapātimokkhuddeso. Stating or specifying the offense by way of a command, saying, “in this transgression, there is this particular offense,” is āṇā. The rest is similar to what has been said before.
169. Saṅghe uposatho nāma: The Uposatha to be performed by a Saṅgha of four groups or more assembled within a single boundary, and that is the recitation of the Pātimokkha. Gaṇe uposatho nāma: The Uposatha to be performed by two or three bhikkhus assembled within a single boundary, and that is the purity Uposatha. Puggale uposatho nāma: The Uposatha to be performed by a single bhikkhu seated within a single boundary, and that is the determination Uposatha. Therefore, it is said, “kārakavasena aparepi tayo uposathā”ti. Among the three Uposathas mentioned by way of performance, suttuddeso nāma: The recitation of the Pātimokkha. It is of two kinds: the ovāda Pātimokkha recitation and the āṇā Pātimokkha recitation. There, the ovāda itself is the Pātimokkha, and its recitation is the explanation in its own form, ovādapātimokkhuddeso. “In this transgression, this is the offense,” thus the declaration of the offense is āṇā. The rest is similar.
ID940
Tattha ovādapātimokkhuddeso nāma –
Therein, the Ovādapātimokkha recitation is as follows:
Herein, the recitation of the Ovādapātimokkha is:
There, the ovāda Pātimokkha recitation is:
ID941
“Khanti paramaṃ tapo titikkhā; Nibbānaṃ paramaṃ vadanti buddhā; Na hi pabbajito parūpaghātī; Na samaṇo hoti paraṃ viheṭhayanto.
“Patience is the highest austerity, forbearance; Nibbāna is the highest, say the Buddhas; For one gone forth does not harm another; Nor does a recluse oppress another.”
“Forbearance is the supreme austerity, patience; Nibbāna is supreme, say the Buddhas; For he is not a recluse who harms others; Nor is he an ascetic who oppresses others.
“Patience is the highest austerity; Nibbāna is the highest, say the Buddhas; One who harms others is not a renunciant; Nor is one who harms others a true ascetic.
ID942
“Sabbapāpassa akaraṇaṃ, kusalassa upasampadā; Sacittapariyodapanaṃ, etaṃ buddhāna sāsanaṃ.
“The non-doing of all evil, the undertaking of the wholesome; The purification of one’s own mind, this is the teaching of the Buddhas.”
“The non-doing of all evil, the cultivation of good; The purification of one’s own mind, this is the teaching of the Buddhas.
“The non-doing of all evil, The cultivation of the good, The purification of one’s mind, This is the teaching of the Buddhas.
ID943
“Anupavādo anupaghāto, pātimokkhe ca saṃvaro; Mattaññutā ca bhattasmiṃ, pantañca sayanāsanaṃ; Adhicitte ca āyogo, etaṃ buddhāna sāsana”nti. (dī. ni. 2.90; dha. pa. 183-185) –
“Not reviling, not harming, restraint according to the Pātimokkha; Moderation in food, a secluded dwelling; Commitment to the higher mind, this is the teaching of the Buddhas.” (dī. ni. 2.90; dha. pa. 183-185)
“Not speaking ill, not harming, restraint according to the Pātimokkha; Moderation in eating, secluded lodging; And exertion in higher consciousness, this is the teaching of the Buddhas.” (dī. ni. 2.90; dha. pa. 183-185) –
“Not insulting, not harming, Restraint in the Pātimokkha, Moderation in food, Secluded lodging, Devotion to higher thought, This is the teaching of the Buddhas.” (dī. ni. 2.90; dha. pa. 183-185) –
ID944
Imā tisso gāthā.
These are the three verses.
These are the three verses.
These three verses.
ID945
Tattha khanti paramaṃ tapoti adhivāsanakhanti nāma paramaṃ tapo. Titikkhāti khantiyā eva vevacanaṃ, titikkhāsaṅkhātā adhivāsanakhanti uttamaṃ tapoti attho. Nibbānaṃ paramaṃ vadantīti sabbākārena pana nibbānaṃ paramanti vadanti buddhā. Na hi pabbajito parūpaghātīti yo adhivāsanakhantivirahitattā paraṃ upaghāteti bādhati vihiṃsati, so pabbajito nāma na hoti . Catutthapādo pana tasseva vevacanaṃ. “Na hi pabbajito”ti etassa hi na samaṇo hotīti vevacanaṃ. “Parūpaghātī”ti etassa paraṃ viheṭhayantoti vevacanaṃ. Atha vā parūpaghātīti sīlūpaghātī. Sīlañhi uttamaṭṭhena paranti vuccati. Yo ca samaṇo paraṃ yaṃ kañci sattaṃ viheṭhayanto parūpaghātī hoti attano sīlavināsako, so pabbajito nāma na hotīti attho. Atha vā yo adhivāsanakhantiyā abhāvā parūpaghātī hoti, paraṃ antamaso ḍaṃsamakasampi sañcicca jīvitā voropeti, so na hi pabbajito. Kiṃ kāraṇā? Malassa apabbajitattā. “Pabbājayamattano malaṃ, tasmā ’pabbajito’ti vuccatī”ti (dha. pa. 388) idañhi pabbajitalakkhaṇaṃ. Yopi na heva kho upaghāteti na māreti, apica daṇḍādīhi viheṭheti, sopi paraṃ viheṭhayanto na samaṇo hoti. Kiṃkāraṇā? Vihesāya asamitattā. “Samitattā hi pāpānaṃ, samaṇoti pavuccatī”ti (dha. pa. 265) idañhi samaṇalakkhaṇaṃ.
Therein, “Khanti paramaṃ tapo” means endurance patience is the highest austerity. “Titikkhā” is a synonym for patience; the meaning is that forbearance, known as endurance patience, is the supreme austerity. “Nibbānaṃ paramaṃ vadanti” means the Buddhas say that Nibbāna is the highest in every way. “Na hi pabbajito parūpaghātī” means one who, lacking endurance patience, harms or injures another is not called one gone forth. The fourth line is a synonym for it. For “Na hi pabbajito” means “Nor does a recluse become so,” as a synonym. “Parūpaghātī” means “oppressing another,” as a synonym. Alternatively, “Parūpaghātī” means one who destroys virtue, for virtue is called “para” in the sense of being supreme. And a recluse who oppresses another being, becoming a destroyer of his own virtue, is not called one gone forth—this is the meaning. Or else, one who, due to the absence of endurance patience, becomes a “parūpaghātī,” intentionally depriving even a mosquito or fly of life, “Na hi pabbajito”—Why? Because of the impurity of one not gone forth. For it is said: “Having banished his own impurity, therefore he is called ‘one gone forth’” (dha. pa. 388)—this is the characteristic of one gone forth. Even one who does not harm or kill but oppresses with a stick or the like, “Paraṃ viheṭhayanto na samaṇo hoti”—Why? Because of not being calm due to oppression. For it is said: “Due to the calming of evils, he is called a recluse” (dha. pa. 265)—this is the characteristic of a recluse.
Herein, forbearance is the supreme austerity means the forbearance of endurance is the supreme austerity. Titikkhā is merely another word for forbearance; the meaning is that the forbearance of endurance, known as titikkhā, is the supreme austerity. Nibbāna is supreme, say means, however, in all respects, the Buddhas say that Nibbāna is supreme. For he is not a recluse who harms others means he who harms, hurts, or injures others, due to the absence of the forbearance of endurance, he is not called a recluse. However, the fourth line is merely another word for that same idea. “For he is not a recluse” – of this, nor is he an ascetic is another word. “Who harms others” – of this, who oppresses others is another word. Or else, who harms others means one who harms virtue. For virtue is called supreme in the highest sense. And the ascetic who, oppressing others, whatever being it may be, who is a harmer of others, a destroyer of his own virtue, he is not called a recluse, that is the meaning. Or else, he who, due to the absence of the forbearance of endurance, is a harmer of others, who deliberately deprives others of life, even as much as a mosquito or gnat, he is not a recluse. Why? Because evil has not been renounced by him. “One is called a ‘recluse’ because one renounces one’s evil,” (dha. pa. 388) this is the characteristic of a recluse. And he who does not indeed harm, does not kill, but oppresses with sticks and so forth, he too, oppressing others, is not an ascetic. Why? Because his evil has not subsided. “One is called an ‘ascetic’ because one’s evil has subsided,” (dha. pa. 265) this is the characteristic of an ascetic.
There, khanti paramaṃ tapoti: Patience of endurance is the highest austerity. Titikkhāti: A synonym for patience, the patience of endurance is the highest austerity. Nibbānaṃ paramaṃ vadantīti: The Buddhas declare Nibbāna as the highest in every way. Na hi pabbajito parūpaghātīti: One who, lacking the patience of endurance, harms, injures, or oppresses others is not a renunciant. The fourth line is a synonym for this. “One who is not a renunciant” is synonymous with na samaṇo hotīti. “One who harms others” is synonymous with paraṃ viheṭhayantoti. Alternatively, parūpaghātīti: One who destroys virtue. Virtue is called “para” in the highest sense. One who, as an ascetic, harms any being, destroying virtue, is not a renunciant. Alternatively, one who, lacking the patience of endurance, harms others, even killing a mosquito or fly intentionally, so na hi pabbajito. Why? Because of the impurity of not being a renunciant. “One who abandons the impurity of oneself is called a renunciant” (dha. pa. 388). This is the characteristic of a renunciant. One who does not harm or kill but oppresses with sticks, etc., paraṃ viheṭhayanto na samaṇo hoti. Why? Because of the lack of gentleness. “One who is gentle towards all evils is called an ascetic” (dha. pa. 265). This is the characteristic of an ascetic.
ID946
Dutiyagāthāya sabbapāpassāti sabbākusalassa. Akaraṇanti anuppādanaṃ. Kusalassāti catubhūmakakusalassa. Upasampadāti upasampādanaṃ paṭilābho. Sacittapariyodapananti attano cittassa vodāpanaṃ pabhassarabhāvakaraṇaṃ sabbaso parisodhanaṃ, taṃ pana arahattena hoti, iti sīlasaṃvarena sabbapāpaṃ pahāya lokiyalokuttarāhi samathavipassanāhi kusalaṃ sampādetvā arahattaphalena cittaṃ pariyodapetabbanti etaṃ buddhāna sāsanaṃ ovādo anusiṭṭhi.
In the second verse, “Sabbapāpassa” means all unwholesome things. “Akaraṇaṃ” means non-arising. “Kusalassa” means the wholesome of the four planes. “Upasampadā” means undertaking or attainment. “Sacittapariyodapanaṃ” means the purification of one’s own mind, making it radiant, cleansing it entirely, which occurs through arahantship. Thus, abandoning all evil through restraint of virtue, accomplishing the wholesome through mundane and supramundane calm and insight, and purifying the mind with the fruit of arahantship—“Etaṃ buddhāna sāsanaṃ” means this is the teaching, advice, and instruction of the Buddhas.
In the second verse, of all evil means of all that is unwholesome. The non-doing means the non-arising. Of good means of the wholesome associated with the four planes. Cultivation means cultivation, attainment. The purification of one’s own mind means making one’s own mind bright, making it radiant, completely purifying it; that, however, occurs through Arahatship; thus, by restraining evil through virtue, accomplishing wholesome through mundane and supramundane tranquility and insight, and purifying the mind through the fruit of Arahatship, this is the teaching of the Buddhas, the instruction, the advice.
In the second verse, sabbapāpassāti: All unwholesome actions. Akaraṇanti: Not producing. Kusalassāti: The wholesome of the four planes. Upasampadāti: The attainment of the wholesome. Sacittapariyodapananti: Purifying one’s mind, making it radiant, completely purifying it, which is done by attaining Arahantship. Thus, by restraining virtue, abandoning all evil, accomplishing the wholesome through worldly and supramundane serenity and insight, and purifying the mind with the fruit of Arahantship, etaṃ buddhāna sāsanaṃ: This is the teaching, advice, and instruction of the Buddhas.
ID947
Tatiyagāthāya anupavādoti vācāya kassaci anupavadanaṃ. Anupaghātoti kāyena kassaci upaghātākaraṇaṃ. Pātimokkheti yaṃ taṃ pātimokkhaṃ paatimokkhaṃ atipamokkhaṃ uttamasīlaṃ. Pāti vā agativisesehi mokkheti duggatibhayehi, yo vā naṃ pāti, taṃ mokkhetīti pātimokkhanti vuccati, tasmiṃ pātimokkhe ca. Saṃvaroti sattannaṃ āpattikkhandhānaṃ avītikkamalakkhaṇo saṃvaro. Mattaññutāti paṭiggahaṇaparibhogavasena pamāṇaññutā. Pantañca sayanāsananti janasaṅghaṭṭanavirahitaṃ nijjanasambādhaṃ vivittaṃ senāsanañca. Ettha ca dvīhiyeva paccayehi catupaccayasantoso dīpitoti veditabbo paccayasantosasāmaññena itaradvayassapi lakkhaṇahāranayena jotitattā. Adhicitte ca āyogoti vipassanāpādakaṃ aṭṭhasamāpatticittaṃ adhicittaṃ, tatopi maggaphalacittameva adhicittaṃ, tasmiṃ yathāvutte adhicitte āyogo ca anuyogo cāti attho. Etaṃ buddhāna sāsananti etaṃ parassa anupavadanaṃ, anupaghātanaṃ , pātimokkhasaṃvaro, paṭiggahaṇaparibhogesu mattaññutā , aṭṭhasamāpattivasibhāvāya vivittasenāsanasevanañca buddhānaṃ sāsanaṃ ovādo anusiṭṭhīti. Imā pana tisso gāthāyo sabbabuddhānaṃ pātimokkhuddesagāthā hontīti veditabbā, taṃ buddhā eva uddisanti, na sāvakā. “Suṇātu me bhante saṅgho”tiādinā (mahāva. 134) nayena vuttaṃ āṇāpātimokkhaṃ nāma, taṃ sāvakā eva uddisanti, na buddhā. Idameva ca imasmiṃ atthe pātimokkhanti adhippetaṃ.
In the third verse, “Anupavādo” means not reviling anyone with speech. “Anupaghāto” means not harming anyone with the body. “Pātimokkhe” refers to that Pātimokkha, the supreme virtue that protects from specific faults or liberates from the fears of evil destinies; or it protects the one who protects it, thus it is called Pātimokkha. “Saṃvaro” therein means restraint characterized by not transgressing the seven classes of offenses. “Mattaññutā” means knowing moderation in receiving and consuming. “Pantañca sayanāsanaṃ” means a secluded dwelling, free from the crowd of people, uninhabited, and isolated. Here, contentment with the four requisites is indicated by just two conditions, understood through the general characteristic of contentment with requisites illuminating the other two by way of inference. “Adhicitte ca āyogo” means commitment and effort in the higher mind, which is the mind of the eight attainments as the basis for insight, or even the mind of the path and fruit as the higher mind. “Etaṃ buddhāna sāsanaṃ” means this—not reviling others, not harming, restraint in the Pātimokkha, moderation in receiving and consuming, and dwelling in a secluded place for mastery of the eight attainments—is the teaching, advice, and instruction of the Buddhas. These three verses should be understood as the Pātimokkha recitation verses of all Buddhas, recited only by Buddhas, not by disciples. The “Āṇāpātimokkha,” stated with “May the Saṅgha listen to me, venerable sirs…” and so forth (mahāva. 134), is recited only by disciples, not by Buddhas. And this alone is intended as the Pātimokkha in this context.
In the third verse, not speaking ill means not speaking ill of anyone with speech. Not harming means not causing harm to anyone with the body. In the Pātimokkha means that which is the Pātimokkha, paatimokkha, atipamokkha, the supreme virtue. Because it protects from specific wrong courses of action, it liberates from the fears of the bad destinations, or he who protects it, is liberated by it, therefore it is called Pātimokkha, in that Pātimokkha. Restraint means restraint characterized by non-transgression of the seven sets of offenses. Moderation means knowing the proper measure, in terms of accepting and consuming. Secluded lodging means a dwelling that is free from crowds of people, free from noise and bustle, secluded. And here, contentment with the four requisites is indicated with just two requisites, because by the generality of contentment with requisites, the other two are also illuminated by way of the rule of characteristic. And exertion in higher consciousness means the eight attainments, which are the basis of insight, are the higher consciousness; even more so, the path and fruition consciousness is the higher consciousness; in that aforementioned higher consciousness, exertion means application, that is the meaning. This is the teaching of the Buddhas means this non-speaking ill of others, non-harming of others, restraint according to the Pātimokkha, moderation in accepting and consuming, dwelling in secluded dwellings for the attainment of mastery in the eight attainments, is the teaching, the instruction, the advice of the Buddhas. These three verses should be understood as the verses for the recitation of the Pātimokkha for all Buddhas; they are recited only by the Buddhas, not by the disciples. That which is stated with the method, “Let the Saṅgha listen to me, venerable sirs,” etc. (mahāva. 134), is called the Āṇāpātimokkha; that is recited only by the disciples, not by the Buddhas. And this very thing is meant here by Pātimokkha.
In the third verse, anupavādoti: Not verbally abusing anyone. Anupaghātoti: Not physically harming anyone. Pātimokkheti: That which is the Pātimokkha, the highest virtue. It protects one from all wrong paths and liberates from the fear of bad destinations, or one who protects it is liberated, thus it is called Pātimokkha. In that, pātimokkhe ca. Saṃvaroti: The restraint of not transgressing the seven classes of offenses. Mattaññutāti: Knowing moderation in receiving and using requisites. Pantañca sayanāsananti: A secluded lodging, free from crowds, suitable for solitude. Here, contentment with the four requisites is shown by two conditions, as the characteristics of the other two are illuminated by the general characteristic of contentment. Adhicitte ca āyogoti: The effort and practice in higher consciousness, which is the basis of insight, the eight attainments, and even the consciousness of the path and fruit, is called higher consciousness. Etaṃ buddhāna sāsananti: This is the teaching, advice, and instruction of the Buddhas: not verbally abusing, not physically harming, restraint in the Pātimokkha, moderation in receiving and using requisites, and seclusion in lodging for the attainment of the eight attainments. These three verses are the Pātimokkha recitation verses of all Buddhas. The Buddhas recite them, not the disciples. The āṇāpātimokkhaṃ is recited by the disciples, not the Buddhas, as stated, “Venerable ones, please listen to me” (mahāva. 134). This is what is meant by Pātimokkha in this context.
ID948
Anupagato nāma tattheva upasampanno, asatiyā purimikāya anupagato vā. Cātumāsiniyanti catumāsiyaṃ. Sā hi catunnaṃ māsānaṃ pāripūribhūtāti cātumāsī, sā eva “cātumāsinī”ti vuccati, tassaṃ cātumāsiniyaṃ, pacchimakattikapuṇṇamāsiyanti attho. Kāyasāmagginti kāyena samaggabhāvaṃ, hatthapāsūpagamananti vuttaṃ hoti.
“Anupagato” means one ordained right there, or one who has not entered the earlier rains retreat. “Cātumāsiniyaṃ” means in the Cātumāsini, for it completes the four months, hence called “Cātumāsī,” and that itself is termed “Cātumāsini,” meaning on the full moon of the later Kattikā. “Kāyasāmaggi” means bodily harmony, said to be coming within reach of hands.
Anupagato means one ordained there, or in the absence of an earlier [uposatha], anupagato. Cātumāsiniyanti means during the four-month period. Because it is the completion of the four months, it is called cātumāsī; the same is called ‘cātumāsinī’, during that cātumāsinī, meaning the full moon of the last Kattika month. Kāyasāmagginti means concord through the body, meaning being within hand-reach.
Anupagato means one who has been ordained right there, or one who has not been ordained previously due to the absence of the earlier group. Cātumāsiniya refers to the four-month period. It is called cātumāsī because it completes the four months, and it is referred to as cātumāsinī. The phrase cātumāsiniyaṃ means during this period, specifically the last full moon of Kattika. Kāyasāmaggi means physical unity, which refers to the act of approaching within arm’s reach.
ID949
Ayaṃ panettha vinicchayo – sace purimikāya pañca bhikkhū vassaṃ upagatā pacchimikāyapi pañca, purimehi ñattiṃ ṭhapetvā pavārite pacchimehi tesaṃ santike pārisuddhiuposatho kātabbo, na ekasmiṃ uposathagge dve ñattiyo ṭhapetabbā. Sace pacchimikāya upagatā cattāro tayo dve eko vā hoti, eseva nayo. Atha purimikāya cattāro, pacchimikāyapi cattāro tayo dve eko vā, eseva nayo. Atha purimikāya tayo, pacchimikāya tayo dve eko vā, eseva nayo. Idañhettha lakkhaṇaṃ – sace purimikāya upagatehi pacchimikāya upagatā thokatarā ceva honti samasamā ca, saṅghapavāraṇāya ca gaṇaṃ pūrenti, saṅghapavāraṇāvasena ñatti ṭhapetabbā. Sace pana pacchimikāya eko hoti, tena saddhiṃ te cattāro honti, catunnaṃ saṅghañattiṃ ṭhapetvā pavāretuṃ na vaṭṭati. Gaṇañattiyā pana so gaṇapūrako hoti, tasmā gaṇavasena ñattiṃ ṭhapetvā purimehi pavāretabbaṃ. Itarena tesaṃ santike pārisuddhiuposatho kātabbo. Sace purimikāya dve, pacchimikāya dve vā eko vā, etthāpi eseva nayo. Sace purimikāyapi eko, pacchimikāyapi eko, ekena ekassa santike pavāretabbaṃ, ekena pārisuddhiuposatho kātabbo. Sace purimehi vassūpagatehi pacchā vassūpagatā ekenapi adhikatarā honti, paṭhamaṃ pātimokkhaṃ uddisitvā pacchā thokatarehi tesaṃ santike pavāretabbaṃ. Kattikacātumāsinipavāraṇāya pana sace paṭhamavassūpagatehi mahāpavāraṇāya pavāritehi pacchā upagatā adhikatarā vā samasamā vā honti, pavāraṇāñattiṃ ṭhapetvā pavāretabbaṃ, tehi pavārite pacchā itarehi pārisuddhiuposatho kātabbo. Atha mahāpavāraṇāya pavāritā bahū honti, pacchā vassūpagatā thokā vā eko vā, pātimokkhe uddiṭṭhe pacchā tesaṃ santike tena pavāretabbanti.
Here is the decision: If five bhikkhus enter the rains retreat in the earlier period and five in the later, after the earlier ones set the motion and perform the Pavāraṇā, the later ones should perform the Pārisuddhi Uposatha in their presence; two motions should not be set in one Uposatha hall. If four, three, two, or one enter in the later period, the same applies. If four enter in the earlier and four, three, two, or one in the later, the same applies. If three enter in the earlier and three, two, or one in the later, the same applies. This is the characteristic here: If those who entered the earlier period are fewer or equal in number to those who entered the later period and complete a group for the Saṅgha Pavāraṇā, the motion should be set for the Saṅgha Pavāraṇā. But if there is only one in the later period, with him they become four, and the four cannot set a Saṅgha motion and perform the Pavāraṇā. However, he completes the group, so the earlier ones should set the motion as a group and perform the Pavāraṇā, while the other performs the Pārisuddhi Uposatha in their presence. If two enter in the earlier and two or one in the later, the same applies here too. If one enters in the earlier and one in the later, one must perform the Pavāraṇā in the presence of the other, and one must perform the Pārisuddhi Uposatha. If those who entered the rains retreat earlier are exceeded even by one who enters later, the Pātimokkha should first be recited, and then the fewer ones should perform the Pavāraṇā in their presence. However, for the Kattikā Cātumāsini Pavāraṇā, if those who entered the first rains retreat and performed the great Pavāraṇā are outnumbered or equalled by those who entered later, they should set the Pavāraṇā motion and perform it; after they perform it, the others should perform the Pārisuddhi Uposatha later. If those who performed the great Pavāraṇā are many and those who entered the rains retreat later are few or one, after the Pātimokkha is recited, the latter should perform the Pavāraṇā in their presence.
Here is the decision in this matter – if five bhikkhus have entered the rains residence for the earlier [period], and five for the later [period], after the earlier [group] has established the motion, the later [group] should perform purification uposatha in the presence of the earlier group after the invitation, two motions should not be established in a single uposatha hall. If four, three, two or one has entered for the later period, the same principle applies. Or if four for the earlier, and four, three, two, or one for the later, the same principle applies. If three for the earlier and three, two, or one for the later, the same principle applies. The rule here is this – if those who entered for the later period are fewer than or equal to those who entered for the earlier period, and they complete the quorum for a Saṅgha invitation, the motion should be established on the basis of a Saṅgha invitation. But if there is only one for the later period, together with him they are four; it is not proper to establish a Saṅgha motion for four and invite. However, he completes the quorum for a quorum motion, therefore the motion should be established on the basis of a quorum, and invitation should be made by the earlier group. The other should perform the purification uposatha in their presence. If there are two for the earlier period, and two or one for the later, the same principle applies here. If there is one for the earlier period and one for the later, one should invite in the presence of the other, and one should perform the purification uposatha. If those who entered the rains residence later are more, even by one, than those who entered the rains residence earlier, first the Pātimokkha should be recited, and then the smaller [group] should invite in their presence. However, regarding the invitation on the Kattika Cātumāsinī, if those who entered the rains residence first have invited with the Mahāpavāraṇā, and those who entered later are more numerous or equal, the invitation motion should be established and invitation done. After they have invited, then the others should do the purification Uposatha. If those who invited with the Mahāpavāraṇā are many, and those who entered the rains residence later are fewer, or only one, after reciting the Pātimokkha, he should invite in their presence.
Here is the decision: If five monks who have entered the rains residence in the earlier group and five in the later group, after the motion has been made by the earlier group, the later group should perform the purity Uposatha in their presence. Two motions should not be made in one Uposatha assembly. If in the later group there are four, three, two, or one monk, the same rule applies. Similarly, if there are four in the earlier group and four, three, two, or one in the later group, the same rule applies. The same applies if there are three in the earlier group and three, two, or one in the later group. Here is the guideline: If the later group is smaller or equal in number to the earlier group and completes the quorum for the Sangha invitation, the motion should be made for the Sangha invitation. However, if there is only one monk in the later group, making four in total, it is not permissible to make the Sangha motion for the four. Instead, a group motion should be made, and the earlier group should invite. The purity Uposatha should be performed in their presence. If there are two in the earlier group and two or one in the later group, the same rule applies. If there is one in the earlier group and one in the later group, one should invite the other, and the purity Uposatha should be performed. If the later group has one more monk than the earlier group, the Patimokkha should first be recited, and then the smaller group should invite in their presence. For the Kattika full moon invitation, if the later group is larger or equal in number to the earlier group, the invitation motion should be made, and after they have invited, the purity Uposatha should be performed by the others. If many have been invited in the great invitation and the later group is smaller or only one, after the Patimokkha has been recited, they should invite in their presence.
ID950
Ṭhapetvā pana pavāraṇādivasaṃ aññasmiṃ kāleti aññasmiṃ uposathadivase. Uddiṭṭhamatte pātimokkheti “pariyositamatte uddissamāne”ti apariyosite āgate sati avasesassa pātimokkhassa sotabbattā pārisuddhiuposathaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭati. Avuṭṭhitāyātiādīnipi pātimokkhassa niṭṭhitakālameva parisāya visesetvā vadati. Samasamā vāti purimehi samaparimāṇā. Thokatarā vāti purimehi thokataraparimāṇā. Etena bahutaresu āgatesu puna pātimokkhaṃ uddisitabbaṃ, na pārisuddhiuposatho kātabboti dasseti.
“Ṭhapetvā pana pavāraṇādivasaṃ aññasmiṃ kāle” means at another time, on another Uposatha day. “Uddiṭṭhamatte pātimokkhe” means when the Pātimokkha recitation is merely completed; if someone arrives while it is incomplete, the Pārisuddhi Uposatha cannot be performed since the rest of the Pātimokkha must be heard. “Avuṭṭhitāya” and so forth also specify the assembly only after the Pātimokkha recitation is finished. “Samasamā vā” means equal in number to the earlier ones. “Thokatarā vā” means fewer than the earlier ones. This indicates that if more arrive, the Pātimokkha must be recited again, and the Pārisuddhi Uposatha should not be performed.
Ṭhapetvā pana pavāraṇādivasaṃ aññasmiṃ kāleti means on another uposatha day. Uddiṭṭhamatte pātimokkheti means “as soon as [the Pātimokkha] is finished being recited,” If he arrives while [the recitation] is not completed, the purification uposatha is not proper, because the remainder of the Pātimokkha should be heard. Avuṭṭhitāyāti etc., also specifies the completion time of the Pātimokkha by qualifying the assembly. Samasamā vāti means of equal number with the earlier ones. Thokatarā vāti means a smaller number than the earlier ones. By this he shows that when more numerous [monks] arrive, the Pātimokkha should be recited again, and the purification uposatha should not be performed.
Ṭhapetvā pana pavāraṇādivasaṃ aññasmiṃ kāle means on another Uposatha day. Uddiṭṭhamatte pātimokkhe means when the Patimokkha is being recited but not yet finished, and if someone arrives, they must listen to the remaining Patimokkha, and it is not permissible to perform the purity Uposatha. Avuṭṭhitāyā and similar terms refer to the specific time when the Patimokkha has been completed, and the assembly is distinguished. Samasamā vā means equal in number to the earlier group. Thokatarā vā means fewer in number than the earlier group. This indicates that if many arrive, the Patimokkha should be recited again, and the purity Uposatha should not be performed.
ID951
Ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvāti ekasmiṃ aṃse sādhukaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvāti attho. Suttanipātaṭṭhakathāyaṃ (su. ni. aṭṭha. 2.345) pana “ekaṃsaṃ cīvaraṃ katvāti ettha pana puna saṇṭhāpanena evaṃ vuttaṃ. Ekaṃsanti ca vāmaṃsaṃ pārupitvā ṭhitassetaṃ adhivacanaṃ. Yato yathā vāmaṃsaṃ pārupitvā ṭhitaṃ hoti, tathā cīvaraṃ katvāti evamassa attho veditabbo”ti vuttaṃ. Añjaliṃ paggahetvāti dasanakhasamodhānasamujjalaṃ añjaliṃ ukkhipitvā. Sace pana tattha pārivāsikopi atthi, saṅghanavakaṭṭhāne nisīditvā tattheva nisinnena attano pāḷiyā pārisuddhiuposatho kātabbo. Pātimokkhe pana uddisiyamāne pāḷiyā anisīditvā pāḷiṃ vihāya hatthapāsaṃ amuñcantena nisīditabbaṃ. Pavāraṇāyapi eseva nayo.
“Ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvā” means properly arranging the upper robe over one shoulder. However, in the Suttanipāta commentary (su. ni. aṭṭha. 2.345), it says: “‘Ekaṃsaṃ cīvaraṃ katvā’—here it is stated again by arrangement. ‘Ekaṃsaṃ’ is a designation for one standing with the left shoulder covered. Thus, it should be understood as arranging the robe so that the left shoulder is covered.” “Añjaliṃ paggahetvā” means raising the hands joined palm-to-palm with the ten fingertips together. If there is a bhikkhu under probation there, he should sit at the place of the Saṅgha’s most junior member and perform the Pārisuddhi Uposatha with his own recitation there. However, when the Pātimokkha is being recited, he should not sit with his recitation but remain within reach of hands without abandoning it. The same applies to the Pavāraṇā.
Ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvāti means having arranged the upper robe properly on one shoulder. However, in the commentary to the Suttanipāta (su. ni. aṭṭha. 2.345), concerning the phrase, “ekaṃsaṃ cīvaraṃ katvā”, it is said that this is stated thus because of the arrangement. Ekaṃsanti is the designation for having draped [the robe] over the left shoulder. Because it has been said ‘just as it is when draped over the left shoulder, so should the robe be arranged’ should be understood as the meaning. Añjaliṃ paggahetvāti means raising the añjali, bright with the ten fingernails joined together. But if a pārivāsika is also present, having sat in the place of a Saṅgha novice, the purification uposatha should be performed according to one’s turn, while remaining seated there. While the Pātimokkha is being recited, one should not sit according to one’s turn, but having abandoned one’s turn, one should sit not extending a hand-span. The same procedure applies to the invitation.
Ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvā means properly placing the upper robe over one shoulder. In the Suttanipāta commentary, it is explained that ekaṃsaṃ cīvaraṃ katvā refers to arranging the robe in this manner. Ekaṃsa means covering the left shoulder and standing. Añjaliṃ paggahetvā means raising the hands together with the fingers aligned. If there is a probationary monk present, he should sit in the novice’s seat and perform the purity Uposatha there. While the Patimokkha is being recited, one should not sit in the recitation area but should sit within arm’s reach without leaving the recitation. The same applies to the invitation.
ID952
Sabbaṃ pubbakaraṇīyanti sammajjanādinavavidhaṃ pubbakiccaṃ. Iminā bahūnaṃ vasanaṭṭhāneyeva uposathadivase pubbakiccaṃ kātabbaṃ na hoti, atha kho ekassa vasanaṭṭhānepi kātabbaṃyevāti dasseti. Yathā ca sabbo saṅgho sabhāgāpattiṃ āpajjitvā “suṇātu me, bhante saṅgho…pe… paṭikarissatī”ti (mahāva. 171) ñattiṃ ṭhapetvā uposathaṃ kātuṃ labhati, evametthāpi tīhi “suṇantu me, āyasmantā, ime bhikkhū sabhāgaṃ āpattiṃ āpannā, yadā aññaṃ bhikkhuṃ suddhaṃ anāpattikaṃ passissanti, tadā tassa santike taṃ āpattiṃ paṭikarissantī”ti gaṇañattiṃ ṭhapetvā, dvīhipi “aññaṃ suddhaṃ passitvā paṭikarissāmā”ti vatvā uposathaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Ekenapi “parisuddhaṃ labhitvā paṭikarissāmī”ti ābhogaṃ katvā kātuṃ vaṭṭati.
“Sabbaṃ pubbakaraṇīyaṃ” means all preliminary duties, the ninefold preparatory tasks such as sweeping. This indicates that on the Uposatha day, the preliminary duties need not be performed only at a place where many reside, but even at a place where one resides, they must be done. Just as the entire Saṅgha, having committed a common offense, can set the motion, “May the Saṅgha listen to me… they will make amends” (mahāva. 171), and hold the Uposatha, so too here, by setting a group motion with three, “May the venerables listen to me: these bhikkhus have committed a common offense; when they see another pure bhikkhu free from offense, they will make amends for that offense in his presence,” or with two saying, “We will make amends when we see another pure one,” it is permissible to hold the Uposatha. Even one, reflecting, “I will make amends when I find a pure one,” can perform it.
Sabbaṃ pubbakaraṇīyanti means the ninefold preliminary duties, starting with sweeping. By this he shows that the preliminary duties are not to be done only in the residing place of many on the uposatha day, but rather, should be done even in the residing place of one. Just as the entire Saṅgha, having incurred a communal offense, can perform the uposatha after establishing the motion, “Listen, venerable Sirs, the Saṅgha…etc… will rectify it” (mahāva. 171), likewise here, three [monks] can establish a quorum motion, “Listen, venerable Sirs, these monks have incurred a communal offense; when they see another pure and faultless monk, they will rectify that offense in his presence,” and two can say, “Having seen another pure [monk], we will rectify it,” and perform the uposatha. Even one [monk] can perform [the uposatha] after making a determination, “Having obtained a pure [monk], I will rectify it.”
Sabbaṃ pubbakaraṇīya refers to the preliminary duties such as sweeping. This indicates that on the Uposatha day, these duties should be performed even in a single dwelling place. Just as the entire Sangha, having committed a shared offense, can make a motion and perform the Uposatha, here too, a group motion can be made, and the Uposatha can be performed. Even a single monk can perform it after resolving to clear his purity.
ID953
Tadahūti tasmiṃ ahu, tasmiṃ divaseti attho. Nānāsaṃvāsakehīti laddhinānāsaṃvāsakehi. Anāvāso nāma navakammasālādiko yo koci padeso . Aññatra saṅghenāti saṅghappahonakehi bhikkhūhi vinā. Aññatra antarāyāti pubbe vuttaṃ dasavidhamantarāyaṃ vinā. Sabbantimena pana paricchedena attacatutthe vā antarāye vā sati gantuṃ vaṭṭati. Yathā ca āvāsādayo na gantabbā, evaṃ sace vihāre uposathaṃ karonti, uposathādhiṭṭhānatthaṃ sīmāpi nadīpi na gantabbā. Sace panettha koci bhikkhu hoti, tassa santikaṃ gantuṃ vaṭṭati, vissaṭṭhauposathāpi āvāsā gantuṃ vaṭṭati. Evaṃ gato adhiṭṭhātumpi labhati. Āraññakenapi bhikkhunā uposathadivase gāme piṇḍāya caritvā attano vihārameva āgantabbaṃ. Sace aññaṃ vihāraṃ okkamati, tattha uposathaṃ katvāva āgantabbaṃ, akatvā āgantuṃ na vaṭṭati, yaṃ jaññā “ajjeva tattha gantuṃ sakkomī”ti evarūpo pana āvāso gantabbo. Tattha bhikkhūhi saddhiṃ uposathaṃ karontenapi hi iminā neva uposathantarāyo kato bhavissatīti.
“Tadahu” means on that day, that very day. “Nānāsaṃvāsakehi” means with those of different communion due to doctrine. “Anāvāso” means any place unfit for residence, such as a site for new construction or a hall. “Aññatra saṅghena” means except by a Saṅgha, without bhikkhus sufficient for a Saṅgha. “Aññatra antarāya” means except due to obstacles, apart from the tenfold obstacles previously mentioned. However, with this final limitation, it is permissible to go in the case of one’s own fourth day or an obstacle. Just as one should not go to residences and the like, so too, if they hold the Uposatha in the monastery, one should not go to the sīmā or river for the purpose of designating the Uposatha. But if there is a bhikkhu there, it is permissible to go to him; even a relinquished Uposatha allows going from one residence to another. Having gone thus, one can also designate it. Even a forest-dwelling bhikkhu, having gone to the village for alms on the Uposatha day, must return to his own monastery. If he enters another monastery, he must perform the Uposatha there before returning; he cannot return without doing so. However, a residence that he knows he can reach that very day may be visited. For even when performing the Uposatha with the bhikkhus there, this does not cause an interruption to the Uposatha.
Tadahūti means on that ahu, on that day. Nānāsaṃvāsakehīti means with those of different communion due to their precepts. Anāvāso means any place, such as a new construction hall, etc. Aññatra saṅghenāti means without monks capable of forming a Saṅgha. Aññatra antarāyāti means without the previously mentioned tenfold danger. However, by the lowest limit, if there are four present or danger, it is proper to go. Just as āvāsa etc. are not to be gone to, so, if they are doing the Uposatha in the Vihāra, the boundary and the river, for the purpose of establishing the Uposatha, are not to be gone to. But if a monk is in this, it is proper to go to his presence. Even āvāsas with a dismissed Uposatha can be gone to. He who has gone thus can also do the establishing. Even a forest-dwelling monk should, on the uposatha day, after going for alms in the village, return to his own monastery. If he enters another monastery, he should return only after having done the uposatha there. It is not permissible to return without having done it. One should go to an āvāsa if one knows “I can still go there today”. Because even by doing the uposatha together with the monks there, this one will not have caused an obstacle to the uposatha.
Tadahū means on that day. Nānāsaṃvāsakehī means those with different affiliations. Anāvāso refers to any place like a new construction site. Aññatra saṅghenā means without the Sangha’s permission. Aññatra antarāyā means without the ten obstacles previously mentioned. In all cases, one can go if there is a fourth person or an obstacle. Just as one should not go to a residence, if they perform the Uposatha in a monastery, they should not cross the boundary or a river. If a monk is present, one can go to him, and even a dismissed Uposatha can be performed in a residence. One who goes can also perform the Uposatha. A forest-dwelling monk should return to his own monastery after almsround on the Uposatha day. If he enters another monastery, he should perform the Uposatha there before returning. One should only go to a place where he knows he can return the same day. Even if the Uposatha is performed with other monks there, it will not be an obstacle.
ID954
170. Bahi uposathaṃ katvā āgatenāti nadiyā vā sīmāya vā yattha katthaci uposathaṃ katvā āgatena chando dātabbo, “kato mayā uposatho”ti acchituṃ na labhatīti adhippāyo. Kiccapasuto vāti gilānupaṭṭhānādikiccapasuto vā. Saṅgho nappahotīti dvinnaṃ dvinnaṃ antarā hatthapāsaṃ avijahitvā paṭipāṭiyā ṭhātuṃ nappahoti.
170. “Bahi uposathaṃ katvā āgatena” means by one who has performed the Uposatha outside—at a river or sīmā or anywhere else—and returned; he must give consent, and he cannot remain silent, saying, “I have performed the Uposatha”—this is the intent. “Kiccapasuto vā” means or one engaged in duties, such as attending to the sick. “Saṅgho nappahoti” means the Saṅgha is insufficient to stand in order, two by two, without breaking the reach of hands.
170. Bahi uposathaṃ katvā āgatenāti means one who has come after doing the uposatha outside, in a river or at a boundary or anywhere, should give consent. The idea is that he cannot say, “The uposatha has been done by me.” Kiccapasuto vāti means whether one is occupied with duties such as attending to the sick. Saṅgho nappahotīti means the Saṅgha is not able to stand in sequence without breaking the hand-span between two and two.
170. Bahi uposathaṃ katvā āgatenā means one who has performed the Uposatha outside, such as beyond a river or boundary, should give consent, as he cannot say, “I have performed the Uposatha.” Kiccapasuto vā means one who is occupied with duties such as nursing the sick. Saṅgho nappahotī means the Sangha cannot stand in pairs without breaking hand-to-hand contact.
ID955
“Adhammena vagga”nti ettha ekasīmāya catūsu bhikkhūsu vijjamānesu pātimokkhuddesova anuññāto, tīsu dvīsu ca pārisuddhiuposathova, idha pana tathā akatattā “adhammenā”ti vuttaṃ. Yasmā pana chandapārisuddhi saṅghe eva āgacchati, na gaṇe na puggale, tasmā “vagga”nti vuttaṃ. Sace pana dve saṅghā ekasīmāyaṃ aññamaññaṃ chandaṃ āharitvā ekasmiṃ khaṇe visuṃ saṅghakammaṃ karonti, ettha kathanti? Keci pana “taṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vadanti, taṃ na gahetabbaṃ vaggakammattā. Vaggakammaṃ karontānañhi chandapārisuddhi aññattha na gacchati tathā vacanābhāvā, visuṃ visuṃ kammakaraṇatthameva sīmāya anuññātattā cāti gahetabbaṃ. Vihārasīmāya pana saṅghe vijjamānepi kenaci paccayena khaṇḍasīmāya tīsu, dvīsu vā pārisuddhiuposathaṃ karontesu kammaṃ dhammena samaggameva bhinnasīmaṭṭhattāti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
“Adhammena vagga” means “by an unrighteous faction.” Here, when four bhikkhus are present in one sīmā, only the Pātimokkha recitation is allowed; with three or two, only the Pārisuddhi Uposatha is allowed. But since it was not done thus here, it is called “adhammena” (unrighteous). Since consent and purity come only to the Saṅgha, not to a group or individual, it is called “vagga” (faction). But if two Saṅghas, having brought consent to each other in one sīmā, perform separate Saṅgha acts at the same moment, what then? Some say, “That is permissible,” but that should not be accepted because it is a factional act. For the consent and purity of those performing a factional act do not extend elsewhere due to the absence of such a statement, and it should be understood that the sīmā is allowed only for performing acts separately. However, even when a Saṅgha exists in a monastery sīmā, if for some reason three or two perform the Pārisuddhi Uposatha in a divided sīmā, the act is righteous and harmonious because they stand in different sīmās.
“Adhammena vagga”nti, here, when four monks are present in one boundary, only the recitation of the Pātimokkha is allowed, with three or two, only the purification uposatha. But here, because it was not done thus, it is said “adhammenā” (unlawfully). However, because consent and purification come only to the Sangha, not to a group or an individual, therefore it is said “vagga” (incomplete). But if two Saṅghas in one boundary, having brought consent to each other, perform Saṅgha business separately at the same moment, what about this? Some say “that is permissible”. That is not to be accepted, because of the incompleteness of the action. Because for those who are doing incomplete action, consent-purification does not go elsewhere, because there is no statement to that effect, and because it is permitted in a boundary just for doing the actions separately. But if, with a Saṅgha present in a monastery boundary, for some reason, three or two are performing the purification uposatha in a sub-boundary, the action should be regarded as being lawful and complete due to their being situated in a separate boundary.
“Adhammena vagga” refers to when four monks are present in one boundary, the recitation of the Patimokkha is allowed, but for three or two, only the purity Uposatha is allowed. Here, since it is not done accordingly, it is called “adhammena.” Since the consent and purity belong to the Sangha, not to a group or individual, it is called “vagga.” If two Sanghas in one boundary exchange consent and perform separate Sangha acts at the same time, what is the ruling? Some say it is permissible, but this should not be accepted because it is a factional act. Since the consent and purity do not go elsewhere, and the boundary is allowed for separate acts, it should be understood accordingly. Even if the Sangha is present in a monastery boundary, if for some reason the purity Uposatha is performed in a fragmented boundary by three or two, the act is still lawful due to the fragmented boundary.
ID956
“Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, tadahuposathe pārisuddhiṃ dentena chandampi dātuṃ, santi saṅghassa karaṇīya”nti (mahāva. 165) vuttattā bhagavato āṇaṃ karontena “chandaṃ dammī”ti vuttaṃ. “Chandahārako ce, bhikkhave, dinne chande tattheva pakkamati, aññassa dātabbo chando”tiādivacanato (mahāva. 165) puna attano chandadānaparissamavinodanatthaṃ “chandaṃ me harā”ti vuttaṃ. “Chandahārako ce, bhikkhave, dinne chande saṅghappatto sañcicca nāroceti, āhaṭo hoti chando, chandahārakassa āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti vuttattā dukkaṭato taṃ mocetuṃ “chandaṃ me ārocehī”ti vuttaṃ. Kāyena vā vācāya vā ubhayena vā viññāpetabboti manasāva acintetvā kāyappayogaṃ karontena yena kenaci aṅgapaccaṅgena vā, vācaṃ pana nicchāretuṃ sakkontena tatheva vācāya vā, ubhayathāpi sakkontena kāyavācāhi vā viññāpetabbo, jānāpetabboti attho. “Ayamattho”tivacanato pana yāya kāyacipi bhāsāya viññāpetuṃ vaṭṭati.
“I allow, bhikkhus, one giving purity on that very Uposatha day to also give consent, as there are duties for the Saṅgha” (mahāva. 165)—following the Blessed One’s command, it is said, “Chandaṃ dammi” (I give consent). From the statement, “If, bhikkhus, the consent-bearer, having been given consent, departs from there, consent must be given to another” and so forth (mahāva. 165), to relieve the burden of giving consent again, it is said, “Chandaṃ me hara” (Bear my consent). From the statement, “If, bhikkhus, the consent-bearer, having been given consent, reaches the Saṅgha and intentionally does not announce it, the consent is considered brought, and the consent-bearer incurs a dukkaṭa offense,” to free him from that dukkaṭa, it is said, “Chandaṃ me ārocehi” (Announce my consent). “Kāyena vā vācāya vā ubhayena vā viññāpetabbo” means he must be informed either by body—with any gesture of limbs or body parts, not merely by mind—or by speech if he can utter it, or by both body and speech if he can do both; he must be made to know—this is the meaning. From the statement “Ayamattho” (this is the meaning), it is permissible to inform by any bodily sign or language.
Because the Blessed One said, “Monks, I allow that on the uposatha day, one who is giving purification may also give consent, there being business of the Sangha to be done” (mahāva. 165), in order to carry out the Blessed One’s command, it is said, “chandaṃ dammī” (I give consent). Because of the statement (mahāva. 165), “Monks, if the consent-bearer, after consent has been given, leaves right there, consent should be given to another”, therefore, in order to avoid the failure of one’s own giving of consent, it is said, “chandaṃ me harā” (Carry my consent). Because it is said, “Monks, if the consent-bearer, after consent has been given, having reached the Sangha, deliberately does not announce it, the consent is brought, there is an offense of wrong-doing for the consent-bearer”, therefore, in order to release him from that wrong-doing, it is said, “chandaṃ me ārocehī” (Announce my consent). Kāyena vā vācāya vā ubhayena vā viññāpetabboti means one should inform [the other] mentally, not just by thinking, but by making a bodily action, or by any limb or part of the body; or if able to utter speech, then with speech; or if able to do both, one should inform with both body and speech, one should make [it] known. But, because of the statement “Ayamattho”, It is allowed to communicate in any physical language.
“Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, tadahuposathe pārisuddhiṃ dentena chandampi dātuṃ, santi saṅghassa karaṇīya” (Mahāva. 165) means the Buddha’s instruction to give consent. “Chandaṃ dammī” is said when acting on the Buddha’s authority. “Chandahārako ce, bhikkhave, dinne chande tattheva pakkamati, aññassa dātabbo chando” (Mahāva. 165) means to relieve oneself of the effort of giving consent by saying “chandaṃ me harā.” “Chandahārako ce, bhikkhave, dinne chande saṅghappatto sañcicca nāroceti, āhaṭo hoti chando, chandahārakassa āpatti dukkaṭassā” means to free oneself from the offense by saying “chandaṃ me ārocehī.” Kāyena vā vācāya vā ubhayena vā viññāpetabbo means to communicate by body, speech, or both, using any limb or by speaking if able, or by both if able. “Ayamattho” means by any bodily or verbal expression that can be used to communicate.
ID957
Pārisuddhidānepi chandadāne vuttasadisova vinicchayo, taṃ pana dentena paṭhamaṃ santī āpatti desetabbā. Na hi sāpattiko samāno “pārisuddhiṃ dammi, pārisuddhiṃ me hara, pārisuddhiṃ me ārocehī”ti vattumarahati. “Santi saṅghassa karaṇīyānī”ti vattabbe vacanavipallāsena “santi saṅghassa karaṇīya”nti vuttaṃ. Tesañca attano ca chandapārisuddhiṃ detīti ettha chando ca pārisuddhi ca chandapārisuddhi ca chandapārisuddhi, taṃ detīti sarūpekasesena attho daṭṭhabbo. Itarāti aññesaṃ chandapārisuddhi. Biḷālasaṅkhalikā chandapārisuddhīti ettha biḷālasaṅkhalikā nāma biḷālabandhanaṃ. Tattha hi saṅkhalikāya paṭhamavalayaṃ dutiyavalayaṃyeva pāpuṇāti, na tatiyaṃ, evamayampi chandapārisuddhi dāyakena yassa dinnā, tato aññattha na gacchati, tasmā sā biḷālasaṅkhalikasadisattā “biḷālasaṅkhalikā”ti vuttā. Biḷālasaṅkhalikāggahaṇañcettha yāsaṃ kāsañci saṅkhalikānaṃ upalakkhaṇamattanti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
The decision regarding giving purity is the same as that for giving consent, but one giving it must first confess any offense present. For one with an offense cannot rightly say, “Pārisuddhiṃ dammi” (I give purity), “Pārisuddhiṃ me hara” (Bear my purity), or “Pārisuddhiṃ me ārocehi” (Announce my purity). “Santi saṅghassa karaṇīyānī” (There are duties for the Saṅgha) should be said, but due to a slip of speech, it is said, “Santi saṅghassa karaṇīya” (There are duties for the Saṅgha). “Tesañca attano ca chandapārisuddhiṃ deti” means he gives both consent and purity—“chandapārisuddhi”—to them and himself; the meaning should be understood by the form and remainder. “Itarā” means the consent and purity of others. “Biḷālasaṅkhalikā chandapārisuddhi” means “cat-like chain consent and purity.” Here, “biḷālasaṅkhalikā” refers to a cat’s chain. For in that, the first link of the chain reaches only the second link, not the third; similarly, this consent and purity, given by the giver, does not go beyond the one to whom it is given. Hence, it is called “biḷālasaṅkhalikā” due to its similarity to a cat’s chain. The mention of “biḷālasaṅkhalikā” here is merely an illustration of any chain whatsoever—this should be understood.
The decision regarding giving purification is similar to that of giving consent, but one giving it should first confess any existing offenses. For one who has an offense cannot properly say, “I give purification, carry my purification, announce my purification.” Because of the changed word order when speaking, instead of “Santi saṅghassa karaṇīyānī” (there are things to be done by the Sangha), “santi saṅghassa karaṇīya” is stated. Tesañca attano ca chandapārisuddhiṃ detīti, here chando (consent) and pārisuddhi (purification) and chandapārisuddhi (consent-purification), one gives that (consent and purification), the meaning is to be understood by a single remainder of similar forms. Itarāti means the consent-purification of others. Biḷālasaṅkhalikā chandapārisuddhīti, here, biḷālasaṅkhalikā means a cat-binding. For in that, the first link of the chain reaches only to the second link, not to the third. Likewise, this consent-purification does not go elsewhere than to the one to whom it was given by the giver. Therefore, because it resembles a cat-binding, it is called ‘Biḷālasaṅkhalikā’. And here, the term ‘Biḷālasaṅkhalikā’ should be regarded as merely an example for any kind of chain.
The same reasoning applies to giving purity as to giving consent. However, when giving purity, one should first confess any offenses. One who has offenses should not say, “I give purity, bring my purity, inform my purity.” “Santi saṅghassa karaṇīyānī” is said with a verbal error as “santi saṅghassa karaṇīya.” Tesañca attano ca chandapārisuddhiṃ detī means giving consent and purity, which is called chandapārisuddhi, and giving it. Itarā means the consent and purity of others. Biḷālasaṅkhalikā chandapārisuddhī refers to biḷālasaṅkhalikā, which is like a cat’s chain. Just as a cat’s chain reaches the first and second links but not the third, so too this consent and purity, once given to someone, does not go elsewhere. Therefore, it is called “biḷālasaṅkhalikā.” The term biḷālasaṅkhalikā here refers to any chain-like connection.
ID958
173. Pavāraṇādānepi eseva nayo. Ayaṃ pana viseso – tattha “chandaṃ me ārocehī”ti, idha pana “mamatthāya pavārehī”ti. Tattha chandahārake saṅghassa hatthaṃ upagatamatteyeva āgatā hoti. Idha pana evaṃ dinnāya pavāraṇāya pavāraṇāhārakena saṅghaṃ upasaṅkamitvā evaṃ pavāretabbaṃ “tisso, bhante, bhikkhu…pe… paṭikarissāmī”ti. Vimativinodaniyaṃ “evametaṃ dhārayāmi, sutā kho panāyasmantehīti ettha ’evametaṃ dhārayāmī’ti vatvā uddiṭṭhaṃ kho āyasmanto nidānaṃ, sutā kho panāyasmantehi cattāro pārājikā dhammā”tiādinā vattabbaṃ. Mātikāṭṭhakathāyañhi evameva vuttaṃ. Sutenāti sutapadena.
173. The same applies to giving Pavāraṇā. But there is this distinction: there it is “Chandaṃ me ārocehi” (Announce my consent), while here it is “Mamatthāya pavārehi” (Perform the Pavāraṇā on my behalf). There, as soon as the consent-bearer reaches the Saṅgha’s hands, it is considered brought. But here, having given the Pavāraṇā thus, the Pavāraṇā-bearer must approach the Saṅgha and perform it thus: “Three bhikkhus, venerable sirs… I will make amends.” In the Vimativinodanī, “Evametaṃ dhārayāmi, sutā kho panāyasmantehi” means, having said, “Evametaṃ dhārayāmi” (Thus I hold it), “The introduction has been recited, venerables; but you have heard the four pārājika rules…” and so forth should be said. For it is stated thus in the Mātikā commentary. “Sutena” means with the word “heard.”
173. The same principle applies to giving invitation. But this is the difference – there, “announce my consent,” but here, “invite on my behalf.” There, it is brought as soon as the consent-bearer reaches the hand of the Saṅgha. But here, with the invitation thus given, the invitation-bearer should approach the Sangha and invite thus, “Three, venerable sirs, monks… etc… I will rectify it.” In the Vimativinodanī, “evametaṃ dhārayāmi, sutā kho panāyasmantehīti, having said ‘I remember it thus’, ‘the introduction has been recited, venerable sirs, the four pārājikā dhammas have been heard by the venerable sirs’” should be said, and so forth. For in the commentary on the Mātikā, it is stated just thus. Sutenāti means with the heard word.
173. The same applies to receiving the invitation. Here is the difference: there, it is said, “inform my consent,” but here, it is said, “invite on my behalf.” There, the consent-bearer’s arrival is considered as soon as he reaches the Sangha. Here, however, after giving the invitation, the invitation-bearer should approach the Sangha and invite thus: “Venerable sirs, these three monks… I will make amends.” To resolve doubt, it is said, “I understand thus, and you have heard, venerable sirs, the four Pārājika rules,” etc. The Mātikā commentary also states this. Sutenā means by the word “heard.”
ID959
174. Nidānuddese aniṭṭhite pātimokkhaṃ niddiṭṭhaṃ nāma na hotīti āha “dutiyādīsu uddesesū”tiādi.
174. Since the Pātimokkha is not considered recited if the introduction is unfinished, it says, “In the second and subsequent recitations…” and so forth.
174. Because the Pātimokkha is not called recited if the introduction is not completed, he says “dutiyādīsu uddesesū”ti etc.
174. If the introduction is not completed, the Patimokkha is not considered recited, hence it is said, “in the second and subsequent recitations,” etc.
ID960
175. Tīhipi vidhīhīti osāraṇakathanasarabhaññehi. Ettha ca atthaṃ bhaṇitukāmatāya vā bhaṇāpetukāmatāya vā suttassa otāraṇaṃ osāraṇaṃ nāma. Tasseva atthappakāsanā kathanaṃ nāma. Kevalaṃ pāṭhasseva sarena bhaṇanaṃ sarabhaññaṃ nāma. Sajjhāyaṃ adhiṭṭhahitvāti “sajjhāyaṃ karomī”ti cittaṃ uppādetvā. Osāretvā pana kathentenāti sayameva pāṭhaṃ vatvā pacchā atthaṃ kathentena. Navavidhanti saṅghagaṇapuggalesu tayo, suttuddesapārisuddhiadhiṭṭhānavasena tayo, cātuddasīpannarasīsāmaggivasena tayoti navavidhaṃ. Catubbidhanti adhammenavaggādi catubbidhaṃ. Duvidhanti bhikkhubhikkhunīnaṃ pātimokkhavasena duvidhaṃ pātimokkhaṃ. Navavidhanti bhikkhūnaṃ pañca, bhikkhunīnaṃ cattāroti navavidhaṃ pātimokkhuddesaṃ. Katimīti katisaddāpekkhaṃ itthiliṅgaṃ daṭṭhabbaṃ.
175. “Tīhipi vidhīhi” means by three methods: announcement, explanation, and chanting. Here, “osāraṇaṃ” means the introduction of a sutta due to a desire to explain or have its meaning explained. “Kathanaṃ” means the explanation of that very meaning. “Sarabhaññaṃ” means the mere chanting of the text with voice. “Sajjhāyaṃ adhiṭṭhahitvā” means having resolved in mind, “I will rehearse.” “Osāretvā pana kathentena” means by one who rec arricch/generated by you in previous turns.line id=“960”>“By three methods too” means by announcement, explanation, and chanting. Here, “osāraṇaṃ” means the introduction of a sutta due to a desire to explain or have its meaning explained. “Kathanaṃ” means the explanation of that very meaning. “Sarabhaññaṃ” means the mere chanting of the text with voice. “Sajjhāyaṃ adhiṭṭhahitvā” means having resolved in mind, “I will rehearse.” “Osāretvā pana kathentena” means by one who, having introduced it, then explains.
175. Tīhipi vidhīhīti means with the recitation, explanation, and intoning. And here, causing the sutta to descend, either through desire to recite the meaning or to cause it to be recited, is called osāraṇaṃ. The exposition of its meaning is called kathanaṃ. The recitation of the text alone with the voice is called sarabhaññaṃ. Sajjhāyaṃ adhiṭṭhahitvāti means generating the thought, “I am doing the recitation.” Osāretvā pana kathentenāti means reciting the text oneself first, and then explaining the meaning. Navavidhanti means the ninefold [uposatha] - three kinds, according to Saṅgha, group, and individual; three according to recitation of the sutta, purification, and determination; and three according to the fourteenth, fifteenth, and concord. Catubbidhanti means fourfold, starting with unlawful and incomplete. Duvidhanti means twofold, according to the Pātimokkha of monks and nuns. Navavidhanti means ninefold Pātimokkha recitations, five for monks and four for nuns. Katimīti is the feminine form based on the word ‘kati’.
175. Tīhipi vidhīhī means by the three methods of introduction, explanation, and recitation. Here, the introduction of the discourse for the purpose of explaining or having it explained is called osāraṇa. The explanation of its meaning is called kathana. The mere recitation of the text is called sarabhañña. Sajjhāyaṃ adhiṭṭhahitvā means resolving, “I will recite.” Osāretvā pana kathentenā means first reciting the text and then explaining its meaning. Navavidha refers to nine types: three in Sangha, group, and individual; three in discourse recitation, purity, and determination; and three in the fourteenth, fifteenth, and Uposatha days. Catubbidha refers to four types: unlawful faction, etc. Duvidha refers to two types: the Patimokkha for monks and nuns. Navavidha refers to nine types: five for monks and four for nuns. Katimī is a feminine term referring to “how many.”
ID961
Utuvasseyevāti hemantagimhesuyeva. Viññāpetīti ettha manasā cintetvā kāyavikārakaraṇameva viññāpananti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Pāḷiyaṃ aññassa dātabbā pārisuddhīti pārisuddhidāyakena puna aññassa bhikkhuno santike dātabbā. “Bhūtaṃ eva sāmaṇerabhāvaṃ ārocetī”ti vuttattā ūnavīsativassakāle upasampannassa, antimavatthuajjhāpannasikkhāpaccakkhātakādīnaṃ vā yāva bhikkhupaṭiññā vaṭṭati, tāva tehi āhaṭāpi chandapārisuddhi āgacchati. Yadā pana te attano sāmaṇerādibhāvaṃ paṭijānanti, tato paṭṭhāya nāgacchatīti dassitanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Pāḷiyampi (mahāva. 164) hi “dinnāya pārisuddhiyā saṅghappatto vibbhamati…pe… paṇḍako paṭijānāti, tiracchānagato paṭijānāti, ubhatobyañjanako paṭijānāti, āhaṭā hoti pārisuddhī”ti vuttattā paṇḍakādīnaṃ bhikkhupaṭiññāya vattamānakālesu pana chandapārisuddhiyāva āgamanaṃ siddhameva. Tenāha “esa nayo sabbatthā”ti. Ummattakakhittacittavedanāṭṭānaṃ pana pakatattā antarāmagge ummattakādibhāve paṭiññātepi tesaṃ saṅghappattamatteneva chandādi āgacchatīti dasseti.
“In the rainy season only” means in the winter and summer only. “He informs” here should be understood as informing by considering it mentally and then making a bodily gesture. In the Pali text, “Purity is to be given to another” means it must be given again by the one granting purity to another monk in his presence. Since it is said, “He declares his true state as a novice,” for one ordained before reaching twenty years, or for those who have committed the final offense or renounced the training, as long as their claim to monkhood persists, the purity of consent brought by them is valid. However, when they acknowledge their state as novices or otherwise, from that point onward it is no longer valid, as it is shown. Indeed, in the Pali text (mahāva. 164), it is said, “With the purity given, he reaches the Sangha and then disrobes… a eunuch acknowledges himself, an animal acknowledges itself, a hermaphrodite acknowledges itself, the purity has been brought,” indicating that while the claim to monkhood persists for eunuchs and the like, the arrival of purity of consent is indeed established. Hence it is said, “This method applies everywhere.” However, for those who are insane, deranged, or afflicted by pain, even if they acknowledge their state of insanity or the like en route, it is shown that their mere reaching the Sangha brings the consent and so forth.
Utuvasseyevāti means only during the winter and summer. Viññāpetīti, in this context, “making known” should be understood as making an intimation through physical action after mentally considering it. In the Pāḷi, aññassa dātabbā pārisuddhīti means that purity should be given again by the giver of purity to another bhikkhu. Because it is said, “He just announces his status as a novice,” in the case of one ordained before the age of twenty, or those who have committed a final offense, renounced the training, etc., the consent and purity brought by them are valid as long as they profess to be bhikkhus. But when they acknowledge their status as novices, etc., it is shown that [consent and purity] no longer arrive from them, and this should be understood. Indeed, in the Pāḷi (mahāva. 164), it is said, “If, after purity has been given, he leaves the Order having arrived among the Sangha…or…a eunuch admits [his status], a creature of the animal realm admits [its status], a hermaphrodite admits [its status], the purity that has been brought is valid.” Therefore, the arrival of only consent and purity is certainly established even in the periods when eunuchs and others profess to be bhikkhus. Therefore, he said, “esa nayo sabbatthā”ti. In the case of the insane, those with deranged minds, and those afflicted by pain, however, even if their insanity, etc., is acknowledged on the way, he shows that their consent, etc., arrive merely by their having arrived among the Sangha because of their being in their natural state.
Utuvasseyevāti means in the winter and summer seasons. Viññāpetīti here should be understood as the act of making a bodily gesture after mentally intending it, which is called viññāpanā. In the Pāli, aññassa dātabbā pārisuddhīti means that the purity should be given by the giver of purity to another monk in the presence of another monk. Since it is said, “He declares the true state of being a novice,” for one who has been ordained for less than twenty years, or for one who has committed an ultimate offense, or for one who has renounced the training, etc., the consent for purity is valid as long as they acknowledge their status as a novice. However, when they acknowledge their status as a novice or the like, from that point onward, the consent for purity does not come to them. This should be understood. In the Pāli (Mahāva. 164), it is said, “When purity has been given, and one who has reached the Saṅgha disrobes… or a eunuch acknowledges it, or an animal acknowledges it, or a hermaphrodite acknowledges it, the purity has been brought.” Therefore, for eunuchs and the like, as long as they acknowledge their status as monks, the arrival of consent for purity is established. Hence, it is said, “esa nayo sabbatthā”ti. For those who are insane, deranged, or in pain, since they are normal, even if they acknowledge their status as insane, etc., on the way, their consent, etc., comes merely by reaching the Saṅgha. This is shown.
ID962
Bhikkhūnaṃ hatthapāsanti iminā gaṇapuggalesu chandapārisuddhiyā anāgamanaṃ dasseti. “Saṅghappatto”ti hi pāḷiyaṃ (mahāva. 165) vuttaṃ. Saṅghasannipātato paṭhamaṃ kātabbaṃ pubbakaraṇaṃ saṅghasannipāte kātabbaṃ pubbakiccanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Pāḷiyaṃ “no ce adhiṭṭhaheyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti ettha asañcicca assatiyā anāpatti. Yathā cettha, evaṃ uparipi, yattha pana acittakāpatti atthi, tattha vakkhāma. Paññattaṃ hotīti iminā na sāpattikena uposatho kātabboti visuṃ paṭikkhepābhāvepi yathāvuttasuttasāmatthiyato paññattamevāti dasseti. Iminā eva nayena “aṭṭhānametaṃ, bhikkhave, anavakāso, yaṃ tathāgato aparisuddhāya parisāya uposathaṃ kareyya, pātimokkhaṃ uddiseyyā”tiādisuttanayatova (a. ni. 8.20; udā. 45; cūḷava. 386) alajjīhi saddhiṃ uposathakaraṇampi paṭikkhittameva alajjīniggahatthattā sabbasikkhāpadānanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Pārisuddhidānapaññāpanenāti iminā sāpattikena pārisuddhipi na dātabbāti dīpitaṃ hoti.
“Within arm’s reach of the monks” indicates that purity of consent does not come to an individual or group. It is stated in the Pali (mahāva. 165), “He reaches the Sangha.” The preliminary action to be done before the Sangha assembles and the preliminary duty to be done during the Sangha’s assembly should be understood. In the Pali, “If he does not resolve, there is an offense of wrongdoing,” here there is no offense if done unintentionally or without mindfulness. As it is here, so it is above; where there is an offense without intent, we will explain it there. “It has been established” shows that the Uposatha should not be performed by one with an offense, even though there is no explicit prohibition, it is established by the capability of the stated text. By this same method, from texts such as “It is impossible, monks, that the Tathāgata would perform Uposatha or recite the Pātimokkha with an impure assembly” (a. ni. 8.20; udā. 45; cūḷava. 386), it should be understood that performing Uposatha with shameless ones is implicitly prohibited due to the rejection of shameless ones in all training rules. “By the designation of giving purity” implies that purity should not be given by one with an offense.
Bhikkhūnaṃ hatthapāsanti, by this, he shows that consent and purity do not arrive in the case of groups and individuals. Because in the Pāḷi (mahāva. 165), it is said, “having arrived among the Sangha.” Pubbakaraṇaṃ, which should be done prior to the gathering of the Sangha, and pubbakicca, which should be done at the gathering of the Sangha, should be understood. In the Pāḷi, “if he should not designate, there is an offense of wrong-doing”. Here, there is no offense if it is unintentional and without awareness. As it is here, so it is above; but where there is an offense without intention, we will speak of it. Paññattaṃ hotīti, by this, even in the absence of a specific prohibition, he indicates it is enacted from the meaning of the aforementioned sutta, namely “uposatha should not be performed by one with an offense.” By the same principle, it should be understood that based on the sutta that begins “It is impossible, bhikkhus, it cannot happen, that a Tathāgata would hold uposatha or recite the Pātimokkha with an impure assembly” (a. ni. 8.20; udā. 45; cūḷava. 386), performing the uposatha with those who are shameless is also prohibited, because all the precepts are for the sake of subduing the shameless. Pārisuddhidānapaññāpanenāti, by this, it is shown that purity should not be given by one with an offense.
Bhikkhūnaṃ hatthapāsanti here indicates that consent for purity does not come to individual monks or groups. In the Pāli (Mahāva. 165), it is said, “reached the Saṅgha.” The preliminary duties to be done before the Saṅgha assembles are called pubbakaraṇaṃ, and the preliminary tasks to be done at the Saṅgha assembly are called pubbakiccanti. This should be understood. In the Pāli, “if he does not resolve, there is an offense of wrong-doing,” here there is no offense if it is done unintentionally or without mindfulness. As it is here, so it is above. Where there is an offense of unintentional action, we will explain. Paññattaṃ hotīti here indicates that the Uposatha should not be performed by one who has an offense, and even in the absence of a separate prohibition, it is declared according to the capability of the sutta as stated. In this way, “it is impossible, monks, there is no opportunity for the Tathāgata to perform the Uposatha or recite the Pātimokkha in an impure assembly,” etc., the sutta method (A. Ni. 8.20; Udā. 45; Cūḷava. 386) also prohibits performing the Uposatha with the shameless, as it is for the sake of restraining the shameless, all the training rules. Pārisuddhidānapaññāpanenāti here it is clarified that purity should not be given to one who has an offense.
ID963
176. Ubhopi dukkaṭanti ettha sabhāgāpattibhāvaṃ ajānitvā kevalaṃ āpattināmeneva desentassa paṭiggaṇhantassa ca acittakameva dukkaṭaṃ hotīti vadanti. Yathā saṅgho sabhāgāpattiṃ āpannoti ñattiṃ ṭhapetvā uposathaṃ kātuṃ labhati, evaṃ tayopi “suṇantu me, āyasmantā, ime bhikkhū sabhāgaṃ āpattiṃ āpannā”tiādinā vuttanayānusāreneva gaṇañattiṃ ṭhapetvā dvīhi aññamaññaṃ ārocetvā uposathaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Ekena pana sāpattikena dūraṃ gantvāpi paṭikātumeva vaṭṭati, asampāpuṇantena “bhikkhū labhitvā paṭikarissāmī”ti uposatho kātabbo, paṭikaritvā ca puna uposatho kātabbo . Kenaci karaṇīyena gantvāti sīmāparicchedato bahibhūtaṃ gāmaṃ vā araññaṃ vā gantvāti attho. Eteneva uposathañattiyā ṭhapanakāle samaggā eva te ñattiṃ ṭhapesunti siddhaṃ. Teneva pāḷiyaṃ (mahāva. 172) “uddiṭṭhaṃ suuddiṭṭha”nti sabbapannarasakesupi vuttaṃ.
176. “Both incur wrongdoing” here means that for one confessing and one accepting without knowing the shared offense, merely by naming the offense, it is said to be an unintentional wrongdoing. Just as the Sangha, having set forth a motion that it has committed a shared offense, can perform Uposatha, so too can three monks, following the method stated as “Listen to me, venerable ones, these monks have committed a shared offense,” set forth a group motion and, informing each other, perform Uposatha. However, if one with an offense goes far away, it is proper to remedy it; if unable to reach, thinking “I will remedy it upon finding monks,” the Uposatha may be performed, and after remedying it, Uposatha must be performed again. “Having gone for some business” means having gone to a village or forest outside the boundary demarcation. By this, it is established that at the time of setting the Uposatha motion, they set it in unity. Hence, in the Pali (mahāva. 172), “Recited, well-recited” is stated in all fifteen cases.
176. Ubhopi dukkaṭanti, in this context, they say that there is only an unintentional offense of wrong-doing for both the one who declares merely the name of an offense without knowing the existence of a shared offense and the one who receives it. Just as the Sangha can perform the uposatha after establishing a resolution that it has fallen into a shared offense, so too can three [bhikkhus] perform the uposatha after establishing a group resolution, following the aforementioned method, saying “Let the venerable sirs listen to me, these bhikkhus have fallen into a shared offense,” etc., and after the two acknowledge [the offense] to each other. But one with an offense should go even a distance to make amends; if he cannot reach [another bhikkhu], he should perform the uposatha saying, “Having found bhikkhus, I will make amends,” and after making amends, he should perform the uposatha again. Kenaci karaṇīyena gantvāti means having gone to a village or forest that is outside the boundary marker. By this very fact, it is established that they establish the resolution as a complete group at the time of establishing the uposatha resolution. Therefore, in the Pāḷi (mahāva. 172) it is said, “Recited, it is well recited” even in all the fifteenths.
176. Ubhopi dukkaṭanti here, for one who does not know the nature of the shared offense and merely presents it by the name of the offense, and for the one who receives it, there is only an unintentional offense of wrong-doing. Just as the Saṅgha, having committed a shared offense, can perform the Uposatha after making a motion, so too, these monks can perform the Uposatha after informing each other by making a group motion in the manner stated, “Venerable ones, please listen to me, these monks have committed a shared offense,” etc. However, if one with an offense goes far away, it is still possible to make amends, and if one does not succeed, one should perform the Uposatha thinking, “I will make amends when I find monks,” and after making amends, one should perform the Uposatha again. Kenaci karaṇīyena gantvāti means going to a village or forest outside the boundary. By this, it is established that at the time of making the Uposatha motion, those who are in agreement make the motion. Therefore, in the Pāli (Mahāva. 172), it is said, “recited, well-recited,” even in all the fifteen-day periods.
ID964
Sace pana vuḍḍhataro hotīti pavāraṇadāyako bhikkhu vuḍḍhataro hoti. Evañhi tena tassatthāya pavāritaṃ hotīti ettha evaṃ tena appavāritepi tassa saṅghappattamattena saṅghassa pavāraṇākammaṃ samaggakammameva hotīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Tena ca bhikkhunāti pavāraṇadāyakena bhikkhunā. Bahūpi samānavassikā ekato pavāretuṃ labhantīti ekasmiṃ saṃvacchare laddhupasampadatāya samānupasampadavassā sabbe ekato pavāretuṃ labhantīti attho.
“If, however, he is more senior” refers to the monk granting the invitation being more senior. “Thus it has been invited by him for that purpose” means that even if not invited by him, by merely reaching the Sangha, the Sangha’s invitation act becomes a unified act. “By that monk” refers to the monk granting the invitation. “Even many of equal years may invite together” means that all those who received ordination in the same year, being of equal ordination years, may invite together.
Sace pana vuḍḍhataro hotīti, if the bhikkhu who is giving the invitation is senior. Evañhi tena tassatthāya pavāritaṃ hotīti, in this context, even if he himself has not been invited in this way by him, it should be understood that merely by his presence in the Sangha, the Sangha’s act of invitation is a complete act. Tena ca bhikkhunāti, by the bhikkhu who is giving the invitation. Bahūpi samānavassikā ekato pavāretuṃ labhantīti means that all those who received higher ordination in the same year, having the same number of years since higher ordination, can invite together, meaning at once.
Sace pana vuḍḍhataro hotīti means if the monk who gives the invitation is the elder. Evañhi tena tassatthāya pavāritaṃ hotīti here, even if he has not been invited, the Saṅgha’s act of invitation is still a valid act of the Saṅgha merely by his reaching the Saṅgha. Tena ca bhikkhunāti means by the monk who gives the invitation. Bahūpi samānavassikā ekato pavāretuṃ labhantīti means all those who have received ordination in the same year can invite together.
ID965
Ettha pana paṇḍitehi cintetabbaṃ vicāretabbaṃ kāraṇaṃ atthi, kiṃ pana tanti? Idāni pātimokkhuddesakāle –
Here, however, there is a reason that should be considered and investigated by the wise—what is it?
In this context, however, there is a reason for wise people to consider and investigate, but what is it? Now, at the time of reciting the Pātimokkha –
Here, the wise should consider and investigate the reason, what is the thread? Now, at the time of reciting the Pātimokkha –
ID966
“Sammajjanī padīpo ca, udakaṃ āsanena ca; Uposathassa etāni, pubbakaraṇanti vuccati.
“Sweeping, a lamp, water, and seats—these are called the preliminary actions of Uposatha.”
“Sweeping, the lamp, water, and seating; These are called the preliminary actions for the Uposatha.”
“Sweeping, the lamp, water, and the seat; These are called the preliminary duties of the Uposatha.
ID967
“Chandapārisuddhiutukkhānaṃ, bhikkhugaṇanā ca ovādo; Uposathassa etāni, pubbakiccanti vuccati.
“Purity of consent, declaration of the season, counting the monks, and instruction—these are called the preliminary duties of Uposatha.”
“Consent, purity, declaring the season, counting the bhikkhus, and the exhortation; These are called the preliminary duties for the Uposatha.”
“Consent for purity, the season, the counting of monks, and the admonition; These are called the preliminary tasks of the Uposatha.
ID968
“Uposatho yāvatikā ca bhikkhū kammappattā; Sabhāgāpattiyo ca na vijjanti; Vajjanīyā ca puggalā tasmiṃ na honti; Pattakallanti vuccatī”ti. (mahāva. aṭṭha. 168) –
“The Uposatha, as many monks as are eligible for the act, where there are no shared offenses, and no persons to be excluded are present—this is called suitable.”
“The Uposatha, and however many bhikkhus are present who are fit for the act; And there are no shared offenses; And there are no individuals to be excluded present; It is said to be the right time.” (mahāva. aṭṭha. 168) –
“The Uposatha, as many monks as are present, and there are no shared offenses; There are no prohibited persons; It is called suitable.” (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 168) –
ID969
Imā gāthāyo dhammajjhesakena pāṭhaṃyeva bhaṇāpetvā pātimokkhuddesako atthaṃ katheti. Tato pubbakaraṇapubbakiccāni sammā niṭṭhāpetvā “desitāpattikassa samaggassa bhikkhusaṅghassa anumatiyā pātimokkhaṃ uddisituṃ ārādhanaṃ karomā”ti imaṃ vākyaṃ pāṭhameva ajjhesakena bhaṇāpetvā atthaṃ avatvāva “sādhū”ti vatvā pātimokkhaṃ uddisati. Pavāraṇāyapi eseva nayo. “Pavāraṇāya etānī”ti ca “pavāraṇaṃ kātu”nti ca imāni padāniyeva visiṭṭhāni.
These verses are recited verbatim by the Dhamma requester, and the Pātimokkha reciter explains their meaning. Then, having properly completed the preliminary actions and duties, he says, “With the permission of the united Sangha of monks whose offenses have been confessed, I make the request to recite the Pātimokkha,” having this sentence recited verbatim by the requester, and without explaining its meaning, saying “Well done,” he recites the Pātimokkha. The same method applies to the Invitation. Only the phrases “these for the Invitation” and “to perform the Invitation” are distinct.
Having caused these verses to be recited just as text by the inviter, the reciter of the Pātimokkha explains the meaning. Then, having properly completed the preliminary actions and preliminary duties, he causes the inviter to recite just the text of the sentence “With the permission of the assembled Sangha of bhikkhus who have confessed their offenses, I request to recite the Pātimokkha,” and without explaining the meaning, saying “Sādhu,” he recites the Pātimokkha. The same method applies to the invitation. “These are for the invitation” and “to perform the invitation” are the only words that are different.
These verses are recited by the Dhamma reciter, and the Pātimokkha reciter explains the meaning. Then, after properly completing the preliminary duties and tasks, “with the permission of the united Saṅgha of monks who have confessed their offenses, I request to recite the Pātimokkha,” this statement is recited by the reciter, and without explaining the meaning, saying “sādhu,” he recites the Pātimokkha. The same method applies to the invitation. The words “for the invitation” and “to perform the invitation” are distinguished.
ID970
Kiṃ imāni dhammajjhesakassa vacanāni, udāhu pātimokkhuddesakassāti? Kiñcettha – yadi dhammajjhesakassa vacanāni, evaṃ sati gāthāttayaṃ vatvā tāsaṃ atthampi so eva kathetvā etāni pubbakaraṇāni ca etāni pubbakiccāni ca saṅghena katāni, idañca saṅghassa pattakallaṃ samānītaṃ, tasmā “uddisatu, bhante, pātimokkha”nti teneva vattabbaṃ siyā. Atha pātimokkhuddesakassa vacanāni, evañca sati “saṅgho, bhante, theraṃ pātimokkhuddesaṃ ajjhesati, uddisatu, bhante, thero pātimokkha”nti dhammajjhesakena yāvatatiyaṃ ajjhosāpetvā “sammajjanī…pe… vuccatī”ti gāthaṃ vatvā iti “aṭṭhakathācariyehi vuttāni etāni pubbakaraṇāni katānī”ti pucchitvā dhammajjhesakena “āma, bhante”ti vutte “chandapārisuddhi …pe… vuccatī”ti gāthaṃ vatvā iti “aṭṭhakathācariyehi vuttāni etāni pubbakiccāni katānī”ti pucchitvā “āma, bhante”ti vutte “uposatho…pe… vuccatī”ti gāthaṃ vatvā iti “aṭṭhakathācariyehi vuttaṃ idaṃ pattakallaṃ samānīta”nti pucchitvā “āma bhante”ti vutte “pubbakaraṇapubbakiccāni sammā niṭṭhāpetvā pattakalle samānīte samaggassa bhikkhusaṅghassa anumatiyā pātimokkhaṃ uddisituṃ ārādhanaṃ mayaṃ karomā”ti pātimokkhuddesakena vattabbaṃ siyā, evaṃ sati ajjhesakaajjhesitabbānaṃ vacanaṃ asaṅkarato jānitabbaṃ bhaveyyāti.
Are these the words of the Dhamma requester or of the Pātimokkha reciter? What of this—if they are the words of the Dhamma requester, then after reciting the three verses and explaining their meaning, he should say, “Recite the Pātimokkha, venerable sir,” since these preliminary actions and duties have been performed by the Sangha, and this suitability has been brought about. If they are the words of the Pātimokkha reciter, then the Dhamma requester should request up to three times, “The Sangha, venerable sir, requests the elder to recite the Pātimokkha; let the elder recite the Pātimokkha,” and after reciting the verse “Sweeping… it is called,” asking, “Have these preliminary actions stated by the commentary teachers been done?” and upon the Dhamma requester saying “Yes, venerable sir,” reciting “Purity of consent… it is called,” asking, “Have these preliminary duties stated by the commentary teachers been done?” and upon “Yes, venerable sir,” reciting “Uposatha… it is called,” asking, “Has this suitability stated by the commentary teachers been brought about?” and upon “Yes, venerable sir,” the Pātimokkha reciter should say, “Having properly completed the preliminary actions and duties and brought about suitability, we make the request to recite the Pātimokkha with the permission of the united Sangha of monks,” so that the words of the requester and the requested are understood without confusion.
Are these the words of the inviter, or of the reciter of the Pātimokkha? And what about this - if they are the words of the inviter, then, having recited the three verses, he himself should explain their meaning as well, and [say] these preliminary actions and these preliminary duties have been performed by the Sangha, and this right time of the Sangha has been brought about, therefore, “Venerable sir, recite the Pātimokkha,” should be said by him. But if they are the words of the reciter of the Pātimokkha, then, having caused [the inviter] to request up to the third time by the inviter, saying “The Sangha, venerable sir, requests the elder to recite the Pātimokkha, venerable sir, recite the Pātimokkha,” reciting the verse, “Sweeping…etc…is called,” then, having asked “These preliminary actions mentioned by the commentators have been performed?”, and when the inviter says “Yes, venerable sir,” reciting the verse, “Consent, purity…etc…is called,” then having asked “These preliminary duties mentioned by the commentators have been performed?”, and when [the inviter] says, “Yes, venerable sir,” reciting the verse, “The Uposatha…etc…is called,” then having asked, “This right time mentioned by the commentators has been brought about?”, and when [the inviter] says “Yes, venerable sir”, the reciter of the Pātimokkha should say “Having properly completed the preliminary actions and preliminary duties, with the right time having been brought about, with the permission of the assembled Sangha of bhikkhus, we request to recite the Pātimokkha.” In this way, it should be known without confusion what words are to be requested by the inviter and what words are to be requested.
Are these the words of the Dhamma reciter or the Pātimokkha reciter? Here, if they are the words of the Dhamma reciter, then after reciting the three verses and explaining their meaning, he should say, “these preliminary duties and tasks have been performed by the Saṅgha, and the Saṅgha is suitable, therefore, ‘Venerable one, please recite the Pātimokkha.’” If they are the words of the Pātimokkha reciter, then the Dhamma reciter should request three times, “Venerable one, the Saṅgha requests the elder to recite the Pātimokkha, please recite the Pātimokkha,” and after reciting the verse, “sweeping… is called,” he should ask, “have these four preliminary duties been performed by the commentators?” and when the Dhamma reciter says, “yes, venerable one,” he should recite the verse, “consent for purity… is called,” and ask, “have these five preliminary tasks been performed by the commentators?” and when the Dhamma reciter says, “yes, venerable one,” he should recite the verse, “the Uposatha… is called,” and ask, “have these four suitable factors been established by the commentators?” and when the Dhamma reciter says, “yes, venerable one,” the Pātimokkha reciter should say, “having properly completed the preliminary duties and tasks, and having established the suitable factors, with the permission of the united Saṅgha, I will recite the Pātimokkha,” and when the Saṅgha of monks accepts, saying “sādhu, sādhu,” the Pātimokkha reciter recites the Pātimokkha, saying, “Venerable ones, please listen to me,” etc. This is our understanding.
ID971
Ettha ca gāthāttayassa aṭṭhakathācariyehi vuttabhāvo aṭṭhakathāyameva āgato. Pacchimavākyaṃ pana neva pāḷiyaṃ, na aṭṭhakathāyaṃ, na ṭīkādīsu dissati. Khuddasikkhāpakaraṇepi –
Here, the fact that the three verses were stated by the commentary teachers is found in the commentary itself. However, the final sentence is not seen in the Pali, the commentary, or the sub-commentaries. Even in the Khuddasikkhāpakaraṇa—
And in this context, that the three verses are stated by the commentators is found in the commentary itself. The final sentence, however, is not found in the Pāḷi, nor in the commentary, nor in the sub-commentaries, etc. Also in the Khuddasikkhā:
Here, the fact that the three verses were spoken by the commentators is found only in the commentary. The latter statement is not found in the Pāli, the commentary, or the sub-commentaries. In the Khuddasikkhā –
ID972
“Pubbakicce ca karaṇe; Pattakalle samānite; Suttaṃ uddisati saṅgho; Pañcadhā so vibhāvito”ti ca.
“When the preliminary duties are performed and suitability is brought about, the Sangha recites the text, explained in five ways.”
“With the preliminary duties and actions; With the right time assembled; The Sangha recites the Sutta; It is explained in five ways,” and,
“When the preliminary tasks have been performed; And the suitable factors have been established; The Saṅgha recites the Sutta; It is explained in five ways.”
ID973
“Pubbakicce ca karaṇe; Pattakalle samānite; Ñattiṃ vatvāna saṅghena; Kattabbevaṃ pavāraṇā”ti ca. –
“When the preliminary duties are performed and suitability is brought about, having stated the motion, the Invitation should be performed by the Sangha.”
“With the preliminary duties and actions; With the right time assembled; Having spoken the resolution with the Sangha; The invitation should be done in this way,” and.
“When the preliminary tasks have been performed; And the suitable factors have been established; Having made the motion, the Saṅgha; Should perform the invitation.” –
ID974
Vuttaṃ, na vuttaṃ tathā. Mūlasikkhāpakaraṇeyeva tathā vuttaṃ, tasmā ācariyānaṃ attanomati bhaveyya.
It is stated, but not in that manner. It is stated so only in the Mūlasikkhāpakaraṇa, so it may be the personal opinion of the teachers.
It is said, but it is not said in that way. It is said in that way only in the Mūlasikkhā, therefore, it may be the personal opinion of the teachers.
It is said, but not in that way. It is said in the Mūlasikkhā, therefore, it is the opinion of the teachers.
ID975
Tattha “pubbakaraṇapubbakiccāni sammā niṭṭhāpetvā”ti iminā purimagāthādvayassa atthameva kathetvā tatiyagāthāya attho na kathito. “Desitāpattikassā”ti iminā ca āpattiyā desitabhāvoyeva kathito, na sabbaṃ pattakallaṃ. Āpattiyā desitabhāve ca sabhāgāpattiyā desitabhāvoyeva pattakallasmiṃ antogadho, na itaro. Vuttañhi kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) “etāsu hi sabhāgāpattīsu avijjamānāsu, visabhāgāpattīsu vijjamānāsupi pattakallaṃ hotiyevā”ti. “Pubbakaraṇapubbakiccāni sammā niṭṭhāpetvā desitāpattikassa samaggassa bhikkhusaṅghassa anumatiyā pātimokkhaṃ uddisituṃ ārādhanaṃ karomā”ti ettakeyeva vutte avasesāni tīṇi pattakallaṅgāni. Seyyathidaṃ – uposatho, yāvatikā ca bhikkhū kammappattā, vajjanīyā ca puggalā tasmiṃ na hontīti (mahāva. aṭṭha. 168). Tesu asantesupi uposatho kātabboti āpajjati, na pana kātabbo. Tena vuttaṃ “na, bhikkhave, anuposathe uposatho kātabbo, yo kareyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 183) ca, “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, catunnaṃ pātimokkhaṃ uddisitu”nti (mahāva. 168) ca, “na, bhikkhave, sagahaṭṭhāya parisāya pātimokkhaṃ uddisitabba”ntiādi (mahāva. 154) ca, tasmā uposathadivasesu saṅghe sannipatite sace pubbeva sammato dhammajjhesako atthi, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ. No ce, ekaṃ byattaṃ paṭibalaṃ bhikkhuṃ saṅghena sammannāpetvā tena dhammajjhesakena pātimokkhuddesakaṃ upasaṅkamitvā ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvā ukkuṭikaṃ nisīditvā añjaliṃ paggahetvā evamassa vacanīyo – saṅgho, bhante, theraṃ pātimokkhuddesaṃ ajjhesati, uddisatu thero pātimokkhaṃ. Dutiyampi, bhante, saṅgho…pe… tatiyampi, bhante, saṅgho…pe… uddisatu thero pātimokkhanti tikkhattuṃ yācāpetvā tato pātimokkhuddesakena –
Here, “having properly completed the preliminary actions and duties” explains the meaning of the first two verses, but the meaning of the third verse is not explained. “Whose offenses have been confessed” only indicates that the offense has been confessed, not the full suitability. In the confession of an offense, only the confession of a shared offense is included in suitability, not the other. For it is said in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā), “Indeed, when there are no shared offenses among these, even if dissimilar offenses exist, it is still suitable.” With just “Having properly completed the preliminary actions and duties, I make the request to recite the Pātimokkha with the permission of the united Sangha of monks whose offenses have been confessed,” the remaining three aspects of suitability—namely, the Uposatha, as many monks as are eligible for the act, and no persons to be excluded—are present (mahāva. aṭṭha. 168). If these are absent, it implies the Uposatha should be performed, but it should not be. Hence it is said, “Monks, the Uposatha should not be performed on a non-Uposatha day; whoever does so commits an offense of wrongdoing” (mahāva. 183), and “I allow, monks, the Pātimokkha to be recited by four” (mahāva. 168), and “Monks, the Pātimokkha should not be recited to an assembly including laypeople” (mahāva. 154), and so forth. Therefore, on Uposatha days, when the Sangha has assembled, if a Dhamma requester has already been agreed upon, that is well. If not, having the Sangha appoint a competent and capable monk, that Dhamma requester should approach the Pātimokkha reciter, adjust his upper robe over one shoulder, sit in a squatting position, raise his hands in añjali, and say thus: “The Sangha, venerable sir, requests the elder to recite the Pātimokkha; let the elder recite the Pātimokkha.” Requesting three times, and then the Pātimokkha reciter—
There, “Having properly completed the preliminary actions and preliminary duties,” by this, the meaning of only the first two verses is explained, but the meaning of the third verse is not explained. And by “of one who has confessed his offenses,” only the fact that the offense has been confessed is stated, not the complete right time. And when the offense has been confessed, only the fact that the shared offense has been confessed is included in the right time, not the other [factors]. Indeed, it is said in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā), “When these shared offenses are not present, even if dissimilar offenses are present, it is indeed the right time.” By merely saying, “Having properly completed the preliminary actions and preliminary duties, with the permission of the assembled Sangha of bhikkhus who have confessed their offenses, I request to recite the Pātimokkha,” three remaining factors of the right time, namely: the Uposatha, however many bhikkhus are present who are fit for the act, and there are no individuals to be excluded present (mahāva. aṭṭha. 168), It results that the uposatha should be performed even when they are not present, but it should not be performed. Therefore, it is said, “Bhikkhus, the uposatha should not be performed on a non-uposatha day; whoever should perform it, there is an offense of wrong-doing” (mahāva. 183), and, “I allow, bhikkhus, the Pātimokkha to be recited by four” (mahāva. 168), and, “Bhikkhus, the Pātimokkha should not be recited in an assembly with householders” and so on (mahāva. 154). Therefore, on uposatha days, when the Sangha has assembled, if there is a previously appointed inviter, it is good. If not, having had the Sangha appoint a learned, competent bhikkhu, that inviter should approach the reciter of the Pātimokkha, arrange his upper robe over one shoulder, sit on his heels, raise his joined hands, and say to him: The Sangha, venerable sir, requests the elder to recite the Pātimokkha; may the elder recite the Pātimokkha. A second time, venerable sir, the Sangha…etc… A third time, venerable sir, the Sangha…etc… may the elder recite the Pātimokkha. Having caused him to request three times, then, the reciter of the Pātimokkha –
Here, “having properly completed the preliminary duties and tasks,” this explains the meaning of the first two verses, but the meaning of the third verse is not explained. “For one who has confessed an offense,” this explains only the state of having confessed an offense, not all the suitable factors. In the state of having confessed an offense, only the state of having confessed a shared offense is included in the suitable factors, not others. As it is said in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Nidānavaṇṇanā), “even if there are no shared offenses, but there are dissimilar offenses, it is still suitable.” “Having properly completed the preliminary duties and tasks, with the permission of the united Saṅgha of monks who have confessed their offenses, I request to recite the Pātimokkha,” only this much is said, the remaining three suitable factors are not mentioned. Namely, the Uposatha, as many monks as are present, and there are no prohibited persons (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 168). Even if these are not present, the Uposatha should be performed, but it should not be performed. Therefore, it is said, “monks, the Uposatha should not be performed on a non-Uposatha day, whoever does so commits an offense of wrong-doing” (Mahāva. 183), and “I allow, monks, the recitation of the four Pātimokkhas” (Mahāva. 168), and “monks, the Pātimokkha should not be recited in an assembly with laypeople” (Mahāva. 154), etc. Therefore, on Uposatha days, when the Saṅgha has assembled, if there is already an appointed Dhamma reciter, that is good. If not, the Saṅgha should appoint a competent and capable monk, and that Dhamma reciter should approach the Pātimokkha reciter, arrange his upper robe over one shoulder, sit in a kneeling position, raise his hands in añjali, and say, “Venerable one, the Saṅgha requests the elder to recite the Pātimokkha, please recite the Pātimokkha.” A second time, venerable one, the Saṅgha… a third time, venerable one, the Saṅgha… please recite the Pātimokkha,” requesting three times, then the Pātimokkha reciter should say –
ID976
“Sammajjanī padīpo ca, udakaṃ āsanena ca; Uposathassa etāni, pubbakaraṇanti vuccatīti. (mahāva. aṭṭha. 168; kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) –
“Sweeping, a lamp, water, and seats—these are called the preliminary actions of Uposatha (mahāva. aṭṭha. 168; kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā).”
“Sweeping, the lamp, water, and seating; These are called the preliminary actions for the Uposatha.” (mahāva. aṭṭha. 168; kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) –
“Sweeping, the lamp, water, and the seat; These are called the preliminary duties of the Uposatha. (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 168; Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Nidānavaṇṇanā) –
ID977
Aṭṭhakathācariyehi vuttāni cattāri pubbakaraṇāni, kiṃ tāni katānī”ti pucchite dhammajjhesakena “āma, bhante”ti vutte puna pātimokkhuddesakena –
When asked by the Pātimokkha reciter, “Have these four preliminary actions stated by the commentary teachers been done?” and the Dhamma requester says, “Yes, venerable sir,” then again the Pātimokkha reciter—
Having asked, “Have these four preliminary actions mentioned by the commentators been performed?” and when the inviter says, “Yes, venerable sir,” then again the reciter of the Pātimokkha –
The four preliminary duties spoken by the commentators, have they been performed?” When asked, the Dhamma reciter says, “yes, venerable one,” then the Pātimokkha reciter says –
ID978
“Chandapārisuddhiutukkhānaṃ, bhikkhugaṇanā ca ovādo; Uposathassa etāni, pubbakiccanti vuccatīti. (mahāva. aṭṭha. 168; kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) –
“Purity of consent, declaration of the season, counting the monks, and instruction—these are called the preliminary duties of Uposatha (mahāva. aṭṭha. 168; kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā).”
“Consent, purity, declaring the season, counting the bhikkhus, and the exhortation; These are called the preliminary duties for the Uposatha.” (mahāva. aṭṭha. 168; kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) –
“Consent for purity, the season, the counting of monks, and the admonition; These are called the preliminary tasks of the Uposatha. (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 168; Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Nidānavaṇṇanā) –
ID979
Aṭṭhakathācariyehi vuttāni pañca pubbakiccāni, kiṃ tāni katānī”ti pucchite dhammajjhesakena “āma bhante”ti vutte puna pātimokkhuddesakena –
When asked, “Have these five preliminary duties stated by the commentary teachers been done?” and the Dhamma requester says, “Yes, venerable sir,” then again the Pātimokkha reciter—
Having asked “Have these five preliminary duties mentioned by the commentators been performed?” and when the inviter says “Yes, venerable sir”, then again the reciter of the Pātimokkha –
The five preliminary tasks spoken by the commentators, have they been performed?” When asked, the Dhamma reciter says, “yes, venerable one,” then the Pātimokkha reciter says –
ID980
“Uposatho yāvatikā ca bhikkhū kammappattā; Sabhāgāpattiyo ca na vijjanti; Vajjanīyā ca puggalā tasmiṃ na honti; Pattakallanti vuccatīti. (mahāva. aṭṭha. 168; kaṅkhā aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) –
“The Uposatha, as many monks as are eligible for the act, where there are no shared offenses, and no persons to be excluded are present—this is called suitable (mahāva. aṭṭha. 168; kaṅkhā aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā).”
“The Uposatha, and however many bhikkhus are present who are fit for the act; And there are no shared offenses; And there are no individuals to be excluded present; It is said to be the right time.” (mahāva. aṭṭha. 168; kaṅkhā aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) –
“The Uposatha, as many monks as are present, and there are no shared offenses; There are no prohibited persons; It is called suitable. (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 168; Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Nidānavaṇṇanā) –
ID981
Aṭṭhakathācariyehi vuttāni cattāri pattakallaṅgāni, kiṃ tāni samānītānī”ti pucchite dhammajjhesakena “āma, bhante”ti vutte puna pātimokkhuddesako “pubbakaraṇapubbakiccāni sammā niṭṭhāpetvā pattakallaṅge samānīte saṅghassa anumatiyā pātimokkhaṃ uddisissāmā”ti vatvā “sādhu sādhū”ti bhikkhusaṅghena sampaṭicchite “suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho”tiādinā pātimokkhuddesako pātimokkhaṃ uddisatīti ayamamhākaṃ khanti.
When asked, “Have these four aspects of suitability stated by the commentary teachers been brought about?” and the Dhamma requester says, “Yes, venerable sir,” then the Pātimokkha reciter says, “Having properly completed the preliminary actions and duties and brought about the aspects of suitability, I will recite the Pātimokkha with the Sangha’s permission,” and upon the Sangha’s approval with “Well done, well done,” the Pātimokkha reciter recites the Pātimokkha beginning with “Listen to me, venerable sirs, the Sangha”—this is our preference.
Having asked “Have these four factors of the right time, mentioned by the commentators, been brought about?” and when the inviter says “Yes, venerable sir”, then again the reciter of the Pātimokkha should say, “Having properly completed the preliminary actions and preliminary duties, with the factors of the right time having been brought about, with the permission of the Sangha, we will recite the Pātimokkha”, and when the Sangha of bhikkhus has approved, saying, “Sādhu, sādhu”, the reciter of the Pātimokkha recites the Pātimokkha, beginning with “Let the Sangha, venerable sirs, listen to me”. This is our preference.
The four suitable factors spoken by the commentators, have they been established?” When asked, the Dhamma reciter says, “yes, venerable one,” then the Pātimokkha reciter says, “having properly completed the preliminary duties and tasks, and having established the suitable factors, with the permission of the Saṅgha, I will recite the Pātimokkha,” and when the Saṅgha of monks accepts, saying “sādhu, sādhu,” the Pātimokkha reciter recites the Pātimokkha, saying, “Venerable ones, please listen to me,” etc. This is our understanding.
ID982
Ettha ca “dhammajjhesakena…pe… evamassa vacanīyo”ti vuttaṃ, so dhammajjhesakena vacanīyabhāvo kathaṃ veditabboti? “Na, bhikkhave, saṅghamajjhe anajjhiṭṭhena pātimokkhaṃ uddisitabbaṃ, yo uddiseyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 154) vacanatoti. “Saṅghena sammannāpetvā”ti vuttaṃ, taṃ kathanti? “Ajjhesanā cettha saṅghena sammatadhammajjhesakāyattā vā saṅghattherāyattā vā”ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttattā. “Saṅgho, bhante, theraṃ pātimokkhuddesaṃ ajjhesati, uddisatu, bhante, thero pātimokkha”nti ayaṃ ajjhesanākāro kuto labbhatīti? Pāḷito. Pāḷiyañhi (mahāva. 155) “te theraṃ ajjhesanti, uddisatu, bhante, thero pātimokkha”nti āgato.
Here, it is said, “By the Dhamma requester… he should be addressed thus,” but how is it to be understood that it is to be said by the Dhamma requester? Because of the statement, “Monks, the Pātimokkha should not be recited in the midst of the Sangha by one not requested; whoever does so commits an offense of wrongdoing” (mahāva. 154). It is said, “Having the Sangha appoint,” but how so? Because in the commentary it is stated, “The requesting here depends on the Sangha-appointed Dhamma requester or the Sangha elder” (aṭṭhakathā). From where is the manner of requesting, “The Sangha, venerable sir, requests the elder to recite the Pātimokkha; let the elder recite the Pātimokkha,” obtained? From the Pali text. For in the Pali (mahāva. 155), it is stated, “They request the elder, ‘Recite the Pātimokkha, venerable sir.’”
And in this context, it is said, “By the inviter…etc…should say to him,” how should that fact that he is to be spoken to by the inviter be understood? From the statement, “Bhikkhus, the Pātimokkha should not be recited in the midst of the Sangha by one who has not been requested; whoever should recite it, there is an offense of wrong-doing” (mahāva. 154). It is said “having had the Sangha appoint,” how is that? Because it is said in the commentary, “The requesting here is dependent either on the inviter appointed by the Sangha, or on the Sangha elder.” “The Sangha, venerable sir, requests the elder to recite the Pātimokkha, venerable sir, recite the Pātimokkha” - from where is this method of requesting obtained? From the Pāḷi. Indeed, in the Pāḷi (mahāva. 155) it comes, “They request the elder, venerable sir, recite the Pātimokkha.”
Here, “by the Dhamma reciter… should be spoken to,” how should this be understood? “Monks, the Pātimokkha should not be recited in the midst of the Saṅgha without being requested, whoever does so commits an offense of wrong-doing” (Mahāva. 154). “Appointed by the Saṅgha,” what does this mean? “The request here is made by the Saṅgha to the appointed Dhamma reciter or the elder of the Saṅgha,” as stated in the commentary. “Venerable one, the Saṅgha requests the elder to recite the Pātimokkha, please recite the Pātimokkha,” how is this request obtained? From the Pāli. In the Pāli (Mahāva. 155), it is said, “they request the elder, please recite the Pātimokkha, venerable one.”
ID983
Sace pana dhammajjhesako vuḍḍhataro, pātimokkhuddesako navako, “saṅgho, āvuso, āyasmantaṃ pātimokkhuddesaṃ ajjhesati, uddisatu āyasmā pātimokkha”nti vattabbaṃ. Taṃ kuto labbhati? Pāḷitoyeva. Pāḷiyañhi (mahāva. 155) “eteneva upāyena yāva saṅghanavakaṃ ajjhesanti uddisatu āyasmā pātimokkha”nti āgato. Tato “pātimokkhuddesakena sammajjanī…pe… pucchite dhammajjhesakena ’āma, bhante’ti vutte”ti idaṃ kuto labbhatīti? Pāḷito aṭṭhakathāto ca. Nidānapāḷiyampi hi “kiṃ saṅghassa pubbakicca”nti āgataṃ, aṭṭhakathāyampi (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) “kiṃ saṅghassa pubbakiccanti saṅgho uposathaṃ kareyyāti…pe… evaṃ dvīhi nāmehi navavidhaṃ pubbakiccaṃ dassitaṃ, kiṃ taṃ katanti pucchatī”ti āgatanti.
If, however, the Dhamma requester is more senior and the Pātimokkha reciter is junior, it should be said, “The Sangha, friend, requests the venerable one to recite the Pātimokkha; let the venerable one recite the Pātimokkha.” From where is this obtained? From the Pali text itself. For in the Pali (mahāva. 155), it is stated, “By this same method, they request even the most junior in the Sangha, ‘Recite the Pātimokkha, venerable one.’” Then, “By the Pātimokkha reciter, ‘Sweeping…’ upon asking, and the Dhamma requester saying, ‘Yes, venerable sir,’” from where is this obtained? From the Pali and the commentary. For even in the introductory Pali, it is stated, “What are the Sangha’s preliminary duties?” and in the commentary (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā), “What are the Sangha’s preliminary duties” means the Sangha should perform Uposatha… thus, nine preliminary duties are shown under two names, and it asks, “Have they been done?”
If, however, the one requesting the teaching is senior, and the reciter of the Pātimokkha is junior, he should say, “Venerable sir, the Sangha requests the venerable sir to recite the Pātimokkha. May the venerable sir recite the Pātimokkha.” Where is this obtained? From the Pāḷi itself. For in the Pāḷi (Mahāva. 155) it is stated, “In this very way, they request even the most junior member of the Sangha, ‘May the venerable sir recite the Pātimokkha.’” From where, then, is this obtained: “After the reciter of the Pātimokkha has swept…etc… when asked, the one requesting the teaching should say, ‘Yes, venerable sir’”? From the Pāḷi and the commentary. For in the Nidānapāḷi, it is stated, “What is the preliminary duty of the Sangha?” And in the commentary (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Nidānavaṇṇanā), it states, “‘What is the preliminary duty of the Sangha?’ means that the Sangha should perform the Uposatha…etc… Thus, by these two designations, a ninefold preliminary duty is shown. He asks, ‘Has it been done?’”
If, however, the one who requests the Dhamma is senior, and the one who recites the Pātimokkha is junior, it should be said, “Venerable, the Saṅgha requests the Venerable One to recite the Pātimokkha. May the Venerable One recite the Pātimokkha.” Where is this found? In the Pāli text itself. For in the Pāli (Mahāva. 155), it is stated, “In this way, they should request even the most junior member of the Saṅgha, ‘May the Venerable One recite the Pātimokkha.’” Then, where is it found that “the Pātimokkha reciter should sweep… and when asked by the Dhamma requester, he should say, ‘Yes, Venerable Sir’”? It is found in the Pāli and the commentary. For in the introductory Pāli, it is said, “What is the preliminary duty of the Saṅgha?” and in the commentary (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Nidānavanṇanā), it is explained, “What is the preliminary duty of the Saṅgha? The Saṅgha should perform the Uposatha… thus, with these two terms, nine types of preliminary duties are shown, and it is asked, ‘What has been done?’”
ID984
Nanu cetaṃ antonidāneyeva āgataṃ, atha kasmā pātimokkhuddesakena pubbabhāge vattabbanti? Saccaṃ, tathāpi tadanulomato jānitabbato vattabbaṃ. Aṭṭhakathāyañhi imā gāthāyo sammajjanādīnaṃ pubbakaraṇādibhāvañāpakabhāveneva vuttā, na pātimokkhārambhakāle bhaṇitabbabhāvena. Atha ca pana idāni bhaṇanti, evaṃ sante kimatthaṃ bhaṇantīti cintāyaṃ antonidāne “kiṃ saṅghassa pubbakicca”nti vuttapucchānulomena pubbakaraṇādīnaṃ niṭṭhabhāvapucchanatthaṃ bhaṇantīti jānitabbaṃ. Vuttañhi “evaṃ vuttaṃ catubbidhaṃ pubbakaraṇaṃ katvāva uposatho kātabbo”ti (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 177), tasmā pāḷiaṭṭhakathānulomato iminā anukkamena kate sati dhammajjhesako paññāyati, tassa ajjhesanākāro paññāyati, pātimokkhuddesako paññāyati, tassa pubbakaraṇādīnaṃ niṭṭhabhāvapucchanaṃ paññāyati, dhammajjhesakassa vissajjanaṃ paññāyati, tāni niṭṭhāpetvā pātimokkhuddesakassa pātimokkhaṃ uddisituṃ paṭiññā paññāyati, evaṃ imesaṃ gāthāvākyānaṃ vacane payojanaṃ paññāyatīti katvā paṇḍitehi vinayaññūhi cirapaṭicchanno ayaṃ kathāmaggo paṭipajjitabboti. Pavāraṇāyapi eseva nayo.
Is this not found only in the introduction? Then why should it be said by the Pātimokkha reciter at the beginning? True, yet it should be said as it is understood to be in accordance with that. For in the commentary, these verses are stated only as indicating the nature of preliminary actions like sweeping, not as something to be recited at the start of the Pātimokkha. Yet now they recite them; if so, for what purpose do they recite them? In considering this, it should be understood that they recite them in accordance with the question in the introduction, “What are the Sangha’s preliminary duties?” to inquire about the completion of the preliminary actions and duties. For it is said, “Having performed these four preliminary actions as stated, the Uposatha should be performed” (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 177). Thus, when done in this order in accordance with the Pali and commentary, the Dhamma requester is evident, the manner of his requesting is evident, the Pātimokkha reciter is evident, his inquiry about the completion of preliminary actions and duties is evident, the Dhamma requester’s response is evident, and the Pātimokkha reciter’s commitment to recite the Pātimokkha after their completion is evident. Thus, the purpose of reciting these verses and statements is evident, and so the wise who know the Vinaya should follow this long-concealed path of discussion. The same method applies to the Invitation.
But isn’t this stated within the introduction itself? Then why should the reciter of the Pātimokkha say it at the beginning? It is true, but nonetheless, because it is to be understood as conforming to that, it should be said. For in the commentary, these verses are stated only to indicate the nature of sweeping, etc., as preliminary actions, not as something to be recited at the beginning of the Pātimokkha. But if they now recite them, what is the purpose of reciting them? In contemplating this, it should be understood that they recite them in accordance with the question stated in the introduction, “What is the preliminary duty of the Sangha?”, in order to ask whether the preliminary actions, etc., have been completed. For it is said, “Having performed the fourfold preliminary duty thus stated, the Uposatha should be performed” (Vi. Saṅga. Aṭṭha. 177). Therefore, in accordance with the Pāḷi and the commentary, when this is done in this sequence, the one requesting the teaching becomes known, the manner of his request becomes known, the reciter of the Pātimokkha becomes known, his asking about the completion of the preliminary actions, etc., becomes known, the response of the one requesting the teaching becomes known, and the pledge of the reciter of the Pātimokkha to recite the Pātimokkha after completing those becomes known. Thus, the purpose of reciting these verses and sentences becomes known. Therefore, this method of discourse, established long ago by the wise who know the Vinaya, should be followed. The same principle applies to the Pavāraṇā.
But isn’t this already mentioned in the introduction? Why then should the Pātimokkha reciter be instructed beforehand? It is true, but it should be understood as being in accordance with that. For in the commentary, these verses are spoken in terms of the nature of the preliminary duties such as sweeping, not as something to be said at the time of beginning the Pātimokkha. Yet, they are now being recited. If so, for what purpose are they being recited? Upon reflection, it should be understood that they are being recited in accordance with the question asked in the introduction, “What is the preliminary duty of the Saṅgha?” to inquire about the completion of the preliminary duties. For it is said, “Having performed these fourfold preliminary duties, the Uposatha should be performed” (Vi. Saṅga. Aṭṭha. 177). Therefore, in accordance with the Pāli and the commentary, when these steps are followed, the Dhamma requester is recognized, his manner of requesting is recognized, the Pātimokkha reciter is recognized, his inquiry about the completion of the preliminary duties is recognized, the Dhamma requester’s response is recognized, and after completing these, the Pātimokkha reciter’s agreement to recite the Pātimokkha is recognized. Thus, the purpose of reciting these verses is understood. Therefore, wise and learned Vinaya experts should follow this long-concealed path of discussion. The same method applies to the Pavāraṇā.
ID985
Pāḷiyaṭṭhakathādīnañhi , anurūpaṃ imaṃ nayaṃ; Punappunaṃ cintayantu, paṇḍitā vinayaññuno.
Indeed, in accordance with the Pali, commentary, and so forth, let the wise who know the Vinaya repeatedly reflect on this method.
For this method is in accordance with the Pāḷi, commentaries, etc.; May the wise, who know the Vinaya, contemplate it again and again.
For in the Pāli and the commentaries, this method is appropriate; Let the wise and learned in the Vinaya reflect on it again and again.
ID986
Punappunaṃ cintayitvā, yuttaṃ ce dhārayantu taṃ; No ce yuttaṃ chaḍḍayantu, sammāsambuddhasāvakāti.
Having repeatedly reflected, if it is deemed proper, let them uphold it; if not proper, let them discard it, as disciples of the Perfectly Enlightened One.
Having contemplated it again and again, if it is suitable, retain it; If it is not suitable, discard it, O disciples of the Fully Enlightened One.
Having reflected again and again, let them hold to what is suitable; If it is not suitable, let them discard it, as disciples of the Fully Enlightened One.
ID987
Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is an explanation of the Vinaya compendium,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is adorned with the essence of the Vinaya,
ID988
Uposathapavāraṇāvinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma
The discussion on the determination of Uposatha and Invitation,
is the chapter called the Discourse on the Determination of the Uposatha and Pavāraṇā,
The chapter on the discussion of Uposatha and Pavāraṇā is concluded.
ID989
Pañcavīsatimo paricchedo.
The twenty-fifth chapter.
the twenty-fifth chapter.
This is the twenty-fifth chapter.
ID990
ID991
179. Evaṃ uposathapavāraṇāvinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni vassūpanāyikavinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ “vassūpanāyikāti ettha”tyādimāha. Tattha vasanaṃ vassaṃ. Kiṃ taṃ? Vasanakiriyā bhāvatthe ṇya-paccayavasena. Upanayanaṃ upanayo. Ko so? Upagamanakiriyā, vassassa upanayo vassūpanayo, so etissā paññattiyā atthi, tasmiṃ vā vijjatīti vassūpanāyikā. Kā sā? Vassūpanāyikapaññatti. Atha vā upanayati etāyāti upanāyikā majjhe dīghavasena. Vassassa upanāyikā vassūpanāyikā, sā eva pure bhavā purimā bhavatthe ima-paccayavasena, sā eva purimikā sakatthe ka-paccayavasena, tasmiṃ pare itthiliṅge a-kārassa i-kārādeso. Pacchā bhavā pacchimā, sāva pacchimikā.
179. Having explained the determination of Uposatha and Invitation, now to explain the determination of entering the rains, it begins with “Regarding entering the rains.” Here, vassaṃ means dwelling. What is it? The act of dwelling, with the suffix ṇya in the sense of state. Upanayo means approaching. What is it? The act of approaching; the approach to the rains is vassūpanayo, and this pertains to this designation or exists in it, hence vassūpanāyikā. What is it? The designation of entering the rains. Alternatively, that by which it approaches is upanāyikā with a lengthened middle vowel; that which approaches the rains is vassūpanāyikā, which is the earlier one, purimā, with the suffix ima in the sense of state, and that same is purimikā with the suffix ka in the sense of agent, where in the feminine gender the a is replaced by i. That which occurs later is pacchimā, and that same is pacchimikā.
179. Having thus explained the determination of the Uposatha and Pavāraṇā, he now begins, “Regarding ‘entering the rains residence’ (vassūpanāyikā), here…” to explain the determination of entering the rains residence. There, dwelling is vassa (rain). What is that? It is the act of dwelling, by means of the suffix ṇya in the sense of the action. Approaching is upanaya (entering). What is that? It is the act of going near. The approaching of the rains is vassūpanayo, it exists in or related to this precept, therefore it is vassūpanāyikā. What is that? The precept regarding entering the rains residence. Or, it leads to it, therefore it is upanāyikā, elongated in the middle. The entering the rains which is vassūpanāyikā, that which is earlier in the past is purimā (former) because of the suffix ima in the sense of past, that same one is purimikā (earlier) because of the suffix ka in the sense of agency, before a word which requires the feminine declension, the ‘a’ is changed to ‘i’. The later in the past is pacchimā, that very same is pacchimikā (later).
179. Having discussed the determination of Uposatha and Pavāraṇā, now the discussion on Vassūpanāyika is begun with the words, “Vassūpanāyika means here.” Herein, dwelling is vassa. What is that? The act of dwelling, in the sense of being, through the suffix -ṇa. Entering is upanaya. What is that? The act of approaching. The approaching of the rains is vassūpanaya, which exists in this designation, or is found in it, thus vassūpanāyika. What is that? The designation of Vassūpanāyika. Or, it is called upanāyikā due to the long vowel in the middle. The approaching of the rains is vassūpanāyikā, which is also called purimā in the sense of being prior, through the suffix -ima, and purimikā in its own sense, through the suffix -ka, with the substitution of -i for -a in the feminine gender. What comes later is pacchimā, and that is pacchimikā.
ID992
Assatiyā pana vassaṃ na upetīti “imasmiṃ vihāre imaṃ temāsaṃ vassaṃ upemī”ti vacībhedaṃ katvā na upeti. “Na, bhikkhave, asenāsanikena vassaṃ upagantabbaṃ, yo upagaccheyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 204) vacībhedaṃ katvā vassūpagamanaṃ sandhāya paṭikkhepo, na ālayakaraṇavasena upagamanaṃ sandhāyāti vadanti. Pāḷiyaṃ pana avisesena vuttattā aṭṭhakathāyañca dutiyapārājikasaṃvaṇṇanāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.84) “vassaṃ upagacchantena hi nālakapaṭipadaṃ paṭipannenapi pañcannaṃ chadanānaṃ aññatarena channeyeva sadvārabandhe senāsane upagantabbaṃ, tasmā vassakāle sace senāsanaṃ labhati, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ. No ce labhati, hatthakammaṃ pariyesitvāpi kātabbaṃ. Hatthakammaṃ alabhantena sāmampi kātabbaṃ, na tveva asenāsanikena vassaṃ upagantabba”nti (mahāva. 204) daḷhaṃ katvā vuttattā asenāsanikassa nāvādiṃ vinā aññattha ālayamattena upagantuṃ na vaṭṭatīti amhākaṃ khanti. Nāvāsatthavajesuyeva hi “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, nāvāya vassaṃ upagantu”ntiādinā (mahāva. 203) sati, asati vā senāsane vassūpagamanassa visuṃ anuññātattā “na, bhikkhave, asenāsanikena vassaṃ upagantabba”nti (mahāva. 204) ayaṃ paṭikkhepo. Tattha na labhatīti asati senāsane ālayavasenapi nāvādīsu upagamanaṃ vuttaṃ. Catūsu hi senāsanesu vihārasenāsanaṃ idhādhippetaṃ, na itarattayaṃ.
“But with mindfulness he does not enter the rains” means he does not enter after making a verbal declaration, “I will enter the rains in this monastery for these three months.” In the statement, “Monks, one without a lodging should not enter the rains; whoever does so commits an offense of wrongdoing” (mahāva. 204), the prohibition refers to entering the rains with a verbal declaration, not to entering by mere attachment, they say. However, since it is stated generally in the Pali, and in the commentary on the second pārājika (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.84), it is firmly stated, “Indeed, one entering the rains, even if not following the idle path, must enter a lodging with one of the five roofs and a securely fastened door; thus, during the rains, if one obtains a lodging, that is well. If not, one should seek manual labor to make it. If unable to find manual labor, one should do it oneself, but one should not enter the rains without a lodging” (mahāva. 204), it is our preference that one without a lodging should not enter elsewhere by mere attachment except by means of a boat or caravan. For only in the case of a boat or caravan is it specifically allowed, “I allow, monks, entering the rains by boat” (mahāva. 203), whether a lodging is present or not, due to the separate allowance for entering the rains. Thus, the prohibition, “Monks, one without a lodging should not enter the rains” (mahāva. 204), applies. “There he does not obtain” refers to entering by attachment in boats and the like when no lodging is available. Among the four types of lodgings, the monastery lodging is intended here, not the other three.
But one does not enter the rains without a dwelling. It means making the verbal declaration, “In this monastery, I enter the rains residence for these three months,” one does not enter. “Monks, one should not enter the rains residence without a dwelling place. Whoever enters, there is an offence of wrong-doing” (Mahāva. 204). This refers to the prohibition concerning entering the rains residence after making the verbal declaration, not to entering for the purpose of merely making a shelter, they say. But in the Pāḷi, since it is stated without distinction, and in the commentary, in the explanation of the second Pārājika (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1.84), it is stated: “Indeed, one who is entering the rains residence, even if he has undertaken the practice concerning the Nāḷaka tree, should enter a dwelling that is covered by one of the five coverings and has a properly closed door. Therefore, during the rainy season, if he obtains a dwelling, that is good. If he does not obtain one, he should even seek manual labor. One who does not obtain manual labor should even do it himself, but one should never enter the rains residence without a dwelling” (Mahāva. 204). Since it is stated firmly, it is not proper for one without a dwelling to enter anywhere other than a boat, etc., merely by making a shelter, this is our view. For it is only in the case of boats and caravans that it is stated, “I allow, monks, entering the rains residence in a boat,” etc. (Mahāva. 203), specifically allowing entering the rains residence whether there is a dwelling or not. Thus the prohibition, “Monks, one should not enter the rains residence without a dwelling” (Mahāva. 204). There he does not obtain, This means, entering even by means of shelter such as boat in the absence of the dwelling. Indeed, among the four dwellings, the monastery dwelling is intended here, not the other three.
However, one who is without a residence does not enter the rains, meaning one does not enter after making a verbal declaration, “I will enter the rains for these three months in this monastery.” “Monks, one who is without a residence should not enter the rains. If one does so, there is an offense of wrong conduct” (Mahāva. 204). This prohibition refers to entering the rains after making a verbal declaration, not to entering merely for the purpose of taking up residence. However, in the Pāli, it is stated generally, and in the commentary on the second Pārājika (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1.84), it is said, “One who enters the rains should enter a residence with a proper door, even if following the practice of Nālaka, using one of the five types of roofing. Therefore, during the rains, if one obtains a residence, that is good. If not, one should search for a hand-made shelter. If one cannot find a hand-made shelter, one should make a thatched hut. However, one should not enter the rains without a residence” (Mahāva. 204). Thus, it is firmly stated that one without a residence cannot enter the rains except in a boat. For in the case of boats, it is said, “I allow, monks, to enter the rains in a boat” (Mahāva. 203), and in the absence of a residence, entering the rains is separately allowed. Therefore, the prohibition, “Monks, one who is without a residence should not enter the rains” (Mahāva. 204), applies. Here, if one does not obtain, meaning if there is no residence, entering even in a boat is mentioned. Among the four types of residences, the monastery residence is intended here, not the other three.
ID993
Ṭaṅkitamañcādibhedā kuṭīti ettha ṭaṅkitamañco nāma dīghe mañcapāde majjhe vijjhitvā aṭaniyo pavesetvā kato mañco, tassa idaṃ upari, idaṃ heṭṭhāti natthi. Parivattetvā atthatopi tādisova hoti, taṃ susāne devaṭṭhāne ca ṭhapenti, catunnaṃ pāsāṇānaṃ upari pāsāṇaṃ attharitvā kataṃ gehampi “ṭaṅkitamañco”ti vuccati.
“A hut with a marked bed or similar division”—here, ṭaṅkitamañco means a bed made by piercing the middle of long bedposts and inserting crossbars, with no distinction of top or bottom; even when turned over, it remains the same. Such are placed in cemeteries or divine places, and a structure made by spreading a stone over four stones is also called ṭaṅkitamañco.
A hut with a variety of mortise-and-tenon beds, etc. Here, mortise-and-tenon bed (ṭaṅkitamañca) means a bed made by piercing long bed legs in the middle and inserting crossbars. It has no “above” or “below.” Even if turned over, it is the same from that side as well. It is placed in cemeteries and shrines. Even a house made by placing a stone slab on top of four stones is called a “mortise-and-tenon bed.”
A hut with a raised platform, etc., herein, a raised platform refers to a bed with long legs, pierced in the middle, with crossbars inserted, and made into a bed. It has no top or bottom. Even if turned over, it remains the same. Such beds are placed in cemeteries and shrines. A house made by placing a stone on top of four stones is also called a “raised platform.”
ID994
“Idha vassaṃ upemī”ti tikkhattuṃ vattabbanti satthassa avihārattā “imasmiṃ vihāre”ti avatvā “idha vassaṃ upemī”ti ettakameva vattabbaṃ. Satthe pana vassaṃ upagantuṃ na vaṭṭatīti kuṭikādīnaṃ abhāvena “idha vassaṃ upemī”ti vacībhedaṃ katvā upagantuṃ na vaṭṭati, ālayakaraṇamatteneva vaṭṭatīti adhippāyo. Vippakiratīti visuṃ visuṃ gacchati. Tīsu ṭhānesu natthi vassacchede āpattīti tehi saddhiṃ gacchantasseva natthi āpatti, tehi viyujjitvā gamane pana āpattiyeva, pavāretuñca na labhati.
“Here I will enter the rains” should be said three times—since it is not in the Teacher’s monastery, instead of saying “in this monastery,” only “Here I will enter the rains” should be said. “But it is not proper to enter the rains in a caravan” means that due to the absence of huts and the like, it is not proper to enter with a verbal declaration “Here I will enter the rains,” though it is permissible by mere attachment. “They scatter” means they go separately. “In three places there is no offense of breaking the rains” means there is no offense for one going with them; however, there is an offense if one goes apart from them, and one cannot perform the Invitation.
“I enter the rains residence here,” should be said three times. Because the teacher is not in the monastery, not saying “in this monastery,” only “I enter the rains residence here” should be said. But it is not proper to enter the rains residence in a caravan. The meaning is that because of the absence of huts, etc., it is not proper to enter after making the verbal declaration “I enter the rains residence here,” it is proper only by merely making a shelter. He wanders about. He goes here and there. In three places, there is no offense for breaking the rains residence. There is no offense only for one going with them, but if he goes separately from them, there is indeed an offense, and he cannot perform the Pavāraṇā.
“I will enter the rains here” should be said three times, meaning if the teacher is not in the monastery, instead of saying, “In this monastery,” one should say, “I will enter the rains here.” However, it is not permissible to enter the rains with the teacher, meaning if there are no huts, etc., it is not permissible to enter the rains after making a verbal declaration, “I will enter the rains here.” It is only permissible to take up residence. Scattered, meaning going separately. In three places, there is no offense of breaking the rains, meaning if one goes with them, there is no offense, but if one goes separately, there is an offense, and one cannot perform the Pavāraṇā.
ID995
Pavisanadvāraṃ yojetvāti sakavāṭabaddhameva yojetvā. Purimikāya…pe… na pakkamitabbāti iminā āsāḷhīpuṇṇamāya anantare pāṭipadadivase purimavassaṃ upagantvā vassānautuno catūsu māsesu sabbapacchimamāsaṃ ṭhapetvā purimaṃ temāsaṃ vasitabbaṃ. Sāvaṇapuṇṇamiyā anantare pāṭipadadivase pacchimavassaṃ upagantvā sabbapaṭhamamāsaṃ ṭhapetvā pacchimaṃ temāsaṃ vasitabbaṃ. Evaṃ avasitvā purimikāya vassaṃ upagatena bhikkhunā mahāpavāraṇāya anto aruṇaṃ anuṭṭhāpetvā pacchimikāya upagatena cātumāsinipavāraṇāya anto aruṇaṃ anuṭṭhāpetvā antarā cārikaṃ pakkameyya, upacārasīmātikkameyeva tassa bhikkhuno dukkaṭāpatti hotīti dasseti. Imamatthaṃ pāḷiyā samatthetuṃ “na bhikkhave…pe… vacanato”ti vuttaṃ. Yadi evaṃ vassaṃ upagantvā sati karaṇīye pakkamantassa sabbathāpi āpattiyeva siyāti codanaṃ sandhāyāha “vassaṃ upagantvā panā”tiādi. Evaṃ sante tadaheva sattāhakaraṇīyena pakkamantasseva anāpatti siyā, na dvīhatīhaṃ vasitvā pakkamantassāti āha “ko pana vādo”tiādi.
“Connecting the entrance door” means connecting it with its own fastened panel. “From the earlier… one should not depart” indicates that having entered the earlier rains on the day after the full moon of Āsāḷhī, one should dwell for the three earlier months among the four months of the rainy season, excluding the very last month. Having entered the later rains on the day after the full moon of Sāvaṇa, one should dwell for the three later months, excluding the very first month. Thus, a monk who has entered the earlier rains and dwelt so should not set out on a journey within the Invitation of the Great Pavāraṇā before the dawn rises, and one who has entered the later rains should not do so within the Invitation of the four months before the dawn rises; if he crosses the boundary of the proximate area, that monk incurs an offense of wrongdoing. To confirm this meaning with the Pali, it is said, “Monks… from the statement.” If so, there might be an objection that one who enters the rains and departs for some business would always incur an offense; addressing this, it says, “But having entered the rains” and so forth. If so, there would be no offense only for one departing on the same day for a seven-day business, not for one dwelling two or three days and then departing; thus it says, “What more to say” and so forth.
Having closed the entrance door, having closed the one with the door. On the earlier…etc… one should not depart. By this it is shown that having entered the earlier rains residence on the day after the full moon day of Āsāḷhī, having resided for the first three months out of the four months of the rainy season, leaving aside the last month, one should reside. Having entered the later rains residence on the day after the full moon day of Sāvaṇa, leaving aside the first month, one should reside for the last three months. If a bhikkhu, having entered the earlier rains residence, does not reside thus, and departs on a journey before the dawn of the Mahāpavāraṇā, and one who entered the later rains departs on a journey before the dawn of the Catumāsini Pavāraṇā, for that bhikkhu, there is an offense of wrong-doing as soon as he crosses the boundary of the dwelling place. To support this point from the Pāḷi, it is stated, “Monks…etc… from the statement.” If, having thus entered the rains residence, there would be an offense in every way for one who departs with a necessary reason, with regard to that challenge, he says, “Having entered the rains, however…” etc. In this case, there would be no offense only for one who departs on that very day with a seven-day business, but not for one who departs after residing for two or three days. He says, “What need is there to say…” etc.
Having fastened the entrance door, meaning having fastened one’s own door. In the early… one should not depart, meaning having entered the early rains immediately after the Āsāḷhī full moon, one should dwell for the first three months, excluding the last month of the four months of the rains. Having entered the late rains immediately after the Sāvaṇa full moon, one should dwell for the last three months, excluding the first month. If, after not dwelling thus, a monk who has entered the early rains departs on a journey without waiting for the dawn of the Mahāpavāraṇā, or a monk who has entered the late rains departs without waiting for the dawn of the Cātumāsinī Pavāraṇā, there is an offense of wrong conduct for that monk only if he crosses the boundary. To explain this meaning, it is said in the Pāli, “Monks, one should not… from the statement.” If, after entering the rains, one departs for some necessary reason, there would be an offense in every case. Therefore, it is said, “Having entered the rains, however…” and so on. If so, then if one departs on the same day for a seven-day necessity, there is no offense, but if one departs after dwelling for two or three days, there is an offense. Therefore, it is said, “What need is there to say more?” and so on.
ID996
180. Idāni sattāhakaraṇīyalakkhaṇaṃ vitthārato dassetuṃ “anujānāmi bhikkhave”tiādimāha. Tattha “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, sattannaṃ sattāhakaraṇīyena pahite gantuṃ, na tveva appahite, bhikkhussa bhikkhuniyā sikkhamānāya sāmaṇerassa sāmaṇeriyā upāsakassa upāsikāyā”ti (mahāva. 187) ekaṃ, “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, sattannaṃ sattāhakaraṇīyena appahitepi gantuṃ, pageva pahite, bhikkhussa bhikkhuniyā sikkhamānāya sāmaṇerassa sāmaṇeriyā mātuyā ca pitussa cā”ti (mahāva. 198) ekaṃ, “sace pana bhikkhuno bhātā vā añño vā ñātako gilāno hotī”ti ekaṃ, “ekasmiṃ vihāre bhikkhūhi saddhiṃ vasanto bhikkhubhattiko”ti ekaṃ, “sace bhikkhussa…pe… anabhirati vā kukkuccaṃ vā diṭṭhigataṃ vā uppannaṃ hotī”ti ekaṃ, “koci bhikkhu garudhammaṃ ajjhāpanno hoti parivāsāraho”ti ekaṃ, “bhikkhuniyāpi mānattārahāyā”ti ekaṃ, “sāmaṇero upasampajjitukāmo…pe… sikkhamānā vā…pe… sāmaṇerī vā”ti ekaṃ, “bhikkhussa bhikkhuniyā vā saṅgho kammaṃ kattukāmo tajjanīyaṃ vā”ti ekaṃ, “sacepi kataṃyeva hoti kamma”nti ekaṃ, “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, saṅghakaraṇīyena gantu”nti (mahāva. 199) ekanti ekādasa ṭhānāni honti. Tattha paṭhamatatiyacatutthavasena tīsu ṭhānesu pahite eva gantabbaṃ, no appahite. Sesesu aṭṭhasu appahitepi gantabbaṃ, pageva pahite. Vuttañhi vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.199) “gantabbanti saṅghakaraṇīyena appahitepi gantabba”nti. Ettha ca anupāsakehipi sāsanabhāvaṃ ñātukāmehi pahite tesaṃ pasādavaḍḍhisampattehipi sattāhakaraṇīyena gantuṃ vaṭṭatīti gahetabbaṃ. Bhikkhubhattikoti bhikkhunissitako. So pana yasmā bhikkhūhi saddhiṃ vasati, tasmā vuttaṃ “bhikkhūhi saddhiṃ vasanto”ti.
180. Now, to explain the characteristics of the seven-day business in detail, it begins with “I allow, monks” and so forth. Therein, “I allow, monks, seven to go when sent on a seven-day business, but not if unsent: a monk, a nun, a female trainee, a male novice, a female novice, a male lay follower, a female lay follower” (mahāva. 187) is one; “I allow, monks, seven to go on a seven-day business even if unsent, and certainly if sent: a monk, a nun, a female trainee, a male novice, a female novice, and one’s mother and father” (mahāva. 198) is one; “If a monk’s brother or another relative is ill” is one; “A monk living with monks in one monastery dependent on monks” is one; “If a monk… has discontent, anxiety, or a view arisen” is one; “A monk has committed a grave offense worthy of probation” is one; “A nun worthy of penance” is one; “A male novice desiring ordination… a female trainee… a female novice” is one; “The Sangha wishes to perform an act against a monk or nun, such as censure” is one; “If the act has already been performed” is one; “I allow, monks, going for Sangha business” (mahāva. 199) is one—making eleven cases. In the first, third, and fourth cases, one may go only if sent, not if unsent. In the remaining eight, one may go even if unsent, and certainly if sent. For it is said in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.199), “May go” means one may go for Sangha business even if unsent. Here, it should be understood that even by non-lay followers who wish to know the state of the teaching, if sent by those whose confidence increases, it is permissible to go on a seven-day business. “Dependent on monks” means reliant on monks. Since he lives with monks, it is said, “Living with monks.”
180. Now, to show the characteristics of the seven-day business in detail, he says, “I allow, monks…” etc. There, “I allow, monks, to go when sent on a seven-day business of seven, but not when unsent, of a bhikkhu, a bhikkhunī, a sikkhamānā, a sāmaṇera, a sāmaṇerī, a male lay follower, a female lay follower” (Mahāva. 187) is one. “I allow, monks, to go even when unsent on a seven-day business of seven, what to say of when sent, of a bhikkhu, a bhikkhunī, a sikkhamānā, a sāmaṇera, a sāmaṇerī, of a mother and of a father” (Mahāva. 198) is one. “If a bhikkhu has a brother or another relative who is ill” is one. “Residing with bhikkhus in a monastery, dependent on bhikkhus” is one. “If a bhikkhu…etc… experiences discontent, or scruples, or wrong views” is one. “A certain bhikkhu has committed a grave offense, and is deserving of probation” is one. “For a bhikkhunī also who is deserving of mānatta (discipline)” is one. “A sāmaṇera desiring to be ordained…etc… or a sikkhamānā…etc… or a sāmaṇerī” is one. “The Sangha desires to perform an act towards a bhikkhu or a bhikkhunī, a tajjanīya (reprimand) or” is one. “Even if the act has already been done” is one. “I allow, monks, to go on Sangha business” (Mahāva. 199) is one. Thus, there are eleven instances. Among them, in the first, third, and fourth instances, one should go only when sent, not when unsent. In the remaining eight, one should go even when unsent, what to say of when sent. It is stated in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.199), “One should go:** on Sangha business, one should go even when unsent.” And here, it should be understood that even non-male lay followers, desiring to know the teaching, when sent, with the increase of their faith and attainment, may go on a seven-day business. Dependent on bhikkhus (bhikkhubhattiko)** means one who is reliant on bhikkhus. Because he resides with bhikkhus, it is said, “Residing with bhikkhus.”
180. Now, to explain in detail the characteristics of a seven-day necessity, it is said, “I allow, monks…” and so on. Herein, “I allow, monks, to go for a seven-day necessity for seven reasons, but not without a necessity: for a monk, a nun, a female probationer, a male novice, a female novice, a layman, or a laywoman” (Mahāva. 187) is one. “I allow, monks, to go for a seven-day necessity even without a necessity, let alone with a necessity: for a monk, a nun, a female probationer, a male novice, a female novice, a mother, or a father” (Mahāva. 198) is another. “If a monk’s brother or another relative is sick” is another. “A monk living in a monastery with other monks” is another. “If a monk… dissatisfaction, worry, or wrong view arises” is another. “A monk who has committed a grave offense deserving probation” is another. “A nun deserving penance” is another. “A novice wishing to receive higher ordination… or a female probationer… or a female novice” is another. “If the Saṅgha wishes to perform an act against a monk or nun, such as a censure” is another. “Even if the act has already been performed” is another. “I allow, monks, to go for a Saṅgha necessity” (Mahāva. 199) is another. Thus, there are eleven cases. Herein, in the first, third, and fourth cases, one should go only with a necessity, not without. In the remaining eight cases, one may go even without a necessity, let alone with one. For it is said in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.199), “One should go** even without a necessity for a Saṅgha necessity.” Herein, even for those who are not lay followers, if they wish to understand the nature of the teaching, and if their faith increases, it is permissible to go for a seven-day necessity. Dependent on monks, meaning dependent on monks. Since he lives with monks, it is said, “Living with monks.”**
ID997
181. Apicetthāti apica etthāti chedo, ettha etasmiṃ sattāhakaraṇīyavinicchaye apica aparo ayaṃ īdiso pāḷimuttakanayo vassūpanāyikakkhandhakapāḷito mutto nayo veditabboti yojanā. Samantapāsādikāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 199) pana “pāḷimuttakaratticchedavinicchayo”ti dissati. Tathā hi vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.199) “ratticchedavinicchayoti sattāhakaraṇīyena gantvā bahiddhā aruṇuṭṭhāpanasaṅkhātassa ratticchedassa vinicchayo”ti. Sāratthadīpaniyampi (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.199) “sattāhakaraṇīyena gantvā bahiddhā aruṇuṭṭhāpanaṃ ratticchedo”ti. Animantitena gantuṃ na vaṭṭatīti ettha animantitattā sattāhakiccaṃ adhiṭṭhahitvā gacchantassapi vassacchedo ceva dukkaṭañca hotīti veditabbaṃ. Yathāvuttañhi ratticchedakāraṇaṃ vinā tirovihāre vasitvā āgamissāmīti gacchato vassacchedaṃ vadanti. Gantuṃ vaṭṭatīti antoupacārasīmāyaṃ ṭhiteneva sattāhakaraṇīyanimittaṃ sallakkhetvā iminā nimittena gantvā “sattāhabbhantare āgacchissāmī”ti ābhogaṃ katvā gantuṃ vaṭṭati. Purimakkhaṇe ābhogaṃ katvā gamanakkhaṇe visaritvā gatepi doso natthi, “sakaraṇīyo pakkamatī”ti (mahāva. 207) vuttattā sabbathā ābhogaṃ akatvā gatassa vassacchedoti vadanti. Yo pana sattāhakaraṇīyanimittābhāvepi “sattāhabbhantare āgamissāmī”ti ābhogaṃ katvā gantvā sattāhabbhantare āgacchati, tassa āpattiyeva, vassacchedo natthi sattāhassa sannivattattāti vadanti, vīmaṃsitvā gahetabbaṃ.
181. “Moreover here”—breaking it as “moreover here,” it means in this determination of the seven-day business, there is another method apart from the Pali, a method free from the Pali of the Vassūpanāyikakkhandhaka, to be understood as such. However, in the Samantapāsādikā (mahāva. aṭṭha. 199), it appears as “determination of breaking the nights apart from the Pali.” Indeed, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.199), “Determination of breaking the nights” means the determination of breaking the nights, reckoned as raising the dawn outside, after going on a seven-day business. In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.199), “Raising the dawn outside after going on a seven-day business is breaking the nights.” “It is not proper to go without being invited”—here, since he is not invited, even if he resolves the seven-day duty and goes, it should be understood that there is both a breaking of the rains and an offense of wrongdoing. For it is said that one who goes to dwell elsewhere, thinking “I will return,” without a reason for breaking the nights, incurs a breaking of the rains. “It is proper to go”—standing within the proximate boundary, observing the reason for the seven-day business and mentally resolving, “I will return within seven days with this reason,” it is proper to go. There is no fault even if one resolves earlier but forgets at the moment of going, since it is said, “He departs for his own business” (mahāva. 207); however, they say that one who goes without any resolve at all incurs a breaking of the rains. But one who, without a reason for the seven-day business, resolves, “I will return within seven days,” goes, and returns within seven days, incurs an offense but not a breaking of the rains, due to returning within seven days, they say—this should be examined and accepted.
181. And here (apicetthā): The breakdown is ‘api ca ettha’. Here, in this determination of the seven-day business, and also (api ca) another such method free from Pāḷi, a method separate from the Pāḷi of the Vassūpanāyikakkhandhaka, should be known, this is the connection. But in the Samantapāsādikā (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 199), it is seen as “the determination of the breaking of the night, free from the Pāḷi.” Thus, in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.199), “The determination of the breaking of the night (ratticchedavinicchayo)** is the determination of the breaking of the night, which is the arising of the dawn outside, after going on a seven-day business.” In the Sāratthadīpanī also (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.199), “The arising of the dawn outside, after going on a seven-day business, is the breaking of the night.” It is not proper to go uninvited.** Here, because of being uninvited, even for one who goes after determining a seven-day business, there is both a breaking of the rains residence and an offense of wrong-doing, it should be understood. For it is said that there is a breaking of the rains residence for one who goes, saying, “I will come,” residing in another monastery, without the stated reason for breaking the night. It is proper to go. Having determined the reason for the seven-day business while remaining within the boundary of the dwelling place, having made a mental determination, “I will return within seven days,” having gone for this reason, it is proper to go. Even if he makes the mental determination at the previous moment and forgets it at the moment of going, there is no fault, because it is stated, “He departs with a reason” (Mahāva. 207). It is said that there is a breaking of the rains residence for one who goes without making a mental determination at all. But if one, even in the absence of a reason for a seven-day business, makes a mental determination, “I will return within seven days,” and goes and returns within seven days, there is indeed an offense, but there is no breaking of the rains residence because he returns within seven days, they say. This should be examined and understood.
181. Moreover here, meaning moreover in this discussion on the seven-day necessity, another method, extracted from the Pāli of the Vassūpanāyika chapter, should be understood. In the Samantapāsādikā (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 199), however, it is seen as “the determination of the cutting off of the night.” For in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.199), “The determination of the cutting off of the night** refers to the determination of the cutting off of the night, which is the not waiting for dawn after going outside for a seven-day necessity.” In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.199) as well, “Going outside for a seven-day necessity and not waiting for dawn is the cutting off of the night.” It is not permissible to go without being invited, meaning even if one goes after resolving to attend to a seven-day necessity, there is both the breaking of the rains and an offense of wrong conduct. For as stated, without the reason of cutting off the night, if one goes saying, “I will return after staying in a neighboring monastery,” they say the rains are broken. It is permissible to go**, meaning while staying within the boundary, one should observe the sign of a seven-day necessity and go with the intention, “I will return within seven days.” If one resolves at the beginning but forgets at the time of going, there is no fault, for it is said, “One departs with a necessity” (Mahāva. 207). However, if one goes without any resolve at all, they say the rains are broken. But if one goes without the sign of a seven-day necessity but with the resolve, “I will return within seven days,” and returns within seven days, there is an offense, but the rains are not broken, as the seven days have not elapsed. This should be carefully considered.
ID998
Bhaṇḍakanti cīvarabhaṇḍaṃ. Pahiṇantīti cīvaradhovanādikammena pahiṇanti. Sampāpuṇituṃ na sakkoti, vaṭṭatīti ettha “ajjeva āgamissāmī”ti sāmantavihāraṃ gantvā puna āgacchantassa antarāmagge sace aruṇuggamanaṃ hoti, vassacchedopi na hoti, ratticchedadukkaṭañca natthīti vadanti, tadaheva āgamane saussāhattā vassacchedo vā āpatti vā na hotīti adhippāyo. Ācariyaṃ passissāmīti pana gantuṃ labhatīti “agilānampi ācariyaṃ, upajjhāyaṃ vā passissāmī”ti sattāhakaraṇīyena gantuṃ labhati, nissayācariyaṃ dhammācariyañca, pageva upasampadācariyaupajjhāye. Sace naṃ ācariyo “ajja mā gacchā”ti vadati, vaṭṭatīti evaṃ sattāhakaraṇīyena āgatānaṃ antosattāheyeva puna āgacchantaṃ sace ācariyo, upajjhāyo vā “ajja mā gacchā”ti vadati, vaṭṭati, sattāhātikkamepi anāpattīti adhippāyo. Vassacchedo pana hotiyevāti daṭṭhabbaṃ sattāhassa bahiddhā vītināmitattā.
“Possessions” means robe possessions. “They send” means they send for tasks like washing robes. “If he cannot reach, it is proper”—here, they say that if one goes to a neighboring monastery thinking “I will return today” and dawn rises en route while returning, there is neither a breaking of the rains nor an offense of wrongdoing for breaking the nights, since returning on the same day is feasible, so there is no breaking of the rains or offense. “He may go to see the teacher”—he may go on a seven-day business to see even a healthy teacher or preceptor, including a disciplinary teacher or Dhamma teacher, and certainly an ordination teacher or preceptor. “If the teacher says, ‘Do not go today,’ it is proper”—if the teacher or preceptor says to those who came on a seven-day business, “Do not go today,” it is proper to stay even beyond seven days without offense; however, it should be understood that there is a breaking of the rains due to spending time beyond seven days outside.
Bundle (bhaṇḍaka) means a bundle of robes. They send (pahiṇanti) means they send with the task of washing robes, etc. He is unable to reach, it is proper. Here, it is said that if the dawn arises on the way while one is returning after going to a nearby monastery saying, “I will return today,” there is neither a breaking of the rains residence nor an offense of wrong-doing for breaking the night. The meaning is that because of the effort to return on that very day, there is neither a breaking of the rains residence nor an offense. But he is allowed to go to see his teacher. He is allowed to go on a seven-day business to see even a non-ill teacher or preceptor, a teacher for dependence and a Dhamma teacher, what to say of an ordination teacher and preceptor. If the teacher says to him, “Do not go today,” it is proper. If a teacher or preceptor says to those who have come on a seven-day business and are returning within seven days, “Do not go today,” it is proper, the meaning is that there is no offense even if the seven days are exceeded. But it should be understood that there is indeed a breaking of the rains residence because the seven days have passed outside.
Robes, meaning robe material. Sending, meaning sending for the purpose of washing robes, etc. Unable to reach, it is permissible, meaning if one goes to a neighboring monastery saying, “I will return today,” and on the way back, if dawn breaks, there is no breaking of the rains, nor is there an offense of cutting off the night. If one returns on the same day, due to the effort, there is no breaking of the rains or an offense. However, it is permissible to go to see the teacher, meaning even if the teacher is not sick, one may go for a seven-day necessity to see the teacher or preceptor, let alone the preceptor for higher ordination. If the teacher says, “Do not go today,” it is permissible, meaning if one who has come for a seven-day necessity returns within seven days, and if the teacher or preceptor says, “Do not go today,” it is permissible, and there is no offense even if the seven days are exceeded. However, the rains are broken, as the seven days have passed outside.
ID999
Sace dūraṃ gato sattāhavārena aruṇo uṭṭhāpetabboti iminā vassacchedakāraṇe sati sattāhakaraṇīyena gantumpi vaṭṭatīti dīpeti. Ettha cha divasāni bahiddhā vītināmetvā sattame divase purāruṇā eva antoupacārasīmāyaṃ pavisitvā aruṇaṃ uṭṭhāpetvā punadivase sattāhaṃ adhiṭṭhāya gantabbanti adhippāyo. Keci pana “sattame divase āgantvā aruṇaṃ anuṭṭhāpetvā tadaheva divasabhāgepi gantuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vadanti, taṃ na gahetabbaṃ “aruṇo uṭṭhāpetabbo”ti vuttattā. Sattame divase tattha aruṇuṭṭhāpanameva hi sandhāya pāḷiyaṃ (mahāva. 199) “sattāhaṃ sannivatto kātabbo”ti vuttaṃ. Aruṇaṃ anuṭṭhāpetvā gacchanto ca anto appavisitvā bahiddhāva sattāhaṃ vītināmento ca samucchinnavasso eva bhavissati aruṇassa bahi eva uṭṭhāpitattā. Itarathā “aruṇo uṭṭhāpetabbo”ti vacanaṃ niratthakaṃ siyā. “Sattāhavārena antovihāre pavisitvā aruṇaṃ anuṭṭhāpetvā gantabba”nti vattabbato aññesu ca ṭhānesu aruṇuṭṭhāpanameva vuccati. Vakkhati hi cīvarakkhandhake (mahāva. aṭṭha. 364) “ekasmiṃ vihāre vasanto itarasmiṃ sattāhavārena aruṇameva uṭṭhāpetī”ti.
If he has gone far, the dawn should be raised within seven days—by this, it is indicated that when there is a reason for interrupting the rains retreat, it is permissible to go for a seven-day task. Here, the intent is that after spending six days outside, on the seventh day, before dawn, one should enter within the boundary of the monastery precinct and raise the dawn, then determine to go again for seven days on the following day. However, some say, “Having returned on the seventh day, it is permissible to go again even during the daytime without raising the dawn,” but this should not be accepted because it is said, “the dawn should be raised.” Indeed, it is with reference to raising the dawn there on the seventh day that the text (mahāva. 199) states, “he should be settled for seven days.” One who goes without raising the dawn, or who spends seven days entirely outside without entering, will have his rains retreat interrupted because the dawn was raised outside. Otherwise, the statement “the dawn should be raised” would be meaningless. Since it should be said, “Having entered the monastery within seven days, one may go without raising the dawn,” and since raising the dawn is mentioned in other contexts as well, it is stated in the Cīvarakkhandhaka (mahāva. aṭṭha. 364), “A monk residing in one monastery raises only the dawn in another within seven days.”
Sace dūraṃ gato sattāhavārena aruṇo uṭṭhāpetabboti iminā vassacchedakāraṇe sati sattāhakaraṇīyena gantumpi vaṭṭatīti dīpeti. Ettha cha divasāni bahiddhā vītināmetvā sattame divase purāruṇā eva antoupacārasīmāyaṃ pavisitvā aruṇaṃ uṭṭhāpetvā punadivase sattāhaṃ adhiṭṭhāya gant பயன்படுத்திbantīti adhippāyo. Keci pana “sattame divase āgantvā aruṇaṃ anuṭṭhāpetvā tadaheva divasabhāgepi gantuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vadanti, taṃ na gahetabbaṃ “aruṇo uṭṭhāpetabbo”ti vuttattā. Sattame divase tattha aruṇuṭṭhāpanameva hi sandhāya pāḷiyaṃ (mahāva. 199) “sattāhaṃ sannivatto kātabbo”ti vuttaṃ. Aruṇaṃ anuṭṭhāpetvā gacchanto ca anto appavisitvā bahiddhāva sattāhaṃ vītināmento ca samucchinnavasso eva bhavissati aruṇassa bahi eva uṭṭhāpitattā. Itarathā “aruṇo uṭṭhāpetabbo”ti vacanaṃ niratthakaṃ siyā. “Sattāhavārena antovihāre pavisitvā aruṇaṃ anuṭṭhāpetvā gantabba”nti vattabbato aññesu ca ṭhānesu aruṇuṭṭhāpanameva vuccati. Vakkhati hi cīvarakkhandhake (mahāva. aṭṭha. 364) “ekasmiṃ vihāre vasanto itarasmiṃ sattāhavārena aruṇameva uṭṭhāpetī”ti.
If one has gone far, the dawn should be raised within seven days—this indicates that even when the rains residence is interrupted, it is permissible to go for a seven-day purpose. Here, after spending six days outside, on the seventh day before dawn, one should enter the boundary of the monastery, raise the dawn, and then resolve to stay for another seven days. Some, however, say, “On the seventh day, one may return and, without raising the dawn, depart even on that same day.” This should not be accepted, because it is stated, “The dawn should be raised.” The raising of the dawn on the seventh day is indeed what is referred to in the text (Mahāva. 199) as “one should return within seven days.” If one departs without raising the dawn and does not enter the boundary, spending the seven days outside, the rains residence is indeed broken, as the dawn was raised outside. Otherwise, the statement “the dawn should be raised” would be meaningless. It should be said, “One should enter the monastery within seven days, raise the dawn, and then depart.” In other places as well, the raising of the dawn is mentioned. For instance, in the Cīvarakkhandhaka (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 364), it is said, “While staying in one monastery, one raises the dawn in another within seven days.”
ID1000
Athāpi yaṃ te vadeyyuṃ “sattame divase yadā kadāci paviṭṭhena taṃdivasanissito atītāruṇo uṭṭhāpito nāma hotīti imamatthaṃ sandhāya aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vutta”nti, taṃ saddagatiyāpi na sameti. Na hi uṭṭhite aruṇe pacchā paviṭṭho tassa payojako uṭṭhāpako bhavitumarahati. Yadi bhaveyya, “vassaṃ upagantvā pana aruṇaṃ anuṭṭhāpetvā tadaheva sattāhakaraṇīyena pakkamantassā”pīti (mahāva. aṭṭha. 207) ettha “aruṇaṃ anuṭṭhāpetvā”ti vacanaṃ virujjheyya. Tenapi taṃdivasanissitassa aruṇassa uṭṭhāpitattā āraññakassapi bhikkhuno sāyanhasamaye aṅgayuttaṃ araññaṃ gantvā tadā eva nivattantassa aruṇo uṭṭhāpito dhutaṅgañca visodhitaṃ siyā, na cetaṃ yuttaṃ aruṇuggamanakāle eva aruṇuṭṭhāpanassa vuttattā. Vuttañhi “kālasseva pana nikkhamitvā aṅgayutte ṭhāne aruṇaṃ uṭṭhāpetabbaṃ. Sace aruṇuṭṭhānavelāyaṃ tesaṃ ābādho vaḍḍhati, tesaṃ eva kiccaṃ kātabbaṃ, na dhutaṅgavisuddhikena bhavitabba”nti (visuddhi. 1.31). Tathā pārivāsikādīnampi aruṇaṃ anuṭṭhāpetvā vattaṃ nikkhipantānaṃ ratticchedo vutto. “Uggate aruṇe nikkhipitabba”nti (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 97) hi vuttaṃ. Sahaseyyasikkhāpadepi anupasampannehi saha nivutthabhāvaparimocanatthaṃ “purāruṇā nikkhamitvā”tiādi (pāci. 54) vuttaṃ. Evaṃ cīvaravippavāsādīsu ca sabbattha rattipariyosāne āgāmiaruṇavaseneva aruṇuṭṭhānaṃ dassitaṃ, na atītāruṇavasena, tasmā vuttanayenevettha aruṇuṭṭhāpanaṃ veditabbaṃ aññathā vassacchedattā.
Even if they were to say, “In the commentary, it is stated with the meaning that when someone enters on the seventh day at any time, the dawn related to that day is considered raised,” this does not align with the nature of language. For one who enters after the dawn has risen cannot be the agent or raiser of it. If it were so, the statement in (mahāva. aṭṭha. 207), “Having entered the rains retreat but departing on that very day for a seven-day task without raising the dawn,” where it says “without raising the dawn,” would be contradicted. Thus, because the dawn related to that day is raised, even for a forest-dwelling monk who goes to a forest connected with a limb in the evening and returns that same day, the dawn would be considered raised and his ascetic practice purified, which is not reasonable since raising the dawn is specified at the time of dawn’s emergence. It is said, “Having departed early and raised the dawn at a place connected with a limb, if their illness increases at the time of raising the dawn, only their needs should be attended to, not the purification of ascetic practices” (visuddhi. 1.31). Likewise, for those under probation and others, an interruption of the night is stated if they abandon their duties without raising the dawn. It is said, “It should be abandoned when the dawn has risen” (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 97). In the training rule on cohabitation, too, to be free from having stayed with unordained persons, it is stated, “Having departed before dawn” and so forth (pāci. 54). Thus, in matters like the absence of robes and elsewhere, raising the dawn is consistently shown to occur at the end of the night with the coming dawn, not with a past dawn. Therefore, raising the dawn here should be understood as stated, otherwise it would lead to an interruption of the rains retreat.
Athāpi yaṃ te vadeyyuṃ “sattame divase yadā kadāci paviṭṭhena taṃdivasanissito atītāruṇo uṭṭhāpito nāma hotīti imamatthaṃ sandhāya aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vutta”nti, taṃ saddagatiyāpi na sameti. Na hi uṭṭhite aruṇe pacchā paviṭṭho tassa payojako uṭṭhāpako bhavitumarahati. Yadi bhaveyya, “vassaṃ upagantvā pana aruṇaṃ anuṭṭhāpetvā tadaheva sattāhakaraṇīyena pakkamantassā”pīti (mahāva. aṭṭha. 207) ettha “aruṇaṃ anuṭṭhāpetvā”ti vacanaṃ virujjheyya. Tenapi taṃdivasanissitassa aruṇassa uṭṭhāpitattā āraññakassapi bhikkhuno sāyanhasamaye aṅgayuttaṃ araññaṃ gantvā tadā eva nivattantassa aruṇo uṭṭhāpito dhutaṅgañca visodhitaṃ siyā, na cetaṃ yuttaṃ aruṇuggamanakāle eva aruṇuṭṭhāpanassa vuttattā. Vuttañhi “kālasseva pana nikkhamitvā aṅgayutte ṭhāne aruṇaṃ uṭṭhāpetabbaṃ. Sace aruṇuṭṭhānavelāyaṃ tesaṃ ābādho vaḍḍhati, tesaṃ eva kiccaṃ kātabbaṃ, na dhutaṅgavisuddhikena bhavitabba”nti (visuddhi. 1.31). Tathā pārivāsikādīnampi aruṇaṃ anuṭṭhāpetvā vattaṃ nikkhipantānaṃ ratticchedo vutto. “Uggate aruṇe nikkhipitabba”nti (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 97) hi vuttaṃ. Sahaseyyasikkhāpadepi anupasampannehi saha nivutthabhāvaparimocanatthaṃ “purāruṇā nikkhamitvā”tiādi (pāci. 54) vuttaṃ. Evaṃ cīvaravippavāsādīsu ca sabbattha rattipariyosāne āgāmiaruṇavaseneva aruṇuṭṭhānaṃ dassitaṃ, na atītāruṇavasena, tasmā vuttanayenevettha aruṇuṭṭhāpanaṃ veditabbaṃ aññathā vassacchedattā.
Furthermore, if they say, “On the seventh day, whenever one enters, the dawn is considered raised based on that day,” this does not align even with common sense. For one who raises the dawn after entering cannot be considered the one who raised it. If that were the case, the statement (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 207), “Having entered the rains residence, one may depart on the same day without raising the dawn for a seven-day purpose,” would contradict the instruction to raise the dawn. Therefore, even for a forest-dwelling monk who goes to a suitable forest in the evening and returns that same day, the dawn is considered raised, and his ascetic practice is purified. However, this is not appropriate, as the raising of the dawn is specifically mentioned at the time of dawn. It is said, “One should go out at the proper time and raise the dawn in a suitable place. If their illness worsens at the time of raising the dawn, they should attend to their needs and not be concerned with purifying their ascetic practice” (Visuddhi. 1.31). Similarly, for those on probation, etc., who suspend their duties without raising the dawn, the breaking of the night is mentioned. It is said, “One should suspend after the dawn has risen” (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 97). In the Sahaseyya Sikkhāpada as well, for the purpose of releasing those who have not yet been fully ordained, it is said, “One should go out before dawn,” etc. (Pāci. 54). Thus, in cases such as robe distribution, etc., the raising of the dawn is shown to be at the end of the night, not after the dawn has passed. Therefore, the raising of the dawn should be understood in this way; otherwise, the rains residence would be broken.
ID1001
Yaṃ pana vassaṃ upagatassa tadaheva aruṇaṃ anuṭṭhāpetvā sakaraṇīyassa pakkamanavacanaṃ, taṃ vassaṃ upagatakālato paṭṭhāya yadā kadāci nimitte sati gamanassa anuññātattā yuttaṃ, na pana sattāhavārena gatassa aruṇaṃ anuṭṭhāpetvā tadahevagamanaṃ “aruṇo uṭṭhāpetabbo”ti vuttattā. Yathā vā “sattāhānāgatāya pavāraṇāya sakaraṇīyo pakkamati, āgaccheyya vā so, bhikkhave, bhikkhu taṃ āvāsaṃ na vā āgaccheyyā”tiādinā (mahāva. 207) pacchimasattāhe anāgamane anuññātepi aññasattāhesu taṃ na vaṭṭati. Evaṃ paṭhamasattāhe aruṇaṃ anuṭṭhāpetvā gamane anuññātepi tato paresu sattāhesu āgatassa aruṇaṃ anuṭṭhāpetvā gamanaṃ na vaṭṭati evāti niṭṭhamettha gantabbaṃ.
As for the statement that one who has entered the rains retreat departs on that very day for his own task without raising the dawn, it is reasonable because it is permitted to go whenever there is a reason after entering the rains retreat, but it is not permissible for one who has gone for seven days to depart again on that same day without raising the dawn, since it is said, “the dawn should be raised.” Just as it is stated, “If a monk departs for his own task when the Invitation is seven days away, whether he returns to that residence or not, O monks” (mahāva. 207), and though non-return within the last seven days is permitted, it is not so in the other seven-day periods, similarly, though departure without raising the dawn is permitted in the first seven days, it is not permissible for one who returns in the subsequent seven-day periods to depart without raising the dawn. Thus, this should be concluded here.
Yaṃ pana vassaṃ upagatassa tadaheva aruṇaṃ anuṭṭhāpetvā sakaraṇīyassa pakkamanavacanaṃ, taṃ vassaṃ upagatakālato paṭṭhāya yadā kadāci nimitte sati gamanassa anuññātattā yuttaṃ, na pana sattāhavārena gatassa aruṇaṃ anuṭṭhāpetvā tadahevagamanaṃ “aruṇo uṭṭhāpetabbo”ti vuttattā. Yathā vā “sattāhānāgatāya pavāraṇāya sakaraṇīyo pakkamati, āgaccheyya vā so, bhikkhave, bhikkhu taṃ āvāsaṃ na vā āgaccheyyā”tiādinā (mahāva. 207) pacchimasattāhe anāgamane anuññātepi aññasattāhesu taṃ na vaṭṭati. Evaṃ paṭhamasattāhe aruṇaṃ anuṭṭhāpetvā gamane anuññātepi tato paresu sattāhesu āgatassa aruṇaṃ anuṭṭhāpetvā gamanaṃ na vaṭṭati evāti niṭṭhamettha gantabbaṃ.
As for the statement that one who has entered the rains residence may depart on the same day without raising the dawn for a necessary purpose, this is permissible because, from the time of entering the rains residence, one is allowed to depart whenever a reason arises. However, it is not permissible for one who has gone for a seven-day purpose to depart on the same day without raising the dawn, as it is said, “The dawn should be raised.” Just as it is said (Mahāva. 207), “One who departs for a necessary purpose during the seven days before the Pavāraṇā may or may not return to that monastery,” even if non-return is allowed in the last seven days, it is not allowed in other seven-day periods. Similarly, even if departure without raising the dawn is allowed in the first seven days, it is not allowed in subsequent seven-day periods for one who has returned. This is the conclusion to be drawn here.
ID1002
Sace pavāritakāle vassāvāsikaṃ dentītiādinā vassāvāsikacīvarampi kathinacīvaraṃ viya vassaṃvutthavihārapaṭibaddhanti viññāyati. “Yadi sattāhavārena aruṇaṃ uṭṭhāpayiṃsu, gahetabba”nti pana vuttattā sattāhakaraṇīyena gantvā sattāhabbhantare āgatā labhanti. Kathinānisaṃsacīvaraṃ pana saṅghaṃ anāpucchā te na labhanti. Vakkhati hi “sattāhakaraṇīyena gatāpi bhājanīyabhaṇḍaṃ labhantūti vā evarūpaṃ adhammikavattaṃ na kātabba”nti (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 182). Idha āhaṭanti vihārato bahi āgataṭṭhāne ānītaṃ.
If they give rains-residence cloth at the time of Invitation and so forth indicates that the rains-residence cloth, like the kathina cloth, is understood to be tied to the monastery where the rains were observed. However, because it is said, “If they raised the dawn within seven days, it may be taken,” those who go for a seven-day task and return within seven days may receive it. But they do not receive the benefits of the kathina cloth without consulting the Sangha. For it is stated, “Even those who went for a seven-day task should not engage in an unrighteous practice such as receiving shared items” (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 182). Here it is brought means brought from outside the monastery to that place.
Sace pavāritakāle vassāvāsikaṃ dentītiādinā vassāvāsikacīvarampi kathinacīvaraṃ viya vassaṃvutthavihārapaṭibaddhanti viññāyati. “Yadi sattāhavārena aruṇaṃ uṭṭhāpayiṃsu, gahetabba”nti pana vuttattā sattāhakaraṇīyena gantvā sattāhabbhantare āgatā labhanti. Kathinānisaṃsacīvaraṃ pana saṅghaṃ anāpucchā te na labhanti. Vakkhati hi “sattāhakaraṇīyena gatāpi bhājanīyabhaṇḍaṃ labhantūti vā evarūpaṃ adhammikavattaṃ na kātabba”nti (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 182). Idha āhaṭanti vihārato bahi āgataṭṭhāne ānītaṃ.
If, at the time of Pavāraṇā, one gives the rains residence robe—this indicates that the rains residence robe, like the Kathina robe, is connected to the monastery where the rains were spent. “If they raised the dawn within seven days, it should be taken”—this means that those who go for a seven-day purpose and return within seven days may receive it. However, they do not receive the Kathina robe without informing the Sangha. For it is said, “Even those who go for a seven-day purpose may receive bowl and robe materials, but such improper practices should not be done” (Vi. Saṅga. Aṭṭha. 182). Here, brought means brought from outside the monastery to a designated place.
ID1003
Vāḷehi ubbāḷhā honti, gaṇhantipi paripātentipīti ettha gaṇhantīti gahetvā khādanti. Paripātentīti palāpenti, anubandhantīti attho. Imesu “gāḷehi ubbāḷhā hontī”tiādīsu saṅghabhedapariyantesu vatthūsu kevalaṃ anāpatti hoti, pavāretuṃ pana na labhatīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Sace panātiādīsu yasmā nānāsīmāyaṃ dvīsu āvāsesu vassaṃ upagacchantassa “dutiye vasissāmī”ti upacārato nikkhantamatte paṭhamo senāsanaggāho paṭippassambhati, tasmā pāḷiyaṃ (mahāva. 207) “tassa, bhikkhave, bhikkhuno purimikā ca na paññāyatī”ti paṭhamaṃ senāsanaggāhaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Dutiyasenāsanaggāhe pana purimikā paññāyateva, tattheva temāsaṃ vasanto purimavassaṃvuttho eva hoti. Tato vā pana dutiyadivasādīsu “paṭhamasenāsane vasissāmī”ti upacārātikkame purimikāpi na paññāyatīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
They are harassed by wild beasts, they seize and pursue—here, they seize means they take and devour. They pursue means they chase or follow, that is the meaning. In these cases, such as “They are harassed by wild beasts” and so forth, up to matters involving schism in the Sangha, there is merely no offense, but they are not permitted to perform the Invitation, so it should be understood. But if and so forth—since for one who enters the rains retreat in two residences with different boundaries, thinking, “I will reside in the second,” the prior claim to a lodging is relinquished as soon as he steps beyond the precinct, therefore the text (mahāva. 207) states, “For that monk, O monks, the earlier retreat is not recognized,” referring to the initial claim to a lodging. However, with the second claim to a lodging, the earlier retreat is indeed recognized, and one who resides there for three months has fully observed the earlier rains retreat. Alternatively, if from the second day onward he thinks, “I will reside in the first lodging,” and steps beyond the precinct, the earlier retreat is not recognized, so it should be understood.
Vāḷehi ubbāḷhā honti, gaṇhantipi paripātentipīti ettha gaṇhantīti gahetvā khādanti. Paripātentīti palāpenti, anubandhantīti attho. Imesu “gāḷehi ubbāḷhā hontī”tiādīsu saṅghabhedapariyantesu vatthūsu kevalaṃ anāpatti hoti, pavāretuṃ pana na labhatīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Sace panātiādīsu yasmā nānāsīmāyaṃ dvīsu āvāsesu vassaṃ upagacchantassa “dutiye vasissāmī”ti upacārato nikkhantamatte paṭhamo senāsanaggāho paṭippassambhati, tasmā pāḷiyaṃ (mahāva. 207) “tassa, bhikkhave, bhikkhuno purimikā ca na paññāyatī”ti paṭhamaṃ senāsanaggāhaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Dutiyasenāsanaggāhe pana purimikā paññāyateva, tattheva temāsaṃ vasanto purimavassaṃvuttho eva hoti. Tato vā pana dutiyadivasādīsu “paṭhamasenāsane vasissāmī”ti upacārātikkame purimikāpi na paññāyatīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
Harassed by wild animals, they seize and scatter—here, seize means they catch and eat. Scatter means they chase away, pursuing them. In these cases, such as “harassed by wild animals,” etc., which are related to the topic of schism in the Sangha, there is no offense, but one is not allowed to perform Pavāraṇā. If, however—since in two monasteries in different boundaries, when one enters the rains residence with the intention, “I will spend the second rains here,” the first seat assignment is relinquished upon departure, therefore, in the text (Mahāva. 207), it is said, “For that monk, the first seat is not assigned.” However, in the second seat assignment, the first seat is indeed assigned, and staying there for three months, one is considered to have completed the first rains. Alternatively, if one exceeds the intention, “I will stay in the first seat,” from the second day onward, the first seat is also not assigned.
ID1004
Paṭissavassa visaṃvādanapaccayā hontampi dukkaṭaṃ satiyeva paṭissave hotīti āha “tassa tassa paṭissavassa visaṃvāde dukkaṭa”nti. Tenevāha “tañca kho…pe… visaṃvādanapaccayā”ti. Pāḷiyaṃ (mahāva. 207) “so sattāhānāgatāya pavāraṇāya sakaraṇīyo pakkamatī”ti vuttattā pavāraṇādivasepi sattāhakaraṇīyaṃ vinā gantuṃ na vaṭṭatīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Imasmiṃ ṭhāne “navamito paṭṭhāya gantuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti aṭṭhakathāvacanaṃ kacci uposathadivasato upanidhāya navamī icchitabbā, udāhu lokiyatithivasenāti āsaṅkanti. Tatrevaṃ vinicchitabbaṃ – purimabhaddapadamāsakāḷapakkhauposathadivasaṃ upanidhāya icchitabbā, na lokiyatithivasena. Bhaddapadamāsassa hi kāḷapakkhauposathadivasaṃ mariyādaṃ katvā tadanantarapāṭipadadivasato paṭṭhāya gaṇiyamāne sati yo divaso navamo hoti, tato paṭṭhāyāti vuttaṃ hoti. Tithipekkhāya pana itthiliṅgavohāro, tato navamito paṭṭhāya anāgatasattāhe pavāraṇā hoti.
Even though there may be an offense of wrongdoing due to breaking a promise, it occurs only when there is a promise, thus it is said, “For breaking this or that promise, there is an offense of wrongdoing.” Hence it is also said, “And that too… due to breaking a promise.” Since the text (mahāva. 207) states, “He departs for his own task when the Invitation is seven days away,” it should be understood that he may not go without a seven-day task even on the day of Invitation. In this context, the commentary’s statement, “It is permissible to go starting from the ninth,” raises the question of whether the ninth is meant in relation to the Uposatha day or according to the conventional lunar date. It should be decided thus: it is to be understood in relation to the Uposatha day of the dark fortnight of Bhaddapada, not according to the conventional lunar date. For, taking the Uposatha day of the dark fortnight of Bhaddapada as the reference point and counting from the following first day, the day that becomes the ninth is meant by “starting from that day.”
Paṭissavassa visaṃvādanapaccayā hontampi dukkaṭaṃ satiyeva paṭissave hotīti āha “tassa tassa paṭissavassa visaṃvāde dukkaṭa”nti. Tenevāha “tañca kho…pe… visaṃvādanapaccayā”ti. Pāḷiyaṃ (mahāva. 207) “so sattāhānāgatāya pavāraṇāya sakaraṇīyo pakkamatī”ti vuttattā pavāraṇādivasepi sattāhakaraṇīyaṃ vinā gantuṃ na vaṭṭatīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Imasmiṃ ṭhāne “navamito paṭṭhāya gantuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti aṭṭhakathāvacanaṃ kacci uposathadivasato upanidhāya navamī icchitabbā, udāhu lokiyatithivasenāti āsaṅkanti. Tatrevaṃ vinicchitabbaṃ – purimabhaddapadamāsakāḷapakkhauposathadivasaṃ upanidhāya icchitabbā, na lokiyatithivasena. Bhaddapadamāsassa hi kāḷapakkhauposathadivasaṃ mariyādaṃ katvā tadanantarapāṭipadadivasato paṭṭhāya gaṇiyamāne sati yo divaso navamo hoti, tato paṭṭhāyāti vuttaṃ hoti. Tithipekkhāya pana itthiliṅgavohāro, tato navamito paṭṭhāya anāgatasattāhe pavāraṇā hoti.
Even if a false promise leads to wrongdoing, the wrongdoing occurs only if the promise is made. Therefore, it is said, “For each false promise, there is a wrongdoing.” Hence, it is also said, “But that… is due to the false promise.” In the text (Mahāva. 207), it is said, “He may depart for a necessary purpose during the seven days before the Pavāraṇā,” therefore, even on the day of Pavāraṇā, one is not allowed to depart without a seven-day purpose. In this context, the commentary’s statement, “One may depart from the ninth day onward,” raises the question whether the ninth day is to be counted from the Uposatha day or according to the worldly date. This should be determined as follows: the ninth day should be counted from the Uposatha day of the dark fortnight of the Bhaddapada month, not according to the worldly date. For in the Bhaddapada month, counting from the Uposatha day of the dark fortnight, the ninth day is the one that follows the eighth day. The reference to the ninth day is based on this. However, in the context of the Pavāraṇā, the seven days before the Pavāraṇā are counted without regard to the date.
ID1005
Sattāhaṃ anāgatāya assāti sattāhānāgatā. Kā sā? Pavāraṇā. Assayujamāsassa sukkapakkhanavamiyaṃ sattāhakaraṇīyaṃ adhiṭṭhāya gacchanto bhikkhu antovassassa sattāhamattāvasiṭṭhattā sattamaaruṇe uggatamatte vutthavasso hoti, dasamiyaṃ chāhamattaṃ, ekādasamiyaṃ pañcāhamattaṃ, dvādasiyaṃ caturāhamattaṃ, terasiyaṃ tīhamattaṃ, cuddasiyaṃ dvīhamattaṃ, pannarasiyaṃ ekāhamattaṃ avasiṭṭhaṃ hoti, tasmā pavāraṇādivasassa pariyosānabhūtaaruṇasmiṃ uggate vutthavasso hoti, tasmā tesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ kukkuccavinodanatthaṃ bhagavā dhammassāmī “so sattāhānāgatāya pavāraṇāya sakaraṇīyo pakkamati, āgaccheyya vā so, bhikkhave, bhikkhu taṃ āvāsaṃ na vā āgaccheyya, tassa, bhikkhave, bhikkhuno purimikā ca paññāyati, paṭissave ca anāpattī”ti (mahāva. 207) āha. Sattāhānāgatāya komudiyā cātumāsiniyāti etthāpi eseva nayo. Tattha komudiyā cātumāsiniyāti pacchimakattikapuṇṇamāyaṃ. Sā hi kumudānaṃ atthitāya komudī, catunnaṃ vassikamāsānaṃ pariyosānattā cātumāsinīti vuccati. Tadā hi kumudāni supupphitāni honti, tasmā kumudā ettha pupphantīti komudīti vuccati, kumudavatīti vuttaṃ hoti.
When it is seven days away, it is seven days not yet come. What is that? The Invitation. A monk who goes, having determined a seven-day task in the bright fortnight of Assayuja on the ninth, becomes one who has completed the rains retreat when the seventh dawn arises, with seven days remaining within the rains period; on the tenth, six days remain; on the eleventh, five days; on the twelfth, four days; on the thirteenth, three days; on the fourteenth, two days; on the fifteenth, one day remains. Thus, he has completed the rains retreat when the dawn marking the end of the Invitation day arises. Therefore, to dispel the monks’ doubts, the Blessed One, the Lord of the Dhamma, said, “If he departs for his own task when the Invitation is seven days away, whether he returns to that residence or not, O monks, for that monk the earlier retreat is recognized, and there is no offense regarding the promise” (mahāva. 207). When the Invitation is seven days away, on the full moon of Komudī Cātumāsini—the same principle applies here. There, Komudī Cātumāsini refers to the full moon of the last Kattika month, called Komudī due to the presence of water lilies and Cātumāsini as it marks the end of the four monsoon months, for at that time water lilies are in full bloom.
Sattāhaṃ anāgatāya assāti sattāhānāgatā. Kā sā? Pavāraṇā. Assayujamāsassa sukkapakkhanavamiyaṃ sattāhakaraṇīyaṃ adhiṭṭhāya gacchanto bhikkhu antovassassa sattāhamattāvasiṭṭhattā sattamaaruṇe uggatamatte vutthavasso hoti, dasamiyaṃ chāhamattaṃ, ekādasamiyaṃ pañcāhamattaṃ, dvādasiyaṃ caturāhamattaṃ, terasiyaṃ tīhamattaṃ, cuddasiyaṃ dvīhamattaṃ, pannarasiyaṃ ekāhamattaṃ avasiṭṭhaṃ hoti, tasmā pavāraṇādivasassa pariyosānabhūtaaruṇasmiṃ uggate vutthavasso hoti, tasmā tesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ kukkuccavinodanatthaṃ bhagavā dhammassāmī “so sattāhānāgatāya pavāraṇāya sakaraṇīyo pakkamati, āgaccheyya vā so, bhikkhave, bhikkhu taṃ āvāsaṃ na vā āgaccheyya, tassa, bhikkhave, bhikkhuno purimikā ca paññāyati, paṭissave ca anāpattī”ti (mahāva. 207) āha. Sattāhānāgatāya komudiyā cātumāsiniyāti etthāpi eseva nayo. Tattha komudiyā cātumāsiniyāti pacchimakattikapuṇṇamāyaṃ. Sā hi kumudānaṃ atthitāya komudī, catunnaṃ vassikamāsānaṃ pariyosānattā cātumāsinīti vuccati. Tadā hi kumudāni supupphitāni honti, tasmā kumudā ettha pupphantīti komudīti vuccati, kumudavatīti vuttaṃ hoti.
Seven days before refers to the Pavāraṇā. What is that? The Pavāraṇā. A monk who departs for a seven-day purpose on the ninth day of the bright fortnight of the Assayuja month, having spent the seven days of the rains residence, is considered to have completed the rains when the seventh dawn has risen. On the tenth day, six days remain; on the eleventh, five days; on the twelfth, four days; on the thirteenth, three days; on the fourteenth, two days; and on the fifteenth, one day remains. Therefore, when the dawn marking the end of the Pavāraṇā day has risen, the rains are considered completed. Thus, to dispel the doubts of those monks, the Blessed One, the Lord of the Dhamma, said, “He may depart for a necessary purpose during the seven days before the Pavāraṇā, and whether he returns or not, for that monk, the first seat is assigned, and there is no offense in the promise” (Mahāva. 207). Seven days before the Komudī Cātumāsinī—here too, the same principle applies. Komudī Cātumāsinī refers to the full moon day of the last month of Kattika. It is called Komudī because of the presence of white lotuses, and Cātumāsinī because it marks the end of the four months of the rainy season. At that time, the white lotuses are in full bloom, hence it is called Komudī, meaning “abounding in lotuses.”
ID1006
182. Antovassavattakathāyaṃ nibaddhavattaṃ ṭhapetvāti sajjhāyamanasikārādīsu nirantarakaraṇīyesu kattabbaṃ katikavattaṃ katvā. Kasāvaparibhaṇḍanti kasāvehi bhūmiparikammaṃ. Vattanti katikavattaṃ.
182. In the discussion of duties within the rainy season, nibaddhavattaṃ ṭhapetvā means having established a regular duty to be performed, such as a mutual agreement for continuous recitation, contemplation, and the like. Kasāvaparibhaṇḍa refers to preparing the ground with saffron robes. Vatta means the mutually agreed duty.
182. Antovassavattakathāyaṃ nibaddhavattaṃ ṭhapetvāti sajjhāyamanasikārādīsu nirantarakaraṇīyesu kattabbaṃ katikavattaṃ katvā. Kasāvaparibhaṇḍanti kasāvehi bhūmiparikammaṃ. Vattanti katikavattaṃ.
182. In the discussion of the rains residence, having set aside the established duties means having performed the duties such as study and reflection without interruption. Kasāvaparibhaṇḍa refers to the preparation of the ground with ochre. Duty refers to the established duties.
ID1007
Evarūpaṃ adhammikavattaṃ na kātabbanti nānāverajjakā hi bhikkhū sannipatanti, tattha keci dubbalā appathāmā evarūpaṃ vattaṃ anupāletuṃ na sakkonti, tasmā idha āgatañca catutthapārājikavaṇṇanāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.227) āgataṃ āvāsaṃ vā maṇḍapaṃ vā sīmaṃ vā yaṃ kiñci ṭhānaṃ paricchinditvā “yo imamhā āvāsā paṭhamaṃ pakkamissati, taṃ ’arahā’ti jānissāmā”ti katāya katikāya yo “maṃ ’arahā’ti jānantū”ti tamhā ṭhānā paṭhamaṃ pakkamati, pārājiko hoti. Yo pana ācariyupajjhāyānaṃ vā kiccena mātāpitūnaṃ vā kenacideva karaṇīyena bhikkhācāravattaṃ vā uddesaparipucchādīnaṃ atthāya aññena vā tādisena karaṇīyena taṃ ṭhānaṃ atikkamitvā gacchati, anāpatti. Sacepissa evaṃ gatassa pacchā icchācāro uppajjati “na dānāhaṃ tattha gamissāmi, evaṃ maṃ arahāti sambhāvessantī”ti, anāpattiyeva.
Such an unrighteous duty should not be performed—for monks of various affiliations gather together, and among them, some who are weak and lacking strength cannot maintain such a duty. Therefore, as stated here and in the commentary on the fourth pārājika offense (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.227), if a dwelling, pavilion, boundary, or any place is demarcated, and an agreement is made, “Whoever leaves this dwelling first, we will know him as an arahant,” then one who leaves that place first with the thought, “Let them know me as an arahant,” incurs a pārājika offense. However, one who goes beyond that place for the sake of a task for a teacher or preceptor, for parents, for some necessary duty, for the practice of alms-round, or for recitation, questioning, and the like, or for any similar necessary task, incurs no offense. Even if, having gone in this way, a desire later arises in him, “I won’t go back there now; thus they will regard me as an arahant,” there is still no offense.
Evarūpaṃ adhammikavattaṃ na kātabbanti nānāverajjakā hi bhikkhū sannipatanti, tattha keci dubbalā appathāmā evarūpaṃ vattaṃ anupāletuṃ na sakkonti, tasmā idha āgatañca catutthapārājikavaṇṇanāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.227) āgataṃ āvāsaṃ vā maṇḍapaṃ vā sīmaṃ vā yaṃ kiñci ṭhānaṃ paricchinditvā “yo imamhā āvāsā paṭhamaṃ pakkamissati, taṃ ’arahā’ti jānissāmā”ti katāya katikāya yo “maṃ ’arahā’ti jānantū”ti tamhā ṭhānā paṭhamaṃ pakkamati, pārājiko hoti. Yo pana ācariyupajjhāyānaṃ vā kiccena mātāpitūnaṃ vā kenacideva karaṇīyena bhikkhācāravattaṃ vā uddesaparipucchādīnaṃ atthāya aññena vā tādisena karaṇīyena taṃ ṭhānaṃ atikkamitvā gacchati, anāpatti. Sacepissa evaṃ gatassa pacchā icchācāro uppajjati “na dānāhaṃ tattha gamissāmi, evaṃ maṃ arahāti sambhāvessantī”ti, anāpattiyeva.
Such improper practices should not be done—monks from various regions gather, and some who are weak and lacking in strength are unable to maintain such practices. Therefore, even if a place, such as a monastery, pavilion, or boundary, is designated as mentioned in the commentary on the fourth Pārājika (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.227), and a rule is made, “Whoever departs first from this monastery, we will consider him an Arahant,” if someone departs first from that place thinking, “Let them consider me an Arahant,” he commits a Pārājika offense. However, if one departs for the sake of attending to the duties of one’s teachers, preceptors, parents, or for the purpose of almsround, recitation, questioning, or similar necessary tasks, there is no offense. Even if, after departing, one later thinks, “I will not go there, lest they consider me an Arahant,” there is still no offense.
ID1008
Yopi kenacideva karaṇīyena taṃ ṭhānaṃ patvā sajjhāyamanasikārādivasena aññavihito vā hutvā corādīhi vā anubaddho meghaṃ vā uṭṭhitaṃ disvā anovassakaṃ pavisitukāmo taṃ ṭhānaṃ atikkamati, anāpatti, yānena vā iddhiyā vā gacchantopi pārājikaṃ nāpajjati, padagamaneneva āpajjati. Tampi yehi saha katikā katā, tehi saddhiṃ apubbaṃ acarimaṃ gacchanto nāpajjati. Evaṃ gacchantā hi sabbepi aññamaññaṃ rakkhanti. Sacepi maṇḍaparukkhamūlādīsu kiñci ṭhānaṃ paricchindanti “yo ettha nisīdati vā caṅkamati vā, taṃ ’arahā’ti jānissāma”, pupphāni vā ṭhapetvā, “yo imāni gahetvā pūjaṃ karissati, taṃ ’arahā’ti jānissāmā”tiādinā nayena katikā katā hoti, tatrāpi icchācāravasena tathā karontassa pārājikameva. Sacepi upāsakena antarāmagge vihāro vā kato hoti, cīvarādīni vā ṭhapitāni honti “ye arahanto, te imasmiṃ vihāre vasantu, cīvarādīni vā gaṇhantū”ti, tatrāpi icchācāravasena vasantassa vā tāni vā gaṇhantassa pārājikameva, etaṃ pana adhammikakatikavattaṃ, tasmā na kātabbaṃ, aññaṃ vā evarūpaṃ “imasmiṃ temāsabbhantare sabbeva āraññakā hontu piṇḍapātikadhutaṅgādiavasesadhutaṅgadharā vā, atha vā sabbeva khīṇāsavā hontū”ti evamādi. Nānāverajjakā hi bhikkhū sannipatanti. Tattha keci dubbalā appathāmā evarūpaṃ vattaṃ anupāletuṃ na sakkonti, tasmā evarūpampi vattaṃ na kātabbaṃ. “Imaṃ temāsaṃ sabbeheva na uddisitabbaṃ, na paripucchitabbaṃ, na pabbājetabbaṃ, mūgabbataṃ gaṇhitabbaṃ, bahisīmaṭṭhassapi saṅghalābho dātabbo”ti evamādikampi na kattabbameva.
Also, one who, for some necessary task, reaches that place and, being engaged in recitation, contemplation, or the like, or being pursued by thieves and such, or seeing a cloud arise and wishing to enter a rain-free area, goes beyond that place—there is no offense. Nor does one traveling by vehicle or psychic power incur a pārājika offense; it is incurred only by going on foot. Moreover, one who goes simultaneously with those with whom the agreement was made, without preceding or following, does not incur it. For when they go thus, they all protect one another. Even if they demarcate some place like a pavilion or the root of a tree, saying, “Whoever sits or walks here, we will know him as an arahant,” or place flowers, saying, “Whoever takes these and makes an offering, we will know him as an arahant,” and make an agreement in such ways, there too, one who acts thus out of desire incurs a pārājika offense. Likewise, if a layperson builds a monastery on the way or places robes and such, saying, “Let those who are arahants dwell in this monastery or take these robes and such,” and one dwells there or takes them out of desire—there too, it is a pārājika offense. This is an unrighteous agreed duty, and therefore it should not be performed, nor should anything like this: “Within these three months, let all be forest-dwellers or bearers of the remaining austerities such as alms-food practice, or let all be arahants,” and so forth. For monks of various affiliations gather together, and some among them, weak and lacking strength, cannot maintain such a duty; therefore, such a duty should not be performed. Nor should agreements like, “For these three months, no one should recite, question, ordain, take a vow of silence, or give the Sangha’s gains to one standing outside the boundary,” and so forth, be made.
Yopi kenacideva karaṇīyena taṃ ṭhānaṃ patvā sajjhāyamanasikārādivasena aññavihito vā hutvā corādīhi vā anubaddho meghaṃ vā uṭṭhitaṃ disvā anovassakaṃ pavisitukāmo taṃ ṭhānaṃ atikkamati, anāpatti, yānena vā iddhiyā vā gacchantopi pārājikaṃ nāpajjati, padagamaneneva āpajjati. Tampi yehi saha katikā katā, tehi saddhiṃ apubbaṃ acarimaṃ gacchanto nāpajjati. Evaṃ gacchantā hi sabbepi aññamaññaṃ rakkhanti. Sacepi maṇḍaparukkhamūlādīsu kiñci ṭhānaṃ paricchindanti “yo ettha nisīdati vā caṅkamati vā, taṃ ’arahā’ti jānissāma”, pupphāni vā ṭhapetvā, “yo imāni gahetvā pūjaṃ karissati, taṃ ’arahā’ti jānissāmā”tiādinā nayena katikā katā hoti, tatrāpi icchācāravasena tathā karontassa pārājikameva. Sacepi upāsakena antarāmagge vihāro vā kato hoti, cīvarādīni vā ṭhapitāni honti “ye arahanto, te imasmiṃ vihāre vasantu, cīvarādīni vā gaṇhantū”ti, tatrāpi icchācāravasena vasantassa vā tāni vā gaṇhantassa pārājikameva, etaṃ pana adhammikakatikavattaṃ, tasmā na kātabbaṃ, aññaṃ vā evarūpaṃ “imasmiṃ temāsabbhantare sabbeva āraññakā hontu piṇḍapātikadhutaṅgādiavasesadhutaṅgadharā vā, atha vā sabbeva khīṇāsavā hontū”ti evamādi. Nānāverajjakā hi bhikkhū sannipatanti. Tattha keci dubbalā appathāmā evarūpaṃ vattaṃ anupāletuṃ na sakkonti, tasmā evarūpampi vattaṃ na kātabbaṃ. “Imaṃ temāsaṃ sabbeheva na uddisitabbaṃ, na paripucchitabbaṃ, na pabbājetabbaṃ, mūgabbataṃ gaṇhitabbaṃ, bahisīmaṭṭhassapi saṅghalābho dātabbo”ti evamādikampi na kattabbameva.
Even if one reaches that place for some necessary task and, due to study, reflection, or being pursued by thieves, or seeing a storm approaching, wishes to enter a place unsuitable for the rains, and departs from that place, there is no offense. Even if one departs by vehicle or supernatural means, one does not commit a Pārājika offense; it is only by walking that one commits the offense. Moreover, if one departs together with those with whom the rule was made, not going before or after, one does not commit the offense. In this way, all protect each other. Even if a place is designated, such as under a pavilion tree, with the rule, “Whoever sits or walks here, we will consider him an Arahant,” or flowers are placed with the rule, “Whoever takes these and offers them in worship, we will consider him an Arahant,” if one acts out of desire, one commits a Pārājika offense. Even if a layperson builds a monastery along the way or places robes, etc., with the intention, “Let the Arahants stay in this monastery or take the robes,” if one stays or takes them out of desire, one commits a Pārājika offense. However, such improper rules should not be made, nor should any other similar rule, such as, “During these three months, all should be forest dwellers, alms collectors, or possessors of other ascetic practices, or all should be Arahants.” Monks from various regions gather, and some who are weak and lacking in strength are unable to maintain such practices. Therefore, such practices should not be made. “During these three months, no one should be ordained, questioned, or sent forth; silence should be observed; and even those outside the boundary should be given Sangha privileges”—such practices should not be done.
ID1009
Tividhampīti pariyattipaṭipattipaṭivedhavasena tividhampi. Sodhetvā pabbājethāti bhabbe ācārakulaputte upaparikkhitvā pabbājetha. Bhasse mattaṃ jānitvāti vacane pamāṇaṃ ñatvā. Dasakathāvatthu nāma appicchākathā santuṭṭhikathā pavivekakathā asaṃsaggakathā vīriyārambhakathā sīlakathā samādhikathā paññākathā vimuttikathā vimuttiñāṇadassanakathāti.
Tividhampi refers to the threefold division by way of learning, practice, and penetration. Sodhetvā pabbājetha means ordain after examining suitable individuals from good families with proper conduct. Bhasse mattaṃ jānitvā means knowing the measure of speech. Dasakathāvatthu refers to the ten topics of discussion: talk on fewness of wishes, contentment, seclusion, non-association, arousing energy, virtue, concentration, wisdom, liberation, and the knowledge and vision of liberation.
Tividhampīti pariyattipaṭipattipaṭivedhavasena tividhampi. Sodhetvā pabbājethāti bhabbe ācārakulaputte upaparikkhitvā pabbājetha. Bhasse mattaṃ jānitvāti vacane pamāṇaṃ ñatvā. Dasakathāvatthu nāma appicchākathā santuṭṭhikathā pavivekakathā asaṃsaggakathā vīriyārambhakathā sīlakathā samādhikathā paññākathā vimuttikathā vimuttiñāṇadassanakathāti.
Threefold—by way of learning, practice, and realization. Having purified, send forth—send forth capable candidates after examining their conduct. Knowing the measure of speech—knowing the measure in speech. The ten topics of discussion are: discussion on fewness of desires, discussion on contentment, discussion on seclusion, discussion on non-entanglement, discussion on energy, discussion on virtue, discussion on concentration, discussion on wisdom, discussion on liberation, and discussion on the knowledge and vision of liberation.
ID1010
Viggahasaṃvattanikaṃ vacanaṃ viggāhikaṃ. Caturārakkhaṃ ahāpentāti buddhānussati mettā asubhaṃ maraṇānussatīti imaṃ caturārakkhaṃ ahāpentā. Dantakaṭṭhakhādanavattaṃ ācikkhitabbanti ettha idaṃ dantakaṭṭhakhādanavattaṃ – yo devasikaṃ saṅghamajjhe osarati, tena sāmaṇerādīhi āharitvā bhikkhūnaṃ yathāsukhaṃ bhuñjanatthāya dantakaṭṭhamāḷake nikkhittesu dantakaṭṭhesu divase divase ekameva dantakaṭṭhaṃ gahetabbaṃ. Yo pana devasikaṃ na osarati, padhānaghare vasitvā dhammassavane vā uposathagge vā dissati, tena pamāṇaṃ sallakkhetvā cattāri pañca dantakaṭṭhāni attano vasanaṭṭhāne ṭhapetvā khāditabbāni. Tesu khīṇesu sace punapi dantakaṭṭhamāḷake bahūni hontiyeva, punapi āharitvā khāditabbāni. Yadi pana pamāṇaṃ asallakkhetvā āharati, tesu akhīṇesuyeva māḷake khīyati, tato keci therā “yehi gahitāni, te paṭiharantū”ti vadeyyuṃ, keci “khādantu, puna sāmaṇerā āharissantī”ti, tasmā vivādaparihāratthaṃ pamāṇaṃ sallakkhetabbaṃ, gahaṇe pana doso natthi. Maggaṃ gacchantenapi ekaṃ vā dve vā thavikāya pakkhipitvā gantabbanti. Bhikkhācāravattaṃ piṇḍapātikavatte āvibhavissati.
Speech that leads to strife is viggāhika. Not causing the four protections to be practiced refers to not practicing the four protections: recollection of the Buddha, loving-kindness, contemplation of foulness, and recollection of death. The duty of chewing tooth-wood should be taught—here is the duty of chewing tooth-wood: One who daily enters the midst of the Sangha should take one tooth-wood each day from those brought by novices and placed at the tooth-wood station for the monks to use freely. But one who does not enter daily, residing in a meditation hall and appearing at Dhamma discourses or the Uposatha hall, should take four or five tooth-woods, considering the amount, and chew them at his residence. When those are used up, if there are still many at the tooth-wood station, he may take more and chew them. But if he takes without considering the amount and the station runs out before his supply is exhausted, some elders might say, “Those who took them should return them,” while others say, “Let them chew, the novices will bring more.” Thus, to avoid dispute, the amount should be considered; there is no fault in taking. One traveling on a journey should also carry one or two in a bag.
Speech that incites dispute is viggāhika (disputatious). Not neglecting the four protections, means not neglecting these four protections: mindfulness of the Buddha, loving-kindness, the foulness (of the body), and mindfulness of death. The practice of cleaning the teeth should be explained: regarding this, here is the practice for cleaning the teeth – whoever goes daily into the midst of the Sangha, toothpicks should be brought by novices and others, and placed in a toothpick receptacle for the monks to use as they please; one toothpick should be taken each day. One who doesn’t go daily, residing in the main dwelling and appearing at the Dhamma listening or in the Uposatha hall, that one, having estimated the amount, four or five toothpicks should be taken and should kept at one’s dwelling place and be used. When those are used up, if there are many in the toothpick receptacle, one should again take and use them. But if one takes without estimating the amount, and those in the receptacle are finished while one’s are still not used, then some elders might say, “Those who took them should return them,” and some may say, “Let them eat, the novices will bring more.” So to avoid conflict, the amount should be estimated; there is no offense in taking them. One going on a journey should put one or two into a case and take it along. The practice during the almsround will become clear in the section on the mendicant’s practice.
Speech that leads to disputes is called viggāhikaṃ. Caturārakkhaṃ ahāpentā means abandoning the four protections: recollection of the Buddha, loving-kindness, contemplation of the unattractive, and recollection of death. Dantakaṭṭhakhādanavattaṃ ācikkhitabbaṃ refers to the practice of chewing toothwood: one who enters the midst of the Sangha daily should, after having toothwood brought by novices and others, take only one piece of toothwood from the toothwood container placed for the monks to use as they please. If one does not enter daily but resides in a meditation hut, listens to the Dhamma, or is seen in the Uposatha hall, one should estimate the amount and keep four or five pieces of toothwood in one’s dwelling place to chew. If these are exhausted and there are still many in the toothwood container, more should be brought and chewed. If one brings an excessive amount without estimating, and the container runs out before they are used, some elders may say, “Those who took them should return them,” while others may say, “Let them chew; the novices will bring more.” Therefore, to avoid disputes, one should estimate the amount, but there is no fault in taking. Even when traveling, one or two pieces may be carried in a bag. The practice of almsgoing will be explained in the piṇḍapātikavatta.
ID1011
Antogāme…pe… na kathetabbāti ettha catūsu paccayesu cīvare ca piṇḍapāte ca viññattipi na vaṭṭati nimittobhāsaparikathāpi. Senāsane viññattimeva na vaṭṭati, sesāni tīṇi vaṭṭanti. Gilānapaccaye sabbampi vaṭṭati. Evaṃ santepi ājīvaṃ sodhentehi bhikkhūhi suṭṭhu rakkhitabbāti. Iminā ājīvapārisuddhisīlaṃ dassitaṃ. Rakkhitindriyehi bhavitabbanti indriyasaṃvarasīlaṃ. Khandhakavattañca sekhiyavattañca pūretabbanti pātimokkhasaṃvarasīlaṃ. Paccayasannissitasīlaṃ pana tīhipi sāmatthiyato dassitaṃ. Iti catupārisuddhisīlapaṭisaṃyuttā evarūpā niyyānikakathā bahukāpi vattabbāti adhippāyo.
Within the village… should not be spoken—here, regarding the four requisites, neither direct requesting nor hinting is allowed for robes or almsfood; for lodgings, only direct requesting is not allowed, but the other three are permitted; for medicinal requisites, all are allowed. Even so, monks purifying their livelihood should carefully guard this. By this, the virtue of purity in livelihood is indicated. One should dwell with guarded senses refers to the virtue of restraint of the senses. The duties of the Khandhaka and the training rules should be fulfilled refers to the virtue of restraint by the Pātimokkha. The virtue dependent on requisites is indicated by all three as a capability. Thus, the intent is that even extensive discourse connected with the fourfold purity of virtue, leading to liberation, may be spoken.
Inside the village…should not be spoken: of the four requisites, neither solicitation nor hinting, oblique references, nor indirect methods of suggestion are allowable in regard to robes and almsfood. In regard to lodging, only solicitation is not allowed; the other three are allowable. Regarding requisites for the sick, all are allowable. Even though this is so, it should be carefully guarded by monks who are purifying their livelihood. By this, the morality of pure livelihood has been demonstrated. One should have restrained senses: this means the morality of sense restraint. The duties of the Khandhakas and the Sekhiya training rules should be fulfilled: this means the morality of restraint according to the Pātimokkha. The morality connected with the requisites is shown implicitly by all three. Thus, it is meant that many such beneficial talks connected with the fourfold purified morality should be uttered.
Antogāme…pe… na kathetabbā means that in the four requisites, regarding robes and almsfood, even hints or indirect talk are not allowed. Regarding dwellings, even hints are not allowed, but the other three are permissible. Regarding medicine, all are allowed. Even so, monks who purify their livelihood should guard it well. Here, the virtue of purity of livelihood is shown. Rakkhitindriyehi bhavitabbaṃ refers to the virtue of restraint of the senses. Khandhakavattañca sekhiyavattañca pūretabbaṃ refers to the virtue of restraint according to the Pātimokkha. The virtue dependent on requisites is shown through these three capabilities. Thus, many liberating discussions connected to the fourfold purity of virtue should be spoken—this is the intention.
ID1012
Imasmiṃ vassūpanāyikavisaye tesu tesu nagaresu tasmiṃ tasmiṃ rājakāle apariyantā vivādakathā hoti. Kathaṃ? Vassūpanāyikakkhandhake (mahāva. 186) “tena kho pana samayena rājā māgadho seniyo bimbisāro vassaṃ ukkaḍḍhitukāmo bhikkhūnaṃ santike dūtaṃ pāhesi ’yadi panāyyā āgame juṇhe vassaṃ upagaccheyyu’nti. Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ, ’anujānāmi, bhikkhave, rājūnaṃ anuvattitu”’nti vacanaṃ nissāya bhagavatā adhimāsaṃ paññattanti maññamānā vedasamayena saṃsanditvā gayhamānā anekavihitaṃ vivādaṃ karonti. Vedasamaye kira dve adhimāsāni yācādhimāsañca pattādhimāsañca. Tattha kaliyugagaṇane ekūnavīsatigaṇanena bhājite dvepañcaṭṭhadasaterasasoḷasaṭṭhārasavasena sattadhā seso hoti, tesaṃ vasena cammādhimāsa pañcādhimāsa pasvādhimāsa dasādhimāsa terasādhimāsa soḷasādhimāsa aṭṭhārasādhimāsāti voharanti. Aṭṭhārasādhimāsaṃ pana avasānādhimāsantipi voharanti. Tesu pasusoḷasāni apatteyeva adhimāsapatanakaliyuge saṃvaccharamāsādivisamabhayena yācitvā māsassa ākaḍḍhitabbato yācādhimāsanti voharanti, sesāni pana pañcamatteyeva adhimāsapatanakaliyuge māsassa ākaḍḍhitabbato pattādhimāsanti. Tatretaṃ yācādhimāsalakkhaṇaṃ – tathato ajānantā pāḷiyā saṃsanditvā bimbisāraraññā bhagavato yācitādhimāsattā yācādhimāsaṃ nāma bhavati, tasmā dvīsu eva yācādhimāsesu divasena saha māso ākaḍḍhitabbo, na itaresūti vadanti, aññe pana pañcasu pattādhimāsesu eva saha divasena māso ākaḍḍhitabbo, na yācādhimāsesūti.
In this matter of entering the rains retreat, in various cities and during various royal reigns, endless contentious discussions arise. How so? Based on the statement in the Vassūpanāyikakkhandhaka (mahāva. 186), “At that time, King Seniya Bimbisāra of Magadha, wishing to extend the rains, sent a messenger to the monks, saying, ‘If the venerables would enter the rains in the summer intercalary month.’ They reported this to the Blessed One, who said, ‘I allow, O monks, to comply with kings,’” some, thinking the Blessed One established an intercalary month, correlate it with the Vedic system and engage in various disputes. In the Vedic system, there are reportedly two intercalary months: the requested intercalary month (yācādhimāsa) and the appointed intercalary month (pattādhimāsa). There, in the Kali Yuga calculation, dividing by nineteen results in remainders of two, five, eight, thirteen, sixteen, and eighteen, forming seven categories: skin intercalary month, five intercalary month, animal intercalary month, ten intercalary month, thirteen intercalary month, sixteen intercalary month, and eighteen intercalary month. The eighteen intercalary month is also called the final intercalary month. Among these, the animal and sixteen intercalary months are requested intercalary months (yācādhimāsa) because, before reaching them in the Kali Yuga cycle of intercalary months, a month must be extended due to the irregularity of years and months, while the others are appointed intercalary months (pattādhimāsa) because the month must be extended only after reaching the five intercalary months. The characteristic of the requested intercalary month is this: not knowing it precisely and correlating it with the text, they say it becomes a requested intercalary month due to King Bimbisāra’s request to the Blessed One, so the month should be extended with a day only in the two requested intercalary months, not in the others; others say it should be extended with a day only in the five appointed intercalary months, not in the requested ones.
Concerning this matter of entering the rains-residence, in various cities and during various reigns, there are endless controversial discussions. How so? In the Vassūpanāyikakkhandhaka (Mahāva. 186), it is said that “At that time, King Seniya Bimbisāra of Magadha, wishing to postpone the rains-residence, sent a messenger to the monks: ‘If, revered sirs, the noble ones would enter the rains-residence during the latter half (of the month),’ he said. They reported this matter to the Blessed One. ‘I allow you, monks, to comply with kings’,” Taking this statement as basis, considering that the Blessed One authorized the extra month, cross checking with the Vedic calendar, they hold varying disputes. In the Vedic time, they say, there are two kinds of extra months: the requested extra month and the naturally occurring extra month. There, when dividing the Kaliyuga count by nineteen, the remainder can be divided into seven groups, two, five, eight, ten, thirteen, sixteen and eighteen, and according to them, one speaks of an extra month of skin, of five, of a ‘pasu’, of ten, of thirteen, of sixteen, and of eighteen. One also calls the eighteen-extra-month as the ‘avasāna’ (final) extra month. Among them, the ‘pasu’ and sixteen naturally do not fall; a month that must be asked for due to the discrepancy of the year, month, etc. in the Kaliyuga where extra months fall, is called a yācādhimāsa (requested extra month); but the remaining five at the time of the falling of extra month in Kaliyuga, one only needs to extend, is called the pattādhimāsa (attained extra month). Now the characteristic of the requested extra month: – not knowing the above, comparing with the Pāli text, because the extra month requested from the Blessed One by King Bimbisāra is called the requested extra month, therefore, the month together with the day should be postponed only in the two requested extra months, not in the others, they say. But others say, only in the five attained extra months should the month along with the day be postponed, and not in the requested extra months.
In this context of the Vassūpanāyika, in various cities during different royal periods, endless disputes arise. How? In the Vassūpanāyikakkhandhaka (Mahāva. 186), it is said: “At that time, King Bimbisāra of Magadha, wishing to postpone the rains retreat, sent a messenger to the monks, saying, ‘If the venerable ones would enter the rains retreat in the month of Āṣāḍha.’ They reported this matter to the Blessed One, who said, ‘I allow you, monks, to follow the kings.’” Based on this statement of the Buddha, some believe that an intercalary month was prescribed. They, adhering to the Vedic system, engage in various disputes. In the Vedic system, there are two intercalary months: the yācādhimāsa and the pattādhimāsa. In the Kaliyuga calculation, when divided by 19, the remainder is sevenfold: 2, 5, 8, 13, 16, 18. Thus, they are called cammādhimāsa, pañcādhimāsa, pasvādhimāsa, dasādhimāsa, terasādhimāsa, soḷasādhimāsa, and aṭṭhārasādhimāsa. The aṭṭhārasādhimāsa is also called avasānādhimāsa. Among these, the pasusoḷasāni are called yācādhimāsa because they are requested to postpone the month due to the fear of the year’s months being unequal. The remaining five are called pattādhimāsa because they are postponed without request. The characteristic of the yācādhimāsa is that, not knowing the truth, they follow the Pāli and, due to King Bimbisāra’s request to the Buddha, it is called yācādhimāsa. Therefore, in these two yācādhimāsas, the month should be postponed along with the day, but not in the others. Others say that in the five pattādhimāsas, the month should be postponed along with the day, but not in the yācādhimāsas.
ID1013
Apare pana – “dvemā, bhikkhave, vassūpanāyikā purimikā pacchimikāti, aparajjugatāya āsāḷhiyā purimikā upagantabbā, māsagatāya āsāḷhiyā pacchimikā upagantabbā”ti tasmiṃyeva vassūpanāyikakkhandhake (mahāva. 184) āgatāya pāḷiyā atthaṃ ayoniso gahetvā tithinakkhattayoge eva vassūpagamanaṃ bhagavatā anuññātaṃ, tasmā āsāḷhipuṇṇamāya anantarabhūto pāṭipadadivaso puṇṇātithiyā ca yutto hotu, pubbāsāḷhauttarāsāḷhasaṅkhātesu dvīsu nakkhattesu ekekena yutto ca, evaṃbhūto kālo yadi vinā divasena māsakaḍḍhane sampajjati, tathā ca sati māsamattākaḍḍhanameva kātabbaṃ, yadi na sampajjati, saha divasena māsākaḍḍhanaṃ, ayaṃ piṭakena ca vedena ca anulomo vinicchayoti vadanti.
Others, misinterpreting the meaning of the text in the same Vassūpanāyikakkhandhaka (mahāva. 184), “There are two entries into the rains, O monks: the earlier and the later; the earlier should be entered with the Āsāḷha in the latter half of the month, the later with the Āsāḷha in the full month,” assert that the Blessed One permitted entering the rains based solely on the conjunction of lunar days and constellations. Thus, the time should be when the first day following the Āsāḷha full moon aligns with the full moon day and one of the two constellations—Pubbāsāḷha or Uttarāsāḷha. If such a time occurs without extending the month by a day, only the month should be extended; if it does not, the month should be extended with a day. This, they say, is a decision consistent with both the Piṭaka and the Vedas.
Others say – “‘There are, monks, two entries into the rains-residence: the earlier and the later. The earlier should be entered on the day after the full moon of Āsāḷha, the later should be entered a month after the full moon of Āsāḷha’” – In the same Vassūpanāyikakkhandhaka (Mahāva. 184), wrongly taking the meaning of the Pāli that comes, the Blessed One approved the entering of the rains-residence only on the conjunction of the lunar day and the lunar mansion. Thus the day after the full moon of Āsāḷha, should be associated with a full moon day, and it should also be conjoined with one of the two lunar mansions, the earlier Āsāḷha or the later Āsāḷha. If such a time occurs without extending the month by a day, then only a mere month’s extension should be made; if it does not occur, then the month’s extension should be along with the day. This is the correct determination according to the Piṭaka and the Veda, they say.
Others say: “Monks, there are two Vassūpanāyikās: the earlier and the later. The earlier should be entered in the month of Āṣāḍha when the moon is in the previous constellation, and the later should be entered when the moon is in the subsequent constellation.” In the same Vassūpanāyikakkhandhaka (Mahāva. 184), misinterpreting the Pāli, they claim that the Buddha allowed the entry into the rains retreat based on the conjunction of tithi and nakshatra. Therefore, the day following the full moon of Āṣāḍha, which is the pāṭipadadivasa, should be considered as the full moon day, and the conjunction should be with one of the two nakshatras, Pubbāsāḷha or Uttarāsāḷha. If the postponement of the month can be done without the day, then only the month should be postponed. If not, the month should be postponed along with the day. This is the decision according to the Piṭaka and the Veda.
ID1014
Tatrāpyeke vadanti – “mā iti cando vuccati tassa gatiyā divasassa minitabbato, so ettha sabbakalāpāripūriyā puṇṇoti puṇṇamā”tiādinā vinayatthamañjūsādīsu (kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. nidānavaṇṇanā) āgamanato puṇṇātithiyogopi puṇṇamiyā eva icchitabbo, na pāṭipade, tathā nakkhattayogopi āsāḷhisukkapakkhassa pannarase uposathe “uttarāsāḷhanakkhatte, evaṃ dhātu patiṭṭhitā”ti mahāvaṃse vacanatoti. Tattha purimā vadanti – evaṃ sante uposathadivaseyeva candaggāho ca sūriyaggāho ca bhaveyya, idāni pana kāḷapakkhapāṭipadādīsuyeva candaggāho, sukkapakkhapāṭipadādīsuyeva sūriyaggāho paññāyati, tasmā pāṭipadeyeva tithinakkhattayogo icchitabboti. Pacchimāpi vadanti – tumhādisānaṃ vādīnaṃ vacanena pubbe ākaḍḍhitabbadivasānaṃ anākaḍḍhitattā divasapuñjabhāvena evaṃ hoti, saccato pana uposathadivaseyeva candaggāho sūriyaggāho ca icchitabboti. Hotu, yathā icchatha, tathā vadatha, evaṃ bhūtapubbo sāṭṭhakathe tepiṭake buddhavacane atthīti? Atthi. Gandhārajātake (jā. aṭṭha. 3.7.75 gandhārajātakavaṇṇanā) hi uposathadivase candaggāho dvikkhattuṃ āgato. Tañhi jātakaṃ tīsu piṭakesu suttapariyāpannaṃ, pañcasu nikāyesu khuddakanikāyapariyāpannaṃ, navasu sāsanaṅgesu jātakapariyāpannanti. Evaṃ vutte purimakā paṭivacanaṃ dātuṃ na sakkuṇeyyunti.
Yet some among them say, “The moon should not be called so because its motion measures the day; it is full with the complete cycle, hence puṇṇamā (full moon),” as stated in texts like the Vinayatthamañjūsā (kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. nidānavaṇṇanā), so the conjunction with the full moon day should be desired only on the full moon, not the first day; likewise, the constellation conjunction should be on the fifteenth of the bright fortnight of Āsāḷha during the Uposatha, as stated in the Mahāvaṃsa, “under the Uttarāsāḳha constellation, thus the elements are established.” The earlier group retorts: If so, both a lunar eclipse and a solar eclipse would occur on the Uposatha day, but now a lunar eclipse appears on the first day of the dark fortnight and a solar eclipse on the first day of the bright fortnight, so the conjunction of lunar day and constellation should be desired on the first day. The later group counters: Due to your view that days to be extended in the past were not extended, this occurs due to an accumulation of days; in truth, both lunar and solar eclipses should be desired on the Uposatha day. Be it as you wish, is there such a meaning in the Buddha’s word with commentary in the three Piṭakas? There is. In the Gandhārajātaka (jā. aṭṭha. 3.7.75 gandhārajātakavaṇṇanā), a lunar eclipse occurred twice on the Uposatha day. That Jātaka is included in the three Piṭakas under the Sutta, in the five Nikāyas under the Khuddaka Nikāya, and in the nine limbs of the teaching under the Jātaka. When so stated, the earlier group could not respond.
There, some say – “‘Mā’ means the moon, and because a day has to be reckoned by its movement, thus here, as it is perfectly filled with all its digits, it is called ‘puṇṇamā’ (full moon)” and so on, as mentioned in the Vinayatthamañjūsā (Kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. nidānavaṇṇanā) and elsewhere, the association with the full moon day should be desired only on the full moon, not on the first day of the fortnight. Similarly, the association with the lunar mansion, as mentioned in the Mahāvaṃsa on the fifteenth Uposatha of the bright half of Āsāḷha, “In the Uttarāsāḷha lunar mansion, thus was the relic established”. In this regard, the former (group) says – if that is so, the lunar eclipse and the solar eclipse should occur on the Uposatha day itself, but at present, lunar eclipses are known to occur on the first day of the dark fortnight and so forth, and solar eclipses are known to occur on the first day of the bright fortnight and so forth, therefore, the association of the lunar day and lunar mansion should be desired only on the first day of the fortnight. The latter (group) also says – due to not extending the days that should have been extended earlier according to the words of debaters such as yourselves, the day is amassed, it happens thus. But in reality, the lunar eclipse and solar eclipse should be desired only on the Uposatha day. All right, as you wish, so speak, Is there any such thing recorded in the Tipiṭaka and commentaries that it has happened? Yes, there is. In the Gandhāra Jātaka (Jā. aṭṭha. 3.7.75 Gandhārajātakavaṇṇanā), a lunar eclipse occurred twice on the Uposatha day. That Jātaka is included in the Sutta Piṭaka among the three Piṭakas, included in the Khuddaka Nikāya among the five Nikāyas, and included in the Jātaka among the nine divisions of the Dispensation. When this is said, the former (group) cannot give a reply.
Some say: “The moon is not called ‘full’ based on its movement in a day, but rather when all its phases are complete.” According to the Vinayatthamañjūsā and other commentaries (Kaṅkhā. Abhi. Ṭī. Nidānavaṇṇanā), the conjunction with the full moon day should be desired, not the pāṭipadadivasa. Similarly, the conjunction with the nakshatra should be on the fifteenth day of the bright fortnight of Āṣāḍha, during the Uttarāsāḷha nakshatra, as stated in the Mahāvaṃsa. The earlier group says: “If this were so, then the eclipse of the moon and the sun would occur only on the Uposatha day. But now, the eclipse of the moon is seen on the pāṭipadadivasa of the dark fortnight, and the eclipse of the sun on the pāṭipadadivasa of the bright fortnight. Therefore, the conjunction with the tithi and nakshatra should be desired on the pāṭipadadivasa.” The later group says: “According to your argument, since the days were not postponed earlier, they accumulate, and thus it happens. But in truth, the eclipse of the moon and the sun should be desired on the Uposatha day itself.” Let it be as you wish, but is there any such instance in the past, in the three Piṭakas of the Buddha’s words? Yes. In the Gandhārajātaka (Jā. Aṭṭha. 3.7.75 Gandhārajātakavaṇṇanā), the eclipse of the moon occurred twice on the Uposatha day. That Jātaka is included in the three Piṭakas, in the Sutta Piṭaka, in the five Nikāyas, in the Khuddaka Nikāya, and in the ninefold division of the teachings. Thus, the earlier group cannot give a reply.
ID1015
Athekacce “piṭakattaye adhikamāsāyeva santi, na adhikadivasā sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.404) ’yaṃ pana vuttaṃ tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu aṭṭhārasannaṃyeva vassānaṃ adhikamāse gahetvā gaṇitattā sesavassadvayassapi adhikāni divasāni honteva, tāni adhikadivasāni sandhāya nikkaṅkhā hutvāti vuttanti, taṃ na gahetabbaṃ. Na hi dvīsu vassesu adhikadivasā nāma visuṃ upalabbhanti tatiye vasse vassukkaḍḍhanavasena adhikamāse pariccatteyeva adhikamāsasambhavato, tasmā dvīsu vassesu atirekadivasā nāma visuṃ na sambhavantī’ti vacanato”ti vadanti. Athaññe vadanti – piṭakattaye adhikadivasāti āgatā atthi vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. pācittiya 404) “avasesānaṃ dvinnaṃ vassānaṃ adhikadivasāni honteva, tasmā nikkaṅkhā hutvā upasampādentī”ti vacanatoti. Ito parampi vividhena ākārena kathenti. Suddhavedikāpi evaṃ vadanti, vinayadharā bhikkhū vinayasamayavasena vadanti. Amhākaṃ pana vedasamaye hatthagatagaṇanavaseneva jānitabbanti alamatipapañcena. Atthikehi tivassādhikasahassakaliyuge dhammarājena pucchitattā kataṃ adhimāsapakaraṇaṃ oloketvā jānitabbaṃ.
Some say, “In the three Piṭakas, there are indeed intercalary months, not intercalary days, as stated in the Sāratthadīpani (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.404), ‘What is said—that in all three knotty sections, only the intercalary months of eighteen years are counted, and there are intercalary days for the remaining two years, and it is said to be without doubt regarding those intercalary days—is not to be accepted. For intercalary days are not separately found in two years; they arise only when an intercalary month is relinquished in the third year due to the extension of the rains, so extra days do not separately occur in two years.’” Others say, “Intercalary days are mentioned in the three Piṭakas, as in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pācittiya 404), ‘There are indeed intercalary days for the remaining two years, so they ordain without doubt.’” Beyond this, they discuss in various ways. Even pure Vedic scholars speak thus, while Vinaya-holding monks speak according to the Vinaya tradition. For us, it should be known solely by the calculation handed down in the Vedic system—enough with elaboration. Those interested may consult the treatise on intercalary months composed at the request of King Dhammarāja in the Kali Yuga exceeding three thousand years.
Then some say “In the three Piṭakas, there are only extra months, not extra days; as it is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. Pācittiya 3.404), ‘But that which has been said, in all three compendiums, because in reckoning the extra months for eighteen years only, and since there must be extra days for the remaining two years as well, taking that as extra days they become free from doubt, that is not to be taken. For, in the two years, extra days do not occur separately; because of the skipping the extra month with the ’vassukkaḍḍhana’ in the third year, extra months are possible; therefore, in the two years separately, there are no extra days at all’,” they say. Then others say – there is a statement that ‘extra days’ are mentioned in the three Piṭakas, in the Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā (Vajira. ṭī. Pācittiya 404) “The remaining two years have extra days, therefore, becoming free from doubt, they ordain”. Beyond this, they speak in various ways. The pure Vedists also say thus, the Vinaya-master monks speak according to the Vinaya tradition. As for us, what should be known according to calculation with our hands on the Vedic tradition – Enough of this lengthy explanation. Those who are interested should look at and understand the ‘Adhimāsa-pakaraṇa’ made after being questioned by the Dhamma King in the Kaliyuga year exceeding one thousand and three.
Some say: “In the three Piṭakas, there are only intercalary months, not intercalary days. The Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Pācittiya 3.404) states: ‘What is said in the three Piṭakas is that only 18 years have intercalary months, and the remaining two years have intercalary days. These intercalary days are not to be taken separately, as they do not exist separately in the two years. They arise only in the third year due to the postponement of the rains retreat. Therefore, intercalary days do not exist separately in the two years.’” Others say: “In the three Piṭakas, intercalary days are mentioned. The Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Pācittiya 404) states: ‘The remaining two years have intercalary days. Therefore, one should ordain without doubt.’” They discuss this in various ways. The Suddhavedikā also says this, and the Vinaya-holding monks speak according to the Vinaya tradition. But for us, in the Vedic system, it should be understood based on the handed-down calculations. Those interested should examine the Adhimāsapakaraṇa composed by the Dhamma King when asked about the three years and a thousand years in the Kaliyuga.
ID1016
Idha pana adhippetavinicchayameva kathayāma. Paṭhamadutiyavādesu na bimbisārarājā bhagavantaṃ adhimāsapaññāpanaṃ yācati, na ca bhagavā paññapeti, na “tasmiṃ vasse idaṃ nāma adhimāsaṃ hotī”ti vā “māsamattaṃ vā sahadivasaṃ vā ākaḍḍhitabba”nti vā pāḷiyaṃ aṭṭhakathāṭīkāsu ca atthi, rājā pana upakaṭṭhāya vassūpanāyikāya vedasamaye vassukkaḍḍhanasambhavato bhikkhūnaṃ paṭhamaāsāḷhamāse vassaṃ anupagantvā dutiyaāsāḷhamāse upagamanatthaṃ “yadi panāyyā āgame juṇhe vassaṃ upagaccheyyu”nti dūtaṃ pāhesi. Yadi pana upagaccheyyuṃ, sādhu vatāti sambandhitabbaṃ. Bhikkhū pana rañño pahitasāsanaṃ bhagavato ārocesuṃ. Bhagavā pana vassukkaḍḍhane bhikkhūnaṃ guṇaparihāniyā abhāvato “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, rājūnaṃ anuvattitu”nti (mahāva. 186) avoca. Tena vuttaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 185) “anujānāmi bhikkhave rājūnaṃ anuvattitunti ettha vassukkaḍḍhanabhikkhūnaṃ kāci parihāni nāma natthītianuvattituṃ anuññāta”nti. Vimativinodaniyañca (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.185) vuttaṃ “parihānīti guṇaparihānī”ti, tasmā yācādhimāso vā hotu pattādhimāso vā, yasmiṃ yasmiṃ kāle anuvattanena bhikkhūnaṃ sīlādiguṇampi parihāni natthi, tasmiṃ tasmiṃ kāle anuvattitabbaṃ.
Here, we state only the intended decision. In the first and second views, King Bimbisāra does not request the Blessed One to establish an intercalary month, nor does the Blessed One establish it, nor is it stated in the texts, commentaries, or sub-commentaries, “In that year, this is an intercalary month,” or “The month alone or with a day should be extended.” Rather, due to the possibility of extending the rains in the Vedic system as the rains retreat approached, the king sent a messenger to the monks, saying, “If the venerables would enter the rains in the summer intercalary month,” meaning it would be good if they did so. The monks reported the king’s message to the Blessed One. Since extending the rains causes no loss of merit for the monks, the Blessed One said, “I allow, O monks, to comply with kings” (mahāva. 186). Thus, it is stated in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 185), **“I allow, O monks, to comply with kings—here, since there is no loss whatsoever for the monks extending the rains, they are permitted to comply.” And in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.185), it is said, “Loss** refers to loss of merit.” Thus, whether it is a requested intercalary month or an appointed one, whenever compliance causes no loss to the monks’ virtues like morality, they should comply at that time.
Here, however, we shall only speak the intended determination. In the first and second arguments, King Bimbisāra does not request the Blessed One to authorize an extra month, nor does the Blessed One authorize it, nor is there anything in the Pāli, commentaries, or sub-commentaries saying, “In that year, such and such is an extra month” or “A month only, or along with a day, should be extended”. But the king, because the postponement of the rains was possible in the Vedic tradition at the approach of the rains-entry, sent a messenger to the monks so that they would not enter the rains-residence in the first Āsāḷha month, but enter in the second Āsāḷha month, saying, “If, revered sirs, the noble ones would enter the rains-residence during the latter half”. It should be connected thus “If they would enter, it would be good”. But the monks reported the message sent by the king to the Blessed One. The Blessed One, seeing no loss of virtue for the monks in postponing the rains, said, “I allow you, monks, to comply with kings” (Mahāva. 186). Therefore, it has been said in the commentary (Mahāva. aṭṭha. 185) “I allow you, monks, to comply with kings”: Compliance is permitted as there is no deterioration for the monks in the postponing of rains”. And it is said in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.185) “Deterioration” means deterioration of virtue. Therefore, whether it be a requested extra month or an attained extra month, whenever there is no deterioration of morality and virtue for the monks by complying, at that time one should comply.
Here, we will only discuss the intended decision. In the first and second views, King Bimbisāra did not request the Buddha to prescribe an intercalary month, nor did the Buddha prescribe it. There is no statement in the Pāli or the commentaries that “in this year, such and such an intercalary month occurs” or that “the month should be postponed with or without the day.” The king, due to the proximity of the Vassūpanāyikā and the Vedic system, sent a messenger to the monks, saying, “If the venerable ones would enter the rains retreat in the month of Āṣāḍha,” so that they could enter the rains retreat in the second month of Āṣāḍha instead of the first. If they entered, it would be good. The monks reported the king’s message to the Buddha. The Buddha, seeing no loss of virtue for the monks in postponing the rains retreat, said, “I allow you, monks, to follow the kings” (Mahāva. 186). Therefore, the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 185) states: **“I allow you, monks, to follow the kings—here, there is no loss for the monks who postpone the rains retreat, so they are allowed to follow.” The Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.185) also states: “Loss** means loss of virtue.” Therefore, whether it is the yācādhimāsa or the pattādhimāsa, in whatever time following does not cause loss of virtue for the monks, they should follow.
ID1017
Kathaṃ pana anuvattitabbaṃ, kathaṃ na anuvattitabbaṃ? Yadi anuvattante pubbe upavutthadivasato idāni upavasitabbauposathadivaso cātuddaso vā pannaraso vā hoti, tathā sati anuvattitabbaṃ. Yadi pana terasamo vā soḷasamo vā hoti, na anuvattitabbaṃ. Anuvattanto hi anuposathe uposathakato hoti, tato “na, bhikkhave, anuposathe uposatho kātabbo, yo kareyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 183) vuttadukkaṭaṃ āpajjati, tasmā sīlaguṇaparihānisambhavato na anuvattitabbaṃ. Vuttañhi vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.240) “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, rājūnaṃ anuvattitunti vacanato panettha lokiyānaṃ tithiṃ anuvattantehipi attano uposathakkamena cātuddasiṃ pannarasiṃ vā, pannarasiṃ cātuddasiṃ vā karonteheva anuvattitabbaṃ, na pana soḷasamadivasaṃ vā terasamadivasaṃ vā uposathadivasaṃ karontehī”ti.
How should one comply, and how not? If, by complying, the Uposatha day to be observed now, compared to the previously observed day, falls on the fourteenth or fifteenth, then one should comply. But if it falls on the thirteenth or sixteenth, one should not comply. For one who complies would perform the Uposatha on a non-Uposatha day, incurring the offense of wrongdoing as stated, “O monks, the Uposatha should not be performed on a non-Uposatha day; whoever does so commits an offense of wrongdoing” (mahāva. 183). Thus, due to the potential loss of moral virtue, one should not comply. It is stated in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.240), “From the statement, ‘I allow, O monks, to comply with kings,’ even when complying with the conventional lunar days, one should comply only by keeping the fourteenth or fifteenth as their own Uposatha sequence, not by making the sixteenth or thirteenth the Uposatha day.”
But how should one comply, and how should one not comply? If, when complying, the Uposatha day that should be observed now becomes the fourteenth or fifteenth from the previously observed day, then one should comply. But if it becomes the thirteenth or sixteenth, one should not comply. One who complies, does the Uposatha on a non-Uposatha day, and then incurs the Dukkata offence of which it is said, “Monks, the Uposatha should not be done on a non-Uposatha day. Whoever does so, there is an offence of wrong-doing.” (Mahāva. 183), therefore, because of the possibility of deterioration of the virtuous quality, one should not comply. It is said in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.240) “From the statement ‘I allow you, monks, to comply with kings,’ here even those who are following the worldly lunar days, should only comply by making the fourteenth or the fifteenth their own Uposatha days, not by making the sixteenth day or the thirteenth day the Uposatha day.”
How should one follow, and how should one not follow? If, by following, the Uposatha day to be observed now becomes the fourteenth or fifteenth day from the previously observed day, then one should follow. But if it becomes the thirteenth or sixteenth day, one should not follow. For by following, one would be observing the Uposatha on a non-Uposatha day, and thus incur the offense of dukkaṭa as stated (Mahāva. 183): “Monks, the Uposatha should not be observed on a non-Uposatha day. Whoever does so commits an offense of dukkaṭa.” Therefore, one should not follow if it leads to loss of virtue. The Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.240) states: “The Buddha said, ‘I allow you, monks, to follow the kings.’ Here, even if laypeople follow the tithi, monks should follow by making the fourteenth day the fifteenth or the fifteenth day the fourteenth, but not by making the sixteenth or thirteenth day the Uposatha day.”
ID1018
Tatiyacatutthavādepi “kati vassūpanāyikā”ti saṃsayantānaṃ saṃsayavinodanatthaṃ “dvemā, bhikkhave, vassūpanāyikā purimikā pacchimikā”ti (mahāva. 184) bhagavā avoca. Tato tāsaṃ dvinnaṃ vassūpanāyikānaṃ upagamanakālaṃ dassetuṃ “aparajjugatāya āsāḷhiyā purimikā upagantabbā, māsagatāya āsāḷhiyā pacchimikā upagantabbā”ti vuttaṃ. Tatrāyaṃ piṇḍattho – āsāḷhipuṇṇamiyā anantare pāṭipadadivase purimikā upagantabbā, sāvaṇapuṇṇamiyā anantare pāṭipadadivase pacchimikā upagantabbāti. Tena vuttaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 184) “tasmā āsāḷhipuṇṇamāya anantare pāṭipadadivase, āsāḷhipuṇṇamito vā aparāya puṇṇamāya anantare pāṭipadadivaseyeva vihāraṃ paṭijaggitvā pānīyaṃ paribhojanīyaṃ upaṭṭhāpetvā sabbaṃ cetiyavandanādisāmīcikammaṃ niṭṭhāpetvā ’imasmiṃ vihāre imaṃ temāsaṃ vassaṃ upemī’ti sakiṃ vā dvattikkhattuṃ vā vācaṃ nicchāretvā vassaṃ upagantabba”nti , sāratthadīpaniyampi (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.184) “aparajjūti āsāḷhito aparaṃ dinaṃ, pāṭipadanti attho”ti, vimativinodaniyampi (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.184) “aparasmiṃ divaseti dutiye pāṭipadadivase”ti evaṃ pāḷiaṭṭhakathāṭīkāsu pāṭipadadivaseyeva vassūpagamanaṃ vuttaṃ, na vuttaṃ “amukatithiyoge”ti vā “amukanakkhattayoge”ti vā, tasmā pāṭipadadivase pāto aruṇuggamanato paṭṭhāya sakaladivasaṃ sakalaratti yāva dutiyaaruṇuggamanā yathārucite kāle vassaṃ upagantabbanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Tato eva vassūpanāyikakāle puṇṇātithiyā yogo, uttarāsāḷhanakkhattena yogo hotūti vadantānaṃ vacanaṃ vinayaviruddhaṃ hoti, taṃ vacanaṃ gahetvā puṇṇātithiyogaṃ uttarāsāḷhanakkhattayogañca āgametvā vassaṃ upagantvāpi tathāgatena apaññattaṃ paññapeti nāmāti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
In the third and fourth views, to resolve the doubt of those wondering, “How many entries into the rains are there?” the Blessed One said, “There are two entries into the rains, O monks: the earlier and the later” (mahāva. 184). Then, to indicate the times for entering these two, it is said, “The earlier should be entered with the Āsāḷha in the latter half of the month, the later with the Āsāḷha in the full month.” The concise meaning is this: the earlier should be entered on the first day following the Āsāḷha full moon, and the later on the first day following the Sāvaṇa full moon. Thus, it is stated in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 184), “Therefore, on the first day following the Āsāḷha full moon, or on the first day following the subsequent full moon after the Āsāḷha full moon, having prepared the monastery, set out drinking water and food, and completed all duties like venerating the cetiya, one should declare once, twice, or thrice, ‘I enter the rains retreat in this monastery for these three months,’ and enter the rains.” Also, in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.184), “Aparajju** means the day after Āsāḷha, i.e., the first day,” and in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.184), “The next day** refers to the second first day.” Thus, in the texts, commentaries, and sub-commentaries, entering the rains is stated to occur on the first day, not “in such a lunar conjunction” or “in such a constellation conjunction.” Therefore, it should be understood that the rains may be entered on the first day from the arising of dawn throughout the day and night until the next dawn, at any preferred time. Hence, the statement of those who say that the rains retreat time requires a conjunction with the full moon day and the Uttarāsāḷha constellation is contrary to the Vinaya. Taking that statement and entering the rains by awaiting a full moon conjunction and an Uttarāsāḷha conjunction amounts to establishing what was not established by the Tathāgata.
In the third and fourth arguments too, to dispel the doubt of those who are wondering “How many entries into the rains are there?”, the Blessed One said, “There are, monks, two entries into the rains: the earlier and the later” (Mahāva. 184). Then, to show the time of entering those two rains-entries, it was said, “The earlier should be entered on the day after the full moon of Āsāḷha; the later should be entered a month after the full moon of Āsāḷha”. Here, this is the summarized meaning – The earlier should be entered on the first day of the fortnight after the full moon of Āsāḷha; the later should be entered on the first day of the fortnight after the full moon of Sāvaṇa. Therefore it is said in the commentary (Mahāva. aṭṭha. 184), “Therefore, on the first day of the fortnight after the full moon of Āsāḷha, or on the first day of the fortnight after the full moon following Āsāḷha, having prepared the dwelling, having set out drinking water and things to be consumed, having completed all the respectful duties such as worshipping the Cetiya, having made the statement, either once or two or three times, ‘I enter upon the rains-residence in this dwelling for these three months’, one should enter the rains”, and in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.184) “The day after” means the day after Āsāḷha, meaning the first day of the fortnight, in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.184) “On the day after” means on the second first day of the fortnight. Thus in the Pāli, commentaries and sub-commentaries the entering the rains is mentioned only on the first day of the fortnight, It has not been mentioned ‘on such and such a lunar day conjunction’ or ‘on such and such lunar mansion conjunction,’ Therefore, it should be understood that the entering of the rains is from the arising of the dawn in the morning on the first day of the fortnight throughout the entire day and the entire night until the arising of the next dawn at the time one prefers. So, the statement of those who say that at the time of entering the rains, there should be the association with the full moon day and the association with the Uttarāsāḷha lunar mansion, is contrary to the Vinaya. Taking that statement, and waiting for the conjunction of the full moon day and the conjunction with the Uttarāsāḷha lunar mansion, even entering the rains, should be understood as authorizing something which has not been authorized by the Tathāgata.
In the third and fourth views, to dispel the doubt of those who wonder, “How many Vassūpanāyikās are there?” the Buddha said, “Monks, there are two Vassūpanāyikās: the earlier and the later” (Mahāva. 184). Then, to show the time for entering these two Vassūpanāyikās, it is said, “The earlier should be entered when the moon is in the previous constellation of Āṣāḍha, and the later should be entered when the moon is in the subsequent constellation of Āṣāḍha.” The meaning here is: the earlier should be entered on the day following the full moon of Āṣāḍha, and the later should be entered on the day following the full moon of Sāvaṇa. Therefore, the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 184) states: “Thus, on the day following the full moon of Āṣāḍha, or on the day following the subsequent full moon, one should prepare the dwelling, set out drinking water and food, complete all duties such as paying homage to the shrine, and then declare once or twice, ‘I will spend the rains retreat in this dwelling for three months,’ and enter the rains retreat.” The Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.184) states: “Aparajjū** means the day after Āṣāḍha, that is, the pāṭipadadivasa.” The Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.184) states: “Aparasmiṃ divase** means the second pāṭipadadivasa.” Thus, in the Pāli, commentaries, and sub-commentaries, the entry into the rains retreat is said to be on the pāṭipadadivasa, not on a specific tithi or nakshatra conjunction. Therefore, one should enter the rains retreat on the pāṭipadadivasa, from dawn until the second dawn, throughout the entire day and night, at the appropriate time. Thus, those who say that the conjunction with the full moon day and the Uttarāsāḷha nakshatra should be desired during the Vassūpanāyikā period are contradicting the Vinaya. Taking their words and desiring the conjunction with the full moon day and the Uttarāsāḷha nakshatra, even if one enters the rains retreat, it should be seen as prescribing what was not prescribed by the Tathāgata.
ID1019
Evaṃ pāḷiaṭṭhakathāṭīkāsu ca puṇṇātithiyoge eva vassaṃ upagantabbaṃ, na ekāya tithiyā yutteti vā uttarāsāḷhanakkhattayogeyeva, na sāvaṇanakkhattayogeti vā anāgatameva chāyaṃ gahetvā tathāgatena paññattaṃ viya potthakesu likhitvā kehici ṭhapitattā sakalaṃ vinayapiṭakaṃ apassantā vedasāmayikā taṃ vacanaṃ saddahitvā vassūpagamanakāle puṇṇātithiuttarāsāḷhayogameva gavesantā māsadivasena saha ākaḍḍhitabbakālepi māsamattameva ākaḍḍhanti, māsamattameva ākaḍḍhitabbakālepi saha divasena ākaḍḍhanti, tasmā evaṃvādino bhikkhū “apaññattaṃ tathāgatena paññattaṃ tathāgatenāti dīpetī”ti vattabbataṃ āpajjanti, tasmā bhagavati gāravasahitā lajjino paṇḍitā evaṃ na gaṇhantīti. Tithinakkhattayogo pana uposathadivaseyeva bahudhā piṭakattaye āgato, porāṇavedaganthesu ca pasaṃsito, kadāci pana vohārakālo tithiyā nakkhattena ca visamo hoti, tasmā taṃ sametuṃ adhimāsapatanakāle māsampi divasampi ākaḍḍhanti, tasmā aññasmiṃ kāle visamepi ākaḍḍhanakāle samāpetabbaṃ. Evaṃ sati māsautusaṃvaccharānaṃ samabhāvo hotīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
Thus, in the canonical texts, commentaries, and sub-commentaries, it is stated that the rains retreat should be entered only on the full moon day, not merely on any lunar day, or specifically in conjunction with the Uttarāsāḷha constellation, not the Sāvaṇa constellation, as if the Tathāgata had laid it down thus by taking only the future shadow into account. Because some have written and established this in books, those who do not see the entire Vinaya Piṭaka, being versed in Vedic traditions, believe that statement. At the time of entering the rains retreat, they seek only the conjunction of the full moon with Uttarāsāḷha. Even when a month and a day should be drawn together, they draw only a month; even when only a month should be drawn, they draw it with a day. Therefore, monks who hold such a view fall into a position where it must be said, “They declare as laid down by the Tathāgata what was not laid down by the Tathāgata.” Hence, wise ones endowed with reverence and modesty for the Blessed One do not adopt this view. However, the conjunction of lunar days and constellations is frequently mentioned in the three Piṭakas in relation to the Uposatha day and is praised in ancient Vedic texts. Sometimes, though, the conventional time becomes uneven with the lunar day and constellation. Therefore, to align them, they draw an extra month or day during the time of an intercalary month. Thus, even at another uneven time, it should be completed during the drawing period. In this way, it should be understood that there is an equality of months, seasons, and years.
Thus, in the Pāli, its commentaries, and sub-commentaries, it has been established by some, writing in books as if it were prescribed by the Tathāgata, taking only a shadow of what is to come, that the rains retreat should be entered only when there is a conjunction of the full moon, not when only one lunar day is conjoined, or only when there is a conjunction with the Uttarāsāḷha asterism, not when there is conjunction with the Sāvaṇa asterism. Those who know Vedic rituals, not seeing the entire Vinaya Piṭaka, believing that statement, search only for the conjunction of the full moon and Uttarāsāḷha at the time of entering the rains retreat. When it is time to extend [the season] by a month and days, they extend only by a month; when time to extend only by one month, they extend with days. Therefore, monks stating as such incur the fault of ‘making apparent what was not prescribed by the Tathāgata as having been prescribed by the Tathāgata’. Therefore, the learned, respectful to the Blessed One, and conscientious, do not accept this. But the conjunction of the lunar day and asterism has often appeared in the three Piṭakas on the day of Uposatha, and it has been praised in ancient Vedic texts. Sometimes, the time for observance is different based on the lunar day and asterism, so to harmonize them, during the insertion of an intercalary month, they extend [the season] by both a month and a day. Hence, even if it is different at another time, it should be made consistent with the time of extension. Thus, it should be understood that there is an equality of months, seasons, and years.
Thus, in the Pali commentaries and sub-commentaries, it is stated that one should enter the rains retreat on the full moon day, not on a single day, nor on the day when the Uttarāsāḷha constellation is joined, nor on the day when the Sāvaṇa constellation is joined. Some, having written in books as if it were prescribed by the Buddha by taking the shadow of the future, not seeing the entire Vinaya Piṭaka, believing in that statement due to their attachment to the Vedic tradition, seek only the conjunction of the full moon and Uttarāsāḷha at the time of entering the rains retreat. Even when the month and day should be drawn together, they draw only the month; and when only the month should be drawn, they draw it together with the day. Therefore, monks who speak thus fall into the fault of declaring, “What was not prescribed by the Buddha was prescribed by the Buddha.” Hence, out of reverence for the Blessed One, wise and conscientious monks do not act in this way. However, the conjunction of the day and constellation on the uposatha day is frequently mentioned in the three Piṭakas and praised in the ancient Vedic texts. Sometimes, the conventional time is irregular with respect to the day and constellation, so to reconcile this, they draw both the month and the day during the intercalary month. Therefore, even at other times when the drawing is irregular, it should be completed. Thus, the balance of the months, seasons, and years should be understood.
ID1020
Pañcamachaṭṭhavādesu adhimāsoti aṭṭhārasavassato adhikamāsaṃ gahetvā vutto, tasmā “adhiko māso adhimāso”ti kammadhārayasamāsattā pulliṅgaṃ katvā vutto. Pubbe pana māsapuñjato adhikaghaṭiyo gahetvā vutto, tasmā “māsato adhikaṃ adhimāsa”nti abyayībhāvasamāsattā napuṃsakaliṅgaṃ katvā vuttaṃ. Idha pana “porāṇakattherā ekūnavīsativassaṃ sāmaṇeraṃ nikkhamanīyapuṇṇamāsiṃ atikkamma pāṭipadadivase upasampādenti, taṃ kasmāti? Vuccate – ekasmiṃ vasse cha cātuddasikauposathadivasā honti, iti vīsatiyā vassesu cattāro māsā parihāyanti, rājāno tatiye tatiye vasse vassaṃ upakaḍḍhanti, iti aṭṭhārasasu vassesu cha māsā vaḍḍhanti, tato uposathavasena parihīne cattāro māse apanetvā dve māsā avasesā honti, te dve māse gahetvā vīsati vassāni paripuṇṇāni hontīti nikkaṅkhā hutvā nikkhamanīyapuṇṇamāsiṃ atikkamma pāṭipade upasampādentī”ti aṭṭhakathāvacane (pāci. aṭṭha. 404) “nikkaṅkhā hutvāti adhikamāsehi saddhiṃ paripuṇṇavīsativassattā nibbematikā hutvā”ti attho sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.404) vutto.
In the fifth and sixth statements, adhimāso is said with reference to an additional month taken beyond eighteen years, hence it is stated as a masculine compound in the form “adhimāso,” meaning “an extra month,” due to its being a kammadhāraya compound. Previously, however, it was stated with reference to additional conjunctions beyond the set of months, hence it was expressed as a neuter form in the compound “adhimāsa,” meaning “additional to the month,” due to its being an abyayībhāva compound. Here, however, it is said in the commentary (pāci. aṭṭha. 404): “The ancient elders ordain a novice of nineteen years, passing beyond the full moon day of departure and doing so on the first day of the waning month. Why is this? It is explained: In one year, there are six Uposatha days on the fourteenth; thus, in twenty years, four months are lost. Kings draw the rains retreat every third year; thus, in eighteen years, six months increase. From these, subtracting the four months lost due to the Uposatha, two months remain. Taking these two months, the twenty years become complete.” Thus, being free from doubt, they ordain on the first day after passing the full moon of departure. In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.404), the meaning of “nikkaṅkhā hutvā” is explained as “being free from doubt due to the completion of twenty years including the additional months.”
In the fifth and sixth explanations, adhimāso (intercalary month) is stated after considering the extra month after eighteen years, so it is stated as a masculine gender because it is a karmadhāraya compound, ‘an extra month is adhimāso’. Formerly, it was stated after considering the extra periods from a collection of months, therefore, it was stated as a neuter gender because it is an avyayibhāva compound, ‘what is extra from a month is adhimāsa’. Here, however, in the Aṭṭhakathā passage (pāci. aṭṭha. 404), “The ancient elders give full ordination to a novice of nineteen years on the first day after the full moon day of departure, why is that? It is said: In one year there are six Cātuddasika Uposatha days, thus, in twenty years, four months are lacking. Kings extend the rains retreat every third year, thus in eighteen years, six months are added. Then, removing the four months that are lacking due to the Uposatha, two months remain. Taking those two months, twenty years are complete. Thus, free from doubt, they ordain on the first day after the full moon of departure” the meaning of “hutvāti free from doubt” is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.404) as “being free from doubt since the twenty years are complete along with the intercalary months.”
In the fifth and sixth chapters, the term adhimāsa (intercalary month) is used by taking an extra month beyond eighteen years. Therefore, it is said, “The extra month is called adhimāsa,” and it is treated as a masculine compound. Previously, however, it was used by taking extra hours beyond the accumulation of months, so it is said, “What is extra beyond the month is called adhimāsa,” and it is treated as a neuter compound. Here, it is said, “The ancient elders ordain a sāmaṇera who is nineteen years old, passing the full moon day, on the day after the full moon. Why is this? It is said that in one year, there are six cātuddasika uposatha days. Thus, in twenty years, four months are lost. Kings add a month every third year, so in eighteen years, six months are added. Therefore, by removing the four months lost due to the uposatha, two months remain. Taking these two months, the twenty years are completed, and thus, being free from doubt, they ordain on the day after the full moon, passing the full moon day.” In the commentary (pāci. aṭṭha. 404), it is said, **“Being free from doubt** means being certain that the twenty years are complete with the intercalary months,” as explained in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.404).
ID1021
Tatra nanu ca “tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu aṭṭhārasannaṃ…pe… vutta”nti vuttaṃ, taṃ kathanti codanaṃ sandhāya “yaṃ pana vuttaṃ…pe… taṃ na gahetabba”nti kiñcāpi vuttaṃ, tathāpi taṃ gaṇṭhipadesu vuttavacanaṃ na gahetabbanti attho, kasmā na gahetabbanti āha “na hī”tiādi. Hi yasmā na upalabbhanti, tasmā na gahetabbanti yojanā. Kathaṃ viññāyatīti āha “tatiye”tiādi. Pariccatteyeva sambhavato, apariccatte asambhavato na upalabbhantīti byatirekavasena hetuphalayojanā. Tasmātiādi laddhaguṇaṃ.
There, surely it is said, “In all three knotty passages, it is stated regarding the eighteen…” and so forth—how is this? Addressing this objection, it is said, “But what was stated… that should not be accepted,” meaning that the statement mentioned in the knotty passages should not be taken. Why should it not be taken? It says “na hi” and so forth. The reasoning is: Because they are not found, therefore they should not be accepted. How is this understood? It says “tatiye” and so forth. Because it is possible only when relinquished, and impossible when not relinquished, they are not found—this is the reasoning by way of exclusion between cause and effect. Tasmā and so forth indicate the acquired quality.
Therein, concerning the doubt, “It has been stated, ‘in all three knotty points, of eighteen…etc…it has been stated’,” the passage “but what has been said…etc… should not be accepted”, although it has been stated as such, still, the meaning is that the statement mentioned in those knotty points should not be accepted. Asking why it should not be accepted, he says “na hī” etc. Because ‘hi’ (since) they are not found, therefore, they should not be accepted, this is the connection. He says “tatiye”, etc., to show how it is known. By the very fact of abandonment, it is possible, by non-abandonment, it is impossible, they are not found; this is the connection of cause and effect through contrast. “Tasmā” etc. is the attained benefit.
Here, it is said, “In the three knot points, eighteen… are mentioned,” but how is this explained? The objection is raised, “What is said… should not be taken,” but even so, the statement in the knot points should not be taken. Why should it not be taken? It is said, “Because it is not found.” Therefore, it should not be taken. How is this understood? It is said, “In the third.” Because it arises when it is complete, and does not arise when it is incomplete, it is not found. This is explained by the method of exclusion, connecting cause and effect. Therefore, etc., is the established quality.
ID1022
Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ pana gaṇṭhipadesu vuttameva gahetvā vadati. Etāni vacanāni sāmaṇerānaṃ vīsativassaparipuṇṇabhāvasādhakāniyeva honti, na adhimāsapatanavāresu sadivasamāsākaḍḍhanabhāvasādhakāni, tasmā imāni āharitvā taṃ adhikaraṇaṃ vinicchituṃ na sakkonti. Bhikkhū pana bahūnaṃ sannipāte kiñci pāṭhaṃ āharitvā kathetuṃ samattho sobhatīti katvā īdisaṃ pāṭhaṃ āharanti. Sutasannicayapaṇḍitā pana icchitatthassa asādhakattā evarūpaṃ na āharanti. Suddhavedikānampi vacane vinayadharā vinayameva jānanti, na bāhirasamayaṃ. Ayaṃ pana kathā bāhirasamaye pavattā, tasmā vinayadharānaṃ avisayoti maññantā vadanti.
In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā, however, it adopts exactly what is stated in the knotty passages. These statements serve only to establish that novices have completed twenty years, not to establish the drawing of a month with a day during times of intercalary decline. Therefore, these cannot be brought forth to decide that matter. Monks, however, being skilled in speaking by bringing forth some text in a large assembly, bring forth such a text. But learned ones with a store of hearing do not bring forth such texts, as they do not accomplish the intended meaning. Even among pure Vedic scholars, Vinaya masters know only the Vinaya, not external traditions. This discussion, however, pertains to an external tradition, so they say it is beyond the scope of Vinaya masters.
However, in the Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā, it is stated taking only what has been stated in the knotty points. These statements are only for establishing the completeness of twenty years for novices, not for establishing the extension of a month with a day during the occurrences of intercalary month insertion. Therefore, bringing these, they are unable to decide that case. Monks, however, bring such a passage and speak, thinking that a monk capable of speaking after bringing some passage in a large gathering is admirable. But those learned in accumulated knowledge, due to its inability to establish the desired meaning, do not bring such a thing. Even regarding the statement of those purely knowledgeable, the Vinaya masters know only the Vinaya, not external doctrines. This discussion, however, occurs in external doctrines; therefore, thinking that it is not within the domain of the Vinaya masters, they say.
In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā, however, it takes only what is said in the knot points and speaks accordingly. These statements are meant to establish the completion of twenty years for sāmaṇeras, not to establish the drawing of the month and day together in the case of intercalary months. Therefore, bringing these to decide that case is not possible. Monks, however, when many are gathered, are able to bring some texts and speak, and thus they bring such texts. Wise compilers of the Suttas, however, do not bring such texts because they do not accomplish the desired purpose. Even in the statements of the pure Vedas, Vinaya experts know only the Vinaya, not external traditions. This discussion, however, pertains to external traditions, so Vinaya experts consider it outside their domain and speak accordingly.
ID1023
Vinayadharā pana ekacce vinayameva jānanti, ekacce sakalaṃ piṭakattayaṃ jānanti, ekacce sabāhirasamayaṃ piṭakattayaṃ jānanti, tasmā kathetuṃ samatthabhāvoyeva pamāṇaṃ. Vedikānampi vacanaṃ vedappakaraṇāgatameva pamāṇaṃ. Na yaṃ kiñci hatthagatagaṇanamattaṃ, tasmā yadā pathavissaro rājā sadivasaṃ māsaṃ ākaḍḍhitukāmo “jeṭṭhamāsakāḷapakkhauposathaṃ pannarasiyaṃ karontū”ti yācissati, tadā “sakiṃ pakkhassa cātuddase vā pannarase vā”ti vacanato pannarasiyaṃ uposathakaraṇe doso natthi, yadā suddhamāsameva ākaḍḍhitukāmo “cātuddasiyaṃ karontū”ti yācissati, evaṃ sati pakatiyāpi jeṭṭhamāsakāḷapakkhuposatho cātuddasoyevāti katvā doso natthi, ubhayathāpi uposatho sukatoyeva hoti, tasmā anuvattitabbo. Tato paraṃ paṭhamāsāḷhamāsassa juṇhapakkhepi kāḷapakkhepi dutiyāsāḷhamāsassa juṇhapakkhepi pannarasīuposathaṃ katvā pāṭipadadivase tithiyogaṃ vā nakkhattayogaṃ vā anoloketvā pāto aruṇuggamanānantarato paṭṭhāya yāva puna aruṇuggamanā sakaladivasarattiyaṃ yathājjhāsayaṃ vassaṃ upagacchanto sūpagatova hoti, natthi koci dosoti daṭṭhabbo. Bhavatvevaṃ, pātova vassaṃ upagacchanto atthīti? Atthi. Vuttañhetaṃ senāsanakkhandhakavaṇṇanāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318) “sace pātova gāhite senāsane añño vitakkacāriko bhikkhu āgantvā senāsanaṃ yācati, ’gahitaṃ, bhante, senāsanaṃ, vassūpagato saṅgho, ramaṇīyo vihāro, rukkhamūlādīsu yattha icchatha, tattha vasathā’ti vattabbo”ti.
Some Vinaya masters know only the Vinaya, some know the entire three Piṭakas, and some know the three Piṭakas along with external traditions. Therefore, the ability to expound is the measure. Even the statements of Vedic scholars are authoritative only when they come from Vedic treatises, not just any casual reckoning at hand. Thus, when King Pathavissara wishes to draw a month with a day and requests, “Let them observe the Uposatha of the dark fortnight of Jeṭṭha on the fifteenth,” since it is said, “Once in the fortnight, on the fourteenth or fifteenth,” there is no fault in observing the Uposatha on the fifteenth. When he wishes to draw only a pure month and requests, “Let them observe it on the fourteenth,” even then, since the Uposatha of the dark fortnight of Jeṭṭha is naturally on the fourteenth, there is no fault. In both cases, the Uposatha is well-performed and should be followed. Thereafter, whether in the bright or dark fortnight of the first Āsāḷha month, or the bright fortnight of the second Āsāḷha month, having observed the Uposatha on the fifteenth, one who enters the rains retreat on the first day, from the moment after the dawn following that day until the next dawn, throughout the entire day and night, according to one’s intention, is indeed well-entered. There is no fault to be seen. But is there any benefit in entering the rains retreat in the morning? There is. It is said in the commentary on the Senāsanakkhandhaka (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318): “If another wandering monk, given to speculation, comes to a lodging taken in the morning and requests it, he should be told, ‘Venerable sir, the lodging is taken; the Sangha has entered the rains retreat. The monastery is pleasant. Dwell wherever you wish—under a tree root or elsewhere.’”
Vinaya masters, on the other hand, some know only the Vinaya, some know the entire three Piṭakas, some know the three Piṭakas along with all external doctrines. Therefore, the very ability to speak is the authority. Even the statement of the knowledgeable is authoritative only as it occurs in Vedic scriptures. Not just any hand-counting; therefore, when the king, lord of the earth, wishing to extend the month with a day, requests, “Let them make the dark-half Uposatha of the month of Jeṭṭha on the fifteenth day,” then, because of the statement, “once in a fortnight, either on the fourteenth or the fifteenth,” there is no fault in performing the Uposatha on the fifteenth day. When, wishing to extend only the pure month, he requests, “Let them do it on the fourteenth,” in that case, since even naturally the dark-half Uposatha of the month of Jeṭṭha is indeed on the fourteenth, there is no fault. In both ways, the Uposatha is well-performed; therefore, it should be followed. After that, in the bright half and the dark half of the first Āsāḷha month, and also in the bright half of the second Āsāḷha month, having performed the fifteenth-day Uposatha, on the first day, not considering the conjunction of lunar days or the conjunction of asterisms, starting from immediately after the rise of dawn in the morning, until the rise of dawn again, throughout the entire day and night, entering the rains retreat according to one’s preference, one is well-entered; there is no fault whatsoever, this should be understood. Is this so? Is there anyone who enters the rains retreat early in the morning? There is. It is stated in the commentary on the Senāsanakkhandhaka (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318), “If, having taken a dwelling early in the morning, another monk, given to discursive thought, comes and asks for a dwelling, he should be told, ‘The dwelling has been taken, venerable sir, the Saṅgha has entered the rains retreat, the monastery is delightful, dwell wherever you wish among the roots of trees, etc.’”
Some Vinaya experts know only the Vinaya, some know the entire Tipiṭaka, and some know the Tipiṭaka along with external traditions. Therefore, the ability to speak is the measure. The statements of the Vedas are also measured by what is found in the Vedic texts. It is not merely whatever comes to hand. Therefore, when the king, the lord of the earth, wishes to draw the month and day together, saying, “Let them perform the uposatha on the fifteenth day of the dark fortnight of Jeṭṭhamāsa,” then, according to the statement, “Once in a fortnight, on the fourteenth or fifteenth,” there is no fault in performing the uposatha on the fifteenth. When he wishes to draw only the pure month, saying, “Let them perform it on the fourteenth,” then, considering that the uposatha of the dark fortnight of Jeṭṭhamāsa is naturally on the fourteenth, there is no fault. In both cases, the uposatha is well performed, so it should be followed. Thereafter, in the bright fortnight of the first Āsāḷhamāsa and the dark fortnight of the second Āsāḷhamāsa, having performed the uposatha on the fifteenth, without looking at the conjunction of the day or constellation, from the moment of dawn until the next dawn, throughout the entire day and night, one who enters the rains retreat according to his inclination is well entered. There is no fault. Is it possible to enter the rains retreat in the morning? Yes. It is said in the commentary on the Senāsana Khandhaka (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318), “If, in the morning, having taken a lodging, another monk who is wandering for meditation comes and requests the lodging, it should be said, ‘Venerable, the lodging has been taken, the Saṅgha has entered the rains retreat, the monastery is pleasant, dwell at the foot of a tree or wherever you wish.’”
ID1024
Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary and compendium of the Vinaya,
Thus in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a compilation of the explanations of the Vinaya,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is adorned with the collection and praise of the Vinaya,
ID1025
Vassūpanāyikavinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma
this is the ornamented discussion on the decision regarding entering the rains retreat,
the chapter named the Ornament of the Discourse on Deciding the Entrance into the Rains Retreat
The section on the determination of entering the rains retreat is called the ornament of discussion.
ID1026
Chabbīsatimo paricchedo.
the twenty-sixth section.
is the twenty-sixth section.
The twenty-sixth chapter is completed.
ID1027
Paṭhamo bhāgo niṭṭhito.
The first part is completed.
The first part is finished.
The first part is concluded.
ID1028
—
—
—
—
ID1029
ID1030
ID1031
ID1032
183. Evaṃ vassūpanāyikavinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni upajjhāyavattādivattakathaṃ kathetuṃ “vattanti etthā”tiādimāha. Tattha vattetabbaṃ pavattetabbanti vattaṃ, saddhivihārikādīhi upajjhāyādīsu pavattetabbaṃ ābhisamācārikasīlaṃ. Taṃ katividhanti āha “vattaṃ nāmetaṃ…pe… bahuvidha”nti. Vaccakuṭivattanti ettha iti-saddo ādyattho. Tena saddhivihārikavattaantevāsikavattaanumodanavattāni saṅgayhanti. Vuttañhi tattha tattha aṭṭhakathāsu “cuddasa khandhakavattānī”ti. Vattakkhandhake (cūḷava. 356) ca pāḷiyaṃ āgatameva, tattha pana āgantukavattato paṭṭhāya āgataṃ, idha upajjhāyavattato. Ito aññānipi pañcasattati sekhiyavattāni dveasīti mahāvattāni ca vattameva. Tesu pana sekhiyavattāni mahāvibhaṅge āgatāni, mahāvattāni kammakkhandhakapārivāsikakkhandhakesu (cūḷava. 75 ādayo), tasmā idha cuddasa khandhakavattāniyeva dassitāni. Tesu upajjhāyavattaṃ paṭhamaṃ dassento “tattha upajjhāyavattaṃ tāva evaṃ veditabba”ntyādimāha.
183. Having discussed the decision regarding entering the rains retreat, now to discuss the duties of a preceptor and others, it begins with “vattanti ettha” and so forth. Therein, vattaṃ means what is to be practiced or performed—the moral conduct to be observed by co-residents and others toward preceptors and the like. Taṃ—how many kinds is it? It says, “vattaṃ nāmetaṃ… bahuvidha” and so forth. Vaccakuṭivatta—here the word iti indicates the beginning, encompassing the duties of co-residents, pupils, and gratitude. For it is said in various commentaries, “There are fourteen khandhaka duties.” This is also found in the canonical text of the Vattakkhandhaka (cūḷava. 356). There it begins with the duties of a guest, but here with the duties of a preceptor. Beyond these, there are also seventy-five training duties and eighty-two great duties, all of which are duties. The training duties are found in the Mahāvibhaṅga, and the great duties in the Kammakkhandhaka and Pārivāsikakkhandhaka (cūḷava. 75 and following). Therefore, here only the fourteen khandhaka duties are shown. Among them, presenting the duties of a preceptor first, it says, “tattha upajjhāyavattaṃ tāva evaṃ veditabba” and so forth.
183. Having thus explained the decision on entering the rains retreat, now, in order to explain the discourse on the duties of the preceptor and other duties, he begins with “vattanti etthā”, etc. Therein, what should be practiced, what should be made to happen, is vatta, the virtuous conduct of good behavior which should be practiced by those living together and others towards preceptors and others. How many kinds is that? He says, “vattaṃ nāmetaṃ…pe… bahuvidha”, that duty, indeed…etc…is of many kinds. In vaccakuṭivatta (duties concerning the toilet), the word iti (thus) indicates the beginning. With that, the duties of one living together, the duties of a pupil, and the duties of rejoicing are included. For it has been stated in various commentaries, “Fourteen Khandhaka duties.” And in the Pāli of the Vattakkhandhaka (cūḷava. 356), it has indeed come, but there it comes starting from the duties of a guest, here from the duties of a preceptor. Other than these, the seventy-five Sekhiyavatta (rules of training) and the eighty-two Mahāvatta (great duties) are also duties. Among them, the Sekhiyavatta come in the Mahāvibhaṅga, the Mahāvatta in the Kammakkhandhaka and Pārivāsikakkhandhaka (cūḷava. 75, etc.). Therefore, here only the fourteen Khandhaka duties are shown. Among them, showing the duty of the preceptor first, he begins with “tattha upajjhāyavattaṃ tāva evaṃ veditabba”, there, the duty of the preceptor should first be understood thus, etc.
183. Having thus discussed the determination of entering the rains retreat, now to discuss the duties of the preceptor, etc., it is said, “Duties are here.” Here, what should be practiced and performed is called duty, the ethical conduct to be performed by the preceptor, etc., towards the pupil, etc. That is of how many kinds? It is said, “Duty is indeed… of many kinds.” The duty of the restroom—here the word iti has the meaning of “beginning.” Thus, the duties of the pupil, the novice, and the duty of rejoicing are included. It is said in the commentaries, “Fourteen chapter duties.” In the duty chapter (cūḷava. 356), it is also found in the Pali. There, however, it begins from the duty of the guest, here from the duty of the preceptor. Besides these, there are seventy-five training duties and eighty-two major duties, which are also duties. Among these, the training duties are found in the Mahāvibhaṅga, and the major duties in the Kammakkhandhaka and Pārivāsikakkhandhaka (cūḷava. 75, etc.). Therefore, here only the fourteen chapter duties are shown. Among these, showing the preceptor’s duty first, it is said, “Here, the preceptor’s duty should be understood as follows.”
ID1033
Tattha ko upajjhāyo, kenaṭṭhena upajjhāyo, kathaṃ gahito upajjhāyo, kena vattitabbaṃ upajjhāyavattaṃ, katamaṃ taṃ vattanti? Tattha ko upajjhāyoti “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, byattena bhikkhunā paṭibalena dasavassena vā atirekadasavassena vā upasampādetu”ntiādivacanato (mahāva. 76) byattibalasampanno upasampadato paṭṭhāya dasavasso vā atirekadasavasso vā bhikkhu upajjhāyo. Kenaṭṭhena upajjhāyoti vajjāvajjaṃ upanijjhāyatīti upajjhāyo, saddhivihārikānaṃ khuddakaṃ vajjaṃ vā mahantaṃ vajjaṃ vā bhuso cintetīti attho. Kathaṃ gahito hoti upajjhāyoti saddhivihārikena ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvā ukkuṭikaṃ nisīditvā añjaliṃ paggahetvā “upajjhāyo me, bhante, hohī”ti tikkhattuṃ vutte sace upajjhāyo “sāhū”ti vā “lahū”ti vā “opāyika”nti vā “patirūpa”nti vā “pāsādikena sampādehī”ti vā imesu pañcasu padesu yassa kassaci padassa vasena kāyena vā vācāya vā kāyavācāhi vā “gahito tayā upajjhāyo”ti upajjhāyaggahaṇaṃ viññāpeti, gahito hoti upajjhāyo. Tattha sāhūti sādhu. Lahūti agaru, subharatāti attho. Opāyikanti upāyapaṭisaṃyuttaṃ, evaṃ paṭipajjanaṃ nittharaṇupāyoti attho. Patirūpanti sāmīcikammamidanti attho. Pāsādikenāti pasādāvahena kāyavacīpayogena sampādehīti attho.
Therein, who is a preceptor? By what quality is he a preceptor? How is a preceptor taken? By whom should the duties of a preceptor be observed? What are those duties? Therein, who is a preceptor? From the statement, “I allow, monks, an experienced and competent monk of ten years’ standing or more to ordain” (mahāva. 76) and so forth, a monk who is accomplished in skill and competence, of ten years’ standing or more from ordination, is a preceptor. By what quality is he a preceptor? He is a preceptor (upajjhāyo) because he closely examines what is blamable and blameless—meaning he deeply considers the minor or major faults of his co-residents. How is a preceptor taken? When a co-resident, having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, squatting, raising his joined hands, says three times, “Venerable sir, be my preceptor,” if the preceptor indicates acceptance by body, speech, or both—using any of the five expressions: “Good,” “Light,” “Appropriate,” “Proper,” or “Accomplish it gracefully”—saying, “You have taken a preceptor,” then the preceptor is taken. Therein, sāhu means good. Lahu means light, easy to sustain. Opāyika means connected with a means, a way to liberation. Patirūpa means this is proper conduct. Pāsādikena means accomplish it with a pleasing bodily and verbal act.
Therein, who is a preceptor, in what sense is he a preceptor, how is a preceptor accepted, by whom should the duty of a preceptor be practiced, and what is that duty? Therein, who is a preceptor? Because of the statement, “I allow, monks, a learned and competent monk of ten years or more than ten years from full ordination to ordain,” (mahāva. 76) a learned and competent monk of ten years or more than ten years from full ordination is a preceptor. In what sense is he a preceptor? He reflects upon what is to be avoided and what is not to be avoided, thus he is an upajjhāya, meaning, he greatly contemplates the minor or major faults of those living with him. How is a preceptor accepted? By a one living together placing his upper robe over one shoulder, sitting on his heels, raising his joined hands, and saying three times, “Be my preceptor, venerable sir.” If the preceptor indicates the acceptance of the preceptor by way of any of these five phrases, either “sāhū” (good), or “lahū” (light), or “opāyika” (suitable), or “patirūpa” (proper), or “pāsādikena sampādehi” (accomplish with a pleasing manner), by body, or speech, or by body and speech, saying “The preceptor has been accepted by you,” the preceptor is accepted. Therein, sāhū means good. Lahū means not heavy, meaning easily borne. Opāyika means connected with the means, meaning that practicing thus is the means to liberation. Patirūpa means that this is a proper action. Pāsādikenā means accomplish with a pleasing bodily and verbal expression.
Here, who is the preceptor? By what meaning is he the preceptor? How is the preceptor accepted? By what should the preceptor’s duty be performed? What is that duty? Here, who is the preceptor? From the statement, “I allow, monks, a competent monk of ten years or more to ordain,” etc. (mahāva. 76), a monk who is competent and capable, from the time of ordination, of ten years or more is the preceptor. By what meaning is he the preceptor? He is called preceptor because he reflects on what is blameworthy and blameless. He deeply considers the minor or major faults of his pupils. How is the preceptor accepted? The pupil, having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, sitting on his heels, raising his joined palms, says three times, “Venerable, be my preceptor.” If the preceptor says, “Good,” or “Light,” or “Suitable,” or “Proper,” or “Accomplish it with respect,” by any of these five phrases, whether by body, speech, or both, he indicates, “You have accepted me as your preceptor,” and thus the preceptor is accepted. Here, “Good” means excellent. “Light” means not burdensome, easy to bear. “Suitable” means connected with the means, the way of practice leading to liberation. “Proper” means this is the appropriate action. “With respect” means accomplish it with respectful bodily and verbal conduct.
ID1034
Kena vattitabbaṃ upajjhāyavattanti gahitaupajjhāyena saddhivihārikena vattitabbaṃ. Katamaṃ taṃ vattanti idaṃ āgatameva, tattha kālasseva uṭṭhāya upāhanā omuñcitvāti sacassa paccūsakāle caṅkamanatthāya vā dhotapādapariharaṇatthāya vā paṭimukkā upāhanā pādagatā honti, tā kālasseva uṭṭhāya apanetvā. Tādisameva mukhadhovanodakaṃ dātabbanti utumpi sarīrasabhāve ca ekākāre tādisameva dātabbaṃ.
By whom should the duties of a preceptor be observed? They should be observed by the co-resident who has taken the preceptor. What are those duties? They are presented here. Therein, rising early and removing the sandals means if, at dawn, sandals are worn for walking meditation or to protect washed feet, they should be removed upon rising early. Water for washing the face should be given in the same manner means it should be given suitable to the weather and the body’s condition.
By whom should the duty of the preceptor be practiced? It should be practiced by the one living together who has accepted a preceptor. What is that duty? This has already come, therein having risen early in the morning, removing the sandals means if sandals, put on for going to walk at dawn or to avoid touching the washed feet, are on his feet, removing them having risen early in the morning. Just such water for rinsing the mouth should be given means, the season and the condition of the body should be considered, and just such (water) should be given.
By what should the preceptor’s duty be performed? It should be performed by the pupil who has accepted the preceptor. What is that duty? This is already found. Here, “rising early in the morning, removing the sandals,” means that if the sandals are on the feet for walking in the early morning or for washing the feet, they should be removed early in the morning. “Similarly, water for washing the face should be given,” means that in all seasons and bodily conditions, it should be given in the same way.
ID1035
Saguṇaṃ katvāti uttarāsaṅgaṃ saṅghāṭiñcāti dve cīvarāni ekato katvā tā dvepi saṅghāṭiyo dātabbā. Sabbañhi cīvaraṃ saṅghaṭitattā saṅghāṭīti vuccati. Tena vuttaṃ “saṅghāṭiyo dātabbā”ti. Padavītihārehīti ettha padaṃ vītiharati etthāti padavītihāro, padavītihāraṭṭhānaṃ. Dutavilambitaṃ akatvā samagamanena dvinnaṃ padānaṃ antare muṭṭhiratanamattaṃ. Padānaṃ vā vītiharaṇaṃ abhimukhaṃ haritvā nikkhepo padavītihāroti evamettha attho daṭṭhabbo. Na upajjhāyassa bhaṇamānassa antarantarā kathā opātetabbāti antaraghare vā aññatra vā bhaṇamānassa aniṭṭhite tassa vacane aññā kathā na samuṭṭhāpetabbā. Ito paṭṭhāyāti “na upajjhāyassa bhaṇamānassā”ti ettha na-kārato paṭṭhāya. Tena nātidūretiādīsu na-kārapaṭisiddhesu āpatti natthīti dasseti. Sabbattha dukkaṭāpattīti āpadāummattakhittacittavedanāṭṭatādīhi vinā paṇṇattiṃ ajānitvāpi vadantassa gilānassa ca dukkaṭameva. Āpadāsu hi antarantarā kathā vattuṃ vaṭṭati, evamaññesu na-kārapaṭisiddhesu īdisesu, itaresu pana gilānopi na muccati. Sabbattha dukkaṭāpatti veditabbāti “īdisesu gilānopi na muccatī”ti dassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Aññampi hi yathāvuttaṃ upajjhāyavattaṃ anādariyena akarontassa agilānassa vattabhede sabbattha dukkaṭameva, teneva vakkhati “agilānena hi saddhivihārikena saṭṭhivassenapi sabbaṃ upajjhāyavattaṃ kātabbaṃ, anādariyena akarontassa vattabhede dukkaṭaṃ. Na-kārapaṭisaṃyuttesu pana padesu gilānassapi paṭikkhittakiriyaṃ karontassa dukkaṭamevā”ti. Āpattisāmantā bhaṇamānoti padasodhamma(pāci. 44 ādayo)-duṭṭhullādivasena (pārā. 283) āpattiyā āsannavācaṃ bhaṇamāno. Āpattiyā āsannavācanti ca āpattijanakameva vacanaṃ sandhāya vadati. Yāya hi vācāya āpattiṃ āpajjati, sā vācā āpattiyā āsannāti vuccati.
Having folded means having folded the upper robe and the outer robe together—these two robes should be given as a pair. All robes are called saṅghāṭi because they are folded together; hence it says, “saṅghāṭiyo dātabbā”. With steps—here, padavītihāro means where steps are taken, the place of stepping. Without delay, with even steps, there should be a fist’s width between the two feet. Or padavītihāro means carrying the steps forward and placing them—such is the meaning here. The conversation of the preceptor should not be interrupted while he is speaking means that whether in a house or elsewhere, while he speaks and his words are unfinished, another topic should not be raised. From here onward refers to the negation beginning with “na” in “na upajjhāyassa bhaṇamānassa.” This shows that there is no offense in the actions prohibited by the negation such as “not too far” and so forth. Everywhere there is a dukkaṭa offense means that, except in cases of emergency, madness, derangement, or pain, even unknowingly transgressing the rule or when sick, it is a dukkaṭa offense. In emergencies, interrupting is permissible, as it is in other cases negated by “na,” but in other instances, even the sick are not exempt. Everywhere a dukkaṭa offense should be understood is said to show that “even the sick are not exempt in such cases.” For even elsewhere, one who neglects the preceptor’s duties out of disrespect, when not sick, incurs a dukkaṭa in every breach of duty. Thus, it will say, “Indeed, even a co-resident of sixty years must perform all the preceptor’s duties; if he neglects them out of disrespect, there is a dukkaṭa in each breach. But in cases connected with negation, even a sick person who performs the prohibited act incurs a dukkaṭa.” Speaking near an offense means speaking words close to an offense, such as those related to base terms (pāci. 44 and following) or gross matters (pārā. 283). Words near an offense refers to speech that causes an offense, for the speech by which one incurs an offense is called “near an offense.”
Having made saguṇaṃ means having made the upper robe and the outer robe two robes into one, both those outer robes should be given. For all robes are called outer robes because they are worn together. Therefore, it is said “saṅghāṭiyo dātabbā”, outer robes should be given. In padavītihārehī, a padavītihāro is where a step is taken beyond. The place for taking a step beyond. Not making it too slow or too fast, with even walking, the space between two steps should be the size of a fist or a ratana. Or, the taking of steps beyond, carrying them forward and placing them down is padavītihāro, thus the meaning should be understood here. While the preceptor is speaking, an intervening talk should not be interjected means, whether in the inner house or elsewhere, while he is speaking, before his words are finished, another talk should not be raised. From here onwards means from the negative particle in “While the preceptor is speaking.” Therefore, in nātidūre (not too far), etc., there is no offense in the things prohibited by the negative particle, this shows. Everywhere there is a dukkaṭa offense means, apart from being overcome by misfortune, madness, pain, etc., even for one who speaks not knowing the rule and for one who is ill, there is only a dukkaṭa. For in misfortunes, it is proper to speak in between, and similarly in other such cases prohibited by the negative particle. But in other cases, even an ill person is not exempt. Everywhere a dukkaṭa offense should be understood has been stated to show that “in such cases, even an ill person is not exempt.” For even for one who is not ill, not doing the preceptor’s duty as stated, out of disrespect, there is a dukkaṭa everywhere in the breach of duty. Therefore, he will say, “Indeed, a saddhivihārika who is not ill should perform all the duties of the preceptor, even for sixty years. For one who does not do so out of disrespect, there is a dukkaṭa in the breach of duty. However, in the cases connected with the negative particle, even for an ill person who does the prohibited action, there is only a dukkaṭa.” Speaking close to an offense means speaking close to an offense due to a breach of Padasodhamma(pāci. 44, etc.)-Duṭṭhulla etc. (pārā. 283) Speaking close to an offence refers to the kind of speech that causes an offence to be commited. Because of the very speech by which he commits an offence, that speech is said to be close to the offence.
“Folding it in three,” means the upper robe and the outer robe, the two robes folded together, and both should be given as outer robes. All robes are called outer robes because they are folded. Therefore, it is said, “The outer robes should be given.” “Walking step by step,” here, stepping step by step is called step walking, the place for step walking. Without delay, walking evenly, the distance between two steps is a fist’s length. The placing of the steps forward is called step walking, and this is the meaning to be understood here. “One should not interrupt the preceptor while he is speaking,” means that whether in the house or elsewhere, while the preceptor is speaking, one should not raise another topic. “From here onwards,” means from the word “not” in “not while the preceptor is speaking.” Therefore, in “not too far,” etc., the prohibitions with the word “not” do not incur an offense. “Everywhere, it is a minor offense,” means that except in cases of emergency, insanity, or mental disturbance, even if one speaks without knowing the rule, it is still a minor offense. In emergencies, it is allowable to speak intermittently, but in other cases where the prohibitions with “not” apply, even the sick are not exempt. “Everywhere, a minor offense should be understood,” is said to show that even the sick are not exempt in such cases. Moreover, as stated, the preceptor’s duty should not be disregarded by the healthy pupil, and in all cases of neglect, it is a minor offense. Therefore, it is said, “Even a healthy pupil should perform all the preceptor’s duties for sixty years, and in cases of neglect, it is a minor offense. In cases where the prohibitions with ”not” apply, even the sick, if they perform the prohibited actions, incur a minor offense.” “Speaking near an offense,” means speaking words that are near to an offense, such as cleaning the feet (pāci. 44, etc.) or harsh speech (pārā. 283). “Words near to an offense,” refers to words that generate an offense. Words by which one incurs an offense are called words near to an offense.
ID1036
Cīvarena pattaṃ veṭhetvāti ettha “uttarāsaṅgassa ekena kaṇṇena veṭhetvā”ti gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. Heṭṭhāpīṭhaṃ vā parāmasitvāti idaṃ pubbe tattha ṭhapitapattādinā asaṅghaṭṭanatthāya vuttaṃ. Cakkhunā oloketvāpi aññesaṃ abhāvaṃ ñatvāpi ṭhapetuṃ vaṭṭati eva. Caturaṅgulaṃ kaṇṇaṃ ussāretvāti kaṇṇaṃ caturaṅgulappamāṇaṃ atirekaṃ katvā evaṃ cīvaraṃ saṅgharitabbaṃ. Obhoge kāyabandhanaṃ kātabbanti kāyabandhanaṃ saṅgharitvā cīvarabhoge pakkhipitvā ṭhapetabbaṃ. Sace piṇḍapāto hotīti ettha yo gāmeyeva vā antaraghare vā paṭikkamane vā bhuñjitvā āgacchati, piṇḍaṃ vā na labhati, tassa piṇḍapāto na hoti, gāme abhuttassa pana laddhabhikkhassa vā hoti, tasmā “sace piṇḍapāto hotī”tiādi vuttaṃ. Tattha gāmeti gāmapariyāpanne tādise kismiñci padese. Antaraghareti antogehe. Paṭikkamaneti āsanasālāyaṃ. Sacepi tassa na hoti, bhuñjitukāmo ca hoti, udakaṃ datvā attanā laddhatopi piṇḍapāto upanetabbo. Tikkhattuṃ pānīyena pucchitabboti sambandho, ādimhi majjhe anteti evaṃ tikkhattuṃ pucchitabboti attho. Upakaṭṭhoti āsanno. Dhotavālikāyāti udakena gataṭṭhāne nirajāya parisuddhavālikāya.
Wrapping the bowl with the robe—here it is stated in the knotty passages, “Wrapping it with one corner of the upper robe.” Touching the lower seat is said for the sake of not knocking against a bowl or other items previously placed there. It is permissible to place it after looking with the eyes and knowing the absence of other items. Raising the corner four fingers means the corner should be raised to a measure of four fingers, and thus the robe should be folded. The waistband should be placed in the fold means the waistband should be folded and placed within the fold of the robe. If there is almsfood—here, for one who eats in the village, within a house, or at a resting place and returns, or who does not obtain alms, there is no almsfood. But for one who has not eaten in the village and has received alms, there is almsfood; hence it says, “sace piṇḍapāto hoti” and so forth. Therein, in the village means any place within the village precincts; within a house means inside a dwelling; at a resting place means in a hall. Even if he has none but wishes to eat, water should be given, and almsfood obtained by oneself should be offered. He should be asked three times about water connects thus: he should be asked three times—at the beginning, middle, and end. Approaching means near. With washed sand means with clean sand free from dust, purified by water at that spot.
Cīvarena pattaṃ veṭhetvāti, in the phrase “having wrapped the bowl with the robe,” it is said in the Ganṭhipada, “having wrapped it with one corner of the upper robe.” Heṭṭhāpīṭhaṃ vā parāmasitvāti, this is said to avoid contact with the bowl and other items previously placed there. Even after looking with the eye and knowing the absence of others, it is permissible to place it. Caturaṅgulaṃ kaṇṇaṃ ussāretvāti, having made the corner exceed by the measure of four fingerbreadths, the robe should be folded in this manner. Obhoge kāyabandhanaṃ kātabbanti, the waist-band should be folded, placed within the fold of the robe, and kept. In the phrase sace piṇḍapāto hotīti, whoever comes after eating either in the village, inside a house, or in a dining hall, or does not obtain almsfood, he does not have almsfood; but for one who has not eaten in the village, or for one who has received alms, he has almsfood, therefore, “if there is almsfood” and so forth is said. Here, gāmeti means in any such place within the boundaries of the village. Antaraghareti means inside a house. Paṭikkamaneti means in the dining hall. Even if he does not have it, and desires to eat, having given water, almsfood should be brought even from what he himself has obtained. The connection is, “should be asked three times with water,” meaning, he should be asked three times: at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end. Upakaṭṭhoti means near. Dhotavālikāyāti means with clean sand that is free of dust, in a place where water has flowed.
Cīvarena pattaṃ veṭhetvāti: Here, it is said in the section on knots, “wrapping the bowl with one corner of the upper robe.” Heṭṭhāpīṭhaṃ vā parāmasitvāti: This was stated earlier to prevent the bowl, which was placed there, from being disturbed. Even after looking with the eye and knowing the absence of others, it is permissible to place it. Caturaṅgulaṃ kaṇṇaṃ ussāretvāti: The corner should be made more than four fingerbreadths in length, and thus the robe should be folded. Obhoge kāyabandhanaṃ kātabbanti: After folding the robe, the waistband should be tied, and the robe should be placed in the fold. Sace piṇḍapāto hotīti: Here, if one who has eaten in the village, in an intermediate house, or while returning does not receive alms, then there is no alms for him. However, if one who has not eaten in the village receives alms, then there is alms for him. Therefore, it is said, “if there is alms,” etc. Here, gāmeti: refers to any place within the village boundaries. Antaraghareti: inside a house. Paṭikkamaneti: in the sitting hall. Even if he does not have alms, but desires to eat, water should be given, and alms should be offered even if obtained by oneself. He should be asked three times about water: at the beginning, middle, and end. Upakaṭṭhoti: nearby. Dhotavālikāyāti: in a place where water has flowed, free from dust, with clean sand.
ID1037
Niddhūmeti jantāghare jalamānaaggidhūmarahite. Jantāgharañhi nāma himapātabahukesu desesu tappaccayarogapīḷādinivāraṇatthaṃ sarīrasedatāpanaṭṭhānaṃ. Tattha kira andhakārapaṭicchannatāya bahūpi ekato pavisitvā cīvaraṃ nikkhipitvā aggitāpaparihārāya mattikāya mukhaṃ limpitvā sarīraṃ yāvadatthaṃ sedetvā cuṇṇādīhi ubbaṭṭetvā nahāyanti. Teneva pāḷiyaṃ (mahāva. 66) “cuṇṇaṃ sannetabba”ntiādi vuttaṃ. Sace ussahatīti sace pahoti. Vuttamevatthaṃ vibhāveti “kenaci gelaññena anabhibhūto hotī”ti. Apaṭighaṃsantenāti bhūmiyaṃ apaṭighaṃsantena. Kavāṭapīṭhanti kavāṭapīṭhañca piṭṭhasaṅghātañca acchupantena. Santānakanti yaṃ kiñci kīṭakulāvakamakkaṭakasuttādi. Ullokā paṭhamaṃ ohāretabbanti ullokato paṭhamaṃ ullokaṃ ādiṃ katvā avaharitabbanti attho. Ullokanti ca uddhaṃ olokanaṭṭhānaṃ, uparibhāganti attho. Ālokasandhikaṇṇabhāgāti ālokasandhibhāgā ca kaṇṇabhāgā ca, abbhantarabāhiravātapānakavāṭakāni ca gabbhassa ca cattāro koṇā sammajjitabbāti attho.
Without smoke means in a steam bath free from the smoke of a burning fire. A steam bath is a place for sweating the body to prevent diseases caused by cold in regions with much snow. There, it is said, due to darkness, many enter together, lay aside their robes, smear their faces with clay to avoid burns, sweat their bodies as needed, rub with powders, and bathe. Hence it is stated in the canonical text (mahāva. 66), “cuṇṇaṃ sannetabba” and so forth. If he is able means if he is capable. It clarifies the meaning with “not overcome by any illness”. Without rubbing means without rubbing against the ground. Door panel means both the door panel and the seat frame, without touching them. Debris means any insect nest, spider web, or thread. First removed from the opening means it should be cleared first from the opening, beginning with the opening. Opening means the upper part, the place of looking upward. Window corners and edges means the parts of the window and its edges, as well as the inner and outer air vents and the four corners of the room, which should be swept.
Niddhūmeti, in a bathhouse, free from the smoke of a burning fire. For a bathhouse is a place for warming the body’s sweat in regions with heavy snowfall, in order to prevent illnesses and other discomforts caused by that condition. There, it is said, because it is covered in darkness, many enter together, put down their robes, and after applying clay to their faces to protect them from the fire, they sweat their bodies as much as needed, and having scrubbed with powder and other things, they bathe. Therefore, in the Pāḷi (mahāva. 66), it is said, “powder should be kneaded” and so forth. Sace ussahatīti, if he is capable. Clarifying the same meaning, it is said, “kenaci gelaññena anabhibhūto hotī”ti. Apaṭighaṃsantenāti, not rubbing against the ground. Kavāṭapīṭhanti, not touching the door panel and the door frame. Santānakanti, any kind of insect nest, cobweb, or spider’s thread. Ullokā paṭhamaṃ ohāretabbanti, from the elevated structures (ulloka), taking down the ulloka first, taking the ulloka as the beginning, is the meaning. Ullokanti also means a place for looking upwards, meaning the upper part. Ālokasandhikaṇṇabhāgāti, the areas of the light openings and the corner areas, meaning the inner and outer windows for air, and the four corners of the room should be swept.
Niddhūmeti: in a sauna free from the smoke of burning fire. For in regions with much cold and snow, a sauna is a place for warming the body to prevent illnesses caused by cold. There, it is said that many enter together due to the darkness, place their robes, smear their faces with clay to avoid the heat of the fire, sweat sufficiently, apply powder, and bathe. Hence, in the Pāli (Mahāva. 66), it is said, “powder should be applied,” etc. Sace ussahatīti: if one is able. The meaning is explained as “not overcome by any illness.” Apaṭighaṃsantenāti: without touching the ground. Kavāṭapīṭhanti: without touching the door panel or the backrest. Santānakanti: any kind of insect nests, spider webs, etc. Ullokā paṭhamaṃ ohāretabbanti: first, the upper part should be removed, meaning the upper part should be taken first. Ullokanti: the place for looking upwards, meaning the upper part. Ālokasandhikaṇṇabhāgāti: the parts where light enters and the corners, meaning the inner and outer air vents and the four corners of the room should be swept.
ID1038
Aññattha netabboti yattha vihārato sāsane anabhirati uppannā, tato aññattha kalyāṇamittādisampattiyuttaṭṭhāne netabbo. Na ca acchinne theve pakkamitabbanti rajitacīvarato yāva appamattakampi rajanaṃ gaḷati, na tāva pakkamitabbaṃ. Na upajjhāyaṃ anāpucchā ekaccassa patto dātabbotiādi sabbaṃ upajjhāyassa visabhāgapuggalānaṃ vasena kathitaṃ. Ettha ca visabhāgapuggalānanti lajjino vā alajjino vā upajjhāyassa avaḍḍhikāme sandhāya vuttaṃ. Sace pana upajjhāyo alajjī ovādampi na gaṇhāti, lajjino ca etassa visabhāgā honti, tattha upajjhāyaṃ vihāya lajjīheva saddhiṃ āmisādiparibhogo kātabbo. Upajjhāyādibhāvo hettha nappamāṇanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Pariveṇaṃ gantvāti upajjhāyassa pariveṇaṃ gantvā. Susānanti idaṃ upalakkhaṇaṃ. Upacārasīmato bahi gantukāmena anāpucchā gantuṃ na vaṭṭati. Vuṭṭhānamassa āgametabbanti gelaññato vuṭṭhānaṃ assa āgametabbaṃ.
Taken elsewhere means he should be led to another place with good friends and resources, away from where disenchantment with the monastery or the teaching has arisen. He should not depart while the dye is still wet means he should not leave until even a little dye stops dripping from the dyed robe. The bowl of another should not be given without asking the preceptor and so forth—all this is said with regard to persons dissimilar to the preceptor. Here, dissimilar persons refers to those, whether modest or shameless, who do not desire the preceptor’s welfare. But if the preceptor is shameless and does not accept advice, and the modest ones are dissimilar to him, then association in material and spiritual matters should be done with the modest ones, bypassing the preceptor. The status of preceptor and the like is not the measure here. Having gone to the courtyard means having gone to the preceptor’s courtyard. Cemetery is an illustrative term. One wishing to go beyond the boundary of the precincts should not go without asking. His recovery should be awaited means his recovery from illness should be awaited.
Aññattha netabboti, wherever dissatisfaction with the teaching has arisen from the monastery, he should be taken elsewhere to a place endowed with good friends and other advantages. Na ca acchinne theve pakkamitabbanti, as long as even a small drop of dye is dripping from the dyed robe, one should not depart. Na upajjhāyaṃ anāpucchā ekaccassa patto dātabbotiādi, all this is said in reference to the preceptor’s dissimilar individuals. Here, visabhāgapuggalānanti means with reference to those, whether scrupulous or unscrupulous, who are unfavorable to the preceptor. But if the preceptor is unscrupulous and does not heed advice, and the scrupulous ones are unfavorable to him, then in that case, leaving aside the preceptor, association with regards to material things, should be made with the scrupulous ones. The status of preceptor and others is not to be taken as the standard here. Pariveṇaṃ gantvāti, having gone to the preceptor’s dwelling. Susānanti, this is an example. One wishing to go outside the boundary of the vicinity should not go without asking permission. Vuṭṭhānamassa āgametabbanti, his recovery from illness should be awaited.
Aññattha netabboti: one who has developed dissatisfaction with the teaching in the monastery should be taken elsewhere, to a place endowed with good friends, etc. Na ca acchinne theve pakkamitabbanti: one should not leave until even a small amount of dye has dripped from the dyed robe. Na upajjhāyaṃ anāpucchā ekaccassa patto dātabbotiādi: all this is said regarding individuals who are dissimilar to the preceptor. Here, visabhāgapuggalānanti: refers to those who are either modest or immodest, aiming to diminish the preceptor’s authority. However, if the preceptor is immodest and does not accept advice, and the modest ones are dissimilar to him, then the modest one should be associated with, leaving aside the preceptor, and material benefits should be shared. The status of preceptor, etc., should not be considered here. Pariveṇaṃ gantvāti: going to the preceptor’s dwelling. Susānanti: this is a sign. One who wishes to go outside the monastery boundary should not go without informing. Vuṭṭhānamassa āgametabbanti: his recovery from illness should be awaited.
ID1039
Upajjhāyavattakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.
The explanation of the discussion on the duties of a preceptor is completed.
The explanation of the discourse on the preceptor’s duties is finished.
The explanation of the duties toward the preceptor is concluded.
ID1040
ID1041
184. Ācariyavattakathāyaṃ ko ācariyo, kenaṭṭhena ācariyo, katividho ācariyo, kathaṃ gahito ācariyo, kena vattitabbaṃ ācariyavattaṃ, katamaṃ taṃ vattanti? Tattha ko ācariyoti “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, dasavassaṃ nissāya vatthuṃ dasavassena nissayaṃ dātu”ntiādivacanato (mahāva. 77) byattibalasampanno dasavasso vā atirekadasavasso vā bhikkhu ācariyo. Kenaṭṭhena ācariyoti antevāsikena ābhuso caritabboti ācariyo, upaṭṭhātabboti attho. Katividho ācariyoti nissayācariyapabbajjācariyaupasampadācariyadhammācariyavasena catubbidho. Tattha nissayaṃ gahetvā taṃ nissāya vatthabbo nissayācariyo. Pabbajitakāle sikkhitabbasikkhāpako pabbajjācariyo. Upasampadakāle kammavācānussāvako upasampadācariyo. Buddhavacanasikkhāpako dhammācariyo nāma. Kathaṃ gahito hoti ācariyoti antevāsikena ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvā ukkuṭikaṃ nisīditvā añjaliṃ paggahetvā “ācariyo me, bhante, hohi, āyasmato nissāya vacchāmī”ti tikkhattuṃ vutte ācariyo “sāhū”ti vā “lahū”ti vā “opāyika”nti vā “patirūpa”nti vā “pāsādikena sampādehī”ti vā kāyena viññāpeti , vācāya viññāpeti, kāyavācāhi viññāpeti, gahito hoti ācariyo.
184. In the discussion on the duties of a teacher, who is a teacher? By what quality is he a teacher? How many kinds of teachers are there? How is a teacher taken? By whom should the duties of a teacher be observed? What are those duties? Therein, who is a teacher? From the statement, “I allow, monks, one of ten years’ standing to live under dependence and to give dependence” (mahāva. 77) and so forth, a monk accomplished in skill and competence, of ten years’ standing or more, is a teacher. By what quality is he a teacher? He is a teacher (ācariyo) because he is to be closely attended to by the pupil—meaning he is to be served. How many kinds of teachers are there? There are four kinds: a dependence teacher, an ordination teacher, a higher ordination teacher, and a Dhamma teacher. Therein, one who takes dependence and under whom one should dwell is a nissayācariyo. One who trains in the precepts at the time of going forth is a pabbajjācariyo. One who recites the formal act at higher ordination is an upasampadācariyo. One who teaches the Buddha’s word is a dhammācariyo. How is a teacher taken? When a pupil, having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, squatting, raising his joined hands, says three times, “Venerable sir, be my teacher; I will dwell under your dependence,” the teacher indicates acceptance by body, speech, or both with “Good,” “Light,” “Appropriate,” “Proper,” or “Accomplish it gracefully,” and thus the teacher is taken.
184. In the discourse on the teacher’s duties, who is a teacher, in what sense is he a teacher, how many kinds of teachers are there, how is a teacher acquired, by whom should the teacher’s duty be performed, and what is that duty? Here, ko ācariyoti, “I allow, monks, to live for ten years in dependence, and for one of ten years to give dependence,” (mahāva. 77) from this statement, a monk who is competent and accomplished, ten years ordained or more than ten years, is a teacher. Kenaṭṭhena ācariyoti, ācariyo means one who should be diligently attended to (ābhuso caritabboti) by a pupil, meaning one who should be served. Katividho ācariyoti, there are four kinds: the teacher of dependence, the teacher of going forth, the teacher of higher ordination, and the teacher of Dhamma. Of these, one who is taken as a dependence and upon whom one should live in dependence is the nissayācariyo. He who instructs in the precepts to be trained in at the time of going forth is the pabbajjācariyo. He who recites the formal act at the time of higher ordination is the upasampadācariyo. He who instructs in the Buddha’s word is called the dhammācariyo. Kathaṃ gahito hoti ācariyoti, when a pupil, having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, kneeling down, and raising his joined hands, says three times, “Venerable sir, be my teacher, I will live in dependence on the venerable one,” the teacher indicates by body, indicates by speech, indicates by body and speech, “good,” or “lightly,” or “suitable,” or “proper,” or “accomplish it in a pleasing manner,” he is accepted as a teacher.
184. In the discussion on the duties toward the teacher, who is the teacher, in what sense is he a teacher, how many kinds of teachers are there, how is a teacher accepted, how should the duties toward the teacher be performed, and what are those duties? Here, ko ācariyoti: from the statement (Mahāva. 77), “I allow, monks, a ten-year seniority for residence and a ten-year seniority for granting dependence,” a monk who is competent and has ten years or more of seniority is a teacher. Kenaṭṭhena ācariyoti: one who should be attended to by the pupil is a teacher, meaning he should be served. Katividho ācariyoti: there are four kinds: the dependence teacher, the ordination teacher, the full ordination teacher, and the Dhamma teacher. Here, one who gives dependence and should be lived with is the dependence teacher. One who teaches the training rules at the time of ordination is the ordination teacher. One who recites the motion at the time of full ordination is the full ordination teacher. One who teaches the Buddha’s words is the Dhamma teacher. Kathaṃ gahito hoti ācariyoti: the pupil, having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, sits in a kneeling position, raises his hands in añjali, and says three times, “Venerable sir, be my teacher; I will live in dependence on you.” The teacher, by saying “good,” “easy,” “suitable,” “proper,” or “accomplish with respect,” either by body, speech, or both, accepts him as a teacher.
ID1042
Kena vattitabbaṃ ācariyavattanti antevāsikena vattitabbaṃ ācariyavattaṃ. Byattena bhikkhunā pañca vassāni nissāya vatthabbaṃ, abyattena yāvajīvaṃ. Ettha sacāyaṃ bhikkhu vuḍḍhataraṃ ācariyaṃ na labhati, upasampadāya saṭṭhivasso vā sattativasso vā hoti, navakatarassapi byattassa santike ukkuṭikaṃ nisīditvā añjaliṃ paggahetvā “ācariyo me, āvuso, hohi, āyasmato nissāya vacchāmī”ti evaṃ tikkhattuṃ vatvā nissayo gahetabbo. Gāmappavesanaṃ āpucchantenapi ukkuṭikaṃ nisīditvā añjaliṃ paggahetvā “gāmappavesanaṃ āpucchāmi ācariyā”ti vattabbaṃ. Esa nayo sabbaāpucchanesu. Katamaṃ taṃ vattanti ettha upajjhāyavattato aññaṃ natthīti āha “idameva ca…pe… ācariyavattanti vuccatī”ti. Nanu upajjhācariyā bhinnapadatthā, atha kasmā idameva “ācariyavatta”nti vuccatīti āha “ācariyassa kattabbattā”ti. Yathā ekopi bhikkhu mātubhātābhūtattā “mātulo”ti ca dhamme sikkhāpakattā “ācariyo”ti ca vuccati, evaṃ ekameva vattaṃ upajjhāyassa kattabbattā “upajjhāyavatta”nti ca ācariyassa kattabbattā “ācariyavatta”nti ca vuccatīti adhippāyo. Evaṃ santepi nāme bhinne attho bhinno siyāti āha “nāmamattameva hettha nāna”nti. Yathā “indo sakko”tiādīsu nāmamattameva bhinnaṃ, na attho, evametthāpīti daṭṭhabboti.
By whom should the duties of a teacher be observed? The duties of a teacher should be observed by the pupil. A skilled monk must dwell under dependence for five years, an unskilled one for life. Here, if this monk cannot find an older teacher and is sixty or seventy years from ordination, he should squat, raise his joined hands, and say three times to a skilled monk even junior to him, “Friend, be my teacher; I will dwell under your dependence,” and take dependence. Even when asking to enter a village, he should squat, raise his joined hands, and say, “I ask permission to enter the village, teacher.” This applies to all requests. What are those duties? Here it says, “idameva ca… ācariyavattanti vuccati”, meaning there is nothing different from the preceptor’s duties. But are not “preceptor” and “teacher” distinct in meaning? Why then is this called “ācariyavatta”? It says, “ācariyassa kattabbattā”. Just as one monk may be called “uncle” due to being a mother’s brother and “teacher” due to training in the Dhamma, so too this single duty is called “upajjhāyavatta” because it is to be done for the preceptor and “ācariyavatta” because it is to be done for the teacher—this is the intent. Even so, with different names, might the meaning differ? It says, “nāmamattameva hettha nāna”. Just as in “Indra” and “Sakka” the difference is only in name, not in meaning, so it is here.
Kena vattitabbaṃ ācariyavattanti, the teacher’s duty should be performed by the pupil. A competent monk should live in dependence for five years, an incompetent one for life. Here, if this monk does not find a more senior teacher, and is sixty or seventy years old from his higher ordination, even sitting on his heels near a younger, competent monk, raising his joined hands, saying three times, “Sir, be my teacher, I will live in dependence on the venerable one,” dependence should be taken. When asking permission to enter a village, one should also sit on his heels, raise his joined hands, and say, “I ask permission to enter the village, teacher.” This method applies to all requests for permission. Katamaṃ taṃ vattanti, here, there is nothing other than the preceptor’s duty, thus he says, “idameva ca…pe… ācariyavattanti vuccatī”ti. Since the preceptor and the teacher are different entities, why is this very thing called “the teacher’s duty”? He says, “ācariyassa kattabbattā”ti. Just as even a single monk, because he is like a mother’s brother, is called “maternal uncle,” and because he instructs in the Dhamma, is called “teacher,” similarly, one and the same duty, because it should be performed for the preceptor, is called “the preceptor’s duty,” and because it should be performed for the teacher, is called “the teacher’s duty,” this is the intention. Even though this is so, the name is different, might the meaning be different? He says, “nāmamattameva hettha nāna”ti. Just as in “Indra, Sakka,” and so forth, only the name is different, not the meaning, so it should be seen here as well.
Kena vattitabbaṃ ācariyavattanti: the duties toward the teacher should be performed by the pupil. A competent monk should live in dependence for five years, while an incompetent one should do so for life. Here, if this monk does not obtain a more senior teacher, and he is sixty or seventy years old, he should sit in a kneeling position, raise his hands in añjali, and say three times, “Friend, be my teacher; I will live in dependence on you,” and thus take dependence. When informing about entering the village, one should sit in a kneeling position, raise his hands in añjali, and say, “I inform the teacher about entering the village.” This is the method for all informings. Katamaṃ taṃ vattanti: here, there is nothing other than the duties toward the preceptor, hence it is said, “this very…pe… is called the duties toward the teacher.” But the preceptor and the teacher have different meanings, so why is this called “the duties toward the teacher”? It is said, “because it is to be done by the teacher.” Just as one monk, being the mother’s brother, is called “maternal uncle,” and being a teacher of the Dhamma, is called “teacher,” so too, one duty, being to be done by the preceptor, is called “the duties toward the preceptor,” and being to be done by the teacher, is called “the duties toward the teacher.” This is the intention. Even so, the name is different, but the meaning is not different, hence it is said, “here, only the name is different.” Just as in “Indra, Sakka,” etc., only the name is different, not the meaning, so too here it should be understood.
ID1043
Idāni tasmiṃ vatte saddhivihārikaantevāsikānaṃ vasena labbhamānaṃ kañci visesaṃ dassento “tattha yāva cīvararajana”ntyādimāha. Tato upajjhāyācariyānaṃ vasena visesaṃ dassetuṃ “upajjhāye”tyādimāha. Tesu vattaṃ sādiyantesu āpatti, asādiyantesu anāpatti, tesu ajānantesu , ekassa bhārakaraṇepi anāpattīti ayamettha piṇḍattho. Idāni antevāsikavisesavasena labbhamānavisesaṃ dassetumāha “ettha cā”tiādi.
Now, to show some distinction in that duty concerning co-residents and pupils, it says, “tattha yāva cīvararajana” and so forth. Then, to show a distinction concerning preceptors and teachers, it says, “upajjhāye” and so forth. Among these, there is an offense if they accept it, no offense if they do not, and no offense if they are unaware or if one takes on the burden—such is the gist here. Now, to show a distinction available concerning pupils, it says, “ettha ca” and so forth.
Now, showing some particular points that are obtained in that duty with respect to resident pupils and pupils, he says, “tattha yāva cīvararajana”ntyādi. Then, to show the particular points with respect to preceptors and teachers, he says, “upajjhāye”tyādi. When they delight in the duty, there is an offense; when they do not delight in it, there is no offense; when they are unaware of it, and even when the burden is placed on one, there is no offense; this is the gist here. Now, to show the particular points that are obtained with respect to the different types of pupils, he says, “ettha cā”tiādi.
Now, showing some distinctions in the duties toward the pupils and novices, it is said, “until the robe is dyed,” etc. Then, to show the distinctions regarding the preceptors and teachers, it is said, “toward the preceptor,” etc. When they accept the duties, there is an offense; when they do not accept, there is no offense; when they do not know, even if one is burdened, there is no offense. This is the summary here. Now, to show the distinctions regarding the pupils, it is said, “here also,” etc.
ID1044
Ācariyavattakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.
The explanation of the discussion on the duties of a teacher is completed.
The explanation of the discourse on the teacher’s duties is finished.
The explanation of the duties toward the teacher is concluded.
ID1045
ID1046
Saddhivihārikavatte ko saddhivihāriko, kenaṭṭhena saddhivihāriko, kena vattitabbaṃ saddhivihārikavattaṃ, katamaṃ taṃ vattanti? Tattha ko saddhivihārikoti upasampanno vā hotu sāmaṇero vā, yo upajjhaṃ gaṇhāti, so saddhivihāriko nāma. Kenaṭṭhena saddhivihārikoti upajjhāyena saddhiṃ vihāro etassa atthīti saddhivihārikoti atthena. Kena vattitabbaṃ saddhivihārikavattanti upajjhāyena vattitabbaṃ. Tena vuttaṃ vattakkhandhake (mahāva. 378) “tena hi, bhikkhave, upajjhāyānaṃ saddhivihārikesu vattaṃ paññapessāmi, yathā upajjhāyehi saddhivihārikesu vattitabba”nti. Katamaṃ taṃ vattanti idāni pakaraṇāgataṃ. Imasmiṃ pana pakaraṇe saṅkheparucittā, ācariyasaddhivihārikaantevāsikavattānañca samānattā dvepi ekato vuttā, tathāpi vattakkhandhake visuṃ visuṃ āgatattā visuṃ visuṃyeva kathayāma.
In the duties of a co-resident, who is a co-resident? By what quality is he a co-resident? By whom should the duties of a co-resident be observed? What are those duties? Therein, who is a co-resident? Whether ordained or a novice, one who takes a preceptor is called a co-resident (saddhivihāriko). By what quality is he a co-resident? He is a co-resident because he dwells together with the preceptor—this is the meaning. By whom should the duties of a co-resident be observed? They should be observed by the preceptor. Hence it is said in the Vattakkhandhaka (mahāva. 378), “Therefore, monks, I will lay down the duties of preceptors toward co-residents, how preceptors should act toward co-residents.” What are those duties? They are presented in this section. However, due to a preference for brevity in this section, and since the duties of teachers, co-residents, and pupils are similar, the two are stated together. Nevertheless, since they are separately presented in the Vattakkhandhaka, we will explain them separately.
In the duty of the resident pupil, who is a resident pupil, in what sense is he a resident pupil, by whom should the resident pupil’s duty be performed, and what is that duty? Here, ko saddhivihārikoti, whether he is fully ordained or a novice, whoever takes a preceptor, he is called a resident pupil. Kenaṭṭhena saddhivihārikoti, in the sense that he has a dwelling together with the preceptor. Kena vattitabbaṃ saddhivihārikavattanti, it should be performed by the preceptor. Therefore, it is said in the Vattakkhandhaka (mahāva. 378), “Therefore, monks, I will establish the duty for preceptors towards resident pupils, how preceptors should behave towards resident pupils.” Katamaṃ taṃ vattanti, now it has come to the subject matter. But in this section, due to a desire for conciseness and because the duties of teachers, resident pupils, and pupils are similar, both are stated together; however, because they are presented separately in the Vattakkhandhaka, we will explain them separately.
In the duties toward the pupil, who is the pupil, in what sense is he a pupil, how should the duties toward the pupil be performed, and what are those duties? Here, ko saddhivihārikoti: whether fully ordained or a novice, one who takes a preceptor is called a pupil. Kenaṭṭhena saddhivihārikoti: one who lives together with the preceptor is called a pupil. Kena vattitabbaṃ saddhivihārikavattanti: it should be performed by the preceptor. Hence, it is said in the section on duties (Mahāva. 378), “Therefore, monks, I will prescribe the duties for preceptors toward their pupils, as preceptors should perform duties toward their pupils.” Katamaṃ taṃ vattanti: now, it is the subject matter. In this context, it is briefly mentioned, and since the duties toward the teacher, pupil, and novice are similar, both are stated together. However, since they are separately mentioned in the section on duties, they are explained separately.
ID1047
Saṅgahetabbo anuggahetabboti uddesādīhissa saṅgaho ca anuggaho ca kātabbo. Tattha uddesoti pāḷivacanaṃ. Paripucchāti pāḷiyā atthavaṇṇanā. Ovādoti anotiṇṇe vatthusmiṃ “idaṃ karohi, idaṃ mā karitthā”ti vacanaṃ. Anusāsanīti otiṇṇe vatthusmiṃ. Apica otiṇṇe vā anotiṇṇe vā paṭhamaṃ vacanaṃ ovādo, punappunaṃ vacanaṃ anusāsanīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Sace upajjhāyassa patto hotīti sace atirekapatto hoti. Esa nayo sabbattha. Parikkhāroti aññopi samaṇaparikkhāro. Idha ussukkaṃ nāma dhammiyena nayena uppajjamānaupāyapariyesanaṃ. Ito paraṃ dantakaṭṭhadānaṃ ādiṃ katvā ācamanakumbhiyā udakasiñcanapariyosānaṃ vattaṃ gilānasseva saddhivihārikassa kātabbaṃ. Anabhirativūpakāsanādi pana agilānassapi kattabbameva. Cīvaraṃ rajantenāti “evaṃ rajeyyāsī”ti upajjhāyato upāyaṃ sutvā rajantena. Sesaṃ vuttanayeneva veditabbaṃ. Saṅgahetabbo anuggahetabbotiādīsu anādariyaṃ paṭicca dhammāmisehi asaṅgaṇhantānaṃ ācariyupajjhāyānaṃ dukkaṭaṃ vattabhedattā. Teneva parivārepi (pari. 322) “na dento āpajjatī”ti vuttaṃ. Sesaṃ suviññeyyameva.
He should be supported and assisted means his support and assistance should be provided through recitation and so forth. Therein, recitation means the canonical text. Questioning means explanation of the text’s meaning. Advice means words such as “Do this, do not do that” regarding a matter not yet undertaken. Instruction means regarding a matter undertaken. Furthermore, the first statement, whether regarding an undertaken or unundertaken matter, is advice, and repeated statements are instruction. If the preceptor has a bowl means if he has an extra bowl. This applies throughout. Requisite means any other monastic requisite. Here, effort means seeking a method that arises righteously. From here, beginning with giving a tooth-stick and ending with pouring water into the rinsing pot, the duties are to be performed only for a sick co-resident. However, dispelling disenchantment and so forth must be done even for one who is not sick. While dyeing the robe means dyeing it after hearing the method from the preceptor, “Dye it thus.” The rest should be understood as previously explained. In “He should be supported and assisted” and so forth, for preceptors and teachers who, out of disrespect, do not support with material or spiritual things, there is a dukkaṭa due to the breach of duty. Hence it is said in the Parivāra (pari. 322), “Not giving, he incurs [an offense].” The rest is easily understood.
Saṅgahetabbo anuggahetabboti, he should be supported and assisted with recitation and other matters. Here, uddesoti means reciting the Pāḷi text. Paripucchāti means explaining the meaning of the Pāḷi. Ovādoti means advice in a matter not yet encountered, saying, “Do this, do not do this.” Anusāsanīti means in a matter already encountered. Moreover, whether in a matter encountered or not encountered, the first statement is ovādo, the repeated statement is anusāsanī, it should be seen. Sace upajjhāyassa patto hotīti, if he has an extra bowl. This method applies to all. Parikkhāroti means other requisites of a monk. Here, ussukkaṃ means the search for ways that arise through a lawful method. From here onwards, starting with giving a tooth-stick and ending with pouring water from the water vessel, the duty should be performed for a resident pupil who is ill. But calming down dissatisfaction and other matters should be done even for one who is not ill. Cīvaraṃ rajantenāti, by one who is dyeing, after hearing the method from the preceptor, saying “You should dye in this way.” The rest should be understood in the same way as stated. In saṅgahetabbo anuggahetabbotiādi, out of disrespect, for teachers and preceptors who do not support with Dhamma and material things, there is a dukkaṭa (offense of wrong-doing) because of breaking the duty. Therefore, even in the Parivāra (pari. 322) it is said, “Not giving, he commits an offence.” The rest is easily understood.
Saṅgahetabbo anuggahetabboti: he should be supported and assisted in recitation, etc. Here, uddesoti: the Pāli text. Paripucchāti: the explanation of the meaning of the Pāli. Ovādoti: instruction on a matter not yet undertaken, saying, “do this, do not do that.” Anusāsanīti: instruction on a matter already undertaken. Moreover, whether the matter is undertaken or not, the first instruction is ovāda, and repeated instruction is anusāsanī. Sace upajjhāyassa patto hotīti: if there is an extra bowl. This is the method in all cases. Parikkhāroti: other monastic requisites. Here, ussukkaṃ means the search for appropriate means in a righteous manner. From here on, starting with giving toothwood, up to pouring water into the rinsing pot, the duties should be performed for a sick pupil. However, disenchantment and seclusion, etc., should also be done for a healthy pupil. Cīvaraṃ rajantenāti: having heard the method from the preceptor, one should dye the robe. The rest should be understood as previously stated. Saṅgahetabbo anuggahetabbotiādi: due to disrespect, not supporting with Dhamma and material benefits, the teacher and preceptor commit a wrongdoing. Hence, in the Parivāra (Pari. 322), it is said, “not giving, one commits an offense.” The rest is easily understood.
ID1048
Saddhivihārikavattakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.
The explanation of the discussion on the duties of a co-resident is completed.
The explanation of the discourse on the resident pupil’s duties is finished.
The explanation of the duties toward the pupil is concluded.
ID1049
ID1050
Antevāsikavatte ko antevāsiko, kenaṭṭhena antevāsiko, katividhā antevāsikā, kena vattitabbaṃ antevāsikavattaṃ, katamaṃ taṃ vattanti? Tattha ko antevāsikoti upasampanno vā hotu sāmaṇero vā, yo ācariyassa santike nissayaṃ gaṇhāti, yo vā ācariyassa ovādaṃ gahetvā pabbajati, yo vā tenānussāvito hutvā upasampajjati, yo vā tassa santike dhammaṃ pariyāpuṇāti, so sabbo antevāsikoti veditabbo. Tattha paṭhamo nissayantevāsiko nāma, dutiyo pabbajjantevāsiko nāma, tatiyo upasampadantevāsiko nāma, catuttho dhammantevāsiko nāma. Aññattha pana sippantevāsikopi āgato, so idha nādhippeto . Kenaṭṭhena antevāsikoti ante vasatīti antevāsiko aluttasamāsavasena. Katividhā antevāsikāti yathāvuttanayena catubbidhā antevāsikā.
In the duties of a pupil, who is a pupil? By what quality is he a pupil? How many kinds of pupils are there? By whom should the duties of a pupil be observed? What are those duties? Therein, who is a pupil? Whether ordained or a novice, one who takes dependence under a teacher, or goes forth after receiving advice from him, or is ordained by his recitation, or learns the Dhamma in his presence—all these are to be understood as pupils (antevāsiko). Therein, the first is a dependence pupil, the second an ordination pupil, the third a higher ordination pupil, and the fourth a Dhamma pupil. Elsewhere, a craft pupil is mentioned, but that is not intended here. By what quality is he a pupil? He is a pupil because he dwells near—this is an aluttasamāsa compound. How many kinds of pupils are there? As explained, there are four kinds of pupils.
In the duty of the pupil, who is a pupil, in what sense is he a pupil, how many kinds of pupils are there, by whom should the pupil’s duty be performed, and what is that duty? Here, ko antevāsikoti, whether he is fully ordained or a novice, whoever takes dependence from a teacher, or whoever goes forth receiving instruction from a teacher, or whoever is ordained with him as the reciter, or whoever learns the Dhamma from him, all of these are to be understood as pupils. Of these, the first is called a dependence-pupil, the second a going-forth-pupil, the third an ordination-pupil, and the fourth a Dhamma-pupil. Elsewhere, however, a skill-pupil is also mentioned, but he is not intended here. Kenaṭṭhena antevāsikoti, one who dwells near (ante vasatīti) is a pupil, by way of an undeleted compound. Katividhā antevāsikāti, according to the aforementioned method, there are four kinds of pupils.
In the duties toward the novice, who is the novice, in what sense is he a novice, how many kinds of novices are there, how should the duties toward the novice be performed, and what are those duties? Here, ko antevāsikoti: whether fully ordained or a novice, one who takes dependence near a teacher, or one who receives advice from a teacher and ordains, or one who is recited by him and fully ordained, or one who learns the Dhamma near him, all are called novices. Here, the first is called the dependence novice, the second the ordination novice, the third the full ordination novice, and the fourth the Dhamma novice. Elsewhere, the craft novice is also mentioned, but he is not intended here. Kenaṭṭhena antevāsikoti: one who lives near is called a novice, in the sense of a compound with an affixed meaning. Katividhā antevāsikāti: as stated, there are four kinds of novices.
ID1051
Kena vattitabbaṃ antevāsikavattanti catubbidhehi ācariyehi antevāsikesu vattitabbaṃ. Yathāha vattakkhandhake (cūḷava. 382) “tena hi, bhikkhave, ācariyānaṃ antevāsikesu vattaṃ paññapessāmi, yathā ācariyehi antevāsikesu vattitabba”nti. Katamaṃ taṃ vattanti yaṃ bhagavatā vattakkhandhake vuttaṃ, idha ca saṅkhepena dassitaṃ, taṃ vattanti. Idha pana attho saddhivihārikavatte vuttanayeneva veditabbo. Ayaṃ pana viseso – etesu pabbajjantevāsiko ca upasampadantevāsiko ca ācariyassa yāvajīvaṃ bhāro, nissayantevāsiko ca dhammantevāsiko ca yāva samīpe vasanti, tāvadeva, tasmā ācariyehipi tesu sammā vattitabbaṃ. Ācariyantevāsikesu hi yo yo na sammā vattati, tassa tassa āpatti veditabbā.
By whom should the duties of a pupil be observed? The duties should be observed by the four kinds of teachers toward their pupils. As it is said in the Vattakkhandhaka (cūḷava. 382), “Therefore, monks, I will lay down the duties of teachers toward pupils, how teachers should act toward pupils.” What are those duties? They are those stated by the Blessed One in the Vattakkhandhaka and shown here in brief. Here, the meaning should be understood as explained in the duties of a co-resident. This, however, is the distinction: Among these, the ordination pupil and higher ordination pupil are a lifelong responsibility of the teacher, while the dependence pupil and Dhamma pupil are so only as long as they dwell near. Therefore, teachers must act properly toward them. Indeed, whichever teacher or pupil does not act properly toward the other incurs an offense accordingly.
Kena vattitabbaṃ antevāsikavattanti, it should be performed by the four kinds of teachers towards their pupils. As he said in the Vattakkhandhaka (cūḷava. 382), “Therefore, monks, I will establish the duty for teachers towards pupils, how teachers should behave towards pupils.” Katamaṃ taṃ vattanti, that which was stated by the Blessed One in the Vattakkhandhaka, and which is shown here concisely, that is the duty. Here, however, the meaning should be understood in the same way as stated in the resident pupil’s duty. But this is the particular point – of these, the going-forth-pupil and the ordination-pupil are the responsibility of the teacher for life; the dependence-pupil and the Dhamma-pupil are only as long as they dwell nearby, therefore, teachers should also behave properly towards them. Indeed, concerning teachers and pupils, whoever does not behave properly, an offense should be seen for each of them.
Kena vattitabbaṃ antevāsikavattanti: the duties toward the novices should be performed by the four kinds of teachers. As stated in the section on duties (Cūḷava. 382), “Therefore, monks, I will prescribe the duties for teachers toward their novices, as teachers should perform duties toward their novices.” Katamaṃ taṃ vattanti: what the Blessed One stated in the section on duties, and here briefly shown, is called the duties. Here, the meaning should be understood as in the duties toward the pupil. However, the distinction is that among these, the ordination novice and the full ordination novice are a lifelong burden for the teacher, while the dependence novice and the Dhamma novice are only a burden as long as they live nearby. Therefore, teachers should properly perform their duties toward them. For those teachers and novices who do not perform their duties properly, offenses should be understood for each.
ID1052
Antevāsikavattakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.
The explanation of the discussion on the duties of a pupil is completed.
The explanation of the discourse on the pupil’s duties is finished.
The explanation of the duties toward the novice is concluded.
ID1053
ID1054
185. Āgantukavatte āgacchatīti āgantuko, tena vattitabbanti āgantukavattaṃ. “Idāni ārāmaṃ pavisissāmī”ti iminā upacārasīmāsamīpaṃ dasseti, tasmā upacārasīmāsamīpaṃ patvā upāhanāomuñcanādi sabbaṃ kātabbaṃ. Gahetvāti upāhanadaṇḍakena gahetvā. Upāhanapuñchanacoḷakaṃ pucchitvā upāhanā puñchitabbāti “katarasmiṃ ṭhāne upāhanapuñchanacoḷaka”nti āvāsike bhikkhū pucchitvā. Pattharitabbanti sukkhāpanatthāya ātape pattharitabbaṃ. Sace navako hoti, abhivādāpetabboti tassa vasse pucchite yadi daharo hoti, sayameva vandissati, tadā iminā vandāpito hoti. Nilloketabboti oloketabbo. Bahi ṭhitenāti bahi nikkhamantassa ahino vā amanussassa vā maggaṃ ṭhatvā ṭhitena nilloketabbo. Sesaṃ pubbe vuttanayeneva veditabbaṃ.
185. One who comes under the duty of a visitor is an āgantuko (visitor); that which is to be observed by him is āgantukavattaṃ (the duty of a visitor). “Now I will enter the monastery” – this indicates the vicinity of the upacārasīmā (boundary area); therefore, upon reaching the vicinity of the upacārasīmā, everything such as removing footwear must be done. Gahetvā means taking with the staff of the footwear. Upāhanapuñchanacoḷakaṃ pucchitvā upāhanā puñchitabbā means “Having asked the resident bhikkhus, ‘In which place is the cloth for wiping footwear?’ the footwear should be wiped.” Pattharitabba means it should be spread out in the sun for drying. Sace navako hoti, abhivādāpetabbo means “If he is a junior, he should be made to pay respects”; if his years are asked and he is young, he will pay respects himself, and then he is considered to have been made to pay respects by this. Nilloketabbo means he should be looked at. Bahi ṭhitenā means “By one standing outside,” referring to one who, while exiting, stands in the path of a snake or a non-human and looks around. The rest is to be understood as explained before.
185. In the duties of a visiting monk, he who comes is āgantuka, that which is to be practiced by him is āgantukavattaṃ. “Now I will enter the monastery” – with this, he indicates the vicinity of the boundary of the residing place; therefore, having arrived at the vicinity of the boundary of the residing place, removing sandals and everything else, must be done. Gahetvāti means taking with the sandal-bag and staff. Having inquired about the cloth for wiping sandals, the sandals should be wipedti means, having asked the resident monks, “In which place is the cloth for wiping sandals?”. Pattharitabbanti means it should be spread out in the sun for drying. If he is junior, he should be caused to pay respectsti means, when asked about the length of his ordination, if he is younger, he will pay respect himself; then by this one, he is made to pay respect. Nilloketabboti means he should be looked at. Bahi ṭhitenāti means he should be looked at, having been standing outside blocking the path of a snake or non-human, who is coming out. The rest should be understood as previously stated.
185. In the section on the duties towards incoming monks, “one who comes” is called an incoming monk (āgantuka), and the duties to be performed for him are called āgantukavattaṃ. The phrase “Now I will enter the monastery” indicates the vicinity of the boundary (upacārasīmā). Therefore, upon reaching the vicinity of the boundary, all tasks such as removing sandals should be done. Gahetvā means taking with a sandal stick. Upāhanapuñchanacoḷakaṃ pucchitvā upāhanā puñchitabbā means asking the resident monks, “Where is the cloth for wiping sandals?” and then wiping the sandals. Pattharitabba means spreading them out in the sun to dry. Sace navako hoti, abhivādāpetabbo means if, upon being asked about his years of seniority, he is found to be junior, he will naturally pay respects, but if not, he should be made to pay respects. Nilloketabbo means to look around. Bahi ṭhitenā means standing outside to look around for snakes or non-human beings that may block the path of one who is leaving. The rest should be understood as previously explained.
ID1055
Āgantukavattakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.
The commentary on the discourse of the duty of a visitor is concluded.
The explanation of the duties of the visiting monk is finished.
The explanation of the duties towards incoming monks is concluded.
ID1056
ID1057
186. Āvāsikavatte āvasatīti āvāsiko, tena vattitabbanti āvāsikavattaṃ. Tattha āvāsikena bhikkhunā āgantukaṃ bhikkhuṃ vuḍḍhataraṃ disvā āsanaṃ paññapetabbantiādi pāḷiyaṃ (cūḷava. 359) āgatañca aṭṭhakathāyaṃ āgatañca (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 359) gahetabbaṃ, gahetvā vuttattā pākaṭameva, upāhanapuñchanaṃ pana attano rucivasena kātabbaṃ. Teneva hettha “sace ussahatī”ti vuttaṃ, tasmā upāhanā apuñchantassapi anāpatti. Senāsanaṃ paññapetabbanti ettha “kattha mayhaṃ senāsanaṃ pāpuṇātī”ti pucchitena senāsanaṃ paññapetabbaṃ, “etaṃ senāsanaṃ tumhākaṃ pāpuṇātī”ti evaṃ ācikkhitabbanti attho. Papphoṭetvā pattharituṃ pana vaṭṭatiyeva. Etena mañcapīṭhādiṃ papphoṭetvā pattharitvā upari paccattharaṇaṃ datvā dānampi senāsanapaññāpanamevāti dasseti. Mahāāvāsepi attano santikaṃ sampattassa āgantukassa vattaṃ akātuṃ na labbhati. Sesaṃ purimasadisameva.
186. One who resides under the duty of a resident is an āvāsiko (resident); that which is to be observed by him is āvāsikavattaṃ (the duty of a resident). Therein, āvāsikena bhikkhunā āgantukaṃ bhikkhuṃ vuḍḍhataraṃ disvā āsanaṃ paññapetabba and so forth, as found in the text (cūḷava. 359) and the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 359), should be taken as stated and is evident because it has been explained. However, wiping footwear may be done according to one’s own preference. Hence it is said here, “sace ussahatī” (if he is able), so there is no offense for one who does not wipe the footwear. Senāsanaṃ paññapetabba means “The sleeping place should be prepared”; when asked, “Where does my sleeping place fall?” it should be prepared, meaning, “This sleeping place is allotted to you,” as should be indicated. It is permissible to shake out and spread it; this shows that shaking out and spreading a bed or seat and placing a covering over it is also part of preparing the sleeping place. Even in a large monastery, one cannot neglect the duty toward a visitor who has come to one’s presence. The rest is similar to what was said before.
186. In the duties of a resident monk, he who dwells is āvāsiko, that which is to be practiced by him is the āvāsikavattaṃ. There, by the resident monk, having seen a more senior visiting monk, a seat should be prepared, etc., that which has come in the Pāḷi (Cūḷava. 359), and that which has come in the commentary (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 359) should be taken; having taken, because of being stated, it is clear; however, the wiping of sandals is to be done according to one’s preference. For this reason, here “if he is able” is stated; therefore, there is no offense for the one not wiping the sandals. Senāsanaṃ paññapetabbanti here, a lodging should be prepared by being asked, “Where does a lodging accrue to me?” The meaning is, that it should be said like this, “This lodging accrues to you.” But it is certainly proper to shake it out and spread it. By this, having shaken out and spread out the couch, the stool, etc., and having given the upper covering on top, the giving is shown to be indeed the providing of lodgings. Even in the great monastery, one does not have the opportunity not to do the duty for a visitor who has arrived at one’s own presence. The rest is just as before.
186. In the section on the duties of resident monks, “one who resides” is called a resident monk (āvāsika), and the duties to be performed by him are called āvāsikavattaṃ. Here, āvāsikena bhikkhunā āgantukaṃ bhikkhuṃ vuḍḍhataraṃ disvā āsanaṃ paññapetabbaṃ means that when a resident monk sees an incoming monk who is more senior, he should prepare a seat, as stated in the Pāli (Cūḷavagga 359) and the commentary (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 359). This is clear, and the wiping of sandals should be done according to one’s own preference. Therefore, “sace ussahatī” is mentioned here, meaning there is no offense if one does not wipe the sandals. Senāsanaṃ paññapetabbaṃ means that when asked, “Where is my lodging?” one should prepare the lodging and say, “This lodging is assigned to you.” Spreading it out after shaking it is also appropriate. This indicates that even after shaking and spreading the bed or bench, placing a covering on top is still considered preparing the lodging. Even in a large monastery, one cannot avoid performing the duties for an incoming monk who has arrived nearby. The rest is similar to what was previously explained.
ID1058
Āvāsikavattakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.
The commentary on the discourse of the duty of a resident is concluded.
The explanation of the duties of a resident monk is finished.
The explanation of the duties of resident monks is concluded.
ID1059
ID1060
187. Gamikavatte gantuṃ bhabboti gamiko, tena vattitabbanti gamikavattaṃ. Tatrāyaṃ anuttānapadavaṇṇanā – dārubhaṇḍanti senāsanakkhandhake (cūḷava. 322) vuttaṃ mañcapīṭhādi. Mattikābhaṇḍampi rajanabhājanādi sabbaṃ tattha vuttappabhedameva. Taṃ sabbaṃ aggisālāyaṃ vā aññatarasmiṃ vā guttaṭṭhāne paṭisāmetvā gantabbaṃ, anovassake pabbhārepi ṭhapetuṃ vaṭṭati. Senāsanaṃ āpucchitvā pakkamitabbanti ettha yaṃ pāsāṇapiṭṭhiyaṃ vā pāsāṇatthambhesu vā katasenāsanaṃ, yattha upacikā nārohanti, taṃ anāpucchantassapi anāpatti. Catūsu pāsāṇesūtiādi upacikānaṃ uppattiṭṭhāne paṇṇasālādisenāsane kattabbākāradassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Appeva nāma aṅgānipi seseyyunti ayaṃ ajjhokāse ṭhapitamhi ānisaṃso. Ovassakagehe pana tiṇesu ca mattikāpiṇḍesu ca upari patantesu mañcapīṭhānaṃ aṅgānipi vinassanti.
187. One capable of departing under the duty of a departing one is a gamiko (departing one); that which is to be observed by him is gamikavattaṃ (the duty of a departing one). Here is the explanation of terms not yet clarified: dārubhaṇḍa refers to wooden items such as beds and seats as mentioned in the Senāsanakkhandhaka (cūḷava. 322). Mattikābhaṇḍampi rajanabhājanādi sabbaṃ refers to all clay items like dye pots, as classified there. All of these should be stored in the fire hall or another secure place before departing; it is permissible to place them in a rainproof shed. Senāsanaṃ āpucchitvā pakkamitabba means “One should depart after informing about the sleeping place”; for a sleeping place made on a stone slab or stone pillars where termites do not climb, there is no offense even if one departs without informing. Catūsu pāsāṇesū and so forth is said to show the manner of making a leaf hut or similar sleeping place at a site where termites originate. Appeva nāma aṅgānipi seseyyu indicates the benefit of leaving it in the open; but in a rain-soaked house, with grass or clay clods falling from above, even the parts of beds and seats would be ruined.
187. In the duties of a departing monk, fit to go is gamiko, that which is to be practiced by him is gamikavattaṃ. Here, this is the explanation of the non-superficial terms – dārubhaṇḍanti means a couch, stool, etc., that are stated in the section on lodgings (Cūḷava. 322). Even clay goods, all such as pots for dye, are of the kinds stated there. All of that, either in the fire-hall or in some other protected place, having collected, one should go; it is also proper to place it even on a non-rainy mountain ledge. Senāsanaṃ āpucchitvā pakkamitabbanti here, that lodging, which is made on a stone slab or on stone pillars, where white ants do not climb, there is no offense for one who does not take leave. Catūsu pāsāṇesūti etc., is said to show the manner to be done in a leaf-hut and other lodgings in the place of the arising of white ants. Appeva nāma aṅgānipi seseyyunti this is the benefit in the case of putting it in the open. But in a house with a leaky roof, when it falls on the grass and also on lumps of clay, even the limbs of couches and stools are ruined.
187. In the section on the duties of traveling monks, “one who is capable of going” is called a traveling monk (gamika), and the duties to be performed by him are called gamikavattaṃ. Here, the explanation of the term dārubhaṇḍa refers to wooden items such as beds and benches, as mentioned in the Senāsana Khandhaka (Cūḷavagga 322). Mattikābhaṇḍampi rajanabhājanādi sabbaṃ includes all earthenware items such as dye pots, as explained there. All these items should be stored in the fire hall or another secure place before leaving. It is also permissible to leave them under a non-leaking roof. Senāsanaṃ āpucchitvā pakkamitabbaṃ means that if the lodging is on a stone slab or stone pillars where ants do not climb, there is no offense in not informing others before leaving. Catūsu pāsāṇesūtiādi refers to places where ants breed, such as leaf huts, and is mentioned to show the proper way to handle lodgings. Appeva nāma aṅgānipi seseyyuṃ indicates the benefit of leaving items outdoors. However, in a leaking house, when grass or clay lumps fall on beds and benches, their parts may also be destroyed.
ID1061
Gamikavattakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.
The commentary on the discourse of the duty of a departing one is concluded.
The explanation of the duties of a departing monk is finished.
The explanation of the duties of traveling monks is concluded.
ID1062
ID1063
188. Vattakkhandhake imasmiṃ ṭhāne anumodanavattaṃ āgataṃ, tato bhattaggavattaṃ. Sāratthadīpaniyañca (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.373-374) “imasmiṃ vattakkhandhake (cūḷava. 356) āgatāni āgantukāvāsikagamiyānumodanabhattaggapiṇḍacārikāraññikasenāsanajantāgharavaccakuṭiupajjhāyācariyasaddhivihārikaantevāsikavattāni cuddasa mahāvattāni nāmā”ti anukkamo vutto, idha pana vinayasaṅgahappakaraṇe gamikavattato bhattaggavattaṃ āgataṃ, anumodanavattaṃ pana visuṃ avatvā bhattaggavatteyeva antogadhaṃ katvā pacchā vuttaṃ bhattaggaṃ gantvā bhatte bhutteyeva anumodanākaraṇato, pāḷiyañca aññesu vattesu viya “tena hi, bhikkhave, bhikkhunā anumodanavattaṃ paññāpessāmī”ti visuṃ vattabhāvena anāgatattā bhattaggavatteyeva antogadhanti ācariyassa adhippāyo siyā. Imassa ca vinayālaṅkārapakaraṇassa tassā vaṇṇanābhūtattā saṃvaṇṇetabbakkameneva saṃvaṇṇanaṃ kathayissāma.
188. In the Vattakkhandhaka, at this point, the duty of giving thanks is mentioned, followed by the duty in the refectory. In the Sāratthadīpani (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.373-374), it is stated, “In this Vattakkhandhaka (cūḷava. 356), the fourteen great duties are listed as follows: the duties of the visitor, resident, departing one, giving thanks, refectory, alms round, forest dweller, sleeping place, bathhouse, latrine, preceptor, teacher, co-resident, and disciple.” However, here in the Vinayasaṅgahappakaraṇa, the duty in the refectory follows the duty of the departing one, and the duty of giving thanks is not mentioned separately but included within the duty in the refectory, as it is performed after the meal is eaten in the refectory. Since it is not stated in the text as a separate duty like in other cases, such as “Now, bhikkhus, I will establish the duty of giving thanks for the bhikkhu,” it is included within the duty in the refectory—this may be the intention of the teacher. As this Vinayālaṅkārapakaraṇa is a commentary on it, we will explain it in the order to be commented upon.
188. In the chapter on duties, the duty of giving thanks has come in this place, then the duties at the refectory. And in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 3.373-374), in the chapter on duties (Cūḷava. 356), the duties of the visiting, resident, departing, thanksgiving, refectory, alms-round, forest-dwelling, lodging, furnace-room, privy, preceptor, teacher, co-resident, and pupil – the order is stated. These are the fourteen great duties. Here, however, in the Vinayasaṅgahappakaraṇa, after the duty of the departing monk, the duty at the refectory has come. The duty of giving thanks, is explained separately. It has been explained in the last part as the practice of refectory itself. Because after going to refectory where the meal is already taken, giving thanks for that. And in the Pāli, like in other duties, “In that case, monks, I will establish the duty of giving thanks for the monks,” It has not separately arrived in the condition of duties. The refectory itself might be the intention of the teacher in the middle. Since the explanation of this Vinayālaṅkārapakaraṇa is the commentary of that, the commentary must be explained according to the order that has to be explained.
188. In the section on duties, the duty of expressing gratitude (anumodanavatta) is mentioned here, followed by the duty regarding meals (bhattaggavatta). The Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha Ṭīkā, Cūḷavagga 3.373-374) states, “In this section on duties (Cūḷavagga 356), fourteen great duties are mentioned, including those for incoming monks, resident monks, travelers, expressing gratitude, meals, alms rounds, forest dwellings, lodgings, hot weather shelters, restrooms, preceptors, teachers, pupils, and attendants.” Here, however, in the Vinayasaṅgaha, the duty regarding meals follows the duty of traveling monks, while the duty of expressing gratitude is not mentioned separately but is included within the duty regarding meals, as it is performed after going for the meal and expressing gratitude after eating. The Pāli does not separately mention, “Therefore, monks, I will prescribe the duty of expressing gratitude,” as it does for other duties, so it is included within the duty regarding meals. This is likely the intention of the teacher. Since this is a commentary on the Vinayālaṅkāra, we will explain it in the manner of commentary.
ID1064
Bhuñjitabbanti bhattaṃ. Ajati gacchati pavattati etthāti aggaṃ. “Ādikoṭṭhāsakoṭīsu, puratoggaṃ vare tīsū”ti abhidhānappadīpikāyaṃ āgatepi “rājagganti rājārahaṃ, salākagganti salākaggahaṇaṭṭhāna”ntiādīsu aññatthesupi pavattanato bhattassa aggaṃ bhattaggaṃ, bhattaparivisanaṭṭhānaṃ, bhattagge vattitabbaṃ vattaṃ bhattaggavattanti viggaho. Tattha ārāme kālo ārocito hotīti “kālo bhante, niṭṭhitaṃ bhatta”nti ārocito hoti. Timaṇḍalaṃ paṭicchādentenāti dve jāṇumaṇḍalāni nābhimaṇḍalañca paṭicchādentena. Parimaṇḍalaṃ nivāsetvāti samantato maṇḍalaṃ nivāsetvā. Uddhaṃ nābhimaṇḍalaṃ, adho jāṇumaṇḍalaṃ paṭicchādentena jāṇumaṇḍalassa heṭṭhā jaṅghaṭṭhito paṭṭhāya aṭṭhaṅgulamattaṃ nivāsanaṃ otāretvā nivāsetabbaṃ, tato paraṃ otārentassa dukkaṭanti vuttaṃ, yathānisinnassa jāṇumaṇḍalato heṭṭhā caturaṅgulamattaṃ paṭicchannaṃ hotīti mahāpaccariyaṃ vuttaṃ. Kāyabandhanaṃ bandhitvāti tassa nivāsanassa upari kāyabandhanaṃ bandhitvā “na, bhikkhave, akāyabandhanena gāmo pavisitabbo, yo paviseyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (cūḷava. 278) vuttattā. Saguṇaṃ katvāti idaṃ upajjhāyavatte vuttameva. “Gaṇṭhikaṃ paṭimuñcitvāti pāsake gaṇṭhikaṃ pavesetvā antogāmo vā hotu vihāro vā, manussānaṃ parivisanaṭṭhānaṃ gacchantena cīvaraṃ pārupitvā kāyabandhanaṃ bandhitvā gamanameva vaṭṭatī”ti mahāaṭṭhakathāsu vuttaṃ. Ettha ca manussānaṃ parivisanaṭṭhānanti yattha antovihārepi manussā saputtadārā āvasitvā bhikkhū netvā bhojenti.
To be eaten is bhattaṃ (food). That in which it proceeds or is conducted is aggaṃ (foremost). Though in the Abhidhānappadīpikā it is said, “In the beginning, middle, and end, in the best of three,” terms like rājagga (worthy of a king) and salākagga (place for taking lots) are used in other senses; thus, the foremost of food is bhattaggaṃ, the place where food is served, and the duty to be observed there is bhattaggavattaṃ (the duty in the refectory). Therein, ārāme kālo ārocito hotī means “The time is announced in the monastery,” as in, “It is time, venerable sir, the meal is ready.” Timaṇḍalaṃ paṭicchādentena means covering the three circles: the two knee circles and the navel circle. Parimaṇḍalaṃ nivāsetvā means dressing in a circular manner all around. Covering above the navel circle and below the knee circle, the robe should be worn extending about eight fingers’ length from the shin below the knee circle; extending beyond that incurs a dukkaṭa offense, as stated. It is said in the Mahāpaccariya that when seated, about four fingers below the knee circle should be covered. Kāyabandhanaṃ bandhitvā means tying the waistband over the robe, as it is said, “Bhikkhus, one should not enter a village without a waistband; whoever does so commits a dukkaṭa offense” (cūḷava. 278). Saguṇaṃ katvā has been explained in the duty of the preceptor. “Gaṇṭhikaṃ paṭimuñcitvā” means “Having released the knot, whether entering a village or a monastery, one should go to the place where people serve food wearing the robe, with the waistband tied”—this is stated in the great commentaries. Here, manussānaṃ parivisanaṭṭhāna refers to a place even within the monastery where people with their families reside and feed the bhikkhus.
That which is eaten is bhattaṃ. Aggaṃ means that to which it goes, moves, proceeds. Although, in the Abhidhānappadīpikā it comes as “Ādikoṭṭhāsakoṭīsu, puratoggaṃ vare tīsū”, because it occurs in other meanings also, such as “rājagganti – fit for a king, salākagganti – the place for taking tickets,” etc., bhattassa aggaṃ is bhattaggaṃ, the place for serving food. The duty to be practiced at the refectory is bhattaggavatta, this is the compound resolution. There, ārāme kālo ārocito hotīti means, “It is time, venerable sir, the meal is ready,” it is announced. Timaṇḍalaṃ paṭicchādentenāti means, covering the two knee-circles and the navel-circle. Parimaṇḍalaṃ nivāsetvāti means, having dressed circularly all around. The upper part covers the navel circle, the lower part covers the knee circle. The lower garment having been lowered about eight fingers from the shin-bone below the knee-circle, it must be put on; he who lowers it beyond that incurs a dukkaṭa – it is said; and it is said in the Mahāpaccari that when sitting down properly, about four fingers are covered below the knee-circle. Kāyabandhanaṃ bandhitvāti means, having tied the waistband over that lower garment, because it is said, “Monks, the village should not be entered without a waistband; whoever enters, there is an offense of wrong-doing” (Cūḷava. 278). Saguṇaṃ katvāti this is stated in the duty of the preceptor. “Gaṇṭhikaṃ paṭimuñcitvāti means, having inserted the knot into the loop, whether it be inside the village or the monastery, going to the place where people are served, having put on the robe and tied the waistband, it is proper to go,” it is said in the Great Commentaries. And here, manussānaṃ parivisanaṭṭhānanti means where even within the monastery, people dwelling with sons and wives, having led the monks, feed them.
Bhuñjitabbaṃ means bhattaṃ (meal). Ajati gacchati pavattati etthāti aggaṃ means “the foremost part.” Although the Abhidhānappadīpikā mentions “rājagga” as worthy of a king and “salākagga” as the place for drawing lots, the term bhattagga refers to the foremost part of the meal, the place for serving food, and the duty to be performed there, called bhattaggavattaṃ. Here, ārāme kālo ārocito hotī means “Venerable, the time has come, the meal is ready.” Timaṇḍalaṃ paṭicchādentena means covering the two knee circles and the navel circle. Parimaṇḍalaṃ nivāsetvā means wearing the robe evenly all around. The upper part covers the navel circle, and the lower part covers the knee circle. The robe should be lowered to eight fingerbreadths below the knee circle. Lowering it further incurs a dukkaṭa offense, as stated in the Mahāpaccarī. Kāyabandhanaṃ bandhitvā means tying the waistband over the robe, as it is said, “Monks, one should not enter the village without a waistband. If one does so, it is a dukkaṭa offense” (Cūḷavagga 278). Saguṇaṃ katvā refers to what was already mentioned in the duties towards the preceptor. “Gaṇṭhikaṃ paṭimuñcitvā” means inserting the fastener into the loop, whether inside the village or the monastery, as stated in the Mahā Aṭṭhakathā. Here, manussānaṃ parivisanaṭṭhānaṃ refers to a place where even within the monastery, people with their families reside and invite monks to offer food.
ID1065
Suppaṭicchannenāti na sasīsaṃ pārutena, atha kho gaṇṭhikaṃ paṭimuñcitvā anuvātantena gīvaṃ paṭicchādetvā ubho kaṇṇe samaṃ katvā paṭisaṃharitvā yāva maṇibandhā paṭicchādentena. Susaṃvutenāti hatthaṃ vā pādaṃ vā akīḷāpentena, suvinītenāti attho. Okkhittacakkhunāti heṭṭhākhittacakkhunā. Yo anādariyaṃ paṭicca tahaṃ tahaṃ olokento bhiyyo taṃ taṃ disābhāgaṃ pāsādaṃ kūṭāgāraṃ vīthiṃ olokento gacchati, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Ekasmiṃ pana ṭhāne ṭhatvā hatthiassādiparissayābhāvaṃ oloketuṃ vaṭṭati. Appasaddenāti ettha kittāvatā appasaddo hoti? Dvādasahatthe gehe ādimhi saṅghatthero majjhe dutiyatthero ante tatiyattheroti evaṃ nisinnesu saṅghatthero dutiyena saddhiṃ manteti, dutiyatthero tassa saddañceva suṇāti, kathañca vavatthapeti, tatiyatthero pana saddameva suṇāti, kathaṃ na vavatthapeti, ettāvatā appasaddo hoti. Sace pana tatiyatthero kathaṃ vavatthapeti, mahāsaddo nāma hoti.
Suppaṭicchannenā means not with the head covered, but with the knot released, covering the neck evenly with both ears aligned and folded back, covering up to the wrists. Susaṃvutenā means not playing with hands or feet, well-restrained. Okkhittacakkhunā means with eyes cast downward. One who, out of disrespect, looks here and there at various directions, buildings, peaked roofs, or streets while walking commits a dukkaṭa offense. However, it is permissible to look around while standing in one place to check for dangers like elephants or horses. Appasaddenā means with little noise. How much is little noise? In a twelve-hand-span house, if the senior monk at the head speaks with the second monk in the middle, and the second hears his voice and understands the conversation, but the third monk at the end hears only the sound and does not understand the conversation, that is little noise. If the third monk understands the conversation, it is considered loud.
Suppaṭicchannenāti means not with the head covered; but rather, having fastened the knot, covering the neck with the edge of the robe, making both ears even, having gathered it together, covering up to the wrist. Susaṃvutenāti means, not playing with the hand or foot, with well-restrained senses, is the meaning. Okkhittacakkhunāti means with eyes cast down. Whoever, because of irreverence, looking here and there, goes looking at that and that direction, palaces, peaked-roofed houses, streets, there is an offense of wrong-doing. But standing in one place, it is proper to look to see the absence of danger from elephants, horses, etc. Appasaddenāti here, how much constitutes a low sound? In a twelve-cubit dwelling, the senior elder at the beginning, the second elder in the middle, the third elder at the end; thus seated, the senior elder speaks with the second, the second elder both hears his sound and understands the speech; but the third elder only hears the sound, he does not understand the speech; so much constitutes a low sound. But if the third elder understands the speech, it is called a loud sound.
Suppaṭicchannenā means not covering the head but loosening the fastener and covering the neck evenly, pulling both ears equally and covering up to the wrist. Susaṃvutenā means not fidgeting with the hands or feet, being well-composed. Okkhittacakkhunā means with the gaze lowered. One who, out of disrespect, looks around excessively at various directions, buildings, or streets incurs a dukkaṭa offense. However, it is permissible to stand in one place and look around to ensure there are no dangers from elephants or horses. Appasaddenā means being quiet. How quiet? In a twelve-cubit house, the senior monk sits in front, the second senior in the middle, and the third senior at the end. The senior monk speaks with the second, who listens and responds. The third senior only listens without responding. This is considered quiet. If the third senior responds, it is considered loud.
ID1066
Na ukkhittakāyāti na ukkhepena, itthambhūtalakkhaṇe karaṇavacanaṃ, ekato vā ubhato vā ukkhittacīvaro hutvāti attho. Antoindakhīlato paṭṭhāya na evaṃ gantabbaṃ. Nisinnakāle pana dhamakaraṇaṃ nīharantenapi cīvaraṃ anukkhipitvāva nīharitabbaṃ. Na ujjagghikāyāti na mahāhasitaṃ hasanto, vuttanayenevettha karaṇavacanaṃ. Na kāyappacālakanti kāyaṃ acāletvā kāyaṃ paggahetvā niccalaṃ katvā ujukena kāyena samena iriyāpathena. Na bāhuppacālakanti bāhuṃ acāletvā bāhuṃ paggahetvā niccalaṃ katvā. Na sīsappacālakanti sīsaṃ acāletvā sīsaṃ paggahetvā niccalaṃ ujuṃ ṭhapetvā. Na khambhakatoti khambhakato nāma kaṭiyaṃ hatthaṃ ṭhapetvā katakhambho. Na ukkuṭikāyāti ettha ukkuṭikā vuccati paṇhiyo ukkhipitvā aggapādehi vā aggapāde ukkhipitvā paṇhehiyeva vā bhūmiṃ phusantassa gamanaṃ. Karaṇavacanaṃ panettha vuttalakkhaṇameva. Na oguṇṭhitenāti sasīsaṃ pārutena. Na pallatthikāyāti na dussapallatthikāya. Ettha āyogapallatthikāpi dussapallatthikā eva. Na there bhikkhū anupakhajjāti there bhikkhū atiallīyitvā na nisīditabbaṃ. Na saṅghāṭiṃ ottharitvāti na saṅghāṭiṃ attharitvā nisīditabbaṃ.
Na ukkhittakāyā means not with the body uplifted; the instrumental case here indicates a specific manner, meaning not walking with the robe lifted on one or both sides. From the inner boundary pillar onward, one should not walk in this way. Even when seated and removing refuse, it should be done without lifting the robe. Na ujjagghikāyā means not laughing loudly, with the instrumental case as explained before. Na kāyappacālaka means not moving the body, keeping it steady and upright with an even posture. Na bāhuppacālaka means not moving the arms, keeping them steady. Na sīsappacālaka means not moving the head, keeping it steady and upright. Na khambhakato means not standing with hands on hips, which is called khambhakato. Na ukkuṭikāyā refers to walking on tiptoes or heels alone, touching the ground only with the front of the feet or heels; the instrumental case applies as explained. Na oguṇṭhitenā means not with the head covered. Na pallatthikāyā means not with the robe crossed over the knees; this includes a sash crossed over as well. Na there bhikkhū anupakhajjā means not sitting too close to senior bhikkhus. Na saṅghāṭiṃ ottharitvā means not sitting with the outer robe spread out.
Na ukkhittakāyāti means not with uplifted, with the instrumental case used to describe a characteristic; the meaning is, having become one with the robe lifted up on one side or both sides. From the inner threshold onwards, one should not go thus. But at the time of sitting, even taking out the water-filter, the robe should be taken out without being lifted up. Na ujjagghikāyāti means, not laughing with great laughter, here too the instrumental case with the aforesaid meaning. Na kāyappacālakanti means, not moving the body, having grasped the body, making it motionless, with a straight body, with even posture. Na bāhuppacālakanti means, not moving the arms, having grasped the arms, making them motionless. Na sīsappacālakanti means, not moving the head, having grasped the head, keeping it straight. Na khambhakatoti khambhakato nāma means, having placed the hand on the hip, having made a support. Na ukkuṭikāyāti here ukkuṭikā is said to be the walking of one touching the ground with the forefeet, having lifted up the heels, or with the heels only, having lifted up the forefeet. The instrumental case here has the aforesaid meaning. Na oguṇṭhitenāti means, not with the head covered. Na pallatthikāyāti means, not cross-legged with cloth. Here, cross-legged with the support strap is also cross-legged with cloth. Na there bhikkhū anupakhajjāti one should not sit pressing against the elder monks. Na saṅghāṭiṃ ottharitvāti one should not sit having spread out the outer robe.
Na ukkhittakāyā means not lifting the robe excessively, keeping it even on both sides. One should not walk from the inner post in such a manner. When sitting, even if removing a splinter, the robe should not be lifted. Na ujjagghikāyā means not laughing loudly, as explained before. Na kāyappacālakaṃ means not shaking the body, keeping it straight and still. Na bāhuppacālakaṃ means not shaking the arms, keeping them still. Na sīsappacālakaṃ means not shaking the head, keeping it still and straight. Na khambhakato means not leaning on a support with the hand on the hip. Na ukkuṭikāyā means not walking with the heels lifted or the toes lifted off the ground. Na oguṇṭhitenā means not covering the head. Na pallatthikāyā means not sitting on a spread-out cloth. Here, even a cloth spread for sitting is considered a spread-out cloth. Na there bhikkhū anupakhajjā means not sitting too close to senior monks. Na saṅghāṭiṃ ottharitvā means not sitting with the outer robe spread out.
ID1067
Sakkaccanti satiṃ upaṭṭhāpetvā. Pattasaññīti patte saññaṃ katvā. Samasūpako nāma yattha bhattassa catutthabhāgappamāṇo sūpo hoti. Samatitthikanti samapuṇṇaṃ samabharitaṃ. Thūpīkataṃ piṇḍapātaṃ paṭiggaṇhāti, āpatti dukkaṭassāti ettha thūpīkato nāma pattassa antomukhavaṭṭilekhaṃ atikkamitvā kato, patte pakkhitto bharito pūritoti attho. Evaṃ kataṃ aggahetvā antomukhavaṭṭilekhāsamappamāṇo gahetabbo. “Yaṃ kañci yāguṃ vā bhattaṃ vā phalāphalaṃ vā āmisajātikaṃ samatitthikameva gahetabbaṃ, tañca kho adhiṭṭhānupagena pattena, itarena pana thūpīkatampi vaṭṭati. Yāmakālikasattāhakālikayāvajīvikāni pana adhiṭṭhānupagapatte thūpīkatānipi vaṭṭanti. Yaṃ pana dvīsu pattesu bhattaṃ gahetvā ekasmiṃ pūretvā vihāraṃ pesetuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti mahāpaccariyaṃ vuttaṃ. Yaṃ patte pakkhipiyamānaṃ pūvaucchukhaṇḍaphalāphalādi heṭṭhā orohati, taṃ thūpīkataṃ nāma na hoti. Pūvavaṭaṃsakaṃ ṭhapetvā piṇḍapātaṃ denti, thūpīkatameva hoti. Pupphavaṭaṃsakatakkolakaṭukaphalādivaṭaṃsake pana ṭhapetvā dinnaṃ thūpīkataṃ na hoti. Bhattassa upari thālakaṃ vā pattaṃ vā ṭhapetvā pūretvā gaṇhāti, thūpīkataṃ nāma na hoti. Kurundiyampi vuttaṃ “thālake vā patte vā pakkhipitvā taṃ pattamatthake ṭhapetvā denti, pāṭekkabhājanaṃ vaṭṭati. Idha anāpattiyaṃ gilāno na āgato, tasmā gilānassapi thūpīkataṃ na vaṭṭati, sabbattha pana paṭiggahetumeva na vaṭṭati, paṭiggahitaṃ pana bhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatī”ti.
Sakkacca means with mindfulness established. Pattasaññī means being mindful of the bowl. Samasūpako refers to where the broth is a fourth part of the food. Samatitthika means evenly filled to the brim. Thūpīkataṃ piṇḍapātaṃ paṭiggaṇhāti, āpatti dukkaṭassā means “If one receives almsfood heaped up, it is a dukkaṭa offense”; here, thūpīkato means heaped beyond the inner rim of the bowl, filled to overflowing. Such should not be accepted; it should be taken only up to the inner rim. “Whatever gruel, rice, fruit, or foodstuff is taken should be evenly filled in a designated bowl; with an undesignated bowl, even heaped-up food is permissible. Temporary, seven-day, and lifelong items may be heaped in a designated bowl. Taking rice in two bowls, filling one, and sending it to the monastery is permissible,” as stated in the Mahāpaccariya. Food like cakes or fruits that spill over when placed in the bowl is not considered heaped. If almsfood is given with a garland of cakes on top, it is heaped; but with flower garlands, pepper, or pungent fruits on top, it is not heaped. If a tray or bowl is placed on top of the rice and filled, it is not heaped. The Kurundī states, “If placed in a tray or bowl and given atop the alms bowl, separate vessels are permissible. Here, no sick person is mentioned in the non-offense cases, so even for a sick person, heaped food is not allowed; but while it cannot be received everywhere, it is permissible to eat what has been received.”
Sakkaccanti means, having established mindfulness. Pattasaññīti means, having made a perception in the bowl. Samasūpako nāma is where the soup is the measure of a fourth part of the solid food. Samatitthikanti means equally full, equally filled. He accepts a heaped-up alms-food, there is an offense of wrong-doingti, here thūpīkato nāma means, having exceeded the inner rim-line of the bowl, having been placed, filled, poured into the bowl, is the meaning. Not taking one made thus, one equal to the inner rim-line should be taken. “Whatever gruel or solid food or fruit or non-fruit or mixed food is, only the equally-filled should be taken, and that with a bowl under determination; but with another, even a heaped-up one is proper. But things lasting a watch, seven days, or a lifetime are proper even heaped-up in a bowl under determination. But it is proper to take the food in two bowls and having filled it in one, send it to the monastery,” it is said in the Mahāpaccari. What, being put into the bowl, such as cakes, sweets, lumps of sugar, fruit and non-fruit, falls down below, that is not called heaped-up. Giving almsfood, placing a garland of cakes, it is indeed heaped-up. But giving it having placed a garland of flowers, takkola-spices, kaṭukaphala-spices, it is not heaped-up. Taking it having placed a plate or bowl on top of the solid food and filled it, it is not called heaped-up. In the Kurundi it is said, “Having put it in a plate or a bowl, they give it having placed it on top of that bowl; a separate vessel is proper. Here, the sick person is not included in the non-offense; therefore, even for a sick person, a heaped-up one is not proper; but everywhere, it is only not proper to accept it; but having accepted it, it is proper to eat it.”
Sakkaccaṃ means with mindfulness. Pattasaññī means being aware of the alms bowl. Samasūpako refers to a place where the soup is one-fourth the quantity of the rice. Samatitthikaṃ means evenly filled. Thūpīkataṃ piṇḍapātaṃ paṭiggaṇhāti, āpatti dukkaṭassā means receiving almsfood piled above the rim of the bowl incurs a dukkaṭa offense. Thūpīkato refers to food piled above the inner rim line of the bowl. One should take only up to the inner rim line. The Mahāpaccarī states, “Any gruel, rice, fruits, or other food items should be taken evenly, using the designated bowl. However, for temporary or seven-day items, even piled food is permissible. It is also permissible to take food in two bowls, fill one, and send it to the monastery.” Food that falls to the bottom when placed in the bowl is not considered piled. Offering food in a basket or plate is considered piled. However, offering flowers, betel nuts, or other items in a basket is not considered piled. Placing a plate or bowl on top of the rice and filling it is not considered piled. The Kurundī also states, “Placing food in a plate or bowl and then placing it on top of another bowl is permissible. Here, the sick are not included, so piled food is not permissible for them. However, it is generally not permissible to receive such food, but if received, it can be eaten.”
ID1068
“Sakkacca”nti ca “pattasaññī”ti ca ubhayaṃ vuttanayameva. Sapadānanti tattha tattha odhiṃ akatvā anupaṭipāṭiyā. Samasūpake vattabbaṃ vuttameva. Thūpakatoti matthakato, vemajjhatoti attho. Na sūpaṃ vā byañjanaṃ vātiādi pākaṭameva. Viññattiyaṃ vattabbaṃ natthi. Ujjhānasaññīsikkhāpadepi gilāno na muñcati. Nātimahanto kabaḷoti mayūraṇḍaṃ atimahantaṃ, kukkuṭaṇḍaṃ atikhuddakaṃ, tesaṃ vemajjhappamāṇo. Parimaṇḍalaṃ ālopoti nātidīgho ālopo. Anāhaṭeti anāharite, mukhadvāraṃ asampāpiteti attho. Sabbo hatthoti ettha hatthasaddo tadekadesesu aṅgulīsu daṭṭhabbo “hatthamuddo”tiādīsu viya samudāye pavattavohārassa avayave pavattanato. Ekaṅgulimpi mukhe pakkhipituṃ na vaṭṭati. Na sakabaḷenāti ettha dhammaṃ kathento harītakaṃ vā laṭṭhimadhukaṃ vā mukhe pakkhipitvā katheti, yattakena vacanaṃ paripuṇṇaṃ hoti, tattake mukhamhi sante kathetuṃ vaṭṭati.
“Sakkacca” and “pattasaññī” follow the explanation given before. Sapadāna means taking in sequence without skipping portions. The explanation for samasūpaka has already been given. Thūpakato means from the top or middle. Na sūpaṃ vā byañjanaṃ vā and so forth is evident. There is nothing to say regarding requesting. Even in the training rule on fault-finding, a sick person is not exempt. Nātimahanto kabaḷo means a morsel not too large—larger than a peacock’s egg but smaller than a chicken’s egg, of medium size between them. Parimaṇḍalaṃ ālopo means a round morsel, not too long. Anāhaṭe means not brought to the mouth, not yet reaching the mouth opening. Sabbo hattho here means “all the hand,” where “hand” refers to the fingers as a part, as in “hand seal” and similar expressions, since a term for the whole is used for a part; even one finger should not be placed in the mouth. Na sakabaḷenā means “not with a morsel in the mouth”; when speaking Dhamma, if one places a myrobalan or liquorice in the mouth and speaks, it is permissible to speak as long as the speech is complete with that amount in the mouth.
“Sakkacca”nti and “pattasaññī”ti both have the aforesaid meaning. Sapadānanti means, not making a limit here and there, in regular order. What should be said about samasūpake, has been stated. Thūpakatoti means made to the top, the meaning is, the middle. Na sūpaṃ vā byañjanaṃ vāti etc., is clear. There is nothing to be said in the requesting. Even in the training rule about looking with reproach, the sick person is not released. Nātimahanto kabaḷoti a peacock’s egg is too large, a chicken’s egg is too small; the measure is the middle of these. Parimaṇḍalaṃ ālopoti not a very long lump. Anāhaṭeti means, not brought, the meaning is, not having brought it to the door of the mouth. Sabbo hatthoti here the word hand should be understood in its parts, the fingers, like in “hand-seal” etc., because of the usage applied to the whole being applied to the part. Even one finger should not be put into the mouth. Na sakabaḷenāti here, reciting Dhamma, having put a myrobalan or a piece of licorice in the mouth, he speaks; with as much in the mouth as the speech is complete, with that much, it is proper to speak.
“Sakkacca” and “pattasaññī” are as previously explained. Sapadānaṃ means without skipping, in sequence. Samasūpake is as previously explained. Thūpakato means from the top, evenly. Na sūpaṃ vā byañjanaṃ vā is clear. There is nothing to be said in the Vinaya. Even in the rule on perceptions of fault, the sick are not exempt. Nātimahanto kabaḷo means a mouthful that is not too large, like a peacock’s egg, nor too small, like a chicken’s egg, but of medium size. Parimaṇḍalaṃ ālopo means a bite that is not too long. Anāhaṭe means not brought close, not reaching the mouth. Sabbo hattho means the entire hand. Here, the term “hand” refers to all fingers, as in expressions like “hand gesture.” It is not permissible to put even a single finger in the mouth. Na sakabaḷenā means not speaking with food in the mouth. One may speak after placing a myrobalan or licorice stick in the mouth, but only when the mouth is empty.
ID1069
Piṇḍukkhepakanti piṇḍaṃ ukkhipitvā ukkhipitvā. Kabaḷāvacchedakanti kabaḷaṃ avachinditvā avachinditvā. Avagaṇḍakārakanti makkaṭo viya gaṇḍe katvā katvā. Hatthaniddhunakanti hatthaṃ niddhunitvā niddhunitvā. Sitthāvakārakanti sitthāni avakiritvā avakiritvā. Jivhānicchārakanti jivhaṃ nicchāretvā nicchāretvā. Capucapukārakanti “capucapū”ti evaṃ saddaṃ katvā katvā. Surusurukārakanti “surusurū”ti evaṃ saddaṃ katvā katvā. Hatthanillehakanti hatthaṃ nillehitvā nillehitvā. Bhuñjantena hi aṅgulimattampi nillehituṃ na vaṭṭati, ghanayāguphāṇitapāyāsādike pana aṅgulīhi gahetvā aṅguliyo mukhe pavesetvā bhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati. Pattanillehakaoṭṭhanillehakesupi eseva nayo, tasmā aṅguliyāpi patto na nillehitabbo, ekaoṭṭhopi jivhāya na nillehitabbo, oṭṭhamaṃsehi eva pana gahetvā anto pavesetuṃ vaṭṭati.
Piṇḍukkhepaka means tossing the almsfood up repeatedly. Kabaḷāvacchedaka means breaking off morsels repeatedly. Avagaṇḍakāraka means making the cheeks bulge like a monkey repeatedly. Hatthaniddhunaka means shaking the hand repeatedly. Sitthāvakāraka means scattering crumbs repeatedly. Jivhānicchāraka means sticking out the tongue repeatedly. Capucapukāraka means making a “capu-capu” sound repeatedly. Surusurukāraka means making a “suru-suru” sound repeatedly. Hatthanillehaka means licking the hand repeatedly. While eating, even licking a finger is not allowed; however, with thick gruel, molasses, or porridge, it is permissible to take it with the fingers and put them in the mouth to eat. The same applies to licking the bowl or lips: the bowl should not be licked with a finger, nor should even one lip be licked with the tongue, but it is permissible to take it into the mouth with the lips alone.
Piṇḍukkhepaka means tossing the almsfood up again and again. Kabaḷāvacchedaka means breaking off the morsel again and again. Avagaṇḍakāraka means making it into cheeks like a monkey, again and again. Hatthaniddhunaka means shaking the hand again and again. Sitthāvakāraka means scattering rice grains again and again. Jivhānicchāraka means sticking out the tongue again and again. Capucapukāraka means making the sound “capu capu” again and again. Surusurukāraka means making the sound “suru suru” again and again. Hatthanillehaka means licking the hand again and again. For while eating, it is not proper to lick even a finger’s breadth, but with thick gruel, molasses, sweet drinks, and the like, it is proper to take them with the fingers, put the fingers in the mouth and eat. The same rule applies to licking the bowl and licking the lips; therefore, the bowl should not be licked even with a finger, nor should one lip be licked with the tongue, but rather one should take it with the fleshy part of the lips and put it inside.
Piṇḍukkhepaka means lifting the almsfood again and again. Kabaḷāvacchedaka means cutting off a morsel again and again. Avagaṇḍakāraka means making lumps like a monkey. Hatthaniddhunaka means shaking the hand again and again. Sitthāvakāraka means scattering rice grains again and again. Jivhānicchāraka means protruding the tongue again and again. Capucapukāraka means making the sound “capucapu” again and again. Surusurukāraka means making the sound “surusuru” again and again. Hatthanillehaka means licking the hand again and again. While eating, it is not proper to lick even a finger’s worth, but it is permissible to take thick gruel, porridge, or rice pudding with the fingers and put them into the mouth to eat. The same applies to licking the bowl or lips; therefore, one should not lick the bowl with a finger, nor should one lick the lips with the tongue. However, it is permissible to take food with the lips and put it inside the mouth.
ID1070
Na sāmisena hatthena pānīyathālakoti etaṃ paṭikūlavasena paṭikkhittaṃ, tasmā saṅghikampi puggalikampi gihisantakampi attano santakampi saṅkhampi sarāvampi āmisamakkhitaṃ na gahetabbameva, gaṇhantassa dukkaṭaṃ. Sace pana hatthassa ekadeso āmisamakkhito na hoti, tena padesena gahetuṃ vaṭṭati. Na sasitthakaṃ pattadhovanaṃ antaraghare chaḍḍetabbanti ettha uddharitvā vāti sitthāni ekato uddharitvā ekasmiṃ ṭhāne rāsiṃ katvā udakaṃ chaḍḍeti. Bhinditvā vā udakagatikāni katvā chaḍḍeti, paṭiggahena sampaṭicchanto naṃ paṭiggahe chaḍḍeti, bahi nīharitvā vā chaḍḍeti, evaṃ chaḍḍentassa anāpatti. Na tāva therena udakanti idaṃ hatthadhovanaudakaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Antarā pipāsitena , pana gale vilaggāmisena vā pānīyaṃ pivitvā na dhovitabbāti.
Na sāmisena hatthena pānīyathālako means “A water vessel should not be held with a hand soiled with food”; this is forbidden due to its unpleasantness, so whether it is communal, personal, belonging to a layperson, or one’s own—a cup or bowl—none should be grasped if smeared with food, and doing so incurs a dukkaṭa offense. If a part of the hand is not smeared with food, it is permissible to hold it with that part. Na sasitthakaṃ pattadhovanaṃ antaraghare chaḍḍetabba means “Bowl-washing water with crumbs should not be discarded within the village”; here, uddharitvā vā means gathering the crumbs together in one place and discarding the water, or breaking it up and making channels for the water to flow, or letting the recipient take it and discard it, or taking it outside and discarding it—doing so incurs no offense. Na tāva therena udaka refers to the water for washing hands; this means it should not be used by the senior yet. However, if one becomes thirsty in between or has food stuck in the throat, drinking water without washing is permissible.
Na sāmisena hatthena pānīyathālakoti, this is prohibited because it is disgusting, therefore, whether it belongs to the Saṅgha or to an individual, or to a lay person, or to oneself, a cup or a bowl, smeared with food, is not to be taken; whoever takes it commits a dukkaṭa. However, if one part of the hand is not smeared with food, it is proper to take it with that part. Na sasitthakaṃ pattadhovanaṃ antaraghare chaḍḍetabbanti ettha uddharitvā vāti, collecting the rice grains together and piling them in one place, one throws away the water. Or, breaking them up and making the water flow away, one throws it away; or, catching it with a receiver, one throws it into the receiver; or, taking it outside, one throws it away; for one who throws it away in this way, there is no offense. Na tāva therena udakanti, this is said in reference to water for washing the hands. But a person who is thirsty in between, or whose throat is clogged with food, having drunk water, they should not rinse without washing their hands.
Na sāmisena hatthena pānīyathālako means that this is rejected as improper. Therefore, one should not take a water vessel, whether belonging to the Sangha, an individual, a layperson, or oneself, if it is smeared with food residue. Doing so incurs a dukkaṭa offense. However, if a part of the hand is not smeared with food, it is permissible to take it with that part. Na sasitthakaṃ pattadhovanaṃ antaraghare chaḍḍetabba means that here, uddharitvā vā, one should collect the rice grains in one place and discard the water. Alternatively, one may break the rice grains and discard them in a place where water flows, or one may discard them after receiving them from someone, or take them outside and discard them. Doing so incurs no offense. Na tāva therena udaka refers to water for washing hands. If one is thirsty or has food stuck in the throat, one may drink water without washing the hands.
ID1071
Bhattaggavattakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.
The commentary on the discourse of the duty in the refectory is concluded.
The explanation of the discourse on the duties at the meal is finished.
The explanation of the meal-related conduct is concluded.
ID1072
ID1073
Anumodanavatte anu punappunaṃ modiyate pamodiyateti anumodanā. Kā sā? Dhammakathā. Anumodanāya kattabbaṃ vattaṃ anumodanavattaṃ. Pañcame nisinneti anumodanatthāya nisinne. Upanisinnakathā nāma bahūsu sannipatitesu parikathākathanaṃ. Sesaṃ suviññeyyameva.
In the duty of giving thanks, that which is rejoiced in repeatedly is anumodanā (giving thanks). What is it? Dhamma discourse. The duty to be performed for giving thanks is anumodanavattaṃ (the duty of giving thanks). Pañcame nisinne means “When seated fifth” for the purpose of giving thanks. The discourse of sitting near refers to conversing when many are gathered. The rest is easily understood.
In the duties of thanksgiving, anumodanā means rejoicing again and again, being delighted. What is that? The Dhamma talk. The duty to be performed in thanksgiving is anumodanavattaṃ. Pañcame nisinneti, seated for thanksgiving. The discourse upanisinnakathā, when many are gathered, means telling a supporting narrative. The rest is easily understood.
In the conduct of rejoicing, anumodanā means repeatedly delighting and rejoicing. What is it? It is the Dhamma discourse. The duty to be performed for rejoicing is called anumodanavatta. Pañcame nisinne means sitting for the purpose of rejoicing. Upanisinnakathā refers to discussions held when many are gathered. The rest is easily understood.
ID1074
Anumodanavattakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.
The commentary on the discourse of the duty of giving thanks is concluded.
The explanation of the discourse on the duties of thanksgiving is finished.
The explanation of the conduct of rejoicing is concluded.
ID1075
ID1076
189. Piṇḍacārikavatte piṇḍitabbo saṅgharitabboti piṇḍo, piṇḍapāto. Piṇḍāya caraṇaṃ sīlamassāti piṇḍacārī, so eva piṇḍacāriko sakatthe kapaccayavasena. Piṇḍacārikena vattitabbaṃ vattaṃ piṇḍacārikavattaṃ. Tatrāyamanuttānapadavaṇṇanā – nivesanaṃ nāma itthikumārikādīnaṃ vasanaṭṭhānaṃ. Yasmā pavisananikkhamanadvāraṃ asallakkhetvā sahasā pavisanto visabhāgārammaṇaṃ vā passeyya, parissayo vā bhaveyya, tasmā “nivesanaṃ…pe… pavisitabba”nti vuttaṃ. Atidūre tiṭṭhanto apassanto vā bhaveyya, “aññassa gehe tiṭṭhatī”ti vā maññeyya. Accāsanne tiṭṭhanto apassitabbaṃ vā passeyya, asuṇitabbaṃ vā suṇeyya, tena manussānaṃ agāravo vā appasādo vā bhaveyya, tasmā “nātidūre nāccāsanne ṭhātabba”nti vuttaṃ. Aticiraṃ tiṭṭhanto adātukāmānaṃ manopadoso bhaveyya, aññattha bhikkhā ca parikkhayeyya, atilahukaṃ nivattanto dātukāmānaṃ puññahāni ca bhaveyya, bhikkhuno ca bhikkhāya asampajjanaṃ, tasmā “nāticiraṃ ṭhātabbaṃ, nātilahukaṃ nivattitabbaṃ, ṭhitena sallakkhetabba”nti vuttaṃ. Sallakkhaṇākāraṃ dasseti “sace kammaṃ vā nikkhipatī”tiādinā. Tattha kammaṃ vā nikkhipatīti kappāsaṃ vā suppaṃ vā musalaṃ vā yañca gahetvā kammaṃ karonti, ṭhitā vā nisinnā vā honti, taṃ nikkhipati. Parāmasatīti gaṇhāti. Ṭhapeti vāti “tiṭṭhatha bhante”ti vadantī ṭhapeti nāma. Avakkārapātīti atirekapiṇḍapātaṃ apanetvā ṭhapanatthāya ekā samuggapāti. Ettha ca samuggapāti nāma samuggapuṭasadisā pāti. Sesaṃ vuttanayameva.
189. In the duty of an almsgoer, that which is to be gathered or collected is piṇḍo, meaning almsfood (piṇḍapāto). One who has the habit of going for alms is a piṇḍacārī, and by extension piṇḍacāriko with the “ka” suffix in its own sense. The duty to be observed by an almsgoer is piṇḍacārikavattaṃ (the duty of an almsgoer). Here is the explanation of terms not yet clarified: nivesanaṃ refers to the dwelling place of women, girls, and so forth. Since entering hastily without observing the entrance and exit doors might lead to seeing an incompatible object or encountering danger, it is said, “nivesanaṃ…pe… pavisitabba” (one should enter the dwelling). Standing too far might mean not seeing or being mistaken as standing at someone else’s house; standing too close might mean seeing what should not be seen or hearing what should not be heard, causing disrespect or displeasure among people, so it is said, “nātidūre nāccāsanne ṭhātabba” (one should stand neither too far nor too near). Standing too long might annoy those unwilling to give and deplete alms elsewhere; turning away too quickly might cause a loss of merit for those willing to give and a failure to obtain alms for the bhikkhu, so it is said, “nāticiraṃ ṭhātabbaṃ, nātilahukaṃ nivattitabbaṃ, ṭhitena sallakkhetabba” (one should not stand too long, nor turn away too quickly, and should observe while standing). The manner of observing is shown by “sace kammaṃ vā nikkhipatī” and so forth. Therein, kammaṃ vā nikkhipatī means putting down cotton, a winnowing basket, a pestle, or whatever they are working with, whether standing or seated. Parāmasatī means she takes it. Ṭhapeti vā means she says, “Stay, venerable sir,” and sets it down. Avakkārapātī means a bowl for setting aside excess almsfood; here, samuggapātī refers to a bowl shaped like a covered container. The rest follows the method already explained.
189. In the duties of the alms-gatherer, piṇḍa is that which should be gathered and collected, almsfood. Piṇḍacārī is one whose practice it is to go for alms, and piṇḍacāriko, using the suffix ka in the same meaning. The duty to be performed by the alms-gatherer is piṇḍacārikavattaṃ. Here is the explanation of the words that are not obvious – nivesanaṃ means a dwelling place for women, maidens, and so on. Because one entering suddenly without observing the entrance and exit might see an unsuitable sight, or there might be danger, therefore it is said, “nivesanaṃ…pe… pavisitabba”nti. Standing too far away, one might not be seen, or one might be thought to be “standing at another’s house.” Standing too close, one might see what should not be seen, or hear what should not be heard, and thereby the people might have disrespect or displeasure, therefore it is said, “nātidūre nāccāsanne ṭhātabba”nti. Standing too long, those unwilling to give might be annoyed, and the alms-round elsewhere might be depleted; turning back too quickly, there would be a loss of merit for those willing to give, and the monk’s alms-round would not be fulfilled, therefore it is said, “nāticiraṃ ṭhātabbaṃ, nātilahukaṃ nivattitabbaṃ, ṭhitena sallakkhetabba”nti. The way of observing is shown by “sace kammaṃ vā nikkhipatī”ti and so on. Here kammaṃ vā nikkhipatīti, whatever is used to do the work, whether cotton, a winnowing basket, a pestle, is set down, standing or seated. Parāmasatīti, he takes it. Ṭhapeti vāti, saying, “Wait, venerable sir,” is called ‘setting aside.’ Avakkārapātīti, a kind of bowl for setting aside leftover almsfood. And here samuggapāti means a bowl similar to a covered box. The rest is as previously stated.
189. In the conduct of the almsround, piṇḍa means what is to be gathered or collected, and piṇḍapāta means almsfood. Piṇḍacārī means one whose practice is to go for alms, and piṇḍacārika refers to the same person, depending on the context. The duty to be performed by an almsgoer is called piṇḍacārikavatta. Here is the explanation of the terms: nivesanaṃ refers to the dwelling place of women, girls, etc. Since one might see inappropriate objects or face danger if one enters hastily without noticing the entrance and exit, it is said, “nivesanaṃ…pe… pavisitabba”. Standing too far, one might not see or be seen, or one might think, “He is standing at another’s house.” Standing too close, one might see what should not be seen or hear what should not be heard, causing disrespect or loss of faith among people. Therefore, it is said, “nātidūre nāccāsanne ṭhātabba”. Standing too long might cause displeasure to those unwilling to give, and the alms might run out elsewhere. Leaving too quickly might cause loss of merit for those willing to give, and the monk might miss the alms. Therefore, it is said, “nāticiraṃ ṭhātabbaṃ, nātilahukaṃ nivattitabbaṃ, ṭhitena sallakkhetabba”. The manner of observation is shown by “sace kammaṃ vā nikkhipatī” and so on. Here, kammaṃ vā nikkhipatī means putting down cotton, wool, or a pestle, or whatever tool one is using while working, whether standing or sitting. Parāmasatī means taking. Ṭhapeti vā means saying, “Wait, venerable sir,” and stopping. Avakkārapātī means a vessel for removing excess almsfood. Here, samuggapāti refers to a vessel similar to a basket. The rest is as previously explained.
ID1077
Piṇḍacārikavattakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.
The commentary on the discourse of the duty of an almsgoer is concluded.
The explanation of the discourse on the duties of the alms-gatherer is finished.
The explanation of the conduct of the almsround is concluded.
ID1078
ID1079
190. Āraññikavatte na ramanti janā etthāti araññaṃ. Vuttañhi –
190. In the duty of a forest dweller, that where people do not delight is araññaṃ (forest). It is said:
190. In the duties of the forest-dweller, arañña is that in which people (janā) do not delight (na ramanti). For it is said:
190. In the conduct of a forest-dweller, arañña means where people do not delight. It is said:
ID1080
“Ramaṇīyāni araññāni, yattha na ramatī jano; Vītarāgā ramissanti, na te kāmagavesino”ti. (dha. pa. 99);
“Delightful are the forests where people do not delight; those free from passion will delight there, not those seeking sensual pleasures” (dha. pa. 99);
“Delightful are the forests, where the crowd finds no delight; those free from passion will delight, for they are not seeking sensual pleasures.” (dha. pa. 99);
“Delightful are the forests where people do not delight; those free from lust will delight, not those seeking sensual pleasures.” (Dhammapada 99);
ID1081
Araññe vasatīti āraññiko, tena vattitabbaṃ vattaṃ āraññikavattaṃ. Tatrāyaṃ visesapadānamattho – kālasseva uṭṭhāyāti araññasenāsanassa gāmato dūrattā vuttaṃ, teneva kāraṇena “pattaṃ gahetvā cīvaraṃ pārupitvā gacchanto parissamo hotī”ti vuttaṃ. Pattaṃ thavikāya pakkhipitvā aṃse laggetvā cīvaraṃ khandhe karitvā araññamaggo na dussodhano hoti, tasmā kaṇṭakasarīsapādiparissayavimocanatthaṃ upāhanā ārohitvā. Araññaṃ nāma yasmā corādīnaṃ vicaraṭṭhānaṃ hoti, tasmā “dārubhaṇḍaṃ mattikābhaṇḍaṃ paṭisāmetvā dvāravātapānaṃ thaketvā vasanaṭṭhānato nikkhamitabba”nti vuttaṃ. Ito parāni bhattaggavattapiṇḍacārikavattesu vuttasadisāneva. Gāmato nikkhamitvā sace bahigāme udakaṃ natthi, antogāmeyeva bhattakiccaṃ katvā, atha bahigāme atthi, bhattakiccaṃ katvā pattaṃ dhovitvā vodakaṃ katvā thavikāya pakkhipitvā cīvaraṃ saṅgharitvā aṃse karitvā upāhanā ārohitvā gantabbaṃ.
One who dwells in the forest is an āraññiko (forest dweller); the duty to be observed by him is āraññikavattaṃ (the duty of a forest dweller). Here is the meaning of specific terms: kālasseva uṭṭhāyā (rising early) is said due to the distance of the forest sleeping place from the village; for the same reason, it is said, “Taking the bowl and wearing the robe while going causes fatigue.” Pattaṃ thavikāya pakkhipitvā aṃse laggetvā cīvaraṃ khandhe karitvā (putting the bowl in a bag, hanging it on the shoulder, and placing the robe over the shoulder)—the forest path is not easily cleaned, so upāhanā ārohitvā (wearing footwear) is for avoiding dangers like thorns and snakes. Since a forest is a place where thieves and others roam, it is said, “dārubhaṇḍaṃ mattikābhaṇḍaṃ paṭisāmetvā dvāravātapānaṃ thaketvā vasanaṭṭhānato nikkhamitabba” (wooden and clay items should be stored, doors and windows secured, before leaving the dwelling place). From here onward, it is similar to what was said in the duties in the refectory and alms round. If leaving the village and there is no water outside, one should complete the meal duties within the village; if there is water outside, after completing the meal duties, washing the bowl, making it clean, putting it in the bag, gathering the robe over the shoulder, and wearing footwear, one should go.
One who dwells in the forest is āraññiko, the duty to be performed by him is āraññikavattaṃ. Here is the meaning of the specific words: kālasseva uṭṭhāyāti is said because a forest dwelling is far from the village, for the same reason, it is said that “it is troublesome to go taking the bowl and wearing the robe.” Pattaṃ thavikāya pakkhipitvā aṃse laggetvā cīvaraṃ khandhe karitvā, the forest path is not easy to clear, therefore, to avoid dangers of thorns, reptiles, and so on, upāhanā ārohitvā. Because the forest is a place where robbers and others roam, therefore it is said, “dārubhaṇḍaṃ mattikābhaṇḍaṃ paṭisāmetvā dvāravātapānaṃ thaketvā vasanaṭṭhānato nikkhamitabba”nti. The following is similar to what has been said in the duties at the meal and the duties of the alms-gatherer. Having left the village, if there is no water outside the village, having completed the meal duties within the village itself, but if there is outside the village, having completed the meal duties, having washed the bowl, made it free of water, put it in the bag, folded the robe, put it on the shoulder, putting on the sandals, one should go.
One who dwells in the forest is called āraññiko, and the duty to be performed by such a person is called āraññikavatta. Here is the meaning of the special terms: kālasseva uṭṭhāyā refers to the distance of the forest dwelling from the village, hence it is said, “Taking the bowl and putting on the robe while going causes fatigue.” Pattaṃ thavikāya pakkhipitvā aṃse laggetvā cīvaraṃ khandhe karitvā means that the forest path is not easy to clear, so to avoid dangers like thorns and snakes, upāhanā ārohitvā (wearing sandals) is advised. Since the forest is a place where thieves roam, it is said, “dārubhaṇḍaṃ mattikābhaṇḍaṃ paṭisāmetvā dvāravātapānaṃ thaketvā vasanaṭṭhānato nikkhamitabba”. The rest is similar to what is said in the meal and almsround conduct. After leaving the village, if there is no water outside, one should perform the meal duties within the village. If there is water outside, one should perform the meal duties, wash the bowl, dry it, place it in the bag, fold the robe, put it on the shoulder, wear sandals, and go.
ID1082
Bhājanaṃ alabhantenātiādi araññasenāsanassa dullabhadabbasambhārattā vuttaṃ, aggi upaṭṭhāpetabbotiādi vāḷamigasarīsapādibāhiraparissayakāle ca vātapittādiajjhattapaassayakāle ca icchitabbattā. Bahūnaṃ pana vasanaṭṭhāne tādisāni sulabhāni hontīti āha “gaṇavāsino pana tena vināpi vaṭṭatī”ti. Kattaradaṇḍo nāma parissayavinodano hoti, tasmā araññe viharantena avassaṃ icchitabboti vuttaṃ “kattaradaṇḍo upaṭṭhāpetabbo”ti. Nakkhattāneva nakkhattapadāni. Corādīsu āgantvā “ajja, bhante, kena nakkhattena cando yutto”ti pucchitesu “na jānāmā”ti vutte kujjhanti, tasmā vuttaṃ “nakkhattapadāni uggahetabbāni sakalāni vā ekadesāni vā”ti, tathā disāmūḷhesu “katamāyaṃ, bhante, disā”ti pucchitesu, tasmā “disākusalena bhavitabba”nti.
Bhājanaṃ alabhantenā and so forth is said due to the difficulty of obtaining materials for a forest sleeping place; aggi upaṭṭhāpetabbo (a fire should be maintained) and so forth is desirable during times of external dangers like wild animals or snakes and internal ailments like wind or bile. However, in a place where many dwell, such things are easily obtained, so it says, “gaṇavāsino pana tena vināpi vaṭṭatī” (for those living in a group, it is permissible without it). A staff (kattaradaṇḍo) is for warding off dangers, so it is said, “kattaradaṇḍo upaṭṭhāpetabbo” (a staff should be kept), as it is certainly desirable for one dwelling in the forest. Nakkhattāneva nakkhattapadāni means the constellations themselves are the terms for constellations. If thieves and others come and ask, “Venerable sir, with which constellation is the moon aligned today?” and one says, “I don’t know,” they may get angry, so it is said, “nakkhattapadāni uggahetabbāni sakalāni vā ekadesāni vā” (all or some constellation terms should be learned). Similarly, when asked about directions, “Which direction is this, venerable sir?” it is said, “disākusalena bhavitabba” (one should be skilled in directions).
Bhājanaṃ alabhantenāti and so on is said because of the scarcity of supplies in a forest dwelling, aggi upaṭṭhāpetabboti and so on, because it is desirable at times of danger from wild animals, reptiles, and so on, and at times of internal dangers from wind, bile, and so on. But in a place where many dwell, such things are easily available, therefore he says, “gaṇavāsino pana tena vināpi vaṭṭatī”ti. A kattaradaṇḍa is for dispelling dangers, therefore, it is said that one dwelling in the forest should definitely procure it, “kattaradaṇḍo upaṭṭhāpetabbo”ti. The constellations themselves are the stages of the constellations. When robbers and others come and ask, “Today, venerable sir, with which constellation is the moon joined?”, if one were to say, “I do not know,” they would be angry, therefore it is said, “nakkhattapadāni uggahetabbāni sakalāni vā ekadesāni vā”ti, and likewise for those who are confused about direction, being asked “In which direction is this, venerable sir?”, therefore “disākusalena bhavitabba”nti.
Bhājanaṃ alabhantenā refers to the difficulty of obtaining utensils in a forest dwelling, and aggi upaṭṭhāpetabbo refers to the need for fire to ward off wild animals and internal ailments like wind and bile. Since such things are easily available in many dwellings, it is said, “gaṇavāsino pana tena vināpi vaṭṭatī”. A staff is necessary for dispelling dangers, so it is said, “kattaradaṇḍo upaṭṭhāpetabbo”. Nakkhattapadāni refers to knowledge of constellations. When thieves come and ask, “Venerable sir, under which constellation is the moon today?” and one replies, “I do not know,” they become angry. Therefore, it is said, “nakkhattapadāni uggahetabbāni sakalāni vā ekadesāni vā”. Similarly, when one is asked, “Venerable sir, which direction is this?” it is said, “disākusalena bhavitabba”.
ID1083
Āraññikavattakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.
The commentary on the discourse of the duty of a forest dweller is concluded.
The explanation of the discourse on the duties of the forest-dweller is finished.
The explanation of the conduct of a forest-dweller is concluded.
ID1084
ID1085
191. Senāsanavatte sayanti etthāti senaṃ, sayananti attho. Āvasanti etthāti āsanaṃ. Senañca āsanañca senāsanaṃ. Senāsanesu kattabbaṃ vattaṃ senāsanavattaṃ . Idha pana yaṃ vattabbaṃ, taṃ upajjhāyavattakathāyaṃ (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 183 ) vuttameva. Tattha pana upajjhāyena vutthavihāro vutto, idha pana attanā vutthavihāroti ayameva viseso. Na vuḍḍhaṃ anāpucchāti ettha tassa ovarake tadupacāre ca āpucchitabbanti vadanti. Bhojanasālādīsupi evameva paṭipajjitabbanti bhojanasālādīsupi uddesadānādi āpucchitvāva kātabbanti attho.
191. In the duty concerning sleeping places, that where one lies down is senaṃ (a bed), meaning lying down. That where one resides is āsanaṃ (a seat). Both bed and seat together are senāsanaṃ (sleeping place). The duty to be performed regarding sleeping places is senāsanavattaṃ (the duty concerning sleeping places). Here, what is to be said has already been stated in the discourse on the duty of the preceptor (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 183). There, it refers to a monastery inhabited by the preceptor, while here it refers to one inhabited by oneself—this is the only difference. Na vuḍḍhaṃ anāpucchā means “Not without informing a senior,” and it is said that one should inform regarding his room or its vicinity. Bhojanasālādīsupi evameva paṭipajjitabba means “In dining halls and similar places, one should act in the same way,” meaning that assigning places and so forth should be done only after informing.
191. In the duties regarding the dwelling, sena is where they sleep (sayanti), meaning reclining. Āsana is where they dwell (āvasanti). Both sena and āsana is senāsana. The duty to be performed in dwellings is senāsanavattaṃ. But here, what should be said is already stated in the discourse on the duties of the preceptor (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 183). But there, the dwelling occupied by the preceptor is spoken of, here, the dwelling occupied by oneself, this is the only difference. Na vuḍḍhaṃ anāpucchāti, here, it is said that they are to be asked in his room and in the area around it. Bhojanasālādīsupi evameva paṭipajjitabbanti, meaning that in the dining hall and other places, the giving of the recitation, and so on, should be done after asking.
191. In the conduct regarding lodgings, sena means where one lies down, and āsana means where one dwells. Senāsana refers to both. The duty to be performed in lodgings is called senāsanavatta. Here, what is to be done is already explained in the section on the teacher’s duties (Vinaya Saṅgaha Aṭṭhakathā 183). There, the teacher’s dwelling is discussed, while here, one’s own dwelling is discussed, which is the only difference. Na vuḍḍhaṃ anāpucchā means that one should inform the elder about his own room and its vicinity. Bhojanasālādīsupi evameva paṭipajjitabba means that in dining halls, etc., one should inform the supervisor before acting.
ID1086
Senāsanavattakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.
The commentary on the discourse of the duty concerning sleeping places is concluded.
The explanation of the discourse on the duties regarding the dwelling is finished.
The explanation of the conduct regarding lodgings is concluded.
ID1087
ID1088
192. Jantāgharavatte jāyatīti jaṃ, kiṃ taṃ? Sarīraṃ. Jaṃ tāyati rakkhatīti jantā, kā sā? Tikicchā. Gayhateti gharaṃ, kiṃ taṃ? Nivesanaṃ, jantāya sarīratikicchāya kataṃ gharaṃ jantāgharaṃ, jantāghare kattabbaṃ vattaṃ jantāgharavattaṃ. Tattha paribhaṇḍanti bahijagati. Sesaṃ upajjhāyavatte vuttanayattā suviññeyyameva.
192. In the duty in the bathhouse, that which is born is jaṃ—what is it? The body. That which protects it is jantā—what is it? Treatment. That which is taken is gharaṃ—what is it? A dwelling. A dwelling made for bodily treatment is jantāgharaṃ (bathhouse); the duty to be performed in the bathhouse is jantāgharavattaṃ (the duty in the bathhouse). Therein, paribhaṇḍa refers to the outer area. The rest is easily understood as it follows the method explained in the duty of the preceptor.
192. In the duties in the hot bath house, that which is produced (jāyatīti) is jaṃ. What is that? The body. That which protects (tāyati rakkhatīti) jaṃ is jantā. What is that? Medical treatment. Gharaṃ is taken (gayhateti), what is that? A dwelling, a house made for jantā, bodily medical treatment, is jantāghara, the duty to be performed in the hot bath house is jantāgharavattaṃ. Here paribhaṇḍanti, means the outer area. The rest is easily understood because it is as stated in the duties of the preceptor.
192. In the conduct in the bathhouse, jaṃ means what is born, i.e., the body. Jantā means what protects the body, i.e., medicine. Ghara means a dwelling, i.e., a place. Jantāghara is a place built for treating the body with medicine. The duty to be performed in the bathhouse is called jantāgharavatta. Here, paribhaṇḍa refers to the outer world. The rest is easily understood as it is explained in the teacher’s duties.
ID1089
Jantāgharavattakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.
The commentary on the discourse of the duty in the bathhouse is concluded.
The explanation of the discourse on the duties in the hot bath house is finished.
The explanation of the conduct in the bathhouse is concluded.
ID1090
ID1091
193. Vaccakuṭivatte vaccayate ūhadayateti vaccaṃ, karīsaṃ. Kuṭīyati chindīyati ātapo etāyāti kuṭi, vaccatthāya katā kuṭi vaccakuṭi, vaccakuṭiyā vattitabbaṃ vattaṃ vaccakuṭivattaṃ, idha ca vattakkhandhake ācamanavattaṃ paṭhamaṃ āgataṃ, pacchā vaccakuṭivattaṃ. Imasmiṃ pana pakaraṇe paṭhamaṃ vaccaṃ katvā pacchā ācamatīti adhippāyena vaccakuṭivattaṃ paṭhamaṃ āgataṃ, tasmā tadanukkamena kathayissāma. Dantakaṭṭhaṃ khādantenāti ayaṃ vaccakuṭiyāpi sabbattheva paṭikkhepo. Nibaddhagamanatthāyāti attanā nibaddhagamanatthāya. Puggalikaṭṭhānaṃ vāti attano vihāraṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Sesaṃ suviññeyyamevāti.
193. In the duty in the latrine, that where excrement is expelled is vaccaṃ (excrement). That by which the sun’s heat is cut off is kuṭi (hut); a hut made for excrement is vaccakuṭi (latrine); the duty to be observed in the latrine is vaccakuṭivattaṃ (the duty in the latrine). In the Vattakkhandhaka, the duty of rinsing comes first, followed by the duty in the latrine. However, in this text, the duty in the latrine comes first with the intention that one relieves oneself first and then rinses, so we will explain it in that order. Dantakaṭṭhaṃ khādantenā (while chewing a tooth-stick) is a prohibition that applies universally, including in the latrine. Nibaddhagamanatthāyā means for one’s regular going. Puggalikaṭṭhānaṃ vā refers to one’s own monastery. The rest is easily understood.
193. In the duties in the toilet, that which is excreted or eliminated is vacca, excrement. That which is cut off (kuṭīyati chindīyati) from the heat by this is kuṭi, a kuṭi made for vacca is vaccakuṭi, the duty to be performed in the vaccakuṭi is vaccakuṭivattaṃ, and in the chapter on duties, the duty of rinsing first comes, and afterwards the duty of the toilet. But in this section, first having defecated, afterwards one rinses, with this intention, the duty of the toilet comes first, therefore we will speak in that order. Dantakaṭṭhaṃ khādantenāti, this is a prohibition everywhere, even in the toilet. Nibaddhagamanatthāyāti, for the purpose of going regularly. Puggalikaṭṭhānaṃ vāti, is said in reference to one’s own dwelling. The rest is easily understood.
193. In the conduct in the restroom, vacca means excrement. Kuṭi means a hut, i.e., a place where heat is cut off. Vaccakuṭi is a hut built for excrement. The duty to be performed in the restroom is called vaccakuṭivatta. Here, in the Vinaya, the conduct of rinsing is mentioned first, followed by the restroom conduct. In this context, however, the restroom conduct is mentioned first, followed by rinsing, as one defecates first and then rinses. Therefore, we will explain accordingly. Dantakaṭṭhaṃ khādantenā means that this is prohibited in the restroom as well. Nibaddhagamanatthāyā means for the purpose of regular use. Puggalikaṭṭhānaṃ vā refers to one’s own dwelling. The rest is easily understood.
ID1092
Vaccakuṭivattakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.
The commentary on the discourse of the duty in the latrine is concluded.
The explanation of the discourse on the duties in the toilet is finished.
The explanation of the conduct in the restroom is concluded.
ID1093
Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,
Thus in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is the commentary of the Vinayasaṅgaha,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinaya Saṅgaha,
ID1094
Upajjhāyavattādivattavinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma
The section called the Adornment of the Discourse on the Determination of Duties Beginning with the Preceptor
is the chapter named the Ornament of the Discourse Determining the Duties, such as the Duties of the Preceptor,
The section on the determination of duties, including the teacher’s duties, is called
ID1095
Sattavīsatimo paricchedo.
Is the twenty-seventh chapter.
The Twenty-Seventh Chapter.
The twenty-seventh chapter.
ID1096
ID1097
ID1098
194. Evaṃ upajjhāyādivattasaṅkhātāni cuddasa khandhakavattāni kathetvā idāni catunnaṃ paccayānaṃ bhājanaṃ kathento “catupaccayabhājana”ntiādimāha. Tattha catūti saṅkhyāsabbanāmapadaṃ. Paṭicca eti sītapaṭighātādikaṃ phalaṃ etasmāti paccayo, cīvarādi, paccayo ca paccayo ca paccayā, cattāro paccayā catupaccayaṃ, bhājīyate vibhājīyate bhājanaṃ. Catupaccayassa bhājanaṃ catupaccayabhājanaṃ. Tenāha “cīvarādīnaṃ catunnaṃ paccayānaṃ bhājana”nti. Tattha tasmiṃ catupaccayabhājane samabhiniviṭṭhe cīvarabhājane tāva paṭhamaṃ cīvarapaṭiggāhako…pe… veditabbo. Kasmā? Saṅghikacīvarassa dukkarabhājanattāti sambandho. Tattha āgatāgataṃ cīvaraṃ paṭiggaṇhāti, paṭiggahaṇamattamevassa bhāroti cīvarapaṭiggāhako. Cīvarapaṭiggāhakena paṭiggahitaṃ cīvaraṃ nidahati, nidahanamattamevassa bhāroti cīvaranidahako. Bhaṇḍāgāre niyutto bhaṇḍāgāriko. Cīvarādikassa bhaṇḍassa ṭhapanaṭṭhānabhūtaṃ agāraṃ bhaṇḍāgāraṃ. Cīvaraṃ bhājeti bhāgaṃ karotīti cīvarabhājako. Cīvarassa bhājanaṃ vibhāgakaraṇaṃ cīvarabhājanaṃ, vibhajanakiriyā.
194. Having explained the fourteen duties known as the duties of the preceptor and others in the Khandhaka, now, in discussing the distribution of the four requisites, he begins with “catupaccayabhājana” and so forth. Therein, catū is a numerical pronoun. That from which effects like protection from cold arise is a paccayo (requisite), such as robes and so forth; requisites together are paccayā, four requisites are catupaccayaṃ, and their distribution is bhājanaṃ. The distribution of the four requisites is catupaccayabhājanaṃ. Hence, he says, “cīvarādīnaṃ catunnaṃ paccayānaṃ bhājana” (the distribution of the four requisites beginning with robes). Tattha means “in that distribution of the four requisites”; regarding the cīvarabhājane tāva (distribution of robes first), the cīvarapaṭiggāhako…pe… veditabbo (one who receives robes should be understood). Why? Because of the difficulty in distributing communal robes—this is the connection. Therein, one who receives robes as they come, with receiving alone as his duty, is a cīvarapaṭiggāhako (robe receiver). One who stores the robes received by the robe receiver, with storing alone as his duty, is a cīvaranidahako (robe storer). One appointed to the storehouse is a bhaṇḍāgāriko (storekeeper). The place where robes and other items are kept is bhaṇḍāgāraṃ (storehouse). One who divides robes, making portions, is a cīvarabhājako (robe distributor). The act of dividing robes is cīvarabhājanaṃ (robe distribution), the action of apportioning.
194. Having thus spoken of the fourteen duties of the chapters, such as the duties of the preceptor, now, speaking of the distribution of the four requisites, he says “catupaccayabhājana”nti and so on. There catūti is a numeral pronoun. The result, such as protection from cold and so on, arises in dependence on this, thus it is a requisite (paccayo), robe and so on, paccayo ca paccayo ca paccayā, the four requisites are catupaccayaṃ, that which is distributed or divided is bhājanaṃ. The distribution of the four requisites is catupaccayabhājanaṃ. Therefore he says, “cīvarādīnaṃ catunnaṃ paccayānaṃ bhājana”nti. Tattha, in that engagement with the distribution of the four requisites, cīvarabhājane tāva, first, in the distribution of robes, cīvarapaṭiggāhako…pe… veditabbo. Why? The connection is that the distribution of Saṅgha robes is difficult. There, he receives the robes that have come and are coming, his duty is only receiving, thus cīvarapaṭiggāhako. He stores the robes received by the robe-receiver, his duty is only storing, thus cīvaranidahako. The one appointed in the storehouse is bhaṇḍāgāriko. The storehouse is bhaṇḍāgāraṃ, the place for storing the requisites such as robes. He distributes the robes, makes a share, thus cīvarabhājako. The distribution of robes, the act of dividing, is cīvarabhājanaṃ, the act of dividing.
194. Having explained the fourteen duties related to the chapters, now explaining the distribution of the four requisites, it is said, “catupaccayabhājana”. Here, catū is a numeral. Paccayo means what leads to the result, such as protection from cold, etc. Cīvara (robe) is a requisite, and there are four requisites: catupaccaya. The distribution of the four requisites is called catupaccayabhājana. Therefore, it is said, “cīvarādīnaṃ catunnaṃ paccayānaṃ bhājana”. Tattha means in that distribution of the four requisites, cīvarabhājane tāva first, cīvarapaṭiggāhako…pe… veditabbo. Why? Because the distribution of Sangha robes is difficult. Here, cīvarapaṭiggāhako is one who receives the robes as they come; his duty is only to receive. Cīvaranidahako is one who stores the robes received by the receiver; his duty is only to store. Bhaṇḍāgāriko is one appointed to the storeroom. Bhaṇḍāgāra is the place where the robes and other goods are stored. Cīvarabhājako is one who distributes the robes. Cīvarabhājana is the distribution of robes, the act of dividing.
ID1099
Tattha “cīvarapaṭiggāhako veditabbo”ti vutto, so kuto labbhateti āha “pañcahaṅgehi…pe… sammannitabbo”ti. Kathaṃ viññāyatīti āha “anujānāmi…pe… vacanato”ti. Chandanaṃ chando, icchanaṃ pihananti attho. Gamanaṃ karaṇaṃ gati, kiriyā. Gāreyhā gati agati, chandena agati chandāgati. Sesesupi eseva nayo. Kathaṃ chandāgatiṃ gacchatīti āha “tattha pacchā āgatānampī”tiādi. Evamitaresupi. Pañcamaṅgaṃ pana satisampajaññayuttābhāvaṃ dasseti. Sukkapakkhepi ito paṭipakkhavasena veditabbo. Tenāha “tasmā”tiādi.
Therein, it is said, “cīvarapaṭiggāhako veditabbo” (the robe receiver should be understood); where is he obtained from? He says, “pañcahaṅgehi…pe… sammannitabbo” (he should be appointed with five qualities). How is this known? He says, “anujānāmi…pe… vacanato” (from the statement “I allow…”). Desire is chando (inclination), meaning wishing. Going or acting is gati (movement), action. Blameworthy movement is agati (wrong conduct); wrong conduct due to inclination is chandāgati (movement due to inclination). The same applies to the others. How does one fall into movement due to inclination? He says, “tattha pacchā āgatānampī” (even to those who come later) and so forth. The same applies to the others. The fifth quality indicates the absence of mindfulness and clear comprehension. On the positive side, it should be understood as the opposite of these. Hence, he says, “tasmā” and so forth.
There, it is said “the robe-receiver should be known,” so from where is he obtained? He says, “pañcahaṅgehi…pe… sammannitabbo”ti. How is it known? He says, “anujānāmi…pe… வசனத்தோ”ti. Chando, inclination, means desire or preference. Going or action is gati, activity. Agati due to inclination is chandāgati. The same rule applies to the others. How does he go by chandāgati? He says, “tattha pacchā āgatānampī”ti and so on. Likewise in the others. But the fifth factor shows the absence of mindfulness and full awareness. In the bright fortnight, it should be understood as the opposite of this. Therefore, he says, “tasmā”ti and so on.
Here, it is said, “cīvarapaṭiggāhako veditabbo”, and how he is to be known is explained by “pañcahaṅgehi…pe… sammannitabbo”. How is he to be recognized? It is said, “anujānāmi…pe… vacanato”. Chando means consent, the act of wishing. Gati means action, movement. Agati means wrong action. Chandāgati means acting out of desire. The rest follow the same pattern. How one acts out of desire is explained by “tattha pacchā āgatānampī” and so on. The fifth factor shows the absence of mindfulness and clear comprehension. Even in the bright fortnight, it should be understood by its opposite. Therefore, it is said, “tasmā” and so on.
ID1100
Imāya kammavācāya vā apalokanena vāti idaṃ imassa sammutikammassa lahukakammattā vuttaṃ. Tathā hi vuttaṃ parivāraṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pari. aṭṭha. 482) “avasesā terasa sammutiyo senāsanaggāhamatakacīvaradānādisammutiyo cāti etāni lahukakammāni apaloketvāpi kātuṃ vaṭṭantī”ti. Antovihāre sabbasaṅghamajjhepi khaṇḍasīmāyampi sammannituṃ vaṭṭatīti ettha antovihāreti baddhasīmavihāraṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Na hi abaddhasīmavihāre apalokanādicatubbidhakammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati dubbisodhanattā. Dhuravihāraṭṭhāneti vihāradvārassa sammukhaṭṭhāne.
Imāya kammavācāya vā apalokanena vā (either by this formal motion or by consultation) is said because this appointment is a light procedure. Indeed, it is stated in the Parivāra commentary (pari. aṭṭha. 482), “The remaining thirteen appointments, such as the allocation of sleeping places, the giving of robes to the dead, and so forth, are light procedures and may be done by consultation.” Antovihāre sabbasaṅghamajjhepi khaṇḍasīmāyampi sammannituṃ vaṭṭatī means “It is permissible to appoint within the monastery, in the midst of the entire Sangha, or in a partial boundary”; here, antovihāre refers to a monastery with a fixed boundary. In a monastery without a fixed boundary, it is not permissible to perform the four types of procedures like consultation due to the difficulty of rectification. Dhuravihāraṭṭhāne means at the place facing the monastery entrance.
Imāya kammavācāya vā apalokanena vāti, this is said because this formal act of appointment is a light act. Thus it is said in the commentary to the Parivāra (pari. aṭṭha. 482), “The remaining thirteen appointments, the appointments for receiving dwellings, distributing robes of the deceased, and so on, these are light acts, and it is proper to do them even by announcement.” Antovihāre sabbasaṅghamajjhepi khaṇḍasīmāyampi sammannituṃ vaṭṭatīti, here antovihāreti is said in reference to a monastery with a bounded boundary. For it is not proper to perform the fourfold acts such as announcement in a monastery without a bounded boundary, because it is difficult to purify. Dhuravihāraṭṭhāneti, in the place in front of the gate of the monastery.
Imāya kammavācāya vā apalokanena vā means that this is said because this is a light duty. As stated in the Parivāra Aṭṭhakathā (Parivāra Aṭṭhakathā 482), “The remaining thirteen resolutions, such as those regarding lodgings, robes, etc., are light duties that can be performed even by informing.” Antovihāre sabbasaṅghamajjhepi khaṇḍasīmāyampi sammannituṃ vaṭṭatī means that here, antovihāre refers to a monastery with fixed boundaries. It is not permissible to perform the fourfold action, including informing, in a monastery without fixed boundaries due to difficulty in purification. Dhuravihāraṭṭhāne means in front of the monastery gate.
ID1101
197. Bhaṇḍāgārasammutiyaṃ vihāramajjheyevāti avippavāsasīmāsaṅkhātamahāsīmā vihārassa majjheyeva sammannitabbā. Imasmiṃ pana ṭhāne imaṃ pana bhaṇḍāgāraṃ khaṇḍasīmaṃ gantvā khaṇḍasīmāyaṃ nisinnehi sammannituṃ na vaṭṭati, vihāramajjheyeva “suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho itthannāmaṃ vihāraṃ bhaṇḍāgāraṃ sammanneyyā”tiādinā nayena “kammavācāya vā apalokanena vā sammannitabba”nti vacanaṃ nissāya ñattidutiyakammaṃ upacārasīmāyaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti gahetvā kathinadānakammampi abaddhasīmābhūte vihāre upacārasīmāyaṃ karonti, ekacce ñattikammampi tatheva gahetvā abaddhasīmavihāre upacārasīmāmatteyeva uposathapavāraṇaṃ karonti, tadayuttaṃ, kāraṇaṃ panettha kathinavinicchayakathāyaṃ (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 226) āvi bhavissati.
197. In the designation of the storehouse, “only in the middle of the monastery” means that the great boundary (mahāsīmā), known as the non-separated boundary (avippavāsasīmā), should be designated only in the middle of the monastery. However, at this place, it is not permitted to go to this storehouse at a partial boundary (khaṇḍasīmā) and designate it while seated there. Only in the middle of the monastery, with the procedure beginning, “Let the Sangha listen to me, venerable sirs, if the Sangha is ready, may the Sangha designate this monastery named so-and-so as a storehouse,” and so forth, should it be designated either by a formal motion (kammavācā) or by consent (apalokana), as per the statement “it should be designated.” Relying on this, some perform the second-motion act (ñattidutiyakamma) within the vicinity boundary (upacārasīmā), and in a monastery without a fixed boundary (abaddhasīmā), they perform the kathina donation act within the vicinity boundary. Some, taking it similarly, perform the preliminary motion act (ñattikamma) and even the Uposatha and Pavāraṇā within just the vicinity boundary of a monastery without a fixed boundary. This is improper, and the reason will become clear in the discussion of the kathina decision (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 226).
197. Regarding the designation of a storehouse, in the middle of the monastery itself means that the great boundary, known as the non-residence boundary, should be designated in the very middle of the monastery. In this particular place, it is not permissible for those residing within a minor boundary, having gone to that minor boundary, to designate this storehouse. However, relying on the statement that in the middle of the monastery itself, it should be designated by recital of “Let the Sangha, venerable sirs, hear me. If the time is right for the Sangha, the Sangha should designate such-and-such a monastery as a storehouse” and so forth, or by a declaration, by formal act of the sangha including a motion and one operative resolution, or through an informal announcement, it is permissible to perform a formal act with a motion and resolution within the upacāra boundary. Based on this understanding, they also perform the Kathina-giving ceremony within the upacāra boundary in a monastery that is not a bounded-boundary. Some even, taking it in the same way, conduct the Uposatha and Pavāraṇā ceremonies within just the upacāra boundary in a monastery without bounded boundaries; but this is not proper. The reason for this will become clear in the discussion of the analysis of the Kathina (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 226).
197. In the agreement on the storehouse, “in the middle of the monastery” means that the great boundary, known as the non-separation boundary, should be designated right in the center of the monastery. However, in this case, if the storehouse goes beyond the partial boundary and is located within the partial boundary, it is not permissible to designate it while sitting within the partial boundary. Instead, it should be designated in the middle of the monastery by means of a formal motion or announcement, following the procedure: “Venerable ones, may the Sangha listen. If it seems appropriate to the Sangha, let the Sangha designate such-and-such a monastery as the storehouse.” Based on this statement, it is permissible to perform the motion-and-announcement procedure within the proximity boundary. Similarly, the Kathina robe-giving ceremony is also performed within the proximity boundary in a monastery that has no fixed boundary. Some also perform the motion procedure in the same way and conduct the Uposatha and Pavāraṇa ceremonies within the proximity boundary of a monastery without a fixed boundary. This is appropriate. The reason for this will be explained in the discussion on the Kathina robe in the Vinaya analysis (Vin. Saṅgaha Aṭṭha. 226).
ID1102
198. Tulābhūtoti tulāsadiso. Idanti sāmaṇerānaṃ upaḍḍhapaṭivīsadānaṃ. Imaṃ kira pāṭhaṃ amanasikarontā idāni kālacīvarampi sāmaṇerānaṃ upaḍḍhapaṭivīsaṃ denti. Phātikammanti pahonakakammaṃ, yattakena vinayāgatena sammuñjanībandhanādihatthakammena vihārassa ūnatā na hoti, tattakaṃ katvāti attho. Sabbesanti tatruppādavassāvāsikaṃ gaṇhantānaṃ sabbesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ sāmaṇerānañca. Bhaṇḍāgāracīvarepīti akālacīvaraṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Ukkuṭṭhiṃ karontīti mahāsaddaṃ karonti. Etanti ukkuṭṭhiyā katāya samabhāgadānaṃ. Virajjhitvā karontīti kattabbakālesu akatvā yathārucitakkhaṇe karonti. Samapaṭivīso dātabboti karissāmāti yācantānaṃ paṭiññāmattenapi samako koṭṭhāso dātabbo.
198. “Like a balance” means resembling a scale. “This” refers to giving half of twenty-five portions to novices (sāmaṇera). It is said that, ignoring this text, some now give half of twenty-five portions of robes out of season (kālacīvara) to novices. “Sufficient act” (phātikamma) means an adequate task, that is, doing as much as is necessary with disciplinary tasks such as binding brooms, so that the monastery does not lack anything; this is the meaning. “Of all” refers to all monks (bhikkhu) and novices taking the rains-residence proceeds (vassāvāsika). “Even in the storehouse robes” refers to robes out of season (akālacīvara). “They make a loud noise” means they produce a great sound (ukkuṭṭhi). “This” refers to equal distribution made with that noise. “Doing it with aversion” means they do it at a time of their own liking rather than at the proper time. “An equal portion should be given” means an equal share should be given even to those who request it with just a promise, saying, “We will do it.”
198. Like a scale means similar to a scale. This refers to giving half a share to the novices. It seems that, not paying attention to this text, nowadays they give half a share of even seasonable cloth to the novices. The act of making sufficient means the act of making enough, meaning performing to the extent that the monastery does not lack what is due according to what has come in the Vinaya such as broom-binding and so on. For all means for all the monks and novices who accept the seasonal residence there. Even in the case of storehouse cloth refers to off-season cloth. They make an uproar means they make a loud noise. This means giving equal shares when an uproar is made. They do it erratically means that they do not do it at the appropriate times, but at whatever time they feel like. Equal shares should be given means that even by way of an agreement to those who are begging, saying, “We will do it,” an equal portion should be given.
198. “Like a scale” means similar to a balance. “This” refers to the half-share given to novices. It is said that nowadays, even the seasonal robe is given to novices as a half-share. “Phātikamma” means the work of making it sufficient, i.e., performing the necessary work such as sewing, binding, etc., according to the Vinaya, so that the monastery is not left deficient. “For all” refers to all the monks and novices who are entitled to the rainy-season residence. “Even the robe from the storehouse” refers to the out-of-season robe. “Making a loud noise” means creating a great uproar. “This” refers to the equal distribution made after the uproar. “Doing it after rejecting” means not doing it at the proper time but doing it whenever one pleases. “An equal share should be given” means that even if they only promise to do it, an equal portion should be given.
ID1103
Atirekabhāgenāti dasa bhikkhū honti, sāṭakāpi daseva, tesu eko dvādasa agghati, sesā dasagghanakā. Sabbesu dasagghanakavasena kuse pātite yassa bhikkhuno dvādasagghanako kuso pātito, so “ettakena mama cīvaraṃ pahotī”ti tena atirekabhāgena gantukāmo hoti. Ettha ca ettakena mama cīvaraṃ pahotīti dvādasagghanakena mama cīvaraṃ paripuṇṇaṃ hoti, na tato ūnenāti sabbaṃ gahetukāmoti attho. Bhikkhū “atirekaṃ āvuso saṅghassa santaka”nti vadanti, taṃ sutvā bhagavā “saṅghike ca gaṇasantake ca appakaṃ nāma natthi, sabbattha saṃyamo kātabbo, gaṇhantenapi kukkuccāyitabba”nti dassetuṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, anukkhepe dinne”ti āha. Tattha anukkhepo nāma yaṃ kiñci anukkhipitabbaṃ anuppadātabbaṃ kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ, yattakaṃ tassa paṭivīse adhikaṃ, tattake agghanake yasmiṃ kismiñci kappiyabhaṇḍe dinneti atthoti imamatthaṃ saṅkhepena dassetuṃ “sace dasa bhikkhū honti”tyādi vuttaṃ.
With an excess portion: There are ten monks, and there are exactly ten robes; among them, one is worth twelve, while the rest are worth ten. When lots (kusa) are cast based on the value of ten for all, the monk whose lot falls on the robe worth twelve says, “This much is sufficient for my robe,” and wishes to take it with the excess portion. Here, “This much is sufficient for my robe” means that with the robe worth twelve, his robe is complete, not lacking anything, and he desires to take it all; this is the meaning. The monks say, “Friend, the excess belongs to the Sangha.” Hearing this, the Blessed One, to show that “there is nothing insignificant in what belongs to the Sangha or the group, restraint should be exercised everywhere, and even in taking, one should be conscientious,” said, “I allow, monks, after giving a substitute (anukkhepa).” Here, “substitute” means any allowable item (kappiyabhaṇḍa) that should not be withheld or given away; whatever exceeds his portion should be given in some allowable item of that value; this is the meaning. To briefly illustrate this, it is said, “If there are ten monks,” and so forth.
With the extra portion means that there are ten monks, and also ten pieces of cloth. Among them, one is worth twelve, the rest are worth ten. When the lots are cast, with everyone receiving ten-worth lots, the monk whose twelve-worth lot falls desires to leave with that extra portion, thinking “This much is sufficient for my robe”. And here, this much is sufficient for my robe means my robe is completed by the twelve-worth piece, not less than that, meaning, they desire to take all of it. The monks say, “Friend, the excess belongs to the Sangha.” Hearing this, the Blessed One said, “I allow, monks, when given with an addition” to show that in what belongs to the Sangha or to a group, there is no such thing as ‘a little’, restraint should be practiced everywhere, and one should be scrupulous even when receiving. Here, ‘addition’ means any suitable item that can be added, that can be given as an additional offering. In brief, the explanation of the meaning is that when giving any suitable additional offering, the amount should be of a value equal to whatever is more in his share. To briefly show this meaning, it is said, “If there are ten monks” and so on.
“With the excess portion” means there are ten monks and ten robes, but one robe is worth twelve, while the rest are worth ten. When all are valued at ten, and the lot falls to the monk whose robe is worth twelve, he thinks, “With this, my robe is sufficient,” and he desires to take the excess portion. Here, “with this, my robe is sufficient” means that with the value of twelve, my robe is complete, not lacking anything, and he desires to take it all. The monks say, “The excess belongs to the Sangha.” Hearing this, the Buddha says, “There is nothing insignificant in what belongs to the Sangha or the group. Restraint should be practiced in all cases, and even when taking, one should be cautious.” To explain this, he says, “I allow, monks, what is given without excess.” Here, “without excess” refers to any allowable item that should not be hoarded or given beyond what is appropriate. The meaning is that whatever exceeds the share should be given in value to any allowable item. To briefly explain this, it is said, “If there are ten monks,” etc.
ID1104
Vikalake tosetvāti ettha cīvaravikalakaṃ puggalavikalakanti dve vikalakā. Tattha cīvaravikalakaṃ nāma sabbesaṃ pañca pañca vatthāni pattāni, sesānipi atthi, ekekaṃ pana na pāpuṇāti, chinditvā dātabbāni. Chindantehi ca aḍḍhamaṇḍalādīnaṃ vā upāhanathavikādīnaṃ vā pahonakāni khaṇḍāni katvā dātabbāni, heṭṭhimaparicchedena caturaṅgulavitthārampi anuvātappahonakāyāmaṃ khaṇḍaṃ katvā dātuṃ vaṭṭati. Aparibhogaṃ pana na kātabbanti evamettha cīvarassa appahonakabhāvo cīvaravikalakaṃ. Chinditvā dinne panetaṃ tositaṃ hoti. Atha kusapāto kātabbo, sacepi ekassa bhikkhuno koṭṭhāse ekaṃ vā dve vā vatthāni nappahonti, tattha aññaṃ sāmaṇakaṃ parikkhāraṃ ṭhapetvā yo tena tussati, tassa taṃ bhāgaṃ datvā pacchā kusapāto kātabbo. Idampi cīvaravikalakanti andhaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ.
Satisfying the deficient: Here, there are two types of deficiency: robe deficiency (cīvaravikalaka) and person deficiency (puggalavikalaka). Among these, “robe deficiency” means that all have received five garments each, and there are still some left, but not enough for one each; they must be divided. When dividing, pieces sufficient for semicircles (aḍḍhamaṇḍala) or bags for footwear (upāhanathavika) should be made and given. It is permissible to make and give a piece with a minimum width of four fingers and a length sufficient for the wind, but an unusable piece should not be made; thus, the insufficiency of the robe is the robe deficiency here. When it is divided and given, it is satisfied. Then the casting of lots (kusapāta) should be done. Even if one monk’s share lacks one or two garments, by placing another minor requisite (sāmaṇaka parikkhāra) there, it is given to whoever is satisfied with it, and afterward, the casting of lots is done. This is also called robe deficiency, as stated in the Andhaka commentary.
Making up for deficiencies: here, there are two kinds of deficiencies: deficiency of robes, and deficiency of persons. Here, deficiency of robes means that everyone has received five pieces of cloth, and there are still some remaining, but not enough for one each; they need to be cut and given. And when cutting, pieces sufficient for things like half-moon shaped sandals, sandal bags, and so on, should be made and given. In terms of the lower limit, it is permitted to make and give a piece four fingerbreadths wide and of sufficient length for a border. However, it should not be made unsuitable for use. Thus, here, the insufficiency of the cloth is the deficiency of robes. When this is given after cutting, it is made up for. Then, the casting of lots should be done. Even if one or two pieces of cloth in a monk’s share are insufficient, leaving aside any other minor requisites, whatever he is satisfied with, that share should be given to him, and afterwards the casting of lots should be done. This is also a deficiency of robes, as stated in the Andhaṭṭhakathā.
“After satisfying the deficient” refers to two types of deficiency: robe deficiency and personal deficiency. “Robe deficiency” means that while everyone has five robes, some are missing one or two, and these should be cut and given. When cutting, pieces of half-moon shapes or sandal straps, etc., should be made and given. It is permissible to cut a piece four fingers wide along the length of the robe. However, it should not be made unusable. Thus, the lack of sufficient robe material is called robe deficiency. When cut and given, it is considered satisfied. Then, the lot should be drawn. If a monk’s share lacks one or two robes, another allowable item should be set aside, and whoever is satisfied with it should be given that share. After that, the lot should be drawn. This is also called robe deficiency, as explained in the Andhaṭṭhakathā.
ID1105
Puggalavikalakaṃ nāma dasa dasa bhikkhū gaṇetvā vaggaṃ karontānaṃ eko vaggo na pūrati, aṭṭha vā nava vā honti, tesaṃ aṭṭha vā nava vā koṭṭhāsā “tumhe ime gahetvā visuṃ bhājethā”ti dātabbā. Evamayaṃ puggalānaṃ appahonakabhāvo puggalavikalakaṃ nāma. Visuṃ dinne pana taṃ tositaṃ hoti, evaṃ tosetvā kusapāto kātabboti. Atha vā vikalake tosetvāti yo cīvaravibhāgo ūnako, taṃ aññena parikkhārena samaṃ katvā kusapāto kātabboti imamatthaṃ dasseti “sace sabbesaṃ pañca pañca vatthānī”tiādinā.
Person deficiency: When grouping monks by tens, one group does not complete, having only eight or nine; their eight or nine shares should be given, saying, “Take these and divide them separately.” Thus, this insufficiency of persons is called person deficiency (puggalavikalaka). When given separately, it is satisfied; after satisfying it thus, the casting of lots should be done. Alternatively, “satisfying the deficient” means making the deficient robe distribution equal with another requisite and then casting lots; this meaning is shown by “If all have five garments each,” and so forth.
Deficiency of persons means that when grouping ten monks each, one group is not complete, there are eight or nine. Eight or nine shares should be given to them, saying, “You take these and divide them among yourselves.” Thus, this insufficiency of persons is called deficiency of persons. When given separately, it has been made up, thus having completed, the casting of lots must be done. Or, making up for deficiencies means that whatever share of robes is deficient, making it equal with other requisites, the casting of lots should be done. This meaning is shown by “If everyone receives five pieces of cloth” and so on.
“Personal deficiency” means that when dividing into groups of ten monks, one group is incomplete, having only eight or nine. Their shares of eight or nine should be given, saying, “You take these and divide them separately.” This lack of sufficient persons is called personal deficiency. When given separately, it is considered satisfied. Thus, after satisfying the deficiency, the lot should be drawn. Alternatively, “after satisfying the deficient” means that if the robe distribution is lacking, it should be made equal with another item, and then the lot should be drawn. This is explained by the phrase, “If everyone has five robes,” etc.
ID1106
199. Ito paraṃ tesu tesu vatthūsu āgatavasena aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttesu vinicchayesu santesupi tesaṃ vinicchayānaṃ aṭṭhamātikāvinicchayato avimuttattā aṭṭhamātikāvinicchayesveva pakkhipitvā dassetuṃ “idāni aṭṭhimā, bhikkhave”tiādimāha. Yā tā aṭṭha mātikā bhagavatā vuttā, tāsaṃ aṭṭhannaṃ mātikānaṃ vasena vinicchayo idāni veditabboti yojanā. Parikkhepārahaṭṭhānena paricchinnāti iminā aparikkhittassa vihārassa dhuvasannipātaṭṭhānādito paṭhamaleḍḍupātassa anto upacārasīmāti dasseti. Idāni dutiyaleḍḍupātassa antopi upacārasīmāyevāti dassetuṃ “apicā”tiādi āraddhaṃ. Dhuvasannipātaṭṭhānampi pariyantagatameva gahetabbaṃ. “Evaṃ sante tiyojane ṭhitā lābhaṃ gaṇhissantī”tiādinā ime lābhaggahaṇādayo upacārasīmāvaseneva hoti, na avippavāsasīmāvasenāti dasseti, tena ca imāni lābhaggahaṇādīniyeva upacārasīmāyaṃ kattabbāni, na apalokanakammādīni cattāri kammāni, tāni pana avippavāsasīmādīsuyeva kattabbānīti pakāseti. Tathā hi vuttaṃ sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.379) “bhikkhunīnaṃ ārāmappavesanasenāsanapucchanādi parivāsamānattārocanavassacchedanissayasenāsanaggāhādi vidhānanti idaṃ sabbaṃ imissāyeva upacārasīmāya vasena veditabba”nti.
199. Beyond this, although various decisions are stated in the commentary based on cases mentioned, since those decisions are not free from the eight basic decisions (aṭṭhamātikāvinicchaya), they are included and shown within the eight basic decisions, as stated, “Now, monks, these eight.” The interpretation is that the decisions should now be understood according to the eight basic principles (mātikā) spoken by the Blessed One. “Delimited by a place worthy of enclosure” indicates that for an unenclosed monastery, the vicinity boundary (upacārasīmā) extends to the inside of the first stone’s throw from a fixed gathering place (dhuvasannipātaṭṭhāna). To show that even the inside of the second stone’s throw is also the vicinity boundary, “And furthermore” and so forth is begun. The fixed gathering place should be taken as only what is at the boundary. “If it were so, they would take gains while standing three yojanas away,” and so forth, shows that these acts like taking gains occur only by the vicinity boundary, not by the non-separated boundary (avippavāsasīmā). Thus, it clarifies that only these acts like taking gains should be done in the vicinity boundary, not the four acts like consent (apalokanakamma), which should be done only within the non-separated boundary or similar. Indeed, it is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.379), “Entering the nuns’ monastery, asking for lodgings, reporting probation or deference, cutting off the rains, taking requisites and lodgings, and so forth—all this should be understood as pertaining to this vicinity boundary.”
199. From here on, although there are determinations stated in the commentary according to the things that have arisen, because those determinations are not free from the determination of the Eight Fundamentals, they are included and shown within the determination of the Eight Fundamentals itself, beginning with, “Now, monks, the Eight Fundamentals”. Now, the determination according to those eight fundamentals spoken by the Blessed One should be understood, this is the connection. With delimited by a place suitable for surrounding, it shows that within the first stone’s-throw from the permanent gathering place of an unenclosed monastery is the upacāra boundary. Now, to show that even within the second stone’s-throw is the upacāra boundary, it begins with “Moreover”. Even the permanent gathering place should be taken as limited. “If it is so, those residing within three yojanas will receive the gain” and so on; it shows that these receptions of gain and so on happen only by means of the upacāra boundary, not by means of the non-residence boundary. And by that, it clarifies that only these receptions of gain and so on are to be done in the upacāra boundary, not the four formal acts like the informal announcement, etc.; those are to be done only within the non-residence boundary and so on. Thus, it is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.379): “The nuns’ entering the monastery, asking about lodgings, reciting the formal suspension of a penalty(parivāsa), informing of a formal undertaking(mānattā), breaking off the rains residence, the giving of dependence, accepting lodgings, and all procedures—all this should be understood by means of this very upacāra boundary”.
199. From here onwards, in various cases, the commentary explains the decisions based on the eight matrices. Since these decisions are not free from the eight matrices, they are included in the eight matrices to explain them. Thus, it is said, “Now, monks, there are eight.” The eight matrices spoken by the Buddha should be understood as the basis for these decisions. “Defined by the area suitable for circumambulation” indicates that the proximity boundary is within the first stone’s throw from the permanent meeting place of an unenclosed monastery. To explain that the proximity boundary also extends to the second stone’s throw, it is said, “Moreover,” etc. The permanent meeting place should also be taken as within the boundary. “In this case, those standing within three leagues will receive the gain,” etc., shows that these gains are received within the proximity boundary, not the non-separation boundary. Thus, these gains should be received within the proximity boundary, not the four types of formal acts like announcements, which should be performed within the non-separation boundary, etc. This is clarified in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. �ī. Mahāvagga 3.379): “The nuns’ entering the monastery, asking for lodging, probation, confession, robe season, determination, taking lodging, etc., should all be understood within this proximity boundary.”
ID1107
Lābhatthāya ṭhapitā sīmā lābhasīmā. Loke gāmasīmādayo viya lābhasīmā nāma visuṃ pasiddhā natthi, kenāyaṃ anuññātāti āha “neva sammāsambuddhenā”tiādi. Etena nāyaṃ sāsanavohārasiddhā, lokavohārasiddhā evāti dasseti. Janapadaparicchedoti idaṃ lokapasiddhasīmāsaddatthavasena vuttaṃ, paricchedabbhantarampi sabbaṃ janapadasīmāti gahetabbaṃ. Janapado eva janapadasīmā, evaṃ raṭṭhasīmādīsupi. Tenāha “āṇāpavattiṭṭhāna”ntiādi. Pathavīvemajjhagatassāti yāva udakapariyantā khaṇḍasīmattā vuttaṃ. Upacārasīmādīsu pana abaddhasīmāsu heṭṭhāpathaviyaṃ sabbattha ṭhitānaṃ na pāpuṇāti, kūpādipavesārahaṭṭhāne ṭhitānaññeva pāpuṇātīti heṭṭhā sīmakathāyaṃ vuttanayeneva taṃtaṃsīmaṭṭhabhāvo veditabbo. Cakkavāḷasīmāya dinnaṃ pathavīsandhārakaudakaṭṭhānepi ṭhitānaṃ pāpuṇāti sabbattha cakkavāḷavohārattāti. Samānasaṃvāsaavippavāsasīmāsu dinnassa idaṃ nānattaṃ – “avippavāsasīmāya dammī”ti dinnaṃ gāmaṭṭhānaṃ na pāpuṇāti. Kasmā? “Ṭhapetvā gāmañca gāmūpacārañcā”ti (mahāva. 144) vuttattā. “Samānasaṃvāsakasīmāyadammī”ti dinnaṃ pana gāme ṭhitānampi pāpuṇātīti.
A boundary established for gains is a “gains boundary” (lābhasīmā). In the world, there is no separately established gains boundary like a village boundary; by what is it allowed? It says, “Not by the perfectly enlightened one,” and so forth. This shows that it is not established by the disciplinary terminology but by worldly terminology. “Regional delimitation” (janapadaparicchedo) is said in terms of the worldly meaning of boundary; even everything within the delimitation should be taken as the regional boundary (janapadasīmā). Similarly, a region itself is a “regional boundary,” and so too with a kingdom boundary (raṭṭhasīmā) and others. Thus, it says, “The place where the command prevails,” and so forth. “Situated in the middle of the earth” refers to partial boundaries (khaṇḍasīmā) extending to the edge of the water. However, in vicinity boundaries and other unfixed boundaries (abaddhasīmā), it does not extend to those standing anywhere on the ground below but only to those standing at a place suitable for entering a well or similar, as explained in the earlier discussion on boundaries. What is given within a world-sphere boundary (cakkavāḷasīmā) extends to those standing on the earth-supporting water everywhere because it is a world-sphere convention. There is this difference in what is given within a common-residence boundary (samānasaṃvāsasīmā) and a non-separated boundary (avippavāsasīmā): what is given with “I give to the non-separated boundary” does not extend to village areas. Why? Because it is said, “Except for the village and its vicinity” (mahāva. 144). But what is given with “I give to the common-residence boundary” extends even to those standing in the village.
The boundary established for the purpose of gain is the gain-boundary. Like village boundaries and so on in the world, a gain-boundary is not separately established. By whom was this permitted? It says, “Neither by the Perfectly Enlightened One” and so on. By this, it shows that this is not established by the usage of the Dispensation, but only by the usage of the world. The definition of a district is stated in accordance with the meaning of the word ‘boundary’ as commonly known in the world. Everything inside the definition should also be taken as the district boundary. The district itself is the district boundary. Likewise in the case of kingdom boundary and so on. Therefore, it says, “The place where the command prevails”, and so on. For one situated in the middle of the earth means that up to the limit of the water, it is described as the size of a minor boundary. But for those situated in the un-bounded boundaries, such as upacāra-boundary and so on, it does not reach those situated anywhere on the earth below; it reaches only those situated in a place suitable for entering a well and so on. The state of being within each respective boundary should be understood according to the method stated below in the section on boundaries. That which is given within the Cakkavāḷa-boundary reaches even those situated in the place of water supporting the earth, because of the usage of cakkavāḷa everywhere. In the case of the common-residence and non-residence boundaries, this is the difference: what is given with the words, “I give it within the non-residence boundary,” does not reach those situated in the village. Why? Because it is said, “Excluding the village and the village environs” (mahāva. 144). But what is given with the words, “I give it within the common-residence boundary,” reaches even those situated in the village.
A boundary established for the purpose of gain is called “gain boundary.” In the world, there is no separately recognized gain boundary like village boundaries, etc. Therefore, it is said, “Not even by the Fully Enlightened One.” This shows that it is not established by monastic convention but by worldly convention. “Country boundary” refers to the worldly understanding of boundary terms. The entire area within the boundary should be taken as the country boundary. The country itself is the “country boundary,” and similarly for kingdom boundaries, etc. Thus, it is said, “The place where orders are issued,” etc. “In the middle of the earth” means up to the water boundary, as stated in the partial boundary. However, in the case of proximity boundaries, etc., which are unfixed, those standing below the ground do not reach it, but those standing in places suitable for entering wells, etc., do reach it. This should be understood according to the method explained in the boundary discussion. The boundary given within the Cakkavāḷa boundary reaches those standing on the earth-supporting water and trees everywhere, due to the Cakkavāḷa convention. The difference in the non-separation boundary and the common residence boundary is that what is given within the non-separation boundary does not reach the village, because it is said, “Except for the village and its vicinity” (Mahāva. 144). However, what is given within the common residence boundary reaches even those standing in the village.
ID1108
200-1. Buddhādhivutthoti buddhena bhagavatā adhivuttho. Ekasminti ekasmiṃ vihāre. Pākavattanti nibaddhadānaṃ. Vattatīti pavattati. Tehi vattabbanti yesaṃ sammukhe esa deti, tehi bhikkhūhi vattabbaṃ.
200-1. “Occupied by the Buddha” means dwelt in by the Blessed One, the Buddha. “In one” means in a single monastery. “Cycle of alms” (pākavatta) means regular giving. “It occurs” means it takes place. “It should be done by them” means it should be done by those monks in whose presence he gives.
200-1. Dwelt in by the Buddha means dwelt in by the Blessed One, the Buddha. In one, in one monastery. Fixed offering, constant giving. Occurs means takes place. They should be told means that the monks in whose presence he gives should be told.
200-1. “Dwelt in by the Buddha” means dwelt in by the Blessed One, the Buddha. “In one” means in one monastery. “Pākavatta” means a regular offering. “Is in effect” means it is ongoing. “Should be spoken by them” means it should be spoken by the monks in whose presence it is given.
ID1109
202. Dutiyabhāge pana therāsanaṃ āruḷheti yāva saṅghanavakaṃ ekavāraṃ sabbesaṃ bhāgaṃ datvā cīvare aparikkhīṇe puna sabbesaṃ dātuṃ dutiyabhāge therassa dinneti attho. Pubbe vuttanayenāti “tuyheva bhikkhu tāni cīvarānī”ti (mahāva. 363) bhagavatā vuttanayena. Paṃsukūlikānampi vaṭṭatīti “tuyhaṃ demā”ti avatvā, ’bhikkhūnaṃ dema, therānaṃ demā”ti vuttattā “paṃsukūlikānampi vaṭṭatī”ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.379) vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.379) pana paṃsukūlikānampi vaṭṭatīti ettha “tuyhaṃ demā”ti avuttattāti kāraṇaṃ vadanti. Yadi evaṃ “saṅghassa demā”ti vuttepi vaṭṭeyya, “bhikkhūnaṃ dema, therānaṃ dema, saṅghassa demā”ti vacanato bhedo na dissati, vīmaṃsitabbamettha kāraṇanti. Pārupituṃ vaṭṭatīti paṃsukūlikānaṃ vaṭṭati. Sāmikehi vicāritamevāti upāhanatthavikādīnamatthāya vicāritameva.
202. “In the second portion, when the elder’s seat is taken” means that after giving one round of portions to all until the robes are not exhausted, in the second portion, it is given to the elder; this is the meaning. “By the previously stated method” refers to the method stated by the Blessed One, “Those robes are yours, monk” (mahāva. 363). “It is permissible even for rag-robe wearers” (paṃsukūlikā) means that since it is said, “I give to the monks, I give to the elders,” and not “I give to you,” it is permissible even for rag-robe wearers, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.379). However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.379), it is said that “It is permissible even for rag-robe wearers” because it is not said, “I give to you”; this is the reason given. If so, it would also be permissible when said, “I give to the Sangha,” but no distinction is seen from the statements “I give to the monks, I give to the elders, I give to the Sangha”; this reason should be investigated. “It is permissible to wear” means it is permissible for rag-robe wearers. “Only considered by the owners” means only considered for the purpose of footwear bags (upāhanathavika) and so forth.
202. But when the senior’s seat has been taken in the second share means that after having given the share to everyone once, as far as the junior-most of the Sangha, when the cloth is not exhausted, giving to everyone again, when the senior has been given the second share, the meaning is. In the manner previously stated means in the manner stated by the Blessed One: “Monk, those robes are yours alone” (mahāva. 363). It is permissible even for refuse-rag wearers means, it is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.379), that because it was not stated “We give to you”, but, “we give to the monks, we give to the elders”, ‘it is permissible even for the refuse-rag users’. But in Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.379), It is permissible even for refuse-rag wearers, here, the reason is said that ‘it was not stated “We give it to you”’. If so, it would be appropriate even if said “We give to the Sangha”. There seems to be no distinction based upon the wordings, “we give to the monks, we give to the elders, we give to the Sangha”, the reason here should be investigated. It is permissible to wear it is permissible for the refuse-rag users. It has already been considered by the owners means it has already been considered for the purpose of sandal-bags and so on.
202. “In the second part, when the elder’s seat is ascended” means that after giving the share to all up to the ninth member of the Sangha, if the robe is not exhausted, it should be given again to all, and in the second part, it is given to the elder. “According to the previously stated method” means according to the method stated by the Buddha: “Monk, these robes are yours” (Mahāva. 363). “It is permissible even for the rag-robe wearers” means that since it is not said, “We give to you,” but “We give to the monks, we give to the elders,” it is permissible even for the rag-robe wearers, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.379). However, the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.379) says that “it is permissible even for the rag-robe wearers” because it is not said, “We give to you.” If it were said, “We give to the Sangha,” it would also be permissible, as there is no difference between saying, “We give to the monks, we give to the elders, we give to the Sangha.” The reason should be investigated here. “It is permissible to wear” means it is permissible for the rag-robe wearers. “Only what is considered by the owners” means only what is considered for the purpose of sandals, straps, etc.
ID1110
203. Upaḍḍhaṃ dātabbanti yaṃ ubhatosaṅghassa dinnaṃ, tato upaḍḍhaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ upaḍḍhaṃ bhikkhunīnaṃ dātabbaṃ. Sacepi eko bhikkhu hoti, ekā vā bhikkhunī, antamaso anupasampannassapi upaḍḍhameva dātabbaṃ. “Bhikkhusaṅghassa ca bhikkhunīnañca dammī”ti vutte pana na majjhe bhinditvā dātabbanti ettha yasmā bhikkhunipakkhe saṅghassa paccekaṃ aparāmaṭṭhattā bhikkhunīnaṃ gaṇanāya bhāgo dātabboti dāyakassa adhippāyoti sijjhati, tathā dānañca bhikkhūpi gaṇetvā dinne eva yujjati. Itarathā hi “kittakaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ dātabbaṃ, kittakaṃ bhikkhunīna”nti na viññāyati, tasmā “bhikkhusaṅghassā”ti vuttavacanampi “bhikkhūna”nti vuttavacanasadisamevāti āha “bhikkhū ca bhikkhuniyo ca gaṇetvā dātabba”nti. Tenāha “puggalo…pe… bhikkhusaṅghaggahaṇena gahitattā”ti. “Bhikkhusaṅghassa ca bhikkhunīnañca tuyhañcā”ti vutte pana puggalo visuṃ na labhatīti idaṃ aṭṭhakathāpamāṇeneva gahetabbaṃ, na hettha visesakāraṇaṃ upalabbhati. Tathā hi “ubhatosaṅghassa ca tuyhañca dammī”ti vutte sāmaññavisesavacanehi saṅgahitattā yathā puggalo visuṃ labhati, evamidhāpi “bhikkhusaṅghassa ca tuyhañcā”ti sāmaññavisesavacanasabbhāvato bhavitabbameva visuṃ puggalapaṭivīsenāti viññāyati, tasmā aṭṭhakathāvacanamevettha pamāṇaṃ. Pāpuṇanaṭṭhānato ekameva labhatīti attano vassaggena pattaṭṭhānato ekameva koṭṭhāsaṃ labhati. Tattha kāraṇamāha “kasmā? Bhikkhusaṅghaggahaṇena gahitattā”ti, bhikkhusaṅghaggahaṇeneva puggalassapi gahitattāti adhippāyoti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.379) vuttaṃ.
203. “Half should be given” means that from what is given to both Sanghas (ubhatosaṅgha), half should be given to the monks and half to the nuns. Even if there is only one monk or one nun, or even an unordained person (anupasampanna), only half should be given. “But when it is said, ‘I give to the Sangha of monks and to the nuns,’ it should not be divided in the middle” means that since the nuns’ side is not individually specified apart from the Sangha, it fulfills the donor’s intention that a share be given according to the number of nuns; thus, giving is appropriate only when counting the monks as well. Otherwise, it would not be clear “how much should be given to the monks and how much to the nuns”; therefore, even the statement “to the Sangha of monks” is equivalent to saying “to the monks,” as it says, “It should be given by counting both monks and nuns.” Thus, it says, “Because the individual… is included in the term Sangha of monks.” “But when it is said, ‘To the Sangha of monks and to the nuns and to you,’ the individual does not receive separately” should be accepted only on the authority of the commentary, as no specific reason is found here. Indeed, when it is said, “I give to both Sanghas and to you,” since the individual receives separately due to the general and specific terms, it should similarly be the case here with “to the Sangha of monks and to you” due to the presence of general and specific terms; thus, it is understood that the individual should receive a separate portion, so the commentary’s statement is the authority here. “He receives only one from the place it reaches” means he receives only one share from the place it reaches by his seniority in rains. The reason is stated, “Why? Because he is included in the term Sangha of monks,” meaning that the individual is included by the term Sangha of monks itself, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.379).
203. Half should be given means that whatever is given to both Sanghas, half of that should be given to the monks and half to the nuns. Even if there is one monk, or one nun, in the end, even to an unordained person, only half should be given. But when it is said “I give to the Sangha of monks and to the nuns”, it should not be divided in the middle and given; here, because the Sangha in the case of the nuns’ section is not considered individually, the donor’s intention is understood to be giving the share based on counting the nuns. And that offering is indeed proper when given counting monks also. Otherwise, how much should be given to the monks, and how much to the nuns, is not known. Therefore, even the statement ‘to the Sangha of monks’ is similar to the statement ‘to the monks’. It says “Counting both monks and nuns, it should be given”. Therefore, it says, “a person…is…included by the term Sangha of monks”. But when it is said, “To the Sangha of monks, and to the nuns, and to you”, the person does not receive separately, this should be taken based on the authority of the commentary, no specific reason for this is found here. Thus, when it is said, ‘to both Sanghas, and to you’, as he is included by words denoting generality and particularity, just as the person obtains separately, similarly here also, because of the presence of words denoting generality and particularity, “To the Sangha of Monks and to you,” there should indeed be a separate portion for the person. Therefore, the statement of the commentary is the authority here. He receives only one from the place where he qualifies means he receives only one share from the place he qualifies for based on his seniority in years. It states the reason for that: “Why? Because he is included by the term Sangha of monks”, meaning that the person is also included by the very term Sangha of monks, as stated in Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.379).
203. “A half should be given” means that what is given to both Sanghas should be divided into half for the monks and half for the nuns. Even if there is only one monk or one nun, or even an unordained person, a half should still be given. “When it is said, ‘I give to the Sangha of monks and the nuns,’ it should not be divided in the middle and given” means that since the nuns’ side is not counted separately from the Sangha, the share should be given according to the donor’s intention, counting the nuns separately. Thus, it is appropriate to give after counting the monks. Otherwise, it would not be clear how much should be given to the monks and how much to the nuns. Therefore, even the statement, “to the Sangha of monks,” is similar to the statement, “to the monks.” Thus, it is said, “The monks and nuns should be counted and given.” Therefore, it is said, “The individual… because it is taken by the term ‘Sangha of monks.’” “When it is said, ‘to the Sangha of monks and the nuns and to you,’ the individual does not receive separately” means this should be taken according to the commentary’s authority, as there is no special reason here. For when it is said, “I give to both Sanghas and to you,” since the individual is included in the general and specific terms, the individual receives separately. Similarly, here too, “to the Sangha of monks and to you,” due to the nature of the general and specific terms, it should be understood that the individual receives a separate share. Therefore, the commentary’s statement is the authority here. “From the place of reaching, only one is received” means that from the place of reaching one’s own seniority, only one share is received. The reason is stated: “Because it is taken by the term ‘Sangha of monks.’” This means that even the individual is included in the term “Sangha of monks,” as explained in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.379).
ID1111
Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.379) pana bhikkhusaṅghasaddena bhikkhūnaññeva gahitattā, puggalassa pana “tuyhañcā”ti visuṃ gahitattā ca tatthassa aggahitattā daṭṭhabbā, “bhikkhūnañca bhikkhunīnañca tuyhañcā”ti vuttaṭṭhānasadisattāti adhippāyo. Puggalappadhāno hettha saṅgha-saddo daṭṭhabbo. Keci pana “bhikkhusaṅghaggahaṇena gahitattā”ti pāṭhaṃ likhanti, taṃ na sundaraṃ tassa visuṃ lābhaggahaṇe kāraṇavacanattā. Tathā hi “visuṃ saṅghaggahaṇena gahitattā”ti visuṃ puggalassapi bhāgaggahaṇe kāraṇaṃ vuttaṃ. Yathā cettha puggalassa aggahaṇaṃ, evaṃ upari “bhikkhusaṅghassa ca tuyhañcā”tiādīsupi visuṃ saṅghādisaddehi puggalassa aggahaṇaṃ daṭṭhabbaṃ. Yadi hi gahaṇaṃ siyā, saṅghatopi visumpīti bhāgadvayaṃ labheyya ubhayattha gahitattāti vuttaṃ. Pūjetabbantiādi gihikammaṃ na hotīti dassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Bhikkhusaṅghassa harāti idaṃ piṇḍapātaharaṇaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Tenāha “bhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatī”ti. “Bhikkhusaṅghassa harā”ti vuttepi haritabbanti īdisaṃ gihiveyyāvaccaṃ na hotīti katvā vuttaṃ.
However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.379), it is said that because the term “Sangha of monks” includes only the monks, and the individual is separately included by “and to you” and not included there, it should be understood as similar to the case where it is said, “To the monks and to the nuns and to you.” Here, the term “Sangha” should be seen as primarily referring to the individual. Some write the reading “because he is included in the term Sangha of monks,” but that is not elegant since it gives a reason for his separate receipt. Indeed, “because he is included in the separate term Sangha” gives a reason for the individual receiving a separate share. Just as here the individual is not included, so too in the later cases like “to the Sangha of monks and to you,” the individual’s non-inclusion by the separate terms like Sangha should be seen. If he were included, he would receive two shares—one from the Sangha and one separately—since he is included in both. “To be honored” and so forth is said to show that it is not a lay task. “Bring to the Sangha of monks” refers to bringing almsfood. Thus, it says, “It is permissible to eat.” “Even when it is said, ‘Bring to the Sangha of monks,’ it should be brought” is said considering that it is not a lay service of this kind.
But in Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.379), because only monks are included by the term ‘Sangha of monks’, and the person is included separately by “and to you”, it should be understood that he is not included there, the meaning is that it is similar to the situation where it is said, “To the monks, and to the nuns, and to you”. The word ‘Sangha’ here should be understood as being primarily about the person. Some, however, write the passage as “because he is included by the term Sangha of monks”, but that is not good, because it is a statement of reason for receiving separately. Thus, “because he is included separately by the term ‘Sangha’”, is a statement of reason for even the person receiving a share. As there is a non-inclusion of the person here, so also above, in “to the Sangha of monks and to you”, and so on, the non-inclusion of the person by the words Sangha, and so on, should be understood. If there were inclusion, he would receive two portions, one separately and one from the Sangha, because he is included in both, it is stated. “To be honored”, and so on, is stated to show that it is not a householder’s duty. “Take it to the Sangha of Monks”, this refers to taking alms-food. Therefore, it says, “It is permissible to eat”. Even when it is said, “Take it to the Sangha of Monks”, it should be taken, it is stated because such service to a householder is not meant.
However, the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.379) says that since the term “Sangha of monks” refers only to the monks, and the individual is separately included by the term “and to you,” it should be understood that the individual is not included in the term “Sangha of monks.” The term “Sangha” here should be understood as subordinate to the individual. Some, however, write the text as “because it is taken by the term ‘Sangha of monks,’” but this is not proper, as it is a statement about the reason for the individual’s separate gain. For here, it is said, “because it is taken separately by the term ‘Sangha,’” indicating the reason for the individual’s separate share. Just as the individual is not included here, so too in the above cases, “to the Sangha of monks and to you,” etc., the individual should be understood as not included in the terms “Sangha,” etc. If it were included, the individual would receive two shares, being included in both. “Should be honored” etc., is said to show that it is not a lay duty. “Carrying for the Sangha of monks” refers to carrying almsfood. Thus, it is said, “It is permissible to eat.” “Even when it is said, ‘carrying for the Sangha of monks,’ it should be carried” means that such lay service is not required.
ID1112
204. Antohemanteti iminā anatthate kathine vassānaṃ pacchime māse dinnaṃ purimavassaṃvutthānaññeva pāpuṇāti, tato paraṃ hemante dinnaṃ pacchimavassaṃvutthānampi vutthavassattā pāpuṇāti, hemantato pana paraṃ piṭṭhisamaye “vassaṃvutthasaṅghassā”ti evaṃ paricchinditvā dinnaṃ anantare vasse vā tato paresu vā yattha katthaci tasmiṃ bhikkhubhāve vutthavassānaṃ sabbesaṃ pāpuṇāti. Ye pana sabbathā avutthavassā, tesaṃ na pāpuṇātīti dasseti. Lakkhaṇaññū vadantīti vinayalakkhaṇaññuno ācariyā vadanti. Lakkhaṇaññū vadantīti idaṃ sanniṭṭhānavacanaṃ, aṭṭhakathāsu anāgatattā pana evaṃ vuttaṃ. Bahiupacārasīmāyaṃ…pe… sabbesaṃ pāpuṇātīti yattha katthaci vutthavassānaṃ sabbesaṃ pāpuṇātīti adhippāyo. Teneva mātikāṭṭhakathāyampi (kaṅkha. aṭṭha. akālacīvarasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) “sace pana bahiupacārasīmāyaṃ ṭhito ’vassaṃvutthasaṅghassa dammī’ti vadati, yattha katthaci vutthavassānaṃ sabbesaṃ sampattānaṃ pāpuṇātī”ti vuttaṃ. Gaṇṭhipadesu pana “vassāvāsassa ananurūpe padese ṭhatvā vuttattā vassaṃvutthānañca avutthānañca sabbesaṃ pāpuṇātī”ti vuttaṃ, taṃ na gahetabbaṃ. Na hi “vassaṃvutthasaṅghassa dammī”ti vutte avutthavassānaṃ pāpuṇāti. Sabbesampīti tasmiṃ bhikkhubhāve vutthavassānaṃ sabbesampīti attho daṭṭhabbo “vassaṃvutthasaṅghassā”ti vuttattā. Sammukhībhūtānaṃ sabbesampīti etthāpi eseva nayo. Evaṃ vadatīti vassaṃvutthasaṅghassa dammīti vadati. Atītavassanti anantarātītavassaṃ.
204. “Within the winter” indicates that what is given in the last month of the rains when the kathina is not spread reaches only those who resided in the previous rains; what is given in the winter after that reaches even those who resided in the later rains because they have resided in the rains; but what is given after the winter in the subsequent period, specified as “to the Sangha that has resided in the rains,” reaches all who have resided in the rains anywhere in that monkhood, whether in the immediately preceding rains or rains further back. It does not reach those who have never resided in the rains at all; this is what it shows. “Those who know the characteristics say” means teachers who know the characteristics of the Vinaya say so. “Those who know the characteristics say” is a statement of conclusion; it is said this way because it is not found in the commentaries. “Outside the vicinity boundary… reaches all” means it reaches all who have resided in the rains anywhere; this is the intention. Thus, in the commentary on the basic principles (kaṅkha. aṭṭha. akālacīvarasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), it is said, “But if someone standing outside the vicinity boundary says, ‘I give to the Sangha that has resided in the rains,’ it reaches all who have resided in the rains anywhere and are present.” In some glosses, it is said, “Because it is said while standing in a place unsuitable for the rains-residence, it reaches all, both those who have resided in the rains and those who have not”; this should not be accepted. Indeed, when it is said, “I give to the Sangha that has resided in the rains,” it does not reach those who have not resided in the rains. “Even to all” means to all who have resided in the rains in that monkhood; this meaning should be understood because it is said, “to the Sangha that has resided in the rains.” “Even to all present” follows the same method here. “Says thus” means he says, “I give to the Sangha that has resided in the rains.” “Past rains” refers to the immediately preceding past rains.
204. Antohemanteti, by means of this, if given in the last month of the rainy season when the kathina is not spread, it reaches only those who have completed the first vassa residence. After that, if given in the winter, it also reaches those who have completed the later vassa residence, because they have completed the vassa. If given after the winter season, at the end of the season, specifying “for the Sangha who has completed the vassa,” it reaches all those who have completed the vassa, whether in the immediately preceding year or in any prior year within that monkhood. But it does not reach those who have not completed the vassa in any way. Lakkhaṇaññū vadantīti, the teachers who know the characteristics of the Vinaya say. Lakkhaṇaññū vadantīti, this is a conclusive statement, but it is said this way because it does not appear in the commentaries. Bahiupacārasīmāyaṃ…pe… sabbesaṃ pāpuṇātīti, the meaning is that it reaches all those who have observed the rains retreat wherever. Therefore, even in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (Kaṅkha. aṭṭha. akālacīvarasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) it is said, “But if, standing outside the boundary of the upacāra, one says, ‘I give to the Sangha that has observed the rains retreat’, it reaches all those present who have observed the rains retreat anywhere.” In the Gaṇṭhipada, however, it is said, “Because it is said while standing in a place not suitable for the rains residence, it reaches all those who have and have not observed the rains retreat”, but that should not be accepted. For when it is said “I give to the Sangha that has observed the rains retreat”, it does not reach those who have not completed the vassa. Sabbesampīti, the meaning should be understood as ‘to all those who have completed the vassa in that monkhood,’ because it is said “to the Sangha that has completed the vassa.” The same principle applies to sammukhībhūtānaṃ sabbesampī. Evaṃ vadatīti, he says, ‘I give to the Sangha that has completed the vassa.’ Atītavassanti, the immediately preceding vassa.
204. Antohemante: By this, it is shown that if the robe-offering is given during the last month of the rainy season when the Kathina is not spread, it reaches only those who have completed the first rains-residence. If given after that, during the winter, it reaches even those who have completed the later rains-residence, as they have completed the rains. However, if given after the winter, during the spring, with the specification “for the Sangha who have completed the rains,” it reaches all who have completed the rains-residence anywhere, whether in the immediate next year or in subsequent years, as long as they remain in the monastic state. For those who have not completed the rains-residence at all, it does not reach them. Lakkhaṇaññū vadanti: The teachers who are skilled in the characteristics of the Vinaya say this. Lakkhaṇaññū vadanti: This is a statement of conclusion. Since it is not found in the commentaries, it is stated thus. Bahiupacārasīmāyaṃ…pe… sabbesaṃ pāpuṇāti: The intention is that it reaches all who have completed the rains-residence anywhere. Therefore, in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī Aṭṭhakathā, Akālacīvarasikkhāpada Vaṇṇanā), it is said, “If one stands outside the boundary and says, ‘I give this to the Sangha who have completed the rains,’ it reaches all who have completed the rains-residence wherever they are.” However, in the Gaṇṭhipada, it is said, “Since it is stated that one stands in a place unsuitable for the rains-residence, it reaches both those who have completed the rains and those who have not.” This should not be taken, for when one says, “I give this to the Sangha who have completed the rains,” it does not reach those who have not completed the rains. Sabbesampīti: It should be understood that it reaches all who have completed the rains-residence in that monastic state, as it is said, “for the Sangha who have completed the rains.” Sammukhībhūtānaṃ sabbesampīti: Here too, the same principle applies. Evaṃ vadati: One says, “I give this to the Sangha who have completed the rains.” Atītavassa: The immediately past rains-residence.
ID1113
205. Idāni “ādissa detī”ti padaṃ vibhajanto “ādissa detīti etthā”tiādimāha. Tattha yāguyā vā…pe… bhesajje vā ādisitvā paricchinditvā dento dāyako ādissa deti nāmāti yojanā. Sesaṃ pākaṭameva.
205. Now, explaining the phrase “he gives by designating,” it begins, “Here, ‘he gives by designating’,” and so forth. Here, a donor who gives by designating and specifying with gruel or… medicine is said to give by designating; this is the interpretation. The rest is clear.
205. Now, explaining the phrase “gives specifying,” he says “ādissa detīti etthā”ti, and so on. Herein, the donor who gives specifying or designating gruel or…pe… medicine, is said to ‘give specifying’. The rest is clear.
205. Now, analyzing the phrase “ādissa deti”, it is said, “ādissa deti etthā” and so on. Here, the donor who gives after specifying, whether it be rice gruel or medicine, is said to give after specifying. The rest is clear.
ID1114
206. Idāni “puggalassa detī”ti padaṃ vibhajanto āha “puggalassa deti etthā”tiādi. Saṅghato ca gaṇato ca vinimuttassa attano kulūpakādipuggalassa dento dāyako puggalassa deti nāma. Taṃ pana puggalikadānaṃ parammukhā vā hoti sammukhā vā. Tattha parammukhā dento “idaṃ cīvaraṃ itthannāmassa dammī”ti nāmaṃ uddharitvā deti, sammukhā dento ca bhikkhuno pādamūle cīvaraṃ ṭhapetvā “idaṃ, bhante, tumhākaṃ dammī”ti vatvā deti, tadubhayathāpi dento puggalassa deti nāmāti attho. Na kevalaṃ ekasseva dento puggalassa deti nāma, atha kho antevāsikādīhi saddhiṃ dentopi puggalassa deti nāmāti dassetuṃ “sace panā”tiādimāha. Tattha uddesaṃ gahetuṃ āgatoti tassa santike uddesaṃ aggahitapubbassapi uddesaṃ gaṇhissāmīti āgatakālato paṭṭhāya antevāsikabhāvūpagamanato vuttaṃ. Gahetvā gacchantoti pariniṭṭhitauddeso hutvā gacchanto. Vattaṃ katvā uddesaparipucchādīni gahetvā vicarantānanti idaṃ “uddesantevāsikāna”nti imasseva visesanaṃ. Tena uddesakāle āgantvā uddesaṃ gahetvā gantvā aññattha nivasante anibaddhacārike nivatteti.
206. Now, explaining the phrase “he gives to an individual,” it says, “Here, ‘he gives to an individual’,” and so forth. A donor who gives to an individual, such as a personal supporter, separate from the Sangha or group, is said to give to an individual. That individual giving may be in absentia (parammukhā) or in presence (sammukhā). Among these, one giving in absentia says, “I give this robe to so-and-so,” mentioning the name; one giving in presence places the robe at the monk’s feet and says, “Venerable sir, I give this to you”; in both ways, the one giving is said to give to an individual; this is the meaning. It is not only when giving to one alone that he is said to give to an individual, but even when giving together with pupils (antevāsika) and others, he is said to give to an individual; to show this, it says, “But if,” and so forth. Here, “who came to receive instruction” means it is said from the time of becoming a pupil, starting from when he comes to receive instruction even if he had not previously received it in his presence. “Going after receiving” means going after completing the instruction. “Wandering after receiving instruction, questioning, and so forth” is a qualification of “pupils receiving instruction.” Thus, it excludes those who come at the time of instruction, receive it, go, and dwell elsewhere without fixed wandering.
206. Now, explaining the phrase “gives to an individual,” he says “puggalassa deti etthā”ti, and so on. A donor who gives to his own individual attendant, distinct from the Sangha and the group, is said to give to an individual. That individual giving can be either in absence or in presence. Giving in absence, he gives, mentioning the name, “I give this robe to so-and-so.” Giving in presence, he places the robe at the feet of the monk and says, “Venerable sir, I give this to you.” Giving in either of these ways, he is said to give to an individual. It is not only by giving to one person that one is said to give to an individual, but also giving together with one’s close disciples and others; to show this, he states,“sace panā”ti, and so on. Herein, uddesaṃ gahetuṃ āgatoti, it is stated in relation to the fact that someone becomes a resident pupil from the moment he comes, with the intention, that, “I shall learn the recitation”, even though he had never learnt the recitation from him. Gahetvā gacchantoti, going after finishing their recitation. Vattaṃ katvā uddesaparipucchādīni gahetvā vicarantānanti, this is a qualification of that same “for those who are attendant pupils learning a recitation.” By that he excludes those who are not established, having come only for the time to do a recitation, learned the recitation, gone, and living somewhere else.
206. Now, analyzing the phrase “puggalassa deti”, it is said, “puggalassa deti etthā” and so on. A donor who gives to an individual, whether released from the Sangha or the group, such as a relative, is said to give to an individual. This giving to an individual can be either in their presence or absence. When giving in absence, one mentions the name, saying, “I give this robe to so-and-so.” When giving in presence, one places the robe at the monk’s feet and says, “Venerable, I give this to you.” In both cases, one is said to give to an individual. Not only does giving to one individual constitute giving to an individual, but even giving together with one’s pupils is said to be giving to an individual, as shown by the phrase “sace panā” and so on. Here, uddesaṃ gahetuṃ āgato: Even if one has not previously received the instruction, one comes to receive it from that time onward, having entered the pupil-teacher relationship. Gahetvā gacchanto: Having completed the instruction, one departs. Vattaṃ katvā uddesaparipucchādīni gahetvā vicarantāna: This refers to “pupils who receive instruction.” Thus, those who come at the time of instruction, receive it, and then dwell elsewhere are called wanderers without fixed abode.
ID1115
Evaṃ cīvarakkhandhake (mahāva. 379) āgataaṭṭhamātikāvasena cīvaravibhajanaṃ dassetvā idāni tasmiṃyeva cīvarakkhandhake majjhe āgatesu vatthūsu āgatanayaṃ nivattetvā dassento “sace koci bhikkhū”tiādimāha. Tattha kiṃ kātabbanti pucchāya tasseva tāni cīvarānīti vissajjanā, sesāni ñāpakādivasena vuttāni. Pañca māseti accantasaṃyoge upayogavacanaṃ. Vaḍḍhiṃ payojetvā ṭhapitaupanikkhepatoti vassāvāsikatthāya veyyāvaccakarehi vaḍḍhiṃ payojetvā ṭhapitaupanikkhepato. Tatruppādatoti nāḷikerārāmāditatruppādato. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana “idaṃ idha vassaṃvutthasaṅghassa demāti vā vassāvāsikaṃ demāti vā vatvā dinnaṃ taṃ anatthatakathinassapi pañca māse pāpuṇātī”ti vuttaṃ, taṃ vassāvāsikalābhavasena uppanne labbhamānavisesaṃ dassetuṃ vuttaṃ. Tattha idhāti abhilāpamattamevetaṃ, idha-saddaṃ vinā “vassaṃvutthasaṅghassa demā”ti vuttepi so eva nayo. Anatthatakathinassapi pañca māse pāpuṇātīti vassāvāsikalābhavasena uppannattā anatthatakathinassapi vutthavassassa pañca māse pāpuṇāti, tato paraṃ pana uppannavassāvāsikaṃ pucchitabbaṃ “kiṃ atītavasse idaṃ vassāvāsikaṃ, udāhu anāgatavasse”ti. Tattha tato paranti pañcamāsato paraṃ, gimhānassa paṭhamadivasato paṭṭhāyāti attho.
Having shown the distribution of robes according to the eight basic principles (aṭṭhamātikā) stated in the robe section (cīvarakkhandhaka) (mahāva. 379), now, reverting to the method stated in cases mentioned in the middle of that same robe section, it begins, “If some monks,” and so forth. In response to the question, “What should be done there?” the answer is, “Those robes are his”; the rest are stated as indications and so forth. “Five months” is an accusative of continuous connection. “From the deposit increased and placed” means from the deposit placed with increase by agents for the sake of the rains-residence. “From what arises there” means from what arises there, such as a coconut grove. However, in the commentary, it is said, “What is given by saying, ‘I give this to the Sangha that has resided in the rains here’ or ‘I give the rains-residence gift’ reaches even one whose kathina is not spread within five months,” to show the distinction of what is obtained as rains-residence gains. Here, “here” is merely an expression; even if said without the word “here” as “I give to the Sangha that has resided in the rains,” the method is the same. “It reaches even one whose kathina is not spread within five months” means it reaches one who has resided in the rains within five months because it arises as rains-residence gains; but after that, what arises as rains-residence gains should be asked, “Is this rains-residence gift for the past rains or for future rains?” Here, “after that” means after five months, starting from the first day of summer; this is the meaning.
Having thus shown the distribution of robes according to the eighth root-rule that comes in the Cīvarakkhandhaka (Mahāva. 379), now, setting aside the method that comes in the events in the middle of that same Cīvarakkhandhaka, he says “sace koci bhikkhū”ti, and so on, to show it. To the question tattha kiṃ kātabbanti, the answer is tasseva tāni cīvarānī, the others are said according to the notifier and so on. Pañca māseti, upayogavacana in the sense of continuous connection. Vaḍḍhiṃ payojetvā ṭhapitaupanikkhepatoti, from the deposit placed for interest by the attendants for the vassa residence. Tatruppādatoti, from the produce of trees, such as coconut groves, and so on. In the commentary, however, it is said, “Having said, ‘This here, we give to the Sangha that has observed the rains retreat’, or ‘We give vassāvāsika (rainy season requisites)’, what is given reaches even one who has not spread the kathina, for five months”, this is said to show the special gain that arises in relation to the reception of the vassāvāsika. Herein, idhāti, this is merely a statement of declaration, the same method applies even if it is stated without the word “here,” saying, “We give to the Sangha that has observed the rains retreat.” Anatthatakathinassapi pañca māse pāpuṇātīti, because it arises due to the reception of the vassāvāsika, it reaches even one who has not spread the kathina, if he has completed the vassa, for five months. But the vassāvāsika that arises after that should be asked about, “Is this vassāvāsika for the past vassa or for the future vassa?” Herein, tato paranti, after five months, meaning from the first day of the hot season.
Having shown the distribution of robes in the Cīvarakkhandhaka (Mahāvagga 379) according to the eightfold method, now, returning to the matters that have arisen in the middle of the same Cīvarakkhandhaka, it is said, “sace koci bhikkhū” and so on. Tattha kiṃ kātabba: The question is answered with “tasseva tāni cīvarānī”, and the rest is explained through indicators. Pañca māse: This refers to the absolute connection in usage. Vaḍḍhiṃ payojetvā ṭhapitaupanikkhepato: This refers to the interest applied by the attendants for the purpose of the rains-residence. Tatruppādato: From the coconut grove, etc. In the commentary, it is said, “If one says, ‘We give this to the Sangha who have completed the rains,’ or ‘We give this for the rains-residence,’ it reaches even those for whom the Kathina is not spread for five months.” This is said to show the special gain arising from the attainment of the rains-residence. Here, idhā: This is merely a manner of speaking; even without the word “here,” the same principle applies. Anatthatakathinassapi pañca māse pāpuṇāti: Due to the attainment of the rains-residence, it reaches even those for whom the Kathina is not spread for five months. After that, one should ask the newly attained rains-resident, “Is this for the past rains or the future rains?” Here, tato para: After the five months, from the first day of the hot season.
ID1116
Ṭhitikā pana na tiṭṭhatīti ettha aṭṭhitāya ṭhitikāya puna aññasmiṃ cīvare uppanne sace eko bhikkhu āgacchati, majjhe chinditvā dvīhipi gahetabbaṃ. Ṭhitāya pana ṭhitikāya puna aññasmiṃ cīvare uppanne sace navakataro āgacchati, ṭhitikā heṭṭhā gacchati. Sace vuḍḍhataro āgacchati, ṭhitikā uddhaṃ ārohati. Atha añño natthi, puna attano pāpetvā gahetabbaṃ. Duggahitānīti aggahitāni, saṅghikāneva hontīti attho. “Pātite kuse”ti ekakoṭṭhāse kusadaṇḍake pātitamatte sacepi bhikkhusahassaṃ hoti, gahitameva nāma cīvaraṃ. “Nākāmā bhāgo dātabbo”ti aṭṭhakathāvacanaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 363), tattha gahitameva nāmāti “imassa idaṃ patta”nti kiñcāpi na viditaṃ, te pana bhāgā atthato tesaṃ pattāyevāti adhippāyo.
But the standing (ṭhitikā) does not remain: Here, with an unstable standing, if another robe arises and one monk arrives, it should be divided in the middle and taken by both. With a stable standing, if another robe arises and a junior arrives, the standing moves downward; if a senior arrives, the standing rises upward. If there is no other, it should be taken back to oneself again. “Improperly taken” means not taken; they belong only to the Sangha; this is the meaning. “When the lot is cast” refers to a single share with the casting of a lot stick (kusadaṇḍaka); even if there are a thousand monks, the robe is considered taken. The commentary statement (mahāva. aṭṭha. 363), “A share should not be given unwillingly,” means that although it is not known “this belongs to him,” those shares are indeed theirs in essence; this is the intention.
Ṭhitikā pana na tiṭṭhatīti, here, when the provisional allotment has not stood, if another robe arises, and if one monk arrives, they should divide it in the middle and both should take. But when the provisional allotment has stood, if another robe arises, and a newer monk comes, the provisional allotment moves down. If a senior monk comes, the provisional allotment rises up. If there is no one else, one should take it as one’s own again. Duggahitānīti, they are not taken, they remain belonging to the Sangha. “Pātite kuse”ti, even if there are a thousand monks, at the mere falling of the kusa twig in a single share, the robe is considered taken. The commentary states, “A portion should not be given unwillingly” (Mahāva. aṭṭha. 363), there gahitameva nāmāti, although it is not known that ‘this has fallen to him’, those portions in essence have fallen to them.
Ṭhitikā pana na tiṭṭhatī: Here, if a standing allocation is interrupted by the arrival of another robe, and if one monk arrives, it should be divided between the two. If a standing allocation is interrupted by the arrival of another robe, and if a newer monk arrives, the standing allocation goes to the lower one. If an elder arrives, the standing allocation ascends to the higher one. If no one else is present, one should take it for oneself. Duggahitānī: Not taken; they remain Sangha property. “Pātite kuse”: Even if a thousand monks are present when a kusa grass stick is thrown in one place, the robe is considered taken. “No share should be given unwillingly,” as stated in the commentary (Mahāvagga Aṭṭhakathā 363). Here, gahitameva nāmā: Even if it is not known who has received what, those shares are effectively theirs.
ID1117
Sattāhavārena aruṇameva uṭṭhāpetīti idaṃ nānāsīmavihāresu kattabbanayena ekasmimpi vihāre dvīsu senāsanesu nivutthabhāvadassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ, aruṇuṭṭhāpaneneva tattha vuttho hoti, na pana vassacchedaparihārāya. Antoupacārasīmāya hi yattha katthaci aruṇaṃ uṭṭhāpento attanā gahitasenāsanaṃ appaviṭṭhopi vutthavasso eva hoti. Gahitasenāsane pana nivuttho nāma na hoti, tattha aruṇuṭṭhāpane sati hoti. Tenāha “purimasmiṃ bahutaraṃ nivasati nāmā”ti. Etena ca itarasmiṃ sattāhavārenapi aruṇuṭṭhāpane sati eva appataraṃ nivasati nāma hoti, nāsatīti dīpitaṃ hoti. Idanti ekādhippāyadānaṃ. Nānālābhehītiādīsu nānā visuṃ visuṃ lābho etesūti nānālābhā, dve vihārā, tehi nānālābhehi. Nānā visuṃ visuṃ pākārādīhi paricchinno upacāro etesanti nānūpacārā, tehi nānūpacārehi. Ekasīmavihārehīti ekasīmāyaṃ dvīhi vihārehīti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.364) vuttaṃ. Nānālābhehīti visuṃ visuṃ nibaddhavassāvāsikalābhehi. Nānūpacārehīti nānāparikkhepanānādvārehi. Ekasīmavihārehīti dvinnaṃ vihārānaṃ ekena pākārena parikkhittattā ekāya upacārasīmāya antogatehi dvīhi vihārehīti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.364). Senāsanaggāho paṭippassambhatīti paṭhamaṃ gahito paṭippassambhati. Tatthāti yattha senāsanaggāho paṭippassambhati, tattha.
He causes only the dawn to rise within seven days: This is said to show residence by the method to be done in different boundary monasteries, even in one monastery with two lodgings; by causing the dawn to rise, he has resided there, not for avoiding the interruption of the rains. Indeed, by causing the dawn to rise anywhere within the vicinity boundary (upacārasīmā), even without entering the lodging taken by himself, he is one who has resided in the rains. But he is not called one who has dwelt in the taken lodging unless the dawn rises there. Thus, it says, “He is called one who resides more in the former.” By this, it is indicated that even in the latter, with the dawn rising within seven days, he is called one who resides less, not one who does not reside. “This” refers to giving with one intention. In “with different gains” and so forth, “different gains” (nānālābhā) means having separate gains; “with them” means with those two monasteries. “Different vicinities” (nānūpacārā) means having separate enclosures like walls; “with them” means with those. “With monasteries of one boundary” (ekasīmavihārehi) means with two monasteries in one boundary, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.364). “With different gains” means with separate fixed rains-residence gains. “With different vicinities” means with different enclosures and gates. “With monasteries of one boundary” means with two monasteries enclosed by one wall within one vicinity boundary, as stated in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.364). “The taking of lodgings is revoked” means what was taken first is revoked. “There” means where the taking of lodgings is revoked.
Sattāhavārena aruṇameva uṭṭhāpetīti, This is said to show that the same method used in monasteries with different boundaries, in a single monastery two dwellings, one dwells, merely establishing dawn with a seven-day period, by establishing dawn there, one dwells, not for avoiding the break of vassa. For within the boundary of the upacāra, wherever one establishes the dawn, even if one has not entered the dwelling that one has taken, one is still considered to have completed the vassa. However, one is not called one who has resided in the taken dwelling, it occurs when dawn is established there. Therefore, he states “purimasmiṃ bahutaraṃ nivasati nāmā”ti. And by this it is shown that if the dawn is established with seven day’s period in the other one, one has resided in it to a lesser extent, not if it is not done. Idanti, this gift with a single intention. In nānālābhehīti, and so on, nānālābhā are the two monasteries, in which there are various, separate gains, by those nānālābhehi. Nānūpacārā are those which have boundaries marked by various kinds, such as walls, and so on, by those nānūpacārehi. Ekasīmavihārehīti, by two monasteries within one boundary, it is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.364). Nānālābhehīti, with various, separate fixed gains of vassāvāsika. Nānūpacārehīti, with various enclosures and various gates. Ekasīmavihārehīti, by two monasteries included within a single boundary of upacāra, because the two monasteries are enclosed by one wall, it is said in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. vi. ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.364). Senāsanaggāho paṭippassambhatīti, the first taking of a dwelling is annulled. Tatthāti, where the taking of a dwelling is annulled, there.
Sattāhavārena aruṇameva uṭṭhāpetī: This is said to show the method of dawn-raising in different boundary residences, even in one residence with two dwellings, to indicate the completion of residence. By raising the dawn, one is considered to have completed the residence there, but not for the purpose of breaking the rains. Within the inner boundary, wherever one raises the dawn, even without entering the allotted dwelling, one is considered to have completed the rains. However, if one has entered the allotted dwelling, one is not considered to have completed the residence. Therefore, it is said, “purimasmiṃ bahutaraṃ nivasati nāmā”. By this, even in the other case, if the dawn is raised within seven days, one is considered to have resided less, not more. Ida: This refers to a single-purpose gift. Nānālābhehī: Various separate gains. Nānūpacārehī: Various separate boundaries. Ekasīmavihārehī: Two residences within one boundary, as explained in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sāratthaṭīkā, Mahāvagga 3.364). Nānālābhehī: Separate gains from fixed rains-residences. Nānūpacārehī: Separate boundaries with different enclosures and gates. Ekasīmavihārehī: Two residences enclosed by one wall, within one boundary, as explained in the Vimativinodanī (Vimativinodanīṭīkā, Mahāvagga 2.364). Senāsanaggāho paṭippassambhatī: The first allocation is settled. Tatthā: Where the allocation is settled.
ID1118
207. Bhikkhussa kālakateti ettha kālakata-saddo bhāvasādhanoti āha “kālakiriyāyā”ti. Pāḷiyaṃ gilānupaṭṭhākānaṃ cīvaradāne sāmaṇerānaṃ ticīvarādhiṭṭhānābhāvā “cīvarañca pattañcā”tiādi sabbattha vuttaṃ.
207. “When a monk dies” (kālakate): Here, the word “death” (kālakata) is an abstract noun, so it says, “With death” (kālakiriyāya). In the text, regarding the giving of robes to attendants of the sick and the novices’ lack of determination for the three robes (ticīvara), it is said everywhere, “the robe and the bowl,” and so forth.
207. In the case of a bhikkhussa kālakate, because the word kālakata is a noun of action, he says “kālakiriyāyā”ti. In the Pāḷi, in the case of giving robes to those attending to the sick, because novices do not establish the three robes, “robe and bowl,” and so on is said everywhere.
207. Bhikkhussa kālakate: Here, the word “kālakata” is explained as “at the time of death.” In the Pali, it is said that the robe and bowl should be given to the attendants of the sick, as novice monks do not have the right to the three robes, hence “robe and bowl” is mentioned everywhere.
ID1119
208. Sacepi sahassaṃ agghati, gilānupaṭṭhākānaññeva dātabbanti sambandho. Aññanti ticīvarapattato aññaṃ. Appagghanti atijiṇṇādibhāvena nihīnaṃ. Tatoti avasesaparikkhārato. Sabbanti pattaṃ cīvarañca. Tattha tattha saṅghassevāti tasmiṃ tasmiṃ vihāre saṅghasseva. Bhikkhuno kālakataṭṭhānaṃ sandhāya “idhā”ti vattabbe “tatthā”ti vuttattā vicchāvacanattā ca parikkhārassa ṭhapitaṭṭhānaṃ vuttanti viññāyati. Pāḷiyaṃ avissajjikaṃ avebhaṅgikanti āgatānāgatassa cātuddisassa saṅghasseva santakaṃ hutvā kassaci avissajjikaṃ avebhaṅgikañca bhavituṃ anujānāmīti attho. “Sante patirūpe gāhake”ti vuttattā gāhake asati adatvā bhājitepi subhājitamevāti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Dakkhiṇodakaṃ pamāṇanti ettha sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.376) tāva “yattha pana dakkhiṇodakaṃ pamāṇanti bhikkhū yasmiṃ raṭṭhe dakkhiṇodakapaṭiggahaṇamattenapi deyyadhammassa sāmino hontīti adhippāyo”ti vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.376) pana “dakkhiṇodakaṃ pamāṇanti ettakāni cīvarāni dassāmīti paṭhamaṃ udakaṃ pātetvā pacchā denti, taṃ yehi gahitaṃ, te bhāginova hontīti adhippāyo”ti vuttaṃ. Parasamuddeti jambudīpe. Tambapaṇṇidīpañhi upādāyesa evaṃ vutto.
208. Even if it is worth a thousand, it should be given only to the attendants of the sick; this is the connection. “Other” means apart from the three robes and bowl. “Cheap” means low in value due to being very worn. “From that” means from the remaining requisites. “All” means the bowl and robe. “Only to the Sangha there” means only to the Sangha in that monastery. Since “here” should be said referring to the place where the monk died, but “there” (tattha) is said due to its use as a variant and because it refers to the place where the requisites are kept, it is understood as such. In the text, “not to be given away, not to be divided” (avissajjikaṃ avebhaṅgikaṃ) means I allow it to belong to the Sangha of the four quarters, present and future, not to be given away or divided to anyone; this is the meaning. “When there is a suitable recipient” indicates that even if it is divided without giving when there is no recipient, it is well divided. “The measure is the water of offering” (dakkhiṇodakaṃ pamāṇa): In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.376), it is said, “But where the water of offering is the measure” means that monks in the country where they become owners of the gift merely by receiving the water of offering; this is the intention. However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.376), it is said, “The water of offering is the measure” means that after first pouring water saying, “I will give this many robes,” and then giving, those who take it are the rightful sharers; this is the intention. “Across the sea” refers to Jambudīpa; indeed, Tambapaṇṇidīpa is referred to as such in this context.
208. Even if it is worth a thousand, it should be given only to those who attended to the sick. Aññanti, other than the three robes and the bowl. Appagghanti, inferior due to being very worn out, and so on. Tatoti, from the remaining belongings. Sabbanti, the bowl and the robe. Tattha tattha saṅghassevāti, to the Sangha in that very monastery. Because, in reference to the place where the monk passed away, instead of saying “here,” it says “there,” and because of the distributive sense, it is understood that the place where the belongings are kept is meant. In the Pāḷi, avissajjikaṃ avebhaṅgikanti, I allow that it becomes the property of the Sangha of the four directions, those who have come and those who will come, not to be given away or distributed to anyone. Because it says, “sante patirūpe gāhake”ti, it should be understood that if there are no takers, even if it is distributed without being given, it is well distributed. Dakkhiṇodakaṃ pamāṇanti, in this regard, in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.376) it is said, “yattha pana dakkhiṇodakaṃ pamāṇanti, the meaning is that monks in that country become owners of the gift-worthy object merely by accepting the water of dedication.” In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. vi. ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.376), however, it is said, ”dakkhiṇodakaṃ pamāṇanti, the meaning is that first, water is poured, saying ‘I will give so many robes,’ and later they give; those by whom it is accepted, they become the sharers.” Parasamuddeti, in Jambudīpa. It is stated this way referring to the island of Tambapaṇṇi.
208. Even if it is worth a thousand, it should be given only to the attendants of the sick. Añña: Other than the three robes and bowl. Appaggha: Inferior due to being worn out, etc. Tato: From the remaining belongings. Sabba: Both the bowl and the robe. Tattha tattha saṅghassevā: In each monastery, only to the Sangha. Since the place of the monk’s death is referred to as “there,” and due to the variability of the location, it is understood that the belongings are to be placed there. In the Pali, avissajjikaṃ avebhaṅgika: It is allowed for the Sangha of the four directions, past and future, to keep it as their own, not to be given away or divided. “Sante patirūpe gāhake”: If there are no suitable recipients, even if not given, it is well-divided. Dakkhiṇodakaṃ pamāṇa: In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sāratthaṭīkā, Mahāvagga 3.376), it is said, “yattha pana dakkhiṇodakaṃ pamāṇa”: In a country where monks become owners of the gift merely by receiving the water of dedication. In the Vimativinodanī (Vimativinodanīṭīkā, Mahāvagga 2.376), it is said, “dakkhiṇodakaṃ pamāṇa”: First, water is poured, and then the robes are given; those who receive it are the rightful owners. Parasamudde: In Jambudīpa. Tambapaṇṇidīpa is also included in this.
ID1120
“Matakacīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhātī”ti ettha maggaṃ gacchanto tassa kālakiriyaṃ sutvā avihāraṭṭhāne ce dvādasahatthabbhantare aññesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ abhāvaṃ ñatvā “idaṃ cīvaraṃ mayhaṃ pāpuṇātī”ti adhiṭṭhāti, svādhiṭṭhitaṃ. Tena kho pana samayena aññataro bhikkhu bahubhaṇḍo bahuparikkhāro kālakato hoti. Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ, “bhikkhussa, bhikkhave, kālakate saṅgho sāmī pattacīvare. Apica gilānupaṭṭhākā bahupakārā, anujānāmi, bhikkhave, ticīvarañca pattañca gilānupaṭṭhākānaṃ dātuṃ. Yaṃ tattha lahubhaṇḍaṃ lahuparikkhāraṃ, taṃ sammukhībhūtena saṅghena bhājetuṃ. Yaṃ tattha garubhaṇḍaṃ garuparikkhāraṃ, taṃ āgatānāgatassa cātuddisassa saṅghassa avissajjikaṃ avebhaṅgika”nti (mahāva. 369) iminā pāṭhena bhagavā sabbaññū bhikkhūnaṃ āmisadāyajjaṃ vicāresi.
“He determines the robe of the deceased”: Here, while traveling on a road, hearing of his death and knowing the absence of other monks within twelve hands’ distance in a non-monastery place, he determines, “This robe reaches me,” and it is well determined. At that time, a certain monk with many goods and requisites had died. They reported this matter to the Blessed One: “Monks, when a monk dies, the Sangha is the owner of the bowl and robe. However, the attendants of the sick are very helpful; I allow, monks, the three robes and bowl to be given to the attendants of the sick. What is light goods and light requisites there should be divided by the Sangha present. What is heavy goods and heavy requisites there should be for the Sangha of the four quarters, present and future, not to be given away or divided” (mahāva. 369). With this text, the Omniscient Blessed One considered the inheritance of material gifts for the monks.
In the case of “He establishes the robe of the deceased,” while he is going on the road, having heard of his death, and knowing that there are no other monks within twelve hatthas in a place that is not a monastery, he establishes, thinking, “This robe falls to me,” it is established by him. At that time, a certain monk, possessing many goods and many belongings, passed away. They informed the Blessed One of this matter. “When a monk, bhikkhus, has passed away, the Sangha is the owner of his bowl and robes. However, those who attend to the sick are of great help. I allow, bhikkhus, the three robes and the bowl to be given to those who attend to the sick. Whatever minor goods and minor belongings are there, let them be distributed by the Sangha that is present. Whatever major goods and major belongings are there, let them be for the Sangha of the four directions, those who have come and those who will come, not to be given away or distributed” (Mahāva. 369)—with this passage, the all-knowing Blessed One determined the inheritance of material things for the monks.
“He determines the robe of the deceased”: Here, while traveling, upon hearing of the death, if within twelve hands’ breadth of a non-residential area and knowing the absence of other monks, one determines, “This robe will reach me,” and it is so determined. At that time, a monk with much wealth and many belongings died. They informed the Blessed One, and he said, “Monks, when a monk dies, the Sangha is the owner of his bowl and robe. Moreover, the attendants of the sick are of great service. I allow, monks, that the three robes and the bowl be given to the attendants of the sick. The light belongings and light requisites should be divided by the Sangha present. The heavy belongings and heavy requisites should be kept by the Sangha of the four directions, not to be given away or divided” (Mahāvagga 369). By this passage, the Blessed One, the All-Knowing, regulated the material gifts for the monks.
ID1121
Tattha ticīvarapattaavasesalahubhaṇḍagarubhaṇḍavasena āmisadāyajjaṃ tividhaṃ hoti. Tesu ticīvarapattaṃ gilānupaṭṭhākassa bhāgo hoti, avasesalahubhaṇḍaṃ sammukhībhūtasaṅghassa, pañcavīsatividha garubhaṇḍaṃ cātuddisasaṅghassa. Iminā ito tividhabhaṇḍato aññaṃ bhikkhubhaṇḍaṃ nāma natthi, imehi tividhehi puggalehi añño dāyādo nāma natthīti dasseti. Idāni pana vinayadharā “bhikkhūnaṃ akappiyabhaṇḍaṃ gihibhūtā ñātakā labhantī”ti vadanti, taṃ kasmāti ce? “Ye tassa dhane issarā gahaṭṭhā vā pabbajitā vā, tesaṃ dātabba”nti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ āgatattāti. Saccaṃ āgato, so pana pāṭho vissāsaggāhavisaye āgato, na dāyajjagahaṇaṭṭhāne. “Gahaṭṭhā vā pabbajitā vā”icceva āgato, na “ñātakā aññātakā vā”ti, tasmā ñātakā vā hontu aññātakā vā, ye taṃ gilānaṃ upaṭṭhahanti, te gilānupaṭṭhākabhāgabhūtassa dhanassa issarā gahaṭṭhapabbajitā, antamaso mātugāmāpi. Te sandhāya “tesaṃ dātabba”nti vuttaṃ, na pana ye gilānaṃ nupaṭṭhahanti, te sandhāya. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 369) “gilānupaṭṭhāko nāma gihī vā hotu pabbajito vā, antamaso mātugāmopi, sabbe bhāgaṃ labhantī”ti.
There, the inheritance of material gifts is threefold: by the three robes and bowl, remaining light goods, and heavy goods; among these, “the three robes and bowl” are the share of the attendant of the sick, “remaining light goods” are for the Sangha present, and the “heavy goods” of twenty-five kinds are for the Sangha of the four quarters. By this, it shows that there is no other monk’s property apart from these three types of goods, and there is no other heir apart from these three types of persons. But now, Vinaya experts say, “Lay relatives receive the monk’s unallowable goods”; why is that? Because it is said in the commentary, “It should be given to those who are masters of that property, whether lay or ordained.” This is true as it is stated, but that text comes in the context of trustworthy giving, not in the context of inheritance. It says only “lay or ordained,” not “relatives or non-relatives”; therefore, whether relatives or non-relatives, those who attend the sick—lay or ordained masters of that property, even women—are meant by “it should be given to them,” not those who do not attend the sick. Indeed, it is said in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 369), “An attendant of the sick may be a layperson or an ordained person, even a woman; all receive a share.”
Therein, the inheritance of material things is threefold, consisting of the three robes and bowl, the remaining minor belongings, and the major belongings. Among these, the three robes and bowl are the share of the one who attended to the sick, the remaining minor belongings are for the Sangha that is present, and the twenty-five kinds of major belongings are for the Sangha of the four directions. He shows by this that there is no other monk’s property besides these three kinds of belongings, and there are no other heirs besides these three kinds of individuals. Now, however, the Vinaya experts say, “The unsuitable belongings of monks are received by the lay relatives who have become householders,” why is that? Because it is stated in the commentary, “Whatever wealth he owns, whether householders or renunciants, it should be given to them.” It is true that it is stated, but that passage is stated in relation to trustworthy receiving, not in the context of inheriting. It is only stated “householders or renunciants,” not “relatives or non-relatives,” therefore, whether they are relatives or non-relatives, those who attend to the sick, are the owners, whether householder-renunciants, of the wealth that is the share of those attending to the sick, even down to women. Referring to them, it is said, “It should be given to them,” but not referring to those who do not attend to the sick. For it is said in the commentary (Mahāva. aṭṭha. 369), “One who attends to the sick, whether a householder or a renunciant, even down to a woman, all receive a share.”
Here, the material gifts are of three kinds: the three robes and bowl, the remaining light belongings, and the twenty-five kinds of heavy belongings. Among these, the three robes and bowl are the share of the attendant of the sick, the remaining light belongings are for the Sangha present, and the twenty-five kinds of heavy belongings are for the Sangha of the four directions. Beyond these three kinds, there is no other monastic property. These three kinds of property have no other heirs. Now, the Vinaya experts say, “The unallowable belongings of monks are received by their lay relatives.” Why is this? Because the commentary states, “Those who have authority over the wealth, whether lay or monastic, should receive it.” This is true, but this passage is found in the context of trust, not inheritance. It is said, “Whether lay or monastic,” not “relatives or non-relatives.” Therefore, whether relatives or non-relatives, those who attend to the sick are the authorities over the wealth of the attendant of the sick, even including women. They are the ones to whom it should be given, not those who do not attend to the sick. As stated in the commentary (Mahāvagga Aṭṭhakathā 369), “The attendant of the sick, whether lay or monastic, even a woman, all receive a share.”
ID1122
Atha vā yo bhikkhu attano jīvamānakāleyeva sabbaṃ attano parikkhāraṃ nissajjitvā kassaci ñātakassa vā aññātakassa vā gahaṭṭhassa vā pabbajitassa vā adāsi, koci ca ñātako vā aññātako vā gahaṭṭho vā pabbajito vā vissāsaṃ aggahesi, tādise sandhāya “ye tassa dhanassa issarā gahaṭṭhā vā pabbajitā vā, tesaṃ dātabba”nti vuttaṃ, na pana atādise ñātake. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 369) “sace pana so jīvamānoyeva sabbaṃ attano parikkhāraṃ nissajjitvā kassaci adāsi, koci vā vissāsaṃ aggahesi, yassa dinnaṃ, yena ca gahitaṃ, tasseva hoti, tassa ruciyā eva gilānupaṭṭhākā labhantī”ti. Evaṃ hotu, kappiyabhaṇḍe pana kathanti? Tampi “gihiñātakānaṃ dātabba”nti pāḷiyaṃ vā aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vā ṭīkāsu vā natthi, tasmā vicāretabbametaṃ.
Alternatively, if a bhikkhu, while still alive, relinquishes all his requisites and gives them to someone—whether a relative or non-relative, a layperson or a monastic—and if some relative, non-relative, layperson, or monastic takes them in trust, it is with reference to such a case that it is said, “They should be given to those who are the owners of that wealth, whether laypeople or monastics,” and not to relatives in other cases. For it is stated in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 369), “If, however, while still alive, he relinquishes all his requisites and gives them to someone, or if someone takes them in trust, they belong to the one to whom they were given or by whom they were taken; only according to his preference do the attendants of the sick receive them.” So be it. But what about permissible goods? There is no statement in the canonical text, commentary, or sub-commentaries that says, “They should be given to lay relatives,” so this matter should be considered.
Alternatively, if a bhikkhu, while still living, relinquished all his possessions and gave them to someone, whether a relative or a non-relative, a householder or a monastic, and someone, whether a relative or non-relative, a householder or a monastic, accepted them in trust, it is with reference to such a case that it was said, “It should be given to those householders or monastics who are the owners of that wealth,” but not to relatives in other cases. For it is said in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 369), “But if, while he was still alive, he relinquished all his possessions and gave them to someone, or someone accepted them in trust, then they belong to the one to whom they were given and by whom they were accepted; the attendants of the sick receive according to his wish.” Let it be so. But what about allowable goods? Neither in the canonical text nor in the commentaries nor in the subcommentaries is it said, “They should be given to the lay relatives.” Therefore, this should be investigated.
Alternatively, if a monk, while still alive, relinquishes all his belongings and gives them to any relative, whether known or unknown, or to a layperson or a monastic, and someone, whether a relative, a stranger, a layperson, or a monastic, accepts them in trust, then it is said with reference to such a case: “It should be given to those who have authority over that wealth, whether laypeople or monastics.” However, this does not apply to a relative who is not of such a kind. For it is stated in the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 369): “But if, while still alive, he relinquishes all his belongings and gives them to someone, or someone accepts them in trust, then it belongs to the one to whom it was given or by whom it was received. It is only by their consent that the attendants of the sick may receive it.” So be it. But what about permissible items? There is no mention in the Pāli, the commentary, or the sub-commentaries that they should be given to lay relatives. Therefore, this matter should be considered.
ID1123
Cīvarabhājanakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.
The explanation of the discussion on the distribution of robes is concluded.
The explanation of the discourse on the distribution of robes is concluded.
The explanation on the distribution of robes is concluded.
ID1124
ID1125
209. Idāni piṇḍapātabhājanavinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ “piṇḍapātabhājane panā”tiādimāha. Tattha senāsanakkhandhake senāsanabhājaneyeva paṭhamaṃ āgatepi catupaccayabhājanavinicchayattā paccayānukkamena piṇḍapātabhājanaṃ paṭhamaṃ dasseti. Piṇḍapātabhājane pana saṅghabhattādīsu ayaṃ vinicchayoti sambandho. Kathaṃ etāni saṅghabhattādīni bhagavatā anuññātānīti āha “anujānāmi…pe… anuññātesū”ti. Saṅghassa atthāya ābhataṃ bhattaṃ saṅghabhattaṃ yathā “āgantukassa ābhataṃ bhattaṃ āgantukabhatta”nti. Saṅghato uddissa uddisitvā dātabbaṃ bhattaṃ uddesabhattaṃ. Nimantetvā dātabbaṃ bhattaṃ nimantanabhattaṃ. Salākaṃ pātetvā gāhetabbaṃ bhattaṃ salākabhattaṃ. Pakkhe pakkhadivase dātabbaṃ bhattaṃ pakkhabhattaṃ. Uposathe uposathadivase dātabbaṃ bhattaṃ uposathabhattaṃ. Pāṭipade uposathadivasato dutiyadivase dātabbaṃ bhattaṃ pāṭipadabhattanti viggaho. Ṭhitikā nāma natthīti saṅghattherato paṭṭhāya vassaggena gāhaṇaṃ ṭhitikā nāma.
209. Now, to explain the decision regarding the distribution of almsfood, it begins with “Piṇḍapātabhājane panā” and so forth. Although in the Senāsanakkhandhaka the distribution of lodgings comes first, due to the determination of the distribution of the four requisites, the distribution of almsfood is presented first in the order of requisites. The connection here is that this is the decision regarding the distribution of almsfood such as communal meals and so on. How were these communal meals and the like permitted by the Blessed One? It is said, “Anujānāmi…pe… anuññātesu” (I allow… in the permitted). Food brought for the sake of the Saṅgha is saṅghabhatta, just as “food brought for a visitor is āgantukabhatta.” Food to be designated and given from the Saṅgha is uddesabhatta. Food given after an invitation is nimantanabhatta. Food to be taken by casting lots is salākabhatta. Food given on a fortnightly day is pakkhabhatta. Food given on the Uposatha day is uposathabhatta. Food given on the day following the Uposatha is pāṭipadabhatta—this is the analysis. Ṭhitikā nāma natthi means there is no fixed allocation; it refers to taking by seniority starting from the elder of the Saṅgha.
209. Now, to explain the determination of the distribution of almsfood, he begins with “Regarding the distribution of almsfood…”. Although in the Senāsanakkhandhaka the distribution of lodgings comes first, because it is a determination of the distribution of the four requisites, he presents the distribution of almsfood first, following the order of the requisites. The connection is that this is the determination regarding the distribution of almsfood in Sangha meals and so forth. He says “I allow…etc… are allowed” to show how these Sangha meals and so forth were allowed by the Blessed One. A meal brought for the sake of the Sangha is a Sangha meal (saṅghabhattaṃ), just as “a meal brought for a guest is a guest meal.” A meal to be given after being designated from the Sangha is a designated meal (uddesabhattaṃ). A meal to be given after being invited is an invitation meal (nimantanabhattaṃ). A meal to be obtained by casting lots is a lot-meal (salākabhattaṃ). A meal to be given on the day of the half-moon is a half-moon meal (pakkhabhattaṃ). A meal to be given on the Uposatha day is an Uposatha meal (uposathabhattaṃ). A meal to be given on the day after the Uposatha day is a day-after meal (pāṭipadabhattaṃ) – this is the analysis. There is no such thing as ṭhitikā – Taking [bhikkhus] in order of seniority in terms of years since full ordination, starting from the Sangha elder, is called ṭhitikā.
209. Now, to discuss the determination regarding almsfood vessels, it begins with “Regarding almsfood vessels…” Here, although the section on dwellings and their vessels comes first in the Senāsanakkhandhaka, because the determination of the four requisites is discussed in order, the almsfood vessel is presented first. The connection here is that this determination applies to almsfood vessels in contexts such as Saṅgha meals, etc. How were these Saṅgha meals, etc., permitted by the Blessed One? It is stated: “I allow… until permitted.” Food brought for the benefit of the Saṅgha is called Saṅgha meal, just as food brought for a guest is called a guest meal. Food to be given after being designated for the Saṅgha is called designated meal. Food to be given after an invitation is called invitation meal. Food to be received by drawing lots is called lot meal. Food to be given on a fortnightly day is called fortnightly meal. Food to be given on the Uposatha day is called Uposatha meal. Food to be given on the day after the Uposatha is called Pāṭipada meal. This is the analysis. There is no fixed portion means that from the senior monk of the Saṅgha onwards, the portion taken at the end of the rains is called the fixed portion.
ID1126
Attano vihāradvāreti vihārassa dvārakoṭṭhakasamīpaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Bhojanasālāyāti bhattuddesaṭṭhānabhūtāya bhojanasālāyaṃ. Vassaggenāti vassakoṭṭhāsena. Dinnaṃ panāti vatvā yathā so dāyako vadati, taṃ vidhiṃ dassetuṃ “saṅghato bhante”tiādimāha. Antaraghareti antogehe. Antoupacāragatānanti ettha gāmadvāravīthicatukkesu dvādasahatthabbhantaraṃ upacāro nāma.
Attano vihāradvāre refers to the vicinity of the monastery’s gate or entrance. Bhojanasālāya means in the dining hall designated for meals. Vassaggenā means by portion of seniority. Having said dinnaṃ pana, to show the method as stated by the donor, it begins with “Saṅghato bhante” and so forth. Antaraghare means within the house. Regarding antoupacāragatāna, the area within twelve hand-spans of the village gate, streets, or crossroads is called the upacāra (proximity).
At one’s own monastery gate is said with reference to the vicinity of the monastery’s gatehouse. In the refectory means in the refectory that is the place for designating meals. By seniority means by order of residence. Having said But what is given, he says “From the Sangha, venerable sir…” and so on to show the method of how that donor speaks. Within the house means inside the home. Of those within the upacāra – here, the upacāra is the area within twelve hands in the village gate, streets, and crossroads.
At one’s own monastery gate refers to the area near the monastery’s entrance gate. In the dining hall means in the dining hall, which is the place for meal distribution. At the end of the rains means at the end of the rainy season. But what is given means that after speaking as the donor instructs, to explain the procedure, it is said: “Venerable, from the Saṅgha…” Inside the house means within the house. Those within the vicinity means that in the village gate, streets, and crossroads, the vicinity is defined as within twelve hands’ distance.
ID1127
Antaragharassa upacāre pana labbhamānavisesaṃ dassetuṃ “gharūpacāro cetthā”tiādimāha. Ekavaḷañjanti ekena dvārena vaḷañjitabbaṃ. Nānānivesanesūti nānākulassa nānūpacāresu nivesanesu. Lajjī pesalo agatigamanaṃ vajjetvā medhāvī ca upaparikkhitvā uddisatīti āha “pesalo lajjī medhāvī icchitabbo”ti. Nisinnassapi niddāyantassapīti anādare sāmivacanaṃ, vuḍḍhatare niddāyante navakassa gāhitaṃ suggāhitanti attho. Ticīvaraparivāraṃ vāti ettha “udakamattalābhī viya aññopi uddesabhattaṃ alabhitvā vatthādianekappakārakaṃ labhati ce, tasseva ta”nti gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. Attano rucivasena yaṃ kiñci vatvā āharituṃ vissajjitattā vissaṭṭhadūto nāma. Yaṃ icchatīti “uddesabhattaṃ dethā”tiādīni vadanto yaṃ icchati. Pucchāsabhāgenāti pucchāsadisena.
To show the special condition available within the proximity of a house, it begins with “Gharūpacāro cetthā” and so forth. Ekavaḷañja means to be enclosed by a single gate. Nānānivesanesu means in the dwellings of various families with different proximities. A modest, virtuous, and wise monk who avoids wrong conduct and examines carefully before designating is desired, so it says, “Pesalo lajjī medhāvī icchitabbo.” Nisinnassapi niddāyantassapi uses the genitive case informally, meaning that what a junior monk takes is well-taken even if a senior monk is dozing. Regarding ticīvaraparivāraṃ vā, it is said in the notes, “Just as one who gains only water might also, without receiving uddesabhatta, receive various items like cloth, those belong to him alone.” Because he is sent to fetch whatever he wishes according to his preference, he is called a vissaṭṭhadūto (dispatched messenger). Yaṃ icchati means whatever he desires, saying things like “Give uddesabhatta” and so on. Pucchāsabhāgena means in accordance with the question.
To show the special case of what is obtainable within the upacāra of a house, he says “Here, the upacāra of a house…” and so on. Ekavaḷañja means to be used through one door. In various residences means in the residences of various families with various upacāras. He says “A virtuous, conscientious, and wise person should be chosen,” meaning that a conscientious, virtuous, wise person, avoiding partiality, should investigate and designate. Even for one who is seated, even for one who is sleeping is an indifferent genitive absolute, meaning that what is taken by a junior monk while a senior monk is sleeping is well-taken. Or with the set of three robes – here, in the Gaṇṭhipada it is said, “Just like one who gains only water, if someone else, not having received a designated meal, receives various things such as cloth, etc., it belongs to him.” He is called a vissaṭṭhadūto, because he is dispatched to bring whatever he says based on his own preference. Whatever he wishes – meaning whatever he wishes, saying “Give a designated meal,” and so on. By way of inquiry means similar to an inquiry.
To explain the special allowance within the vicinity of the house, it is said: “The vicinity of the house is here…” Single entrance means to be entered through one door. In various residences means in the residences of different families with different vicinities. A modest, gentle, and wise monk, avoiding improper conduct and carefully considering, should designate, as stated: “A gentle, modest, and wise monk should be chosen.” Even if seated or sleeping means disregarding the owner’s words, if an elder is sleeping, a junior monk’s acceptance is well-accepted. Or the three robes means here, as stated in the knot points: “Just as one who obtains water may also obtain other things, if one does not receive the designated meal but receives cloth, etc., it belongs to that person.” Because one is sent to fetch whatever one desires, it is called a sent messenger. Whatever one wishes means saying, “Give the designated meal,” etc. Similar to a question means like a question.
ID1128
“Ekā kūṭaṭṭhitikā nāma hotī”ti vatvā tameva ṭhitikaṃ vibhāvento “rañño vā hī”tiādimāha. Aññehi uddesabhattādīhi amissetvā visuṃyeva ṭhitikāya gahetabbattā “ekacārikabhattānī”ti vuttaṃ. Theyyāya harantīti pattahārakā haranti. Gīvā hotīti āṇāpakassa gīvā hoti. Sabbaṃ pattassāmikassa hotīti cīvarādikampi sabbaṃ pattassāmikasseva hoti, “mayā bhattameva sandhāya vuttaṃ, na cīvarādi”nti vatvā gahetuṃ vaṭṭatīti attho. Manussānaṃ vacanaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti vuttā gacchantīti manussānaṃ vacanaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti tena bhikkhunā vuttā gacchanti. Akatabhāgo nāmāti āgantukabhāgo nāma, adinnapubbabhāgoti attho. Sabbo saṅgho paribhūñjatūti vutteti ettha “paṭhamameva ’sabbasaṅghikabhattaṃ dethā’ti vatvā pacchā ’sabbo saṅgho paribhuñjatū’ti avuttepi bhājetvā paribhuñjitabba”nti gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. Kiṃ āharīyatīti avatvāti “katarabhattaṃ tayā āharīyatī”ti dāyakaṃ apucchitvā. Pakatiṭhitikāyāti uddesabhattaṭhitikāya.
Having said, “Ekā kūṭaṭṭhitikā nāma hoti,” to clarify that fixed allocation, it begins with “Rañño vā hi” and so forth. Because it is to be taken separately by fixed allocation and not mixed with other designated meals and the like, it is called “ekacārikabhattāni.” Theyyāya haranti means the bowl-bearers take it by theft. Gīvā hoti means it pertains to the one giving the order. Sabbaṃ pattassāmikassa hoti means everything, including robes and so forth, belongs to the owner of the bowl; it is permissible to take it saying, “I meant only the food, not robes or other things,” is the meaning. Manussānaṃ vacanaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati ti vuttā gacchanti means those told by that monk, “It is allowable to follow people’s words,” go accordingly. Akatabhāgo nāma means an ungiven portion, referring to a portion not previously given. Regarding sabbo saṅgho paribhuñjatu ti vutte, it is said in the notes, “Even if it was not said later, ‘Let the entire Saṅgha partake,’ after initially saying, ‘Give a meal for the whole Saṅgha,’ it should still be distributed and partaken of.” Kiṃ āharīyati ti avatvā means without asking the donor, “Which meal are you providing?” Pakatiṭhitikāya means with the usual allocation for uddesabhatta.
Having said “There is one called kūṭaṭṭhitikā,” he begins with “Of the king, or…” to explain that very ṭhitika. Because they are to be taken by the ṭhitika alone, unmixed with other designated meals and so on, it is said “solely-taken meals.” They steal by theft means the bowl-carriers steal. It is the neck means it is the neck of the one who commands. Everything belongs to the owner of the bowl means that everything, including robes and so on, belongs to the owner of the bowl; it is permissible to take it, saying, “I spoke only with reference to the meal, not the robe, etc.,” meaning thus. They go, having been told that it is permissible to do the word of men means they go, having been told by that bhikkhu that it is permissible to do the word of men. What is called akatabhāgo means what is called a portion for guests, meaning a portion that has not been given before. When it is said that the whole Sangha should partake, here, in the Gaṇṭhipada it is said, “Even if, at the very beginning, he did not say ‘Give a Sangha meal’ and later said ‘The whole Sangha should partake,’ it should be divided and partaken of.” Without saying what is being brought – without asking the donor, “Which meal are you bringing?” By the usual ṭhitikā means by the designated meal ṭhitikā.
“There is one called a fixed portion,” and explaining that fixed portion, it is said: “Whether of a king…” Because it should be taken separately from other designated meals, etc., without mixing, it is called “a single meal.” They carry it away stealthily means the bowl-bearers carry it away. It becomes the neck means it becomes the responsibility of the one who commands. Everything belongs to the owner of the bowl means even the robes, etc., all belong to the owner of the bowl. “I spoke only regarding the meal, not the robes,” and thus it is proper to take. They go saying that it is proper to act on the words of the people means that the monk said it is proper to act on the words of the people, and they go accordingly. An unallocated portion means the portion for a newcomer, meaning a portion not previously given. When it is said, ‘Let the entire Saṅgha partake,’ here it is stated in the knot points: “Even if it is not said afterward, ‘Let the entire Saṅgha partake,’ after distributing it, it should be partaken.” Without saying what is to be brought means without asking the donor, “Which meal are you bringing?” In the customary fixed portion means in the designated meal’s fixed portion.
ID1129
Piṇḍapātabhājanakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.
The explanation of the discussion on the distribution of almsfood is concluded.
The explanation of the discourse on the distribution of almsfood is concluded.
The explanation on the distribution of almsfood is concluded.
ID1130
ID1131
210. “Ettake bhikkhū saṅghato uddisitvā dethā”tiādīni avatvā “ettakānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ bhattaṃ dethā”ti vatvā dinnaṃ saṅghikaṃ nimantanaṃ nāma. Piṇḍapātikānampi vaṭṭatīti bhikkhāpariyāyena vuttattā vaṭṭati. Paṭipāṭiyāti laddhapaṭipāṭiyā. Vicchinditvāti “bhattaṃ gaṇhathā”ti padaṃ avatvā. Tenevāha “bhattanti avadantenā”ti. Ālopasaṅkhepenāti ekekapiṇḍavasena. Ayañca nayo nimantaneyeva, na uddesabhatte. Tassa hi ekassa pahonakappamāṇaṃyeva bhājetabbaṃ, tasmā uddesabhatte ālopaṭṭhitikā nāma natthi.
210. A communal invitation meal is when, instead of saying, “Designate and give this many monks from the Saṅgha,” it is said, “Give a meal for this many monks.” Piṇḍapātikānampi vaṭṭati means it is allowable even for alms-goers because it is stated in terms of alms. Paṭipāṭiyā means in the order received. Vicchinditvā means without saying the phrase “Take the meal.” Hence it says, “Bhattanti avadantena.” Ālopasaṅkhepena means by single portions of alms. This method applies only to invitational meals, not to designated meals. For in the case of uddesabhatta, only an amount sufficient for one must be distributed, so there is no such thing as an ālopaṭṭhitikā (portion allocation) in uddesabhatta.
210. An invitation to the Sangha given saying, “Give a meal to this many bhikkhus,” without saying, “Designate this many bhikkhus from the Sangha,” and so on, is called a Sangha invitation. It is also permissible for piṇḍapātikas, because it is mentioned as a synonym for alms. In order means in the order received. Having interrupted means without saying the phrase, “Take the meal.” Therefore, he says “By one who does not say ‘meal’.” By way of morsels means by way of individual portions. And this method is only for invitations, not for designated meals. For the latter, only the amount sufficient for one person should be divided; therefore, there is no morsel-ṭhitikā in designated meals.
210. Without saying, “Give to so many monks designated by the Saṅgha,” but saying, “Give a meal to so many monks,” and giving it, is called a Saṅgha invitation meal. It is also permissible for almsgoers means it is permissible for those who go on almsround. In order means in the order received. Interrupting means without saying, “Take the meal.” Therefore, it is said: “Without saying ‘meal’…” By summarizing the portions means by each lump of food. This rule applies only to the invitation meal, not to the designated meal. For in the designated meal, only the amount sufficient for one person should be distributed, so there is no fixed portion in the designated meal.
ID1132
Āruḷhāyeva mātikaṃ. Saṅghato aṭṭha bhikkhūti ettha ye mātikaṃ āruḷhā, te aṭṭha bhikkhūti yojetabbaṃ. Uddesabhattanimantanabhattādisaṅghikabhattamātikāsu nimantanabhattamātikāya ṭhitikāvasena āruḷhe bhattuddesakena vā sayaṃ vā saṅghato uddisāpetvā gahetvā gantabbaṃ, na attanā rucite gahetvāti adhippāyo. Mātikaṃ āropetvāti “saṅghato gaṇhāmī”tiādinā vuttamātikābhedaṃ dāyakassa viññāpetvāti attho. “Ekavāranti yāva tasmiṃ āvāse vasanti bhikkhū , sabbe labhantī”ti gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. Ayaṃ panettha adhippāyo – ekavāranti na ekadivasaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, yattakā pana bhikkhū tasmiṃ āvāse vasanti, te sabbe. Ekasmiṃ divase gahitabhikkhū aññadā aggahetvā yāva ekavāraṃ sabbe bhikkhū bhojitā hontīti jānāti ce, ye jānanti, te gahetvā gantabbanti. Paṭibaddhakālato paṭṭhāyāti tattheva vāsassa nibaddhakālato paṭṭhāya.
Āruḷhāyeva mātikaṃ. Saṅghato aṭṭha bhikkhū means here it should be understood as “Those who have ascended the list are eight monks from the Saṅgha.” In the lists of communal meals such as uddesabhatta and nimantanabhatta, monks listed under the nimantanabhatta category by allocation must be designated from the Saṅgha either by the meal-distributor or by themselves and then taken, not taken according to personal preference—this is the intent. Mātikaṃ āropetvā means informing the donor of the specific list type, such as “I take it from the Saṅgha,” and so forth. It is said in the notes, “Ekavāra means ‘As long as the monks reside in that monastery, all receive it.’” The intent here is that ekavāra does not refer to a single day; rather, it means all the monks residing in that monastery. If one knows that on a single day the monks taken do not take again another day until all monks have been fed once, those who know this should take and go accordingly. Paṭibaddhakālato paṭṭhāya means starting from the fixed time of residence there.
Those who have ascended the roster. Eight bhikkhus from the Sangha – here, those who have ascended the roster, those eight bhikkhus, should be connected. Among the rosters for Sangha meals, such as designated meals and invitation meals, on the roster for invitation meals, having those who have ascended according to the ṭhitika designated from the Sangha by the meal-designator or by oneself, one should take [the meal] and go, not taking [bhikkhus] according to one’s own preference – this is the meaning. Having placed on the roster means having informed the donor of the division of the roster mentioned, such as, “I will take from the Sangha.” Once - in the Gaṇṭhipada, it is said, “As long as the bhikkhus reside in that dwelling, all of them receive.” The meaning of this is: Once is not said referring to only one day; it means all the bhikkhus who dwell in that residence for as many as there are. If, not having taken the bhikkhus who took on one day on another day, until it is known that all the bhikkhus have been fed once, then those who know that all the bhikkhus have been fed should take the meal for the other monks and should leave. Starting from the appointed time means starting from the time appointed for residing there.
The list is already entered. Eight monks from the Saṅgha means here those who have entered the list are the eight monks. In the lists of designated meals, invitation meals, etc., the invitation meal list is entered as a fixed portion, and the meal distributor or oneself should take it after designating it to the Saṅgha, not taking it according to one’s own preference. Having placed the list means informing the donor of the list’s details as stated: “I take from the Saṅgha,” etc. “Once” means as long as the monks reside in that monastery, all receive it. This is stated in the knot points. The meaning here is: “Once” does not refer to a single day, but as long as the monks reside in that monastery, all of them. If on one day some monks are taken and on another day others are not taken, until all monks have been fed once, if one knows, those who know should take it and go. From the bound time onward means from the time of residence there.
ID1133
Nimantanabhattakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.
The explanation of the discussion on invitational meals is concluded.
The explanation of the discourse on the invitation meal is concluded.
The explanation on the invitation meal is concluded.
ID1134
ID1135
211. Upanibandhitvāti likhitvā. Gāmavasenapīti yebhuyyena samalābhagāmavasenapi. Bahūni salākabhattānīti tiṃsaṃ vā cattārīsaṃ vā bhattāni. Sace hontīti ajjhāharitvā yojetabbaṃ. Sallakkhetvāti tāni bhattāni pamāṇavasena sallakkhetvā. Niggahena datvāti dūraṃ gantuṃ anicchantassa niggahena sampaṭicchāpetvā. Puna vihāraṃ āgantvāti ettha vihāraṃ anāgantvā bhattaṃ gahetvā pacchā vihāre attano pāpetvā bhuñjitumpi vaṭṭati. Ekagehavasenāti vīthiyampi ekapasse gharapāḷiyā vasena. Uddisitvāpīti “asukakule salākabhattāni tuyhaṃ pāpuṇantī”ti vatvā.
211. Upanibandhitvā means by writing down. Gāmavasenapi means also by the majority of villages sharing gains. Bahūni salākabhattāni means thirty or forty meals, to be understood with the addition “if there are such.” Sallakkhetvā means observing those meals by their quantity. Niggahena datvā means giving by compelling one who does not wish to go far. Puna vihāraṃ āgantvā means here, even without returning to the monastery, it is allowable to take the meal and later bring it to the monastery for consumption. Ekagehavasenā means by the row of houses on one side of a street.
211. Having registered means having written. Even by way of village means mostly by way of a village with equal gain. Many lot meals means thirty or forty meals. One should supply and connect “if there are.” Having considered means having considered those meals by quantity. Giving with pressure means having it accepted with pressure from one who does not wish to go far. Having returned to the monastery – here, it is also permissible not to return to the monastery, but to take the meal and later partake of one’s portion in the monastery. By way of one house means on one side of the street, by way of a row of houses. Even having designated means having said, “Lot meals in such-and-such a family accrue to you.”
211. Having written means having inscribed. Even in a village residence means mostly in a village where alms are easily obtained. Many lot meals means thirty or forty meals. If they exist, they should be brought and assigned. Having considered means having assessed those meals according to measure. Having given by force means having it accepted by force for one who does not wish to go far. Returning to the monastery means here, even without returning to the monastery, having taken the meal and later bringing it to the monastery to eat is permissible. In a single residence means even in a street, on one side of a row of houses. Even after designating means saying, “The lot meals have reached such and such a family.”
ID1136
212. Vāragāmeti atidūrattā vārena gantabbagāme. Saṭṭhito vā paṇṇāsato vāti daṇḍakammatthāya udakaghaṭaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Vihāravāroti sabbabhikkhūsu bhikkhāya gatesu vihārarakkhaṇavāro. Nesanti vihāravārikānaṃ. Phātikammamevāti vihārarakkhaṇakiccassa pahonakapaṭipādanameva. Dūrattā niggahetvāpi vārena gahetabbo gāmo vāragāmo. Vihāravāre niyuttā vihāravārikā, vārena vihārarakkhaṇakā. Aññathattanti pasādaññathattaṃ. Phātikammameva bhavantīti vihārarakkhaṇatthāya saṅghena dātabbā atirekalābhā honti. Ekasseva pāpuṇantīti divase divase ekekasseva pāpitānīti attho. Saṅghanavakena laddhakāleti divase divase ekekassa pāpitāni dve tīṇi ekacārikabhattāni teneva niyāmena attano pāpuṇanaṭṭhāne saṅghanavakena laddhakāle.
212. Vāragāme refers to a village to be reached by turns due to its great distance. Saṭṭhito vā paṇṇāsato vā is said with reference to a water pot for the purpose of stick-work. Vihāravāro means the turn to guard the monastery when all the monks have gone for alms. Nesaṃ refers to those assigned to the monastery turn. Phātikammameva means merely fulfilling the duty of guarding the monastery adequately. A village that, due to its distance, must be secured and taken by turns is a vāragāmo. Those appointed to the monastery turn are vihāravārikā, the guardians of the monastery by turns. Aññathattaṃ means a change in confidence. Phātikammameva bhavanti means that extra gains to be given by the Sangha for the sake of guarding the monastery arise. Ekasseva pāpuṇanti means they are allotted to just one person each day—this is the meaning. Saṅghanavakena laddhakāle means at the time they are received according to the order of seniority, when two or three single-round meals are allotted to one person each day in the place where they are due, at the time received by the order of seniority.
212. In a turn-village means in a village to be gone to in turns because it is very far. From sixty or fifty is said with reference to a water pot for punishment. The monastery turn means the turn to guard the monastery when all the bhikkhus have gone for alms. For them means for the monastery-duty bhikkhus. It is indeed a compensatory act means it is indeed a compensating action sufficient for the duty of guarding the monastery. A village that, because it is far, is to be taken in turns, even having forced [acceptance], is a turn-village. Those assigned to the monastery turn are monastery-duty bhikkhus, those who guard the monastery in turns. Otherwise means being otherwise in terms of faith. They become compensatory acts means they are extra gains to be given by the Sangha for guarding the monastery. They accrue to only one means they are made to accrue to only one each day. At the time received by the Sangha-newcomer means at the time received by the Sangha-newcomer in the place where two or three solely-taken meals, which are made to accrue to one each day, accrue to oneself in the same way.
212. A distant village means a village too far to go without interruption. Sixty or fifty refers to the water pot for the purpose of the staff punishment. Monastery duty means the duty of guarding the monastery when all the monks have gone for alms. They means the monastery duty monks. Only the duty means only the performance of the duty of guarding the monastery. A village too far to go without interruption is called a distant village. Those assigned to monastery duty are called monastery duty monks, those who guard the monastery by turns. Change means a change in faith. Only the duty remains means the extra gains given by the Saṅgha for guarding the monastery remain. Reaching only one means day by day, only one is assigned. When obtained by the Saṅgha’s new member means day by day, one or two or three single meals are assigned by the same rule to the place where the Saṅgha’s new member obtains it.
ID1137
Yassa kassaci sammukhībhūtassa pāpetvāti ettha “yebhuyyena ce bhikkhū bahisīmagatā honti, sammukhībhūtassa yassa kassaci pāpetabbaṃ sabhāgattā ekena laddhaṃ sabbesaṃ hoti, tasmimpi asati attano pāpetvā dātabba”nti gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. Rasasalākanti ucchurasasalākaṃ. Salākavasena pana gāhitattā na sāditabbāti idaṃ asāruppavasena vuttaṃ, na dhutaṅgabhedavasena. “Saṅghato nirāmisasalākā…pe… vaṭṭatiyevā”ti hi visuddhimagge (visuddhi. 1.26) vuttaṃ. Sāratthadīpaniyampi (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.325) – saṅghato nirāmisasalākāpi vihāre pakkabhattampi vaṭṭatiyevāti sādhāraṇaṃ katvā visuddhimagge (visuddhi. 1.26) vuttattā, “evaṃ gāhite sāditabbaṃ, evaṃ na sāditabba”nti visesetvā avuttattā ca “bhesajjādisalākāyo cettha kiñcāpi piṇḍapātikānampi vaṭṭanti, salākavasena pana gāhitattā na sāditabbā”ti ettha adhippāyo vīmaṃsitabbo. Yadi hi bhesajjādisalākā salākavasena gāhitā na sāditabbā siyā, “saṅghato nirāmisasalākā vaṭṭatiyevā”ti na vadeyya, “atirekalābho saṅghabhattaṃ uddesabhatta”ntiādivacanato (mahāva. 128) ca “atirekalābhaṃ paṭikkhipāmī”ti salākavasena gāhetabbaṃ bhattameva paṭikkhittaṃ, na bhesajjaṃ. Saṅghabhattādīni hi cuddasa bhattāniyeva tena na sāditabbānīti vuttāni. Khandhakabhāṇakānaṃ vā matena idha evaṃ vuttanti gahetabbanti vuttaṃ. Aggato dātabbā bhikkhā aggabhikkhā. Aggabhikkhāmattanti ekakaṭacchubhikkhāmattaṃ. Laddhā vā aladdhā vā svepi gaṇheyyāsīti laddhepi appamattatāya vuttaṃ. Tenāha “yāvadatthaṃ labhati…pe… alabhitvā sve gaṇheyyāsīti vattabbo”ti. Aggabhikkhamattanti hi ettha matta-saddo bahubhāvaṃ nivatteti.
Yassa kassaci sammukhībhūtassa pāpetvā—here it is stated in the commentaries: “If the majority of monks have gone outside the boundary, it should be allotted to anyone present, because due to their common status, what is received by one belongs to all; if even that one is absent, it should be allotted to oneself and given.” Rasasalāka refers to a stick for sugarcane juice. Salākavasena pana gāhitattā na sāditabbā—this is said in terms of what is unsuitable, not in terms of breaking an austerity. For it is stated in the Visuddhimagga (visuddhi. 1.26): “A non-food ticket from the Sangha… is indeed permissible.” In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.325) as well, it is said: “A non-food ticket from the Sangha and even cooked food in the monastery are indeed permissible,” because it is stated in common terms in the Visuddhimagga (visuddhi. 1.26), and since it is not specified as “if taken thus it should be accepted, if thus it should not,” the intent here in “though tickets for medicine and the like are permissible even for alms-food practitioners, they should not be accepted when taken by ticket” should be examined. For if tickets for medicine and the like, when taken by ticket, were not to be accepted, it would not say, “A non-food ticket from the Sangha is indeed permissible,” and from statements like “extra gains, Sangha meals, designated meals” (mahāva. 128), only the meal that must be refused when taken by ticket is rejected with “I refuse extra gains,” not medicine. For Sangha meals and the like, being fourteen types of meals, are said by him not to be accepted. Alternatively, it should be understood as stated here according to the opinion of the Khandhaka reciters. Alms given in priority are aggabhikkhā. Aggabhikkhāmattaṃ means just a single spoonful of alms. Laddhā vā aladdhā vā svepi gaṇheyyāsi—even if received, it is said for the sake of moderation. Hence it is said: “As much as he obtains… if he does not obtain it, he should take it tomorrow.” In aggabhikkhāmattaṃ, the word matta negates abundance.
Having made it accrue to anyone present – here, in the Gaṇṭhipada it is said, “If most of the bhikkhus have gone outside the boundary, it should be made to accrue to anyone present, because what is received by one is for all due to their commonality; even if he is not present, it should be made to accrue to oneself and be given.” Sugar lot means a sugar-cane lot. But because it is taken by way of lots, it should not be savored – this is said because it is unallowable, not because of breaking a dhutaṅga practice. For it is said in the Visuddhimagga (visuddhi. 1.26), “From the Sangha, even a non-food lot…etc… is indeed permissible.” Also, in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.325) – because it is said in the Visuddhimagga (visuddhi. 1.26), having made it general, that even a non-food lot from the Sangha is permissible, and also a cooked meal in the monastery, and because it is not said with a distinction, “Having taken thus, it should be savored; having taken thus, it should not be savored,” the meaning of “Here, although medicine and other lots are indeed permissible even for piṇḍapātikas, because they are taken by way of lots, they should not be savored” should be examined. If, indeed, a medicine or other lot taken by way of lots should not be savored, he would not say, “From the Sangha, even a non-food lot is indeed permissible,” and because of the statement, “Extra gain is a Sangha meal, a designated meal,” etc. (mahāva. 128), only a meal to be taken by way of lots is rejected, saying, “I reject extra gain,” not medicine. For the fourteen meals, such as Sangha meals and so on, are said by him to be unsavory. Or, it is said that this is stated here according to the opinion of the Khandhaka reciters. Alms to be given first are first alms. The amount of first alms means the amount of one ladleful of alms. Whether received or not received, you should take tomorrow as well – even if received, it is said because of the small amount. Therefore, he says, “He should be told, ‘You receive as much as you need…etc… if you do not receive, you should take tomorrow’.” For here, in the amount of first alms, the word amount excludes a large quantity.
To whoever is present means here, “If most monks have gone outside the boundary, it should be given to whoever is present, as what is obtained by one is obtained by all due to similarity. Even if none is present, it should be given after assigning it to oneself.” This is stated in the knot points. A sugarcane lot means a sugarcane stick. But because it is taken by lot, it should not be eaten means this is said in an improper manner, not as a distinction of ascetic practices. For it is stated in the Visuddhimagga (Visuddhi. 1.26): “Even a non-material lot from the Saṅgha… is permissible.” Also, in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 3.325): “Even a non-material lot from the Saṅgha is permissible in the monastery for cooked food.” Because it is stated in the Visuddhimagga (Visuddhi. 1.26) after making it common, and because it is not stated, “It should be eaten in this way, not in that way,” the meaning here should be considered. If medicine lots, etc., taken by lot, should not be eaten, it would not be said, “Even a non-material lot from the Saṅgha is permissible,” nor would it be said, “I refuse the extra gain of Saṅgha meal, designated meal,” etc., and only the meal taken by lot would be refused, not the medicine. For the fourteen meals, including the Saṅgha meal, are the ones that should not be eaten. According to the Khandhakabhāṇakas, it is said here. The alms given first are called first alms. The measure of first alms means the measure of a single ladle of alms. Whether obtained or not, one may take it the next day means even if obtained, it is said out of heedlessness. Therefore, it is said: “As much as one obtains… if not obtained, one may take it the next day.” The measure of first alms here means the word measure negates abundance.
ID1138
Salākabhattaṃ nāma vihāreyeva uddisīyati vihārameva sandhāya dīyamānattāti āha “vihāre apāpitaṃ panā”tiādi. Tatra āsanasālāyāti tasmiṃ gāme āsanasālāya. Vihāraṃ ānetvā gāhetabbanti tathā vatvā tasmiṃ divase dinnabhattaṃ vihārameva ānetvā ṭhitikāya gāhetabbaṃ. Tatthāti tasmiṃ disābhāge. Taṃ gahetvāti taṃ vāragāmasalākaṃ attanā gahetvā. Tenāti yo attano pattavāragāme salākaṃ disāgamikassa adāsi, tena. Anatikkamanteyeva tasmiṃ tassa salākā gāhetabbāti yasmā upacārasīmaṭṭhasseva salākā pāpuṇāti, tasmā tasmiṃ disaṃgamike upacārasīmaṃ anatikkanteyeva tassa disaṃgamikassa pattasalākā attano pāpetvā gāhetabbā.
A ticket-meal is designated only in the monastery and given with reference to the monastery itself; thus it says “vihāre apāpitaṃ pana” and so forth. Tatra āsanasālāya means in the dining hall in that village. Vihāraṃ ānetvā gāhetabbaṃ means, having instructed thus, the meal given on that day should be brought to the monastery and taken by agreement. Tattha means in that direction. Taṃ gahetvā means having taken that village-turn ticket oneself. Tena refers to the one who gave the village-turn ticket to the direction-goer. Anatikkamanteyeva tasmiṃ tassa salākā gāhetabbā—since the ticket reaches only one standing within the surrounding boundary, therefore, while that direction-goer has not yet crossed the surrounding boundary, the ticket due to that direction-goer should be allotted to oneself and taken.
He says, “But what has not been made to accrue in the monastery…” and so on, because a lot meal is designated in the monastery itself and is given with reference to the monastery itself. In the seating hall there means in the seating hall in that village. It should be brought to the monastery and taken means, having said thus, the meal given on that day should be brought to the monastery itself and taken according to the ṭhitika. There means in that direction. Having taken that means having taken that turn-village lot oneself. By him means by the one who gave his lot in the turn-village to the one going in that direction. Before he crosses over, that lot of his should be taken – because the lot accrues only to one who is within the boundary of the upacāra, therefore, before that one going in that direction crosses over the boundary of the upacāra, that lot of the one going in that direction should be made to accrue to oneself and be taken.
The lot meal is designated in the monastery itself, as it is given with reference to the monastery, hence it is said: “But not assigned in the monastery…” In the assembly hall means in the assembly hall of that village. Having brought it to the monastery, it should be taken means having said so, the meal given on that day should be brought to the monastery and taken as a fixed portion. There means in that direction. Having taken it means having taken that distant village lot oneself. By that means by the one who gave his own lot to the direction-bound monk. Without crossing the boundary, the lot should be taken means since the lot reaches only within the vicinity boundary, without crossing the vicinity boundary, the lot of the direction-bound monk should be assigned to oneself and taken.
ID1139
Devasikaṃ pāpetabbāti upacārasīmāyaṃ ṭhitassa yassa kassaci vassaggena pāpetabbā. Evaṃ etesu anāgatesu āsannavihāre bhikkhūnaṃ bhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati, itarathā saṅghikaṃ hoti. Anāgatadivaseti ettha kathaṃ tesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ āgatānāgatabhāvo viññāyatīti ce? Yasmā tato tato āgatā bhikkhū tasmiṃ gāme āsanasālāya sannipatanti, tasmā tesaṃ āgatānāgatabhāvo sakkā viññātuṃ. Amhākaṃ gocaragāmeti salākabhattadāyakānaṃ gāme. Bhuñjituṃ āgacchantīti “mahāthero ekakova vihāre ohīno avassaṃ sabbasalākā attano pāpetvā ṭhito”ti maññamānā āgacchanti.
Devasikaṃ pāpetabbā means it should be allotted daily to anyone standing within the surrounding boundary, according to seniority. Thus, when they have not arrived, it is permissible for the monks in a nearby monastery to partake; otherwise, it becomes communal property of the Sangha. Anāgatadivase—here, how is it known whether those monks have arrived or not? Since monks coming from various places gather in the dining hall in that village, their arrival or non-arrival can be known. Amhākaṃ gocaragāme means in the alms-range village of those who give ticket-meals. Bhuñjituṃ āgacchanti means they come to partake, thinking, “The great elder, left alone in the monastery, must have allotted all the tickets to himself.”
It should be made to accrue daily means it should be made to accrue by seniority to anyone who is situated within the boundary of the upacāra. In this way, it is permissible for bhikkhus in a nearby monastery who have not yet come to partake; otherwise, it belongs to the Sangha. On a day that has not yet come – here, how is the arrival and non-arrival of those bhikkhus known? Because bhikkhus who have come from here and there assemble in the seating hall in that village, therefore, their arrival and non-arrival can be known. In our alms-resort village means in the village of the lot-meal donors. They come to partake means they come, thinking, “The great elder is the only one left behind in the monastery; surely he has made all the lots accrue to himself and is waiting.”
Daily assignment means it should be assigned to whoever is within the vicinity boundary at the end of the rains. Thus, when these are not yet assigned, it is permissible for the monks in the nearby monastery to eat; otherwise, it becomes Saṅgha property. On the future day means here, how is the coming and going of those monks known? Since monks coming from various places gather in the assembly hall of that village, their coming and going can be known. In our alms village means in the village of the lot meal donors. They come to eat means thinking, “The elder monk is alone in the monastery, surely all the lots have been assigned to him,” they come.
ID1140
Salākabhattakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.
The commentary on the discussion of ticket-meals is concluded.
The explanation of the discourse on the lot meal is concluded.
The explanation on the lot meal is concluded.
ID1141
ID1142
213. Abhilakkhitesu catūsu pakkhadivasesu dātabbaṃ bhattaṃ pakkhikaṃ. Abhilakkhitesūti ettha abhīti upasāramattaṃ, lakkhaṇiyesuiccevattho, uposathasamādānadhammassavanapūjāsakkārādikaraṇatthaṃ lakkhitabbesu sallakkhetabbesu upalakkhetabbesūti vuttaṃ hoti. Sve pakkhoti ajjapakkhikaṃ na gāhetabbanti aṭṭhamiyā bhuñjitabbaṃ, sattamiyā bhuñjanatthāya na gāhetabbaṃ, dāyakehi niyamitadivaseneva gāhetabbanti attho. Tenāha “sace panā”tiādi. Sve lūkhanti ajja āvāhamaṅgalādikaraṇato atipaṇītaṃ bhojanaṃ karīyati, sve tathā na bhavissati, ajjeva bhikkhū bhojessāmāti adhippāyo. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.325) pana aññathā vuttaṃ. Pakkhikabhattato uposathikabhattassa bhedaṃ dassento āha “uposathaṅgāni samādiyitvā”tiādi. Uposathe dātabbaṃ bhattaṃ uposathikaṃ.
213. Food given on the four specified fortnightly days is pakkhika. Specified—here, abhī merely means an addition; it denotes those marked, that is, those to be noted or observed for the purpose of undertaking Uposatha, listening to the Dhamma, making offerings, and so forth. Tomorrow is a fortnightly day, so today’s pakkhika should not be taken means that what is to be eaten on the eighth should not be taken for eating on the seventh; it should be taken only on the day specified by the donors. Hence it says, “sace panā” and so forth. Tomorrow it is coarse means that today, due to events like a wedding, very refined food is prepared, but tomorrow it will not be so, with the intention, “Let us feed the bhikkhus today.” However, in Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.325), it is stated differently. Showing the distinction between pakkhikabhatta and uposathikabhatta, it says, “Having undertaken the Uposatha factors” and so forth. Food given on the Uposatha day is uposathika.
213. The food to be given on the four appointed days of the fortnight is pakkhika (fortnightly). In the phrase “on the appointed days” (abhilakkhitesu), abhi has the sense of proximity; the meaning is simply on days that are marked, that is to say, on days that are marked, designated, and determined for the purpose of undertaking the uposatha, listening to the Dhamma, and performing acts of reverence and honor. Tomorrow is the fortnight, therefore, today’s fortnightly offering should not be accepted means that one should eat on the eighth day, one should not accept for the purpose of eating on the seventh day; the meaning is one should accept only on the day specified by the donors. Therefore, he said, “but if” and so forth. Tomorrow coarse means today, because of performing such things as marriage ceremonies, very fine food is prepared; tomorrow that will not be the case, the intention is to feed the monks today itself. In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.325), however, it is stated otherwise. Showing the difference between the fortnightly food and the uposatha food, he says, “having undertaken the uposatha observances” and so on. The food to be given on the uposatha is uposathika.
213. On the four designated days of the fortnight, the meal to be given is called pakkhikaṃ (fortnightly meal). Abhilakkhitesūti: Here, abhī is merely a prefix, meaning “designated” or “marked.” It refers to the days marked for observing the Uposatha, listening to the Dhamma, and performing acts of reverence. These days are to be noted, observed, and marked. Sve pakkhoti ajjapakkhikaṃ na gāhetabbanti: The meal should not be accepted on the seventh day for the purpose of eating on the eighth day. It should only be accepted on the day designated by the donors. Hence, it is said, “If, however…” etc. Sve lūkhanti: Today, due to invitations and auspicious ceremonies, excellent food is prepared, but tomorrow it will not be so. The intention is to feed the bhikkhus today. The Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 3.325) explains this differently. To distinguish the fortnightly meal from the Uposatha meal, it is said, “Having undertaken the Uposatha factors…” etc. The meal to be given on the Uposatha day is called uposathikaṃ (Uposatha meal).
ID1143
Pakkhikabhattādikathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.
The explanation of the discussion on fortnightly meals and so forth is concluded.
The explanation of the discourse on fortnightly food and other matters is finished.
The explanation of the fortnightly meal and related topics is concluded.
ID1144
ID1145
214. Nibandhāpitanti “asukavihāre āgantukā bhuñjantū”ti niyamitaṃ. Gamiko āgantukabhattampīti gāmantarato āgantvā avūpasantena gamikacittena vasitvā puna aññattha gacchantaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, āvāsikassa pana gantukāmassa gamikabhattameva labbhati. “Lesaṃ oḍḍetvā”ti vuttattā lesābhāvena yāva gamanaparibandho vigacchati, tāva bhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatīti ñāpitanti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
214. Designated means specified as, “Let visitors eat in such-and-such a monastery.” A traveler also gets visitor food refers to one who, having come from another village and stayed with an uncalmed intention to travel, then goes elsewhere; but for a resident intending to travel, only traveler’s food is obtained. Because it says, “Having set aside a pretext”, it should be understood as indicating that it is permissible to partake until the constraint of travel is removed, due to the absence of pretext.
214. Nibandhāpita means arranged, specifying, “Let the newcomers eat in such and such a monastery.” Even the food for a visitor is for a newcomer is said with reference to one who, having come from another village, having stayed with the intention to depart without being at peace, and then goes elsewhere again; but for a resident who wishes to depart, only the food for departure is obtained. Because it is said, “having made an excuse,” it should be understood that it is shown that it is allowable to eat because of the absence of excuse as long as the obstacle to departure disappears.
214. Nibandhāpitanti: “Let the visitors eat in such-and-such monastery,” thus it is designated. Gamiko āgantukabhattampīti: This refers to one who comes from another village, stays with a mind inclined to travel, and then goes elsewhere. For a resident bhikkhu who wishes to travel, only the traveler’s meal is obtained. “Lesaṃ oḍḍetvā”ti: Because it is said, “Having removed the residue,” it is understood that as long as the hindrance to travel remains, it is permissible to eat.
ID1146
ID1147
215. Taṇḍulādīni pesenti…pe… vaṭṭatīti abhihaṭabhikkhattā vaṭṭati.
215. They send rice and so forth… it is permissible—it is permissible because it is brought for the bhikkhus.
215. They send rice and so forth… it is allowable means it is allowable because it is food that has been brought.
215. Taṇḍulādīni pesenti…pe… vaṭṭatīti: It is permissible to receive almsfood that has been brought.
ID1148
216. Tathā paṭiggahitattāti bhikkhānāmena paṭiggahitattā. Pattaṃ pūretvā thaketvā dinnanti “guḷakabhattaṃ demā”ti dinnaṃ. Sesaṃ suviññeyyameva.
216. Because it was received as such means because it was received in the name of the bhikkhus. Given after filling and pressing down the bowl means given as “molasses food.” The rest is easily understood.
216. Because it was accepted as such means because it was accepted in the name of the monks. Having filled the bowl, having covered it, it was given means it was given saying, “We give jaggery food.” The rest is easily understood.
216. Tathā paṭiggahitattāti: Because it has been received in the name of the bhikkhus. Pattaṃ pūretvā thaketvā dinnanti: Given as “We give molasses meal.” The rest is easily understood.
ID1149
Piṇḍapātabhājanakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.
The explanation of the discussion on the division of alms bowls is concluded.
The explanation of the discourse on the distribution of almsfood is finished.
The explanation of the almsbowl and related topics is concluded.
ID1150
ID1151
217. Ito paraṃ paccayānukkamena senāsanabhājanakathāya vattabbāyapi tassā mahāvisayattā, gilānapaccayabhājanīyakathāya pana appavisayattā, piṇḍapātabhājanīyakathāya anulomattā ca tadanantaraṃ taṃ dassetumāha “gilānapaccayabhājanīyaṃ panā”tiādi. Tattha rājarājamahāmattāti upalakkhaṇamattamevetaṃ. Brāhmaṇamahāsālagahapatimahāsālādayopi evaṃ karontiyeva. Ghaṇṭiṃ paharitvātiādi heṭṭhā vuttanayattā ca pākaṭattā ca suviññeyyameva. Upacārasīmaṃ…pe… bhājetabbanti idaṃ saṅghaṃ uddissa dinnattā vuttaṃ. Kumbhaṃ pana āvajjetvāti kumbhaṃ disāmukhaṃ katvā. Sace thinaṃ sappi hotīti kakkhaḷaṃ sappi hoti. Thokaṃ thokampi pāpetuṃ vaṭṭatīti evaṃ kate ṭhitikāpi tiṭṭhati. Siṅgiveramaricādibhesajjampi avasesapattathālakādisamaṇaparikkhāropīti iminā na kevalaṃ bhesajjameva gilānapaccayo hoti, atha kho avasesaparikkhāropi gilānapaccaye antogadhoyevāti dasseti.
217. From here onwards, although the discussion on the division of lodgings should be addressed due to the order of requisites, because its scope is vast, and because the discussion on requisites for the sick has a smaller scope and follows naturally from the discussion on alms bowls, it is presented next, beginning with “gilānapaccayabhājanīyaṃ panā” and so forth. Therein, kings and royal ministers is merely an example; brahmins, wealthy householders, and great householders also do likewise. Striking a bell and so forth is easily understood due to the method explained earlier and its obviousness. Within the boundary… it should be divided—this is said because it was given with the Saṅgha in mind. Having directed the pot means turning the pot toward the direction. If there is solid ghee means if the ghee is hard. It is permissible to distribute even a little at a time—when done this way, the fixed rule remains intact. Even medicine like ginger and pepper, and other remaining equipment like bowls—this shows that not only medicine but also the remaining equipment is included among the requisites for the sick.
217. From here on, although according to the sequence of requisites, the discourse on the distribution of lodgings should be stated, because of its vast scope, and because the discourse on the distribution of requisites for the sick is of small scope and is in conformity with the discourse on the distribution of almsfood, after that, in order to show that, he said, “but the distribution of requisites for the sick” and so on. There, kings and great ministers is merely an illustration. Great Brahmin householders, great wealthy householders, and so on, also do thus. Having struck the bell, and so forth, is easily understood because it has been stated before and is evident. The boundary of the vicinity… should be distributed is said because it was given with reference to the Sangha. But having turned the pot means having made the pot face the directions. If the ghee is thick means the ghee is hard. Even a little bit is allowable to be made to flow; when this is done, the stability also remains. Even medicines such as ginger and pepper, and also the remaining monastic requisites such as bowls and cloths, by this, he shows that not only medicine is a requisite for the sick, but also the remaining requisites are included in the requisites for the sick.
217. From here onwards, although the discussion on lodging and requisites should follow in order, due to its extensive scope, and because the discussion on requisites for the sick is of limited scope, and because it follows naturally after the discussion on almsbowls, it is said, “Now, regarding the requisites for the sick…” etc. Here, rājarājamahāmattāti: This is merely an example. Brahmin magnates and wealthy householders also act similarly. Ghaṇṭiṃ paharitvāti: This is easily understood from what has been said before and its clarity. Upacārasīmaṃ…pe… bhājetabbanti: This is said because it is given for the Saṅgha. Kumbhaṃ pana āvajjetvāti: Turning the pot towards the direction. Sace thinaṃ sappi hotīti: If the ghee is hard. Thokaṃ thokampi pāpetuṃ vaṭṭatīti: Even if done little by little, it remains stable. Siṅgiveramaricādibhesajjampi avasesapattathālakādisamaṇaparikkhāropīti: This shows that not only medicine but also other requisites like bowls and covers are included in the requisites for the sick.
ID1152
Gilānapaccayabhājanakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.
The explanation of the discussion on the division of requisites for the sick is concluded.
The explanation of the discourse on the distribution of requisites for the sick is finished.
The explanation of the requisites for the sick is concluded.
ID1153
ID1154
218. Senāsanabhājanakathāyaṃ senāsanaggāhe vinicchayoti senāsanabhājanamevāha. Tattha utukāle senāsanaggāho ca vassāvāse senāsanaggāho cāti kālavasena senāsanaggāho nāma duvidho hotīti yojanā. Tattha utukāleti hemantagimhānautukāle. Vassāvāseti vassānakāle. Bhikkhuṃ uṭṭhāpetvā senāsanaṃ dātabbaṃ, akālo nāma natthi dāyakehi “āgatānāgatassa cātuddisassa saṅghassa dammī”ti dinnasaṅghikasenāsanattā. Ekekaṃ pariveṇanti ekekassa bhikkhussa ekekaṃ pariveṇaṃ. Tatthāti tasmiṃ laddhapariveṇe. Dīghasālāti caṅkamanasālā. Maṇḍalamāḷoti upaṭṭhānasālā. Anudahatīti pīḷeti. Adātuṃ na labhatīti iminā sañcicca adentassa paṭibāhane pavisanato dukkaṭanti dīpeti. Jambudīpe panāti ariyadese bhikkhū sandhāya vuttaṃ. Te kira tathā paññāpenti.
218. In the discussion on the division of lodgings, the decision regarding the assignment of lodgings refers to the division of lodgings itself. Therein, the assignment of lodgings is twofold by time: the assignment of lodgings in the regular season and the assignment of lodgings during the rains retreat—this is the connection. Therein, in the regular season means in the winter, summer, or rainy seasons. During the rains retreat means during the rainy season. Lodgings should be given by displacing a bhikkhu; there is no such thing as an unsuitable time because the lodgings are saṅghika, given by donors with the words, “I give to the Saṅgha of the four directions, whether present or yet to come.” One courtyard each means one courtyard for each bhikkhu. Therein means in that obtained courtyard. Long hall means a walking hall. Circular hall means an attendance hall. He oppresses means he causes distress. He cannot refuse to give—this indicates that deliberately not giving when obstructed from entering incurs a dukkaṭa offense. In Jambudīpa, however—this is said with reference to bhikkhus in the noble land; they reportedly arrange it thus.
218. In the discourse on the distribution of lodgings, the determination in the taking of lodgings means he is speaking about the distribution of lodgings itself. There, the taking of lodgings during the season, and the taking of lodgings during the rains residence, thus by way of the time, the taking of lodgings is of two kinds; this is the connection. Here, during the season means during the seasons of winter and summer. During the rains residence means during the rainy season. A lodging should be given having roused a monk; there is no such thing as an inappropriate time because it is a Sangha lodging given by donors saying, “I give to the Sangha of the four directions, those who have come and those who will come.” Each dwelling individually means one dwelling for each monk. There, in that dwelling that has been obtained. A long hall means a walking meditation hall. A circular pavilion means an attendance hall. It oppresses means it torments. One is not allowed to not give, by this, he shows that for one who knowingly does not give, there is a dukkaṭa offense from obstructing entrance into the refuge. But in Jambudīpa is said with reference to the monks in the noble land. It seems they decide thus.
218. In the discussion on lodging and requisites, senāsanaggāhe vinicchayoti: This refers to the assignment of lodgings. Here, the assignment of lodgings is of two kinds: seasonal and during the rains. Utukāleti: During the winter and summer seasons. Vassāvāseti: During the rainy season. A bhikkhu should be given lodging after being asked to rise. There is no inappropriate time for donors who say, “We give to the Saṅgha of the four directions, present and future.” Ekekaṃ pariveṇanti: Each bhikkhu should be given a separate cell. Tatthāti: In that assigned cell. Dīghasālāti: A long hall for walking. Maṇḍalamāḷoti: A circular hall for assembly. Anudahatīti: Harasses. Adātuṃ na labhatīti: This indicates that intentionally not giving after entering is an offense of wrong conduct. Jambudīpe panāti: This refers to bhikkhus in the noble land. They are said to act in this way.
ID1155
219. Na gocaragāmo ghaṭṭetabboti vuttamevatthaṃ vibhāveti “na tattha manussā vattabbā”tiādinā. Vitakkaṃ chinditvāti “iminā nīhārena gacchantaṃ disvā nivāretvā paccaye dassantī”ti evarūpaṃ vitakkaṃ anuppādetvā. Tesu ce ekoti tesu manussesu eko paṇḍitapuriso. Bhaṇḍapaṭicchādananti paṭicchādanabhaṇḍaṃ, sarīrapaṭicchādanaṃ cīvaranti attho. Suddhacittattāva anavajjanti idaṃ pucchitakkhaṇe kāraṇācikkhaṇaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ na hoti asuddhacittassapi pucchitapañhavissajjane dosābhāvā. Evaṃ pana gate maṃ pucchissantīti saññāya agamanaṃ sandhāya vuttanti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
219. The alms village should not be disturbed—it clarifies this very meaning with “People there should not be spoken to” and so forth. Cutting off thoughts means not giving rise to thoughts like, “Seeing him go this way, they will stop him and offer requisites.” If one of them means if one of those people is a wise man. Covering goods means goods for covering, i.e., robes for covering the body. It is blameless simply due to purity of mind—this is said with reference to stating the reason at the moment of questioning, not because there is no fault in answering a question even with an impure mind. It should be understood as said with reference to not going there intentionally, thinking, “They will ask me.”
219. The village for almsround should not be disturbed; clarifying the stated meaning, he says, “people there should not be told” and so on. Having cut off thought means not giving rise to a thought of this sort: “Having seen him going by this means, having stopped him, they will give him the requisites.” If one among them, if among those people, one wise person. Covering of goods means goods for covering, covering for the body, meaning robes. Because of pure intention alone, it is blameless is said with reference to explaining the reason at the moment of being asked; it is not that even for one with an impure intention there is no fault in answering a question that has been asked. But it should be understood that it is said with reference to not going, thinking, “They will ask me.”
219. Na gocaragāmo ghaṭṭetabboti: The meaning is explained by “No one should be spoken to there…” etc. Vitakkaṃ chinditvāti: Not generating thoughts like, “Seeing this person going with a present, I will stop him and show him the requisites.” Tesu ce ekoti: Among those people, if there is one wise person. Bhaṇḍapaṭicchādananti: Covering items, meaning robes for covering the body. Suddhacittattāva anavajjanti: This is said with reference to the moment of questioning, not because a person with an impure mind would be faultless in answering questions. However, it should be understood that this refers to not going out of fear of being questioned.
ID1156
Paṭijaggitabbānīti khaṇḍaphullābhisaṅkharaṇasammajjanādīhi paṭijaggitabbāni. Muṇḍavedikāyāti cetiyassa hammiyavedikāya ghaṭākārassa upari caturassavedikāya. Kattha pucchitabbanti pucchāya yato pakatiyā labbhati, tattha pucchitabbanti vissajjanā. Kasmā pucchitabbantiādi yato pakatiyā labbhati, tatthāpi pucchanassa kāraṇasandassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Paṭikkammāti vihārato apasakkitvā. Tamatthaṃ dassento “yojanadviyojanantare hotī”ti āha. Upanikkhepanti khettaṃ vā nāḷikerādiārāmaṃ vā kahāpaṇādīni vā ārāmikānaṃ niyyātetvā “ito uppannā vaḍḍhi vassāvāsikatthāya hotū”ti dinnaṃ. Vattaṃ katvāti tasmiṃ senāsane kattabbavattaṃ katvā. Iti saddhādeyyeti evaṃ heṭṭhā vuttanayena saddhāya dātabbe vassāvāsikalābhavisayeti attho.
To be maintained means to be maintained by repairing breaches, sweeping, and so forth. On a bald platform means on the square platform above the dome-shaped structure of a cetiya. Where should it be asked?—the answer is that it should be asked where it is naturally available. Why should it be asked? and so forth is said to show the reason for asking even where it is naturally available. Having withdrawn means having stepped back from the monastery. Showing that meaning, it says, “It is one or two yojanas away”. Deposit means a field, a coconut grove, or coins entrusted to caretakers with the words, “Let the profit arising from this be for the rains retreat.” Having performed the duties means having performed the duties to be done in that lodging. Thus in the gift of faith means that, in the manner explained below, it pertains to the sphere of gain for the rains retreat to be given out of faith.
Should be looked after means should be looked after by repairing cracks and breaks, sweeping, and so on. On the bare platform means on the four-cornered platform above the bell-shaped dome of the cetiya. Where should it be asked?; the answer is that it should be asked where it is normally available. Why should it be asked?, and so on, is said to show the reason for asking even where it is normally available. Having stepped back means having withdrawn from the monastery. Explaining that meaning, he says, “it is one or two yojanas away.” Deposit means having entrusted a field, or an orchard of coconut trees, and so on, or money, and so on, to the gardeners, it is given, saying, “Let the income produced from this be for the rains residence.” Having performed the duty means having performed the duty to be done in that lodging. Thus in the gift of faith means in this way, as stated before, in regard to the benefit of the rains residence to be given out of faith; this is the meaning.
Paṭijaggitabbānīti: They should be cared for by repairing, sweeping, etc. Muṇḍavedikāyāti: The platform of a shrine, the upper platform of a cetiya. Kattha pucchitabbanti: Questions should be asked where it is customary to obtain. Kasmā pucchitabbanti: This is said to show the reason for asking. Paṭikkammāti: Moving away from the monastery. To explain this, it is said, “At a distance of one or two yojanas…” Upanikkhepanti: A field, coconut grove, or money given to the monastery workers, saying, “Let the income from this be for the rainy season.” Vattaṃ katvāti: Having performed the duties in that lodging. Iti saddhādeyyeti: Thus, as explained above, it should be given out of faith for the purpose of obtaining the rainy season residence.
ID1157
Vatthu panāti tatruppāde uppannarūpiyaṃ, tañca “tato catupaccayaṃ paribhuñjathā”ti dinnakhettādito uppannattā kappiyakārakānaṃ hatthe “kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ paribhuñjathā”ti dāyakehi dinnavatthusadisaṃ hotīti āha “kappiyakārakānañhī”tiādi. Saṅghasuṭṭhutāyāti saṅghassa hitāya . Puggalavaseneva kātabbanti parato vakkhamānanayena bhikkhū cīvarena kilamanti, ettakaṃ nāma taṇḍulabhāgaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ cīvaraṃ kātuṃ ruccatītiādinā puggalaparāmāsavaseneva kātabbaṃ, “saṅgho cīvarena kilamatī”tiādinā pana saṅghaparāmāsavasena na kātabbaṃ. Kappiyabhaṇḍavasenāti sāmaññato vuttamevatthaṃ vibhāvetuṃ “cīvarataṇḍulādivaseneva cā”ti vuttaṃ. Ca-kāro cettha panasaddatthe vattati, na samuccayattheti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Puggalavaseneva kappiyabhaṇḍavasena ca apalokanappakāraṃ dassetuṃ “taṃ pana evaṃ kattabba”ntiādi vuttaṃ.
The land, however—the material wealth arising from it, since it was given with the words, “Partake of the four requisites from this,” arising from the given field and so forth, is like goods given into the hands of lawful caretakers by donors with the words, “Partake of permissible goods,” thus it says, “kappiyakārakānañhī” and so forth. For the Saṅgha’s benefit means for the welfare of the Saṅgha. To be done only by individuals means it should be done only by reference to individuals in the manner to be explained later—namely, “The bhikkhus are troubled with robes; it is pleasing to make robes for the bhikkhus with this amount of rice,” and so on—not by reference to the Saṅgha with statements like, “The Saṅgha is troubled with robes.” By permissible goods—to clarify this general statement, it says, “cīvarataṇḍulādivaseneva cā”. Here, the particle ca is used in the sense of “only,” not in the sense of accumulation—this should be understood. To show the method of doing it without formal agreement, it says, “taṃ pana evaṃ kattabba” and so forth.
But the goods means the material produced from it, and that is similar to the goods given by the donors into the hands of those who make things allowable, saying, “Consume the allowable goods,” because it has been produced from the field and so on that was given saying, “Consume the four requisites from that,” therefore he said, “of those who make things allowable” and so on. For the well-being of the Sangha means for the benefit of the Sangha. It should be done only according to the individual means it should be done only with reference to the individual, in the way that will be stated later, “the monks are being troubled by robes,” “such and such amount of rice is agreeable for making robes for the monks,” and so on; but it should not be done with reference to the Sangha, saying, “the Sangha is being troubled by robes,” and so on. By way of allowable goods; to clarify the meaning stated generally, it is said, “by way of robes, rice, and so on.” Here the word ca (and) is in the meaning of the word “but” (pana), it should be understood that it is not in the sense of conjunction. To show the method of declaring only according to the individual and by way of allowable goods, it is said, “but that should be done thus” and so on.
Vatthu panāti: The property arising from that, such as money, and since it arises from the given field, etc., it is like the property given by donors, saying, “Use it for the four requisites.” Saṅghasuṭṭhutāyāti: For the benefit of the Saṅgha. Puggalavaseneva kātabbanti: It should be done according to individual judgment, not by collective decision. Kappiyabhaṇḍavasenāti: This is explained by “With robes, rice, etc.” The word ca here is used in the sense of emphasis, not in the sense of conjunction. To show the manner of consultation, it is said, “This should be done thus…” etc.
ID1158
Cīvarapaccayaṃ sallakkhetvāti saddhādeyyatatruppādavasena tasmiṃ vassāvāse labbhamānacīvarasaṅkhātaṃ paccayaṃ “ettaka”nti paricchinditvā. Senāsanassāti senāsanaggāhāpaṇassa. Vuttanti mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ. Kasmā evaṃ vuttanti āha “evañhī”tiādi, senāsanaggāhāpakassa attanāva attano gahaṇaṃ asāruppaṃ, tasmā ubho aññamaññaṃ gāhessantīti adhippāyo. Sammatasenāsanaggāhāpakassa āṇattiyā aññena gahitopi gāho ruhatiyevāti veditabbaṃ. Aṭṭhapi soḷasapi jane sammannituṃ vaṭṭatīti visuṃ visuṃ sammannituṃ vaṭṭati, udāhu ekatoti? Ekatopi vaṭṭati. Ekakammavācāya sabbepi ekato sammannituṃ vaṭṭati. Niggahakammameva hi saṅgho saṅghassa na karoti. Sammutidānaṃ pana bahūnampi ekato kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Teneva sattasatikakkhandhake ubbāhikasammutiyaṃ aṭṭhapi janā ekato sammatāti. Āsanagharanti paṭimāgharaṃ. Maggoti upacārasīmabbhantaragate gāmābhimukhamagge katasālā vuccati, evaṃ pokkharaṇirukkhamūlādīsupi. Rukkhamūlādayo channā kavāṭabaddhāva senāsanaṃ. Ito parāni suviññeyyāni.
Having assessed the requisite of robes means determining the requisite called robes obtainable in that rains retreat through the gift of faith and its proceeds, fixing it as “this much.” Of the lodging assigner means of the one who assigns lodgings. It is said means it is said in the great commentary. Why is it said thus? It says, “evañhī” and so forth—the intent is that it is improper for the lodging assigner to take it himself, so both should assign it to each other. It should be understood that even if another takes it by the order of the duly appointed lodging assigner, that taking is valid. It is permissible to appoint eight or sixteen people—is it permissible to appoint them separately or as a group? It is permissible as a group. It is permissible to appoint all of them together with a single motion. For the Saṅgha does not impose a penalty on the Saṅgha itself. However, it is permissible to appoint several together. Indeed, in the Sattasatikakkhandhaka, in the appointment of adjudicators, eight people are appointed together.
Having considered the robe requisite means having determined the amount of robe requisite, that is to be obtained during that rains residence by way of the gift of faith and its proceeds, saying “this much”. Of the lodging means of the declarer of the taking of lodgings. It is said means it is said in the Great Commentary. Why is it said thus?, he says “for thus” and so on; for the declarer of the taking of lodgings to take for himself by himself is not proper, therefore the intention is that both will take for each other. It should be understood that even a taking taken by another by the command of the appointed lodging-taker grows. It is allowable to appoint eight or sixteen people; is it allowable to appoint them separately, or together? It is allowable together. It is allowable to appoint all of them together with one kammavācā. The Sangha indeed does not perform an act of censure for the Sangha. But it is allowable to do the giving of an appointment together for many. Therefore, in the Sattasatikakkhandhaka, in the ubbāhikā appointment, eight people were appointed together. Sitting place means the image house. The path means the hall made on the path within the boundary of the vicinity facing the village; thus also at the foot of a pond, tree, and so on. The foot of a tree and so on, covered and enclosed with a door, is a lodging. The rest from here on is easily understood.
Cīvarapaccayaṃ sallakkhetvāti: Having assessed the robe requisites arising from faith in that rainy season residence, determining, “This much.” Senāsanassāti: The assignment of lodging. Vuttanti: As stated in the Mahā Aṭṭhakathā. Why is it said thus? It is explained, “For thus…” etc. It is inappropriate for the assigner of lodgings to assign to himself, so both should assign to each other. It should be understood that even if assigned by another, the assignment is valid if done by the authorized assigner. Aṭṭhapi soḷasapi jane sammannituṃ vaṭṭatīti: It is permissible to appoint eight or sixteen people separately or together. For the Saṅgha does not perform disciplinary actions against itself. However, the appointment of many can be done together. Hence, in the Sattasatikakkhandhaka, eight people are appointed together for the Ubbāhika committee. Āsanagharanti: The image house. Maggoti: The path within the boundary leading towards the village, with a hall built, and similarly at lotus ponds, tree roots, etc. Tree roots, etc., when covered and enclosed, are considered lodgings. The rest is easily understood.
ID1159
220. Mahālābhapariveṇakathāyaṃ labhantīti tatra vāsino bhikkhū labhanti. Vijaṭetvāti ekekassa pahonakappamāṇena viyojetvā. Āvāsesūti senāsanesu. Pakkhipitvāti ettha pakkhipanaṃ nāma tesu vasantānaṃ ito uppannavassāvāsikadānaṃ. Pavisitabbanti aññehi bhikkhūhi tasmiṃ mahālābhe pariveṇe vasitvā cetiye vattaṃ katvāva lābho gahetabboti adhippāyo.
220. In the discussion on courtyards with great gain, they receive means the bhikkhus residing there receive it. Having separated means separating it into amounts sufficient for each individual. In residences means in lodgings. Having included—here, inclusion means giving the rains retreat gains arising from it to those residing there. It should be entered—the intent is that other bhikkhus should reside in that courtyard of great gain, perform duties at the cetiya, and only then take the gain.
220. In the discourse on the dwelling with great gain, they obtain means the monks dwelling there obtain. Having untangled means having allocated according to the amount sufficient for each one. In the dwellings, in the lodgings. Having placed; here placing means the giving of the rains residence income produced from there to those dwelling in them. Should be entered; the meaning is that other monks, having dwelt in that dwelling with great gain, having performed the duty at the cetiya, should take the gain.
220. In the discussion on the great gain cells, labhantīti: The bhikkhus residing there obtain. Vijaṭetvāti: Separating according to the measure of what is suitable for each. Āvāsesūti: In the lodgings. Pakkhipitvāti: Here, pakkhipanaṃ refers to the giving of the rainy season residence to those residing there. Pavisitabbanti: Other bhikkhus should enter, reside in that great gain cell, perform duties at the shrine, and then receive the gain.
ID1160
221. Paccayaṃ vissajjetīti cīvarapaccayaṃ nādhivāseti. Ayampīti tena vissajjitapaccayopi. Pādamūle ṭhapetvā sāṭakaṃ dentīti paccayadāyakā denti. Etena gahaṭṭhehi pādamūle ṭhapetvā dinnampi paṃsukūlikānampi vaṭṭatīti dasseti. Atha vassāvāsikaṃ demāti vadantīti ettha “paṃsukūlikānaṃ na vaṭṭatī”ti ajjhāharitvā yojetabbaṃ. Vassaṃ vutthabhikkhūnanti paṃsukūlikato aññesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ. Upanibandhitvā gāhetabbanti “imasmiṃ rukkhe vā maṇḍape vā vasitvā cetiye vattaṃ katvā gaṇhathā”ti evaṃ upanibandhitvā gāhetabbaṃ.
221. He relinquishes the requisite means he does not accept the requisite of robes. This too means even the requisite relinquished by him. Placing it at the foot and giving cloth means the donors of requisites give it. This shows that even what householders place at the foot is permissible for paṃsukūlikas. Then they say, ‘We give it for the rains retreat’—here it should be understood as implying, “It is not permissible for paṃsukūlikas.” To bhikkhus who have completed the rains means to bhikkhus other than paṃsukūlikas. It should be taken after designating means it should be taken after designating thus: “Reside under this tree or in this pavilion, perform duties at the cetiya, and take it.”
221. He gives up the requisite means he does not accept the robe requisite. This too means even that given-up requisite. Placing it at the feet, they give the cloth means the donors of the requisites give. By this, he shows that even what is given by householders, having placed it at the feet, is allowable for forest-dwellers. Then they say, “We give the rains residence,” here one should supply and connect “it is not allowable for forest-dwellers.” Of the monks who have spent the rains means of the monks other than forest-dwellers. Having connected, it should be taken means, “Having dwelt in this tree or pavilion, having performed the duty at the cetiya, take it,” having connected it thus, it should be taken.
221. Paccayaṃ vissajjetīti: He does not accept the robe requisites. Ayampīti: Even those requisites he has rejected. Pādamūle ṭhapetvā sāṭakaṃ dentīti: The donors give after placing it at the feet. This shows that even if given at the feet by laypeople, it is permissible for the rag-robe wearers. Atha vassāvāsikaṃ demāti vadantīti: Here, “It is not permissible for the rag-robe wearers,” should be applied. Vassaṃ vutthabhikkhūnanti: For bhikkhus who have completed the rains, other than the rag-robe wearers. Upanibandhitvā gāhetabbanti: “Having resided at this tree or pavilion, perform duties at the shrine and then receive,” thus it should be received after being bound.
ID1161
Pāṭipadaaruṇatotiādi vassūpanāyikadivasaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Antarāmuttakaṃ pana pāṭipadaṃ atikkamitvāpi gāhetuṃ vaṭṭati. “Kattha nu kho vasissāmi, kattha vasantassa phāsu bhavissati, kattha vā paccaye labhissāmī”ti evaṃ uppannena vitakkena caratīti vitakkacāriko. Idāni yaṃ dāyakā pacchimavassaṃvutthānaṃ vassāvāsikaṃ deti, tattha paṭipajjanavidhiṃ dassetuṃ “pacchimavassūpanāyikadivase panā”tiādi āraddhaṃ. Āgantuko ce bhikkhūti cīvare gāhite pacchā āgato āgantuko bhikkhu. Pattaṭṭhāneti vassaggena āgantukabhikkhuno pattaṭṭhāne. Paṭhamavassūpagatāti āgantukassa āgamanato puretarameva pacchimikāya vassūpanāyikāya vassūpagatā. Laddhaṃ laddhanti punappunaṃ dāyakānaṃ santikā āgatāgatasāṭakaṃ.
From the dawn of pāṭipada and so forth is said with reference to the day of entering the rains retreat. However, it is permissible to take what is offered even after pāṭipada has passed. One who wanders with thoughts like, “Where shall I reside? Where will it be comfortable to reside? Where will I obtain requisites?” is a thought-wanderer. Now, to show the procedure for dealing with what donors give as rains retreat gains to those who have completed the final rains, it begins with “pacchimavassūpanāyikadivase panā” and so forth. If a visitor bhikkhu means a visitor bhikkhu who arrives after the robes have been taken. At the allotted place means at the place allotted to the visitor bhikkhu by seniority. Those who entered the first rains means those who entered the rains on the earlier rains retreat day before the visitor’s arrival. Received, received means cloth received repeatedly from the donors’ presence.
From the first day of the bright half of the month and so on is said with reference to the day of entering the rains. But it is allowable to take the remainder within, even having passed the first day. One who wanders with a thought arising, “Where indeed will I dwell? Where will it be comfortable to dwell? Where will I obtain the requisites?”; this is a vitakkacāriko (one who wanders with thought). Now, the method of procedure with regard to the rains residence allowance that the donors give to those who have spent the latter rains, is begun with, “But on the day of entering the latter rains” and so on. If a newcomer monk, a newcomer monk who has come later, after the robes have been taken. In the place obtained means in the place obtained by the newcomer monk by seniority. Those who entered the rains first means those who entered the rains in the latter rains entry earlier than the arrival of the newcomer. What has been obtained, has been obtained means the cloth that comes again and again from the donors.
Pāṭipadaaruṇatoti: This refers to the day of entering the rains. However, even if the middle period is passed, it is permissible to receive. Vitakkacāriko: One who wanders with thoughts like, “Where shall I reside? Where will it be comfortable? Where will I obtain requisites?” Now, to explain the procedure for donors who give the rainy season residence to those who have completed the latter rains, it is said, “On the day of entering the latter rains…” etc. Āgantuko ce bhikkhūti: A visiting bhikkhu who arrives after the robe has been received. Pattaṭṭhāneti: The place for the visiting bhikkhu at the end of the rains. Paṭhamavassūpagatāti: Those who arrived before the visiting bhikkhu at the latter rains. Laddhaṃ laddhanti: Repeatedly receiving robes from the donors.
ID1162
Sādiyantāpi hi teneva vassāvāsikassa sāminoti chinnavassattā vuttaṃ. Paṭhamameva katikāya katattā “neva adātuṃ labhantī”ti vuttaṃ, dātabbaṃ vārentānaṃ gīvā hotīti adhippāyo. Tesameva dātabbanti vassūpagatesu aladdhavassāvāsikānaṃ ekaccānameva dātabbaṃ. Bhatiniviṭṭhanti bhatiṃ katvā viya niviṭṭhaṃ pariyiṭṭhaṃ. Bhatiniviṭṭhanti vā pānīyupaṭṭhānādibhatiṃ katvā laddhaṃ. Saṅghikaṃ panātiādi kesañci vādadassanaṃ. Tattha saṅghikaṃ pana apalokanakammaṃ katvā gāhitanti tatruppādaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Tattha apalokanakammaṃ katvā gāhitanti “chinnavassāvāsikañca idāni uppajjanakavassāvāsikañca imesaṃ dātuṃ ruccatī”ti anantare vuttanayena apalokanaṃ katvā gāhitaṃ saṅghena dinnattā vibbhantopi labhateva, pageva chinnavasso. Paccayavasena gāhitaṃ pana temāsaṃ vasitvā gahetuṃ attanā dāyakehi ca anumatattā bhatiniviṭṭhampi chinnavassopi vibbhantopi na labhatīti keci ācariyā vadanti. Idañca pacchā vuttattā pamāṇaṃ, teneva vassūpanāyikadivase evaṃ dāyakehi dinnaṃ vassāvāsikaṃ gahitabhikkhuno vassacchedaṃ akatvā vāsova heṭṭhā vihito, na pānīyupaṭṭhānādibhatikaraṇamattaṃ. Yadi hi taṃ bhatiniviṭṭhameva siyā, bhatikaraṇameva vidhātabbaṃ, tasmā vassaggena gāhitaṃ chinnavassādayo na labhantīti veditabbaṃ.
Even those who accept it are owners of that rains retreat gain—this is said because the rains have been interrupted. Because it was settled by prior agreement, it says, “They cannot refuse to give”—the intent is that obstructing what must be given incurs liability. It should be given to them means it should be given only to some of those who entered the rains but have not received rains retreat gains. Bound by service means settled or fixed as if by service. Alternatively, bound by service means received by performing service like providing water. But saṅghika and so forth is the view of some. Therein, but saṅghika taken after a formal agreement is said with reference to what arises from it. Therein, taken after a formal agreement means taken after a formal agreement in the manner stated earlier: “It is pleasing to give to those whose rains retreat has been interrupted and to those whose rains retreat gain will arise now”—since it was given by the Saṅgha, even one who has disrobed receives it, let alone one whose rains have been interrupted. But what was taken by way of requisites—some teachers say that even one whose rains have been interrupted or who has disrobed does not receive it if it was taken to be used after residing for three months, with the donors’ and his own consent, even if bound by service. Since this is stated later, it is authoritative. Thus, the rains retreat gain given by donors on the day of entering the rains retreat is prescribed as residence without interrupting the rains for the bhikkhu who took it, not merely performing service like providing water. If it were only bound by service, only service would need to be prescribed. Therefore, it should be understood that those whose rains have been interrupted and so forth do not receive what was taken by seniority.
Even those desiring it are the owners of that rains residence is said because the rains have been broken. Because the agreement was made at the beginning, it is said, “they are not allowed to not give”; the meaning is that there is a gīvā (neck, fault) for those preventing the giving. It should be given to them only means it should be given only to some of those who entered the rains who have not obtained the rains residence allowance. Established in wages means established as if having made wages, obtained. Established in wages means having made wages for things such as providing water, and so on, it was obtained. But the Sangha and so on, is the showing of the opinion of some. Here, but the Sangha, having performed the apalokana act, took it is said with reference to its proceeds. Here, having performed the apalokana act, took it means, “It is agreeable to give to these both the broken rains residence allowance and the now arising rains residence allowance,” having made the apalokana in the way stated earlier, because it was given by the Sangha, even one who has disrobed obtains it, let alone one who has broken the rains. But what was taken by way of the requisite, because it was agreed upon by himself and the donors to be taken after dwelling for three months, even though it is established in wages, neither one who has broken the rains nor one who has disrobed obtains it; some teachers say. And this is the authority, because it is stated later; therefore, the rains residence thus given by the donors on the day of entering the rains, staying without breaking the rains of the monk who has taken it, was prescribed above, not merely the making of wages for things such as providing water. For if that were merely established in wages, the making of wages should have been prescribed; therefore, it should be understood that those who have broken the rains and so on do not obtain what has been taken by seniority.
Sādiyantāpi hi teneva vassāvāsikassa sāminoti: This is said because the rains have been broken. Because it was done according to the agreement, “They cannot give…” is said, meaning they are prevented from giving. Tesameva dātabbanti: Only some of those who have not obtained the rainy season residence should be given. Bhatiniviṭṭhanti: As if having performed service. Bhatiniviṭṭhanti: Alternatively, having obtained through service like offering water. Saṅghikaṃ panāti: This is the view of some. Here, saṅghikaṃ pana apalokanakammaṃ katvā gāhitanti: This refers to what arises from that. Here, apalokanakammaṃ katvā gāhitanti: “Having consulted, ‘We wish to give to those who have broken the rains and those who are entering the rains,’” it is received by the Saṅgha, thus even one who has broken the rains obtains. Paccayavasena gāhitaṃ: However, some teachers say that one who has broken the rains, even if having stayed for three months and having obtained the consent of the donors, does not obtain if it is given as service. This is said later as a measure, hence on the day of entering the rains, the rainy season residence given by the donors is assigned to the bhikkhu who has received it without breaking the rains, not merely by performing service like offering water. If it were merely service, only the service should be performed, hence those who have broken the rains do not obtain what is received at the end of the rains.
ID1163
“Idha, bhikkhave, vassaṃvuttho bhikkhu vibbhamati, saṅghasseva ta”nti (mahāva. 374-375) vacanato “vataṭṭhāne…pe… saṅghikaṃ hotī”ti vuttaṃ . Saṅghikaṃ hotīti etena vutthavassānampi vassāvāsikabhāgo saṅghikato amocito tesaṃ vibbhamena saṅghiko hotīti dasseti. Manusseti dāyakamanusse. Labhatīti “mama pattabhāvaṃ etassa dethā”ti dāyake sampaṭicchāpenteneva saṅghikato viyojitaṃ hotīti vuttaṃ. Varabhāgaṃ sāmaṇerassāti tassa paṭhamagāhattā, therena pubbe paṭhamabhāgassa gahitattā, idāni gayhamānassa dutiyabhāgattā ca vuttaṃ.
From the statement “Here, bhikkhave, a bhikkhu who has completed the rains retreat falls away, and it belongs to the Sangha itself” (mahāva. 374-375), it is said: “In place of the observance… it becomes saṅghika.” By saying “it becomes saṅghika,” it indicates that even for those who have completed the rains retreat, their share of the rains residence is not separated from the Sangha’s possession, and through their falling away, it becomes saṅghika. “Manusse” refers to the lay supporters. “Labhati” means that it is said to be separated from the Sangha’s possession merely by having the donors agree, saying, “Give it to this one as my share.” “Varabhāgaṃ sāmaṇerassa” is said because it is the first portion taken by him, because the elder had previously taken the first share, and because what is now being taken is the second share.
“Here, monks, a monk who has completed the rains residence disrobes, it belongs to the Sangha” (mahāva. 374-375), therefore it is said, “in the place of duty…etc…. it becomes Sanghika”. By saying “it becomes Sanghika,” it shows that even for those who have completed the rains residence, the portion of the rains residence lodging is not released from being Sanghika; by their disrobing, it becomes Sanghika. “To humans” means to human donors. “He receives” means that it is separated from being Sanghika only by making the donors accept [the offering] saying, “Give this to him who has received my alms-bowl”. “The better portion to the novice” is said because he [the novice] receives it first, because the elder had previously taken the first portion, and because what is being taken now is the second portion.
“Here, O monks, a monk who has completed the rains residence disrobes; it belongs to the Sangha,” thus it is said in the Mahāvagga (374-375). “At the designated place… it becomes Sangha property” is stated. “It becomes Sangha property” indicates that even for those who have completed the rains residence, their share of the rains residence is relinquished to the Sangha, and by their disrobing, it becomes Sangha property. “People” refers to the donor people. “Receives” means “give this to me,” and by having the donors accept it, it is said that it is separated from the Sangha. “The best portion for a novice” refers to his first share, as the elder had previously taken the first portion, and now what is being taken is the second portion.
ID1164
222. Idāni antarāmuttasenāsanaggāhaṃ dassetuṃ “ayamaparopī”tyādimāha. Tattha aparopīti pubbe vuttasenāsanaggāhadvayato aññopīti attho. Nanu ca “ayaṃ senāsanaggāho nāma duvidho hoti utukāle ca vassāvāse cā”ti vutto, atha kasmā “ayamaparopī”tyādi vuttoti codanaṃ sandhāyāha “divasavasena hī”tiādi. Aparajjugatāya āsāḷhiyāti paṭhamavassūpanāyikadivasabhūtaṃ āsāḷhipuṇṇamiyā pāṭipadaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, māsagatāya āsāḷhiyāti dutiyavassūpanāyikadivasabhūtasāvaṇapuṇṇamiyā pāṭipadaṃ. Aparajjugatāya pavāraṇāti assayujapuṇṇamiyā pāṭipadaṃ.
222. Now, to show the assignment of dwellings freed in the interim, it is said: “ayamaparopi” and so forth. Here, “aparopi” means another besides the two types of dwelling assignments previously mentioned. But since it was said, “This dwelling assignment is of two kinds: during the seasons and during the rains retreat,” why then is “ayamaparopi” and so forth stated? Addressing this objection, it says: “divasavasena hi” and so on. “Aparajjugatāya āsāḷhiyā” refers to the day following the full moon of Āsāḷha, which is the day of entering the first rains retreat. “Māsagatāya āsāḷhiyā” refers to the day following the full moon of Sāvaṇa, which is the day of entering the second rains retreat. “Aparajjugatāya pavāraṇā” refers to the day following the full moon of Assayuja.
222. Now, to show the intermediate release of lodging, he says “another one also” and so on. Therein, “another one also” means another one besides the two previously mentioned ways of taking lodging. Surely, it was said, “This taking of lodging is of two kinds: during the seasons and during the rains residence,” so why is it said “another one also” and so forth? Holding to this objection, he says “according to the days” etc. “The day after the full moon of Āsāḷhī” is said with reference to the first day of the full moon of Āsāḷhī, which is the day of entering the first rains residence, and “a month after the full moon of Āsāḷhī” to the first day of the full moon of Sāvaṇa, which is the day of entering the second rains residence. “The day after the Pavāraṇā” is the first day of the full moon of Assayuja.
222. Now, to explain the taking of lodging in the interim, “this is another” is said. Here, “another” means different from the two previously mentioned ways of taking lodging. But it was said, “This taking of lodging is of two kinds: during the season and during the rains residence,” so why is it said, “this is another,” etc.? To address this, it is said, “by day” etc. “On the day after the Āsāḷhī” refers to the day of the first rains residence, the full moon day of Āsāḷhī. “On the month after the Āsāḷhī” refers to the day of the second rains residence, the full moon day of Sāvaṇa. “On the day after the Pavāraṇā” refers to the full moon day of Assayuja.
ID1165
223. Utukāle paṭibāhituṃ na labhatīti hemantagimhesu aññe sampattabhikkhū paṭibāhituṃ na labhati. Navakammanti navakammasammuti. Akatanti aparisaṅkhataṃ. Vippakatanti aniṭṭhitaṃ. Ekaṃ mañcaṭṭhānaṃ datvāti ekaṃ mañcaṭṭhānaṃ puggalikaṃ datvā. Tibhāganti tatiyabhāgaṃ. Evaṃ vissajjanampi thāvarena thāvaraṃ parivattanaṭṭhāneyeva pavisati, na itarathā sabbasenāsanavissajjanato . Sace saddhivihārikādīnaṃ dātukāmo hotīti sace so saṅghassa bhaṇḍaṭhapanaṭṭhānaṃ vā aññesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ vasanaṭṭhānaṃ vā dātuṃ na icchati, attano saddhivihārikādīnaññeva dātukāmo hoti, tādisassa “tuyhaṃ puggalikameva katvā jaggāhī”ti na sabbaṃ dātabbanti adhippāyo. Tatthassa kattabbavidhiṃ dassento āha “kamma”ntiādi. Evañhītiādimhi cayānurūpaṃ tatiyabhāge vā upaḍḍhabhāge vā gahite taṃ bhāgaṃ dātuṃ labhatīti attho. Yenāti tesu dvīsu tīsu bhikkhūsu yena. So sāmīti tassā bhūmiyā vihārakaraṇe sova sāmī, taṃ paṭibāhitvā itarena na kātabbanti adhippāyo.
223. “Utukāle paṭibāhituṃ na labhati” means that in the cold and hot seasons, he cannot prevent other arriving bhikkhus. “Navakamma” refers to the authorization for new work. “Akata” means not fully considered. “Vippakata” means unfinished. “Ekaṃ mañcaṭṭhānaṃ datvā” means having given one bed-place as personal property. “Tibhāga” means a third part. Thus, even in relinquishing, what is fixed replaces only what is fixed in that specific context, not otherwise, due to the relinquishment of all dwellings. “Sace saddhivihārikādīnaṃ dātukāmo hoti” means that if he wishes to give it to his co-residents and does not wish to give it as a storage place for the Sangha’s goods or as a dwelling for other bhikkhus, but only to his co-residents, the intent is that not everything should be given to such a one, saying, “Make it entirely personal and maintain it.” Showing the procedure to be followed, it says: “kamma” and so forth. In “evañhi” and so on, it means that when a third or half portion is taken as appropriate, he may give that portion. “Yena” means by whichever of those two or three bhikkhus. “So sāmī” means that he alone is the owner in the construction of that dwelling on that land, and it should not be done by another who obstructs him, is the intent.
223. “During the seasons, one cannot refuse” means that during the winter and summer seasons, one cannot refuse other monks who have arrived. “New work” means approval for new work. “Undone” means unrepaired. “Incomplete” means unfinished. “Having given one place for a bed” means having given one place for a bed individually. “A third part” means a third portion. Giving up in this way is also included only in exchanging durable things for durable things, not otherwise from giving up all lodgings . “If he wishes to give to his fellow-dweller and others” if he does not wish to give the place for storing the Sangha’s belongings or the dwelling place of other monks, but wishes to give only to his fellow-dweller and others, the meaning is that he should not give everything, [saying,] “Make it your personal possession and take care of it.” Showing the method of what should be done in that case, he states “action” etc. In the phrases like “Indeed, in this way”, when, appropriately, a third part or a half part is taken, that portion can be given; this is the meaning. “By whom” means by whom, out of those two or three monks. “He is the owner” means that in making that ground into a dwelling, he alone is the owner; the meaning is that having refused him, it should not be done by another.
223. “Cannot be prevented during the season” means that during winter and summer, other monks who have arrived cannot be prevented. “New work” refers to the agreement for new work. “Not done” means not prepared. “Incomplete” means not finished. “Having given one bed space” means having given one bed space personally. “A third portion” means the third part. Thus, even the allocation of lodging is included in the exchange of permanent for permanent, not in the allocation of all lodgings. “If one wishes to give to one’s co-resident, etc.” means if one does not wish to give to the Sangha’s storage place or to other monks’ dwelling places, but wishes to give only to one’s co-resident, etc., for such a person, “having made it personal, take care of it,” not everything should be given. To explain the procedure for such a person, it is said, “work” etc. “Thus” etc. means that according to the accumulation, a third or half portion may be given. “By whom” means among those two or three monks. “He is the owner” means he is the owner of that land for building the monastery, and it should not be done by another, this is the meaning.
ID1166
224. Akataṭṭhāneti senāsanato bahi cayādīnaṃ akataṭṭhāne. Cayaṃ vā pamukhaṃ vāti saṅghikasenāsanaṃ nissāya tato bahi bandhitvā ekaṃ senāsanaṃ vā. Bahikuṭṭeti kuṭṭato bahi, attano kataṭṭhāneti attho. Sesaṃ suviññeyyameva.
224. “Akataṭṭhāne” means in a place outside the dwelling where a structure or the like has not been made. “Cayaṃ vā pamukhaṃ vā” means either a dwelling or something constructed outside, relying on the Sangha’s dwelling. “Bahikuṭṭe” means outside the wall, in a place made by oneself. The rest is easily understood.
224. “In a place not built” means outside the lodging, in a place where terraces and other things have not been built. “A terrace or a facade” means, having built one lodging outside, relying on the Sanghika lodging. “Outside the hut” means outside the hut, meaning in the place he has made. The rest is easily understood.
224. “At an unprepared place” means outside the lodging, at a place not prepared for accumulation, etc. “Accumulation or forefront” means outside the Sangha lodging, having bound it, one lodging. “Outside the wall” means outside the wall, at a place prepared by oneself. The rest is easily understood.
ID1167
Senāsanaggāhakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.
The explanation of the discourse on dwelling assignment is concluded.
The explanation of the story of taking lodging is finished.
The explanation on the taking of lodging is concluded.
ID1168
ID1169
225. Catupaccayasādhāraṇakathāyaṃ sammatena appamattakavissajjakenāti ñattidutiyakammavācāya vā apalokanakammena vā sammatena appamattakavissajjakasammutiladdhena. Avibhattaṃ saṅghikabhaṇḍanti pucchitabbakiccaṃ natthīti ettha avibhattaṃ saṅghikabhaṇḍanti kukkuccuppattiākāradassanaṃ, evaṃ kukkuccaṃ katvā pucchitabbakiccaṃ natthi, apucchitvāva dātabbanti adhippāyo. Kasmāti ce? Ettakassa saṅghikabhaṇḍassa vissajjanatthāyeva samaggassa saṅghassa anumatiyā katasammutikammattā. Guḷapiṇḍe…pe… dātabboti ettha guḷapiṇḍaṃ tālapakkappamāṇanti veditabbaṃ. Piṇḍāya paviṭṭhassapīti idaṃ upalakkhaṇamattaṃ. Aññena kāraṇena bahisīmagatassapi eseva nayo. Odanapaṭivīsoti saṅghabhattādisaṅghikaodanapaṭivīso. Antoupacārasīmāyaṃ ṭhitassāti anādare sāmivacanaṃ, antoupacārasīmāyaṃ ṭhitasseva gāhetuṃ vaṭṭati, na bahiupacārasīmaṃ pattassāti attho. Vuttañhetaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 325) “bahiupacārasīmāya ṭhitānaṃ gāhethāti vadanti, na gāhetabba”nti. Antogāmaṭṭhānampīti ettha pi-saddo avuttasampiṇḍanattho, antogāmaṭṭhānampi bahigāmaṭṭhānampi gāhetuṃ vaṭṭatīti attho. Sambhāvanattho vā, tena antogāmaṭṭhānampi gāhetuṃ vaṭṭati, pageva bahigāmaṭṭhānanti.
225. In the discourse on the common use of the four requisites, “sammatena appamattakavissajjakenā” means with the authorization for minor relinquishment obtained through a motion and a second declaration or through a consensual act. “Avibhattaṃ saṅghikabhaṇḍanti pucchitabbakiccaṃ natthīti ettha avibhattaṃ saṅghikabhaṇḍa” shows the manner in which scruple arises regarding undistributed Sangha property; thus, having raised such scruple, there is no duty to inquire—it should be given without asking, is the intent. Why? Because the authorization was made with the consent of the united Sangha solely for the purpose of relinquishing such Sangha property. “Guḷapiṇḍe…pe… dātabbo” here, a lump of molasses should be understood as the size of a palm fruit. “Piṇḍāya paviṭṭhassapi” is merely an example; the same applies to one who has gone outside the village boundary for another reason. “Odanapaṭivīso” refers to a portion of cooked rice from a Sangha meal or the like. “Antoupacārasīmāyaṃ ṭhitassā” uses the dative case to indicate indifference—it is proper to take it only for one standing within the boundary of the inner precinct, not for one who has reached beyond the outer precinct boundary. This is stated in the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 325): “They say, ‘Take it for those standing beyond the outer precinct boundary,’ but it should not be taken.” “Antogāmaṭṭhānampi” here, the particle “pi” implies the inclusion of what was not stated; it is proper to take it from a place within the village or outside the village. Alternatively, it has a conjectural sense, meaning it is proper to take it even from a place within the village, and all the more so from a place outside.
225. In the story of what is common to the four requisites, “by one who has been appointed to distribute small things” means by one who has been appointed by a formal act consisting of a motion and a resolution, or by a single-motion act, and who has obtained the appointment to distribute small things. “Undistributed Sanghika property” means there is no business to be asked about. Here, “undistributed Sanghika property” is showing the way doubt arises. Having doubted in this way, there is no business to be asked about; the meaning is that it should be given without asking. Why? Because for the purpose of distributing just this much Sanghika property, the appointment procedure has been performed with the consent of the whole Sangha. “A lump of molasses…etc… should be given”, here, a lump of molasses should be understood to be the size of a palmyra fruit. “Even to one who has entered for alms”, this is merely an illustration. The same principle applies to one who has gone outside the boundary for some other reason. “A portion of rice” means a portion of Sanghika rice from Sangha meals and so on. “To one standing within the boundary of the surrounding area” is a locative absolute indicating disregard; it is proper to give it only to one standing within the boundary of the surrounding area, not to one who has reached the outer boundary of the surrounding area. It is said in the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 325), “They say, ‘Give to those standing outside the boundary of the surrounding area,’ but it should not be given.” “Even a place within the village”, here the word “even” is inclusive of what is not said, meaning it is proper to give even to a place within the village, or to a place outside the village. Or, it is indicative of possibility, therefore it is proper to give even to a place within the village, and certainly to a place outside the village.
225. In the explanation on the shared use of the four requisites, “appointed by a minor distributor” means appointed by a motion and second announcement or by a decision-making process, having obtained the agreement for minor distribution. “Undivided Sangha property should not be asked about” means seeing the arising of doubt, thus having done so, there is no need to ask, it should be given without asking, this is the meaning. Why? Because such Sangha property is to be distributed by the unanimous consent of the Sangha, having performed the agreement-making act. “A lump of sugar… should be given” here, a lump of sugar should be understood as the size of a tālapaṇṇa. “Even for one who has entered for alms” this is merely an indication. Even for one who has gone outside the boundary for another reason, the same applies. “A portion of rice” means a portion of the Sangha’s rice, etc. “For one standing within the inner boundary” means disregarding the owner’s words, it is permissible to take for one standing within the inner boundary, not for one who has reached the outer boundary. For it is said in the commentary (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 325), “They say, ‘Take for those standing outside the outer boundary,’ but it should not be taken.” “Even within the village” here, the word “even” is for connecting what is not stated, meaning it is permissible to take within the village or outside the village. Or it is for emphasis, meaning it is permissible to take within the village, let alone outside the village.
ID1170
Catupaccayasādhāraṇakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.
The explanation of the discourse on the common use of the four requisites is concluded.
The explanation of the story of what is common to the four requisites is finished.
The explanation on the shared use of the four requisites is concluded.
ID1171
Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinaya compilation,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is an explanation of the Vinayasaṅgaha,
Thus, in the Vinayasaṅgaha, adorned with the Vinayālaṅkāra,
ID1172
Catupaccayabhājanīyavinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma
The adornment of the discourse on the analysis of the four requisites
The chapter called the exposition of the decisive discussion of the distribution of the four requisites,
The chapter on the distribution of the four requisites, named
ID1173
Aṭṭhavīsatimo paricchedo.
Is the twenty-eighth chapter.
The twenty-eighth chapter.
The twenty-eighth section.
ID1174
ID1175
Idāni catupaccayantogadhattā vihārassa catupaccayabhājanakathānantaraṃ vihāravinicchayakathā ārabhīyate. Tatridaṃ vuccati –
Now, since a dwelling is included among the four requisites, immediately following the discourse on the analysis of the four requisites, the discourse on the analysis of dwellings is begun. Here, this is said –
Now, because it is included among the four requisites, after the story of the distribution of the four requisites for a dwelling, the story of the decisive discussion of dwellings is begun. Herein, this is said:
Now, because the four requisites are included, after the discussion on the distribution of the four requisites, the discussion on the determination of monasteries begins. Here it is said –
ID1176
“Ko vihāro kenaṭṭhena; Vihāro so katividho; Kena so kassa dātabbo; Kathaṃ ko tassa issaro.
“What is a dwelling, and by what characteristic? How many kinds of dwellings are there? By whom should it be given, and to whom? How, and who is its master?
“What is a dwelling? In what sense is it a dwelling?; How many kinds of dwellings are there?; By whom should it be given? To whom?; How is he its master?
“What is a monastery? By what meaning is it a monastery? How many kinds are there? By whom should it be given? To whom should it be given? How should it be given? Who is its owner?
ID1177
“Kena so gāhito kassa; Anuṭṭhāpaniyā kati; Katihaṅgehi yuttassa; Dhuvavāsāya dīyate”ti.
“By whom is it taken, and for whom? How many are not to be removed? With how many factors is it endowed when given for permanent residence?”
“By whom is it taken? To whom is it taken?; How many are not to be displaced?; To one endowed with how many factors; Is it given for permanent residence?”
“By whom is it taken? To whom is it taken? How many are to be maintained? By how many factors is it endowed when given for permanent residence?”
ID1178
Tattha ko vihāroti catūsu paccayesu senāsanasaṅkhāto catūsu senāsanesu vihārasenāsanasaṅkhāto bhikkhūnaṃ nivāsabhūto patissayaviseso. Kenaṭṭhena vihāroti viharanti etthāti vihāro, iriyāpathadibbabrahmaariyasaṅkhātehi catūhi vihārehi ariyā ettha viharantītyattho. So katividhoti saṅghikavihāragaṇasantakavihārapuggalikavihāravasena tibbidho. Vuttañhetaṃ samantapāsādikāyaṃ “cātuddisaṃ saṅghaṃ uddissa bhikkhūnaṃ dinnaṃ vihāraṃ vā pariveṇaṃ vā āvāsaṃ vā mahantampi khuddakampi abhiyuñjato abhiyogo na ruhati, acchinditvā gaṇhitumpi na sakkoti. Kasmā? Sabbesaṃ dhuranikkhepābhāvato. Na hettha sabbe cātuddisā bhikkhū dhuranikkhepaṃ karontīti. Dīghabhāṇakādibhedassa pana gaṇassa, ekapuggalassa vā santakaṃ abhiyuñjitvā gaṇhanto sakkoti te dhuraṃ nikkhipāpetuṃ, tasmā tattha ārāme vuttanayeneva vinicchayo veditabbo”ti. Iminā dāyakasantako vihāro nāma natthīti dīpeti.
Here, “ko vihāro” refers to a special refuge among the four requisites, known as a dwelling among the four types of lodgings, being a place of residence for bhikkhus. “Kenaṭṭhena vihāro” means that it is a “vihāro” because noble ones dwell there; the intent is that noble ones dwell there with the four dwellings known as bodily postures, divine states, and noble states. “So katividho” means it is of three kinds: a Sangha dwelling, a group-owned dwelling, and a personal dwelling. This is stated in the Samantapāsādikā: “Even a large or small dwelling, monastery, or residence given to the Sangha of the four quarters cannot be claimed or taken by force without cutting it off. Why? Because there is no laying down of responsibility by all. Not all bhikkhus of the four quarters lay down responsibility here. However, one can claim a dwelling belonging to a group, such as the reciters of the Dīgha Nikāya, or to an individual by making them lay down responsibility. Therefore, the decision there should be understood as stated regarding a garden.” This indicates that there is no such thing as a dwelling owned by the donor.
Therein, “what is a dwelling” is a particular kind of resting place that is a dwelling place for monks, included among lodgings, which are among the four requisites, it is included among the lodgings of a dwelling. “In what sense is it a dwelling” They dwell (viharanti) here, therefore it is a dwelling (vihāra), the noble ones dwell here with the four dwellings known as the postures, the divine, and the noble; this is the meaning. “How many kinds of dwellings are there” it is of three kinds: Sanghika dwelling, dwelling belonging to a group, and individual dwelling. It is said in the Samantapāsādikā: “There is no legal claim against one who utilizes, even if it is large or small, a dwelling, a residence, or a lodging that has been given to the Sangha of the four directions, dedicated to monks. One cannot seize it and take it. Why? Because all have not relinquished their claim. Not all the monks of the four directions relinquish their claim here. But one can seize and take what belongs to a group divided as Dīghabhāṇaka and others, or to a single person, making them relinquish their claim; therefore, in that monastery, the decision should be understood in the same way as stated.” By this, it shows that there is no such thing as a dwelling belonging to the donor.
Here, “what is a monastery?” refers to the lodging among the four requisites, counted among the four lodgings, the special dwelling place for monks. “By what meaning is it a monastery?” means “they dwell here,” thus it is a monastery, where the noble ones dwell by the fourfold noble dwelling, etc. “How many kinds are there?” It is of three kinds: Sangha monasteries, group monasteries, and personal monasteries. It is said in the Samantapāsādikā, “A monastery or dwelling given to the Sangha of the four directions, whether large or small, cannot be taken by force, nor can it be seized. Why? Because all have not relinquished their responsibility. Not all monks of the four directions relinquish their responsibility here. However, a group or an individual, having taken possession, can relinquish their responsibility, thus the determination should be understood in the same way as in the monastery.” This indicates that there is no such thing as a donor’s personal monastery.
ID1179
Kena so dātabboti khattiyena vā brāhmaṇena vā yena kenaci so vihāro dātabbo. Kassa dātabboti saṅghassa vā gaṇassa vā puggalassa vā dātabbo. Kathaṃ dātabboti yadi saṅghassa deti, “imaṃ vihāraṃ āgatānāgatassa cātuddisassa saṅghassa dammī”ti, yadi gaṇassa, “imaṃ vihāraṃ āyasmantānaṃ dammī”ti, yadi puggalassa, “imaṃ vihāraṃ āyasmato dammī”ti dātabbo. Ko tassa issaroti yadi saṅghassa deti, saṅgho tassa vihārassa issaro. Yadi gaṇassa deti, gaṇo tassa issaro. Yadi puggalassa deti, puggalo tassa issaroti. Tathā hi vuttaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ “dīghabhāṇakādikassa pana gaṇassa ekapuggalassa vā santaka”nti.
“Kena so dātabbo” means it may be given by a warrior, a brahmin, or anyone. “Kassa dātabbo” means it may be given to the Sangha, a group, or an individual. “Kathaṃ dātabbo” means if given to the Sangha, it is given with, “I give this dwelling to the Sangha of the four quarters, present and future”; if to a group, “I give this dwelling to the venerables”; if to an individual, “I give this dwelling to the venerable.” “Ko tassa issaro” means if given to the Sangha, the Sangha is its master; if given to a group, the group is its master; if given to an individual, the individual is its master. Indeed, it is stated in the commentary: “But belonging to a group such as the reciters of the Dīgha Nikāya or to an individual.”
“By whom should it be given?” A dwelling should be given by a Khattiya, a Brahmin, or by anyone at all. “To whom should it be given?” It should be given to the Sangha, to a group, or to an individual. “How should it be given?” If he gives to the Sangha, [he should say] “I give this dwelling to the Sangha of the four directions, present and future.” If to a group, “I give this dwelling to the venerable ones.” If to an individual, “I give this dwelling to the venerable one.” “Who is its master?” If he gives to the Sangha, the Sangha is the master of that dwelling. If he gives to a group, the group is its master. If he gives to an individual, the individual is its master. Thus, it is said in the commentary, “But belonging to a group such as the Dīghabhāṇaka and others, or to a single person.”
“By whom should it be given?” means it should be given by a khattiya, a brahmin, or anyone. “To whom should it be given?” means it should be given to the Sangha, a group, or an individual. “How should it be given?” means if given to the Sangha, “I give this monastery to the Sangha of the four directions, present and future,” if given to a group, “I give this monastery to the venerable ones,” if given to an individual, “I give this monastery to the venerable one.” “Who is its owner?” means if given to the Sangha, the Sangha is the owner of the monastery. If given to a group, the group is the owner. If given to an individual, the individual is the owner. Thus it is said in the commentary, “For a group or an individual, it is their own.”
ID1180
Kena so gāhitoti senāsanaggāhāpakena so vihāro gāhito. Vuttañhetaṃ bhagavatā “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, pañcahaṅgehi samannāgataṃ senāsanaggāhāpakaṃ sammannituṃ, yo na chandāgatiṃ gaccheyya, na dosāgatiṃ gaccheyya, na mohāgatiṃ gaccheyya, evañca, bhikkhave, sammannitabbo, paṭhamaṃ bhikkhu yācitabbo, yācitvā byattena bhikkhunā paṭibalena saṅgho ñāpetabbo –
“Kena so gāhito” means it is taken by the dwelling assigner. This was said by the Blessed One: “I allow, bhikkhave, the appointment of a dwelling assigner endowed with five qualities: one who does not follow desire, hatred, delusion, or fear… and thus, bhikkhave, he should be appointed: first, a bhikkhu should be requested; having been requested, a competent bhikkhu should inform the Sangha –
“By whom is it taken?” That dwelling is taken by the lodging-taker. It is said by the Blessed One, “I allow, monks, the appointment of a lodging-taker endowed with five factors: one who does not go by desire, does not go by aversion, does not go by delusion, and thus, monks, he should be appointed, first the monk should be requested, having requested, the Sangha should be informed by a capable and competent monk—
“By whom is it taken?” means the monastery is taken by the lodging allocator. It is said by the Blessed One, “I allow, O monks, to appoint a lodging allocator endowed with five qualities: one who does not act out of favoritism, hatred, or delusion. Thus, O monks, should he be appointed: first, a monk should be invited, then an able and competent monk should inform the Sangha –
ID1181
“Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho itthannāmaṃ bhikkhuṃ senāsanaggāhāpakaṃ sammanneyya, esā ñatti.
’“May the Sangha listen to me, venerable sirs. If it is suitable for the Sangha, let the Sangha appoint the bhikkhu named so-and-so as the dwelling assigner. This is the motion.
“’Let the Sangha, reverend sirs, listen to me. If it is agreeable to the Sangha, let the Sangha appoint the monk named so-and-so as lodging-taker. This is the motion.
“’May the Sangha hear me, venerable sirs. If it is agreeable to the Sangha, the Sangha should appoint the monk so-and-so as the lodging allocator. This is the motion.
ID1182
“Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, saṅgho itthannāmaṃ bhikkhuṃ senāsanaggāhāpakaṃ sammannati. Yassāyasmato khamati itthannāmassa bhikkhuno senāsanaggāhāpakassa sammuti, so tuṇhassa. Yassa nakkhamati, so bhāseyya.
’“May the Sangha listen to me, venerable sirs. The Sangha appoints the bhikkhu named so-and-so as the dwelling assigner. Whoever agrees with the appointment of the bhikkhu named so-and-so as dwelling assigner should remain silent; whoever does not agree should speak.
“’Let the Sangha, reverend sirs, listen to me. The Sangha appoints the monk named so-and-so as lodging-taker. Whichever venerable one approves of the appointment of the monk named so-and-so as lodging-taker, let him be silent. Whichever one does not approve, let him speak.
“’May the Sangha hear me, venerable sirs. The Sangha appoints the monk so-and-so as the lodging allocator. If it is agreeable to the venerable ones, let them remain silent; if it is not agreeable, let them speak.
ID1183
“Sammato saṅghena itthannāmo bhikkhu senāsanaggāhāpako, khamati saṅghassa, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmī”ti (cūḷava. 317).
‘“The bhikkhu named so-and-so has been appointed by the Sangha as the dwelling assigner. It is agreeable to the Sangha, therefore silent. Thus I hold it”’ (cūḷava. 317).
“‘The monk named so-and-so is appointed by the Sangha as lodging-taker. The Sangha approves, therefore it is silent. Thus I hold this’” (cūḷava. 317).
“‘The monk so-and-so is appointed by the Sangha as the lodging allocator. It is agreeable to the Sangha, therefore they remain silent. Thus I hold it.’” (Cūḷavagga 317).
ID1184
Kassa so gāhitoti bhikkhūnaṃ so vihāro gāhito. Vuttañhetaṃ bhagavatā “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, paṭhamaṃ bhikkhū gaṇetuṃ, bhikkhū gaṇetvā seyyā gaṇetuṃ, seyyā gaṇetvā seyyaggena gāhetu”nti (cūḷava. 318). Anuṭṭhāpaniyā katīti cattāro anuṭṭhāpanīyā vuḍḍhataro gilāno bhaṇḍāgāriko saṅghato laddhasenāsanoti. Vuttañhetaṃ kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyaṃ (kaṅakhā. aṭṭha. anupakhajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) “vuḍḍho hi attano vuḍḍhatāya anuṭṭhāpanīyo , gilāno gilānatāya, saṅgho pana bhaṇḍāgārikassa vā dhammakathikavinayadharagaṇavācakācariyānaṃ vā bahūpakārataṃ guṇavisiṭṭhatañca sallakkhetvā dhuvavāsatthāya vihāraṃ sallakkhetvā sammannitvā deti, tasmā yassa saṅghena dinno, sopi anuṭṭhāpanīyo”ti.
“Kassa so gāhito” means it is taken for the bhikkhus. This was said by the Blessed One: “I allow, bhikkhave, first to count the bhikkhus, then to count the beds, and having counted the beds, to assign by the number of beds” (cūḷava. 318). “Anuṭṭhāpaniyā kati” means there are four who are not to be removed: the most senior, the sick, the storekeeper, and one who has received a dwelling from the Sangha. This is stated in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. anupakhajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā): “The senior is not to be removed due to his seniority, the sick due to his illness; the Sangha, considering the great benefit or special qualities of a storekeeper, a teacher of Dhamma, a Vinaya expert, a group reciter, or a preceptor, appoints and gives a dwelling for permanent residence. Thus, one to whom it is given by the Sangha is also not to be removed.”
“To whom is it taken?” That dwelling is taken for the monks. It is said by the Blessed One, “I allow, monks, first to count the monks, having counted the monks, to count the beds, having counted the beds, to assign [them] according to the beds” (cūḷava. 318). “How many are not to be displaced?” Four are not to be displaced: a senior, a sick person, a storekeeper, and one who has received lodging from the Sangha. It is stated in Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (kaṅakhā. aṭṭha. anupakhajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā): “An elder, indeed, is not to be displaced because of his seniority, a sick person because of his sickness. The Sangha, however, considering the great helpfulness and superior qualities of a storekeeper, or of Dhamma reciters, Vinaya masters, group readers, and teachers, determines a dwelling for permanent residence, approves it, and gives it; therefore, he to whom the Sangha has given is also not to be displaced”.
“To whom is it taken?” means the monastery is taken for the monks. It is said by the Blessed One, “I allow, O monks, to first gather the monks, then gather the beds, then take the best bed” (Cūḷavagga 318). “How many are to be maintained?” means the four to be maintained: the elder, the sick, the storekeeper, and the one who has obtained lodging from the Sangha. It is said in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (commentary on the Anupakhajjasikkhāpada), “The elder is to be maintained due to his seniority, the sick due to his illness, and the Sangha, having considered the great benefit and excellence of the storekeeper or the Dhamma teacher, Vinaya expert, group reciter, or teacher, gives the monastery for permanent residence, thus whoever is given by the Sangha is to be maintained.”
ID1185
Katihaṅgehi yuttassa dhuvavāsāya dīyateti ukkaṭṭhaparicchedena dvīhi aṅgehi yuttassa dhuvavāsatthāya vihāro dīyate. Katamehi dvīhi? Bahūpakāratāya guṇavisiṭṭhatāya ceti. Kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce? “Bahūpakāratanti bhaṇḍāgārikatādibahuupakārabhāvaṃ, na kevalaṃ idamevāti āha ‘guṇavisiṭṭhatañcā’ti. Tena bahūpakārattepi guṇavisiṭṭhattābhāve guṇavisiṭṭhattepi bahūpakārattābhāve dātuṃ vaṭṭatīti dassetī”ti vinayatthamañjūsāyaṃ (kaṅakhā. abhi. ṭī. anupakhajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) vacanato. Omakaparicchedena ekena aṅgena yuttassapi. Katamena ekena aṅgena? Bahūpakāratāya vā guṇavisiṭṭhatāya vā. Kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce? “Bahūpakārataṃ guṇavisiṭṭhatañca sallakkhentoti bhaṇḍāgārikassa bahūpakārataṃ, dhammakathikādīnaṃ guṇavisiṭṭhatañca sallakkhento”ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.119-121) vacanato.
“Katihaṅgehi yuttassa dhuvavāsāya dīyate” means a dwelling is given for permanent residence to one endowed with two factors in the highest sense. Which two? Great benefit and special qualities. How is this known? “Bahūpakārata” refers to the state of being greatly beneficial, such as a storekeeper, but it is not only this, so it says “guṇavisiṭṭhatañca”—indicating that it is proper to give even if there is great benefit without special qualities, or special qualities without great benefit, according to the statement in the Vinayatthamañjūsā (kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. anupakhajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā). In a lesser sense, it may be given to one endowed with one factor. Which one? Either great benefit or special qualities. How is this known? “Considering great benefit and special qualities” refers to considering the great benefit of a storekeeper or the special qualities of a Dhamma teacher, according to the statement in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.119-121).
“To one endowed with how many factors is it given for permanent residence?” By the highest criterion, a dwelling is given for permanent residence to one endowed with two factors. With which two factors? With great helpfulness and superior qualities. How is this known? From the Vinayatthamañjūsā (kaṅakhā. abhi. ṭī. anupakhajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), which says, “‘Great helpfulness’** means being very helpful, like a storekeeper and so on, and not only this, he says, ‘and superior qualities’. Therefore, it shows that even with great helpfulness, if there are no superior qualities, and even with superior qualities, if there is no great helpfulness, it is proper to give”. By the lowest criterion, even to one endowed with one factor. With which one factor? With great helpfulness or with superior qualities. How is this known? From the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.119-121), which says, ”considering great helpfulness and superior qualities”**, considering the great helpfulness of a storekeeper and the superior qualities of Dhamma reciters and others.”
“By how many factors is it endowed when given for permanent residence?” means it is given for permanent residence endowed with two factors in the highest sense. What are the two? Great benefit and excellence. How is it understood? “Great benefit” means the great benefit of being a storekeeper, etc., not only this, thus it is said, “and excellence.” Thus, even if there is great benefit but no excellence, or excellence but no great benefit, it is permissible to give, this is shown. In the Vinayatthamañjūsā (commentary on the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī, Anupakhajjasikkhāpada), it is said. In the lower sense, it is endowed with one factor. What is that one factor? Great benefit or excellence. How is it understood? “Considering great benefit and excellence” means considering the great benefit of the storekeeper and the excellence of the Dhamma teacher, etc., as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (commentary on Pācittiya 3.119-121).
ID1186
Senāsanaggāho pana duvidho utukāle ca vassāvāse cāti kālavasena. Atha vā tayo senāsanaggāhā purimako pacchimako antarāmuttakoti. Tesaṃ viseso heṭṭhā vuttova. “Utukāle senāsanaggāho antarāmuttako ca taṅkhaṇapaṭisallāno cāti dubbidho. Vassāvāse senāsanaggāho purimako ca pacchimako cāti dubbidhoti cattāro senāsanaggāhā”ti ācariyā vadanti, taṃ vacanaṃ pāḷiyampi aṭṭhakathāyampi na āgataṃ . Pāḷiyaṃ (cūḷava. 318) pana “tayome, bhikkhave, senāsanaggāhā purimako pacchimako antarāmuttako”icceva āgato, aṭṭhakathāyampi (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318) “tīsu senāsanaggāhesu purimako ca pacchimako cāti ime dve gāhā thāvarā, antarāmuttake ayaṃ vinicchayo”ti āgato.
The dwelling assignment is of two kinds: during the seasons and during the rains retreat, according to time. Alternatively, there are three dwelling assignments: the earlier, the later, and the interim-freed. Their distinction has been stated below. “The dwelling assignment during the seasons and the interim-freed are twofold: that of the moment and that of seclusion. The dwelling assignment during the rains retreat is twofold: the earlier and the later—thus, four dwelling assignments,” say the teachers, but this statement is not found in the Pali or the commentary. In the Pali (cūḷava. 318), it is said: “There are three dwelling assignments, bhikkhave: the earlier, the later, and the interim-freed.” In the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318), it is said: “Among the three dwelling assignments, the earlier and the later are fixed assignments; regarding the interim-freed, this is the decision.”
The taking of lodging is of two kinds according to time: during the seasons and during the rains residence. Or, there are three takings of lodging: the earlier, the later, and the intermediate release. Their distinction has been stated above. “The taking of lodging during the seasons and the intermediate release are of two kinds: temporary reflection at that moment. The taking of lodging during the rains residence is of two kinds: the earlier and the later. So there are four takings of lodging,” say the teachers. That statement does not come in the Pāli or in the commentary. In the Pāli (cūḷava. 318), however, it only comes as “There are these three, monks, takings of lodging: the earlier, the later, and the intermediate release,” and in the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318) it comes as, “Among the three takings of lodging, these two, the earlier and the later, are permanent; in the intermediate release, this is the decision.”
The taking of lodging is of two kinds: during the season and during the rains residence, thus by time. Or there are three kinds of taking lodging: the first, the last, and the interim. Their distinction is as stated above. “The taking of lodging during the season is of two kinds: the interim and the momentary retreat. The taking of lodging during the rains residence is of two kinds: the first and the last, thus there are four kinds of taking lodging,” thus the teachers say, but this statement is not found in the Pāli or the commentaries. In the Pāli (Cūḷavagga 318), it is said, “There are, O monks, three kinds of taking lodging: the first, the last, and the interim,” and in the commentary (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 318), it is said, “Among the three kinds of taking lodging, the first and the last are stable, the interim is to be determined.”
ID1187
Idāni pana ekacce ācariyā “imasmiṃ kāle sabbe vihārā saṅghikāva, puggalikavihāro nāma natthi. Kasmā? Vihāradāyakānaṃ vihāradānakāle kulūpakā ’imaṃ vihāraṃ āgatānāgatassa cātuddisassa saṅghassa demā’ti vacībhedaṃ kārāpenti, tasmā navavihārāpi saṅghikā eva. Ekaccesu vihāresu evaṃ avatvā dentesupi ’tasmiṃ jīvante puggaliko hoti, mate saṅghikoyevā’ti vuttattā porāṇakavihārāpi saṅghikāva hontī”ti vadanti. Tatrevaṃ vicāretabbo – vacībhedaṃ kārāpetvā dinnavihāresupi dāyakā saṅghaṃ uddissa karontā nāma appakā, “imaṃ nāma bhikkhuṃ imaṃ nāma theraṃ vasāpessāmī”ti cintetvā puttadāramittāmaccādīhi sammantetvā patiṭṭhāpenti, patiṭṭhānakāle avadantāpi dānakāle yebhuyyena vadanti. Atha pana kulūpakā dānakāle sikkhāpetvā vadāpenti, evaṃ vadantāpi dāyakā appakā saṅghaṃ uddissa denti, bahutarā attano kulūpakameva uddissa denti. Evaṃ sante kulūpakānaṃ vacanaṃ navasu adhammikadānesu “puggalassa pariṇataṃ saṅghassa pariṇāmetī”ti (pārā. 660; pāci. 492) vuttaṃ ekaṃ adhammikadānaṃ āpajjati. “Tasmiṃ jīvante puggaliko, mate saṅghiko”ti ayaṃ pāṭho mūlapuggalikavisaye na āgato, mūlasaṅghikavihāraṃ jaggāpetuṃ puggalikakārāpanaṭṭhāne āgato, tasmā navavihārāpi puggalaṃ uddissa dinnā santiyeva. Porāṇakavihārāpi mūle puggalikavasena dinnā saddhivihārikādīnaṃ puggalikavaseneva dīyamānāpi tasmiṃ jīvanteyeva vissāsavasena gayhamānāpi puggalikā hontiyeva, tasmā sabbaso puggalikavihārassa abhāvavādo vicāretabbova.
Now, some teachers say: “In this time, all dwellings are saṅghika only; there is no such thing as a personal dwelling. Why? Because at the time of giving a dwelling, donors, prompted by their intimates, say, ‘We give this dwelling to the Sangha of the four quarters, present and future,’ so even new dwellings are saṅghika. Even in some dwellings where they give without saying so, it is said, ‘While he lives, it is personal; after his death, it becomes saṅghika,’ so even ancient dwellings are saṅghika.” This should be examined thus: Even in dwellings given with such a declaration, few donors give with the Sangha in mind; most intend, “I will have this bhikkhu or that elder reside here,” consulting with sons, wives, friends, or ministers, and establish it. Even if they do not say so at the time of establishment, they often do at the time of giving. Even when intimates instruct them to say so at the time of giving, few donors give with the Sangha in mind; most give with their own intimates in mind. In that case, the statement of the intimates falls into one of the nine unrighteous gifts stated as “redirecting what was intended for an individual to the Sangha” (pārā. 660; pāci. 492). The reading “While he lives, it is personal; after his death, it is saṅghika” does not apply to an originally personal context but to a context where an originally saṅghika dwelling is maintained personally. Thus, even new dwellings given with an individual in mind exist, and ancient dwellings originally given as personal, or given personally to co-residents, remain personal as long as they are taken in trust during his lifetime. Therefore, the assertion of the complete absence of personal dwellings should be examined.
Now, some teachers say, “At this time, all monasteries are saṅghika (belonging to the Saṅgha), there is no such thing as a puggalika (personal) monastery. Why? Because at the time of donating a monastery, the donors are made to make a verbal declaration by those close to the monastic order (kulūpaka) stating, ‘We donate this monastery to the Saṅgha of the four directions, present and future,’ therefore even new monasteries are saṅghika. Even in some monasteries where such declaration is not made, it is stated, ‘While he is alive, it is personal (puggalika), when he dies, it automatically becomes saṅghika,’ thus even ancient monasteries are saṅghika.” In this regard, it should be considered thus: Even in monasteries donated with a verbal declaration, there are few donors who truly dedicate it to the Saṅgha; they think “I will have this monk or this elder reside (here)”, deliberate with their sons, daughters, friends, and ministers, and establish it. Although they do not verbally state during establishment, they mostly state it during the act of donation. However, the kulūpakas make them verbally declare after teaching during the time of donation, even among that, donors offering with a focus on the Saṅgha are few. Most donate with the intention of supporting their kulūpaka. In this case, regarding the statement of the kulūpakas, among the nine un-Dhamma-like donations, it falls under one type of un-Dhamma-like donation, namely, “what is dedicated to an individual is transferred to the Saṅgha” (pārā. 660; pāci. 492). The statement, “While he is alive, it is personal; when he dies, it is saṅghika,” does not apply to the original personal (mūlapuggalika) context, but it applies to the place where actions are done in order to keep and make personal an original saṅghika monastery. Therefore, even new monasteries dedicated to an individual still exist. Even ancient monasteries, originally donated as personal property, being given to disciples and others as personal property, or even received by familiar terms, are indeed personal. Therefore, the assertion that personal monasteries are completely non-existent should be reconsidered.
Now, some teachers say: “At this time, all monasteries are communal (saṅghika), and there are no personal (puggalika) monasteries. Why? Because at the time of donating the monastery, the lay donors make a verbal declaration, saying, ‘We give this monastery to the Saṅgha of the four quarters, present and future.’ Therefore, even new monasteries are communal. In some cases, even if such a declaration is not made, it is said, ‘While the donor is alive, the monastery is personal, but after their death, it becomes communal.’ Thus, even ancient monasteries are communal.” In this regard, it should be considered thus: Even in cases where a verbal declaration is made, few donors actually dedicate the monastery to the Saṅgha. Most think, “We will establish this monk or elder here,” and after consulting with their family, they establish the monastery. Even if they do not speak at the time of establishment, they usually speak at the time of donation. Moreover, the lay donors instruct them to speak at the time of donation. Even when they speak thus, few donors give to the Saṅgha; most give to their own relatives. Therefore, in such cases, the statement of the lay donors leads to one improper donation, as it is said, “What is intended for an individual is redirected to the Saṅgha” (pārā. 660; pāci. 492). The phrase, “While the donor is alive, it is personal; after death, it is communal,” does not apply to the original personal monastery but to the communal monastery established for the purpose of making it personal. Therefore, even new monasteries are given to an individual. Ancient monasteries, originally given personally, are still considered personal as long as the donor is alive, even if they are given to disciples or others. Thus, the claim that there are no personal monasteries at all should be carefully considered.
ID1188
Aññe pana ācariyā “imasmiṃ kāle saṅghikavihārā nāma na santi, sabbe puggalikāva. Kasmā? Navavihārāpi patiṭṭhāpanakāle dānakāle ca kulūpakabhikkhuṃyeva uddissa katattā puggalikāva, porāṇakavihārāpi sissānusissehi vā aññehi vā puggalehi eva pariggahitattā, na kadāci saṅghena pariggahitattā puggalikāva honti, na saṅghikā”ti vadanti. Tatrāpyevaṃ vicāretabbaṃ – navavihārepi patiṭṭhānakālepi dānakālepi ekacce saṅghaṃ uddissa karonti, ekacce puggalaṃ. Pubbeva puggalaṃ uddissa katepi atthakāmānaṃ paṇḍitānaṃ vacanaṃ sutvā puggalikadānato saṅghikadānameva mahapphalataranti saddahitvā saṅghike karontāpi dāyakā santi, puggalikavasena paṭiggahite porāṇakavihārepi keci bhikkhū maraṇakāle saṅghassa niyyātenti. Keci kassaci adatvā maranti, tadā so vihāro saṅghiko hoti. Savatthukamahāvihāre pana karontā rājarājamahāmattādayo “pañcavassasahassaparimāṇaṃ sāsanaṃ yāva tiṭṭhati, tāva mama vihāre vasitvā saṅgho cattāro paccaye paribhuñjatū”ti paṇidhāya cirakālaṃ saṅghassa paccayuppādakaraṃ gāmakhettādikaṃ “amhākaṃ vihārassa demā”ti denti, vihārassāti ca vihāre vasanakasaṅghassa uddissa denti, na kulūpakabhūtassa ekapuggalassa eva, tasmā yebhuyyena saṅghikā dissanti, pāsāṇesu akkharaṃ likhitvāpi ṭhapenti, tasmā sabbaso saṅghikavihārābhāvavādopi vicāretabbova.
Other teachers say: “In this time, there are no saṅghika dwellings; all are personal. Why? Even new dwellings are personal because they are made with a specific bhikkhu in mind at the time of establishment and giving. Ancient dwellings, too, are personal because they are possessed by disciples, their disciples, or other individuals, and never by the Sangha.” This, too, should be examined thus: In some new dwellings, at the time of establishment and giving, some give with the Sangha in mind, others with an individual. Even when previously made with an individual in mind, some donors, hearing wise and well-wishing people say that giving to the Sangha is more fruitful than giving to an individual, make it saṅghika. In ancient dwellings received personally, some bhikkhus dedicate it to the Sangha at the time of death; some die without giving it to anyone, and then it becomes saṅghika. In great monasteries with land, kings and ministers, intending, “As long as the Dispensation endures for five thousand years, may the Sangha reside in my dwelling and use the four requisites,” give villages, fields, and the like for the long-term provision of requisites, saying, “We give this to our dwelling,” meaning to the Sangha residing there, not merely to an individual intimate. Thus, they appear mostly saṅghika, even inscribed on stone. Therefore, the assertion of the complete absence of saṅghika dwellings should also be examined.
Other teachers, however, say, “At this time, there are no saṅghika monasteries; all are personal (puggalika). Why? Because even new monasteries, at the time of their establishment and donation, are made with a focus on the kulūpaka monk, thus they are puggalika. Ancient monasteries are also possessed by either disciples of disciples or other individuals, and not ever possessed by the Saṅgha, and therefore are puggalika, not saṅghika.” Therein also, it should be considered thus: Even in new monasteries, at the time of establishment and donation, some dedicate them to the Saṅgha, and some to an individual. Even in cases formerly dedicated to an individual, hearing the words of wise people who are focused on welfare, and believing that saṅghika donation is more fruitful than puggalika donation, there are donors who convert it into saṅghika. Even in ancient monasteries accepted as personal property, some monks, at the time of their death, bequeath them to the Saṅgha. Some die without giving them to anyone, in which case the monastery becomes saṅghika. However, kings, chief ministers, and others, when constructing a monastery, such as the Great Monastery of Savatthu, make a resolution, “As long as the Dispensation lasts for five thousand years, may the Saṅgha reside in my monastery and use the four requisites,” and donate villages, fields, and so on that are sources of long-term requisites for the Saṅgha, saying, “We donate to our monastery.” And “to the monastery,” they mean to the Saṅgha residing in the monastery, not just to a single individual who is a kulūpaka. Therefore, mostly saṅghika monasteries are visible. They also inscribe letters on stones. Thus, the assertion of the complete non-existence of saṅghika monasteries should also be reconsidered.
Other teachers say: “At this time, there are no communal monasteries; all are personal. Why? Even new monasteries are personal because they are established and donated with a specific monk in mind. Ancient monasteries are also personal because they are occupied by disciples or other individuals and are never occupied by the Saṅgha.” In this regard, it should be considered thus: Even in new monasteries, some are dedicated to the Saṅgha at the time of establishment and donation, while others are dedicated to an individual. Even if previously dedicated to an individual, some donors, hearing the wise words of those who wish for good, believe that communal donation is more fruitful than personal donation and thus dedicate it to the Saṅgha. In ancient monasteries, some monks, at the time of death, dedicate them to the Saṅgha. Some die without doing so, and then the monastery becomes communal. In the case of the Jetavana monastery, the king and his ministers, wishing for the Dhamma to last for five thousand years, donated villages and fields to the Saṅgha for the provision of requisites, saying, “We give this to our monastery,” meaning to the Saṅgha residing there, not to a specific individual. Therefore, most appear to be communal, and even inscriptions are carved on stones. Thus, the claim that there are no communal monasteries at all should be carefully considered.
ID1189
Apare pana ācariyā “imasmiṃ kāle vihāradāyakasantakāva, tasmā dāyakāyeva vicāretuṃ issarā, na saṅgho, na puggalo. Vihāradāyake asantepi tassa puttadhītunattapanattādayo yāva kulaparamparā tassa vihārassa issarāva honti. Kasmāti ce? ’Yena vihāro kārito, so vihārasāmiko’ti (pāci. aṭṭha. 116) āgatattā ca ’tassa vā kule yo koci āpucchitabbo’ti (pāci. aṭṭha. 116) ca vacanato vihārassāmibhūto dāyako vā tassa vaṃse uppanno vā vicāretuṃ issaro. ’Pacchinne kulavaṃse yo tassa janapadassa sāmiko, so acchinditvā puna deti cittalapabbate bhikkhunā nīhaṭaṃ udakavāhakaṃ aḷanāgarājamahesī viya, evampi vaṭṭatī’ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.538-539) vacanato vihāradāyakassa kulavaṃse pacchinnepi tassa janapadassa issaro rājā vā rājamahāmatto vā yo koci issaro vā vihāraṃ vicāretuṃ yathājjhāsayaṃ dātuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vadanti, tampi aññe paṇḍitā nānujānanti.
Yet other teachers say: “In this time, dwellings belong only to the donors; thus, the donors alone have the authority to decide, not the Sangha or an individual. Even when the donor is no longer present, their sons, daughters, grandsons, or descendants in the family line remain the masters of that dwelling as long as the lineage continues. Why? Because it is said, ‘The one by whom the dwelling was built is the dwelling’s master’ (pāci. aṭṭha. 116), and ‘Anyone in his family should be asked’ (pāci. aṭṭha. 116), so the donor or someone born in his lineage is the master with authority to decide. It is also said in the commentary (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.538-539), ‘When the family line is broken, the ruler of that region, without seizing it, may give it again, as Queen Aḷanāga did with the water channel removed by a bhikkhunī at Cittala Mountain; this is permissible.’ Thus, even when the donor’s lineage is broken, a king, minister, or any ruler of that region may decide and give the dwelling as he wishes.” But other scholars do not agree with this.
Other teachers, however, say, “At this time, only the donors of the monasteries possess ownership, therefore only the donors have authority to manage them, neither the Saṅgha nor an individual. Even in the absence of the monastery donor, his sons, daughters, grandsons, great-grandsons, and so on, as long as the family lineage continues, are the owners of that monastery. Why? Because it is stated that, ‘He who built the monastery is the owner of the monastery’ (pāci. aṭṭha. 116) and also because of the statement ‘Someone in his family should be consulted’ (pāci. aṭṭha. 116), the donor who is the owner of the monastery, or someone born in his lineage, has the authority to manage it. ‘If the family lineage is broken, whoever is the ruler of that region, he can take it back and give it again, like the chief queen of King Aḷanāga who restored the water channel removed by a nun at Cittala Mountain; even in this way it is permissible,’ according to the commentary (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.538-539). Because of that statement, even if the monastery donor’s family lineage is broken, the ruler of that region, whether a king, a chief minister of the king, or any other authority, has the authority to manage the monastery and donate it according to their preference.” However, other wise people do not approve of that.
Other teachers say: “At this time, the donors of the monastery are the owners, and thus the donors have the authority to decide, not the Saṅgha or an individual. Even if the donors are no longer present, their descendants, as long as the family line continues, remain the owners of the monastery. Why? Because it is said, ‘The one who built the monastery is its owner’ (pāci. aṭṭha. 116), and ‘Whoever in that family should be consulted’ (pāci. aṭṭha. 116). Thus, the donor or their descendants have the authority to decide. Even if the family line is cut off, the ruler of that region, whether a king or a minister, can take it and give it again, as stated in the commentary (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.538-539).” However, other wise ones do not agree with this.
ID1190
Kathaṃ? “Yena vihāro kārito, so vihārasāmiko”ti vacanaṃ pubbavohāravasena vuttaṃ, na idāni issaravasena yathā jetavanaṃ, pattassāmikotyādi. Yathā hi jetassa rājakumārassa vanaṃ uyyānaṃ jetavananti viggahe kate yadipi anāthapiṇḍikena kiṇitvā vihārapatiṭṭhāpanakālato paṭṭhāya rājakumāro tassa uyyānassa issaro na hoti, tathāpi anāthapiṇḍikena kiṇitakālato pubbe issarabhūtapubbattā pubbavohāravasena sabbadāpi jetavanantveva voharīyati. Yathā ca pattassa sāmiko pattassāmikoti viggahe kate yadipi dāyakehi kiṇitvā bhikkhussa dinnakālato paṭṭhāya kammāro pattassa issaro na hoti, tathāpi dāyakena kiṇitakālato pubbe issarabhūtapubbattā pubbavohāravasena pattassāmikotveva voharīyati, evaṃ yadipi bhikkhussa dinnakālato paṭṭhāya dāyako vihārassa issaro na hoti vatthupariccāgalakkhaṇattā dānassa, tathāpi dānakālato pubbe issarabhūtapubbattā pubbavohāravasena vihārassāmikotveva voharīyati, na mukhyato issarabhāvatoti viññāyati, tasmā saṅghassa vā gaṇassa vā puggalassa vā dinnakālato paṭṭhāya saṅghādayo paṭiggāhakā eva vicāretuṃ issarā, na dāyako.
How so? The statement “The one by whom the dwelling was built is the dwelling’s master” is said in the sense of prior usage, not current authority, as with Jetavana or the owner of a bowl. Just as Jetavana, though parsed as Prince Jeta’s garden, ceases to be under the prince’s authority after Anāthapiṇḍika buys and establishes it as a dwelling, yet is still called Jetavana due to prior usage, and just as a bowl’s owner, though parsed as such, ceases to be the potter’s authority after the donor buys and gives it to a bhikkhu, yet is called the bowl’s owner due to prior usage, so too, though the donor ceases to be the dwelling’s master after giving it to a bhikkhu due to the characteristic of relinquishment in giving, he is called the dwelling’s master due to prior usage before the giving, not as the primary master. Thus, it is understood that from the time it is given to the Sangha, a group, or an individual, the recipients alone have authority to decide, not the donor.
How so? The statement, “He who built the monastery is the owner of the monastery,” is said in reference to past usage, not with the meaning of current ownership, just like Jetavana, ‘owner of the bowl’ etc. Just as, in the grammatical analysis of ‘Jetavana’ as ‘the forest or park of Prince Jeta,’ although from the time Anāthapiṇḍika bought it and established the monastery, the prince is not the owner of that park, yet because he was the owner prior to the time Anāthapiṇḍika bought it, by past usage it is always referred to as ‘Jetavana.’ And just as, in the grammatical analysis of ‘pattassāmiko’ (owner of the bowl) as ‘the owner of the bowl,’ although from the time the donors bought it and gave it to the monk, the blacksmith is not the owner of the bowl, yet because he was the owner prior to the time the donor bought it, by past usage, it is referred to as ‘owner of the bowl.’ Similarly, although from the time it is given to the monk, the donor is not the owner of the monastery, because of the characteristic of donation being the relinquishment of the object, yet because he was the owner prior to the time of donation, by past usage, he is referred to as ‘the owner of the monastery,’ not in the primary sense of ownership, it is understood. Therefore, from the time it is given to the Saṅgha, a group, or an individual, only the recipients, the Saṅgha and others, have the authority to manage, not the donor.
How so? The statement, “The one who built the monastery is its owner,” is said in the sense of conventional speech, not in the sense of ownership, as in the case of Jetavana or a bowl. Just as Prince Jeta’s grove, after being purchased by Anāthapiṇḍika, was no longer owned by the prince, but due to his previous ownership, it is still conventionally called Jetavana. Similarly, a bowl, after being purchased by donors and given to a monk, is no longer owned by the maker, but due to his previous ownership, it is still conventionally called the maker’s bowl. Likewise, even though the donor is no longer the owner after giving the monastery to a monk, due to his previous ownership, it is still conventionally called the donor’s monastery, but not in the primary sense of ownership. Therefore, from the time of giving to the Saṅgha, group, or individual, the recipients are the ones with the authority to decide, not the donor.
ID1191
Kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce? Santesupi anāthapiṇḍikādīsu vihāradāyakesu “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, pañcahaṅgehi samannāgataṃ bhikkhuṃ senāsanaggāhāpakaṃ sammannitu”ntiādinā (cūḷava. 317) saṅghena sammataṃ senāsanaggāhāpakaṃ anujānitvā, “anujānāmi, bhikkhave…pe… seyyaggena gāhetu”ntiādinā (cūḷava. 318) senāsanaggāhāpakasseva vicāretuṃ issarabhāvassa vacanato ca “dve bhikkhū saṅghikaṃ bhūmiṃ gahetvā sodhetvā saṅghikaṃ senāsanaṃ karonti, yena sā bhūmi paṭhamaṃ gahitā, so sāmī”ti ca “ubhopi puggalikaṃ karonti, soyeva sāmī”ti ca “yo pana saṅghikaṃ vallimattampi aggahetvā āharimena upakaraṇena saṅghikāya bhūmiyā puggalikavihāraṃ kāreti, upaḍḍhaṃ saṅghikaṃ upaḍḍhaṃ puggalika”nti ca saṅghapuggalānaṃyeva sāmibhāvassa aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttattā ca viññāyati.
How is this known? Even when donors like Anāthapiṇḍika are present, the Blessed One allows the appointment of a dwelling assigner endowed with five qualities by the Sangha (cūḷava. 317), and permits the dwelling assigner to decide by counting beds (cūḷava. 318). It is also said in the commentary, “Two bhikkhus take and clear Sangha land and make a Sangha dwelling; the one who first took that land is the master,” and “If both make it personal, he alone is the master,” and “But one who, without taking even a creeper from the Sangha, builds a personal dwelling on Sangha land with brought materials, it is half Sangha and half personal.” Thus, it is understood from the commentary’s statements that authority belongs only to the Sangha or individuals.
How is it understood? Even while monastery donors like Anāthapiṇḍika were present, by stating “I allow, monks, a monk endowed with five qualities to be appointed as the assigner of lodgings” (cūḷava. 317), without authorizing the appointed assigner of lodgings, and stating “I allow, monks… to take by seniority” (cūḷava. 318) and so on, by stating the authority of the lodging assigner to manage. And, it is stated in the commentary, “Two monks take Saṅghika land, clean it, and make a Saṅghika dwelling; the one by whom that land was first taken is the owner.” And, “Both make it puggalika; he is the owner.” And, “Whoever builds a puggalika monastery on Saṅghika land, with brought materials, without taking even a creeper belonging to the Saṅgha, half is Saṅghika, half is puggalika.” Only saṅgha and puggala are the owner, this fact is mentioned in commentary. This is understood by those statements.
How is this understood? Even when donors like Anāthapiṇḍika are present, the Saṅgha appoints a monk qualified in five factors as the assigner of lodgings (cūḷava. 317), and it is said, “I allow, monks, the assigner of lodgings to decide” (cūḷava. 318). Furthermore, it is said, “Two monks take communal land, clear it, and make a communal lodging. The one who first took the land is the owner” and “If both make it personal, that one is the owner” and “If someone makes a personal monastery on communal land without taking even a strip of it, half is communal and half is personal” (cūḷava. 318). Thus, it is understood that the Saṅgha or individual is the owner, as stated in the commentary.
ID1192
“Tassa vā kule yo koci āpucchitabbo”ti aṭṭhakathāvacanampi tesaṃ vihārassa issarabhāvadīpakaṃ na hoti, atha kho gamiko bhikkhu disaṃ gantukāmo vihāre āpucchitabbabhikkhusāmaṇeraārāmikesu asantesu te āpucchitvā gantabbabhāvameva dīpeti. Vuttañhetaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ “imaṃ pana dasavidhampi seyyaṃ saṅghike vihāre santharitvā vā santharāpetvā vā pakkamantena āpucchitvā pakkamitabbaṃ, āpucchantena ca bhikkhumhi sati bhikkhu āpucchitabbo…pe… tasmiṃ asati ārāmiko, tasmimpi asati yena vihāro kārito, so vihārassāmiko, tassa vā kule yo koci āpucchitabbo”ti. Evaṃ ārāmikassapi āpucchitabbato olokanatthāya vattasīseneva āpucchitabbo, na tesaṃ saṅghikasenāsanassa issarabhāvatoti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
The commentary statement “Anyone in his family should be asked” does not indicate their authority over the dwelling but rather that a visiting bhikkhu wishing to depart to another region should ask them if no bhikkhu, novice, or monastery worker is present in the dwelling. It is said in the commentary: “Having spread or caused to be spread any of these ten types of bedding in a Sangha dwelling, one departing should ask permission; if a bhikkhu is present, he should be asked… if none is present, the monastery worker; if he too is absent, the one by whom the dwelling was built, the dwelling’s master, or anyone in his family should be asked.” Thus, just as the monastery worker is to be asked, it is only for the sake of acknowledgment, not because they have authority over the Sangha dwelling.
The statement in the commentary, “Someone in his family should be consulted,” does not indicate their ownership of the monastery. Rather, it indicates that a gamika monk (one about to depart), wishing to go to another region, in the absence of monks, novices, or monastery attendants in the monastery who should be informed, should inform them and depart. It is stated in the commentary, “When this tenfold bedding, in a saṅghika monastery, has been spread or caused to be spread, one should depart after informing. When informing, if a monk is present, the monk should be informed… if he is absent, the monastery attendant (ārāmika), if he is also absent, he who built the monastery is the owner of the monastery, or someone in his family should be informed.” Thus, even the ārāmika should be informed only as a matter of duty, to be looked after, not because of their ownership of the saṅghika dwelling. That should be understood.
The commentary statement, “Whoever in that family should be consulted,” does not indicate their ownership of the monastery. Rather, it means that a monk traveling to another region should consult the monks, novices, or attendants residing in the monastery. If they are not present, he should consult the one who built the monastery or someone in his family. This is stated in the commentary: “Having spread or caused to spread these ten kinds of bedding in a communal monastery, one should depart after informing. When informing, if a monk is present, he should be informed… if not, the attendant; if not, the one who built the monastery or someone in his family.” Thus, even the attendant should be informed for the sake of supervision, but this does not indicate their ownership of the communal lodging.
ID1193
“Pacchinne kulavaṃse”tyādivacanañca akappiyavasena katānaṃ akappiyavohārena paṭiggahitānaṃ khettavatthutaḷākādīnaṃ akappiyattā bhikkhūhi pariccattānaṃ kappiyakaraṇatthāya rājādīhi gahetvā puna tesaṃyeva bhikkhūnaṃ dānameva dīpeti, na tesaṃ rājādīnaṃ tehi bhikkhūhi aññesaṃ saṅghagaṇapuggalacetiyānaṃ dānaṃ. Yadi dadeyyuṃ, adhammikadānaadhammikapaaggahaadhammikaparibhogā siyuṃ. Vuttañhetaṃ parivāre (pari. aṭṭha. 329) “nava adhammikāni dānāni saṅghassa pariṇataṃ aññasaṅghassa vā cetiyassa vā puggalassa vā pariṇāmeti, cetiyassa pariṇataṃ aññacetiyassa vā saṅghassa vā puggalassa vā pariṇāmeti, puggalassa pariṇataṃ aññapuggalassa vā saṅghassa vā cetiyassa vā pariṇāmetī”ti. Aṭṭhakathāyañca (pari. aṭṭha. 329) “nava adhammikāni dānānīti…pe… evaṃ vuttāni. Nava paṭiggahaparibhogāti etesaṃyeva dānānaṃ paṭiggahā ca paribhogā cā”ti vuttaṃ. Tasmā yadi rājādayo issarāti gahetvā aññassa deyyuṃ, tampi dānaṃ adhammikadānaṃ hoti, taṃ dānaṃ paṭiggahā ca adhammikapaṭiggahā honti, taṃ dānaṃ paribhuñjantā ca adhammikaparibhogā hontīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
The statement “When the family line is broken” and so forth indicates that fields, land, ponds, and the like, made or received in an improper manner, relinquished by bhikkhus due to their impropriety, may be taken by a king or the like and given again to those bhikkhus to make them proper, not that kings or others may give them to another Sangha, group, individual, or shrine. If they did, it would be an unrighteous gift, an unrighteous acceptance, and an unrighteous use. This is stated in the Parivāra (pari. aṭṭha. 329): “Nine unrighteous gifts: redirecting what was intended for the Sangha to another Sangha, a shrine, or an individual; redirecting what was intended for a shrine to another shrine, the Sangha, or an individual; redirecting what was intended for an individual to another individual, the Sangha, or a shrine.” And in the commentary (pari. aṭṭha. 329): “Nine unrighteous gifts”… as stated, and “Nine acceptances and uses” refer to the acceptance and use of those very gifts. Thus, if kings or others, assuming authority, gave it to another, that gift would be unrighteous, its acceptance unrighteous, and its use unrighteous.
The statement, “If the family lineage is broken,” etc., indicates that fields, lands, tanks, and so on, obtained through improper means and improper terminology, are improper. The giving again by kings and others, after renunciation by monks due to their impropriety, is only for making them proper, not the donation of those things by those kings and others to anyone other than those monks, whether to the Saṅgha, a group, an individual, or a cetiya. If they were to give, it would be an un-Dhamma-like donation, an un-Dhamma-like acceptance, and an un-Dhamma-like use. It is stated in the Parivāra (pari. aṭṭha. 329), “Nine un-Dhamma-like donations: what is dedicated to the Saṅgha is transferred to another Saṅgha, cetiya, or individual; what is dedicated to a cetiya is transferred to another cetiya, Saṅgha, or individual; what is dedicated to an individual is transferred to another individual, Saṅgha, or cetiya.” And in the commentary (pari. aṭṭha. 329), it is stated, “Nine un-Dhamma-like donations…thus stated. Nine acceptances and uses: the acceptance and use of these same donations.” Therefore, if kings and others, taking ownership, were to give it to someone else, that donation would also be an un-Dhamma-like donation, the acceptance of that donation would be an un-Dhamma-like acceptance, and those using that donation would be engaging in an un-Dhamma-like use. That should be understood.
The statement, “If the family line is cut off,” refers to fields, ponds, etc., improperly acquired and improperly received by monks, which are then given back to them by the king, etc., for proper use. It does not mean that the king, etc., can give them to others, such as another Saṅgha, group, individual, or shrine. If they did so, it would be an improper donation, improper acceptance, and improper use. As stated in the Parivāra (pari. aṭṭha. 329): “There are nine improper donations: what is intended for the Saṅgha is redirected to another Saṅgha, shrine, or individual; what is intended for a shrine is redirected to another shrine, Saṅgha, or individual; what is intended for an individual is redirected to another individual, Saṅgha, or shrine.” The commentary (pari. aṭṭha. 329) explains: “These nine improper donations… their acceptance and use are also improper.” Therefore, if the king, etc., as owners, give to another, that donation is improper, its acceptance is improper, and its use is improper.
ID1194
Athāpi evaṃ vadeyyuṃ “vihāradānaṃ saṅghassa, aggaṃ buddhena vaṇṇitantiādīsu (cūḷava. 295, 315) ’saṅghassā’ti ayaṃ saddo ’dāna’nti ettha sāmisambandho na hoti, atha kho sampadānameva, ’dāyakassā’ti pana sāmisambandho ajjhāharitabbo, tasmā sāmibhūto dāyakova issaro, na sampadānabhūto saṅgho”ti. Te evaṃ vattabbā – “vihāradānaṃ saṅghassā”ti idaṃ dānasamaye pavattavasena vuttaṃ, na dinnasamaye pavattavasena. Dānakāle hi dāyako attano vatthubhūtaṃ vihāraṃ saṅghassa pariccajitvā deti, tasmā tasmiṃ samaye dāyako sāmī hoti, saṅgho sampadānaṃ, dinnakāle pana saṅghova sāmī hoti vihārassa paṭiggahitattā, na dāyako pariccattattā, tasmā saṅgho vicāretuṃ issaro. Tenāha bhagavā “pariccattaṃ taṃ, bhikkhave, dāyakehī”ti (cūḷava. 273). Idaṃ pana saddalakkhaṇagarukā saddahissantīti vuttaṃ, atthato pana cīvarādīnaṃ catunnaṃ paccayānaṃ dānakāleyeva dāyakasantakabhāvo dinnakālato paṭṭhāya paṭiggāhakasantakabhāvo sabbesaṃ pākaṭo, tasmā idampi vacanaṃ dāyakasantakabhāvasādhakaṃ na hotīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
Even if they say, “In statements like ‘Giving a dwelling to the Sangha is praised as the highest by the Buddha’ (cūḷava. 295, 315), the word ‘saṅghassa’ does not imply ownership in relation to ‘giving’ but merely the recipient, while ‘dāyakassa’ implies ownership and must be inferred, so the donor, being the owner, is the master, not the Sangha as the recipient,” they should be told: “‘Giving a dwelling to the Sangha’ is said regarding the act of giving, not the state after giving. At the time of giving, the donor, relinquishing his property, the dwelling, gives it to the Sangha; thus, at that time, the donor is the owner, and the Sangha is the recipient. After it is given, the Sangha alone is the owner due to having received it, not the donor due to having relinquished it. Therefore, the Sangha has authority to decide.” Thus said the Blessed One: “It has been relinquished, bhikkhave, by the donors” (cūḷava. 273). This is said for those who value grammatical analysis, but in meaning, it is clear to all that ownership of the four requisites like robes belongs to the donor at the time of giving and to the recipient after giving, so this statement does not establish the donor’s ownership.
However, they might say, “In statements like ‘the donation of a monastery to the Saṅgha is the foremost donation praised by the Buddha’ (cūḷava. 295, 315), the word ‘to the Saṅgha’ (saṅghassa) is not a possessive relationship with ‘donation’, but rather the dative case. But ‘of the donor’ (dāyakassa) should be understood as a possessive relationship. Therefore, the donor, who is the owner, has the authority, not the Saṅgha, which is the recipient.” They should be told thus: “‘The donation of a monastery to the Saṅgha’ is said in reference to the action occurring at the time of donation, not in reference to the action occurring at the time it has been donated. At the time of donation, the donor relinquishes his material monastery and gives it to the Saṅgha, therefore at that time, the donor is the owner, and the Saṅgha is the recipient. However, at the time it has been given, the Saṅgha is the owner because it has received the monastery, not the donor because he has relinquished it. Therefore, the Saṅgha has the authority to manage. Therefore, the Blessed One said, ‘That has been relinquished, monks, by the donors’ (cūḷava. 273). This has been said for those who will believe, emphasizing grammatical rules. However, in reality, the fact that at the time of donation of the four requisites such as robes, and so on, they are possessed by the donor, and from the time they have been given, they are possessed by the recipient, is obvious to all. Therefore, this statement also is not evidence of ownership by the donor. That should be understood.”
Even if one says, “The donation of a monastery is for the Saṅgha, as praised by the Buddha” (cūḷava. 295, 315), the word “for the Saṅgha” here refers to the act of giving, not the object. The donor is the owner, not the Saṅgha as the recipient. They should be told: “The donation of a monastery is for the Saṅgha” refers to the time of giving, not the time after giving. At the time of giving, the donor relinquishes the monastery to the Saṅgha, so the donor is the owner, and the Saṅgha is the recipient. After giving, the Saṅgha is the owner due to receiving it, not the donor due to relinquishing it. Therefore, the Saṅgha has the authority to decide. Thus, the Blessed One said, “Relinquished, monks, by the donors” (cūḷava. 273). This is stated for those who respect the letter of the teaching, but in meaning, the donor’s ownership at the time of giving and the recipient’s ownership after giving are clear for all four requisites. Therefore, this statement does not establish the donor’s ownership.
ID1195
Evaṃ hotu, tathāpi “sace bhikkhūhi pariccattabhāvaṃ ñatvā sāmiko vā tassa puttadhītaro vā añño vā koci vaṃse uppanno puna kappiyavohārena deti, vaṭṭatī”ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.538-539) vuttattā vihārassāmikabhūtadāyakassa vā tassa puttadhītādīnaṃ vaṃse uppannānaṃ vā dātuṃ issarabhāvo siddhoyevāti. Na siddho. Kasmāti ce? Nanu vuttaṃ “bhikkhūhi pariccattabhāvaṃ ñatvā”ti, tasmā akappiyattā bhikkhūhi pariccattameva kappiyakaraṇatthāya dāyakādīhi puna kappiyavohārena deti, vaṭṭati. Yathā appaṭiggahitattā bhikkhūhi aparibhuttameva khādanīyabhojanīyaṃ bhikkhusantakaṃyeva āpattimocanatthaṃ dāyakādayo paṭiggahāpeti, na paribhuttaṃ, yathā ca bījagāmapariyāpannaṃyeva bhikkhusantakaṃ bījagāmabhūtagāmabhāvato parimocanatthaṃ kappiyakārakādayo kappiyaṃ karonti, na apariyāpannaṃ, evaṃ akappiyaṃ bhikkhūhi pariccattaṃyeva taḷākādikaṃ kappiyakaraṇatthaṃ dāyakādayo puna denti, na apariccattaṃ, tasmā idampi vacanaṃ kappiyakaraṇattaṃyeva sādheti, na issarattanti viññāyati.
So be it, yet it is said in the commentary (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.538-539), “If, knowing it has been relinquished by the bhikkhus, the owner or his sons, daughters, or anyone born in his lineage gives it again in a proper manner, it is permissible,” thus establishing the authority of the donor as the dwelling’s master or those born in his lineage to give. It is not established. Why? It says, “Knowing it has been relinquished by the bhikkhus,” so what has been relinquished by the bhikkhus due to its impropriety is given again by the donor or others in a proper manner to make it proper. Just as food not yet accepted or used by bhikkhus is given by the donor or others to free them from fault, not what has been used, and just as plants subject to the rule on plants are made proper by those responsible to free them from that state, not those not subject, so too, what has been relinquished by bhikkhus as improper, like ponds, is given again by the donor or others to make it proper, not what has not been relinquished. Thus, this statement only establishes the act of making it proper, not authority.
Even if this is so, still, “If, knowing that it has been relinquished by the monks, the owner, or his sons or daughters, or any other born in the lineage, gives it again through proper terminology, it is permissible,” is said in the commentary (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.538-539), therefore the ownership, to give, of the donor of the vihāra or his sons, daughters or the descendant is indeed established. It is not established. Why? Because “knowing that it has been relinquished by the monks” is stated. Therefore it is permissible that being relinquished by the monks due to its impropriety is given again by the donors and so on through proper means to make appropriate. Just as donors and others have edible and staple foods, which are possessed by monks but have not been accepted and therefore not used, accepted again, only to relinquish demerits, but not the consumed foods, and just as donors and others make proper only that which is included in seed-group, possessed by monks, in order to release it from being seed-group and plant-group, but not that which is not included, similarly, donors and others give again only the tank and so on that are improper and have been relinquished by the monks, in order to make them proper, not that which has not been relinquished. Therefore, this statement also establishes only the making of something proper, not ownership. It is understood.
Even so, if one says, “If the monks, knowing it has been relinquished, and the owner or his descendants or someone else in the family gives it again in a proper manner, it is allowable,” as stated in the commentary (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.538-539), it is not established. Why? Because it is said, “Knowing it has been relinquished by the monks.” Therefore, since it is improper, the monks relinquish it, and the donors, etc., give it again in a proper manner for proper use. Just as unconsumed food, though belonging to the monks, is received by donors for the sake of freeing from offense, not consumed food; and just as seeds and plants belonging to the monks are made proper by the proper makers, not improper ones; so too, improper ponds, etc., relinquished by the monks, are given again by donors for proper use, not unrelinquished ones. Therefore, this statement establishes proper use, not ownership.
ID1196
Tathāpi evaṃ vadeyyuṃ “jātibhūmiyaṃ jātibhūmikā upāsakā āyasmantaṃ dhammikattheraṃ sattahi jātibhūmikavihārehi pabbājayiṃsūti vacanato dāyako vihārassa issaroti viññāyati. Issarattāyeva hi te theraṃ pabbājetuṃ sakkā, no anissarā”ti, na kho panevaṃ daṭṭhabbaṃ. Kasmā? “Jātibhūmikā upāsakā”icceva hi vuttaṃ, na “vihāradāyakā”ti, tasmā tasmiṃ dese vasantā bahavo upāsakā āyasmantaṃ dhammikattheraṃ ayuttacārittā sakalasattavihārato pabbājayiṃsu, na attano vihāradāyakabhāvena issarattā, tasmā idampi udāharaṇaṃ na issarabhāvadīpakaṃ, atha kho aparādhānurūpakaraṇabhāvadīpakanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Evaṃ yadā dāyako vihāraṃ patiṭṭhāpetvā deti, tassa muñcacetanaṃ patvā dinnakālato paṭṭhāya so vā tassa vaṃse uppanno vā janapadassāmikarājādayo vā issarā bhavituṃ vā vicāretuṃ vā na labhanti, paṭiggāhakabhūto saṅgho vā gaṇo vā puggalo vā soyeva issaro bhavituṃ vā vicāretuṃ vā labhatīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
Still, they might say, “From the statement ‘Lay devotees of the native land expelled the Venerable Dhammika Thera from seven dwellings of the native land,’ it is understood that the donor is the master of the dwelling. Only because of authority could they expel the thera, not without it.” But it should not be seen thus. Why? It says, “Lay devotees of the native land,” not “donors of the dwelling,” so many lay devotees living in that region expelled the Venerable Dhammika Thera from all seven dwellings due to his improper conduct, not because of their authority as donors. Thus, this example does not indicate authority but rather action appropriate to an offense. Therefore, when a donor establishes and gives a dwelling, from the moment his intention to relinquish it is fulfilled and it is given, neither he, nor those born in his lineage, nor rulers of the region like kings have the authority to decide or act as masters; only the recipient—the Sangha, a group, or an individual—has the authority to be the master and decide.
Even so, they might say, “The lay followers who were natives, expelled Venerable Dhammika Thera from seven monasteries which were on his native land,” because of this statement, it is understood that the donor is the owner of the monastery. Because they were owners, they were able to expel the Thera, not if they were not owners”. However it should not be considered thus. Why? Because only “the lay followers who were natives” is stated, not “monastery donors.” Therefore, many lay followers living in that region expelled Venerable Dhammika Thera from all seven monasteries because of his improper conduct, not because they were owners by virtue of being donors of their own monasteries. Therefore, this example also does not indicate ownership, but rather indicates action according to offense. That should be understood. Thus, when a donor establishes and donates a monastery, having received his intention to relinquish, from the time it is donated, neither he, nor anyone born in his lineage, nor the kings and others who rule the region, have the authority to be owners or to manage it. The recipient, whether the Saṅgha, a group, or an individual, only he has the authority to be the owner or to manage it. That should be understood.
Even so, if one says, “The lay devotees of the birthplace expelled the Venerable Dhammika Thera from seven monasteries of the birthplace, indicating that the donor is the owner of the monastery. Only the owner can expel the elder, not the non-owner,” this should not be seen thus. Why? Because it is said, “The lay devotees of the birthplace,” not “the donors of the monastery.” Thus, many lay devotees living in that region expelled the Venerable Dhammika Thera from all seven monasteries due to his improper conduct, not because of their ownership as donors. Therefore, this example does not indicate ownership but the appropriateness of action based on the offense. Thus, when a donor establishes a monastery and gives it, after relinquishing it, neither he nor his descendants nor the ruler of the region can become the owner or decide. The recipient, whether the Saṅgha, group, or individual, is the one who can become the owner or decide.
ID1197
Tattha dāyakādīnaṃ issaro bhavituṃ alabhanabhāvo kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce? “Vatthupariccāgalakkhaṇattā dānassa, pathavādivatthupariccāgena ca puna gahaṇassa ayuttattā”ti vimativinodaniyaṃ vacanato “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, yaṃ dīyamānaṃ patati, taṃ sāmaṃ gahetvā paribhuñjituṃ, pariccattaṃ taṃ, bhikkhave, dāyakehī”ti (cūḷava. 273) bhagavatā vuttattā ca “pariccattaṃ taṃ, bhikkhave, dāyakehīti vacanena panettha parasantakābhāvo dīpito”ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttattā ca viññāyati. Saṅghādīnaṃ issaro bhavituṃ labhanabhāvo kathaṃ ñātabboti ce? Saṅghiko nāma vihāro saṅghassa dinno hoti pariccatto, “puggalike puggalikasaññī aññassa puggalike āpatti dukkaṭassa, attano puggalike anāpattī”ti pācittiyapāḷiyaṃ (pāci. 117, 127) āgamanato ca “antamaso caturaṅgulapādakaṃ gāmadārakehi paṃsvāgārakesu kīḷantehi katampi saṅghassa dinnato paṭṭhāya garubhaṇḍaṃ hotī”ti (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 321) samantapāsādikāyaṃ vacanato ca “abhiyogepi cettha cātuddisaṃ saṅghaṃ uddissa bhikkhūnaṃ dinnaṃ vihāraṃ vā pariveṇaṃ vā āvāsaṃ vā mahantampi khuddakampi abhiyuñjato abhiyogo na ruhati, acchinditvā gaṇhitumpi na sakkoti. Kasmā? Sabbesaṃ dhuranikkhepābhāvato. Na hettha sabbe cātuddisā bhikkhū dhuranikkhepaṃ karontīti. Dīghabhāṇakādibhedassa pana gaṇassa ekapuggalassa vā santakaṃ abhiyuñjitvā gaṇhanto sakkoti te dhuraṃ nikkhipāpetu”nti dutiyapārājikavaṇṇanāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.102) vacanato ca viññāyati.
Therein, how is it understood that donors and others lack the authority to be masters? It is understood from the statement in the Vimativinodanī: “Because giving (dāna) has the characteristic of relinquishing possessions, and because it is improper to retake what has been relinquished, such as land,” and from the Blessed One’s statement (cūḷava. 273): “I allow you, monks, to take and use for yourselves what falls while being given; that, monks, has been relinquished by the donors,” and from the commentary’s statement: “By the phrase ‘that, monks, has been relinquished by the donors,’ it is indicated here that it is not the property of another.” How is it to be known that the Sangha and others have the authority to be masters? A monastery designated as saṅghika is given to and relinquished to the Sangha, as seen in the Pācittiya text (pāci. 117, 127): “In a personal dwelling, if one perceives it as personal and it belongs to another person, there is an offense of dukkaṭa; in one’s own personal dwelling, there is no offense,” and from the statement in the Samantapāsādikā (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 321): “Even a structure with a four-inch base, made by village children playing in a dirt house, becomes a heavy item (garubhaṇḍa) for the Sangha once it is given,” and from the statement in the commentary on the second Pārājika (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.102): “Even in a legal dispute, a monastery, monastic precinct, or residence—whether large or small—given to the monks with reference to the Sangha of the four quarters cannot be claimed by an accuser; nor can it be taken by seizing it, because there is no relinquishment of responsibility by all. Not all monks of the four quarters relinquish responsibility here. However, one can accuse and seize property belonging to a group divided into categories like reciters of the Dīgha Nikāya or to an individual, making them relinquish responsibility,” thus it is understood.
How is it known that the donors and others are not entitled to be masters over it? It is known from the statement in the Vimativinodanī that “because giving is characterized by relinquishing ownership of property, and because it is inappropriate to take back property such as land once it is relinquished,” and because the Blessed One said, “I allow you, monks, to take and use for yourselves whatever falls while being given; that, monks, has been relinquished by the donors” (Cūḷava. 273), and because it is said in the commentary that “by saying ‘that, monks, has been relinquished by the donors,’ the absence of their ownership over it is indicated here.” How is it known that the Saṅgha and others are entitled to be masters? A monastery belonging to the Saṅgha is given to the Saṅgha, it has been relinquished, and from the Pācittiya rule (Pāci. 117, 127), “if a person thinks a personal item belongs to another person, there is an offense of wrong doing. If it belongs to himself, there is no offense,” and from the statement in the Samantapāsādikā, “even a four-finger-breadth pedestal made by village boys while playing in dust-houses becomes heavy property from the moment it is given to the Saṅgha” (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 321), and from the statement in the commentary on the second pārājika offense (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1.102) that “even in a legal case, if a monastery, a residence, or a dwelling, great or small, given to the monks with the Saṅgha of the four directions in mind is challenged, the claim does not succeed. He is also not able to take possession by seizing it. Why? Because there is no laying down of the burden by all. Here, all the monks of the four directions do not lay down their burden. If, however, he challenges something belonging to a group such as the Dīghabhāṇakas, etc., or to a single individual, and takes possession, he is able to make them lay down their burden.”
Here, how is it understood that donors and others cannot become owners? It is understood from the statement in the Vinaya, “I allow, monks, that what is being given and falls, you may take it yourself and use it; it is relinquished by the donors” (Cūḷavagga 273), and from the commentary, which explains, “The phrase ‘it is relinquished by the donors’ indicates that there is no ownership by others.” How is it understood that the Saṅgha and others can become owners? The Saṅgha’s monastery, given and relinquished to the Saṅgha, is understood from the Pācittiya rules (Pācittiya 117, 127) and from the Samantapāsādikā, which states, “Even a small amount of sand played with by village children becomes a serious matter once given to the Saṅgha” (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 321). It is also understood from the commentary on the second Pārājika, which states, “Even if a monk dedicates a monastery, dwelling, or residence to the Saṅgha, the dedication does not hold, and he cannot seize it back. Why? Because all have relinquished their claim. Not all monks in the four directions relinquish their claim, but a group or individual who has been entrusted with the property can relinquish it” (Pārājika Aṭṭhakathā 1.102).
ID1198
Kathaṃ dāyakādīnaṃ vicāretuṃ alabhanabhāvo viññāyatīti ce? Santesupi veḷuvanavihārādidāyakesu tesaṃ vicāraṇaṃ ananujānitvā “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, pañcahaṅgehi samannāgataṃ bhikkhuṃ senāsanaggāhāpakaṃ sammannitu”nti bhikkhusseva senāsanaggāhāpakasammutianujānato ca bhaṇḍanakārakesu kosambakabhikkhūsu sāvatthiṃ āgatesu anāthapiṇḍikena ca visākhāya mahāupāsikāya ca “kathāhaṃ, bhante, tesu bhikkhūsu paṭipajjāmī”ti (mahāva. 468) evaṃ jetavanavihāradāyakapubbārāmavihāradāyakabhūtesu ārocitesupi tesaṃ senāsanavicāraṇaṃ avatvā āyasmatā sāriputtattherena “kathaṃ nu kho, bhante, tesu bhikkhūsu senāsane paṭipajjitabba”nti ārocite “tena hi, sāriputta, vivittaṃ senāsanaṃ dātabba”nti vatvā “sace pana, bhante, vivittaṃ na hoti, kathaṃ paṭipajjitabba”nti vutte “tena hi vivittaṃ katvāpi dātabbaṃ, na tvevāhaṃ, sāriputta, kenaci pariyāyena vuḍḍhatarassa bhikkhuno senāsanaṃ paṭibāhitabbanti vadāmi, yo paṭibāheyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 473) therasseva senāsanassa vicāraṇassa anuññātattā ca viññāyati.
How is it understood that donors and others lack the ability to manage? It is understood because, even though there were donors like those of the Veḷuvana monastery, their management was not permitted, and instead, “I allow you, monks, to appoint a monk endowed with five qualities as a lodging assigner (senāsanaggāhāpaka),” thus permitting only monks to be appointed as lodging assigners, and because when the quarrelsome Kosambī monks came to Sāvatthī, Anāthapiṇḍika and Visākhā, the great laywoman, asked, “Venerable sir, how should I act toward those monks?” (mahāva. 468), despite being the donors of the Jetavana and Pubbārāma monasteries, they did not mention managing lodgings; instead, when the Venerable Sāriputta asked, “Venerable sir, how should lodgings be managed for those monks?” the reply was, “In that case, Sāriputta, a separate lodging should be given,” and when asked, “But if there is no separate lodging, how should it be managed?” the reply was, “Then it should be made separate and given; however, I say, Sāriputta, that in no way should the lodging of a senior monk be obstructed; one who obstructs it commits an offense of dukkaṭa” (mahāva. 473), thus permitting only the elder to manage lodgings.
How is it known that the donors and others are not entitled to manage it? Because even though there were donors of vihāras such as Veḷuvana, without allowing them to manage, it was only the monks who were allowed to appoint a distributor of lodgings by saying, “I allow you, monks, to appoint a monk endowed with five qualities as a distributor of lodgings,” and because when Kośambī monks who were causing disputes arrived in Sāvatthi, and even when Anāthapiṇḍika and the great lay devotee Visākhā, who were the donors of Jetavana monastery and Pubbārāma monastery, respectively, informed him, saying, “How, venerable sir, should I treat those monks?” (Mahāva. 468), he did not say that they should manage the lodgings. And because when venerable Sāriputta Thera informed him, “How, venerable sir, should we treat those monks regarding the lodgings?”, he said, “Then, Sāriputta, a secluded lodging should be given,” and when asked, “But if, venerable sir, there is no secluded lodging, how should we act?”, he said, “Then, even by making it secluded, it should be given, but I do not say, Sāriputta, that in any way should a senior monk be hindered from lodging; whoever should hinder, there is an offense of wrong doing” (Mahāva. 473), and therefore the venerable one was allowed to manage the lodgings.
How is it understood that donors and others cannot manage the property? Even when donors like those of the Veḷuvana monastery exist, their management is not permitted. The Buddha allowed only monks to appoint a lodging assigner, as seen when the monks of Kosambī came to Sāvatthī and Anāthapiṇḍika and Visākhā asked, “Venerable, how should I act towards these monks?” (Mahāvagga 468). Even when the donors of Jetavana and Pubbārāma monasteries were informed, Venerable Sāriputta was told, “Give them secluded lodgings. If there are no secluded lodgings, create them. I do not allow, Sāriputta, in any way to obstruct a senior monk’s lodging. Whoever obstructs it commits a dukkaṭa offense” (Mahāvagga 473). Thus, it is understood that only the senior monks have the authority to manage lodgings.
ID1199
Kathaṃ pana saṅghādīnaṃ senāsanaṃ vicāretuṃ labhanabhāvo viññāyatīti? “Evañca, bhikkhave, sammannitabbo – paṭhamaṃ bhikkhu yācitabbo, yācitvā byattena bhikkhunā paṭibalena saṅgho ñāpetabbo –
How, then, is it understood that the Sangha and others have the ability to manage lodgings? “And so, monks, he should be appointed thus: First, a monk should be requested, and having been requested, a competent monk should inform the Sangha—”
But how is the Saṅgha and others’ entitlement to manage the lodging known? “And in this way, monks, he should be appointed: first, the monk should be asked; having asked, the Saṅgha should be informed by a competent and capable monk –
How is it understood that the Saṅgha and others can manage lodgings? “Monks, a monk should first be asked, then a competent monk should inform the Saṅgha—
ID1200
Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho…pe… sammato saṅghena itthannāmo bhikkhu senāsanaggāhāpako, khamati saṅghassa, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmīti (cūḷava. 317).
“Let the Sangha listen to me, venerables… the Sangha has appointed the monk named so-and-so as the lodging assigner; if it is agreeable to the Sangha, let it remain silent; thus I understand it” (cūḷava. 317).
Let the Saṅgha, venerable sirs, listen to me…(up to)… The monk named so-and-so is appointed by the Saṅgha as the distributor of lodgings. This is acceptable to the Saṅgha; therefore it is silent. Thus I hold this.” (Cūḷava. 317).
‘Venerable Saṅgha, let the Saṅgha listen… So-and-so monk has been appointed by the Saṅgha as the lodging assigner. If the Saṅgha approves, remain silent; thus I understand it’ (Cūḷavagga 317).
ID1201
Evaṃ saṅghena senāsanaggāhāpakaṃ sammannāpetvā puna tena saṅghasammatena senāsanaggāhāpakena senāsanaggāhakavidhānaṃ anujānituṃ anujānāmi, bhikkhave, paṭhamaṃ bhikkhū gaṇetuṃ, bhikkhū gaṇetvā seyyā gaṇetuṃ, seyyā gaṇetvā seyyaggena gāhetu”nti vacanato saṅghikasenāsanassa saṅghena vicāretuṃ labhanabhāvo viññāyati.
Having thus appointed a lodging assigner by the Sangha, and further allowing that Sangha-appointed lodging assigner to organize the assignment of lodgings, “I allow you, monks, to first count the monks, then count the beds, and having counted the beds, assign them accordingly,” thus it is understood that the Sangha has the ability to manage saṅghika lodgings.
Having thus had the Saṅgha appoint the distributor of lodgings, then by that Saṅgha-appointed distributor of lodgings, in order to allow the procedure for distributing lodgings, “I allow, monks, first to count the monks, having counted the monks to count the beds, having counted the beds to allocate by the bed-list” is said, the entitlement of the Saṅgha to manage a Saṅgha lodging is known.
Thus, after the Saṅgha has appointed a lodging assigner, the appointed assigner should first gather monks, then gather bedding, and then assign lodgings by the bedding’s edge.” From this, it is understood that the Saṅgha has the authority to manage Saṅgha lodgings.
ID1202
“Dīghabhāṇakādibhedassa pana gaṇassa ekapuggalassa vā dinnavihārādiṃ acchinditvā gaṇhante dhuranikkhepasambhavā pārājika”nti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.102) āgamanato ca “attano puggalike anāpattī”ti pāḷiyaṃ (pāci. 117) āgamanato ca “yasmiṃ pana vissāso ruhati, tassa santakaṃ attano puggalikamiva hotīti mahāpaccariādīsu vutta”nti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pāci. aṭṭha. 112) vacanato ca gaṇassa dinno gaṇasantakavihāro gaṇeneva vicārīyate, no dāyakādīhi. Puggalassa dinno puggalikavihāropi paṭiggāhakapuggaleneva vicārīyate, no dāyakādīhīti viññāyati. Evaṃ vinayapāḷiyaṃ aṭṭhakathāṭīkāsu ca vihārassa saṅghikagaṇasantakapuggalikavasena tividhasseva vacanato ca tesaṃyeva saṅghagaṇapuggalānaṃ vihāravicāraṇassa anuññātattā ca dāyakasantakassa vihārassa visuṃ avuttattā ca dāyakānaṃ vihāravicāraṇassa ananuññātattā ca saṅghādayo eva vihārassa issarā honti, teyeva ca vicāretuṃ labhantīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
“However, if one seizes a monastery or the like given to a group divided into categories like reciters of the Dīgha Nikāya or to an individual, it becomes a Pārājika offense due to the possibility of relinquishing responsibility,” as stated in the commentary (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.102), and from the text (pāci. 117): “In one’s own personal dwelling, there is no offense,” and from the commentary (pāci. aṭṭha. 112): “But where trust is established, what belongs to that person becomes like one’s own personal dwelling, as stated in the Mahāpaccarī and elsewhere,” thus a monastery given to a group is managed by that group alone, not by donors and others; a personal monastery given to an individual is managed only by that recipient, not by donors and others. Thus, from the statements in the Vinaya texts, commentaries, and sub-commentaries that a monastery is threefold—saṅghika, group-owned (gaṇasantaka), or personal (puggalika)—and because only the Sangha, groups, or individuals are permitted to manage monasteries, and because no separate mention is made of a monastery owned by donors, and because donors are not permitted to manage monasteries, it should be seen that only the Sangha and others are the masters of a monastery and only they have the ability to manage it.
Because in the commentary it is said, “If, however, seizing a monastery etc. given to a group, such as Dīghabhāṇakas, or to an individual, he takes possession of it, a pārājika offense arises because there is a possibility of abandoning responsibility” (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1.102), and because in the Pāḷi, it states “There is no offense with respect to his own personal property” (Pāci. 117), and because in the commentary it is stated, “In the case of a person, on whom confidence is placed, the belongings are just like one’s own,” as stated in the Mahāpaccari etc (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 112), it is understood that a monastery given to a group and belonging to the group is managed only by the group, not by the donors and others. And, a monastery given to an individual which is also personally-owned should be managed only by the recipient individual, not by donors and others. Thus, because in the Vinaya Pāḷi, commentaries, and sub-commentaries, the monastery is only of three types: belonging to the Saṅgha, belonging to a group, and individually-owned, and only the Saṅgha, group, and individuals are allowed to manage a monastery, and because there is no separate mention of a monastery belonging to the donor, and because the donors are not allowed to manage the monastery, it should be understood that the Saṅgha and others alone are the masters of the monastery, and they alone are entitled to manage it.
From the commentary on the Pārājika (Pārājika Aṭṭhakathā 1.102) and the Pācittiya rule (Pācittiya 117), it is understood that a group’s lodging, given to the group, is managed by the group, not by donors. Similarly, an individual’s lodging is managed by the recipient, not by donors. Thus, in the Vinaya texts and commentaries, the monastery is described as belonging to the Saṅgha, group, or individual, and only they have the authority to manage it. Donors do not have this authority.
ID1203
Evaṃ hotu, tesu paṭiggāhakabhūtesu saṅghagaṇapuggalesu so vihāro kassa santako hoti, kena ca vicāretabboti? Vuccate – saṅghikavihāre tāva “āgatānāgatassa cātuddisassa saṅghassa dammī”ti dinnattā paṭiggāhakesu kālakatesupi tadañño cātuddisasaṅgho ca anāgatasaṅgho ca issaro, tassa santako, tena vicāretabbo. Gaṇasantake pana tasmiṃ gaṇe yāva ekopi atthi, tāva gaṇasantakova, tena avasiṭṭhena bhikkhunā vicāretabbo. Sabbesu kālakatesu yadi sakalagaṇo vā taṃgaṇapariyāpannaavasiṭṭhapuggalo vā jīvamānakāleyeva yassa kassaci dinno, yena ca vissāsaggāhavasena gahito, so issaro. Sacepi sakalagaṇo jīvamānakāleyeva aññagaṇassa vā saṅghassa vā puggalassa vā deti, te aññagaṇasaṅghapuggalā issarā honti. Puggalikavihāre pana so vihārassāmiko attano jīvamānakāleyeva saṅghassa vā gaṇassa vā puggalassa vā deti, te issarā honti. Yo vā pana tassa jīvamānasseva vissāsaggāhavasena gaṇhāti, sova issaro hotīti daṭṭhabbo.
So be it. Among those recipients—the Sangha, groups, or individuals—to whom does the monastery belong, and by whom should it be managed? It is said: In a saṅghika monastery, since it is given with the words, “I give this to the Sangha of the four quarters, present and future,” even if the recipients pass away, the Sangha of the four quarters—both present and future—remains the master, it belongs to them, and they should manage it. In a group-owned monastery, as long as even one member of that group remains, it remains group-owned and should be managed by that remaining monk. If all pass away, if the entire group or a remaining individual from that group, while still alive, gives it to someone else, or if it is taken with trust, that person becomes the master. Even if the entire group, while alive, gives it to another group, the Sangha, or an individual, they—the other group, Sangha, or individual—become the masters. In a personal monastery, if the monastery owner, while alive, gives it to the Sangha, a group, or an individual, they become the masters. Or whoever takes it with trust while the owner is alive becomes the master—this should be seen.
If that’s how it is, to whom among the recipients, the Saṅgha, group, or individuals, does the monastery belong, and by whom should it be managed? It is said: In the case of a Saṅgha monastery, because it is given with the words “I give to the Saṅgha of the four directions, present and future,” even if the recipients die, the rest of the Saṅgha of the four directions, and the future Saṅgha, are the masters; it belongs to them, and should be managed by them. In the case of something belonging to a group, as long as even one of that group remains, it belongs to that group, and should be managed by the remaining monk. If all have died, if the entire group or the remaining individuals belonging to that group, while alive, have given it to anyone else, or he has taken it through a trusting relationship, that person is the master. And if the entire group, while alive, gives it to another group, the Saṅgha, or an individual, those other groups, the Saṅgha, or individuals become the masters. In the case of an individually owned monastery, if the owner of that monastery, while alive, gives it to the Saṅgha, a group, or an individual, they become the masters. Or, if someone takes it through a trusting relationship while he is still alive, that person is to be regarded as the master.
Thus, when the recipients are the Saṅgha, group, or individual, to whom does the monastery belong, and who should manage it? It is said: In the case of a Saṅgha monastery, since it is given to the four-directional Saṅgha, even if the original recipients have passed away, the four-directional Saṅgha and the future Saṅgha are the owners and should manage it. In the case of a group’s monastery, as long as one member of the group remains, the group owns it, and the remaining monk should manage it. If the entire group has passed away, the monastery belongs to whoever it was given to during their lifetime. If the entire group, while alive, gives it to another group, Saṅgha, or individual, those recipients become the owners. In the case of an individual’s monastery, the owner, while alive, may give it to the Saṅgha, group, or individual, and those recipients become the owners. Alternatively, if someone takes possession of it during the owner’s lifetime through trust, that person becomes the owner.
ID1204
Kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce? Saṅghike vihārassa garubhaṇḍattā avissajjiyaṃ avebhaṅgikaṃ hoti, na kassaci dātabbaṃ. Gaṇasantakapuggalikesu pana tesaṃ sāmikattā dānavissāsaggāhā ruhanti, “tasmā so jīvamānoyeva sabbaṃ attano parikkhāraṃ nissajjitvā kassaci adāsi, koci vā vissāsaṃ aggahesi. Yassa dinnaṃ, yena ca gahitaṃ, tasseva hotī”ti ca “dvinnaṃ santakaṃ hoti avibhattaṃ, ekasmiṃ kālakate itaro sāmī, bahūnampi santake eseva nayo”ti (mahāva. aṭṭha. 369) ca aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttattā viññāyati.
How is this understood? Because a saṅghika monastery, being a heavy item (garubhaṇḍa), is inalienable and indivisible, it should not be given to anyone. But in group-owned or personal monasteries, because they have owners, giving or taking with trust is valid, as stated in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 369): “Therefore, while alive, he relinquished all his requisites and gave them to someone, or someone took them with trust; it belongs to the one to whom it was given or by whom it was taken,” and “What belongs to two is undivided; if one passes away, the other is the owner; the same applies even if it belongs to many,” thus it is understood.
How is it known? Because a Saṅgha monastery, being heavy property, is not to be disposed of, is indivisible, and should not be given to anyone. In the case of group and individually owned items, however, because they are the owners, gifts and taking possession through trust are successful, “therefore if, while still alive, he gave away all his requisites to someone, or someone took it through a trusting relationship, it belongs to the one to whom it was given, and by whom it was taken” and “what belongs to two is undivided; if one dies, the other is the owner; the same principle applies to many” are stated in the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 369), this is understood.
How is this understood? A Saṅgha monastery, being a serious matter, is non-transferable and indivisible, and cannot be given to anyone. In the case of group or individual monasteries, since they are owned by their respective groups or individuals, the authority to give or take possession through trust applies. “Therefore, while alive, the owner may relinquish all their belongings to someone, or someone may take possession through trust. Whoever it is given to or taken by becomes the owner.” Also, “If two people own something undivided, and one passes away, the other becomes the sole owner. The same applies to many owners” (Mahāvagga Aṭṭhakathā 369).
ID1205
Evaṃ pana vissajjetvā adinnaṃ “mamaccayena asukassa hotū”ti dānaṃ accayadānattā na ruhati. Vuttañhetaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 419) “sace hi pañcasu sahadhammikesu yo koci kālaṃ karonto ’mamaccayena mayhaṃ parikkhāro upajjhāyassa hotu, ācariyassa hotu, saddhivihārikassa hotu, antevāsikassa hotu, mātu hotu, pitu hotu, aññassa vā kassaci hotū’ti vadati, tesaṃ na hoti, saṅghasseva hoti. Na hi pañcannaṃ sahadhammikānaṃ accayadānaṃ ruhati, gihīnaṃ pana ruhatī”ti. Ettha ca ekacce pana vinayadharā “gihīnanti padaṃ sampadānanti gahetvā bhikkhūnaṃ santakaṃ accayadānavasena gihīnaṃ dadante ruhati, pañcannaṃ pana sahadhammikānaṃ dento na ruhatī”ti vadanti. Evaṃ sante mātāpitūnaṃ dadantopi ruheyya tesaṃ gihibhūtattā. “Atha ca pana ’mātu hotu, pitu hotu, aññassa vā kassaci hotū’ti vadati, tesaṃ na hotī”ti vacanato na ruhatīti viññāyati, tasmā “gihīnaṃ panā”ti idaṃ na sampadānavacanaṃ, atha kho sāmivacanamevāti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Tena gihīnaṃ pana santakaṃ accayadānaṃ ruhatīti sambandho kātabbo.
However, giving something after relinquishing it with the words, “After my death, let it belong to so-and-so,” does not take effect as a post-mortem gift (accayadāna). It is stated in the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 419): “If one among the five co-religionists, at the time of death, says, ‘After my death, let my requisites belong to my preceptor, teacher, co-resident, pupil, mother, father, or anyone else,’ it does not belong to them; it belongs only to the Sangha. For the post-mortem gift of the five co-religionists does not take effect, but it does for laypeople.” Here, some Vinaya experts say, “Taking the word ‘gihīnaṃ’ as a dative, if monks give their property to laypeople via a post-mortem gift, it takes effect, but giving to the five co-religionists does not.” If so, giving to parents would also take effect since they are laypeople. But from the statement, “If he says, ‘Let it belong to the mother, father, or anyone else,’ it does not belong to them,” it is understood that it does not take effect. Therefore, “gihīnaṃ pana” should not be taken as a dative but as a genitive, and the connection should be made that a post-mortem gift of property owned by laypeople takes effect.
However, a gift made after relinquishing with the statement “after my passing, let it belong to so-and-so” is not valid, because it is a post-mortem gift. It is stated in the commentary (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 419): “If, indeed, among the five co-religionists, anyone who is dying says ‘after my passing, may my requisites belong to my preceptor, belong to my teacher, belong to my fellow resident, belong to my pupil, belong to my mother, belong to my father, or belong to anyone else,’ it does not belong to them, it belongs to the Saṅgha. Indeed, a post-mortem gift of the five co-religionists is not valid, but that of lay people is valid.” And here, some Vinaya masters say: “Taking the word ‘lay people’ as a dative, giving to lay people as a post-mortem gift of a monk’s belongings is valid, but giving to the five co-religionists is not valid.” If this were so, giving even to mother and father would be valid, since they are lay people. “But because it says, ‘belong to my mother, belong to my father, or belong to anyone else, it does not belong to them’, it is understood that it is not valid. Therefore, ‘of lay people’ is not a dative case word, rather it is a possessive case,” it should be understood. Therefore, a post-mortem gift of what belongs to lay people is valid, this connection should be made.
However, giving something after death, saying, “After my death, let this belong to so-and-so,” does not hold. As stated in the commentary (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 419), “If any of the five companions, while dying, says, ‘After my death, let my belongings go to my preceptor, teacher, fellow student, pupil, mother, father, or anyone else,’ it does not belong to them; it belongs to the Saṅgha. The posthumous gift of the five companions does not hold, but it does for laypeople.” Some Vinaya experts say, “The word ‘laypeople’ is in the dative case, meaning that laypeople can give a monk’s belongings as a posthumous gift, but the five companions cannot.” If this is so, then even giving to parents would hold, as they are laypeople. However, since the text says, “Let it go to my mother, father, or anyone else,” it does not hold. Therefore, the phrase “for laypeople” is not in the dative case but indicates ownership. Thus, laypeople’s posthumous gifts hold, and this should be connected accordingly.
ID1206
Kiñca bhiyyo – “sace hi pañcasu sahadhammikesu yo koci kālaṃ karonto mamaccayena mayhaṃ parikkhāro”ti ārabhitvā “na hi pañcannaṃ sahadhammikānaṃ accayadānaṃ ruhati, gihīnaṃ pana ruhatī”ti vuttattā sāmyatthe chaṭṭhībahuvacanaṃ samatthitaṃ bhavati. Yadi evaṃ “gihīna”nti padassa asampadānatte sati katamaṃ sampadānaṃ hotīti? “Yassa kassacī”ti padaṃ. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 419) “mātu hotu, pitu hotu, aññassa vā kassaci hotū”ti. Ayamattho ajjukavatthunā (pārā. 158) dīpetabbo. Evaṃ jīvamānakāleyeva datvā matesu vinicchayo amhehi ñāto, kassaci adatvā matesu vinicchayo kathaṃ ñātabboti? Tatthāpi saṅghike tāva heṭṭhā vuttanayena saṅghova issaro, gaṇasantake pana ekaccesu avasesā issarā, sabbesu matesu saṅghova issaro. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 369) “sabbesu matesu saṅghikaṃ hotī”ti. Puggalike pana vihārassa garubhaṇḍattā avissajjiyaṃ avebhaṅgikaṃ saṅghikameva hoti.
And further—since it is said, “If among the five co-religionists, someone dying says, ‘After my passing, my property…’” and “Indeed, a gift after passing does not hold for the five co-religionists, but it does for householders,” the sixth case plural in the sense of equality is established as appropriate. If so, when the word “gihīnaṃ” is not in the dative case, which word is in the dative? The phrase “yassa kassaci” (to anyone). For it is stated in the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 419), “Let it be for the mother, let it be for the father, or let it be for anyone else.” This meaning should be illustrated by the Ajjuka case (pārā. 158). Thus, we know the decision regarding those who give while alive and then die; but how is the decision to be known regarding those who die without giving to anyone? There too, in the case of Sangha property, as explained earlier, the Sangha alone is the authority; in the case of group-owned property, the remaining members are the authority in some cases, but when all have passed away, the Sangha alone is the authority. For it is stated in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 369), “When all have passed away, it becomes Sangha property.” In the case of individual property, however, since a monastery is heavy property, it becomes inalienable and indivisible Sangha property.
Furthermore - because starting with, “If indeed, among the five co-religionists, anyone who is dying, after my passing, may my requisites”, then it is said “Indeed, a post-mortem gift of the five co-religionists is not valid, but that of lay people is valid”, the sixth case plural in the sense of ownership has been justified. If so, if the word “lay people” is not in the dative, what is the dative? The word “to anyone else”. For it is said in the commentary (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 419) “belong to my mother, belong to my father, or belong to anyone else”. This point should be illustrated by the Ajjuka story (Pārā. 158). Thus, the decision in the case of giving away while alive, and then dying, is known to us, how is the decision to be known in the case of dying without giving to anyone? Here also, in the case of the Saṅgha, according to the previously stated principle, the Saṅgha alone is the master. In the case of something belonging to a group, if some remain, the remaining are the masters; if all have died, the Saṅgha is the master. It is said in the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 369), “If all die, it belongs to the Saṅgha.” In the case of an individually owned monastery, because it is a heavy property, indivisible and not to be disposed of, it becomes a Saṅgha owned only.
Furthermore, “If any of the five companions, while dying, says, ‘After my death, let my belongings go to…,’ it does not hold for the five companions, but it does for laypeople.” This statement establishes the sixth case plural for equality. If the word “laypeople” is not in the dative case, what is the dative case? The phrase “to anyone.” As stated in the commentary (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 419), “Let it go to my mother, father, or anyone else.” This meaning should be explained with the Ajjukavatthu (Pārājika 158). Thus, the decision during the owner’s lifetime is known to us, but how is the decision after death known? In the case of a Saṅgha monastery, as previously stated, the Saṅgha is the owner. In the case of a group’s monastery, the remaining members are the owners. In all cases of death, the Saṅgha is the owner. As stated in the commentary (Mahāvagga Aṭṭhakathā 369), “In all cases of death, it belongs to the Saṅgha.” In the case of an individual’s monastery, due to its serious nature, it is non-transferable and indivisible, and belongs to the Saṅgha.
ID1207
Kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce? “Bhikkhussa, bhikkhave, kālakate saṅgho sāmī pattacīvare, apica gilānupaṭṭhākā bahūpakārā, anujānāmi , bhikkhave, saṅghena ticīvarañca pattañca gilānupaṭṭhākānaṃ dātuṃ. Yaṃ tattha lahubhaṇḍaṃ lahuparikkhāraṃ, taṃ sammukhībhūtena saṅghena bhājetuṃ. Yaṃ tattha garubhaṇḍaṃ garuparikkhāraṃ, taṃ āgatānāgatassa cātuddisassa saṅghassa avissajjiyaṃ avebhaṅgika”nti (mahāva. 369) tena bhagavatā jānatā passatā arahatā sammāsambuddhena vuttattā viññāyati. Evampi “garubhaṇḍaṃ garuparikkhāraṃ”icceva bhagavatā vuttaṃ, na “vihāra”nti, tasmā kathaṃ vihārassa garubhaṇḍabhāvoti viññāyatīti? “Vihāro vihāravatthu, idaṃ dutiyaṃ avebhaṅgika”nti pāḷiyaṃ,
How is this known? It is known because it is stated by the Blessed One, the Knower, the Seer, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One: “When a monk dies, monks, the Sangha is the owner of his bowl and robes; however, the attendants of the sick are of great help. I allow, monks, the Sangha to give the three robes and the bowl to the attendants of the sick. Whatever there is of light property or light equipment should be divided by the Sangha present. Whatever there is of heavy property or heavy equipment is inalienable and indivisible for the Sangha of the four quarters, present and future” (mahāva. 369). Even so, the Blessed One said only “heavy property or heavy equipment,” not “monastery”; so how is it known that a monastery is heavy property? In the text, “A monastery, the monastery site—this is the second indivisible item,”
How is this known? It is known because it was stated by the Blessed One, the Knower, the Seer, the Worthy One, the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One, “When a monk, monks, has passed away, the Saṅgha is the owner of his bowl and robes, but those who attend to the sick are very helpful. I allow, monks, the Saṅgha to give the triple robe and bowl to those who attended to the sick. Whatever light equipment and light requisites are there, those should be distributed by the Saṅgha present. Whatever heavy equipment and heavy requisites are there, those are not to be disposed of and are indivisible for the Saṅgha of the four directions, present and future” (Mahāva. 369). Even so, “heavy equipment and heavy requisites” alone was stated by the Blessed One, not “monastery”, so how is it known that a monastery is heavy property?
How is this understood? “Monks, when a monk dies, the Saṅgha owns his bowl and robes. Moreover, since the attendants have been very helpful, I allow the Saṅgha to give the three robes and the bowl to the attendants. Light items and light belongings should be distributed by the Saṅgha in person. Heavy items and heavy belongings are non-transferable and indivisible, belonging to the four-directional Saṅgha, past and future” (Mahāvagga 369). Thus, it is understood from the words of the Blessed One, who knows and sees, the Arahant, the Fully Enlightened One. Even though the Blessed One said “heavy items and heavy belongings,” not “monastery,” how is it understood that a monastery is a heavy item? “The monastery and its land are the second non-divisible item,” as stated in the text,
ID1208
“Dvisaṅgahāni dve honti, tatiyaṃ catusaṅgahaṃ; Catutthaṃ navakoṭṭhāsaṃ, pañcamaṃ aṭṭhabhedanaṃ.
“Twofold are the dual requisites, the third is fourfold; the fourth is ninefold, the fifth is eightfold.
“Two double acquisitions, the third is a quadruple acquisition; the fourth is ninefold, the fifth is eightfold.
“Two collections are twofold, the third is fourfold; The fourth is ninefold, the fifth is eightfold.
ID1209
“Iti pañcahi rāsīhi, pañcanimmalalocano; Pañcavīsavidhaṃ nātho, garubhaṇḍaṃ pakāsayī”ti. (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 321) –
“Thus, with five categories, the Lord with five pure eyes, in twenty-five ways, declared heavy property” (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 321)—
“Thus with five categories, the Lord with Five Pure Eyes; The twenty-five kinds of, heavy property, He proclaimed” (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 321). –
Thus, with five heaps, the Five-Eyed One explained the twenty-fivefold heavy items” (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 321).
ID1210
Aṭṭhakathāyañca vuttattā viññāyati.
And because it is stated in the commentary, it is known.
It is known because it is stated in the Pāḷi “Monastery and monastery site, these are the second indivisible” and in the commentary.
This is understood from the commentary.
ID1211
Iti dāyako vihāraṃ katvā kulūpakabhikkhussa deti, tassa muñcacetanuppattito pubbakāle dāyako vihārassāmiko hoti, dātuṃ vā vicāretuṃ vā issaro, muñcacetanuppattito paṭṭhāya paṭiggāhakabhikkhu sāmiko hoti, paribhuñjituṃ vā aññesaṃ dātuṃ vā issaro. So puggalo attano jīvamānakkhaṇeyeva saddhivihārikādīnaṃ nissajjitvā deti, tadā te saddhivihārikādayo sāmikā honti, paribhuñjituṃ vā aññassa vā dātuṃ issarā. Yadi pana kassaci adatvāva kālaṃ karoti, tadā saṅghova tassa vihārassa sāmiko hoti, na dāyako vā puggalo vā, saṅghānumatiyā eva puggalo paribhuñjituṃ labhati, na attano issaravatāyāti daṭṭhabbo.
Thus, a donor builds a monastery and gives it to a supporting monk; before the monk’s intention to relinquish arises, the donor is the owner of the monastery and has the authority to give or manage it. From the moment the intention to relinquish arises, the recipient monk becomes the owner, with the authority to use it or give it to others. If that individual, during his lifetime, relinquishes it to co-residents or others and gives it, then those co-residents or others become the owners, with the authority to use it or give it to another. But if he dies without giving it to anyone, then the Sangha alone becomes the owner of that monastery—not the donor or the individual—and a person can use it only with the Sangha’s consent, not by his own authority; this should be understood.
Thus, the donor, having built a monastery, gives it to a monk who is a family supporter. Before the arising of the thought of relinquishing, the donor is the owner of the monastery, entitled to give or manage. From the arising of the thought of relinquishing, the recipient monk becomes the owner, entitled to use or give to others. If that person, while still alive, gives it away to his fellow residents and others, then those fellow residents and others become the owners, entitled to use or to give to another. However, if he dies without giving it to anyone, then the Saṅgha alone becomes the owner of that monastery, not the donor or any individual; the individual can use it only with the consent of the Saṅgha, not by his own authority, this should be understood.
Thus, when a donor builds a monastery and gives it to a monk associated with the family, the donor is the owner before the intention to relinquish arises, having the authority to give or manage it. After the intention to relinquish arises, the recipient monk becomes the owner, having the authority to use it or give it to others. While alive, the individual may relinquish it to their pupils or others, and those pupils or others become the owners, having the authority to use it or give it to others. If, however, the individual dies without giving it to anyone, the Saṅgha becomes the owner of the monastery, not the donor or the individual. The individual can use it only with the Saṅgha’s permission, not by their own authority.
ID1212
Evaṃ mūlatoyeva saṅghassa dinnattā saṅghikabhūtavihāro vā mūle gaṇapuggalānaṃ dinnattā gaṇasantakapuggalikabhūtopi tesaṃ gaṇapuggalānaṃ aññassa nissajjanavasena adatvā kālakatattā pacchā saṅghikabhāvaṃ pattavihāro vā saṅghena vicāretabbo hoti. Saṅghenapi bhagavato anumatiyā senāsanaggāhāpakaṃ sammannitvā gāhāpetabbo. Vuttañhetaṃ senāsanakkhandhake (cūḷava. 317) “atha kho bhikkhūnaṃ etadahosi ’kena nu kho senāsanaṃ gāhetabba’nti. Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ – ’anujānāmi, bhikkhave, pañcahaṅgehi samannāgataṃ bhikkhuṃ senāsanaggāhāpakaṃ sammannitu’nti”ādi.
Thus, a monastery that was Sangha property from the outset due to being given to the Sangha, or one that was group-owned or individually owned due to being given to a group or individual at the outset, but which, after the group or individual dies without relinquishing it to another, attains Sangha status afterward—such a monastery is to be managed by the Sangha. Even the Sangha, with the Blessed One’s permission, should appoint a monk as the overseer of lodgings and have it managed. For it is stated in the Senāsanakkhandhaka (cūḷava. 317): “Then it occurred to the monks, ‘By whom should the lodgings be managed?’ They reported this matter to the Blessed One—‘I allow, monks, the Sangha to appoint a monk endowed with five qualities as the overseer of lodgings’” and so forth.
Thus, a monastery that was given to the Saṅgha from the very beginning and became Saṅgha-owned, or one that was initially given to a group or individuals, and belonging to a group or individuals, and later became Saṅgha-owned due to those group members or individuals not transferring ownership and dying, should be managed by the Saṅgha. Even the Saṅgha should have the distributor of lodgings allocated after having him appointed with the permission of the Blessed One. It is said in the chapter on lodgings (Cūḷava. 317), “Then it occurred to the monks: ‘By whom should the lodgings be allocated?’ They reported this matter to the Blessed One. ‘I allow, monks, to appoint a monk endowed with five qualities as a distributor of lodgings,’” and so on.
Thus, from the very beginning, since it was given to the Saṅgha, a monastery belonging to the Saṅgha, or given to a group or individual, becomes a group or individual’s property. If not relinquished to another, upon death, it reverts to the Saṅgha. The Saṅgha, with the Buddha’s permission, should appoint a lodging assigner to manage it. As stated in the lodging chapter (Cūḷavagga 317), “Then the monks thought, ‘Who should assign lodgings?’ They informed the Blessed One of this matter. The Blessed One said, ‘I allow, monks, to appoint a monk endowed with five qualities as the lodging assigner.’”
ID1213
Imasmiṃ ṭhāne “senāsanaggāho nāma vassakālavasena senāsanaggāho, utukālavasena senāsanaggāho, dhuvavāsavasena senāsanaggāhoti tividho hoti. Tesu vassakālavasena senāsanaggāho purimavassavasena senāsanaggāho, pacchimavassavasena senāsanaggāhoti duvidho. Utukālavasena senāsanaggāhopi antarāmuttakavasena senāsanaggāho, taṅkhaṇapaṭisallānavasena senāsanaggāhoti duvidho”ti ācariyā vadanti, etaṃ pāḷiyā ca aṭṭhakathāya ca asamentaṃ viya dissati. Pāḷiyañhi (cūḷava. 318) “atha kho bhikkhūnaṃ etadahosi ’kati nu kho senāsanaggāho’ti. Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ – tayome, bhikkhave, senāsanaggāhā purimako pacchimako antarāmuttako. Aparajjugatāya āsāḷhiyā purimako gāhetabbo, māsagatāya āsāḷhiyā pacchimako gāhetabbo, aparajjugatāya pavāraṇāya āyatiṃ vassāvāsatthāya antarāmuttako gāhetabbo. Ime kho, bhikkhave, tayo senāsanaggāhā”ti evaṃ āgato, aṭṭhakathāyampi (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318) “tīsu senāsanaggāhesu purimako ca pacchimako cāti ime dve gāhā thāvarā. Antarāmuttake ayaṃ vinicchayo…pe… ayaṃ tāva antovasse vassūpanāyikādivasena pāḷiyaṃ āgatasenāsanaggāhakathā, ayaṃ pana senāsanaggāho nāma duvidho hoti utukāle ca vassāvāse cā”ti evaṃ āgato, tasmā saṅghena sammatasenāsanaggāhāpakena vicāretabbā.
At this point, teachers say, “The assignment of lodgings (senāsanaggāha) is threefold: assignment for the rainy season, assignment for other seasons, and assignment for permanent residence. Of these, assignment for the rainy season is twofold: for the earlier rains and for the later rains. Assignment for other seasons is also twofold: for temporary stays and for momentary seclusion.” This seems inconsistent with the text and commentary. For in the text (cūḷava. 318), it is said, “Then the monks thought, ‘How many kinds of lodging assignments are there?’ They reported this to the Blessed One: ‘There are three, monks: the earlier, the later, and the temporary. The earlier is to be assigned on the day before the full moon of Āsāḷha; the later on the full moon day of Āsāḷha; the temporary is to be assigned on the day before the Pavāraṇā for future residence during the rains. These, monks, are the three lodging assignments,’” and in the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318), “Among the three lodging assignments, the earlier and later are fixed; regarding the temporary, this is the determination… This is the discussion of lodging assignments in the text concerning the rainy season and so forth. However, lodging assignment is twofold: in other seasons and during the rains,” thus it is stated. Therefore, they should be managed by a lodging assigner appointed by the Sangha.
At this point, “lodging-taking is of three kinds: lodging-taking for the rainy season, lodging-taking for the seasonal period, and lodging-taking for permanent residence. Of these, lodging-taking for the rainy season is of two kinds: lodging-taking for the earlier rains retreat, and lodging-taking for the later rains retreat. Lodging-taking for the seasonal period is also of two kinds: lodging-taking with occasional release, and lodging-taking for temporary seclusion,” say the teachers; this seems to be somewhat inconsistent with the Pāḷi and the commentary. For in the Pāḷi (Cūḷava. 318), it is said: “Then it occurred to the monks, ‘How many kinds of lodging-taking are there?’ They informed the Blessed One of this matter. – ‘There are, monks, these three kinds of lodging-taking: the earlier, the later, and that with occasional release. The earlier should be taken on the day after the full moon of Āsāḷha, the later should be taken when a month of Āsāḷha has passed, and that with occasional release should be taken on the day after the Pavāraṇā, for the purpose of dwelling in the rains retreat in the future. These, monks, are the three kinds of lodging-taking.’” Thus it has come down, and also in the commentary (Cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318) it is said: “Of the three kinds of lodging-taking, these two – the earlier and the later – are fixed. In that with occasional release, this is the determination… (extensive text)… This, for now, is the account of lodging-taking that has come down in the Pāḷi, in terms of the day of entering the rains retreat during the rainy season. But this lodging-taking is of two kinds: in the seasonal period and during the rains retreat.” Thus, it should be considered by the lodging-taker appointed by the Saṅgha.
In this context, the teachers say, “The allocation of lodging is threefold: allocation for the rainy season, allocation for the regular season, and permanent allocation. Among these, the allocation for the rainy season is twofold: the early rainy season allocation and the late rainy season allocation. The allocation for the regular season is also twofold: the interim allocation and the momentary retreat allocation.” This seems to contradict the Pāli and the commentary. For in the Pāli (Cūḷavagga 318), it is said: “Then the monks thought, ‘How many kinds of lodging allocation are there?’ They informed the Blessed One of this matter. The Blessed One said, ‘Monks, there are three kinds of lodging allocation: the early, the late, and the interim. The early should be allocated at the beginning of Āsāḷhī, the late at the end of Āsāḷhī, and the interim at the end of the Pavāraṇā for the purpose of the upcoming rainy season residence. These, monks, are the three kinds of lodging allocation.’” Similarly, in the commentary (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 318), it is said: “Among the three lodging allocations, the early and the late are fixed. The interim allocation is to be decided as follows… Thus, the discussion on lodging allocation as it appears in the Pāli regarding the rainy season residence, etc., is explained. However, the lodging allocation is twofold: for the regular season and for the rainy season residence.” Therefore, it should be decided by the monk appointed by the Saṅgha for allocating lodgings.
ID1214
Senāsanaggāho nāma utukāle senāsanaggāho, vassāvāse senāsanaggāhoti duvidho. Tattha utukālo nāma hemantautugimhautuvasena aṭṭha māsā, tasmiṃ kāle bhikkhū aniyatāvāsā honti, tasmā ye yadā āgacchanti, tesaṃ tadā bhikkhū uṭṭhāpetvā senāsanaṃ dātabbaṃ, akālo nāma natthi. Ayaṃ utukāle senāsanaggāho nāma. Vassāvāse senāsanaggāho pana “purimako pacchimako antarāmuttako”ti pāḷiyaṃ āgatanayena tividho hoti. Antarāmuttakopi hi āyatiṃ vassāvāsatthāya gāhitattā vassāvāse senāsanaggāhameva pavisati, na utukāle senāsanaggāho. Vuttañhi bhagavatā “aparajjugatāya pavāraṇāya āyatiṃ vassāvāsatthāya antarāmuttako gāhetabbo”ti. Taṅkhaṇapaṭisallānavasena senāsanaggāhoti ca neva pāḷiyaṃ na aṭṭhakathāyaṃ visuṃ āgato, utukāle senāsanaggāhoyeva tadaṅgasenāsanaggāhotipi taṅkhaṇapaṭisallānavasena senāsanaggāhotipi vadanti, tasmā utukālavasena senāsanaggāhopi “antarāmuttakavasena senāsanaggāho taṅkhaṇapaṭisallānavasena senāsanaggāhoti dubbidho”ti na vattabbo.
Lodging assignment is twofold: assignment in other seasons and assignment during the rains. Here, other seasons refer to the eight months of winter, spring, and summer; during that time, monks have no fixed residence, so whenever monks arrive, lodgings should be given by displacing others—there is no inappropriate time. This is called lodging assignment in other seasons. Assignment during the rains, however, is threefold as stated in the text: “the earlier, the later, and the temporary.” Even the temporary assignment, being assigned for future residence during the rains, falls under assignment during the rains, not in other seasons. The Blessed One said, “The temporary is to be assigned on the day before the Pavāraṇā for future residence during the rains.” Assignment for momentary seclusion is not separately mentioned in the text or commentary; it is considered part of assignment in other seasons, and some say it includes both temporary stays and momentary seclusion, but it should not be said that assignment in other seasons is “twofold: for temporary stays and for momentary seclusion.”
Lodging-taking is of two kinds: lodging-taking in the seasonal period, and lodging-taking during the rains retreat. Herein, the seasonal period is eight months, comprised of the cold season and the hot season. During that time, monks are not fixed in their dwelling places, therefore, for those who arrive at any time, the monks should then give up their lodging and offer it; there is no such thing as an inappropriate time. This is what is called lodging-taking in the seasonal period. But lodging-taking during the rains retreat is of three kinds, as presented in the Pāḷi: “the earlier, the later, and that with occasional release.” Even that with occasional release, because it is taken for the purpose of residing during the rains retreat in the future, comes under lodging-taking during the rains retreat, and not lodging-taking in the seasonal period. For it was said by the Blessed One: “That with occasional release should be taken on the day after the Pavāraṇā, for the purpose of dwelling in the rains retreat in the future.” Lodging-taking for temporary seclusion is not mentioned separately in either the Pāḷi or the commentary. Lodging-taking in the seasonal period, as a part of that, is also said to be lodging-taking for temporary seclusion. Therefore, “lodging-taking in the seasonal period is also of two kinds: lodging-taking with occasional release, and lodging-taking for temporary seclusion,” should not be said.
The lodging allocation is twofold: for the regular season and for the rainy season residence. Here, the regular season refers to the eight months comprising the winter, summer, and rainy seasons. During this time, monks are not settled in a fixed residence. Therefore, whenever monks arrive, they should be given lodging by the resident monks, and there is no inappropriate time for this. This is called the regular season lodging allocation. The lodging allocation for the rainy season residence, however, is threefold according to the Pāli: the early, the late, and the interim. The interim allocation, being made for the purpose of the upcoming rainy season residence, falls under the rainy season lodging allocation, not the regular season lodging allocation. For the Blessed One said, “The interim allocation should be made at the end of the Pavāraṇā for the purpose of the upcoming rainy season residence.” The momentary retreat allocation is not separately mentioned in the Pāli or the commentary. It is included in the regular season lodging allocation, and thus it is not correct to say that the regular season lodging allocation is twofold: the interim allocation and the momentary retreat allocation.
ID1215
Athāpi vadanti “yathāvuttesu pañcasu senāsanaggāhesu cattāro senāsanaggāhā pañcaṅgasamannāgatena senāsanaggāhāpakasammutiladdhena bhikkhunā antoupacārasīmaṭṭhena hutvā antosīmaṭṭhānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ yathāvinayaṃ vicāretabbā honti, te pana vicāraṇā yāvajjakālā thāvarā hutvā na tiṭṭhanti, dhuvavāsavasena vicāraṇameva yāvajjakālā thāvaraṃ hutvā tiṭṭhatī”ti, tampi tathā na sakkā vattuṃ. Kasmā? Senāsanaggāhāpakabhede “dhuvavāsavasena senāsanaggāho”ti pāḷiyaṃ aṭṭhakathāyañca natthi. Dhuvavāsavasena vicāraṇañca sammutiladdhena senāsanaggāhāpakena vicāretabbaṃ na hoti, atha kho samaggena saṅghena apalokanakammavasena duvaṅgasamannāgatassa bhikkhussa anuṭṭhāpanīyaṃ katvā dānameva, tasmā samaggo saṅgho bahūpakāratāguṇavisiṭṭhatāsaṅkhātehi dvīhi aṅgehi samannāgataṃ bhikkhuṃ apalokanakammavasena sammannitvā tassa phāsukaṃ āvāsaṃ dhuvavāsavasena anuṭṭhāpanīyaṃ katvā deti, taṃ yāvajjakālā thāvaraṃ hutvā tiṭṭhatīti vattabbaṃ.
Moreover, some say, “Among the five lodging assignments mentioned, four are to be managed according to the Vinaya by a monk appointed as a lodging assigner with five qualities, standing within the boundary or within the precinct, for monks within the precinct; however, these assignments do not remain fixed for a lifetime, whereas management for permanent residence remains fixed for a lifetime.” This too cannot be said as such. Why? Because in the classification of lodging assigners, “assignment for permanent residence” is not found in the text or commentary. Nor is management for permanent residence to be handled by an appointed lodging assigner; rather, it is given by the united Sangha through a motion (apalokanakamma), making it non-displaceable for a monk endowed with two qualities. Thus, it should be said that the united Sangha appoints a monk endowed with the two qualities of being greatly helpful and distinguished in virtue, making a comfortable residence non-displaceable for permanent residence via a motion, and it remains fixed for a lifetime.
But if they say: “Of the aforementioned five kinds of lodging-taking, four should be determined according to the Vinaya, by a monk holding the authorization to allocate lodgings, endowed with the five factors, standing within the boundary of the inner precinct, for the monks within the inner boundary, and these decisions do not remain fixed for all time, only the decision based on permanent residence remains fixed for all time.” That, too, should not be affirmed thus. Why? In the divisions of the lodging-taker, “lodging-taking based on permanent residence” is not found in the Pāḷi or the commentary. A decision based on permanent residence is not to be determined by a lodging-taker holding the authorization, but rather it is a giving by the harmonious Saṅgha through the procedure of asking leave, making a monk endowed with the two factors not liable to be ousted. Therefore, the harmonious Saṅgha, having formally appointed a monk, through the procedure of asking leave, who is endowed with two factors – namely, those qualities related to being of great assistance and distinguished in qualities – gives, having made a dwelling place agreeable for him not liable to be ousted for permanent residence; and it is said that this remains fixed for all time.
Furthermore, some say, “Among the five kinds of lodging allocation mentioned, four should be decided by a monk appointed by the Saṅgha who is endowed with five qualities and has received the formal act of appointment. These should be decided within the boundary of the monastery, and the decision should be made according to the Vinaya for the monks within the boundary. However, these decisions do not remain fixed for the entire duration, except for the permanent allocation, which remains fixed for the entire duration.” This too cannot be accepted. Why? Because in the Pāli and the commentary, there is no mention of a permanent lodging allocation. Moreover, a monk appointed by the Saṅgha for allocating lodgings cannot decide on a permanent allocation. Instead, the unified Saṅgha, through the act of informing, can appoint a monk endowed with two qualities and assign him a permanent residence. Therefore, it should be said that the unified Saṅgha, endowed with the two qualities of being greatly beneficial and distinguished, appoints a monk through the act of informing and assigns him a comfortable residence for permanent use, which remains fixed for the entire duration.
ID1216
Samaggo saṅghova dhuvavāsavasena deti, na senāsanaggāhāpakoti ayamattho kathaṃ ñātabboti ce? “Saṅgho pana bhaṇḍāgārikassa vā dhammakathikavinayadharādīnaṃ vā gaṇavācakaācariyassa vā bahūpakārataṃ guṇavisiṭṭhatañca sallakkhento dhuvavāsatthāya vihāraṃ sammannitvā detī”ti (pāci. aṭṭha. 120; kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. anupakhajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) “saṅgho pana bahussutassa uddesaparipucchādīhi bahūpakārassa bhāranitthārakassa phāsukaṃ āvāsaṃ anuṭṭhāpanīyaṃ katvā detī”ti ca “saṅgho pana bhaṇḍāgārikassa vā dhammakathikavinayadharagaṇavācakācariyānaṃ vā bahūpakārataṃ guṇavisiṭṭhatañca sallakkhetvā dhuvavāsatthāya vihāraṃ sallakkhetvā sammannitvā detī”ti ca “bahussutassa saṅghabhāranitthārakassa bhikkhuno anuṭṭhāpanīyasenāsanampī”ti (pari. aṭṭha. 495-496) ca “apalokanakammaṃ nāma sīmaṭṭhakaṃ saṅghaṃ sodhetvā chandārahānaṃ chandaṃ āharitvā samaggassa saṅghassa anumatiyā tikkhattuṃ sāvetvā kattabbaṃ kamma”nti ca aṭṭhakathāsu (pari. aṭṭha. 482) vacanato sādhukaṃ nissaṃsayena ñātabboti.
Only the united Sangha gives it for permanent residence, not the lodging assigner—how is this meaning to be known? From statements in the commentaries (pāci. aṭṭha. 120; kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. anupakhajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā): “The Sangha, considering the great helpfulness and distinguished virtue of a storekeeper, a Dhamma speaker, a Vinaya expert, a group teacher, or a preceptor, appoints and gives a monastery for permanent residence,” and “The Sangha gives a comfortable residence to a learned monk who is greatly helpful through recitation and questioning, making it non-displaceable,” and (pari. aṭṭha. 495-496): “Even a non-displaceable lodging for a learned monk who bears the Sangha’s burden,” and “A motion (apalokanakamma) is an act to be performed by purifying the Sangha within the boundary, bringing the consent of those entitled to it, and announcing it three times with the united Sangha’s approval” (pari. aṭṭha. 482), thus it is to be known clearly and without doubt.
It is the harmonious Saṅgha itself that gives based on permanent residence, not the lodging-taker; how is this meaning to be known? Because in the commentaries it states: “The Saṅgha, considering the great assistance and distinguished qualities of a treasurer, or of reciters of the Dhamma, Vinaya upholders and so forth, or of a teacher who instructs a group, formally gives a monastery for permanent residence.” (Pāci. aṭṭha. 120; Kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. anupakhajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā); and “The Saṅgha, having made a dwelling place agreeable, gives to one who is very learned, who is of great assistance by means of instruction, questioning, and so on, who is a reliver of burdens, making it not liable to ousting.” and “The Saṅgha, considering the great assistance and distinguished qualities of a treasurer, of reciters of the Dhamma, of Vinaya upholders, or of teachers who instruct groups, having determined, having formally appointed, gives a monastery for permanent residence;” and, “Also a lodging not liable to ousting for a learned monk who relieves the burden of the Saṅgha” (Pari. aṭṭha. 495-496); and “apalokanakammaṃ (the procedure of asking leave) is a procedure that is to be done having purified the Saṅgha situated within the boundary, having gathered the consent of those entitled to give consent, by announcing it three times with the agreement of the harmonious Saṅgha” (Pari. aṭṭha. 482); therefore, it is to be properly and undoubtedly known.
It is the unified Saṅgha that assigns the permanent residence, not the monk appointed for allocating lodgings. How is this to be understood? “The Saṅgha, recognizing the great benefit and distinguished qualities of the storekeeper, the Dhamma teacher, the Vinaya expert, the group reciter, or the teacher, assigns a residence for permanent use.” (Pācittiya Aṭṭhakathā 120; Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī Aṭṭhakathā, Anupakhajja Sikkhāpada Vaṇṇanā) “The Saṅgha, recognizing the great benefit of a learned monk who is skilled in teaching and questioning, assigns him a comfortable residence for permanent use.” (Parivāra Aṭṭhakathā 495-496) “The Saṅgha, recognizing the great benefit and distinguished qualities of the storekeeper, the Dhamma teacher, the Vinaya expert, the group reciter, or the teacher, assigns a residence for permanent use.” (Parivāra Aṭṭhakathā 495-496) “The residence for a learned monk who bears the burden of the Saṅgha is also to be assigned.” (Parivāra Aṭṭhakathā 495-496) “The act of informing is to be performed by informing the Saṅgha within the boundary, obtaining the consent of those entitled to give consent, and announcing it three times with the approval of the unified Saṅgha.” (Parivāra Aṭṭhakathā 482) From these statements in the commentaries, it should be clearly understood.
ID1217
Kathaṃ pana apalokanakammena dātabbabhāvo viññāyatīti? “Bahussutassa saṅghabhāranitthārakassa bhikkhuno anuṭṭhāpanīyasenāsanampi saṅghakiccaṃ karontānaṃ kappiyakārakādīnaṃ bhattavetanampi apalokanakammena dātuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti parivāraṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pari. aṭṭha. 495-496) kammavagge āgatattā viññāyati. Kathaṃ pana duvaṅgasamannāgatassa bhikkhunoyeva dātabbabhāvo viññāyatīti? “Bahūpakāratanti bhaṇḍāgārikatādibahuupakārabhāvaṃ. Na kevalaṃ idamevāti āha ‘guṇavisiṭṭhatañcā’tiādi. Tena bahūpakārattepi guṇavisiṭṭhattābhāve, guṇavisiṭṭhattepi bahūpakārattābhāve dātuṃ na vaṭṭatīti dassetī”ti vinayatthamañjūsāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. ṭī. anupakhajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) vuttattā viññāyati.
How is it understood that it should be given through a motion? From the statement in the Parivāra commentary (pari. aṭṭha. 495-496) in the section on acts: “Even a non-displaceable lodging for a learned monk who bears the Sangha’s burden, and wages for cooks and lawful attendants performing Sangha duties, may be given through a motion,” it is understood. How is it understood that it should be given only to a monk endowed with two qualities? From the statement in the Vinayatthamañjūsā (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. ṭī. anupakhajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā): “Great helpfulness refers to the state of being greatly helpful as a storekeeper or the like. It is not only this, it says, ‘and distinguished virtue,’ showing that it is not permissible to give if there is great helpfulness without distinguished virtue or distinguished virtue without great helpfulness,” it is understood.
But how is it to be known that it should be given through the procedure of asking leave? It is known because in the commentary to the Parivāra (Pari. aṭṭha. 495-496), in the chapter on procedures, it is said: “A lodging not liable to ousting for a learned monk who relieves the burden of the Saṅgha, and also the food and wages of those doing Saṅgha duties, such as suitable helpers, should be given through the procedure of asking leave.” But how is it to be known that it should be given only to a monk endowed with the two factors? Because in the Vinayatthamañjūsā (Kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. ṭī. anupakhajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) it is said: “Bahūpakārata (being of great assistance) means the state of being of much help, such as being a treasurer and so on. Not merely this, thus he states: ‘guṇavisiṭṭhatañcā’ (and distinguished in qualities), etc. By that, he shows that even if there is great helpfulness, if there is no distinction in qualities, or if there is distinction in qualities, but no great helpfulness, it should not be given.”
How is it understood that the act of informing is to be used for assigning? “The residence for a learned monk who bears the burden of the Saṅgha, as well as the food and wages for those performing Saṅgha duties, such as the stewards, can be assigned through the act of informing.” This is understood from the Kammavagga in the Parivāraṭṭhakathā (Parivāra Aṭṭhakathā 495-496). How is it understood that only a monk endowed with two qualities can be assigned? “Greatly beneficial” refers to the great benefit of being a storekeeper, etc. Not only this, but it is also said, “and distinguished qualities.” Therefore, even if one is greatly beneficial but lacks distinguished qualities, or has distinguished qualities but lacks great benefit, it is not appropriate to assign. This is shown in the Vinayatthamañjūsā (Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī Aṭṭha. Ṭī. Anupakhajja Sikkhāpada Vaṇṇanā).
ID1218
Kasmā pana senāsanaggāhāpakena vicāretabbo senāsanaggāho yāvajjakālā na tiṭṭhatīti? Pañcaṅgasamannāgatassa senāsanaggāhāpakassa bhikkhuno dullabhattā, nānādesavāsīnaṃ nānācariyakulasambhavānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ ekasambhogaparibhogassa dukkarattā ca imehi dvīhi kāraṇehi na tiṭṭhati. Vuttañhetaṃ bhagavatā “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, pañcahaṅgehi samannāgataṃ bhikkhuṃ senāsanaggāhāpakaṃ sammannituṃ, yo na chandāgatiṃ gaccheyya, na dosāgatiṃ gaccheyya, na mohāgatiṃ gaccheyya, na bhayāgatiṃ gaccheyya , gahitāgahitañca jāneyyā”ti (cūḷava. 317). Aṭṭhakathāyampi (pāci. aṭṭha. 122) “evarūpena hi sabhāgapuggalena ekavihāre vā ekapariveṇe vā vasantena attho natthī”ti vuttaṃ. Kasmā pana dhuvavāsatthāya dānavicāro yāvajjakālā tiṭṭhatīti? Pañcaṅgasamannāgatābhāvepi sīmaṭṭhakassa samaggassa saṅghassa anumatiyā kattabbattā. Vuttañhi “apalokanakammaṃ nāma sīmaṭṭhakaṃ saṅghaṃ sodhetvā chandārahānaṃ chandaṃ āharitvā samaggassa saṅghassa anumatiyā tikkhattuṃ sāvetvā kattabbaṃ kamma”nti (pari. aṭṭha. 482).
Why does the lodging assignment managed by a lodging assigner not remain fixed for a lifetime? Because it is difficult to find a monk endowed with five qualities as a lodging assigner, and because it is hard for monks from different regions and teacher lineages to share and use lodgings together—these two reasons prevent it from remaining fixed. The Blessed One said, “I allow you, monks, to appoint a monk endowed with five qualities as a lodging assigner: one who does not follow partiality, aversion, delusion, or fear, and who knows what has been assigned and what has not” (cūḷava. 317). The commentary (pāci. aṭṭha. 122) also states, “There is no need for such a harmonious person to reside in a single monastery or precinct.” Why does the management for permanent residence remain fixed for a lifetime? Because it is performed with the united Sangha’s approval within the boundary, even without the five qualities. It is said, “A motion (apalokanakamma) is an act to be performed by purifying the Sangha within the boundary, bringing the consent of those entitled to it, and announcing it three times with the united Sangha’s approval” (pari. aṭṭha. 482).
But why does the lodging-taking to be determined by the lodging-taker not remain for all time? Because of these two reasons: the scarcity of a monk endowed with the five factors for allocating lodging and the difficulty of shared use and communal enjoyment among monks from various regions, originating from various teachers and lineages. For this was said by the Blessed One: “I allow, monks, that a monk endowed with five factors be appointed as lodging-taker: he should not go through desire, he should not go through aversion, he should not go through delusion, he should not go through fear, and he should know what has been taken and what has not been taken” (Cūḷava. 317). Also in the commentary (Pāci. aṭṭha. 122) it is stated, “There is no benefit from such a person of similar parts residing in one monastery or in one compound.” But why does the matter of giving for the purpose of permanent residence remain for all time? Because, even if there is an absence of one endowed with the five factors, it is to be done with the consent of the harmonious Sangha situated within the boundary. For it has been stated: “apalokanakammaṃ (the procedure of asking leave) is a procedure that is to be done having purified the Sangha situated within the boundary, having gathered the consent of those entitled to give consent, by announcing it three times with the agreement of the harmonious Saṅgha” (Pari. aṭṭha. 482).
Why does the lodging allocation decided by the appointed monk not remain fixed for the entire duration? Because a monk endowed with five qualities and appointed for allocating lodgings is rare, and it is difficult for monks from different regions and different teacher lineages to share the same lodging and resources. Therefore, it does not remain fixed. The Blessed One said, “I allow, monks, to appoint a monk endowed with five qualities as the allocator of lodgings: one who does not act out of favoritism, malice, delusion, or fear, and who knows what has and has not been allocated.” (Cūḷavagga 317) The commentary also states (Pācittiya Aṭṭhakathā 122), “For such a person, there is no benefit in residing in the same monastery or dwelling.” Why does the assignment for permanent use remain fixed for the entire duration? Because it is done with the approval of the unified Saṅgha within the boundary, even if the monk is not endowed with five qualities. For it is said, “The act of informing is to be performed by informing the Saṅgha within the boundary, obtaining the consent of those entitled to give consent, and announcing it three times with the approval of the unified Saṅgha.” (Parivāra Aṭṭhakathā 482)
ID1219
Utukāle saṅghikasenāsane vasantena āgato bhikkhu na paṭibāhetabbo aññatra anuṭṭhāpanīyā. Vuttañhi bhagavatā “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, vassānaṃ temāsaṃ paṭibāhituṃ, utukālaṃ pana na paṭibāhitu”nti (cūḷava. 318). “Aññatra anuṭṭhāpanīyā”ti vuttaṃ, katame anuṭṭhāpanīyāti? Cattāro anuṭṭhāpanīyā vuḍḍhataro, bhaṇḍāgāriko, gilāno, saṅghato laddhasenāsano ca. Tattha vuḍḍhataro bhikkhu tasmiṃ vihāre antosīmaṭṭhakabhikkhūsu attanā vuḍḍhatarassa aññassa abhāvā yathāvuḍḍhaṃ kenaci anuṭṭhāpanīyo. Bhaṇḍāgāriko saṅghena sammannitvā bhaṇḍāgārassa dinnatāya saṅghassa bhaṇḍaṃ rakkhanto gopento vasati, tasmā so bhaṇḍāgāriko kenaci anuṭṭhāpanīyo. Gilāno gelaññābhibhūto attano laddhasenāsane vasanto kenaci anuṭṭhāpanīyo. Saṅghato laddhasenāsano samaggena saṅghena dinnasenāsanattā kenaci anuṭṭhāpanīyo. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 343) “cattāro hi na vuṭṭhāpetabbā vuḍḍhataro, bhaṇḍāgāriko, gilāno, saṅghato laddhasenāsanoti. Tattha vuḍḍhataro attano vuḍḍhatāya navakatarena na vuṭṭhāpetabbo, bhaṇḍāgāriko saṅghena sammannitvā bhaṇḍāgārassa dinnatāya, gilāno attano gilānatāya, saṅgho pana bahussutassa uddesaparipucchādīhi bahūpakārassa bhāranitthārakassa phāsukaṃ āvāsaṃ anuṭṭhāpanīyaṃ katvā deti, tasmā so upakārakatāya ca saṅghato laddhatāya ca na vuṭṭhāpetabbo”ti. Ṭhapetvā ime cattāro avasesā vuṭṭhāpanīyāva honti.
In other seasons, a monk residing in a saṅghika lodging should not be displaced by an arriving monk, except in cases of non-displaceability. The Blessed One said, “I allow you, monks, to displace for the three months of the rains, but not in other seasons” (cūḷava. 318). “Except in cases of non-displaceability” is stated—what are these? There are four non-displaceable cases: a senior monk, a storekeeper, a sick monk, and one who received a lodging from the Sangha. Here, a senior monk, being the most senior among the monks within the precinct of that monastery, cannot be displaced by anyone due to seniority. A storekeeper, appointed by the Sangha and given charge of the storehouse, protects and guards the Sangha’s property and thus cannot be displaced by anyone. A sick monk, overcome by illness and residing in his assigned lodging, cannot be displaced by anyone. A monk who received a lodging from the Sangha, having been given it by the united Sangha, cannot be displaced by anyone. The commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 343) states, “Four should not be displaced: a senior monk, a storekeeper, a sick monk, and one who received a lodging from the Sangha. Here, a senior monk should not be displaced by a junior due to his seniority; a storekeeper due to being appointed by the Sangha and given charge of the storehouse; a sick monk due to his illness; the Sangha gives a comfortable residence to a learned monk who is greatly helpful through recitation and questioning, making it non-displaceable, so he should not be displaced due to his helpfulness and having received it from the Sangha.” Apart from these four, the rest can be displaced.
A monk who has arrived while one is dwelling in a Saṅgha lodging during the seasonal period should not be refused, except for those not liable to ousting. For this was stated by the Blessed One, “I allow, monks, refusal for the three months of the rains; but during the seasonal period, there should be no refusal” (Cūḷava. 318). It has been said, “Except for those not liable to ousting.” Who are not liable to ousting? There are four who are not liable to ousting: a senior monk, a treasurer, a sick monk, and one who has received a lodging from the Saṅgha. Herein, a senior monk, because of the absence of another monk who is senior to himself among the monks situated within the inner boundary in that monastery, should not be ousted by anyone according to seniority. A treasurer, having been appointed by the Saṅgha and given charge of the treasury, resides protecting and guarding the Saṅgha’s property; therefore, that treasurer is not liable to ousting by anyone. A sick monk, residing in the lodging he has received, overwhelmed by illness, is not liable to ousting by anyone. One who has received a lodging from the Saṅgha is not liable to ousting by anyone because the lodging was given by the harmonious Saṅgha. For it has been stated in the commentary (Mahāva. aṭṭha. 343), “Indeed, there are four who should not be ousted: a senior monk, a treasurer, a sick monk, and one who has received a lodging from the Saṅgha. Herein, a senior monk should not be ousted by a junior because of his seniority; a treasurer because he has been appointed by the Saṅgha and given charge of the treasury; a sick monk because of his illness. The Saṅgha, however, gives a lodging to a very learned monk who is a reliever of the Saṅgha’s burdens and is of great assistance by means of teaching and questioning, making it not liable to ousting; therefore, he is not liable to ousting because of his helpfulness and because he has received it from the Saṅgha.” Except for these four, all others are liable to ousting.
During the regular season, a monk arriving at a Saṅgha residence should not be turned away, except in the case of those who are not to be displaced. The Blessed One said, “I allow, monks, to turn away during the three months of the rainy season, but not during the regular season.” (Cūḷavagga 318) “Except in the case of those who are not to be displaced” refers to four kinds of monks: the elder, the storekeeper, the sick, and one who has received lodging from the Saṅgha. Among these, the elder monk, being the senior in that monastery among the monks within the boundary, is not to be displaced by anyone. The storekeeper, having been appointed by the Saṅgha and entrusted with the store, guards and protects the Saṅgha’s belongings, and thus is not to be displaced by anyone. The sick monk, being overwhelmed by illness and residing in his assigned lodging, is not to be displaced by anyone. The monk who has received lodging from the Saṅgha, having been assigned by the unified Saṅgha, is not to be displaced by anyone. The commentary states (Mahāvagga Aṭṭhakathā 343), “Four are not to be displaced: the elder, the storekeeper, the sick, and one who has received lodging from the Saṅgha. Among these, the elder is not to be displaced by a junior due to his seniority, the storekeeper due to his appointment by the Saṅgha and his responsibility for the store, the sick due to his illness, and the Saṅgha assigns a comfortable residence to a learned monk who is greatly beneficial and bears the burden of the Saṅgha, and thus he is not to be displaced due to his benefit and having received it from the Saṅgha.” Apart from these four, all others are to be displaced.
ID1220
Aparasmiṃ bhikkhumhi āgate vuṭṭhāpetvā senāsanaṃ dāpetabbaṃ. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318) “utukāle tāva keci āgantukā bhikkhū purebhattaṃ āgacchanti, keci pacchābhattaṃ paṭhamayāmaṃ vā majjhimayāmaṃ vā pacchimayāmaṃ vā, ye yadā āgacchanti, tesaṃ tadāva bhikkhū uṭṭhāpetvā senāsanaṃ dātabbaṃ, akālo nāma natthī”ti. Etarahi pana saddhā pasannā manussā vihāraṃ katvā appekacce paṇḍitānaṃ vacanaṃ sutvā “saṅghe dinnaṃ mahapphala”nti ñatvā cātuddisaṃ saṅghaṃ ārabbha “imaṃ vihāraṃ āgatānāgatassa cātuddisassa saṅghassa demā”ti vatvā denti, appekacce attanā pasannaṃ bhikkhuṃ ārabbha vihāraṃ katvāpi dānakāle tena uyyojitā hutvā cātuddisaṃ saṅghaṃ ārabbha vuttanayena denti, appekacce karaṇakālepi dānakālepi attano kulūpakabhikkhumeva ārabbha pariccajanti, tathāpi dakkhiṇodakapātanakāle tena sikkhāpitā yathāvuttapāṭhaṃ vacībhedaṃ karonti, cittena pana kulūpakasseva denti, na sabbasaṅghasādhāraṇatthaṃ icchanti.
When another monk arrives, the current occupant should be displaced, and the lodging given. The commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318) states, “In other seasons, some visiting monks arrive before the meal, some after the meal, in the first, middle, or last watch; whenever they arrive, the monks present should be displaced, and lodgings given—there is no inappropriate time.” Nowadays, faithful and devoted people build monasteries, and some, hearing the words of the wise and knowing that “what is given to the Sangha yields great fruit,” say, “We give this monastery to the Sangha of the four quarters, present and future,” dedicating it to the Sangha of the four quarters. Some, having built a monastery for a monk they favor, are instructed by him at the time of giving and dedicate it to the Sangha of the four quarters in the same way. Others, both during construction and at the time of giving, dedicate it solely to their favored monk; even so, when pouring the water of donation, they are taught by him to recite the prescribed words, but in their minds, they give it only to their favored monk, not intending it for the common use of the entire Sangha.
When another monk arrives, one should be ousted and the lodging should be given. For it has been stated in the commentary (Cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318), “Now, during the seasonal period, some visiting monks arrive before the meal, some after the meal, in the first watch, in the middle watch, or in the last watch. Whenever they arrive, the monks at that time should be ousted and the lodging should be given; there is no such thing as an inappropriate time.” Now, however, people who are faithful and devoted, having built a monastery, having heard the words of certain wise ones, knowing that “what is given to the Saṅgha is of great fruit,” dedicate it to the Saṅgha of the four directions, saying: “We give this monastery to the Saṅgha of the four directions, of those who have come and those who will come.” Some, even having built a monastery dedicating it to a monk they are devoted to, being urged by him at the time of giving, dedicate it to the Saṅgha of the four directions, speaking in the manner aforesaid. Some, both at the time of building and at the time of giving, dedicate it only to the monk who is their spiritual friend. Even so, at the time of pouring the water of dedication, instructed by him, they make a verbal distinction using the previously stated text; in their minds, however, they give it only to their spiritual friend, they do not intend it for the common use of the entire Saṅgha.
When another monk arrives, the lodging should be vacated and assigned to him. The commentary states (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 318), “During the regular season, some visiting monks arrive before the meal, some after the meal, some during the first, middle, or last watch of the night. Whenever they arrive, the resident monks should vacate and assign the lodging to them. There is no inappropriate time for this.” Nowadays, devout people, having built monasteries and hearing the words of the wise, know that “giving to the Saṅgha is of great fruit.” Thus, they dedicate the monastery to the fourfold Saṅgha, saying, “We give this monastery to the fourfold Saṅgha, present and future.” Some, having built a monastery out of faith in a particular monk, at the time of giving, are instructed by him to dedicate it to the fourfold Saṅgha in the aforementioned manner. Some, at the time of construction and giving, dedicate it only to their family monk. However, at the time of offering the water of dedication, they are instructed to recite the prescribed formula, but in their minds, they give it only to their family monk, not intending it for the entire Saṅgha.
ID1221
Imesu tīsu dānesu paṭhamaṃ pubbakālepi dānakālepi saṅghaṃ uddissa pavattattā sabbasaṅghikaṃ hoti. Dutiyaṃ pubbakāle puggalaṃ uddissa pavattamānampi dānakāle saṅghaṃ uddissa pavattattā saṅghikameva. Tatiyaṃ pana pubbakālepi dānakālepi kulūpakapuggalameva uddissa pavattati, na saṅghaṃ, kevalaṃ bhikkhunā vuttānusāreneva vacībhedaṃ karonti. Evaṃ sante “kiṃ ayaṃ vihāro cittavasena puggaliko hoti, vacībhedavasena saṅghiko”ti cintāyaṃ ekacce evaṃ vadeyyuṃ –
Among these three types of giving, the first is entirely saṅghika, both initially and at the time of giving, as it is dedicated to the Sangha. The second, though initially directed to an individual, becomes saṅghika at the time of giving as it is dedicated to the Sangha. The third, however, is directed to the favored individual both initially and at the time of giving, not to the Sangha; they merely recite the words as instructed by the monk. In this case, in considering, “Is this monastery personal (puggalika) by intent or saṅghika by verbal declaration?” some might say—
Of these three givings, the first is for the entire Saṅgha, because it is directed towards the Saṅgha both previously and at the time of the gift. The second is also for the Saṅgha, even though it was initially directed towards an individual, because at the time of the gift it is directed towards the Saṅgha. The third, however, is directed both previously and at the time of giving only to the individual who is the spiritual friend, not to the Saṅgha; they merely make a verbal distinction following the monk’s instruction. This being the case, on the question, “Is this monastery individual property by intention, or is it Saṅgha property by the verbal distinction?” some might say thus:
Among these three kinds of gifts, the first, being dedicated to the Saṅgha both at the time of construction and at the time of giving, is entirely Saṅgha property. The second, being dedicated to an individual at the time of construction but to the Saṅgha at the time of giving, is also Saṅgha property. The third, however, being dedicated to a family monk both at the time of construction and at the time of giving, is not Saṅgha property, but the monk merely recites the formula as instructed. In this case, some might think, “Is this monastery personal property by intention but Saṅgha property by verbal declaration?” and say—
ID1222
“Manopubbaṅgamā dhammā, manoseṭṭhā manomayā; Manasā ce pasannena, bhāsati vā karoti vā; Tato naṃ sukhamanveti, chāyāva anapāyinīti. (dha. pa. 2) –
“Mind precedes all phenomena; mind is their chief, they are mind-made; If with a pure mind one speaks or acts, happiness follows like an inseparable shadow” (dha. pa. 2)—
“Mind precedes all mental states, mind is their chief, they are all mind-made. If with a pure mind, one speaks or acts, thereby happiness follows one, like a shadow that never departs. (Dha. Pa. 2) –
“Mind precedes all phenomena, mind is their chief, they are mind-made; If one speaks or acts with a pure mind, Happiness follows like a never-departing shadow.” (Dhammapada 2)—
ID1223
Vacanato cittavasena puggaliko hotī”ti. Aññe “yathā dāyakā vadanti, tathā paṭipajjitabbanti (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 325) vacanato vacībhedavasena saṅghiko hotī”ti.
“From this statement, it is personal (puggalika) by intent.” Others might say, “According to the donors’ declaration, it should be treated as such” (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 325), “From this statement, it is saṅghika by verbal declaration.”
It is individual property based on intention, rather than on speech.” Others say, “It is Saṅgha property, based on the verbal distinction, because of the statement, ‘One should act according to how the donors say’ (Cūḷava. aṭṭha. 325).”
Thus, by intention, it is personal property.” Others say, “As the donors say, so it should be done” (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 325), and thus by verbal declaration, it is Saṅgha property.
ID1224
Tatrāyaṃ vicāraṇā – idaṃ dānaṃ pubbe puggalassa pariṇataṃ pacchā saṅghassa pariṇāmitaṃ, tasmā “saṅghiko”ti vutte navasu adhammikadānesu “puggalassa pariṇataṃ saṅghassa pariṇāmetī”ti (pārā. 660) vuttaṃ aṭṭhamaṃ adhammikadānaṃ hoti, tassa dānassa paṭiggahāpi paribhogāpi adhammikapaṭiggahā adhammikaparibhogā honti. “Puggaliko”ti vutte tīsu dhammikadānesu “puggalassa dinnaṃ puggalasseva detī”ti vuttaṃ tatiyadhammikadānaṃ hoti, tassa paṭiggahāpi paribhogāpi dhammikapaṭiggahā dhammikaparibhogā honti, tasmā puggalikapakkhaṃ bhajati. Appekacce suttantikādigaṇe pasīditvā vihāraṃ kāretvā gaṇassa denti “imaṃ vihāraṃ āyasmantānaṃ dammī”ti. Appekacce puggale pasīditvā vihāraṃ katvā puggalassa denti “imaṃ vihāraṃ āyasmato dammī”ti. Ete pana gaṇasantakapuggalikā vihārā dānakālato paṭṭhāya paṭiggāhakasantakāva honti, na dāyakasantakā. Tesu gaṇasantako tāva ekaccesu matesu avasesānaṃ santako, tesu dharamānesuyeva kassaci denti, tassa santako. Kassaci adatvā sabbesu matesu saṅghiko hoti. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 369) “dvinnaṃ santakaṃ hoti avibhattaṃ, ekasmiṃ kālakate itaro sāmī, bahūnaṃ santakepi eseva nayo. Sabbesu matesu saṅghikaṃva hotī”ti.
Here is the consideration: This gift was initially dedicated to an individual and later dedicated to the Saṅgha. Therefore, when it is called “saṅghika” (belonging to the Saṅgha), it falls under the eighth unrighteous gift among the nine unrighteous gifts, as stated in (pārā. 660): “One dedicates to the Saṅgha what was dedicated to an individual.” The acceptance and use of such a gift become unrighteous acceptance and unrighteous use. When it is called “puggalika” (belonging to an individual), it falls under the third righteous gift among the three righteous gifts, as stated: “What is given to an individual is given to that individual alone.” Its acceptance and use are righteous acceptance and righteous use. Thus, it aligns with the individual side. Some, having faith in groups such as those versed in the Suttas, build a monastery and give it to the group, saying, “I give this monastery to the venerables.” Others, having faith in an individual, build a monastery and give it to that individual, saying, “I give this monastery to the venerable.” However, these monasteries, whether belonging to a group or an individual, belong to the recipients from the time of giving, not to the donors. Among them, a monastery belonging to a group, when some members pass away, belongs to the remaining ones; if they give it to someone while still alive, it belongs to that person. If they do not give it to anyone and all pass away, it becomes saṅghika. It is said in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 369): “It belongs to two without division; if one passes away, the other becomes the owner. The same applies when it belongs to many. When all pass away, it becomes saṅghika.”
Here is the analysis – this offering was previously designated for an individual, and later designated for the Saṅgha. Therefore, when it is said to be “belonging to the Saṅgha,” among the nine improper offerings, it becomes the eighth improper offering described as “what was designated for an individual is designated for the Saṅgha” (pārā. 660). Both the acceptance and the use of that offering are improper acceptance and improper use. When it is said to be “belonging to an individual,” among the three proper offerings, it is the third proper offering described as “what was given to an individual is given to that individual.” Both its acceptance and use are proper acceptance and proper use. Therefore it favors the side of belonging to an individual. Some, having faith in groups such as those who follow the suttas, build a monastery and give it to the group, saying “I give this monastery to the venerable sirs.” Some, having faith in individuals, build a monastery and give it to the individual, saying “I give this monastery to the venerable sir.” But these monasteries, belonging to a group or an individual, from the time of the offering, belong to the recipients, not to the donors. Among them, what belongs to a group, when some members die, belongs to the remaining ones; while they are still living, if they give it to someone, it belongs to that person. If they do not give it to anyone and all die, it becomes property of the Saṅgha. For it is stated in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 369), “It belongs to the two and is undivided; when one dies, the other is the owner. The same principle applies when it belongs to many. When all die, it simply becomes property of the Saṅgha.”
Here, this is the analysis: This gift was originally intended for an individual but was later redirected to the Saṅgha. Therefore, when it is said to be “Saṅghika,” it falls under the eighth type of improper gift, as stated in the Pārājika (660): “What was originally intended for an individual is redirected to the Saṅgha.” The acceptance and use of such a gift are improper. When it is said to be “Puggalika,” it falls under the third type of proper gift, as stated: “What is given to an individual is given to that individual alone.” The acceptance and use of such a gift are proper, and thus it belongs to the category of individual ownership. Some, having faith in a group of Suttanta reciters, build a monastery and give it to the group, saying, “I give this monastery to the venerable ones.” Others, having faith in an individual, build a monastery and give it to that individual, saying, “I give this monastery to the venerable one.” These monasteries, belonging to a group or an individual, from the time of the gift, become the property of the recipients, not the donors. In the case of a group-owned monastery, if some members pass away, it belongs to the remaining members. If they are still alive, it can be given to someone, and it becomes their property. If it is not given to anyone, and all members pass away, it becomes Saṅghika. As stated in the Aṭṭhakathā (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 369): “If it belongs to two and is undivided, when one dies, the other becomes the owner. The same applies if it belongs to many. If all pass away, it becomes Saṅghika.”
ID1225
Puggalikavihāropi yadi so paṭiggāhakapuggalo attano jīvamānakāleyeva saddhivihārikādīnaṃ deti, koci vā tassa vissāsena taṃ vihāraṃ aggahesi, tassa santako hoti. Kassaci adatvā kālakate saṅghiko hoti. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ “so jīvamānoyeva sabbaṃ attano parikkhāraṃ nissajjitvā kassaci adāsi, koci vā vissāsaṃ aggahesi. Yassa dinno, yena ca gahito, tasseva hotī”ti. Pāḷiyañca (mahāva. 369) “bhikkhussa, bhikkhave, kālakate saṅgho sāmī pattacīvare, apica gilānupaṭṭhākā bahūpakārā. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, saṅghena ticīvarañca pattañca gilānupaṭṭhākānaṃ dātuṃ, yaṃ tattha lahubhaṇḍaṃ lahuparikkhāraṃ, taṃ sammukhībhūtena saṅghena bhājetuṃ, yaṃ tattha garubhaṇḍaṃ garuparikkhāraṃ, taṃ āgatānāgatassa cātuddisassa saṅghassa avissajjiyaṃ avebhaṅgika”nti (mahāva. 369) vuttaṃ, tasmā iminā nayena vinicchayo kātabbo.
As for a monastery belonging to an individual, if that recipient, while still alive, gives it to a co-resident or similar person, or if someone takes it with his trust, it belongs to that person. If he passes away without giving it to anyone, it becomes saṅghika. It is said in the commentary: “While still alive, he relinquishes all his requisites and gives them to someone, or someone takes them with trust. It belongs to the one to whom it was given or by whom it was taken.” And in the Pāli text (mahāva. 369): “Monks, when a monk passes away, the Saṅgha becomes the owner of his bowl and robe, but the attendants of the sick are of great help. I allow, monks, the Saṅgha to give the triple robe and bowl to the attendants of the sick. Light items and light requisites there should be divided by the Saṅgha present, while heavy items and heavy requisites belong to the Saṅgha of the four quarters, present and future, and are not to be relinquished or divided” (mahāva. 369). Thus, judgment should be made in this manner.
As for a monastery belonging to an individual, if the recipient individual gives it to his co-residents and others during his lifetime, or someone takes possession of that monastery with his consent, it belongs to that person. If he dies without giving it to anyone, it becomes the property of the Saṅgha. Indeed, it is said in the commentary: “If while he is still living he relinquished all of his possessions and did not give them to anyone, or if someone took up the trust, whatever has been given, and by whomever it has been taken, it belongs only to that person.” And in the Pāḷi (mahāva. 369), “Monks, when a monk has passed away, the Saṅgha is the owner of his bowl and robes. However, the attendants in sickness are very helpful. I allow, monks, for the Saṅgha to give the three robes and the bowl to the attendants in sickness. Whatever minor items and minor requisites are there, the Saṅgha that is present should divide. Whatever major items and major requisites are there, they are not to be relinquished, are not to be divided, and belong to the Saṅgha of the four directions, present and future,” (mahāva. 369) it is said. Therefore, a decision should be made according to this method.
Even in the case of an individually owned monastery, if the recipient individual, during his lifetime, gives it to his co-resident disciples or others who have his trust, it becomes their property. If it is not given to anyone, and the individual passes away, it becomes Saṅghika. As stated in the Aṭṭhakathā: “While still alive, he relinquished all his belongings and gave them to someone, or someone took them in trust. To whom it was given or who took it in trust, it belongs to them.” And in the Pāli (Mahāva. 369): “When a monk passes away, the Saṅgha becomes the owner of his robes and bowl. Moreover, those who have cared for the sick are of great help. I allow, monks, the Saṅgha to give the three robes and the bowl to those who have cared for the sick. Light items and light requisites should be distributed by the Saṅgha in person. Heavy items and heavy requisites should not be distributed but remain for the Saṅgha of the four directions, present and future.” Therefore, the decision should be made in this manner.
ID1226
Saṅghike pana pāḷiyaṃ āgatānaṃ “purimako pacchimako antarāmuttako cā”ti (cūḷava. 318) vuttānaṃ tiṇṇaṃ senāsanaggāhānañca aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318) āgatānaṃ “utukāle ca vassāvāse cā”ti vuttānaṃ dvinnaṃ senāsanaggāhānañca etarahi asampajjanato anuṭṭhāpanīyapāḷiyaṃ āgatassa attano sabhāvena anuṭṭhāpanīyassa dhuvavāsatthāya saṅghena dinnatāya anuṭṭhāpanīyassa vaseneva vinicchayo hoti. Vuḍḍhataragilānā hi attano sabhāvena anuṭṭhāpanīyā honti. Vuttañhetaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 343) “vuḍḍhataro attano vuḍḍhatāya navakatarena na vuṭṭhāpetabbo, gilāno attano gilānatāyā”ti. Bhaṇḍāgārikadhammakathikādayo dhuvavāsatthāya saṅghena dinnatāya anuṭṭhāpanīyā honti. Vuttañhi “saṅgho pana bhaṇḍāgārikassa vā dhammakathikavinayadharādīnaṃ vā…pe… dhuvavāsatthāya vihāraṃ sammannitvā deti, tasmā yassa saṅghena dinno, sopi anuṭṭhāpanīyo”ti (pāci. aṭṭha. 120; kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. anupakhajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā). So evaṃ veditabbo – etarahi saṅghikavihāresu saṅghattheresu yathākammaṅgatesu tasmiṃ vihāre yo bhikkhu vuḍḍhataro, sopi “ayaṃ vihāro mayā vasitabbo”ti vadati. Yo tattha byatto paṭibalo, sopi tatheva vadati. Yena so vihāro kārito, sopi “mayā pasīditapuggalo āropetabbo”ti vadati. Saṅghopi “mayameva issarā, tasmā amhehi icchitapuggalo āropetabbo”ti vadati. Evaṃdvidhā vā tidhā vā catudhā vā bhinnesu mahantaṃ adhikaraṇaṃ hoti.
However, regarding saṅghika property, since the three types of lodging assignments mentioned in the Pāli text—“the first, the last, and the intermediate” (cūḷava. 318)—and the two types mentioned in the commentary—“at the proper time and during the rains retreat” (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318)—are not applicable nowadays, the decision is based on what is designated as anuṭṭhāpanīya (not to be removed) in the Pāli text on non-removal, either due to its inherent nature or because it was given by the Saṅgha for permanent residence. The most senior and the sick are inherently anuṭṭhāpanīya due to their own nature. It is said in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 343): “The most senior cannot be displaced by a junior due to his seniority, nor the sick due to their illness.” Storekeepers, Dhamma teachers, and others are anuṭṭhāpanīya because they were given by the Saṅgha for permanent residence. It is said: “The Saṅgha, having agreed, gives a monastery to a storekeeper, Dhamma teacher, Vinaya expert, or similar person for permanent residence, so the one to whom the Saṅgha gives it is also anuṭṭhāpanīya” (pāci. aṭṭha. 120; kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. anupakhajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā). This should be understood as follows: Nowadays, in saṅghika monasteries, when senior monks proceed according to their duties, the most senior monk in that monastery says, “I should reside in this monastery.” One who is competent and capable there says the same. The one who built the monastery says, “I should appoint a person I trust.” The Saṅgha says, “We alone are the authority, so we should appoint the person we desire.” Thus, when opinions split twofold, threefold, or fourfold, a great dispute arises.
Concerning what belongs to the Sangha, because the three types of dwelling-place acceptors mentioned in the Pāḷi as “the former, the latter, and the releaser in between” (cūḷava. 318) and the two types of dwelling-place acceptors mentioned in the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318) as “in the season and during the rains residence” are not currently practiced, the decision is made solely based on what is to be established, which is mentioned in the Pāḷi about non-establishment, and is to be established by its very nature, since it is given by the Sangha for the purpose of permanent residence. For, the aged and the sick are to be established by their very nature. It is said in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 343) “An elder, because of his elder status, should not be displaced by a newer monk; a sick person, because of his sickness.” Storekeepers, Dhamma speakers, and others are to be established because they have been given [a dwelling] by the Saṅgha for the purpose of permanent residence. It is said “The Sangha, however, after assigning a monastery to the storekeeper or to speakers of the Dhamma, Vinaya-holders, etc.,… gives it for the purpose of permanent residence. Therefore, he to whom it has been given by the Saṅgha is also not to be displaced.” (pāci. aṭṭha. 120; kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. anupakhajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā). It should be understood thus – these days, in monasteries belonging to the Saṅgha, when the elder monks of the Saṅgha have gone according to their deeds, whichever monk is the eldest in that monastery says, “This monastery should be resided in by me.” He who is learned and competent there also says the same. He who had that monastery built also says, “The person in whom I have faith should be appointed.” The Sangha also says, “We are the masters, therefore the person desired by us should be appointed.” When there is such a twofold or threefold or fourfold division, a great dispute arises.
Regarding Saṅghika monasteries, in the Pāli, three types of lodging acquisitions are mentioned: “the first, the last, and the intermediate” (Cūḷava. 318). In the Aṭṭhakathā (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 318), two types of lodging acquisitions are mentioned: “during the season and during the rains residence.” Currently, due to the lack of proper understanding, the decision should be made based on the original nature of the lodging, which is given by the Saṅgha for permanent residence. Elders and the sick, by their very nature, cannot be evicted. As stated in the Aṭṭhakathā (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 343): “An elder should not be evicted by a junior because of his seniority, and a sick person should not be evicted because of his illness.” The monastery storekeeper, Dhamma preachers, and others are given permanent residence by the Saṅgha and cannot be evicted. As stated: “The Saṅgha, having appointed a monastery to the storekeeper or Dhamma preachers and Vinaya experts for permanent residence, gives it to them. Therefore, whoever is given by the Saṅgha cannot be evicted” (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 120; Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Anupakhajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā). It should be understood thus: Currently, in Saṅghika monasteries, when the Saṅgha elders pass away, the elder monk in that monastery says, “I should reside in this monastery.” The competent monk also says the same. The one who built the monastery says, “I should appoint someone I have faith in.” The Saṅgha says, “We are the owners, so we should appoint someone we wish.” When such divisions arise, a great dispute occurs.
ID1227
Tesu vuḍḍhataro “na tvevāhaṃ, bhikkhave, kenaci pariyāyena vuḍḍhatarassa āsanaṃ paṭibāhitabbanti vadāmi, yo paṭibāheyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti pāḷipāṭhañca (mahāva. 473; cūḷava. 316), “vuḍḍhataro attano vuḍḍhatāya navakatarena na vuṭṭhāpetabbo”ti aṭṭhakathāvacanañca (pāci. aṭṭha. 119 ādayo; kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. anupakhajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) gahetvā “ahameva ettha vuḍḍhataro, mayā vuḍḍhataro añño natthi, tasmā ahameva imasmiṃ vihāre vasitumanucchaviko”ti saññī hoti. Byattopi “bahussutassa saṅghabhāranitthārakassa bhikkhuno anuṭṭhāpanīyasenāsanampī”ti parivāraṭṭhakathāvacanañca (pari. aṭṭha. 495-496), “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, byattena bhikkhunā paṭibalena dasavassena vā atirekadasavassena vā upasampādetuṃ, nissayaṃ dātu”ntiādipāḷivacanañca (mahāva. 76, 82) gahetvā “ahameva ettha byatto paṭibalo, na mayā añño byattataro atthi, tasmā ahameva imassa vihārassa anucchaviko”ti saññī. Vihārakārakopi “yena vihāro kārito, so vihārasāmikoti vinayapāṭho (pāci. aṭṭha. 116) atthi, mayā ca bahuṃ dhanaṃ cajitvā ayaṃ vihāro kārito, tasmā mayā pasannapuggalo āropetabbo, na añño”ti saññī. Saṅghopi “saṅghiko nāma vihāro saṅghassa dinno hoti pariccatto”tiādipāḷivacanañca (pāci. 116, 121, 126, 131), antamaso caturaṅgulapādakaṃ gāmadārakehi paṃsvāgārakesu kīḷantehi katampi saṅghassa dinnakālato paṭṭhāya garubhaṇḍaṃ hotī”tiādiaṭṭhakathāvacanañca (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 321) gahetvā “ayaṃ vihāro saṅghiko saṅghasantako, tasmā amhehi abhirucitapuggalova āropetabbo, na añño”ti saññī.
Among them, the most senior, citing the Pāli text: “Monks, I do not say that the seat of a more senior monk should be obstructed in any way; whoever obstructs it commits an offense of wrongdoing” (mahāva. 473; cūḷava. 316), and the commentary: “The most senior cannot be displaced by a junior due to his seniority” (pāci. aṭṭha. 119 and others; kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. anupakhajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), thinks, “I am the most senior here; there is no one more senior than me, so I am the one suitable to reside in this monastery.” The competent one, citing the commentary on the Parivāra: “Even a lodging that is anuṭṭhāpanīya belongs to a learned monk who relieves the Saṅgha’s burdens” (pari. aṭṭha. 495-496), and the Pāli text: “I allow, monks, a competent and capable monk with ten years or more of ordination to ordain and give dependence” (mahāva. 76, 82), thinks, “I am the competent and capable one here; no one is more competent than me, so I am suitable for this monastery.” The builder of the monastery, citing the Vinaya text: “The one who built the monastery is the owner of the monastery” (pāci. aṭṭha. 116), thinks, “I spent much wealth to build this monastery, so I should appoint a person I trust, not anyone else.” The Saṅgha, citing the Pāli text: “A saṅghika monastery is one given and relinquished to the Saṅgha” (pāci. 116, 121, 126, 131), and the commentary: “Even a structure with a four-inch base, made by village children playing with mud houses, becomes a heavy item belonging to the Saṅgha from the time it is given” (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 321), thinks, “This monastery is saṅghika and belongs to the Saṅgha, so only a person we approve of should be appointed, not anyone else.”
Among them, the eldest, taking up the statement in the Pāḷi “I do not say, monks, that the seat of the eldest should be obstructed in any way; whoever would obstruct it, commits an offence of wrong-doing.” (mahāva. 473; cūḷava. 316) and the statement in the commentary, “an elder, on account of his elder status, is not to be displaced by a newer monk,” (pāci. aṭṭha. 119 ādayo; kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. anupakhajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) thinks, “I am the eldest here, there is no elder greater than me, therefore I am the one suitable to reside in this monastery.” The learned one also, taking up the statement in the Parivāra commentary, “Even a dwelling place that ought not to be vacated may be [given] to a monk who is learned and carries the burden of the Saṅgha,” (pari. aṭṭha. 495-496) and the statement in the Pāḷi, “I allow, monks, a learned and competent monk of ten or more than ten years since higher ordination to ordain, to give dependence,” etc. (mahāva. 76, 82), thinks, “I am the learned and competent one here, there is no one more learned than me, therefore I am the one suitable for this monastery.” The builder of the monastery also thinks, “There is a Vinaya text, ‘He who has the monastery built is the owner of the monastery,’(pāci. aṭṭha. 116). And I, having given up much wealth, had this monastery built; therefore, the person in whom I have confidence should be appointed, no one else.” The Saṅgha also, taking up the statement in the Pāḷi, “A monastery belonging to the Saṅgha means it has been given, relinquished to the Saṅgha,” etc. (pāci. 116, 121, 126, 131), and the statement in the commentary, “Even a four-finger-base structure made by village boys while playing with dust-houses becomes heavy property from the time it is given to the Saṅgha” etc.(cūḷava. aṭṭha. 321), thinks, “This monastery belongs to the Saṅgha, it is the property of the Saṅgha; therefore, only the person we approve of should be appointed, no one else.”
In such cases, the elder says, “Monks, I do not say that an elder should be prevented from sitting in any way. Whoever prevents him commits a dukkaṭa offense” (Mahāva. 473; Cūḷava. 316). The Aṭṭhakathā states: “An elder should not be evicted by a junior because of his seniority” (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 119; Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Anupakhajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā). Taking this, he thinks, “I am the elder here; there is no one else senior to me. Therefore, I am the one who should reside in this monastery.” The competent monk, taking the Parivāra Aṭṭhakathā (Pari. Aṭṭha. 495-496): “A learned monk who bears the burden of the Saṅgha should not be evicted from his lodging,” and the Pāli: “I allow, monks, a competent monk of ten years or more to give ordination and give dependence” (Mahāva. 76, 82), thinks, “I am the competent one here; there is no one more competent than me. Therefore, I am the one who should reside in this monastery.” The builder of the monastery, taking the Vinaya passage: “The one who built the monastery is the owner of the monastery” (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 116), thinks, “I spent much wealth to build this monastery. Therefore, I should appoint someone I have faith in, not someone else.” The Saṅgha, taking the Pāli: “A Saṅghika monastery is given to the Saṅgha and belongs to the Saṅgha” (Pāci. 116, 121, 126, 131), and the Aṭṭhakathā: “Even a four-finger-wide footstool made by village children playing in the sand becomes the property of the Saṅgha from the time of the gift” (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 321), thinks, “This monastery is Saṅghika and belongs to the Saṅgha. Therefore, we should appoint someone we approve of, not someone else.”
ID1228
Tattha vuḍḍhatarassa vacanepi “na tvevāhaṃ, bhikkhave”tyādivacanaṃ (cūḷava. 316) tesu tesu āsanasālādīsu aggāsanassa vuḍḍhatarārahattā bhattaṃ bhuñjitvā nisinnopi bhikkhu vuḍḍhatare āgate vuṭṭhāya āsanaṃ dātabbaṃ sandhāya bhagavatā vuttaṃ, na dhuvavāsaṃ sandhāya. “Vuḍḍhataro attano vuḍḍhatāya”tyādivacanañca (pāci. aṭṭha. 120; kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. anupakhajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) yathāvuḍḍhaṃ senāsane dīyamāne vuḍḍhatare āgate navakataro vuṭṭhāpetabbo, vuṭṭhāpetvā vuḍḍhatarassa senāsanaṃ dātabbaṃ, vuḍḍhataro pana navakatarena na vuṭṭhāpetabbo. Kasmā? “Attano vuḍḍhataratāyā”ti utukāle yathāvuḍḍhaṃ senāsanadānaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, na dhuvavāsatthāya dānaṃ sandhāya , tasmā idampi vacanaṃ upaparikkhitabbaṃ, na sīghaṃ anujānitabbaṃ.
There, even in the words of a more senior monk, the statement “Indeed, I do not, monks…” and so forth (cūḷava. 316) was spoken by the Blessed One with reference to giving up one’s seat in dining halls and similar places to a more senior monk, who, having eaten and sat down, is worthy of the foremost seat due to greater seniority, when such a senior monk arrives—not with reference to permanent residence. The statement “A more senior monk, due to his seniority…” and so forth (pāci. aṭṭha. 120; kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. anupakhajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) means that when lodgings are given according to seniority, if a more senior monk arrives, a less senior one should be made to rise, and the lodging should be given to the more senior monk; however, the more senior monk should not be made to rise by the less senior one. Why? Because it is said with reference to giving lodgings according to seniority during the season, not with reference to giving for permanent residence. Therefore, this statement too should be examined, not quickly approved.
Therein, regarding the statement of the elder, the statement “I do not, monks” etc. (cūḷava. 316) was said by the Blessed One with reference to the giving of the foremost seat to the eldest in various seating halls etc. Even a monk who has eaten his meal and is seated, when an elder arrives, he should rise and offer the seat. It was not said with reference to permanent dwelling. And the statement “an elder, on account of his elder status” etc. (pāci. aṭṭha. 120; kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. anupakhajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), when dwellings are being given in order of seniority, when an elder arrives a newer monk should be displaced, after having displaced the newer monk, the dwelling should be given to the elder, but an elder should not be displaced by a newer monk. Why? Because “on account of his being more elder” was said with reference to giving dwellings in order of seniority during the season, not with reference to giving for the purpose of permanent residence. Therefore, this statement should be examined, it should not be accepted hastily.
In this regard, the elder’s statement, “Monks, I do not say” (Cūḷava. 316), refers to the elder’s right to the best seat in dining halls, etc. When a monk has finished eating and is seated, and an elder arrives, he should rise and offer his seat. This was said by the Buddha with reference to such situations, not to permanent residence. The statement, “An elder should not be evicted by a junior because of his seniority” (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 120; Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Anupakhajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), refers to the giving of lodging according to seniority during the season. When an elder arrives, a junior should rise and offer his seat, but an elder should not be evicted by a junior. Why? Because of his seniority. This was said with reference to the giving of lodging during the season, not to permanent residence. Therefore, this statement should be carefully considered, not hastily approved.
ID1229
Byattavacanepi “bahussutassa saṅghabhāranitthārakassa”tyādivacanañca (pari. aṭṭha. 445-496) na bahussutamattena saṅghikavihārassa issarabhāvaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, atha kho tassa bhikkhussa bahūpakārataṃ guṇavisiṭṭhatañca sallakkhetvā saṅghena phāsukaṃ āvāsaṃ anuṭṭhāpanīyaṃ katvā dinne so bhikkhu kenaci tamhā vihārā anuṭṭhāpanīyo hoti, imamatthaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave”tyādivacanañca (mahāva. 82) nissayācariyānaṃ lakkhaṇaṃ pakāsetuṃ bhagavatā vuttaṃ, na saṅghikavihārassa issarattaṃ, tasmā idampi vacanaṃ upaparikkhitabbaṃ, na sīghaṃ anujānitabbaṃ.
Even in the words of a learned monk, the statement “Of one who is learned and relieves the Sangha’s burdens…” and so forth (pari. aṭṭha. 445-496) is not said with reference to authority over a Sangha monastery merely due to being learned, but rather, considering that monk’s great helpfulness and excellence in virtues, when the Sangha designates a comfortable dwelling not to be disturbed and gives it, that monk cannot be removed from that monastery by anyone—this is the intent behind the statement. The statement “I allow, monks…” and so forth (mahāva. 82) was spoken by the Blessed One to declare the characteristics of dependence teachers, not the authority over a Sangha monastery. Therefore, this statement too should be examined, not quickly approved.
Concerning the learned one’s statement, the statement “to one who is very learned and who relieves the Sangha of its burdens” etc. (pari. aṭṭha. 445-496) was not said with reference to merely being learned as being the reason to be the master of a monastery that belongs to the Saṅgha. Rather, having recognized that monk’s great helpfulness and excellence of qualities, if the Saṅgha, having made a suitable dwelling non-displaceable, has given it, that monk is not to be displaced from that monastery by anyone. This is the meaning with reference to which it was said. And the statement “I allow, monks,” etc. (mahāva. 82) was said by the Blessed One to reveal the characteristics of preceptors giving dependence, not about mastery of a monastery belonging to the Saṅgha; therefore, this statement too should be examined; it should not be accepted hastily.
Regarding the competent monk’s statement, “A learned monk who bears the burden of the Saṅgha” (Pari. Aṭṭha. 445-496), this was not said with reference to the ownership of a Saṅghika monastery merely because of being learned. Rather, considering the great help and distinguished qualities of that monk, the Saṅgha gives him a comfortable residence, and he cannot be evicted by anyone from that monastery. This is the meaning intended. The statement, “I allow, monks” (Mahāva. 82), was said by the Buddha to describe the characteristics of a dependence teacher, not the ownership of a Saṅghika monastery. Therefore, this statement should also be carefully considered, not hastily approved.
ID1230
Dāyakavacanaṃ pana nānujānitabbaṃ paṭibāhitabbaṃ. Kasmā? “Yena vihāro kārito”tyādipāṭhassa amukhyavohārattā. Yathā hi puthujjanakāle rūpādīsu sañjanassa bhūtapubbattā bhūtapubbagatiyā arahāpi “satto”ti, evaṃ dānakālato pubbe tassa vihārassa sāmibhūtapubbattā dāyako “vihārasāmiko”ti vuccati, na issarattā. Na hi sakale vinayapiṭake aṭṭhakathāṭīkāsu ca “vissajjetvā dinnassa vihārassa dāyako issaro”ti vā “dāyakena vicāretabbo”ti vā “dāyakasantakavihāro”ti vā pāṭho atthi, “saṅghiko, gaṇasantako, puggaliko”icceva atthi, tasmā tassa vacanaṃ nānujānitabbaṃ.
The words of a donor, however, should not be approved but should be rejected. Why? Because the reading “By whom the monastery was built…” and so forth is not a primary expression. Just as an arahant, due to having previously perceived a being in form and so forth during the time of being an ordinary person, is called a “being” by past convention, so too a donor, having been the owner of the monastery before the act of giving, is called “the monastery owner,” not due to authority. For nowhere in the entire Vinaya Piṭaka, its commentaries, or sub-commentaries is it stated that “the donor is the authority over a monastery given after relinquishment,” or “it should be managed by the donor,” or “it is a donor-owned monastery”; rather, it is only stated as “Sangha-owned, group-owned, individually owned.” Therefore, the donor’s words should not be approved.
But the statement of the donor should not be accepted, it should be rejected. Why? Because the text “He who has the monastery built” etc. is a non-primary usage. Just as, during the time of ordinary worldlings, due to previous attachment to form, etc., even an arahant is called “a being” using past convention, in the same way, due to previously being the owner of that monastery before the time of the offering, the donor is called “owner of the monastery,” not because of being the master. For in the entire Vinaya Piṭaka, commentaries, and sub-commentaries, there is no text [stating], “The donor of a relinquished and given monastery is the master,” or “It should be decided by the donor,” or “A monastery belonging to the donor.” There is only “belonging to the Saṅgha, belonging to a group, belonging to an individual.” Therefore his statement should not be accepted.
The donor’s statement, however, should not be approved or accepted. Why? Because the passage, “The one who built the monastery,” is not a primary reference. Just as in the case of a worldling, due to past existence in forms, etc., even an arahant is called a “being,” so too, because the donor previously owned the monastery, he is called the “owner of the monastery,” not the master. Nowhere in the entire Vinaya Piṭaka, Aṭṭhakathā, or Ṭīkā is there a passage stating, “The donor is the master of the monastery after giving it away,” or “The donor should be consulted,” or “The monastery belongs to the donor.” Only “Saṅghika, group-owned, or individual-owned” are mentioned. Therefore, his statement should not be approved.
ID1231
Saṅghassa vacanepi “saṅghiko nāma vihāro”tyādivacanaṃ (pāci. 116, 121, 126, 131) saṅghasantakabhāvaṃ saṅghena vicāretabbabhāvaṃ dīpeti, saṅgho pana vicārento pañcaṅgasamannāgataṃ bhikkhuṃ senāsanaggāhāpakaṃ sammannitvā tena yathāvuḍḍhaṃ vicāretabbo vā hoti, samaggena saṅghena duvaṅgasamannāgatassa bhikkhuno apalokanakammena dhuvavāsatthāya dātabbo vā. Tesu pañcaṅgasamannāgatassa bhikkhuno dullabhattā senāsanaggāhāpakasammutiyā abhāve sati duvaṅgasamannāgato bhikkhu pariyesitabbo. Evaṃ pana apariyesitvā bhaṇḍāgārikatādibahaūpakāratāyuttassa bahussutatādiguṇavisiṭṭhatāvirahassa bhikkhuno āmisagarukatādivasena saṅghena vihāro dātabbo na hoti, tasmā saṅghavacanampi upaparikkhitabbaṃ, na tāva anujānitabbaṃ.
Even in the Sangha’s words, the statement “A monastery called Sangha-owned…” and so forth (pāci. 116, 121, 126, 131) indicates its status as Sangha property and that it should be managed by the Sangha. However, in managing it, the Sangha should either appoint a monk endowed with five qualities as the overseer of lodgings and have it managed according to seniority, or, with the unanimous Sangha’s consent through a motion, give it to a monk endowed with two qualities for permanent residence. Since a monk endowed with five qualities is rare, and in the absence of appointing an overseer of lodgings, a monk endowed with two qualities should be sought. However, without such a search, a monastery should not be given by the Sangha to a monk lacking excellence in virtues like learning, due to being a storekeeper or similarly helpful, out of attachment to material gain or the like. Therefore, the Sangha’s words too should be examined, not immediately approved.
Concerning the Saṅgha’s statement, the statement “a monastery belonging to the Saṅgha means” etc. (pāci. 116, 121, 126, 131) indicates that it is owned by the Saṅgha, and the fact that it should be decided by the Saṅgha. But when the Saṅgha decides, it may appoint a monk endowed with five qualities as dwelling-place allocator and he should decide according to seniority, or the harmonious Saṅgha may give it to a monk endowed with two qualities, for permanent residence through a motion-only act. Among these, because a monk endowed with five qualities is difficult to find, if there is no appointment of a dwelling-place allocator, a monk endowed with two qualities should be sought. But, without seeking in this way, a monastery should not be given by the Saṅgha to a monk who, owing to attachment to material things etc., though possessing great helpfulness such as that of a storekeeper, is devoid of superior qualities such as being learned. Therefore, the Saṅgha’s statement should also be examined; it should not, at first, be accepted.
Regarding the Saṅgha’s statement, “A Saṅghika monastery” (Pāci. 116, 121, 126, 131), this indicates that it belongs to the Saṅgha and should be managed by the Saṅgha. When the Saṅgha manages it, they should appoint a monk endowed with five qualities as the lodging allocator, and he should allocate it according to seniority. Alternatively, it should be given to a monk endowed with two qualities by the unanimous Saṅgha through a formal motion for permanent residence. If a monk endowed with five qualities is not available, a monk endowed with two qualities should be sought. However, if such a monk is not sought, and the monastery is given to a monk who is merely helpful as a storekeeper, etc., but lacks distinguished qualities such as learning, it should not be given. Therefore, the Saṅgha’s statement should also be carefully considered, not hastily approved.
ID1232
Atha tīṇipi vacanāni saṃsandetabbāni. Tattha saṅghassa issarattā saṅgho pucchitabbo “ko puggalo tumhehi abhirucito”ti, pucchitvā “eso”ti vutte “kasmā abhirucito”ti pucchitvā “eso puggalo amhe cīvarādipaccayehi anuggahetā, amhākaṃ ñātisālohito, upajjhāyo, ācariyo, saddhivihāriko, antevāsiko, samānupajjhāyako, samānācariyako, piyasahāyo, lābhī, yasassī, tasmā amhehi abhirucito”ti vutte “na ettāvatā dhuvavāsatthāya vihāro dātabbo”ti paṭikkhipitabbo. Atha “eso puggalo sabbehi amhehi vuḍḍhataro aggāsanaṃ aggodakaṃ aggapiṇḍaṃ arahati, dhuvavāsatthāya vihāro pana tassa dātabboti aṭṭhakathācariyehi na vutto”ti vatvā paṭikkhipitabbo. Atha “dhammakathiko, vinayadharo, gaṇavācakaācariyo”ti vutte “eso dhuvavāsatthāya dinnavihārassa anucchaviko, etassa dātabbo”ti anumoditabbo. Kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce? “Saṅgho pana bhaṇḍāgārikassa vā dhammakathikavinayadharādīnaṃ vā gaṇavācakaācariyassa vā bahūpakārataṃ guṇavisiṭṭhatañca sallakkhento dhuvavāsatthāya vihāraṃ sammannitvā detī”ti vacanato viññāyati (pāci. aṭṭha. 129; kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. anupakhajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā).
Then, all three statements should be reconciled. Since the Sangha has authority, the Sangha should be asked, “Which person do you favor?” When asked and they say, “This one,” then ask, “Why do you favor him?” If they say, “This person supports us with robes and other requisites, is our relative by blood, our preceptor, teacher, co-resident, pupil, fellow pupil of the same preceptor, fellow pupil of the same teacher, dear friend, a recipient of gains, renowned—therefore we favor him,” it should be rejected with, “This is not sufficient reason to give a monastery for permanent residence.” If they say, “This person is senior to all of us, worthy of the foremost seat, foremost water, foremost alms, but the commentaries and teachers do not say a monastery should be given to him for permanent residence,” it should be rejected accordingly. But if they say, “He is a preacher of the Dhamma, a bearer of the Vinaya, a group-reciting teacher,” then it should be approved with, “This one is suitable for a monastery given for permanent residence; it should be given to him.” How is this known? It is known from the statement, “The Sangha, considering the great helpfulness and excellence in virtues of a storekeeper, a preacher of the Dhamma, a bearer of the Vinaya, or a group-reciting teacher, designates and gives a monastery for permanent residence” (pāci. aṭṭha. 129; kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. anupakhajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā).
Then, all three statements should be compared. Therein, because the Saṅgha has mastery, the Saṅgha should be asked, “Which person is approved of by you?” Having asked, when they say “This one,” they should be asked, “Why is he approved of?” When they say, “This person supports us with requisites such as robes, etc., he is our relative, preceptor, teacher, co-resident, pupil, one who shares the same preceptor, one who shares the same teacher, a dear friend, a gainful one, a famous one, therefore he is approved of by us,” they should be refuted, “For just this reason, a monastery should not be given for permanent residence.” Then, saying, “This person is the eldest among all of us, he is worthy of the foremost seat, foremost water, foremost alms-food, but it has not been said by the commentary teachers that a monastery for permanent residence should be given to him,” it should be rejected. Then, if they say, “He is a speaker of the Dhamma, a Vinaya-holder, a teacher reciting for the group,” it should be approved, “He is suitable for a monastery given for permanent residence, it should be given to him.” If it is asked, “How is it known?”, it is known from the statement, “The Sangha, however, considering the great helpfulness and the distinction of qualities of a storekeeper, or speakers of the Dhamma, Vinaya-holders, or a teacher reciting to a group, assigns a monastery for permanent residence and gives it.” (pāci. aṭṭha. 129; kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. anupakhajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā).
Then, the three statements should be reconciled. In this regard, since the Saṅgha has authority, the Saṅgha should be asked, “Which individual do you approve of?” When asked, and they say, “This one,” they should be asked, “Why do you approve of him?” If they say, “This individual has helped us with robes and other requisites, is our relative, preceptor, teacher, co-resident, pupil, fellow preceptor, fellow teacher, dear friend, is fortunate, and is famous,” they should be refused, saying, “This is not sufficient to give him permanent residence.” Then, they should be refused, saying, “This individual deserves the best seat, the best water, and the best alms from all of us, but the Aṭṭhakathā teachers have not said that he should be given permanent residence.” If they say, “He is a Dhamma preacher, Vinaya expert, or group recitation teacher,” they should be approved, saying, “He is suitable for permanent residence and should be given the monastery.” How is this understood? From the statement: “The Saṅgha, considering the great help and distinguished qualities of the storekeeper, Dhamma preachers, Vinaya experts, or group recitation teachers, appoints and gives them a monastery for permanent residence” (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 129; Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Anupakhajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā).
ID1233
Idha pana sādhakapāṭhe “bhaṇḍāgārikassa vā”ti vijjamāne kasmā sādhyavacane bhaṇḍāgāriko na vuttoti? Etarahi bhaṇḍāgārassa abhāvā. Yadi kesuci vihāresu bhaṇḍāgāraṃ sammanneyya, so bhaṇḍāgāravihāre nisinno saṅghassa pattacīvararakkhaṇādikaṃ upakāraṃ kareyya, tassa bahūpakārataṃ sallakkhento saṅgho bhaṇḍāgārikassa phāsukaṃ āvāsaṃ etarahipi dhuvavāsatthāya dadeyya, so tassa visuṃ dhuvavāsavihāroti. Ettha sādhakapāṭhe “dhammakathikavinayadharādīnaṃ vā”tiādisaddena bahussuto āgatāgamo dhammadharo vinayadharo mātikādharo paṇḍito byatto medhāvī lajjī kukkuccako sikkhākāmoti vuttaguṇavante saṅgaṇhāti. Athāpi “eso puggalo bahussuto uddesaparipucchādīhi bhikkhūnaṃ bahūpakāro saṅghabhāranitthārako”ti vadati, “sādhu esopi phāsukāvāsassa araho, anuṭṭhāpanīyaṃ katvā dhuvavāsatthāya vihāro etassapi dātabbo”ti vatvā anumoditabbo. Kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce? “Saṅgho pana bahussutassa uddesaparipucchādīhi bahūpakārassa bhāranitthārakassa phāsukaṃ āvāsaṃ anuṭṭhāpanīyaṃ katvā detī”ti (mahāva. aṭṭha. 343) vacanato viññāyati.
Here, though the supporting text includes “of a storekeeper or…” why is the storekeeper not mentioned in the conclusion? Because nowadays there is no storehouse. If in some monasteries a storehouse were designated, and a monk stationed in that storehouse monastery performed helpful tasks like guarding the Sangha’s bowls and robes, the Sangha, considering his great helpfulness, might even now give him a comfortable dwelling for permanent residence, and that would be his distinct permanent residence monastery. In the supporting text, the phrase “of a preacher of the Dhamma, a bearer of the Vinaya, or the like…” includes, with the word “and so forth,” those endowed with qualities such as being learned, versed in the scriptures, a bearer of the Dhamma, a bearer of the Vinaya, a bearer of the matrices, wise, skilled, intelligent, conscientious, scrupulous, and eager for training. Alternatively, if they say, “This person is learned, greatly helpful to monks through recitation and questioning, and relieves the Sangha’s burdens,” it should be approved with, “Good, he too is worthy of a comfortable dwelling; a monastery should be given to him for permanent residence, designated as not to be disturbed.” How is this known? It is known from the statement, “The Sangha gives a comfortable dwelling, not to be disturbed, to one who is learned, greatly helpful through recitation and questioning, and relieves burdens” (mahāva. aṭṭha. 343).
Here, however, when “to the storekeeper” is present in the supporting text, why is the storekeeper not mentioned in the statement to be supported? Because there is no storehouse these days. If in some monasteries a storehouse were assigned, and he, sitting in the storehouse-monastery, rendered service to the Saṅgha such as safeguarding bowls and robes, considering his great helpfulness, the Saṅgha, even these days, might give a suitable dwelling to the storekeeper for permanent residence; that would be his separate permanent residence. Here, in the supporting text, by the word “etc.” in “to speakers of the Dhamma, Vinaya-holders, etc.” are included those who are learned, possess the transmitted texts, those who maintain the Dhamma, those who maintain the Vinaya, those who maintain the Mātikā, the wise, the learned, intelligent, conscientious, scrupulous, and desirous of training, as mentioned with the enumerated qualities. Further, if they say, “This person is very learned, he is very helpful to the monks with teachings, answering questions, etc., he relieves the burden of the Saṅgha,” saying, “Good, he is also worthy of a suitable dwelling, having made it non-displaceable, a monastery should also be given to this one for permanent residence,” it should be approved. If it is asked, “How is it known?”, it is known from the statement, “The Saṅgha, however, gives a suitable dwelling, having made it non-displaceable, to one who is very learned, who is very helpful with teachings, answering questions, etc., who relieves the burden [of the Saṅgha].” (mahāva. aṭṭha. 343).
Here, in the Sādhaka passage, “or the storekeeper” is found. Why is the storekeeper not mentioned in the Sādhaka statement? Currently, there is no storehouse. If someone were to appoint a storehouse in a monastery, the one seated in the storehouse monastery would help the Saṅgha by guarding robes and bowls, etc. Considering his great help, the Saṅgha would give him a comfortable residence for permanent residence even now. That would be his separate permanent residence monastery. In the Sādhaka passage, “or Dhamma preachers, Vinaya experts,” etc., it includes those who are learned, have mastered the texts, are wise, competent, intelligent, conscientious, and desirous of training. Moreover, it says, “This individual is learned, helps the monks with recitation and questioning, and bears the burden of the Saṅgha. It is good that he is also worthy of a comfortable residence. Having made it non-evictable, the monastery should be given to him for permanent residence.” How is this understood? From the statement: “The Saṅgha, considering the great help of a learned monk who bears the burden of the Saṅgha with recitation and questioning, gives him a comfortable residence, making it non-evictable” (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 343).
ID1234
Athāpi “ayaṃ puggalo dhammakathiko vinayadharo gaṇavācakācariyo saṅghassa bahūpakāro visiṭṭhaguṇayutto”ti vadati, “sādhu etassapi puggalassa dhuvavāsatthāya vihāraṃ sallakkhetvā sammannitvāva dātabbo”ti vatvā anumoditabbo. Kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce? “Saṅgho pana bhaṇḍāgārikassa vā dhammakathikavinayadharādīnaṃ vā gaṇavācakācariyassa vā bahūpakārataṃ guṇavisiṭṭhatañca sallakkhetvā dhuvavāsatthāya vihāraṃ sammannitvā detī”ti (pāci. aṭṭha. 120; kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. anupakhajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) vacanato viññāyati.
Alternatively, if it is said, “This person is a Dhamma teacher, a Vinaya expert, a group instructor, greatly helpful to the Saṅgha, and endowed with exceptional qualities,” one should say, “Well done, a monastery should be considered, agreed upon, and given to this person for permanent residence,” and approve it. How is this known? It is known from the statement: “The Saṅgha, considering the great helpfulness and exceptional qualities of a storekeeper, Dhamma teacher, Vinaya expert, group instructor, or similar person, agrees and gives a monastery for permanent residence” (pāci. aṭṭha. 120; kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. anupakhajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā).
Or else, if someone says, “This person is a Dhamma preacher, a Vinaya expert, a teacher who instructs groups, greatly beneficial to the Sangha, and endowed with exceptional qualities,” one should approve, saying, “Very well, after designating and formally assigning a dwelling for the permanent residence of this person, it should indeed be given.” If it is asked, “How is this known?” It is known from the statement, “The Sangha, considering the great helpfulness of the storekeeper or the exceptional qualities of Dhamma preachers, Vinaya experts, and teachers who instruct groups, designates and formally assigns a dwelling for their permanent residence” (pāci. aṭṭha. 120; kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. anupakhajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā).
Furthermore, if one says, “This person is a Dhamma speaker, a Vinaya holder, a teacher of the group recitation, and is of great service to the Sangha, endowed with distinguished qualities,” then it should be said, “It is good to assess and designate a dwelling for this person for permanent residence,” and he should be acknowledged. How is this understood? It is understood from the statement: “The Sangha, having assessed the great service and distinguished qualities of the storekeeper, the Dhamma speaker, the Vinaya holder, or the teacher of the group recitation, designates and gives a dwelling for permanent residence” (Pācittiya Aṭṭha. 120; Kaṅkhā Aṭṭha. Anupakhajjasikkhāpada Vaṇṇanā).
ID1235
Athāpi “eso puggalo bahussuto saṅghabhāranitthārako”ti vadati, “sādhu etassapi anuṭṭhāpanīyaṃ katvā dātabbo”ti vatvā anumoditabbo. Kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce? “Bahussutassa saṅghabhāranitthārakassa bhikkhuno anuṭṭhāpanīyasenāsanampī”ti parivāraṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pari. aṭṭha. 495-496) vuttattā viññāyati. Tato “evaṃ duvaṅgasampanno puggalo antosīmaṭṭho vā bahisīmaṭṭho vā”ti pucchitvā “antosīmaṭṭho”ti vutte “sādhu suṭṭhu tassa dātabbo”ti sampaṭicchitabbaṃ. “Bahisīmaṭṭho”ti vutte “na dātabbo”ti paṭikkhipitabbaṃ. Kasmāti ce? “Na, bhikkhave, nissīme ṭhitassa senāsanaṃ gāhetabbaṃ, yo gāheyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (cūḷava. 318) vacanatoti.
Alternatively, if it is said, “This person is learned and relieves the Saṅgha’s burdens,” one should say, “Well done, it should be given to him as anuṭṭhāpanīya,” and approve it. How is this known? It is known because it is stated in the Parivāra commentary: “Even a lodging that is anuṭṭhāpanīya belongs to a learned monk who relieves the Saṅgha’s burdens” (pari. aṭṭha. 495-496). Then, asking, “Is this person endowed with the two qualities standing within or outside the boundary?” if it is said, “Within the boundary,” one should accept, “Well done, it should certainly be given to him.” If it is said, “Outside the boundary,” one should reject it, saying, “It should not be given.” Why? Because of the statement: “Monks, a lodging should not be taken by one standing outside the boundary; whoever takes it commits an offense of wrongdoing” (cūḷava. 318).
Or if one says, “This person is very learned, capable of relieving the Sangha’s burden,” one should approve, saying “It is well, a residence should be established and granted to this person as well.” If one asks, “How is this known?”, it is known because it says in the Parivāra commentary, “Even a residence for which no one is taking responsibility may be established for a very learned monk capable of unburdening the Sangha.”(pari. aṭṭha. 495-496). Then, after asking, “Is such a person, endowed with the two factors, residing within the boundary or outside the boundary?” and upon being told, “Within the boundary,” one should agree, “Very well, it should properly be given to him.” If told, “Outside the boundary,” one should refuse, saying, “It should not be given.” If it is asked why, it’s because of the statement: “Monks, a residence should not be taken by one residing outside the boundary; whoever takes it, incurs an offense of wrong-doing” (cūḷava. 318).
Furthermore, if one says, “This person is learned and relieves the Sangha’s burdens,” then it should be said, “It is good to prepare a non-transferable dwelling for him and give it,” and he should be acknowledged. How is this understood? It is understood from the Parivāra Aṭṭhakathā (Pari. Aṭṭha. 495-496), which states: “Even a non-transferable dwelling should be given to a learned bhikkhu who relieves the Sangha’s burdens.” Then, having asked, “Is this person endowed with two qualities, residing within the boundary or outside the boundary?” and if it is said, “He resides within the boundary,” it should be accepted, “It is good to give it to him properly.” If it is said, “He resides outside the boundary,” it should be refused, “It should not be given.” Why? Because it is said, “Bhikkhus, a dwelling should not be taken for one staying outside the boundary. If one takes it, there is an offense of wrongdoing” (Cūḷavagga 318).
ID1236
Atha “duvaṅgasamannāgate antosīmaṭṭhe asati ekaṅgasamannāgato antosīmaṭṭho atthī”ti pucchitvā “atthī”ti vutte “sādhu suṭṭhu etassa dātabbo”ti sampaṭicchitabbaṃ. Kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce? “Bahūpakārataṃ guṇavisiṭṭhatañca sallakkhentoti bhaṇḍāgārikassa bahūpakārataṃ dhammakathikādīnaṃ guṇavisiṭṭhatañca sallakkhento”ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.119-121) ekekaṅgavasena āgatattā viññāyati. “Antosīmaṭṭho ekaṅgasamannāgatopi natthi, bahisīmaṭṭhova atthī”ti vutte “āgantvā antosīme ṭhitassa dātabbo”ti vattabbo. Kasmāti ce? “Asampattānampi upacārasīmaṃ paviṭṭhānaṃ antevāsikādīsu gaṇhantesu dātabbamevā”ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379) vacanato viññāyati.
Then, asking, “If there is no one with both qualities within the boundary but there is one with a single quality within the boundary,” and if it is said, “There is,” one should accept, “Well done, it should certainly be given to him.” How is this known? It is known because in the Sāratthadīpanī it is stated: “Considering great helpfulness and exceptional qualities—considering the great helpfulness of a storekeeper and the exceptional qualities of a Dhamma teacher and others” (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.119-121), indicating it applies to each quality individually. If it is said, “There is no one with even a single quality within the boundary, only outside,” one should say, “It should be given to him after he comes and stands within the boundary.” Why? It is known from the commentary: “Even to those who have not arrived, if they enter the vicinity boundary, it should be given to co-residents or similar persons taking it” (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379).
Then, if it is asked, “If there is no one residing within the boundary who is endowed with the two factors, is there someone residing within the boundary who is endowed with one factor?” and upon being told, “There is,” one should agree, “Very well, it should properly be given to him.” If it is asked, “How is this known?” It is known because in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.119-121), it comes under the individual factors, stating, “Considering the great helpfulness and the exceptional qualities: considering the great helpfulness of the storekeeper and the exceptional qualities of the Dhamma preachers and others.” If it is said, “There is not even one endowed with a single factor residing within the boundary; there is only one residing outside the boundary,” one should say, “It should be given to one who has come and is residing within the boundary.” If asked why?, it is known from the statement in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379), “Even for those who have not yet arrived, but have entered the boundary of communal use, when their pupils and others take it, it should indeed be given.”
Then, if one asks, “When there is no one endowed with two qualities within the boundary, is there someone endowed with one quality within the boundary?” and if it is said, “There is,” it should be accepted, “It is good to give it to him properly.” How is this understood? It is understood from the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Pācittiya 3.119-121), which states: “Assessing the great service and distinguished qualities of the storekeeper, the Dhamma speaker, etc.,” and because it comes in terms of one quality. If it is said, “There is no one endowed with even one quality within the boundary, but there is someone outside the boundary,” it should be said, “It should be given to him after he has entered and stayed within the boundary.” Why? Because it is understood from the Aṭṭhakathā (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 379): “Even for those who have not arrived, if they have entered the proximity boundary, it should be given when disciples, etc., are taking it.”
ID1237
Sace pana ekaṅgayuttabhāvena vā duvaṅgayuttabhāvena vā samānā dve tayo bhikkhū antosīmāyaṃ vijjamānā bhaveyyuṃ, kassa dātabboti? Vaḍḍhatarassāti. Kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce? “Na ca, bhikkhave, saṅghikaṃ yathāvuḍḍhaṃ paṭibāhitabbaṃ, yo paṭibāheyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (cūḷava. 311) vacanatoti. Sace pana antosīmāyaṃ ekaṅgayutto vā duvaṅgayutto vā bhikkhu natthi, sabbeva āvāsikā bālā abyattā, evaṃ sati kassa dātabboti? Yo taṃ vihāraṃ āgacchati āgantuko bhikkhu, so ce lajjī hoti pesalo bahussuto sikkhākāmo, so tehi āvāsikehi bhikkhūhi aññattha agamanatthaṃ saṅgahaṃ katvā so āvāso dātabbo.
If, however, two or three monks are present within the boundary with either one or both qualities, to whom should it be given? To the most senior. How is this known? It is known from the statement: “Monks, a saṅghika property should not be obstructed according to seniority; whoever obstructs it commits an offense of wrongdoing” (cūḷava. 311). But if there is no monk with one or both qualities within the boundary, and all the resident monks are foolish and incompetent, to whom should it be given in that case? To a visiting monk who comes to that monastery, provided he is conscientious, virtuous, learned, and eager to train; he should be supported by those resident monks to prevent them from going elsewhere, and the dwelling should be given to him.
If, however, there are two or three monks within the boundary who are equally endowed with either one factor or two factors, to whom should it be given? To the elder. If it is asked, “How is this known?” It is because of the statement, “And, monks, what belongs to the Sangha should not be refused according to seniority; whoever refuses it, incurs an offense of wrong-doing” (cūḷava. 311). If, however, there is no monk within the boundary, who is endowed with either one factor or two factors, and all the residents are foolish and uninstructed, in such a case, to whom should it be given? If a visiting monk who comes to that monastery is conscientious, of good character, very learned, and desirous of training, he should be supported by those resident monks so that he does not go elsewhere, and that dwelling should be given to him.
If, however, two or three bhikkhus endowed with one or two qualities are present within the boundary, to whom should it be given? To the senior one. How is this understood? It is understood from the statement: “Bhikkhus, what belongs to the Sangha should not be withheld according to seniority. If one withholds it, there is an offense of wrongdoing” (Cūḷavagga 311). If there is no bhikkhu within the boundary endowed with one or two qualities, and all the resident bhikkhus are foolish and incompetent, to whom should it be given? To any visiting bhikkhu who comes to that dwelling, if he is modest, virtuous, learned, and desirous of training. The resident bhikkhus should win him over by offering him support to stay, and that dwelling should be given to him.
ID1238
Ayamattho kathaṃ jānitabboti ce? “Idha pana, bhikkhave, aññatarasmiṃ āvāse sambahulā bhikkhū viharanti bālā abyattā, te na jānanti uposathaṃ vā uposathakammaṃ vā pātimokkhaṃ vā pātimokkhuddesaṃ vā. Tattha añño bhikkhu āgacchati bahussuto āgatāgamo dhammadharo vinayadharo mātikādharo paṇḍito byatto medhāvī lajjī kukkuccako sikkhākāmo, tehi, bhikkhave, bhikkhūhi so bhikkhu saṅgahetabbo anuggahetabbo upalāpetabbo upaṭṭhāpetabbo cuṇṇena mattikāya dantakaṭṭhena mukhodakena. No ce saṅgaṇheyyuṃ anuggaṇheyyuṃ upalāpeyyuṃ upaṭṭhāpeyyuṃ cuṇṇena mattikāya dantakaṭṭhena mukhodakena, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 163) sammāsambuddhena paññattattā, aṭṭhakathāyañca (mahāva. aṭṭha. 163) “saṅgahetabboti ’sādhu, bhante, āgatattha, idha bhikkhā sulabhā sūpabyañjanaṃ atthi, vasatha anukkaṇṭhamānā’ti evaṃ piyavacanena saṅgahetabbo, punappunaṃ tathākaraṇavasena anuggahetabbo, ’āma vasissāmī’ti paṭivacanadāpanena upalāpetabbo. Atha vā catūhi paccayehi saṅgahetabbo ceva anuggahetabbo ca, piyavacanena upalāpetabbo, kaṇṇasukhaṃ ālapitabboti attho, cuṇṇādīhi upaṭṭhāpetabbo. Āpatti dukkaṭassāti sace sakalopi saṅgho na karoti, sabbesaṃ dukkaṭaṃ. Idha neva therā, na daharā muccanti, sabbehi vārena upaṭṭhātabbo, attano vāre anupaṭṭhahantassa āpatti. Tena pana mahātherānaṃ pariveṇasammajjanadantakaṭṭhadānādīni na sāditabbāni. Evampi sati mahātherehi sāyaṃpātaṃ upaṭṭhānaṃ āgantabbaṃ. Tena pana tesaṃ āgamanaṃ ñatvā paṭhamataraṃ mahātherānaṃ upaṭṭhānaṃ gantabbaṃ. Sacassa saddhiṃcarā bhikkhū upaṭṭhākā atthi, ’mayhaṃ upaṭṭhākā atthi, tumhe appossukkā viharathā’ti vattabbaṃ. Athāpissa saddhiṃ carā natthi, tasmiṃyeva pana vihāre eko vā dve vā vattasampannā vadanti ’mayhaṃ therassa kattabbaṃ karissāma, avasesā phāsu viharantū’ti, sabbesaṃ anāpattī”ti vuttattā. Evaṃ tādisaṃ bahisīmato antosīmamāgataṃ lajjīpesalabahussutasikkhākāmabhūtaṃ bhikkhuṃ antosīmāya dhuvanivāsatthāya phāsukaṃ āvāsaṃ anuṭṭhāpanīyaṃ katvā dātabboti viññāyati.
How is this meaning to be understood? It is understood because the Perfectly Enlightened One prescribed: “Here, monks, in a certain dwelling, several monks reside who are foolish and incompetent; they do not know the Uposatha, the Uposatha ceremony, the Pātimokkha, or the recitation of the Pātimokkha. Another monk arrives there who is learned, versed in the tradition, a bearer of the Dhamma, Vinaya, and summaries, wise, competent, intelligent, conscientious, scrupulous, and eager to train. Those monks should support, assist, encourage, and attend to him with powder, clay, tooth-stick, and mouthwash. If they do not support, assist, encourage, or attend to him with powder, clay, tooth-stick, and mouthwash, they commit an offense of wrongdoing” (mahāva. 163). And in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 163): “‘Support’ means saying kindly, ‘Welcome, venerable, you have come; alms are easily obtained here, there is curry and food, reside here without longing.’ ‘Assist’ means doing so repeatedly in that manner. ‘Encourage’ means eliciting his response, ‘Yes, I will stay.’ Alternatively, he should be supported and assisted with the four requisites, encouraged with kind words, spoken to pleasantly. ‘Attend’ means with powder and so forth. ‘Offense of wrongdoing’ means if the entire Saṅgha does not do so, all incur the offense. Here, neither the senior nor the junior are exempt; all must take turns attending. If one does not attend during his turn, he incurs the offense. However, tasks like sweeping the senior monks’ quarters or giving tooth-sticks should not be expected of him. Even so, the senior monks should come to attend morning and evening. Knowing their arrival, he should first go to attend to the senior monks. If he has companions who attend to him, he should say, ‘I have attendants; you may dwell at ease.’ If he has no companions, but one or two dutiful monks in that monastery say, ‘We will do what is needed for our elder; the rest may dwell at ease,’ then all are free from offense.” Thus, it is understood that such a monk—conscientious, virtuous, learned, and eager to train—who comes from outside the boundary to within should be given a comfortable dwelling designated as anuṭṭhāpanīya for permanent residence within the boundary.
If it is asked, “How should this matter be known?” Because it was prescribed by the Perfectly Enlightened One: “Now in this case, monks, in a certain dwelling, many monks reside, foolish and uninstructed; they do not know the Uposatha, or the Uposatha ceremony, or the Pātimokkha, or the recitation of the Pātimokkha. There, another monk arrives, very learned, knowing the tradition, a bearer of the Dhamma, a bearer of the Vinaya, a bearer of the Mātikās, wise, instructed, intelligent, conscientious, scrupulous, desirous of training. Those monks, monks, should support that monk, assist him, encourage him, attend to him with tooth-cleaning powder, clay, tooth-sticks, and water for rinsing the mouth. If they do not support him, assist him, encourage him, attend to him with tooth-cleaning powder, clay, tooth-sticks, and water for rinsing the mouth, there is an offense of wrong-doing” (mahāva. 163), and in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 163) it says, “Should be supported means should be supported with pleasant speech, saying, ‘It is good, venerable sir, that you have come; here alms are easily obtained, there are soups and curries; stay without worry,’ thus, he should be supported. By doing that again and again, he should be assisted. By eliciting his response, ‘Yes, I will stay,’ he should be encouraged. Or, he should be supported and assisted with the four requisites, and encouraged with pleasant speech, meaning, pleasant words should be spoken to the ear. He should be attended to with tooth-cleaning powder and so forth. There is an offense of wrong-doing: If the entire Sangha does not do it, there is a wrong-doing for all. Here, neither elders nor juniors are exempt; all should attend to him in turn; for one who does not attend in his turn, there is an offense. However, the great elders should not be made to enjoy the sweeping of the dwelling, the giving of tooth-sticks, and so forth. Even so, the great elders should come to attend in the evening and morning. Knowing of their arrival, attendance should be given to the great elders first. If he has attendant monks with him, it should be said, ‘I have attendants; you may live without concern.’ But if he does not have attendants with him, and in that same monastery one or two who are accomplished in conduct say, ‘We will do what should be done for the elder; let the rest live at ease,’ there is no offense for any.” Thus, it is understood that such a monk who has come from outside the boundary into the boundary, who is conscientious, of good conduct, very learned, and desirous of training, should be given a suitable dwelling within the boundary for permanent residence, having established it.
How should this meaning be understood? “Here, bhikkhus, in a certain residence, several bhikkhus dwell who are foolish and incompetent. They do not know the Uposatha, the Uposatha ceremony, the Pātimokkha, or the Pātimokkha recitation. Then another bhikkhu arrives—learned, versed in the tradition, a Dhamma holder, a Vinaya holder, a master of the outlines, wise, competent, intelligent, modest, scrupulous, and desirous of training. Those bhikkhus should win him over, support him, please him, and serve him with bath powder, clay, tooth cleaners, and mouth water. If they do not win him over, support him, please him, or serve him with bath powder, clay, tooth cleaners, and mouth water, there is an offense of wrongdoing” (Mahāvagga 163), as prescribed by the Fully Enlightened One. The Aṭṭhakathā (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 163) states: “They should win him over by saying, ‘Good, venerable sir, you have come. Here almsfood is easily obtained, and there is curry and condiments. Please stay without dissatisfaction.’ They should repeatedly support him in this way. They should please him by getting him to say, ‘Yes, I will stay.’ Or they should win him over and support him with the four requisites, please him with kind words, and speak pleasantly to his ear. They should serve him with bath powder, etc. If the entire Sangha does not do this, all commit an offense. Here, neither the elders nor the young are exempt. All should serve him, or there is an offense for one who does not serve in his turn. However, the senior elders should not be made to sweep the cell or give tooth cleaners, etc. Even so, the senior elders should come to serve in the evening. Knowing of their arrival, the senior elders should go to serve first. If there are bhikkhus who are attendants traveling with him, they should be told, ‘I have attendants; you may remain at ease.’ If there are no traveling companions, then one or two well-behaved bhikkhus in that dwelling should say, ‘We will do what needs to be done for the elder; let the rest dwell at ease.’ There is no offense for all.” Thus, it is understood that such a bhikkhu who has come from outside the boundary—modest, virtuous, learned, and desirous of training—should be given a comfortable dwelling within the boundary for permanent residence after preparing a non-transferable dwelling.
ID1239
Nanu ca “na, bhikkhave, nissīme ṭhitassa senāsanaṃ gāhetabbaṃ, yo gāheyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (cūḷava. 318) bhagavatā vuttaṃ, atha kasmā nissīmato āgatassa dhuvavāsatthāya vihāro dātabboti? Vuccate – “nissīme ṭhitassā”ti idaṃ anādare sāmivacanaṃ, tasmā nissīme ṭhitaṃyeva senāsanaṃ na gāhetabbanti attho daṭṭhabbo, na nissīme ṭhitassa tassa bhikkhussa antosīmaṃ paviṭṭhassapi senāsanaṃ na gāhetabbanti attho, tasmā pubbe bahisīmāyaṃ ṭhitepi idāni antosīmaṃ paviṭṭhakālato paṭṭhāya catupaccayabhāgo labbhati. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379) “asukavihāre kira bahuṃ cīvaraṃ uppannanti sutvā yojanantarikavihāratopi bhikkhū āgacchanti, sampattasampattānaṃ ṭhitaṭṭhānato paṭṭhāya dātabba”nti. Antosīmaṭṭhesu pātimokkhaṃ uddisituṃ asakkontesu yattha pātimokkhuddesako atthi, so āvāso gantabbo hoti. Antovassepi pātimokkhuddesakena vinā vassaṃ vasituṃ na labhati. Yattha pātimokkhuddesako atthi, tattha gantvā vassaṃ vasitabbaṃ, tasmā bahisīmato āgatopi lajjīpesalabahussutasikkhākāmabhikkhu saṅgahetabbo hoti. Vuttañhetaṃ bhagavatā –
But isn’t it said by the Blessed One, “Monks, a lodging should not be taken by one standing outside the boundary; whoever takes it commits an offense of wrongdoing” (cūḷava. 318)? Then why should a monastery be given for permanent residence to one who comes from outside the boundary? It is explained: “Outside the boundary” is a locative of disregard, so it should be understood that a lodging outside the boundary itself should not be taken, not that a monk who was outside the boundary cannot take a lodging even after entering the boundary. Thus, even one who was previously outside the boundary can receive a share of the four requisites from the time he enters the boundary. It is said in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379): “Hearing that much robe material has arisen in such-and-such a monastery, monks come even from a monastery a yojana away; it should be given to those who arrive, starting from where they stand.” When those within the boundary cannot recite the Pātimokkha, one must go to a dwelling where there is a reciter of the Pātimokkha. Even during the rains retreat, one cannot reside without a reciter of the Pātimokkha. One must go where there is a reciter and reside there for the rains. Thus, even a monk who comes from outside the boundary, if he is conscientious, virtuous, learned, and eager to train, should be supported. This is stated by the Blessed One:
Now, is it not said by the Blessed One, “Monks, a residence should not be taken by one residing outside the boundary; whoever takes it incurs an offense of wrong-doing” (cūḷava. 318)? Then why should a dwelling be given for permanent residence to one who has come from outside the boundary? It is said – “By one residing outside the boundary” – this is a genitive of disregard, therefore, the meaning should be understood as that only one who is residing outside the boundary should not take a residence, not that a residence should not be taken even by that monk residing outside the boundary who has entered the boundary. Therefore, even though he was previously residing outside the boundary, from the time he has now entered the boundary, he receives a share of the four requisites. Indeed, it is said in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379), “Having heard that abundant robes have arisen in such-and-such a monastery, monks come even from a monastery a yojana away; to those who have arrived, it should be given from the place where they are standing.” When those residing inside the boundry are unable to recite the Patimokkha, one should go to a residence where there is a reciter of the Patimokkha. Even during the Rains Retreat, it is not permissible to spend the Rains without a reciter of the Patimokkha. One should go to a place where there is a reciter of the Patimokkha and spend the Rains. Therefore, even one who has come from outside the boundary should be supported, if conscientious, of good character, well-learned, and desiring the training. For it was said by the Blessed One:
But has it not been said by the Blessed One, “Bhikkhus, a dwelling should not be taken for one staying outside the boundary. If one takes it, there is an offense of wrongdoing” (Cūḷavagga 318)? Why then should a dwelling be given to one who has come from outside the boundary for permanent residence? It is said: “For one staying outside the boundary” is a statement of disregard. Therefore, the meaning should be seen as: “A dwelling should not be taken for one staying outside the boundary,” but not that a dwelling should not be taken for that bhikkhu even after he has entered the boundary. Therefore, even if he was previously staying outside the boundary, from the time he enters the boundary, he is entitled to a share of the four requisites. For it is said in the Aṭṭhakathā (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 379): “Having heard that much cloth has been produced in such-and-such a dwelling, bhikkhus come even from a dwelling a yojana away. From the time they arrive, it should be given to them.” If those within the boundary are unable to recite the Pātimokkha, they should go to a dwelling where there is a Pātimokkha reciter. Even during the rains residence, one cannot dwell without a Pātimokkha reciter. One should go to a place where there is a Pātimokkha reciter and dwell there for the rains. Therefore, even a bhikkhu who has come from outside the boundary—modest, virtuous, learned, and desirous of training—should be won over. For it has been said by the Blessed One:
ID1240
“Idha pana, bhikkhave, aññatarasmiṃ āvāse tadahuposathe sambahulā bhikkhū viharanti bālā abyattā, te na jānanti uposathaṃ vā uposathakammaṃ vā pātimokkhaṃ vā pātimokkhuddesaṃ vā. Tehi, bhikkhave, bhikkhūhi eko bhikkhu sāmantā āvāsā sajjukaṃ pāhetabbo ’gacchāvuso saṃkhittena vā vitthārena vā pātimokkhaṃ pariyāpuṇitvā āgacchā’ti. Evañcetaṃ labhetha, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ. No ce labhetha, tehi, bhikkhave, bhikkhūhi sabbeheva yattha jānanti uposathaṃ vā uposathakammaṃ vā pātimokkhaṃ vā pātimokkhuddesaṃ vā, so āvāso gantabbo. No ce gaccheyyuṃ, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Idha pana, bhikkhave, aññatarasmiṃ āvāse sambahulā bhikkhū vassaṃ vasanti bālā abyattā, te na jānanti uposathaṃ vā uposathakammaṃ vā pātimokkhaṃ vā pātimokkhuddesaṃ vā. Tehi, bhikkhave, bhikkhūhi eko bhikkhu sāmantā āvāsā sajjukaṃ pāhetabbo ’gacchāvuso saṃkhittena vā vitthārena vā pātimokkhaṃ pariyāpuṇitvā āgacchā’ti. Evañcetaṃ labhetha, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ. No ce labhetha, eko bhikkhu sattāhakālikaṃ pāhetabbo ’gacchāvuso saṃkhittena vā vitthārena vā pātimokkhaṃ pariyāpuṇitvā āgacchā’ti. Evañcetaṃ labhetha, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ. No ce labhetha, na, bhikkhave, tehi bhikkhūhi tasmiṃ āvāse vassaṃ vasitabbaṃ, vaseyyuṃ ce, āpatti dukkaṭassāti” (mahāva. 163).
“Here, monks, in a certain dwelling on the Uposatha day, several monks reside who are foolish and incompetent; they do not know the Uposatha, the Uposatha ceremony, the Pātimokkha, or the recitation of the Pātimokkha. Those monks should quickly send one monk to a neighboring dwelling, saying, ‘Go, friend, learn the Pātimokkha briefly or in detail and return.’ If this can be done, that is good. If not, those monks should all go to a dwelling where they know the Uposatha, the Uposatha ceremony, the Pātimokkha, or the recitation of the Pātimokkha. If they do not go, they commit an offense of wrongdoing. Here, monks, in a certain dwelling, several monks reside for the rains who are foolish and incompetent; they do not know the Uposatha, the Uposatha ceremony, the Pātimokkha, or the recitation of the Pātimokkha. Those monks should quickly send one monk to a neighboring dwelling, saying, ‘Go, friend, learn the Pātimokkha briefly or in detail and return.’ If this can be done, that is good. If not, they should send one monk for a seven-day period, saying, ‘Go, friend, learn the Pātimokkha briefly or in detail and return.’ If this can be done, that is good. If not, those monks should not reside in that dwelling for the rains; if they do, they commit an offense of wrongdoing” (mahāva. 163).
“Now in this case, monks, on that Uposatha day, many monks are residing in a certain dwelling, foolish and uninstructed; they do not know the Uposatha, or the Uposatha ceremony, or the Pātimokkha, or the recitation of the Pātimokkha. Those monks, monks, should promptly send one monk to a nearby dwelling, saying, ‘Go, friend, learn the Pātimokkha in brief or in detail, and come back.’ If this is obtained, it is good. If it is not obtained, those monks, monks, all of them, should go to a dwelling where they know the Uposatha, or the Uposatha ceremony, or the Pātimokkha, or the recitation of the Pātimokkha. If they do not go, there is an offense of wrong-doing. Now in this case, monks, many monks spend the Rains Retreat in a certain dwelling, foolish and uninstructed; they do not know the Uposatha, or the Uposatha ceremony, or the Pātimokkha, or the recitation of the Pātimokkha. Those monks, monks, should promptly send one monk to a nearby dwelling, saying, ‘Go, friend, learn the Pātimokkha in brief or in detail, and come back.’ If this is obtained, it is good. If it is not obtained, one monk should be sent for seven days, saying, ‘Go, friend, learn the Pātimokkha in brief or in detail, and come back.’ If this is obtained, it is good. If it is not obtained, monks, those monks should not spend the Rains Retreat in that dwelling; if they do, there is an offense of wrong-doing” (mahāva. 163).
“Here, bhikkhus, in a certain residence on the Uposatha day, several bhikkhus dwell who are foolish and incompetent. They do not know the Uposatha, the Uposatha ceremony, the Pātimokkha, or the Pātimokkha recitation. Those bhikkhus should quickly send a bhikkhu to a nearby residence, saying, ‘Go, friend, learn the Pātimokkha briefly or in detail and return.’ If this is achieved, it is good. If not, those bhikkhus should all go to a place where they know the Uposatha, the Uposatha ceremony, the Pātimokkha, or the Pātimokkha recitation. If they do not go, there is an offense of wrongdoing. Here, bhikkhus, in a certain residence, several bhikkhus dwell for the rains who are foolish and incompetent. They do not know the Uposatha, the Uposatha ceremony, the Pātimokkha, or the Pātimokkha recitation. Those bhikkhus should quickly send a bhikkhu to a nearby residence, saying, ‘Go, friend, learn the Pātimokkha briefly or in detail and return.’ If this is achieved, it is good. If not, they should send a bhikkhu for seven days, saying, ‘Go, friend, learn the Pātimokkha briefly or in detail and return.’ If this is achieved, it is good. If not, those bhikkhus should not dwell in that residence for the rains. If they dwell, there is an offense of wrongdoing” (Mahāvagga 163).
ID1241
Evaṃ bahisīmato āgatassapi saṅghassa upakāraṃ kātuṃ sakkontassa visiṭṭhaguṇayuttassa dātabbabhāvo viññāyati, tasmā “amhākaṃ gaṇo na hoti, amhākaṃ vaṃso paveṇī na hoti, amhākaṃ sandiṭṭhasambhatto na hotī”tiādīni vatvā na paṭikkhipitabbo. Gaṇādibhāvo hi appamāṇaṃ, yathāvuttabahūpakāratādibhāvoyeva pamāṇaṃ. Sāmaggikaraṇato paṭṭhāya hi samānagaṇo hoti. Tathā hi ukkhittānuvattakānaṃ laddhinānāsaṃvāsakānampi laddhivissajjanena tividhaukkhepanīyakammakatānaṃ kammanānāsaṃvāsakānampi osāraṇaṃ katvā sāmaggikaraṇena saṃvāso bhagavatā anuññāto. Alajjiṃ pana bahussutampi saṅgahaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭati. So hi alajjīparisaṃ vaḍḍhāpeti, lajjīparisaṃ hāpeti. Bhaṇḍanakārakaṃ pana vihāratopi nikkaḍḍhitabbaṃ. Tathā hi “bhaṇḍanakārakakalahakārakameva sakalasaṅghārāmato nikkaḍḍhituṃ labhati. So hi pakkhaṃ labhitvā saṅghampi bhindeyya. Alajjīādayo pana attano vasanaṭṭhānatoyeva nikkaḍḍhitabbā, sakalasaṅghārāmato nikkaḍḍhituṃ na vaṭṭatī”ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pāci. aṭṭha. 128) vuttaṃ.
Thus, it is understood that even one who comes from outside the boundary, if capable of helping the Saṅgha and endowed with exceptional qualities, should be given it. Therefore, saying things like “He is not of our group, he is not of our lineage or tradition, he is not our acquaintance or associate” should not lead to rejection. Group affiliation and so forth are not the measure; the measure is the state of being greatly helpful as described. From the act of unification onward, he becomes part of the same group. Indeed, the Blessed One permitted coexistence by unification, even for those following a suspended person or those of differing views or those under the three types of suspension acts, by resolving their views or acts. However, an unconscientious person, even if learned, should not be supported. Such a person increases the unconscientious assembly and diminishes the conscientious one. A quarrel-maker should even be expelled from the monastery. It is said in the commentary (pāci. aṭṭha. 128): “One who causes quarrels and disputes can be expelled from the entire monastery by the Saṅgha. Strengthened by a faction, he might even split the Saṅgha. The unconscientious and similar persons should be expelled only from their own dwelling place, not from the entire monastery.”
Thus, it is understood that even to one who has come from outside the boundary, who is able to render service to the Sangha, and who is endowed with exceptional qualities, [a residence] should be given. Therefore, one should not refuse, saying, “He does not belong to our group, he does not belong to our lineage or tradition, he is not our acquaintance or friend,” and so on. Indeed, belonging to a group and so forth is not the measure; the measure is only the aforementioned great helpfulness and so forth. Indeed, from the time of reconciliation, one becomes of the same group. Thus, even for those who have been expelled and are of different beliefs, the Blessed One allowed reconciliation by renouncing their beliefs, and for those of different actions due to three types of expulsion ceremonies, by performing reinstatement and reconciliation. But it is not proper to support an unconscientious person, even if he is very learned. For he increases the group of the unconscientious and diminishes the group of the conscientious. One who causes quarrels should be expelled even from the monastery. Thus, it is said in the commentary (pāci. aṭṭha. 128), “Only one who causes quarrels and disputes should be expelled from the entire monastery of the Sangha. For he, having gained a faction, might even split the Sangha. But unconscientious ones and so on should be expelled only from their own dwelling place; it is not proper to expel them from the entire monastery of the Sangha.”
Thus, it is understood that even one who has come from outside the boundary, if he is capable of benefiting the Sangha and is endowed with distinguished qualities, should be given. Therefore, one should not refuse by saying, “We have no group, we have no lineage, we have no immediate resources,” etc. For the state of having a group, etc., is immeasurable, but the state of being of great service, etc., is the measure. Starting from the act of reconciliation, one becomes of the same group. For even those who have been suspended and have different views, having relinquished their views, and those who have been subjected to the threefold act of suspension and have different acts, having been reconciled, are allowed by the Blessed One to associate. However, it is not proper to win over even a learned one who is shameless. For he increases the shameless group and diminishes the modest group. A quarrelsome one should be expelled even from the dwelling. For it is said in the Aṭṭhakathā (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 128): “A quarrelsome and contentious one can even be expelled from the entire Sangha’s monastery. For he, having gained a faction, might split the Sangha. But the shameless, etc., should be expelled only from their own dwelling place; they should not be expelled from the entire Sangha’s monastery.”
ID1242
Vuḍḍhāpacāyanādisāmaggirasarahitaṃ visabhāgapuggalampi saṅgahaṃ kātuṃ na labhati. Vuttañhi “evarūpena hi visabhāgapuggalena ekavihāre vā ekapariveṇe vā vasantena attho natthi, tasmā sabbatthevassa nivāso vārito”ti (pāci. aṭṭha. 122), tasmā āvāsiko vā hotu āgantuko vā, sagaṇo vā hotu aññagaṇo vā, bahussutasīlavantabhūto bhikkhu saṅgahetabbo. Vuttañhi bhagavatā –
A person lacking the harmony of venerating seniority and differing in nature cannot be supported either. It is said: “There is no benefit in living with such a differing person in the same monastery or quarters, so his residence is prohibited everywhere” (pāci. aṭṭha. 122). Thus, whether a resident or a visitor, whether of the same group or another, a monk who is learned and virtuous should be supported. It is said by the Blessed One:
It is also not permissible to support a disagreeable person who is devoid of respect for elders and the flavor of concord. Indeed, it is said, “There is no purpose in dwelling with such a disagreeable person in one monastery or in one dwelling; therefore, residence for him is prohibited everywhere” (pāci. aṭṭha. 122). Therefore, whether he be a resident or a visitor, whether he belongs to one’s own group or to another group, a monk who is very learned and virtuous should be supported. Indeed, it was said by the Blessed One:
One who is devoid of the taste of harmony, such as respecting elders, etc., cannot win over even a disagreeable person. For it is said: “For such a disagreeable person, there is no benefit in dwelling in the same dwelling or cell. Therefore, his residence is prohibited everywhere” (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 122). Therefore, whether a resident or a visitor, whether of the same group or another group, a bhikkhu who is learned and virtuous should be won over. For it has been said by the Blessed One:
ID1243
“Bahussutaṃ dhammadharaṃ, sappaññaṃ buddhasāvakaṃ; Nekkhaṃ jambonadasseva, ko taṃ nanditumarahati; Devāpi naṃ pasaṃsanti, brahmunāpi pasaṃsito”ti. (a. ni. 4.6) –
“A learned bearer of the Dhamma, wise disciple of the Buddha; Like a coin of Jambunada gold, who would not delight in him? Even the devas praise him, praised by Brahmā too” (a. ni. 4.6).
“The very learned, the bearer of the Dhamma, the wise disciple of the Buddha; like a piece of pure gold, who would dare to revile him? Even the gods praise him, he is praised even by Brahmā” (a. ni. 4.6).
“One who is learned, a Dhamma holder, wise, a disciple of the Buddha, pure like a Jambu river gold—who would not rejoice in him? Even the devas praise him; he is praised by Brahmā” (A. Ni. 4.6).
ID1244
Ayaṃ antosīmaṭṭhena saṅghena bahūpakāratāguṇavisiṭṭhatāsaṅkhātehi guṇehi yuttassa saṅghabhāranitthārakassa bhikkhuno phāsukaṃ āvāsaṃ anuṭṭhāpanīyaṃ katvā dāne vinicchayo.
This is the judgment regarding giving a comfortable dwelling designated as anuṭṭhāpanīya to a monk within the boundary who relieves the Saṅgha’s burdens, endowed with the qualities of great helpfulness and exceptional virtue as recognized by the Saṅgha.
This is the decision regarding the giving, after establishing it, of a suitable dwelling to a monk who is capable of relieving the burden of the Sangha, who is endowed with qualities such as great helpfulness and exceptional qualities, by the Sangha residing within the boundary.
This is the decision regarding giving a comfortable dwelling, prepared as non-transferable, to a bhikkhu within the boundary who is endowed with qualities of great service and distinguished qualities, and who relieves the Sangha’s burdens.
ID1245
Yadā pana saṅghatthero jarādubbalatāya vā rogapīḷitatāya vā vivekajjhāsayatāya vā gaṇaṃ apariharitukāmo aññassa dātukāmo, attano accayena vā kalahavivādābhāvamicchanto saddhivihārikādīnaṃ niyyātetukāmo hoti, tadā na attano issaravatāya dātabbaṃ, ayaṃ vihāro saṅghiko, tasmā saṅghaṃ sannipātāpetvā taṃ kāraṇaṃ ācikkhitvā bahūpakāratāguṇavisiṭṭhatāyuttapuggalo vicināpetabbo. Tato saṅgho cattāri agatigamanāni anupagantvā bhagavato ajjhāsayānurūpaṃ lajjīpesalabahussutasikkhākāmabhūtaṃ puggalaṃ vicinitvā “ayaṃ bhikkhu imassa vihārassa anucchaviko”ti āroceti. Mahātherassapi tameva ruccati, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ. No ce ruccati, attano bhārabhūtaṃ vuttappakāraaṅgaviyuttaṃ puggalaṃ dātukāmo hoti. Evaṃ sante saṅgho chandādiagatiṃ na gacchati, puggalova gacchati, tasmā saṅghasseva anumatiyā vihāro dātabbo.
When a senior monk of the Saṅgha, due to old age and weakness, illness, a desire for seclusion, or unwillingness to manage a group, wishes to give it to another, or after his passing desires the absence of quarrels and disputes and wishes to entrust it to a co-resident or similar person, it should not be given by his own authority, for this monastery is saṅghika. Therefore, he should gather the Saṅgha, explain the reason, and have them select a person endowed with great helpfulness and exceptional qualities. Then, the Saṅgha, without falling into the four biases, selects a person who is conscientious, virtuous, learned, and eager to train, in line with the Blessed One’s intent, and declares, “This monk is suitable for this monastery.” If the great elder approves of that same person, that is good. If not, and he wishes to give it to a person who is a burden to him and lacks the qualities described, then the Saṅgha does not fall into bias such as attachment, but the individual does. Thus, the monastery should be given only with the Saṅgha’s approval.
When, however, the Sangha elder, due to weakness of old age, or affliction by disease, or inclination towards seclusion, is unwilling to maintain the group and wishes to give it to another, or wishing to avoid disputes and disagreements upon his passing, desires to transfer it to his attendant disciples and others, then it should not be given by his own authority. This monastery belongs to the Sangha, therefore, having gathered the Sangha, having explained that reason, a person endowed with great helpfulness and exceptional qualities should be sought. Then, the Sangha, without falling into the four wrong courses of action, should, in accordance with the Blessed One’s inclination, seek out a person who is conscientious, of good conduct, very learned, and desirous of training, and announce, “This monk is suitable for this monastery.” If the great elder also approves of him, it is good. If he does not approve, and desires to give it to a person who is his responsibility, but who is devoid of the aforementioned factors, in such a case, the Sangha does not go to the courses of partiality, etc, the person alone goes. Therefor a residence should be granted with consent of the Sangha.
When, however, a senior member of the Sangha, due to old age, weakness, illness, or a desire for solitude, does not wish to maintain a group, wishes to give it to another, or, after his passing, wishes to avoid quarrels and disputes and to send away his co-residents or pupils, then it should not be given by his own authority. This dwelling belongs to the Sangha. Therefore, having assembled the Sangha, he should explain the reason and have a person endowed with great service and distinguished qualities sought. Then the Sangha, without falling into the four wrong courses, should seek a person in accordance with the Blessed One’s intention—modest, virtuous, learned, and desirous of training—and announce, “This bhikkhu is suitable for this dwelling.” If the senior elder also agrees, it is good. If not, he may wish to give it to a person who is a burden to him, devoid of the stated qualities. In this case, the Sangha does not fall into partiality, etc., but the person does. Therefore, the dwelling should be given only with the Sangha’s consent.
ID1246
Sace pana saṅgho yaṃ kañci āmisaṃ labhitvā yathāvuttaguṇaviyuttassa bhikkhuno dātukāmo hoti, puggalo pana bhagavato ajjhāsayānurūpaṃ vuttappakāraaṅgayuttabhūtasseva bhikkhussa dātukāmo, tadā puggalopi saṅghapariyāpannoyevāti katvā dhammakammakārakassa puggalasseva anumatiyā vihāro dātabbo, na saṅghānumatiyā. Vuttañhetaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.538-539) “sace saṅgho kiñci labhitvā āmisagarukatāya na nivāreti, eko bhikkhu nivāreti, sova bhikkhu issaro. Saṅghikesu hi kammesu yo dhammakammaṃ karoti, sova issaro”ti. Vuttañhi –
However, if the Saṅgha, having obtained some material gift, wishes to give it to a bhikkhu devoid of the aforementioned virtues, while an individual wishes to give it only to a bhikkhu endowed with the qualities described in accordance with the Blessed One’s intention, then, considering that the individual is also included within the Saṅgha, the monastery should be given with the consent of the individual performing the lawful act, not with the consent of the Saṅgha. This is stated in the commentary (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.538-539): “If the Saṅgha, having obtained something, does not prevent it out of attachment to material things, but one bhikkhu prevents it, that bhikkhu is the authority. For in matters pertaining to the Saṅgha, the one who performs the lawful act is the authority.” Indeed, it is said:
If, however, the Saṅgha, having obtained some material gain, wishes to give it to a bhikkhu who is devoid of the aforementioned qualities, but an individual wishes to give it only to a bhikkhu who is endowed with the aforementioned qualities, in accordance with the Blessed One’s intention, then, considering that individual to also be included within the Saṅgha, the monastery should be given with the consent of the individual who is performing the rightful act, not with the consent of the Saṅgha. It is said in the commentary (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.538-539), “If the Saṅgha, having obtained something, does not prevent it due to material attachment, and one bhikkhu prevents it, that bhikkhu alone has authority. For in matters concerning Saṅgha property, whoever performs the rightful act, he alone has authority.” It is said:
If the Saṅgha, having obtained some material gain, wishes to give it to a bhikkhu who lacks the qualities mentioned above, but an individual wishes to give it to a bhikkhu who possesses the qualities in accordance with the Buddha’s intention, then that individual should be considered as belonging to the Saṅgha. Therefore, the dwelling should be given with the consent of the individual who performs the Dhamma transaction, not with the consent of the Saṅgha. This is stated in the commentary (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.538-539): “If the Saṅgha obtains something and does not prevent it out of respect for material gain, but a single bhikkhu prevents it, that bhikkhu is the authority. For in Saṅgha matters, the one who performs the Dhamma transaction is the authority.” It is also stated:
ID1247
“Chandā dosā bhayā mohā; Yo dhammaṃ ativattati; Nihīyati tassa yaso; Kāḷapakkheva candimā.
“Due to desire, hatred, fear, or delusion, whoever transgresses the Dhamma, his fame diminishes, like the moon in the dark fortnight.
“Through desire, hatred, fear, delusion; whoever transgresses the Dhamma; his fame diminishes; like the moon in the dark fortnight.
“Whoever transgresses the Dhamma through desire, hatred, fear, or delusion; their glory diminishes like the moon in the dark fortnight.
ID1248
“Chandā dosā bhayā mohā; Yo dhammaṃ nātivattati; Āpūrati tassa yaso; Sukkapakkheva candimā”ti. (dī. ni. 3.246; a. ni. 4.17-18; pāri. 382, 386);
Due to desire, hatred, fear, or delusion, whoever does not transgress the Dhamma, his fame increases, like the moon in the bright fortnight.” (dī. ni. 3.246; a. ni. 4.17-18; pāri. 382, 386);
“Through desire, hatred, fear, delusion; whoever does not transgress the Dhamma; his fame increases; like the moon in the bright fortnight.” (Dī. Ni. 3.246; A. Ni. 4.17-18; Pāri. 382, 386);
“Whoever does not transgress the Dhamma through desire, hatred, fear, or delusion; their glory increases like the moon in the bright fortnight.” (dī. ni. 3.246; a. ni. 4.17-18; pāri. 382, 386);
ID1249
Yadā pana theropi kiñci avatvā yathākammaṅgato, saṅghopi na kassaci vicāreti, evaṃ saṅghikavihāre abhikkhuke suññe vattamāne tasmiṃ dese yena kenaci sāsanassa vuddhimicchantena ācariyena antosīmaṭṭhakā bhikkhū evaṃ samussāhetabbā “mā tumhe āyasmanto evaṃ akattha, antosīmaṭṭhakesu bhikkhūsu bahūpakāratādiyuttaṃ puggalaṃ vicinatha, vicinitvā labhantā tassa puggalassa samaggena saṅghena dhuvavāsatthāya vihāraṃ anuṭṭhāpanīyaṃ katvā detha, no ce antosīmaṭṭhakesu bhikkhūsu alattha, atha bahisīmaṭṭhakesu bhikkhūsu vicinatha. Bahisīmaṭṭhakesu bhikkhūsu vicinitvā yathāvuttaaṅgayuttapuggale labbhamāne taṃ puggalaṃ antosīmaṃ pavesetvā antosīmaṭṭhakassa saṅghassa anumatiyā dhuvavāsatthāya vihāraṃ sammannitvā anuṭṭhāpanīyaṃ katvā detha. Evaṃ karontā hi tumhe āyasmanto appicchakathā-santosakathā-sallekhakathā-pavivittakathāvīriyārambhakathā-sīlakathā-samādhikathā-paññākathā-vimuttikathā-vimuttiñāṇadassanakathāsaṅkhātadasakathāvatthusampannaṃ puggalaṃ upanissāya assutapubbaṃ dhammaṃ suṇissatha, sutapubbaṃ dhammaṃ pariyodāpissatha, kaṅkhaṃ vinodissatha, diṭṭhiṃ ujuṃ karissatha, cittaṃ pasādessatha. Yassa lajjino pesalassa bahussutassa sikkhākāmassa bhikkhuno bhikkhaṃ anusikkhamānā saddhāya vaḍḍhissanti, sīlena vaḍḍhissanti, sutena vaḍḍhissanti, cāgena vaḍḍhissanti, paññāya vaḍḍhissantī”ti. Vuttañhetaṃ visuddhimagge (visuddhi. 1.14) “katamo upanissayagocaro dasakathāvatthuguṇasamannāgato kalyāṇamitto, yaṃ nissāya assutaṃ suṇāti, sutaṃ pariyodapeti, kaṅkhaṃ vitarati, diṭṭhiṃ ujuṃ karoti, cittaṃ pasādeti. Yassa vā anusikkhamāno saddhāya vaḍḍhati, sīlena vaḍḍhati, sutena vaḍḍhati , cāgena vaḍḍhati, paññāya vaḍḍhati, ayaṃ vuccati upanissayagocaro”ti. Evaṃ samussāhetvā dhammakathaṃ katvā antosīmaṭṭhakasaṅgheneva dhuvavāsavihāro dāpetabboti.
However, when the elder says nothing and follows the procedure, and the Saṅgha does not deliberate about anyone, and thus an uninhabited Saṅgha monastery remains empty in that region, then a teacher desiring the growth of the Sāsana should encourage the bhikkhus within the boundary, saying: “Venerables, do not act in this way. Among the bhikkhus within the boundary, seek out an individual endowed with great helpfulness and other qualities. Having sought and found such a person, give the monastery to that individual with the unanimous consent of the Saṅgha for permanent residence, making it irrevocable. If you do not find such a person among the bhikkhus within the boundary, then seek among the bhikkhus outside the boundary. If, upon seeking among the bhikkhus outside the boundary, you find a person endowed with the aforementioned qualities, bring that person within the boundary and, with the consent of the Saṅgha within the boundary, designate the monastery for permanent residence, making it irrevocable, and give it. By doing so, Venerables, relying on a person endowed with the ten qualities—namely, discourse on fewness of wishes, discourse on contentment, discourse on effacement, discourse on seclusion, discourse on arousing energy, discourse on virtue, discourse on concentration, discourse on wisdom, discourse on liberation, and discourse on the knowledge and vision of liberation—you will hear Dhamma not heard before, purify Dhamma heard before, dispel doubts, straighten your views, and gladden your mind. By training in the manner of such a bhikkhu—who is conscientious, virtuous, learned, and eager for training—you will grow in faith, grow in virtue, grow in learning, grow in generosity, and grow in wisdom.” This is stated in the Visuddhimagga (visuddhi. 1.14): “What is a supportive condition? A good friend endowed with the virtues of the ten discourse subjects, relying on whom one hears what was not heard, purifies what was heard, overcomes doubt, straightens one’s view, and gladdens the mind; or by training in whose manner one grows in faith, grows in virtue, grows in learning, grows in generosity, and grows in wisdom—this is called a supportive condition.” Having thus encouraged them and given a Dhamma talk, the monastery for permanent residence should be given by the Saṅgha within the boundary itself.
But when the elder, without saying anything, proceeds according to the established procedure, and the Saṅgha also does not investigate anyone, thus, while a Saṅgha monastery remains unoccupied and empty, in that place, a teacher desiring the growth of the Dispensation should encourage the bhikkhus residing within the boundary thus: “Do not, venerable sirs, act thus. Seek among the bhikkhus residing within the boundary a person who is greatly beneficial and possesses the other qualities. Having sought and found such a person, the entire Saṅgha should firmly establish and give the monastery to that person for permanent residence. If you do not find such a person among the bhikkhus residing within the boundary, then seek among the bhikkhus residing outside the boundary. Having sought among the bhikkhus residing outside the boundary, if a person endowed with the aforementioned qualities is found, bring that person into the inner boundary, and with the consent of the Saṅgha residing within the inner boundary, confer and firmly establish the monastery for permanent residence. By doing so, venerable sirs, you will, relying upon a person who is endowed with the ten topics of discourse, namely, the discourse on fewness of desires, the discourse on contentment, the discourse on effacement, the discourse on seclusion, the discourse on arousing energy, the discourse on virtuous behavior, the discourse on concentration, the discourse on wisdom, the discourse on liberation, the discourse on the knowledge and vision of liberation, hear the Dhamma previously unheard, clarify the Dhamma previously heard, dispel doubt, straighten your views, and gladden your minds. Those conscientious, amiable, well-learned bhikkhus who are devoted to the training, while following that bhikkhu, will grow in faith, grow in virtuous behavior, grow in learning, grow in generosity, and grow in wisdom.” It is said in the Visuddhimagga (Visuddhi. 1.14): “Who is a good friend possessing the supporting environment, endowed with the qualities of the ten topics of discourse? Relying on whom, one hears what was not heard before, clarifies what was heard before, dispels doubt, straightens one’s views, and gladdens the mind. Or, by following whom one grows in faith, grows in virtuous behavior, grows in learning, grows in generosity, grows in wisdom, this one is said to be possessing a supporting environment.” Having thus encouraged and delivered a discourse on the Dhamma, he should have the permanent residence-monastery given by the Saṅgha residing within the boundary itself.
When the elder does not say anything and acts according to the procedure, and the Saṅgha does not investigate anyone, then in a Saṅgha dwelling that is without bhikkhus and is empty, any teacher who desires the growth of the Dispensation in that region should exhort the bhikkhus within the boundary thus: “Venerables, do not act in this way. Search among the bhikkhus within the boundary for a person who is endowed with qualities such as being helpful, and having found such a person, establish a permanent residence for him with the unanimous consent of the Saṅgha. If you do not find such a person among the bhikkhus within the boundary, then search among the bhikkhus outside the boundary. Having found a person endowed with the aforementioned qualities among the bhikkhus outside the boundary, bring him within the boundary and, with the consent of the Saṅgha within the boundary, establish a permanent residence for him. By doing so, Venerables, you will hear the Dhamma that you have not heard before, clarify the Dhamma you have heard, dispel doubt, straighten your views, and gladden your minds. For a bhikkhu who is modest, virtuous, learned, desirous of training, and who trains himself in the bhikkhu’s life, faith will grow, virtue will grow, learning will grow, generosity will grow, and wisdom will grow.” This is stated in the Visuddhimagga (visuddhi. 1.14): “What is the object of reliance? It is a good friend endowed with the ten qualities of discourse, relying on whom one hears what has not been heard, clarifies what has been heard, dispels doubt, straightens views, and gladdens the mind. Or one who trains himself in this way grows in faith, virtue, learning, generosity, and wisdom. This is called the object of reliance.” Having thus exhorted and given a Dhamma talk, the permanent residence should be established by the Saṅgha within the boundary.
ID1250
Evaṃ jinasāsanassa, vaḍḍhikāmo supesalo; Akāsi paññavā bhikkhu, suṭṭhu āvāsanicchayanti.
Thus, a wise bhikkhu, virtuous and desiring the growth of the Conqueror’s Sāsana, made a well-determined residence.
Thus, the wise bhikkhu, well-behaved, desiring the growth of the Dispensation of the Conqueror; has done well, desiring a dwelling place.
Thus, a wise and virtuous bhikkhu, desiring the growth of the Dispensation of the Conqueror, properly establishes a residence.
ID1251
Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is an exposition of the Vinaya compilation,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,
ID1252
Vihāravinicchayakathālaṅkāro.
this is the discourse on the determination of monasteries.
The Ornament of Discourse on the Determination of a Monastery.
the ornament of the discussion on the determination of dwellings.
ID1253
ID1254
226. Evaṃ catupaccayabhājanavinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni kathinavinicchayaṃ kathetumāha “kathinanti ettha panā”tiādi. Tattha kathinanti katamaṃ kathinaṃ? Samūhapaññatti. Na hi paramatthato kathinaṃ nāma eko dhammo atthi, purimavassaṃvutthā bhikkhū, anūnapañcavaggasaṅgho, cīvaramāso, dhammena samena uppannacīvarantiādīsu yesu nāmarūpesu samuppajjamānesu tesaṃ nāmarūpadhammānaṃ samūhasamavāyasaṅkhātaṃ samūhapaññattimattameva kathinaṃ. Ayamattho kathaṃ jānitabboti? “Tesaññeva dhammānaṃ saṅgaho samavāyo nāmaṃ nāmakammaṃ nāmadheyyaṃ nirutti byañjanaṃ abhilāpo, yadidaṃ kathina”nti parivārapāḷiyaṃ (pari. 412) āgatattā ca, “tesaññeva dhammānanti yesu rūpādidhammesu sati kathinaṃ nāma hoti, tesaṃ samodhānaṃ missībhāvo. Nāmaṃ nāmakammantiādinā pana ’kathina’nti idaṃ bahūsu dhammesu nāmamattaṃ, na paramatthato eko dhammo atthīti dassetī”ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pari. aṭṭha. 412) āgatattā ca, “yesu rūpādidhammesūti purimavassaṃvutthā bhikkhū, pañcahi anūno saṅgho, cīvaramāso, dhammena samena samuppannaṃ cīvaranti evamādīsu yesu rūpārūpadhammesu. Satīti santesu. Missībhāvoti saṃsaggatā samūhapaññattimattaṃ. Tenāha na paramatthato eko dhammo atthīti dassetī”ti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. parivāra 2.412) āgatattā ca jānitabboti.
226. Having explained the determination of the four requisites, he now begins to explain the determination of the kathina, saying: “Now regarding ‘kathina’” and so forth. Here, kathina—what is kathina? It is a collective designation. For there is no single dhamma called kathina in the ultimate sense; rather, it is merely a collective designation arising from the combination of factors such as bhikkhus who have completed the prior rains retreat, a Saṅgha of at least five members, the robe month, and a robe lawfully and harmoniously obtained. How is this meaning to be understood? It is known because it is stated in the Parivāra text (pari. 412): “The collection and combination of those very dhammas is called a name, a naming action, a designation, an expression, a term, a verbal expression—that is, kathina”; and in the commentary (pari. aṭṭha. 412): “ ‘Those very dhammas’ refers to the material and immaterial dhammas—such as bhikkhus who have completed the prior rains retreat, a Saṅgha of at least five, the robe month, and a robe lawfully and harmoniously obtained—in the presence of which there is what is called kathina, their combination and intermingling. By ‘a name, a naming action,’ and so forth, it shows that ‘kathina’ is merely a name applied to many dhammas, not a single dhamma in the ultimate sense”; and in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. parivāra 2.412): “ ‘In the presence of material and immaterial dhammas’ refers to those such as bhikkhus who have completed the prior rains retreat, a Saṅgha of at least five, the robe month, and a robe lawfully and harmoniously obtained. ‘In their presence’ means when they are present. ‘Intermingling’ means their association, merely a collective designation. Thus, it shows that there is no single dhamma in the ultimate sense.”
226. Having thus explained the determination of the distribution of the four requisites, he now begins to explain the determination of the kathina, saying “kathinanti ettha panā” and so on. Herein, what is kathina? It is a collective designation (samūhapaññatti). For there is no single thing called kathina in the ultimate sense. When various nominal and material phenomena arise, such as bhikkhus who have completed the first rains retreat, a Saṅgha of not less than five, the robe-cloth month, and robe-cloth that has arisen lawfully and properly, the kathina is merely a collective designation referring to the aggregation and combination of those nominal and material phenomena. How is this meaning to be known? Because it is stated in the Parivāra Pāḷi (Pari. 412), “The collection, combination, name, naming, designation, expression, description, appellation of these very same phenomena, this is what is called kathina,” and because it is stated in the commentary (Pari. Aṭṭha. 412), “of these very same phenomena,” that is, the combination, the becoming one, of those phenomena such as form, etc., in the presence of which the term kathina arises. “Name, naming,” and so on, shows that this term ‘kathina’ is merely a name for many phenomena, not a single thing in the ultimate sense.” And because it is stated in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Parivāra 2.412), “in the presence of which phenomena such as form, etc.,” that is, bhikkhus who have completed the first rains retreat, a Saṅgha of not less than five, the robe-cloth month, and robe-cloth that has arisen lawfully and properly; among these and other material and immaterial phenomena. “In the presence of” means when they are present. “Becoming one” means being interconnected, merely a collective designation. Therefore, he said, “It shows that there is not a single thing in the ultimate sense.”
226. Having thus discussed the determination of the four requisites, now the determination of the Kathina is discussed with the words “kathinanti ettha panā” and so on. Herein, kathina means what? It is a collective designation. For ultimately, there is no single thing called Kathina. When the bhikkhus who have completed the rains residence, a Saṅgha of not less than five members, the robe season, and a robe rightly obtained, etc., arise, the collective designation of the aggregation of these mental and material phenomena is called Kathina. How is this meaning to be understood? “The collection and combination of these very phenomena is called name, naming, designation, expression, and utterance, namely, Kathina,” as stated in the Parivāra text (pari. 412). “These very phenomena” means those material and immaterial phenomena in which the Kathina exists. Their combination is the mixing together. “Name, naming” and so on indicate that “Kathina” is merely a name for many phenomena, not a single ultimate reality. This is shown in the commentary (pari. aṭṭha. 412): “In those material and immaterial phenomena” such as the bhikkhus who have completed the rains residence, a Saṅgha of not less than five members, the robe season, and a robe rightly obtained, etc. “Exist” means when they are present. “Mixing together” means the collective designation of their association. Therefore, it is said that there is no single ultimate reality. This is to be understood from the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. parivāra 2.412).
ID1255
Kenaṭṭhena kathinanti? Thiraṭṭhena. Kasmā thiranti? Anāmantacāraasamādānacāragaṇabhojanayāvadatthacīvarayocatatthacīvaruppādasaṅkhāte pañcānisaṃse antokaraṇasamatthatāya. Vuttañhi sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.306) “pañcānisaṃse antokaraṇasamatthatāya thiranti attho”ti, tathā vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.306) vajirabuddhiṭīkāyañca (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 306). Atha vā kenaṭṭhena kathinanti? Saṅgaṇhanaṭṭhena. Kathaṃ saṅgaṇhātīti? Pañcānisaṃse aññattha gantuṃ adatvā saṅgaṇhāti saṅkhipitvā gaṇhāti. Vuttañhi vinayatthamañjūsāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) “pañcānisaṃse aññattha gantuṃ adatvā saṅgaṇhanaṭṭhena kathina”nti.
In what sense is it called kathina? In the sense of firmness. Why firm? Because it is capable of encompassing the five benefits—namely, freedom from invitation, freedom from undertaking, group meals, keeping robes as long as desired, and the arising of robes as needed. This is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.306): “The meaning is ‘firm’ because it is capable of encompassing the five benefits”; and similarly in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.306) and the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 306). Alternatively, in what sense is it called kathina? In the sense of holding together. How does it hold together? It holds together the five benefits, preventing them from going elsewhere, gathering them compactly. This is stated in the Vinayatthamañjūsā (kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā): “Kathina, in the sense of holding together, prevents the five benefits from going elsewhere.”
In what sense is it kathina? In the sense of firmness. Why firm? Because it has the ability to effect five benefits, namely, dispensation from going without informing, dispensation from wandering without all three robes, dispensation from eating in a group, dispensation from keeping extra robes as long as one likes, and whatever robe-cloth arises there. It is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.306), “The meaning is firm because of its ability to effect five benefits,” and similarly in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.306) and the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 306). Or, in what sense is it kathina? In the sense of holding together. How does it hold together? It holds together by preventing the five benefits from going elsewhere; it gathers them together. It is said in the Vinayatthamañjūsā (Kaṅkhā. Abhi. Ṭī. Kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), “Kathina in the sense of holding together, by not allowing the five benefits to go elsewhere.”
In what sense is it called Kathina? In the sense of firmness. Why firm? Because of the five benefits: not going without informing, not undertaking a journey, not eating in a group, not using a robe beyond the limit, and not producing a robe beyond the limit, which are capable of strengthening the mind. As stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.306): “In the sense of firmness due to the five benefits that strengthen the mind,” and similarly in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.306) and the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 306). Alternatively, in what sense is it called Kathina? In the sense of binding. How does it bind? By not allowing one to go elsewhere, it binds and restrains. As stated in the Vinayatthamañjūsā (kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā): “In the sense of binding by not allowing one to go elsewhere due to the five benefits.”
ID1256
Kathina-saddo kāya dhātuyā kena paccayena sijjhatīti? Ṭīkācariyā dhātupaccaye acintetvā anipphannapāṭipadikavaseneva vaṇṇenti, tasmā ayaṃ saddo ruḷhīsuddhanāmabhūto anipphannapāṭipadikasaddoti vuccati. Kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce? Tīsupi vinayaṭīkāsu (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.306; vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.306; vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 306; kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) “thiranti attho” icceva vaṇṇitattā. Pañcānisaṃse antokaraṇasamatthatāyāti pana thiratā cassa hetupadameva. Atha vā kathina-saddo kathadhātuyā inapaccayena sijjhati. Kathaṃ? Katha saṅgahaṇetimassa laddhadhātusaññādissa pañcānisaṃse aññattha gantuṃ adatvā saṅgaṇhātīti atthe “ina sabbatthā”ti yogavibhāgena vā “supato cā”ti ettha ca-saddena vā inapaccayaṃ katvā parakkharaṃ netvā kathinasaddato syuppattādimhi kate rūpaṃ. Kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce? “Saṅgaṇhanaṭṭhenā”ti vuttaṃ kaṅkhāvitaraṇīṭīkāpāṭhaṃ nissāya viññāyati. Atha vā kaṭha kicchajīvaneti dhātuto inapaccayaṃ katvā sijjhati. Ayamattho “kaṭha kicchajīvane, muddhajadutiyanto dhātu, ino”ti abhidhānappadīpikāṭīkāyaṃ vuttattā viññāyati.
From which root and with which suffix is the word “kathina” derived? The commentary teachers, without considering roots and suffixes, explain it merely as an unproduced stem in conventional usage, so this word is said to be a pure conventional name, an unproduced stem word. How is this understood? Because in all three Vinaya commentaries (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.306; vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.306; vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 306; kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), it is explained simply as “the meaning is firm.” The phrase “because it is capable of encompassing the five benefits” is merely an explanation of its firmness as a cause. Alternatively, the word “kathina” is derived from the root “kath” with the suffix “ina.” How? In the sense of “katha saṅgaṇhana” (to hold together), referring to one recognized as having this root meaning who holds together the five benefits without letting them go elsewhere, the suffix “ina” is applied—either by the rule “ina everywhere” with a special application, or by the word “ca” in “from self and others”—and after adjusting the consonants, the form “kathina” arises. How is this known? It is understood by relying on the text in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī commentary, which states “in the sense of holding together.” Alternatively, it is derived from the root “kaṭha” (to live with difficulty) with the suffix “ina.” This meaning is understood because it is stated in the Abhidhānappadīpikā commentary: “Kaṭha means to live with difficulty, a root with a retroflex second consonant, with ‘ina.’”
From which root and with which suffix is the word kathina formed? The commentators on the Ṭīkās, not analyzing the root and suffix, explain it only as an underived primary word, therefore this word is said to be an underived primary word which is a pure noun of convention. How is this known? Because in all three Vinaya Ṭīkās (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.306; Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.306; Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 306; Kaṅkhā. Abhi. Ṭī. Kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) it is explained only as “the meaning is firm.” But the firmness is merely the reason, owing to its ‘ability to effect five benefits’. Alternatively, the word kathina is formed from the root kath with the suffix ina. How? Katha in the sense of collecting; to this, having gained the designation of a root, in the sense of ‘holding together, by not allowing the five benefits to go elsewhere,’ by dividing the rule as “ina sabbatthā” or by the ‘ca’ in “supato cā”, apply the suffix ina, move the last consonant, and after applying the su-inflection to the word kathina, the form is made. How is this known? It is known based on the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇīṭīkā reading (Kaṅkhā. Abhi. Ṭī. Kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) which states “in the sense of holding together”. Alternatively, it is formed by applying the suffix ina to the root kaṭha, which means ‘difficult living’. This meaning is known because it is stated in the Abhidhānappadīpikāṭīkā, “‘Kaṭha in the sense of difficult living’, the root ending in the second dha [dental], with ina.”
From which root and by what condition does the word Kathina arise? The commentators, without considering the root and condition, describe it as an uninflected nominal stem. Therefore, this word is called a pure nominal stem, an uninflected nominal stem. How is this understood? In all three Vinaya commentaries (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.306; vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.306; vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 306; kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), it is explained as “in the sense of firmness.” The firmness is indeed the cause. Alternatively, the word Kathina arises from the root “kath” with the suffix “ina.” How? From the root “kath” meaning to gather, with the suffix “ina,” it means to gather without allowing one to go elsewhere. By the rule “ina is used in all cases” or by the rule “supato cā,” with the suffix “ina,” the word Kathina is formed. How is this understood? It is understood as “in the sense of binding,” based on the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇīṭīkā. Alternatively, from the root “kaṭha” meaning difficult livelihood, with the suffix “ina,” it is formed. This meaning is understood from the Abhidhānappadīpikāṭīkā: “kaṭha means difficult livelihood, a root ending in ‘ṭha,’ with the suffix ‘ina.’”
ID1257
Bahū pana paṇḍitā imaṃ pāṭhaṃyeva gahetvā “kathina-saddo muddhajadutiyantoyeva hoti, na dantajo”ti vadanti ceva likhanti ca, na panevaṃ ekantato vattabbaṃ. Kasmā? Abhidhānappadīpikāṭīkāyaṃ kakkhaḷapariyāyaṃ guṇasaddabhūtaṃ kaṭhinasaddaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, na sāsanavohārato nāmasaddabhūtaṃ. Tenevāha “pañcakaṃ kakkhaḷe”ti. Anekesu pana pāḷiaṭṭhakathādipotthakesu jinasāsanavohārato nāmasaddabhūto kathina-saddo dantajoyeva yebhuyyena paññāyati , teneva ca kāraṇena abhidhānappadīpikāṭīkāyampi vaṇṇavipariyāye kathinantipi vuttaṃ. Atha vā kattha silāghāyanti dhātuto inapaccayaṃ katvā sasaṃyogatthakāraṃ nisaṃyogaṃ katvā sijjhati. Ayamattho silāghādisuttassa vuttiyaṃ “silāgha katthane”ti vacanato, saddanītiyañca “katthanaṃ pasaṃsana”nti vaṇṇitattā ca viññāyati. Idañca vacanaṃ “idañhi kathinavattaṃ nāma buddhappasattha”nti aṭṭhakathāvacanena (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306) sameti. Ācariyā pana “kaṭhadhātu inapaccayo”ti vikappetvā “kaṭha samatthane”ti atthaṃ vadanti, taṃ ṭīkāsu (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.306; vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.306; vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 306; kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) “thiranti attho”ti vacanaṃ anapekkhitvā “pañcānisaṃse antokaraṇasamatthatāyā”ti hetumeva atthabhāvena gahetvā vuttaṃ siyā, taṃ pana thirabhāvassa hetuyeva.
However, many scholars, taking this very text, say and write: “The word ‘kathina’ has a retroflex second consonant, not a dental one,” but this should not be stated categorically. Why? Because in the Abhidhānappadīpikā commentary, it refers to “kaṭhina” as a synonym for hardness in the sense of a quality, not as a conventional name in the Sāsana’s usage. Hence it says: “Five things in hardness.” Yet, in numerous Pāli texts, commentaries, and books, the word “kathina” as a conventional name in the Sāsana’s usage is predominantly seen with a dental consonant, and for this reason, even in the Abhidhānappadīpikā commentary, it is also mentioned as “kathina” in a variant explanation. Alternatively, it is derived from the root “kattha” (to praise) with the suffix “ina,” dropping the conjunct “s” and making it unconjoined. This meaning is understood from the statement in the explanation of the Silāgha Sutta: “Silāgha means to praise,” and in the Saddanīti: “Katthana means praising.” This aligns with the commentary statement (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306): “For this kathina practice is praised by the Buddha.” However, some teachers propose an alternative, saying: “From the root ‘kaṭha’ with the suffix ‘ina,’ meaning ‘kaṭha samatthana’ (to accomplish),” but this might have been said by taking “because it is capable of encompassing the five benefits” as the meaning itself rather than a cause, without regard for the commentaries’ statement “the meaning is firm” (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.306; vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.306; vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 306; kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), though it is indeed only the cause of firmness.
Many scholars, however, taking only this reading, say and write that “the word kathina is only with the second dha [dental], not the da [dental],” but it should not be stated so definitively. Why? Because in the Abhidhānappadīpikāṭīkā it is stated in reference to the word kaṭhina which is an attributive word (guṇasadda) synonymous with kakkhaḷa (harsh, hard), not the noun (nāmasadda) from the usage of the Dispensation. Therefore he said “pañcakaṃ kakkhaḷe.” In many Pāḷi, commentary and other books, however, the word kathina, the noun from the usage of the Dispensation of the Conqueror, appears mostly with only the da [dental]. And for that reason, even in the Abhidhānappadīpikāṭīkā, kathinan is also stated by permutation of sounds. Alternatively, it is derived by adding the suffix ina to the root kattha, meaning ‘to praise’, and by dropping the conjunctive s, converting the s-conjunctive to non-conjunctive. This meaning is understood from the explanation of the Silāghādi sutta stating “silāgha in the sense of katthana (praising)”, and also in the Saddanīti, it is explained as “katthanaṃ means praise.” And this statement agrees with the statement in the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 306), “This kathina practice is indeed praised by the Buddha.” The teachers, however, having optionally stated “kaṭha root, ina suffix,” explain the meaning as “kaṭha in the sense of supporting,” that may have been stated taking ‘because of the ability to bring about five benefits’ to the meaning, disregarding the statement “firm is the meaning,” in the Ṭīkās (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.306; Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.306; Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 306; Kaṅkhā. Abhi. Ṭī. Kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), which means “that is only the cause for being firm.”
Many scholars, taking this passage, say and write that the word Kathina is only a stem ending in “ṭha,” not a dental stem. However, this cannot be said definitively. Why? In the Abhidhānappadīpikāṭīkā, the word Kathina is described as a hard stem, not a nominal stem from the Dispensation. Therefore, it is said, “five hard stems.” However, in many Pali commentaries and texts, the word Kathina is mostly understood as a dental stem from the Dispensation. For this reason, in the Abhidhānappadīpikāṭīkā, it is also described as Kathina. Alternatively, from the root “kattha” meaning to praise, with the suffix “ina,” it is formed by removing the conjunction and adding the suffix. This meaning is understood from the Sutta commentary: “kattha means praise,” and from the Saddanīti: “kattha means praise.” This statement agrees with the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306): “This Kathina practice is praised by the Buddha.” The teachers, however, explain it as “kaṭha root with the suffix ‘ina,’” meaning “kaṭha means capable,” and in the commentaries (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.306; vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.306; vajira. �ṭī. mahāvagga 306; kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), it is explained as “in the sense of firmness,” taking the cause as the meaning.
ID1258
Kathaṃ viggaho kātabboti? Ayaṃ kathina-saddo catūsu padesu nāmapadaṃ, pañcasu nāmesu suddhanāmaṃ, catūsu suddhanāmesu ruḷhīsuddhanāmaṃ, dvīsu pāṭipadikasaddesu anipphannapāṭipadikasaddo, tasmā viggaho na kātabbo. Vuttañhi –
How should its analysis be done? The word “kathina” is a noun among the four types of words, a pure noun among the five types of nouns, a conventional pure noun among the four pure nouns, and an unproduced stem word among the two types of stem words; therefore, its analysis should not be done. For it is said:
How should the word breakdown be made? This word kathina is a noun among the four types of words, a pure noun among the five types of nouns, a conventional pure noun among the four types of pure nouns, and an underived primary word among the two types of primary words; therefore, no word breakdown should be made. It is said:
How should the analysis be done? This word Kathina is a nominal stem in four places, a pure nominal stem in five places, a pure nominal stem in four places, an uninflected nominal stem in two places, and therefore, no analysis should be done. As stated:
ID1259
“Ruḷhīkhyātaṃ nipātañcu-pasaggālapanaṃ tathā; Sabbanāmikametesu, na kato viggaho chasū”ti.
“In conventional terms, verbs, particles, prefixes, interjections, and pronouns—no analysis is done in these six.”
“Conventional, denominative, indeclinable, prefixed, particles, and also; Pronouns among these, no word breakdown is made in these six.”
“A traditional term, a particle, a prefix, and a pure nominal stem; in these cases, no analysis is done in six ways.”
ID1260
Ayamattho “kathinanti…pe… thiranti attho”ti ṭīkāsu (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.306; vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.306; vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 306; kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) vacanato viññāyati. Atha vā pañcānisaṃse aññattha gantuṃ adatvā kathati saṅgaṇhātīti kathinaṃ, ayaṃ vacanattho yathāvuttavinayatthamañjūsāpāṭhavasena (kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) viññāyati. Atha vā kaṭhati kicchena jīvatīti kathino, rukkho, tassa esoti kathino, thirabhāvo, so etassa atthīti kathinaṃ, paññattijātaṃ ṭha-kārassa tha-kāraṃ katvā kathinanti vuttaṃ. Ayaṃ nayo “kaṭha kicchajīvane”ti dhātvatthasaṃvaṇṇanāya ca “pañcānisaṃse antokaraṇasamatthatāya thiranti attho”ti ṭīkāvacanena (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.306; vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.306; vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 306; kaṅkhā. abhi. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) ca sametīti daṭṭhabbo. Atha vā kathīyate silāghate pasaṃsīyate buddhādīhīti kathinaṃ, ayaṃ nayo “kattha silāghāya”nti dhātvatthasaṃvaṇṇanāya ca “idañhi kathinavattaṃ nāma buddhappasattha”nti (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306) aṭṭhakathāvacanena ca sametīti daṭṭhabbo.
This meaning is understood from the statement in the commentaries (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.306; vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.306; vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 306; kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā): “Kathina… the meaning is firm.” Alternatively, “It holds together, preventing the five benefits from going elsewhere”—this is “kathina”; this meaning of the term is understood based on the aforementioned passage from the Vinayatthamañjūsā (kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā). Or, “It lives with difficulty”—this is “kathina,” as in a tree; it belongs to it, so “kathina” means firmness, and it exists for this purpose—this is “kathina,” a collective designation, with the “ṭha” changed to “tha,” thus called “kathina.” This approach aligns with the explanation of the root meaning “kaṭha kicchajīvane” (to live with difficulty) and the commentary statement “the meaning is firm because it is capable of encompassing the five benefits” (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.306; vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.306; vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 306; kaṅkhā. abhi. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā). Alternatively, “It is praised and extolled by the Buddha and others”—this is “kathina”; this approach aligns with the explanation of the root meaning “kattha silāghāya” (to praise) and the commentary statement “for this kathina practice is praised by the Buddha” (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306).
This meaning is known from the statement in the Ṭīkās (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.306; Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.306; Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 306; Kaṅkhā. Abhi. Ṭī. Kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), “kathinanti…pe… the meaning is firm.” Alternatively, kathinaṃ is that which kathati, holds together, by not allowing the five benefits to go elsewhere. This grammatical explanation is known from the aforementioned Vinayatthamañjūsā reading (Kaṅkhā. Abhi. Ṭī. Kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā). Alternatively, kathino is a tree that lives with difficulty (kaṭhati kicchena jīvatīti), kathino is its [firmness], that exists in it, hence kathinaṃ, the collective designation. By changing the letter ṭha to tha, it is stated as kathina. This method should be understood as consistent with both the explanation of the root meaning as “kaṭha in the sense of difficult living” and the Ṭīkā statement (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.306; Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.306; Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 306; Kaṅkhā. Abhi. Kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) “the meaning is firm, because of the ability to effect five benefits.” Alternatively, kathinaṃ is that which is praised (kathīyate, silāghate), commended by the Buddhas and others. This method should be understood as consistent with both the explanation of the root meaning as “kattha in the sense of praising” and the commentary statement (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 306) “this kathina practice is indeed praised by the Buddha.”
This meaning is understood from the commentaries (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.306; vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.306; vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 306; kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) as “kathina means firmness.” Alternatively, it means “kathina” as binding by not allowing one to go elsewhere due to the five benefits, as understood from the Vinayatthamañjūsā (kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā). Alternatively, “kathina” means one who lives with difficulty, a tree, and its state of firmness, thus “kathina,” a designation formed by changing the “ṭha” to “tha.” This is the method, as understood from the root meaning “kaṭha means difficult livelihood” and the commentary (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.306; vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.306; vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 306; kaṅkhā. abhi. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā). Alternatively, “kathina” means that which is praised by the Buddha and others, as understood from the root meaning “kattha means praise” and the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306): “This Kathina practice is praised by the Buddha.”
ID1261
Ettha pana saṅkheparucittā ācariyassa saddalakkhaṇaṃ avicāretvā atthameva pucchaṃ katvā vissajjetuṃ “kathinaṃ attharituṃ ke labhanti, ke na labhantī”tiādimāha. Tattha ke labhantīti ke sādhentīti attho. Pañca janā labhantīti pañca janā sādhenti. Kathinadussassa hi dāyakā pacchimakoṭiyā cattāro honti, eko paṭiggāhakoti. “Tatra, bhikkhave, yvāyaṃ catuvaggo bhikkhusaṅgho ṭhapetvā tīṇi kammāni upasampadaṃ pavāraṇaṃ abbhāna”nti campeyyakkhandhake (mahāva. 388) vuttattā na pañcavaggakaraṇīyanti gahetabbaṃ. Paṭhamappavāraṇāya pavāritāti idaṃ vassacchedaṃ akatvā vassaṃvutthabhāvasandassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ antarāyena apavāritānampi vutthavassānaṃ kathinatthārasambhavato. Teneva “appavāritā vā”ti avatvā “chinnavassā vā pacchimikāya upagatā vā na labhantī”ti ettakameva vuttaṃ. Aññasmiṃ vihāre vutthavassāpi na labhantīti nānāsīmāya aññasmiṃ vihāre vutthavassā imasmiṃ vihāre kathinatthāraṃ na labhantīti attho. Sabbeti chinnavassādayo, anupagatāpi tattheva saṅgahitā. Ānisaṃsanti kathinānisaṃsacīvaraṃ. Ekaṃ atthatacīvaraṃyeva hi kathinacīvaraṃ nāma hoti, avasesāni cīvarāni vā sāṭakā vā kathinānisaṃsāyeva nāma. Vakkhati hi “avasesakathinānisaṃse balavavatthāni vassāvāsikaṭhitikāya dātabbānī”ti. (Vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 226) itaresanti purimikāya upagatānaṃ.
Here, however, out of a preference for brevity, the teacher, without analyzing the grammatical form, merely poses the question about the meaning and answers it, saying: “Who can spread the kathina, and who cannot?” and so forth. Here, “who can” means “who are competent.” “Five persons can” means five persons are competent. For the donors of the kathina cloth are four at the final stage, and one is the recipient. It should be understood that it is not a matter requiring a group of five, as stated in the Campeyyakkhandhaka (mahāva. 388): “There, bhikkhus, this group of four bhikkhus, except for three acts—ordination, Pavāraṇā, and rehabilitation….” “Those who have performed the first Pavāraṇā” is said to indicate the state of having completed the rains retreat without interruption, since even those who did not perform Pavāraṇā due to an obstacle can still spread the kathina if they have completed the rains retreat. Hence, it says only “those who have interrupted the rains or come at the last moment cannot,” rather than “those who have not performed Pavāraṇā.” “Even those who completed the rains retreat in another monastery cannot” means those who completed the rains retreat in a different monastery with a different boundary cannot spread the kathina in this monastery. “All” refers to those who have interrupted the rains and so forth, including those who did not come. “Benefits” refers to the robe benefits of the kathina. Indeed, only one spread robe is called the kathina robe, while the remaining robes or cloths are simply called kathina benefits. He will say: “The remaining kathina benefits, the substantial cloths, should be given at the time of the rains retreat residence.” (Vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 226) “The others” refers to those who came at the first opportunity.
Here, the teachers who prefer brevity, not analyzing the grammatical characteristics, having asked only about the meaning and resolving it, say “who are eligible to spread the kathina, who are not eligible” and so on. Therein, who are eligible means who accomplish it. Five persons are eligible means five persons accomplish it. At the very least, there are four donors of the kathina cloth, and one recipient. Because it is said in the Campeyyakkhandhaka (Mahāva. 388), “There, bhikkhus, this assembly of four bhikkhus, except for three acts: higher ordination, invitation (pavāraṇā), and rehabilitation,” it should not be taken as being able to perform the act with five. Invited with the first invitation is said to show that they have completed the rains residence without having broken the rains. Even those who have not been invited due to an obstacle, but have completed the rains residence, are eligible to spread the kathina. Therefore, not saying “or not invited,” he said only “those who have broken the rains, or have entered upon the later [rains], are not eligible.” Even those who have completed the rains residence in another monastery are not eligible, meaning that those who have completed the rains residence in another monastery with a different boundary are not eligible to spread the kathina in this monastery. All means those who have broken the rains and so on, and those who have not entered [upon the rains] are also included therein. Benefit means the kathina benefit robe. Indeed, only one spread robe is called the kathina robe; the remaining robes or pieces of cloth are only the kathina benefits. For he will say, “The remaining strong cloth of kathina benefits should be given according to the fixed residence of the rains residence.” (Vi. Saṅga. Aṭṭha. 226) To the others means to those who entered upon the earlier [rains].
Here, without analyzing the characteristics of the word according to the teacher’s concise explanation, the meaning is asked and answered: “Who obtains the Kathina, who does not obtain it?” and so on. Herein, “who obtains it” means who accomplishes it. “Five kinds of people obtain it” means five kinds of people accomplish it. For the donors of the Kathina cloth are four at the final stage, and one is the receiver. “Therein, bhikkhus, the fourfold bhikkhu Saṅgha, except for the three actions: ordination, invitation, and rehabilitation,” as stated in the Campeyyakkhandhaka (mahāva. 388), should not be taken as the fivefold action. “Those who have been invited at the first invitation” means this is stated to show the completion of the rains residence without cutting off the rains, as even those who have not been invited due to an obstacle but have completed the rains can have the Kathina spread. Therefore, it is not said “those who have not been invited,” but “those who have cut off the rains or have arrived at the final stage do not obtain it” is only stated thus. “Those who have completed the rains residence in another dwelling also do not obtain it” means those who have completed the rains residence in another boundary do not obtain the spreading of the Kathina in this dwelling. “All” includes those who have cut off the rains, etc., even if they have not arrived, they are included here. “Benefits” means the Kathina robe. For only one robe is called the Kathina robe, the rest are called Kathina benefit robes or cloths. It is said: “The remaining Kathina benefit robes or cloths should be given for the stability of the rains residence.” (Vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 226) “Others” means those who have arrived at the earlier stage.
ID1262
So ce pacchimikāya upasampajjati, gaṇapūrako ceva hoti, ānisaṃsañca labhatīti iminā sāmaṇerānaṃ vassūpagamanaṃ anuññātaṃ hoti. So hi purimikāya vassūpagatattā ānisaṃsaṃ labhati, pacchimikāya pana upasampajjitattā gaṇapūrako hotīti. Sace purimikāya upagatā kathinatthārakusalā na hontītiādinā “aṭṭhadhammakovido bhikkhu, kathinatthāramarahatī”ti vinayavinicchaye (vi. vi. 2704) āgatattā sayaṃ ce aṭṭhadhammakusalo, sayameva attharitabbaṃ. No ce, aññe aṭṭhadhammakusale pariyesitvā netabbā, evaṃ akatvā kathinaṃ attharituṃ na vaṭṭatīti dasseti. Kathinaṃ attharāpetvāti sakāritavacanena tehi bāhirato āgatattherehi sayaṃ kathinaṃ na attharitabbaṃ, sabbapubbakiccādikaṃ saṃvidahitvā te purimikāya vassūpagatā antosīmaṭṭhabhikkhūyeva attharāpetabbāti dasseti, aññathā añño kathinaṃ attharati, añño ānisaṃsaṃ labhatīti āpajjati, na panevaṃ yujjati. Vakkhati hi “ānisaṃso pana itaresaṃyeva hotī”ti. Dānañca bhuñjitvāti khādanīyabhojanīyabhūtaṃ annapānādidānaṃ bhuñjitvā. Na hi te vatthudānaṃ labhanti.
“If he is ordained at the last moment, he both completes the group and receives the benefits”—this indicates that novices are permitted to enter the rains retreat. For he receives the benefits because he entered the rains retreat at the first opportunity, and he completes the group because he was ordained at the last moment. “If those who entered at the first opportunity are not skilled in spreading the kathina” and so forth—since it is stated in the Vinaya Vinicchaya (vi. vi. 2704): “A bhikkhu skilled in the eight dhammas is worthy of spreading the kathina”—if he himself is skilled in the eight dhammas, he should spread it himself. If not, others skilled in the eight dhammas should be sought and brought, and it is not permissible to spread the kathina without doing so. This shows that “having caused the kathina to be spread”—by the causative phrasing—it should not be spread by oneself with elders brought from outside, but after arranging all preliminary duties, it should be spread only by those bhikkhus within the boundary who entered the rains retreat at the first opportunity. Otherwise, it would result in one person spreading the kathina and another receiving the benefits, which is not proper. He will say: “The benefits belong only to the others.” “And having enjoyed the gift” means having partaken of the gift of food and drink, such as edibles and consumables. For they do not receive a gift of cloth.
“If he obtains full ordination on the later [date], he completes the quorum and receives the benefits” - by this, the entering of the rains residence for novices is permitted. Because he has entered the rains on the earlier date, he receives the benefit. Because he has fully ordained on the later date, he fills the quorum. “If those who entered on the earlier date are not skilled in the spreading of the kathina” and so forth - because it is stated in the Vinayavinicchaya (vi. vi. 2704) that “a bhikkhu skilled in the eight points is worthy of spreading the kathina,” if he himself is skilled in the eight points, he should spread it himself. If not, others skilled in the eight points should be sought out and brought. Without doing so, it is not proper to spread the kathina. “Having had the kathina spread” - with the causative form of the verb, it shows that those elder monks (thera) who came from outside should not themselves spread the kathina; having arranged all the preliminary duties and so forth, those monks who entered the earlier rains residence and reside within the boundary should have it spread by them. Otherwise, it would occur that one person spreads the kathina, and another receives the benefits, and this is not appropriate. He will say, “The benefit, however, belongs to the others only.” “And having partaken of the offering” - having partaken of the offering of food and drink, consisting of things to be eaten and things to be consumed. They do not receive the offering of cloth.
If he receives higher ordination in the latter period and becomes a full member of the group, he also gains the benefits, this indicates that the staying of the novice monks for the rainy season is permitted. For he gains the benefits because he has stayed for the rainy season in the earlier period, and he becomes a full member of the group because he receives higher ordination in the latter period. If those who entered in the earlier period are not skilled in the duties of the Kathina robe, as stated in the Vinayavinicchaya (vi. vi. 2704), “A monk who is skilled in the eightfold duties is worthy of the Kathina robe,” then he himself, if skilled in the eightfold duties, should perform the duties himself. If not, he should seek other monks skilled in the eightfold duties and assign them to do it. If this is not done, it is not permissible to spread the Kathina robe. Having had the Kathina robe spread, by the use of the passive voice, it is shown that those elders who have come from outside should not spread the Kathina robe themselves, but having arranged all the preliminary duties, the monks who entered the rainy season within the boundary should have it spread. Otherwise, one spreads the Kathina robe, and another gains the benefits, which is not proper. For it is said, “The benefits, however, belong to the others.” Having partaken of the meal, having partaken of the offering of food and drink, such as rice and water. They do not receive the offering of cloth.
ID1263
Kathinacīvaraṃ demāti dātuṃ vaṭṭatīti ettha “saṅghassa kathinacīvaraṃ demā”ti vattabbaṃ. Evañhi sati “idaṃ saṅghassa kathinadussaṃ uppanna”nti (mahāva. 307) kammavācāya sameti. Atha ca pana pubbe kataparicayattā “saṅghassā”ti avuttepi sampadānaṃ pākaṭanti katvā avuttaṃ siyāti. Ettheke ācariyā vadanti “saṅghassāti avuttepi kāle dinnaṃ saṅghikaṃ hotī”ti, tatrevaṃ vattabbaṃ “na kāle dinnaṃ sabbaṃ saṅghikaṃ hotī”ti. Kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce? “Yañca kālepi saṅghassa vā idaṃ akālacīvaranti, puggalassa vā idaṃ tuyhaṃ dammītiādinā nayena dinnaṃ, etaṃ akālacīvaraṃ nāmā”ti kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. akālacivarasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) āgatattā puggalikampi hotīti viññāyati, tasmā parammukhāpi nāmaṃ vatvā sammukhāpi pādamūle ṭhapetvā dinnaṃ puggalikameva hoti, na saṅghikaṃ. Vuttañhetaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379) “puggalassa detīti ’imaṃ cīvaraṃ itthannāmassa dammī’ti evaṃ parammukhā vā, pādamūle ṭhapetvā ’imaṃ, bhante, tumhākaṃ dammī’ti evaṃ sammukhā vā detī”ti. Evaṃ puggalike sati taṃ cīvaraṃ saṅghassa bhājetabbaṃ hoti vā na hoti vāti? So puggalo attano saddhivihārikaantevāsikabhūtassa saṅghassa vā aññassa sahadhammikasaṅghassa vā bhājetukāmo bhājeyya, abhājetukāmo “bhājetū”ti na kenaci vacanīyo. Kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce? “Na hi puggalassa ādissa dinnaṃ kenaci bhājanīyaṃ hotī”ti ṭīkāsu āgamanato viññāyati. Atheke ācariyā evaṃ vadanti “kathinassa ekaṃ mūlaṃ saṅghoti (pari. 408) vuttattā puggalaṃ uddissa dinnepi saṅghāyattaṃ saṅghikaṃ hoti. Yathā kiṃ ’sīmāya dammi, senāsanassa dammī’ti vuttepi taṃ dānaṃ saṅghikaṃ hoti, yathā ca ’kathinacīvaraṃ dammī’ti vutte saṅghikaṃ hotī”ti.
“We give the kathina robe” means it is permissible to give it—here, it should be said: “We give the kathina robe to the Saṅgha.” For only then does it align with the formal declaration (mahāva. 307): “This kathina cloth has arisen for the Saṅgha.” However, due to prior acquaintance, even if “to the Saṅgha” is not said, it might be left unsaid, assuming the dative is obvious. Some teachers say: “Even if ‘to the Saṅgha’ is not said, what is given at the proper time becomes Saṅgha property.” But it should be said: “Not everything given at the proper time becomes Saṅgha property.” How is this known? Because it is stated in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. akālacivarasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā): “Even what is given at the proper time to the Saṅgha with the words ‘This is an out-of-season robe,’ or to an individual with words like ‘I give this to you,’ is called an out-of-season robe”—thus, it is understood that it can also be individual property. Therefore, even if given indirectly by naming the recipient, or directly by placing it at the feet, it is individual property, not Saṅgha property. This is stated in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379): “He gives to an individual”—“I give this robe to so-and-so,” either indirectly, or by placing it at the feet, saying directly, “Venerable, I give this to you.” When it is individual property, must that robe be divided among the Saṅgha or not? That individual may divide it among the Saṅgha or his co-resident pupils or another righteous Saṅgha if he wishes, but if he does not wish to divide it, no one can say to him, “Divide it.” How is this known? It is understood from the statement in the commentaries: “For what is given specifically to an individual is not divisible by anyone.” However, some teachers say: “Since it is stated (pari. 408) that ‘the Saṅgha is one root of the kathina,’ even if given with an individual in mind, it is dependent on the Saṅgha and thus Saṅgha property—just as when it is said, ‘I give to the boundary,’ or ‘I give to the lodging,’ that gift becomes Saṅgha property, and likewise when it is said, ‘I give the kathina robe,’ it becomes Saṅgha property.”
“We shall give the kathina cloth” - “it is proper to give” - here, it should be said, “We shall give the kathina cloth to the Sangha.” For when this is done, it accords with the formal act (kammavācā), “This kathina cloth has arisen for the Sangha” (mahāva. 307). However, because of prior acquaintance, even without saying “to the Sangha,” the recipient is evident, thus it might be said unstated. Some teachers here say, “Even if ‘to the Sangha’ is not stated, what is given in due season becomes the property of the Sangha.” To that, it should be said, “Not everything given in due season becomes the property of the Sangha.” How is this known? Because it is stated in the Kankhavitarani (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. akālacivarasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), “And even what is given in due season, whether to the Sangha saying ‘This is out-of-season cloth’, or to an individual saying, ‘I give this to you,’ and so on, this is called out-of-season cloth.” Therefore it is known to become individual property. Therefore, even if given face-to-face, stating the name, and placing it at the feet, it becomes individual property, not Sangha property. It is stated in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379), “He gives to an individual - ‘I give this robe to one named so-and-so,’ thus face-to-face, or placing it at the feet, ‘Venerable Sir, I give this to you’ - thus face-to-face he gives.” When it is thus for individual, that robe is to be apportioned to Sangha or not? If that person wishes to share it with his preceptor, student, or other fellow members of the Sangha , he may; if he does not wish to share it, no one should say “Share it”. How is it known? It is known because of the statement in the subcommentaries that “what is given designating an individual is not to be distributed by anyone”. But some teachers say thus: “One basis of kathina is the Sangha” (pari. 408), because of what is said, even given addressing to an individual, it is owned by Sangha, it becomes property of the Sangha. It is just like what? When it is said, “I give to the boundary (sīmā), I give to the dwelling,” even then, that offering becomes the property of the Sangha, and just as when it is said, “I give a kathina robe,” it becomes the property of the Sangha.
The Kathina robe is to be given, here it should be said, “We give the Kathina robe to the Sangha.” For thus, when it is said, “This Kathina cloth has arisen for the Sangha,” it accords with the formal act. However, because of prior acquaintance, even if “to the Sangha” is not said, the recipient is clear, and thus it may be considered as said. Here some teachers say, “Even if ‘to the Sangha’ is not said, if given at the proper time, it belongs to the Sangha.” In this case, it should be said, “Not everything given at the proper time belongs to the Sangha.” How is this to be understood? “What is given at the proper time, whether to the Sangha or to an individual, saying, ‘This is an out-of-season robe,’ etc., is called an out-of-season robe,” as stated in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Akālacīvarasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), thus it is understood that it can also belong to an individual. Therefore, even if the name is mentioned indirectly, or if it is placed at the feet directly, it belongs to the individual, not to the Sangha. This is stated in the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 379): “To an individual, saying, ‘I give this robe to such and such a monk,’ either indirectly or directly placing it at his feet, saying, ‘Venerable, I give this to you.’” When it belongs to an individual, should that robe be distributed to the Sangha or not? That individual, if he wishes to distribute it to his co-resident disciples or to the Sangha or to another rightful Sangha, he may distribute it. If he does not wish to distribute it, no one should tell him to do so. How is this to be understood? “What is given to an individual is not to be distributed by anyone,” as stated in the commentaries, thus it is understood. However, some teachers say, “Since it is said, ‘The Sangha is the root of the Kathina’ (Pari. 408), even if given to an individual, it belongs to the Sangha. Just as when it is said, ‘I give to the boundary, I give to the dwelling,’ the offering belongs to the Sangha, and when it is said, ‘I give the Kathina robe,’ it belongs to the Sangha.”
ID1264
Tatrevaṃ vicāretabbaṃ – “kathinassa ekaṃ mūlaṃ saṅgho”ti vacanaṃ (pari. 408) kathinassa mūlaṃ kathinassa kāraṇaṃ dasseti. Yathā hi mūle vijjamāne rukkho tiṭṭhati, avijjamāne na tiṭṭhati, tasmā mūlaṃ rukkhassa kāraṇaṃ hoti, patiṭṭhaṃ hoti, evaṃ saṅghe vijjamāne kathinaṃ hoti, no avijjamāne, tasmā saṅgho kathinassa mūlaṃ kathinassa kāraṇaṃ nāma hoti. Kathaṃ saṅghe vijjamāne kathinaṃ hoti? Sabbantimena paricchedena catuvaggabhūtena saṅghena atthārārahassa bhikkhuno ñattidutiyakammavācāya kathinacīvare dinneyeva tena cīvarena atthataṃ kathinaṃ nāma hoti, no adinne, tasmā catuvaggasaṅghe alabbhamāne sahassakkhattuṃ “kathinaṃ dammī”ti vuttepi kathinaṃ nāma na hoti, tasmā upacārasīmāya paricchinne vihāre eko vā dve vā tayo vā cattāro vā bhikkhū viharanti, tattha kathinacīvare uppanne aññato pariyesitvā catuvaggasaṅgho eko paṭiggāhakoti pañcannaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ pūraṇe sati kathinaṃ attharituṃ labhati, nāsati, evaṃ saṅghe vijjamāneyeva kathinaṃ nāma hoti, no avijjamāne, tasmā saṅghassa kathinassa mūlabhūtataṃ kāraṇabhūtataṃ sandhāya “kathinassa ekaṃ mūlaṃ saṅgho”ti vuttaṃ. “Kathina”nti vutte saṅghikaṃyeva hoti, no puggalikanti adhippāyo etasmiṃ pāṭhe na labbhati. Yathā kiṃ “kiccādhikaraṇassa ekaṃ mūlaṃ saṅgho”ti (cūḷava. 219) ettha apalokanakammañattikammañattidutiyakammañatticatutthakammasaṅkhātaṃ kiccādhikaraṇaṃ catuvaggādike saṅghe vijjamāneyeva hoti, no avijjamāne, tasmā saṅghassa kiccādhikaraṇassa mūlabhūtataṃ kāraṇabhūtataṃ sandhāya “kiccādhikaraṇassa ekaṃ mūlaṃ saṅgho”ti vuccati, evaṃsampadamidaṃ daṭṭhabbaṃ.
This should be considered as follows: The statement (pari. 408) “the Saṅgha is one root of the kathina” indicates that the Saṅgha is the root, the cause, of the kathina. Just as a tree stands when its root exists and does not stand when it does not, the root is the cause and support of the tree—so too, the kathina exists when the Saṅgha exists and does not exist when it does not. Thus, the Saṅgha is called the root, the cause, of the kathina. How does the kathina exist when the Saṅgha exists? Only when a robe is given to a bhikkhu worthy of spreading it by a Saṅgha of at least four members, with a motion and a second formal declaration, and that robe is spread, is it called a spread kathina—not if it is not given. Therefore, if a group of four is not available, even if one says a thousand times, “I give the kathina,” it does not become a kathina. Thus, in a monastery defined by a ceremonial boundary, if one, two, three, or four bhikkhus reside, and a kathina robe arises there, a group of four must be sought from elsewhere, with one as the recipient—only when the five bhikkhus are complete can the kathina be spread, not otherwise. Thus, the kathina exists only when the Saṅgha exists, not otherwise. Therefore, it is said, “the Saṅgha is one root of the kathina,” referring to the Saṅgha’s role as the root and cause of the kathina. The implication that “when ‘kathina’ is said, it is only Saṅgha property, not individual property” is not found in this passage. For example, just as it is said (cūḷava. 219): “the Saṅgha is one root of procedural matters,” meaning that procedural matters—such as consent, motion, motion with a second, and motion with a fourth—exist only when a Saṅgha of four or more exists, not otherwise, and thus the Saṅgha is called the root and cause of procedural matters, so too should this be understood here.
In that regard, the following should be considered: the statement “One basis of kathina is the Sangha” (pari. 408) shows the basis of kathina, the cause of kathina. Just as a tree stands when the root exists, and does not stand when it does not exist; therefore, the root is the cause of the tree, it is its support; in the same way, kathina exists when the Sangha exists, but not when it does not exist. Therefore, the Sangha is called the basis of the kathina, the cause of the kathina. How does the kathina exist when the Sangha exists? At the very least, when the kathina cloth is given by a Sangha of at least four (catuvagga) through a formal act consisting of a motion and one announcement (ñattidutiyakammavācā) to a monk who is worthy to spread it, and when that kathina cloth is spread, it is called a spread kathina, but not if it is not given. Therefore, if a Sangha of four is not available, even if it is said a thousand times, “I give the kathina,” it does not become a kathina. Therefore, if one, two, three, or four monks dwell in a monastery bounded by a nominal boundary, when a kathina cloth arises there, having sought one from elsewhere, a Sangha of four and one recipient, making a total of five monks being complete, they may spread the kathina; if not, they may not. Thus, the kathina exists only when the Sangha exists, but not when it does not exist. Therefore, referring to the Sangha’s being the basis of the kathina, its being the cause, it is said, “One basis of the kathina is the Sangha.” The intention that when “kathina” is stated, it belongs only to the Sangha and not to individual, is not obtainable in this text. Just as, “One basis of the settlement of an issue (kiccādhikaraṇassa) is the Sangha.” (cūḷava. 219) - here, the settlement of issues, known as apalokanakamma, ñattikamma, ñattidutiyakamma, and ñatticatutthakamma, exists only when a Sangha of four or more exists, not when it does not exist; therefore, speaking of the Sangha being the basis of settling an issue, its being the cause, it is said, “One basis of the settlement of an issue is the Sangha.” This comparison should be understood in this way.
In this case, it should be considered thus: The statement “The Sangha is the root of the Kathina” (Pari. 408) indicates that the Sangha is the cause of the Kathina. Just as a tree stands when the root exists and does not stand when the root does not exist, thus the root is the cause of the tree, its foundation. Similarly, when the Sangha exists, the Kathina exists; when the Sangha does not exist, the Kathina does not exist. Therefore, the Sangha is called the root and cause of the Kathina. How does the Kathina exist when the Sangha exists? Ultimately, when the Sangha, consisting of four groups, gives the Kathina robe to a monk worthy of receiving it through a motion and one announcement, the Kathina is spread with that robe. If not given, even if one says a thousand times, “I give the Kathina,” the Kathina does not exist. Therefore, in a monastery within a boundary where one, two, three, or four monks reside, if the Kathina robe arises, having sought elsewhere, when the fourfold Sangha is complete with one recipient, the Kathina can be spread. If not, it cannot be spread. Thus, the Kathina exists only when the Sangha exists; when the Sangha does not exist, the Kathina does not exist. Therefore, it is said, “The Sangha is the root of the Kathina,” referring to the Sangha being the root and cause of the Kathina. When “Kathina” is said, it belongs to the Sangha, not to an individual. This meaning is not found in this passage. Just as it is said, “The Sangha is the root of the procedural matter” (Cūḷava. 219), here the procedural matter, consisting of the motion, one announcement, two announcements, and four announcements, exists only when the fourfold Sangha exists; when the Sangha does not exist, it does not exist. Therefore, it is said, “The Sangha is the root of the procedural matter,” referring to the Sangha being the root and cause of the procedural matter. This should be seen in the same way.
ID1265
Yadipi vuttaṃ “yathā ’sīmāya dammi, senāsanassa dammī’tiādīsu taṃ dānaṃ saṅghāyattameva hoti, tathā ’kathina dammī’ti vutte puggalaṃ uddissa dinnepi saṅghāyattameva saṅghikameva hotī”ti, tathāpi evaṃ vicāraṇā kātabbā – “sīmāya dammi, senāsanassa dammī”tiādīsu sīmā ca senāsanañca dānapaṭiggāhakā na honti, tasmā sīmaṭṭhassa ca senāsanaṭṭhassa ca saṅghassa āyattaṃ hoti, puggalo pana dānapaṭiggāhakova, tasmā “imaṃ kathinacīvaraṃ itthannāmassa bhikkhuno dammī”ti parammukhā vā tassa bhikkhuno pādamūle ṭhapetvā sammukhā vā dinnaṃ kathaṃ saṅghāyattaṃ saṅghasantakaṃ bhaveyya, evaṃ saṅghassa apariṇataṃ puggalikacīvaraṃ saṅghassa pariṇāmeyya, navasu adhammikadānesu ekaṃ bhaveyya, tassa cīvarassa paṭiggahopi navasu adhammikapaṭiggahesu eko bhaveyya, tassa cīvarassa paribhogopi navasu adhammikaparibhogesu eko bhaveyya. Kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce? Nava adhammikāni dānānīti saṅghassa pariṇataṃ aññasaṅghassa vā cetiyassa vā puggalassa vā pariṇāmeti, cetiyassa pariṇataṃ aññacetiyassa vā saṅghassa vā puggalassa vā pariṇāmeti, puggalassa pariṇataṃ aññapuggalassa vā saṅghassa vā cetiyassa vā pariṇāmeti, “nava adhammikā paribhogā”ti āgataṃ parivārapāḷiñca (pari. 329) “nava paṭiggahaparibhogāti etesaṃyeva dānānaṃ paṭiggahā ca paribhogā cā”ti āgataṃ aṭṭhakathañca (pari. aṭṭha. 329) oloketvā viññāyatīti.
Although it is said: “Just as in ‘I give to the boundary’ or ‘I give to the lodging,’ that gift is entirely dependent on the Saṅgha, so too when it is said ‘I give the kathina,’ even if given with an individual in mind, it is entirely dependent on the Saṅgha and thus Saṅgha property,” it should be considered as follows: In “I give to the boundary” or “I give to the lodging,” the boundary and the lodging are not recipients of the gift, so it is dependent on the Saṅgha within the boundary or occupying the lodging. But an individual is indeed a recipient of a gift. Thus, if it is said indirectly, “I give this kathina robe to such-and-such a bhikkhu,” or placed directly at that bhikkhu’s feet, how could it be dependent on the Saṅgha or belong to the Saṅgha? If so, an individual robe not assigned to the Saṅgha would be assigned to it, becoming one of the nine unrighteous gifts; its acceptance would be one of the nine unrighteous acceptances; and its use would be one of the nine unrighteous uses. How is this known? By examining the statement “Nine unrighteous gifts”—what is assigned to the Saṅgha is reassigned to another Saṅgha, a shrine, or an individual; what is assigned to a shrine is reassigned to another shrine, the Saṅgha, or an individual; what is assigned to an individual is reassigned to another individual, the Saṅgha, or a shrine—as found in the Parivāra text (pari. 329), and the commentary (pari. aṭṭha. 329): “Nine acceptances and uses”—“These refer to the acceptance and use of those very gifts.”
Although it has been said, “Just as when ‘I give to the boundary, I give to the dwelling,’ and so forth, that offering is owned by the Sangha, similarly, when ‘I give the kathina’ is said, even if it is given addressing an individual, it is still owned by the Sangha, it becomes the property of the Sangha.” Even so, consideration should be given as follows: in ‘I give to the boundary, I give to the dwelling,’ and so forth, the boundary and the dwelling are not the recipients of the offering. Therefore, it is owned by the Sangha residing within the boundary and the dwelling. An individual, however, is indeed the recipient of the offering. Therefore, “I give this kathina robe to the monk named so-and-so,” face-to-face, or placing it at the feet of that monk face-to-face, how could it be owned by Sangha, be the Sangha’s possession. If a robe that is individual property were to be designated by the Sangha as Sangha property without being properly transferred, it would be one of the nine unrighteous givings, the acceptance of that robe would be one of the nine unrighteous acceptances, the usage of that robe would be one of the nine unrighteous usages. How is this known? Because it is stated, “Nine unrighteous givings - What is transferred to the Sangha, he transfers to another Sangha or to a Cetiya, or to an individual; what is transferred to a Cetiya, he transfers to another Cetiya, or to the Sangha, or to an individual; what is transferred to an individual, he transfer to another individual, or to the Sangha or to a Cetiya; Nine unrighteous usages”, and observing the Parivāra Pāḷi (pari. 329) and also observing the Commentary which says “Nine acceptances and usages - These same gifts are the acceptances and usages.” (pari. aṭṭha. 329), it is to be known.
Even though it is said, “Just as when it is said, ‘I give to the boundary, I give to the dwelling,’ etc., the offering belongs to the Sangha, so too when it is said, ‘I give the Kathina,’ even if given to an individual, it belongs to the Sangha,” still, it should be considered thus: In the cases of “I give to the boundary, I give to the dwelling,” etc., the boundary and the dwelling are not the recipients of the offering. Therefore, it belongs to the Sangha within the boundary and the dwelling. However, the individual is the recipient of the offering. Therefore, if one says, “I give this Kathina robe to such and such a monk,” either indirectly or directly placing it at the feet of that monk, how can it belong to the Sangha? Thus, the robe, which is not transformed into Sangha property, would be transformed into Sangha property, and this would become one of the nine improper offerings. The acceptance of that robe would become one of the nine improper acceptances, and the use of that robe would become one of the nine improper uses. How is this to be understood? The nine improper offerings are: what is transformed into Sangha property is transformed into another Sangha, a shrine, or an individual; what is transformed into shrine property is transformed into another shrine, the Sangha, or an individual; what is transformed into individual property is transformed into another individual, the Sangha, or a shrine. “The nine improper uses” are mentioned in the Parivāra Pāḷi (Pari. 329) and the commentary (Pari. Aṭṭha. 329), thus it is understood.
ID1266
Athāpi evaṃ vadanti – dāyako saṅghattherassa vā ganthadhutaṅgavasena abhiññātassa vā bhattuddesakassa vā pahiṇati “amhākaṃ bhattaggahaṇatthāya aṭṭha bhikkhū gahetvā āgacchathā”ti, sacepi ñātiupaṭṭhākehi pesitaṃ hoti, ime tayo janā pucchituṃ na labhanti. Āruḷhāyeva mātikaṃ, saṅghato aṭṭha bhikkhū uddisāpetvā attanavamehi gantabbaṃ. Kasmā? Bhikkhusaṅghassa hi ete bhikkhū nissāya lābho uppajjatīti. Ganthadhutaṅgādīhi pana anabhiññāto āvāsikabhikkhu pucchituṃ labhati, tasmā tena “kiṃ saṅghato gaṇhāmi, udāhu ye jānāmi, tehi saddhiṃ āgacchāmī”ti mātikaṃ āropetvā yathā dāyakā vadanti, tathā paṭipajjitabbanti (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 325), īdisesu ṭhānesu “saṅghassa lābho puggalaṃ upanissāya uppajjatī”ti vacanaṃ upanidhāya “saṅghassa lābho puggalaṃ nissāya uppajjati, puggalassa pattalābho saṅghaṃ āmasitvā dento saṅghāyatto hotī”ti viññāyatīti.
Yet some say: A donor sends a message to the Saṅgha elder, or one renowned for learning or ascetic practices, or the meal-designator, saying: “Come with eight bhikkhus for our meal offering.” Even if sent by relatives or attendants, these three persons cannot ask for clarification. The outline having been raised, they must have eight bhikkhus designated by the Saṅgha and go with them as the ninth. Why? Because the gain arises for the Saṅgha dependent on these bhikkhus. However, a resident bhikkhu not renowned for learning or ascetic practices can ask: “Should I take them from the Saṅgha, or should I go with those I know?” Having raised the outline, he should act as the donors instruct (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 325). In such cases, based on the statement “the Saṅgha’s gain arises dependent on an individual,” it is understood that “the Saṅgha’s gain arises dependent on an individual, and an individual’s received gain, given while involving the Saṅgha, is dependent on the Saṅgha.”
But some say this: a donor sends a message to the Sangha elder, or to one well-known for his mastery of the scriptures or dhutaṅga practices, or to the meal distributor, “Come, taking eight monks, for our meal-offering.” Even if it is sent by relatives or supporters, these three persons cannot be questioned. It’s as if it were entered in the matrix; eight monks should be appointed from the Sangha, and they should go, making themselves nine. Why? Because the gain of the Sangha of monks arises dependent on these monks. However, a residential monk who is not well-known for scripture, dhutaṅga practice, and so forth, can be questioned. Therefore, having established it in the matrix by saying, “Shall I take [them] from the Sangha, or shall I come with those I know?” he should act according to what the donors say (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 325). In such cases, considering the statement, “The gain of the Sangha arises dependent on the individual,” it is understood that “The gain of the Sangha arises dependent on the individual; the gain that has accrued to an individual, giving it after touching the Sangha, is owned by the Sangha.”
Moreover, they say: The donor sends a message to the Sangha elder or to a well-known monk who observes the ascetic practices or to the meal distributor, saying, “Take eight monks and come for our meal offering.” Even if sent by relatives or attendants, these three persons cannot ask. They must ascend the list, have eight monks appointed by the Sangha, and go with the ninth. Why? Because the gain arises for the Sangha of monks through these monks. However, a resident monk who is not well-known for observing the ascetic practices can ask, “Shall I take from the Sangha or go with those I know?” Having ascended the list, he should act according to the donors’ words (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 325). In such cases, it is understood that “the gain of the Sangha arises depending on the individual, and the gain of the individual, having touched the Sangha, becomes Sangha property.”
ID1267
Imasmimpi vacane evaṃ vicāraṇā kātabbā – tasmiṃ tu nimantane na puggalaṃyeva nimanteti, atha kho sasaṅghaṃ puggalaṃ nimanteti. Tattha tu “saṅgha”nti avatvā “aṭṭha bhikkhū”ti vuttattā “kiṃ saṅghato gaṇhāmi, udāhu ye jānāmi, tehi saddhiṃ āgacchāmī”ti anabhiññāto puggalo pucchituṃ labhati. Saṅghattherassa pana saṅghaṃ pariharitvā vasitattā “aṭṭha bhikkhū”ti vutte saṅghaṃ ṭhapetvā aññesaṃ gahaṇakāraṇaṃ natthi, ganthadhutaṅgavasena abhiññātapuggalopi saṅghassa puññanissitattā “aṭṭha bhikkhū”ti vutte saṅghatoyeva gaṇhāti, bhattuddesakassapi devasikaṃ saṅghasseva bhattavicāraṇattā “aṭṭha bhikkhū”ti vutte saṅghaṃ ṭhapetvā aññesaṃ gahaṇakāraṇaṃ natthi. Evaṃ “aṭṭha bhikkhū gahetvā āgacchathā”ti saha saṅghena nimantitattā “ime tayo janā pucchituṃ na labhantī”ti vuttaṃ, na “tvaṃ āgacchāhī”ti puggalasseva nimantane satipi saṅghaṃ gahetvā āgantabbatoti. Evaṃ “aṭṭha bhikkhū gahetvā āgacchathā”ti sasaṅghasseva puggalassa nimantitattā saṅgho gahetabbo hoti, na “tumhe āgacchathā”ti puggalasseva nimantitattā, tasmā “puggalassa lābho saṅghāyatto”ti na sakkā vattuṃ , aṭṭhakathādīsu pakaraṇesupi “puggalaṃ nissāya saṅghassa lābho uppajjati” icceva vutto, na “puggalassa lābho saṅghāyatto”ti. Cīvaralābhakhettabhūtāsu aṭṭhasu mātikāsu ca “saṅghassa detī”ti ca visuṃ, “puggalassa detī”ti ca visuṃ āgataṃ. Puggalassa detīti “imaṃ cīvaraṃ itthannāmassa dammī”ti evaṃ parammukhā vā, pādamūle ṭhapetvā “imaṃ bhante tumhākaṃ dammī”ti evaṃ sammukhā vā detīti.
In this statement too, it should be considered as follows: In that invitation, it is not just an individual being invited, but an individual along with the Saṅgha. There, since it says “eight bhikkhus” rather than “the Saṅgha,” an unrenowned individual can ask: “Should I take them from the Saṅgha, or should I go with those I know?” But for the Saṅgha elder, who lives accompanied by the Saṅgha, when “eight bhikkhus” is said, there is no reason to take others besides the Saṅgha. Likewise, an individual renowned for learning or ascetic practices, due to the Saṅgha’s merit-connection, takes only from the Saṅgha when “eight bhikkhus” is said. For the meal-designator too, who daily arranges meals for the Saṅgha, when “eight bhikkhus” is said, there is no reason to take others besides the Saṅgha. Thus, since it is an invitation to an individual along with the Saṅgha with “Take eight bhikkhus and come,” it is said “these three persons cannot ask for clarification”—not that even when only an individual is invited with “You come,” he must still take the Saṅgha. Thus, since “Take eight bhikkhus and come” is an invitation to an individual along with the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha must be taken—not because “You come” is an invitation to an individual alone. Therefore, it cannot be said that “an individual’s gain is dependent on the Saṅgha.” In the commentaries and treatises, it is said only: “The Saṅgha’s gain arises dependent on an individual,” not “an individual’s gain is dependent on the Saṅgha.” In the eight outlines regarding robe allocation, “He gives to the Saṅgha” and “He gives to an individual” are stated separately. “He gives to an individual”—“I give this robe to so-and-so,” either indirectly, or by placing it at the feet, saying directly, “Venerable, I give this to you.”
In this statement also, such consideration should be done - in that invitation, he does not invite just the individual, but he invites the individual together with the Sangha. But here, because instead of saying “Sangha,” “eight monks” is said, an individual who is not well-known can be asked, “Shall I take [them] from the Sangha, or shall I come with those I know?” However, since the Sangha elder dwells administering the Sangha, when “eight monks” is said, apart from the Sangha, there is no reason to take others. Even a person well-known for their mastery of the scriptures or dhutaṅga practices, due to the merit connected to the Sangha, when “eight monks” is said, he takes them from the Sangha itself. And for the meal distributor, since it is the Sangha’s meal that is allocated daily, when “eight monks” is said, apart from the Sangha, there is no reason to take others. Thus, because they were invited together with the Sangha, with the statement “Come, taking eight monks,” it is said, “These three persons cannot be questioned,” and not that even if there is an invitation of an individual only saying “You should come”, they should come together with the Sangha. Thus, because the individual is invited together with the Sangha only, by the statement “Come, taking eight monks”, the Sangha should be taken. It is not that because, only the individual is invited, by the statement “You come”. Therefore, it cannot be said that “the individual’s gain is owned by the Sangha.” In the commentaries and other texts, it is only stated that “dependent on the individual, gain arises for the Sangha,” not that “the individual’s gain is owned by the Sangha.” And in the eight matrices that are the field for robe-gain, it is stated separately, “He gives to the Sangha,” and it is stated separately, “He gives to an individual.” He gives to an individual - ‘I give this robe to one named so-and-so,’ thus face-to-face, or placing it at the feet, ‘Venerable Sir, I give this to you’ - thus face-to-face he gives.
In this statement, it should be considered thus: In that invitation, it is not the individual who is invited, but the individual together with the Sangha. There, since “Sangha” is not said, but “eight monks” is said, an unknown individual can ask, “Shall I take from the Sangha or go with those I know?” However, since the Sangha elder lives surrounded by the Sangha, when “eight monks” is said, it means the Sangha excluding others. A well-known individual who observes the ascetic practices also, because of the merit of the Sangha, takes from the Sangha when “eight monks” is said. The meal distributor, because he daily considers the Sangha’s meal, when “eight monks” is said, takes from the Sangha excluding others. Thus, since “take eight monks and come” is an invitation together with the Sangha, it is said, “These three persons cannot ask,” not that when inviting an individual, one should come with the Sangha. Thus, since “take eight monks and come” is an invitation to the individual together with the Sangha, the Sangha should be taken, not just the individual. Therefore, it cannot be said, “The gain of the individual belongs to the Sangha.” In the commentaries and other texts, it is said, “The gain of the Sangha arises depending on the individual,” but not “The gain of the individual belongs to the Sangha.” In the eight lists of robe-receiving fields, it is said separately, “He gives to the Sangha,” and “He gives to an individual.” He gives to an individual, saying, “I give this robe to such and such a monk,” either indirectly or directly placing it at his feet, saying, “Venerable, I give this to you.”
ID1268
Idāni pana cīvaraṃ dātukāmā upāsakā vā upāsikāyo vā sayaṃ anāgantvā puttadāsādayo āṇāpentāpi “imaṃ cīvaraṃ itthannāmassa therassa dethā”ti vatvā puggalasseva dāpenti, sāmaṃ gantvā dadantāpi pādamūle ṭhapetvā vā hatthe ṭhapetvā vā hatthena phusāpetvā vā dadanti “imaṃ, bhante, cīvaraṃ tumhe uddissa ettakaṃ dhanaṃ pariccajitvā kataṃ, evañca evañca hatthakammaṃ katvā sampāditaṃ, tasmā tumhe nivāsatha pārupatha paribhuñjathā”tiādīni vadanti, tassa puggalassa paribhogakaraṇameva icchanti, na saṅghassa dānaṃ. Keci atuṭṭhakathampi kathenti. Evaṃ puggalameva uddissa dinnacīvarassa saṅghena āyattakāraṇaṃ natthi. “Sace pana ’idaṃ tumhākañca tumhākaṃ antevāsikānañca dammī’ti evaṃ vadati, therassa ca antevāsikānañca pāpuṇātī”ti (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379) āgamanato evaṃ vatvā dente pana ācariyantevāsikānaṃ pāpuṇāti, anantevāsikassa pana na pāpuṇāti. “Uddesaṃ gahetuṃ āgato gahetvā gacchanto ca atthi, tassapi pāpuṇātī”ti āgamanato bahisīmaṭṭhassa dhammantevāsikassapi pāpuṇāti. “Tumhehi saddhiṃ nibaddhacārikabhikkhūnaṃ dammīti vutte uddesantevāsikānaṃ vattaṃ katvā uddesaparipucchādīni gahetvā vicarantānaṃ sabbesaṃ pāpuṇātī”ti (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379) āgamanato evaṃ vatvā dente dhammantevāsikānaṃ vattapaṭipattikārakānañca antevāsikānaṃ pāpuṇāti. Evaṃ dāyakānaṃ vacanānurūpameva dānassa pavattanato “yathā dāyakā vadanti, tathā paṭipajjitabba”nti (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 325) aṭṭhakathācariyā vadanti.
Now, laymen or laywomen wishing to give a robe, without coming themselves, may instruct their sons, servants, or others, saying: “Give this robe to such-and-such an elder,” thus giving it to an individual. Or, coming themselves, they place it at the feet, in the hands, or touch it with their hands, saying: “Venerable, this robe was made by relinquishing such-and-such an amount of wealth for your sake, prepared with such-and-such handiwork, so wear it, cover yourself with it, and use it”—desiring only that individual’s use, not a gift to the Saṅgha. Some even speak contrary to the commentary. Thus, for a robe given specifically to an individual, there is no reason for it to be dependent on the Saṅgha. From the statement (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379): “If he says, ‘I give this to you and your pupils,’ it reaches the elder and his pupils,” when given with such words, it reaches the teacher and pupils, but not a non-pupil. From “One who comes to receive instruction and leaves after receiving it also obtains it,” even a pupil in Dhamma living outside the boundary obtains it. From “If he says, ‘I give it to you and the bhikkhus who constantly travel with you,’ it reaches all who perform duties, ask questions, and wander after receiving instruction” (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379), when given with such words, it reaches pupils in Dhamma and those fulfilling duties. Thus, since the gift operates according to the donors’ words, the commentary teachers say (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 325): “One should act as the donors instruct.”
Now, when male or female lay followers who wish to give a robe do not come themselves but give instructions to their sons, servants, and so forth, they have them give it to the individual only, saying, “Give this robe to the elder named so-and-so.” Even when they go themselves and give, they place it at the feet, or place it in the hand, or have him touch it with his hand, and say, “Venerable Sir, having set aside so much wealth for you, this robe was made, and such and such handiwork was done to complete it. Therefore, please wear it, wrap it around you, use it,” and so forth. They desire only that individual’s use, not giving to the Sangha. Some even recite a text displeasing to the commentary. Thus, there is no reason for the Sangha to own a robe that is given addressing the individual only. “But if he says thus, ‘I give this to you and to your students,’ then it accrues to the elder and to his students.” (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379) - Because of the statement, when giving saying this, it accrues to the teacher and students. It does not accrue to one who is not a student. “There is also one who has come to receive the appointment and is going after taking it; it also accrues to him” - Because of the statement, it also accrues to the formal student residing outside the boundary. “If it is said, ‘I give to the monks who constantly travel with you,’ it accrues to all those who, having performed the duties of appointed students and received the inquiry of the appointment, etcetera, are traveling” (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379) - Because of the statement, when giving saying this, it accrues to the formal students who are performing the duties, and also to the students. Thus, because the giving proceeds only in accordance with the words of the donors, the teachers of the commentary say, “One should act according to what the donors say” (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 325).
Now, when laymen or laywomen, wishing to give a robe, do not come themselves but send their sons or servants, saying, “Give this robe to such and such an elder,” they give it to the individual. Even if they come themselves and give it, placing it at the feet or in the hands or touching it with the hand, they say, “Venerable, this robe is made for you by giving up so much wealth, and it is completed by such and such handwork, therefore wear it, put it on, and use it.” They desire the individual to use it, not to give it to the Sangha. Some even tell stories to please. Thus, when a robe is given to an individual, there is no reason for the Sangha to claim it. “But if he says, ‘I give this to you and your disciples,’ it reaches the elder and his disciples” (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 379). When giving in this way, it reaches the teacher and disciples, but not a non-disciple. “If he comes to take the assignment and goes taking it, it reaches him too” (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 379), thus it reaches a Dhamma disciple outside the boundary. “If he says, ‘I give this to the monks who travel with you,’ having performed the duties of the assigned disciples, taking the assignment and questions, it reaches all who travel” (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 379). When giving in this way, it reaches the Dhamma disciples and those who perform the duties of the disciples. Thus, since the offering proceeds according to the donors’ words, “One should act according to the donors’ words” (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 325), as the commentary teachers say.
ID1269
Evaṃ idāni dāyakā yebhuyyena puggalasseva denti, satesu sahassesu ekoyeva paṇḍito bahussuto dāyako saṅghassa dadeyya, puggalikacīvarañca saṅghikabhavanatthāya akariyamānaṃ na ñattiyā kammavācāya ca arahaṃ hoti. Kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce? Ñattikammavācāvirodhato. Kathaṃ virodhoti ce? Ñattiyā kammavācāya ca “idaṃ saṅghassa kathinadussaṃ uppanna”nti kathinacīvarassa saṅghikabhāvo vutto, idāni pana taṃ cīvaraṃ “puggalassa dinnaṃ puggalika”nti vacanatthānurūpato puggalikaṃ hoti, evampi virodho. “Saṅgho imaṃ kathinadussaṃ itthannāmassa bhikkhuno dadeyya kathinaṃ attharitu”nti ettha ca saṅghoti dhātuyā kattā hoti, bhikkhunoti sampadānaṃ, idha pana saṅghassa tasmiṃ kathinacīvare anissarabhāvato saṅgho kattā na hoti, bhikkhu paṭiggāhalakkhaṇābhāvato sampadānaṃ na hoti, evampi virodho. Dāyakena pana saṅghassa pariccattattā saṅghikabhūtaṃ kathinacīvaraṃ yasmiṃ kāle saṅgho kathinaṃ attharituṃ aṭṭhaṅgasamannāgatassa bhikkhuno deti, tasmiṃ kāle ñattidutiyakammavācaṃ idāni manussā “ñattī”ti voharanti, tañca cīvaraṃ “ñattiladdhacīvara”nti, taṃ cīvaradāyakañca “ñattiladdhadāyako”ti , tasmā saṅghikacīvarameva ñattiladdhaṃ hoti, no puggalikacīvaraṃ. Ñattiladdhakālato pana paṭṭhāya taṃ cīvaraṃ puggalikaṃ hoti. Kasmā? Atthārakapuggalassa cīvarabhāvatoti.
Thus, nowadays donors mostly give to individuals; among hundreds or thousands, only one wise and learned donor might give to the Saṅgha. And a robe given to an individual, not being made for the purpose of the Saṅgha’s dwelling, is not worthy of a motion or formal recitation of a disciplinary act. How is this understood? From the absence of contradiction with the motion and formal recitation. How is there a contradiction? Because through the motion and formal recitation it is stated, “This kathina cloth has arisen for the Saṅgha,” indicating the communal nature of the kathina robe, but now that robe is said to be “given to an individual, thus individual,” and in accordance with the meaning of that statement, it becomes individual—thus, there is a contradiction. Furthermore, in the statement, “Let the Saṅgha give this kathina cloth to such-and-such a bhikkhu to spread the kathina,” the term “Saṅgha” is the agent by virtue of the verb, and “bhikkhu” is the recipient; but here, since the Saṅgha has no authority over that kathina robe, the Saṅgha is not the agent, and the bhikkhu, lacking the characteristic of being a recipient, is not the recipient—thus, there is also a contradiction in this way. However, because it was relinquished to the Saṅgha by the donor, the kathina robe becomes communal; at the time when the Saṅgha gives it to a bhikkhu endowed with the eight qualities to spread the kathina, at that time the motion and second disciplinary recitation—nowadays people call it “ñatti”—is performed, and that robe is called “ñattiladdhacīvara” (robe obtained by motion), and its donor is called “ñattiladdhadāyako” (donor of a robe obtained by motion). Therefore, only a communal robe becomes one obtained by motion, not an individual robe. However, from the time it is obtained by motion onward, that robe becomes individual. Why? Because it becomes a robe for the person spreading it.
Thus, nowadays, donors generally give to individuals. Among hundreds or thousands, only one wise, learned donor would give to the Sangha. And robe offered to an individual, if not made for the purpose of becoming communal property, is not allowable with either a motion, or a formal act of proposition. How is this understood? Because it contradicts the formal act of a motion. How is it a contradiction? In the formal act of a motion, the communal nature of the kathina robe is stated, “This kathina cloth has arisen for the Sangha.” But now, according to the meaning of the words “given to an individual, it belongs to an individual,” that robe becomes individual property; thus, there is a contradiction. And “The Sangha would give this kathina robe to a bhikkhu named so-and-so to spread the kathina,” here, the Sangha is the agent of the verb, and the bhikkhu is the recipient. But now, because the Sangha does not have ownership of that kathina robe, the Sangha is not the agent; and because a bhikkhu does not represent a act of accepting, he not be recipient. Thus indeed is the contradiction. But because the donor has relinquished the kathina cloth to the Sangha, making it the property of the Sangha, when the Sangha gives it to a bhikkhu with eight qualifications to spread the kathina, at that time, people now refer to the formal act as “ñatti (motion).” And they refer to that robe as the “robe received by motion,” and the donor of that robe as “the donor of robe received by motion.” Therefore it is a Sangha-owned robe that is obtained through a formal act, not an individually owned robe. From the time of its being obtained by a motion, that robe becomes the property of that individual. Why? Because it becomes the robe of the spreading-individual.
Thus, nowadays, donors mostly give to individuals. Among hundreds or thousands, only one wise and learned donor might give to the Sangha. A robe intended for an individual, if not made for the purpose of Sangha use, is not worthy of a motion and announcement. How is this understood? Due to the contradiction with the motion and announcement. How is there a contradiction? In the motion and announcement, it is stated, “This Kathina robe has arisen for the Sangha,” indicating the robe’s Sangha ownership. But now, if that robe is given to an individual, it becomes an individual’s robe according to the meaning of the words. This is one contradiction. Further, in the phrase, “The Sangha should give this Kathina robe to such-and-such monk to spread the Kathina,” the Sangha is the agent in the grammatical sense, and the monk is the recipient. Here, however, since the Sangha has no authority over that Kathina robe, the Sangha is not the agent, and the monk, lacking the characteristic of being a recipient, is not the recipient. This is another contradiction. Moreover, since the donor has relinquished the robe to the Sangha, the Kathina robe becomes Sangha property. At the time when the Sangha gives it to a monk who is qualified with the eight factors to spread the Kathina, the people now refer to the motion as “ñatti,” and the robe as “ñattiladdhacīvara” (robe obtained through motion), and the donor as “ñattiladdhadāyaka” (donor through motion). Therefore, only a Sangha robe is obtained through motion, not an individual’s robe. However, from the time of being obtained through motion, the robe becomes an individual’s robe. Why? Because it becomes the robe of the spreading individual.
ID1270
Athāpi vadanti “dinnanti pāṭhañca ’sādhentī’ti pāṭhañca ’ānisaṃsaṃ labhantī’ti pāṭhañca upanidhāya ayamattho viññāyatī”ti, tatthāyamācariyānamadhippāyo – “dinnaṃ idaṃ saṅghenā”ti ettha dā-dhātuyā saṅghenāti kattā, idanti kammaṃ, imassa kathinacīvarassa saṅghikattā saṅghena dinnaṃ hoti, tena viññāyati “kathina”nti vutte saṅghikaṃ hotīti. “Kathinatthāraṃ ke labhantīti ettha ke labhantīti ke sādhentīti attho. Pañca janā sādhentī”ti vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 306) vuttaṃ. Tattha pañca janāti saṅgho vutto, imināpi viññāyati “kathinanti vutte saṅghikaṃ hotī”ti. Ānisaṃsaṃ labhantīti ettha ca saṅghikattā sabbe sīmaṭṭhakabhikkhū ānisaṃsaṃ labhanti, imināpi viññāyati “kathinanti vutte saṅghikaṃ hotī”ti.
Moreover, some say, “This meaning is understood by considering the readings ‘given,’ ‘accomplishing,’ and ‘obtaining benefits.’” Here, the teachers’ intention is as follows: In the phrase “This has been given by the Saṅgha,” the verb “to give” (dā-dhātu) takes “by the Saṅgha” as the agent and “this” as the object. Due to the communal nature of this kathina robe, it is given by the Saṅgha, and thus it is understood that when “kathina” is mentioned, it is communal. In the phrase “Who obtains the spreading of the kathina?” the meaning of “Who obtains?” is “Who accomplishes?” As stated in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 306), “Five persons accomplish it.” There, “five persons” refers to the Saṅgha, and by this too it is understood that when “kathina” is mentioned, it is communal. In the phrase “They obtain benefits,” because of its communal nature, all the bhikkhus within the boundary obtain benefits, and by this too it is understood that when “kathina” is mentioned, it is communal.
Yet, some say, “This meaning is known by setting up the reading ‘dinnaṃ (given)’, the reading ‘sādhentī (they accomplish)’ and the reading ‘ānisaṃsaṃ labhantī (they obtain the benefits)’.” Here, this is the intention of the teachers: “Dinnaṃ idaṃ saṅghenā (This is given by the Sangha)” – here, ‘by the Sangha’ is the agent of the verb ‘dā (to give)’, and ‘this’ is the object. Because of the communal nature of this kathina robe, it is given by the Sangha. By this, it is known that when ‘kathina’ is said, it becomes property of the Sangha. “Ke labhantī kathinatthāraṃ” (Who receives the spreading of the kathina), in this, Ke labhantī (who receives) means who makes it valid. Five persons make it valid,” it is said in the Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā (Vajira. ṭī. Mahāvagga 306). There, pañca janā (five persons) refers to the Sangha. By this, too, it is known that when ‘kathina’ is said, it becomes a communal property. Ānisaṃsaṃ labhantī (they receive the benefits), in this, because of its Sangha-owned nature, all the bhikkhus residing within the boundary receive the benefits. By this too, it is known that when ‘kathina’ is said, it is communal.
Furthermore, they say, “The meaning is understood by considering the passages ‘given,’ ‘accomplish,’ and ‘obtain benefits.’” Here, the intention of the teachers is: “Given by the Sangha” — in this phrase, the agent is the Sangha, and the object is “this.” Since this Kathina robe belongs to the Sangha, it is given by the Sangha. Therefore, it is understood that when “Kathina” is mentioned, it refers to Sangha property. “Who obtains the spreading of the Kathina?” Here, “who obtains” means “who accomplishes.” Five persons accomplish it, as stated in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 306). There, “five persons” refers to the Sangha. This also indicates that when “Kathina” is mentioned, it refers to Sangha property. “They obtain benefits” — here, due to its Sangha nature, all monks within the boundary obtain benefits. This also indicates that when “Kathina” is mentioned, it refers to Sangha property.
ID1271
Tatrāpyevaṃ vicāraṇā kātabbā – pubbedāyakā cattāropi paccaye yebhuyyena saṅghasseva denti, tasmā saṅghassa catupaccayabhājanakathā ativitthārā hoti. Appakato pana puggalassa denti, tasmā saṅghassa dinnaṃ kathinacīvaraṃ saṅghena atthārakassa puggalassa dinnaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Sādhentīti ca kathinadussassa dāyakā cattāro, paṭiggāhako ekoti pañca janā kathinadānakammaṃ sādhentīti vuttaṃ. Ānisaṃsaṃ labhantīti idañca atthārakassa ca anumodanānañca bhikkhūnaṃ ānisaṃsalābhameva vuttaṃ, na etehi pāṭhehi “kathina”nti vutte saṅghikaṃ hotīti attho viññātabbo hotīti daṭṭhabbo. Saṅghassa uppannacīvaraṃ saṅghena atthārakassa dinnabhāvo kathaṃ viññāyatīti? “Idaṃ saṅghassa kathinadussaṃ uppannaṃ, saṅgho imaṃ kathinadussaṃ itthannāmassa bhikkhuno deti kathinaṃ attharitu”nti vuttaṃ pāḷipāṭhañca (mahāva. 307) “saṅgho ajja kathinadussaṃ labhitvā punadivase deti, ayaṃ nicayasannidhī”ti vuttaṃ aṭṭhakathāpāṭhañca disvā viññāyatīti. Saṅghasantakabhūtaṃ cīvarameva dānakiriyāya kammaṃ, saṅgho kattā, puggalo sampadānaṃ bhavituṃ arahabhāvo ca yathāvuttapāḷipāṭhameva upanidhāya viññāyatīti.
Here too, the analysis should be conducted as follows: Previously, donors mostly gave the four requisites to the Saṅgha alone, so the discussion of the Saṅgha as the recipient of the four requisites is very extensive. But they give little to individuals, so it is with reference to the kathina robe given to the Saṅgha and then given by the Saṅgha to the individual who spreads it that this is stated. “They accomplish” means the four donors of the kathina cloth and the one recipient—thus five persons accomplish the act of giving the kathina, as it is said. “They obtain benefits” refers only to the benefits obtained by the one who spreads it and the bhikkhus who rejoice in it, and it should not be understood from these readings that when “kathina” is mentioned, it is communal—this should be noted. How is it understood that a robe arising for the Saṅgha is given by the Saṅgha to the one who spreads it? It is understood by seeing the canonical text (mahāva. 307), “This kathina cloth has arisen for the Saṅgha; the Saṅgha gives this kathina cloth to such-and-such a bhikkhu to spread the kathina,” and the commentary text, “The Saṅgha, having received the kathina cloth today, gives it the next day; this is a permanent store.” Only a robe that belongs to the Saṅgha is worthy of the act of giving as a disciplinary act, with the Saṅgha as the agent and the individual as the recipient, and this is understood by relying on the canonical text as stated.
Here too, this consideration should be made: Previously, donors mostly gave all four requisites to the Sangha. Therefore, the discussion of dividing the four requisites by the Sangha is very extensive. Only a few give to individuals. Therefore, it is said that the kathina robe given to the Sangha was, with reference to the Sangha, given by the Sangha to the individual who spreads it. Sādhentī (they accomplish) and “the donors of the kathina cloth are four, and the recipient is one; thus five persons accomplish the act of giving the kathina,” it is said. Ānisaṃsaṃ labhantī (they receive the benefits), and this is said to refer to the attainment of benefits for the spreader and the bhikkhus who rejoice. It should not be understood that by these readings, when ‘kathina’ is said, it is the communal meaning that is to be understood. How is it known that the robe that has arisen for the Sangha is given by the Sangha to the spreader? It is understood by seeing the statement of the Pāḷi text (Mahāva. 307), “This kathina cloth has arisen for the Sangha; the Sangha gives this kathina cloth to a bhikkhu named so-and-so to spread the kathina,” and the statement of the commentary text, “The Sangha, having received the kathina cloth today, gives it on the following day; this is the accumulation of certainty”. It is known that, it being property belonging to the Sangha, robe is the object of act of giving, the Sangha is agent and because an individual is allowable to be a recipient by laying emphasis upon that same Pāḷi text which has been explained.
Here, the following consideration should be made: In the past, donors mostly gave the four requisites to the Sangha. Therefore, the discussion on the Sangha’s share of the four requisites is extensive. Rarely did they give to individuals. Thus, when it is said that the Kathina robe given to the Sangha is given by the Sangha to the spreading individual, it refers to this. “They accomplish” — here, the donors of the Kathina robe are four, and the recipient is one, making five persons who accomplish the act of giving the Kathina robe. “They obtain benefits” — this refers to the benefits obtained by the spreading individual and the rejoicing monks. These passages should not be taken to mean that when “Kathina” is mentioned, it refers to Sangha property. How is it understood that a robe arisen for the Sangha is given by the Sangha to the spreading individual? It is understood by seeing the Pāli passage (Mahāva. 307), “The Sangha, having received the Kathina robe today, gives it the next day. This is the accumulation of resources,” and the commentary passage. The robe belonging to the Sangha is the object of the act of giving; the Sangha is the agent, and the individual is the recipient. This is understood by considering the aforementioned Pāli passage.
ID1272
Evaṃ sante puggalassa dinnaṃ puggalikacīvaraṃ saṅghikaṃ kātuṃ kathaṃ paṭipajjitabbanti? Sace so paṭiggāhakapuggalo dāyakānaṃ evaṃ vadati “upāsaka dānaṃ nāma puggalassa dinnato saṅghassa dinnaṃ mahapphalataraṃ hoti, tasmā saṅghassa dehi, saṅghassa datvā puna saṅghena atthārārahassa bhikkhuno kammavācāya datvā tena puggalena yathāvinayaṃ atthateyeva kathinaṃ nāma hoti, na puggalassa datvā puggalena sāmaṃyeva atthate, tasmā saṅghassa dehī”ti uyyojetvā saṅghassa dāpitepi taṃ cīvaraṃ saṅghikaṃ hoti kathinatthārārahaṃ. Yadi pana dāyako appassutatāya “nāhaṃ, bhante, kiñci jānāmi, imaṃ cīvaraṃ tumhākameva dammī”ti vakkhati, evaṃ sati puggalikavaseneva sampaṭicchitvā tena puggalena taṃ cīvaraṃ saṅghassa dinnampi saṅghikaṃ hoti.
If this is so, how should one proceed to make an individual robe, given to an individual, communal? If that recipient bhikkhu says to the donors, “Lay supporters, a gift given to an individual is less fruitful than one given to the Saṅgha; therefore, give it to the Saṅgha. Having given it to the Saṅgha, it is then given by the Saṅgha to a bhikkhu worthy of spreading it through a disciplinary recitation, and only then does that individual spread the kathina in accordance with the Vinaya—this is the kathina; it is not spread by an individual after being given to him and done by himself. Therefore, give it to the Saṅgha,” and persuades them to give it to the Saṅgha, even then that robe becomes communal and suitable for spreading the kathina. But if the donor, due to lack of learning, says, “Venerable, I don’t know anything; I give this robe only to you,” then, in that case, having accepted it as an individual robe, if that individual then gives it to the Saṅgha, it becomes communal.
This being the case, how should one proceed to make a robe, which was given to an individual as an individual robe, become communal property? If the recipient individual says to the donors, “Lay devotees, giving to the Sangha is more fruitful than giving to an individual, that which is given to the Sangha is of great fruit. Therefore, give to the Sangha. Having given to the Sangha, then, by means of a formal act, by giving to the Sangha, by giving it to a bhikkhu who is fit to spread it, the Kathina is spread through that individual according to the Vinaya. One does not spread the Kathina directly, giving only to an individual and spread by an individual himself. So, give to the Sangha,” and if he has persuaded them, and they, having been encouraged, giving the robe to the Sangha, that robe becomes communal property, fit for the spreading of the kathina. If, however, the donor, due to lack of learning, says, “Venerable Sir, I do not know anything. I will give this robe to you alone,” in this case, having accepted it as individual property, even if that individual then gives that robe to the Sangha, it becomes property of the Sangha.
If this is the case, how should one proceed to make an individual’s robe, given to an individual, into Sangha property? If the recipient individual tells the donors, “Lay disciple, giving to the Sangha is more fruitful than giving to an individual. Therefore, give to the Sangha. After giving to the Sangha, the Sangha can give it through a formal act to a monk worthy of spreading the Kathina. Then, when the individual spreads it according to the Vinaya, it is called Kathina. It is not called Kathina if given directly to an individual and spread by that individual. Therefore, give to the Sangha.” If, after being urged, the robe is given to the Sangha, it becomes Sangha property worthy of spreading the Kathina. However, if the donor, due to lack of knowledge, says, “Venerable, I do not know anything. I give this robe to you,” then, even if it is accepted as an individual’s robe, when that individual gives it to the Sangha, it becomes Sangha property.
ID1273
Yadi evaṃ samaṇeneva samaṇassa dinnaṃ cīvaraṃ kathaṃ kathinatthārārahaṃ bhaveyyāti? No na bhaveyya. Vuttañhetaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306) “kathinaṃ kena dinnaṃ vaṭṭati? Yena kenaci devena vā manussena vā pañcannaṃ vā sahadhammikānaṃ aññatarena dinnaṃ vaṭṭatī”ti. Atha kasmā paramparabhūtehi ācariyehi ñattiladdhacīvarato avasesāni cīvarāni saṅghassa bhājetvā eva paribhuñjitānīti? Vuccate – ekacce bhikkhū ācariyaparamparāgataanausāreneva paṭipajjanti, keci bahūnaṃ kiriyaṃ disvā diṭṭhānugativasena paṭipajjanti, bahussutāpi keci therā aruccantāpi paveṇibhedabhayena paṭipajjanti, apare rucivasena atthañca adhippāyañca pariṇāmetvā gaṇhanti, pakaraṇamevānugatabhikkhū pana yathāpakaraṇāgatameva atthaṃ gahetvā saṅghikañca puggalikañca amissaṃ katvā, kālacīvarañca akālacīvarañca amissaṃ katvā gaṇhanti. Bhikkhunivibhaṅge (pāci. 738) “thūlanandā bhikkhunī akālacīvaraṃ ’kālacīvara’nti adhiṭṭhahitvā bhājāpessati, atha bhagavā nissaggiyapācittiyāpattiṃ paññapesī”ti āgataṃ, tasmā lajjīpesalabahussutasikkhākāmabhūtena bhikkhunā aneka-pāḷiaṭṭhakathādayo pakaraṇe oloketvā saṃsanditvā pakaraṇamevānugantabbaṃ, na aññesaṃ kiriyaṃ saddahitabbaṃ, na ca anugantabbaṃ. Bhagavato hi dharamānakāle vā tato pacchā vā pubbe dāyakā yebhuyyena cattāro paccaye saṅghasseva denti, tasmā saṅghikasenāsanassa saṅghikacīvarassa ca bāhullato pubbācariyā saṅghassa bhājetvā eva paribhuñjiṃsu.
If so, how could a robe given by one ascetic to another ascetic be suitable for spreading the kathina? It would not be suitable. For it is said in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306), “By whom may the kathina be given? It is permissible if given by any deity, human, or one of the five co-religionists.” Then why do the successive teachers divide all robes apart from those obtained by motion and use them only after giving them to the Saṅgha? It is said: Some bhikkhus act according to the tradition handed down by their teachers; some, seeing the actions of many, act in imitation; some learned elders, though unwilling, act out of fear of breaking tradition; others interpret the meaning and intent according to their preference; but bhikkhus who follow the texts take the meaning exactly as it is given in the texts, without mixing communal and individual robes or timely and untimely robes. In the Bhikkhunivibhaṅga (pāci. 738), it is stated, “The nun Thūlanandā determined an untimely robe as a ‘timely robe’ and had it distributed, and then the Blessed One established it as a nissaggiya pācittiya offense.” Therefore, a bhikkhu who is conscientious, virtuous, learned, and eager to train should examine and compare the various canonical texts, commentaries, and so forth, and follow only the texts, not trusting or following the actions of others. For while the Blessed One was alive, or even afterward, donors mostly gave the four requisites to the Saṅgha, so due to the abundance of communal lodgings and robes, the earlier teachers used them only after dividing them among the Saṅgha.
If this is so, how can a robe given by a monk to a monk himself become suitable for the spreading of the kathina? No, it would not be so. It is said in the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 306), “By whom is it allowable for the kathina to be given? It is allowable if given by anyone whatsoever, whether a deva or a human, or by one of the five co-religionists.” Then, why did the teachers, in succession, having divided all the robes except those received by formal act, among the Sangha, use them thus? It is said, “Some bhikkhus follow only according to the tradition handed down by the teachers. Some, seeing the actions of many, follow according to what they see. Some learned elders, although not liking it, follow out of fear of breaking with tradition. Others, based on their own liking, interpret both the meaning and the intent and grasp it. But the bhikkhus who follow the texts, grasping only the meaning as it is found in the texts, grasp it without mixing the Sangha-owned and the individually owned, without mixing robe of proper time and robe of improper time. In the Bhikkhunīvibhaṅga (Pāci. 738), it says,”The nun Thullanandā, having determined that an out-of-season robe was an in-season robe, had it shared. Then the Blessed One prescribed an offense of expiation with forfeiture.” Therefore, a bhikkhu who is modest, gentle, learned, and desirous of training should examine and compare the various texts, such as the Pāḷi and the commentaries, and follow the texts; he should not believe in the actions of others, nor should he follow them. For during the time when the Blessed One was alive, or after that, in the past, donors mostly gave the four requisites to the Sangha. Therefore, due to the abundance of Sangha-owned dwellings and Sangha-owned robes, the early teachers divided them among the Sangha and used them thus.
If a monk gives a robe to another monk, how can it be worthy of spreading the Kathina? It cannot. As stated in the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 306), “To whom is the Kathina given to be valid? It is valid when given by any deva, human, or one of the five kinds of fellow Dhamma practitioners.” Why then did the ancient teachers, after receiving robes through motion, distribute the remaining robes to the Sangha and use them accordingly? It is said: Some monks follow the tradition of the teachers without reflection. Some, seeing the practices of many, follow according to what they have seen. Some learned elders, even if they disagree, follow out of fear of breaking the tradition. Others, according to their preference, interpret the meaning and intention and act accordingly. Monks who follow the texts, however, take the meaning according to the texts, keeping Sangha and individual property separate, and seasonal and non-seasonal robes separate. In the Bhikkhunīvibhaṅga (Pāci. 738), it is said, “The bhikkhunī Thūlanandā, having determined non-seasonal robes as seasonal, distributed them. Then the Buddha prescribed an offense of Nissaggiya Pācittiya.” Therefore, a monk who is conscientious, desirous of training, and learned should examine and compare the various Pāli texts and commentaries and follow the texts, not blindly trusting or following the practices of others. During the Buddha’s time and afterward, donors mostly gave the four requisites to the Sangha. Therefore, the ancient teachers, due to the abundance of Sangha dwellings and robes, distributed them to the Sangha and used them accordingly.
ID1274
Idāni pana dāyakā yebhuyyena cattāro paccaye puggalasseva denti, tasmā senāsanampi abhinavabhūtaṃ puggalikameva bahulaṃ hoti, cīvarampi puggalikameva bahulaṃ. Daliddāpi suttakantanakālato paṭṭhāya “imaṃ cīvaraṃ kathinakāle itthannāmassa bhikkhuno dassāmī”ti cintetvā ca tatheva vatvā ca sabbakiccāni karonti, mahaddhanā ca sāṭakassa kīṇitakālato paṭṭhāya tatheva cintetvā kathetvā karonti, dānakāle ca “imaṃ cīvaraṃ itthannāmassa dehī”ti puttadāsādayo vā pesenti, sāmaṃ vā gantvā cīvaraṃ tassa bhikkhussa pādamūle vā hatthe vā ṭhapetvā “imaṃ cīvaraṃ tuyhaṃ dammī”ti vatvā vā cintetvā vā denti, satesu vā sahassesu vā eko paṇḍitapuriso “puggalassa dinnadānato saṅghassa dinnaṃ mahapphala”nti ñatvā “imaṃ kathinacīvaraṃ saṅghassa dammī”ti vatvā vā cintetvā vā deti, tassa sā dakkhiṇā saṅghagatā hoti. Sace pana dāyako puggalassa dātukāmo hoti, puggalo pana tassa mahapphalabhāvamicchanto dakkhiṇā-vibhaṅgasuttādidhammadesanāya (ma. ni. 3.376 ādayo) puggalikadānato saṅghikadānassa mahapphalabhāvaṃ jānāpetvā “imaṃ tava cīvaraṃ saṅghassa dehī”ti uyyojeti, dāyakopi tassa vacanaṃ sampaṭicchitvā “imaṃ kathinacīvaraṃ saṅghassa dammī”ti vatvā vā cintetvā vā deti, evampi sā dakkhiṇā saṅghagatā hoti.
But nowadays, donors mostly give the four requisites to individuals, so lodgings, even newly built ones, are mostly individual, and robes too are mostly individual. Even the poor, from the time they spin the thread, think and say, “I will give this robe to such-and-such a bhikkhu at the kathina time,” and perform all the tasks accordingly. The wealthy, from the time they buy the cloth, think and say the same and act accordingly. At the time of giving, they either send their sons, servants, or others, saying, “Give this robe to such-and-such,” or they go themselves, place the robe at the bhikkhu’s feet or in his hands, and say or think, “I give this robe to you,” and give it. Among hundreds or thousands, one wise person, knowing that “a gift given to the Saṅgha is more fruitful than one given to an individual,” says or thinks, “I give this kathina robe to the Saṅgha,” and gives it; that offering becomes directed to the Saṅgha. But if a donor wishes to give to an individual, and that individual, desiring greater fruitfulness, explains through teachings like the Dakkhiṇāvibhaṅgasutta (ma. ni. 3.376 onward) that a gift to the Saṅgha is more fruitful than one to an individual, saying, “Give this robe of yours to the Saṅgha,” and the donor accepts his words, saying or thinking, “I give this kathina robe to the Saṅgha,” and gives it, then too that offering becomes directed to the Saṅgha.
Nowadays, however, donors generally give the four requisites to individuals. Therefore, dwellings, too, are mostly new and individually owned, and robes are also mostly individually owned. Even the poor, from the time of spinning the thread, think, “I will give this robe to a bhikkhu named so-and-so during the kathina season,” and, having said so, they do all the work. And the wealthy, from the time of buying the cloth, think and speak in the same way and act accordingly. And at the time of giving, they send their sons, servants, and others, saying, “Give this robe to the bhikkhu named so-and-so,” or they go themselves and place the robe at the feet or in the hands of that bhikkhu, and say, “I give this robe to you,” or they think so, and give it. Out of hundreds or thousands, one wise person, knowing that “giving to the Sangha is of great fruit compared to giving to an individual,” says, “I give this kathina robe to the Sangha,” or thinks so and gives it. That offering of his becomes dedicated to the Sangha. But if the donor wants to give to an individual, but the individual, desiring its great fruitfulness, informs him of the greater fruitfulness of giving to the Sangha compared to giving to an individual, through the teaching of the Dhamma from the Dakkhiṇāvibhaṅga Sutta (Ma. Ni. 3.376, etc.), and encourages him, “Give this, your robe, to the Sangha.” And if the donor, accepting his words, says, “I give this kathina robe to the Sangha,” or thinks so and gives it, even so, that offering becomes dedicated to the Sangha.
Nowadays, however, donors mostly give the four requisites to individuals. Therefore, even new dwellings are mostly individual property, and robes are mostly individual property. Even poor people, from the time of spinning thread, think, “I will give this robe to such-and-such monk during the Kathina season,” and after saying so, they complete all the tasks. Wealthy people, from the time of purchasing cloth, think and speak similarly and act accordingly. At the time of giving, they send their sons, servants, etc., saying, “Give this robe to such-and-such monk,” or they go themselves and place the robe at the monk’s feet or in his hands, saying, “I give this robe to you,” or thinking so, they give it. Among hundreds or thousands, one wise person, knowing that giving to the Sangha is more fruitful than giving to an individual, says or thinks, “I give this Kathina robe to the Sangha,” and gives it. His offering then goes to the Sangha. If the donor wishes to give to an individual, but the individual, desiring the greater fruit, informs the donor of the greater merit of giving to the Sangha through teachings like the Dakkhiṇāvibhaṅgasutta (Ma. Ni. 3.376, etc.), and urges, “Give this robe of yours to the Sangha,” and the donor, accepting his words, says or thinks, “I give this Kathina robe to the Sangha,” and gives it, then the offering also goes to the Sangha.
ID1275
Yadi pana bhikkhunā uyyojitopi duppañño dāyako tassa vacanaṃ anādiyitvā puggalasseva deti, tassa sā dakkhiṇā puggalagatā hoti. Atha pana so puggalo sayaṃ sampaṭicchitvā puna saṅghassa pariccajati, evampi taṃ cīvaraṃ saṅghikaṃ hoti, taṃ saṅghikavasena bhājetabbaṃ. Yadi pana dāyakopi puggalasseva deti, puggalopi sampaṭicchitvā na pariccajati, evaṃ sante taṃ cīvaraṃ puggalikaṃ hoti, na kathinakālamattena vā kathinavacanamattena vā saṅghikaṃ hoti. Idāni pana iminā nayena puggalikacīvaraṃyeva bahulaṃ hoti. Evaṃ santepi ācariyaparamparā paveṇiṃ abhinditukāmā saṅghikaṃ viya katvā bhājetvā paribhuñjiṃsu . Yadi mukhyato saṅghikaṃ siyā, saṅghena dinnato paraṃ ekasūcimattampi puggalo adhikaṃ gaṇhituṃ na labheyya.
But if, despite being encouraged by the bhikkhu, an unwise donor disregards his words and gives it only to the individual, that offering becomes directed to the individual. Then, if that individual accepts it himself and later relinquishes it to the Saṅgha, even then that robe becomes communal and must be divided as communal property. But if the donor gives it only to the individual, and the individual accepts it and does not relinquish it, in that case, the robe remains individual and does not become communal merely by the kathina season or the mention of “kathina.” Nowadays, by this method, individual robes are predominant. Even so, those wishing to preserve the teachers’ tradition without breaking it treated them as communal, divided them, and used them. If it were truly communal, an individual could not take even a single extra stitch beyond what the Saṅgha gives.
If, however, even when encouraged by the bhikkhu, the unwise donor disregards his words and gives only to the individual, that offering of his becomes dedicated to the individual. But if that individual himself accepts it and then relinquishes it to the Sangha, even so, that robe becomes property of the Sangha; it should be shared as communal property. If, however, the donor gives only to the individual, and the individual accepts it and does not relinquish it, in this case, that robe is individual property; it does not become property of the Sangha merely because it is the kathina season or merely because of the word ‘kathina’. Nowadays, however, according to this method, only individually owned robes are abundant. Even so, those desiring not to break the tradition handed down by the teachers, shared and used them as if they were communal property. If it were primarily Sangha-owned, the individual should not be able to take even a single thread more after it has been given by the Sangha.
If, however, even when urged by a monk, an unwise donor disregards his words and gives to an individual, the offering goes to the individual. But if that individual, having received it, relinquishes it to the Sangha, the robe becomes Sangha property and should be distributed as Sangha property. If the donor gives it to the individual, and the individual, having received it, does not relinquish it, then the robe remains individual property. It does not become Sangha property merely because of the Kathina season or the mention of Kathina. Nowadays, individual robes are mostly given in this way. Even so, some, wishing to break the tradition of the teachers, distribute and use them as if they were Sangha property. If it were primarily Sangha property, after being given by the Sangha, an individual could not take even a needle’s worth more.
ID1276
Ekacce therā saṅghikanti pana vadanti, bhājanakāle pana issaravatāya yathāruci vicārenti, ekacce bhikkhū mukhyasaṅghikanti maññamānā abhājetukāmampi puggalaṃ abhibhavitvā bhājāpenti, tassa puggalassa mātā pitā ñātakā upāsakādayo “amhākaṃ puttassa dema, amhākaṃ ñātakabhikkhussa dema, amhākaṃ kulūpakassa demā”ti, aññepi saddhā pasannā dāyakā “itthannāmassa puggalassa demā”ti vicāretvā parammukhāpi “imaṃ cīvaraṃ itthannāmassa dammī”ti vatvā sammukhāpi pādamūle vā hatthe vā ṭhapetvā denti, evarūpaṃ cīvaraṃ puggalikaṃ hoti, saṅghaṃ āmasitvā avuttattā saṅghāyattaṃ na hoti, “kathinaṃ dassāmī”ti vā “kathinaṃ dātuṃ gato”ti vā “kathinacīvara”nti vā pubbāparakālesu vacanaṃ pana mukhyakathinabhūtassa saṅghikacīvarassa kāle dinnattā tadupacārato vohāramattaṃ hoti. Yathā kiṃ? “Uposathika”nti vuttaṃ bhattaṃ cuddasasu saṅghikabhattesu antogadhaṃ mukhyasaṅghikaṃ hoti, samādinnauposathā dāyakā sāyaṃ bhuñjitabbabhattabhāgaṃ saṅghassa denti, taṃ saṅgho salākabhattaṃ viya ṭhitikaṃ katvā bhuñjati, iti saṅghassa dinnattā saṅghikaṃ hoti. Idāni pana dāyakā attano attano kulūpakassa vā ñātibhikkhussa vā uposathadivasesu bhattaṃ denti, taṃ saṅghassa adinnattā saṅghikaṃ na hoti. Evaṃ santepi uposathadivase dinnattā mukhyavasena pavattauposathabhattaṃ viya tadupacārena “uposathabhatta”nti voharīyati, evaṃsampadamidaṃ daṭṭhabbaṃ.
Some elders say it is communal, but at the time of division, they act arbitrarily according to their authority. Some bhikkhus, thinking it is truly communal, overpower an individual who does not wish to divide it and force the division. That individual’s mother, father, relatives, lay supporters, and others say, “We give it to our son, to our relative bhikkhu, to our family monk.” Other faithful and devoted donors, having decided, “We give it to such-and-such an individual,” say, “I give this robe to such-and-such,” even when absent, or place it at his feet or in his hands when present and give it. Such a robe is individual; since the Saṅgha is not mentioned or involved, it is not dependent on the Saṅgha. Saying “I will give the kathina” or “I went to give the kathina” or “kathina robe” in past or future contexts is merely a conventional expression due to its association with the time when a truly communal kathina robe is given. How so? A meal called “uposathika” is included among the fourteen communal meals and is truly communal; donors observing the uposatha give a portion of the meal to be eaten in the evening to the Saṅgha, and the Saṅgha treats it like a ticket-meal and eats it—thus, since it is given to the Saṅgha, it is communal. But nowadays, donors give meals to their family monk or relative bhikkhu on uposatha days; since it is not given to the Saṅgha, it is not communal. Even so, because it is given on an uposatha day, it is conventionally called “uposatha meal” by association with the true uposatha meal—this should be understood in the same way.
Some elders say that it is property of the Sangha, but at the time of sharing, they dispose of it according to their wish, acting with authority. Some bhikkhus, thinking it is primarily Sangha-owned, overpower even a person who does not wish to share and have it shared. The mother, father, relatives, lay supporters, and others of that individual say, “We give to our son. We give to our relative bhikkhu. We give to our family supporter,” and other faithful, devoted donors, having decided, “We will give to an individual named so-and-so,” even though they are not face-to-face, say, “I give this robe to so-and-so,” and even though they are face-to-face, place it at his feet or in his hands and give it. Such a robe is individual property; it does not become subject to the Sangha because it was not said mentioning the Sangha. But the words “I will give a kathina,” or “I went to give a kathina,” or “kathina robe,” spoken before or after, are just a conventional expression because it was given during the time of the primarily kathina-becoming Sangha-owned robe. What is it like? The food called “uposathika” included in the fourteen Sangha meals is primarily Sangha-owned. Lay devotees who have undertaken the uposatha give the portion of food to be eaten in the evening to the Sangha. The Sangha eats it, having established a regulation like a ticket meal. Thus, because it is given to the Sangha, it is Sangha-owned. Nowadays, however, donors give food to their own family supporters or relative bhikkhus on uposatha days. Because it is not given to the Sangha, it is not Sangha-owned. Even so, because it is given on an uposatha day, it is conventionally called “uposatha food,” like the uposatha food that occurs as primary. This should be understood in this way.
Some elders say it is Sangha property, but at the time of distribution, they decide according to their preference. Some monks, thinking it is primarily Sangha property, force the individual not to distribute it, but the individual’s parents, relatives, lay disciples, etc., say, “We give to our son, to our relative monk, to our family monk.” Other faithful donors, considering, “We give to such-and-such individual,” even if not in his presence, say, “I give this robe to such-and-such monk,” and in his presence, place it at his feet or in his hands and give it. Such a robe is individual property. Since it is not given to the Sangha, it is not under the Sangha’s authority. The phrases “I will give the Kathina,” “I went to give the Kathina,” or “Kathina robe,” used before or after, are merely conventional expressions due to the primary Kathina robe being given to the Sangha at the time. For example, a meal called “Uposatha meal” is primarily Sangha property when included among the fourteen Sangha meals. Donors who have undertaken the Uposatha give the evening meal portion to the Sangha, and the Sangha, having established it like a Salāka meal, partakes of it. Thus, being given to the Sangha, it is Sangha property. Nowadays, however, donors give meals on Uposatha days to their own family monks or relative monks. Since it is not given to the Sangha, it is not Sangha property. Even so, because it is given on the Uposatha day, it is conventionally called “Uposatha meal,” like the primary Uposatha meal. This should be understood similarly.
ID1277
Evaṃ imasmiṃ kāle yebhuyyena puggalasseva dinnattā puggalikabhūtaṃ cīvaraṃ ñattikammavācārahaṃ na hoti, saṅghikameva ñattikammavācārahaṃ hoti, tadeva ca pañcānisaṃsakāraṇaṃ hoti, tasmā paṇḍitena puggalena “upāsakā saṅghe detha, saṅghe dinnaṃ mahapphalaṃ hotī”tiādinā niyojetvā dāpetabbaṃ, sayaṃ vā sampaṭicchitvā saṅghassa pariccajitabbaṃ. Evaṃ pariccajitattā saṅghikabhūtaṃ cīvaraṃ ñattikammavācārahañca hoti pañcānisaṃsanipphādakañca. Evaṃ niyojanañca “saṅghe gotami dehi, saṅghe te dinne ahañceva pūjito bhavissāmi saṅgho cā”ti (ma. ni. 3.376) bhagavatā vuttavacanaṃ anugataṃ hotīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
Thus, in this era, since robes are mostly given to individuals, an individual robe is not suitable for a motion and disciplinary recitation; only a communal robe is suitable for a motion and disciplinary recitation, and only that brings about the five benefits. Therefore, a wise individual should encourage donors, saying, “Lay supporters, give to the Saṅgha; what is given to the Saṅgha is highly fruitful,” and have it given accordingly, or accept it himself and relinquish it to the Saṅgha. Thus relinquished, the robe becomes communal, suitable for a motion and disciplinary recitation, and productive of the five benefits. Such encouragement follows the Blessed One’s statement (ma. ni. 3.376), “Gotami, give it to the Saṅgha; when you give it to the Saṅgha, both I and the Saṅgha will be honored”—this should be understood.
Thus, in this present time, because robes are mostly given to individuals, a robe that has become individual property is not allowable to be subject of a formal act with a motion; only a Sangha-owned robe is fit allowable to be subject of a formal act with a motion, and that alone is the cause of the five benefits. Therefore, a wise individual should encourage them, saying, “Lay devotees, give to the Sangha. Giving to the Sangha is of great fruit,” and so on, and cause them to give, or he should himself accept it and relinquish it to the Sangha. A robe that has become Sangha-owned by being relinquished in this way is fit allowable to be subject of a formal act with a motion and is the producer of the five benefits. And this encouragement should be understood as following the words spoken by the Blessed One, “Gotamī, give to the Sangha. When you give to the Sangha, both I will be honored and the Sangha will be honored.” (Ma. Ni. 3.376).
Thus, in this time, since robes are mostly given to individuals, an individual’s robe is not worthy of a motion and announcement. Only Sangha property is worthy of a motion and announcement, and it is the cause of the five benefits. Therefore, a wise individual should urge the lay disciples, “Give to the Sangha; giving to the Sangha is more fruitful,” and have them give, or he should receive it himself and relinquish it to the Sangha. By relinquishing it, the robe becomes Sangha property, worthy of a motion and announcement, and productive of the five benefits. This urging is in accordance with the Buddha’s words (Ma. Ni. 3.376), “Gotamī, give to the Sangha. When you give to the Sangha, both I and the Sangha are honored.”
ID1278
Parikammaṃ karontānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ yāgubhattañca dātuṃ vaṭṭatīti idaṃ pucchitattā doso natthīti katvā vuttaṃ, apucchite pana evaṃ kathetuṃ na vaṭṭati. Khalimakkhitasāṭakoti ahatavatthaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Suṭṭhu dhovitvātiādinā sapubbakaraṇaṃ atthāraṃ dasseti. Dhovanasibbanarajanakappakaraṇena hi vicāraṇachedanabandhanānipi dassitāniyeva honti, atthāradassanena paccuddhāraadhiṭṭhānānipi dasseti. Sūciādīni cīvarakammupakaraṇāni sajjetvā bahūhi bhikkhūhi saddhinti idaṃ pana sibbanassa upakaraṇanidassanaṃ. Tadahevāti idaṃ pana karaṇasannidhimocanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Dāyakassa hatthato sāṭakaṃ laddhadivaseyeva saṅghena atthārakassa bhikkhuno dātabbaṃ, evaṃ adente nicayasannidhi hoti. Atthārakenapi saṅghato laddhadivaseyeva kathinaṃ attharitabbaṃ, evaṃ akaronte karaṇasannidhi hoti.
It is permissible to give rice porridge and meals to the bhikkhus preparing the robe—this is stated because it was asked, so there is no fault; but without being asked, it should not be stated thus. Khalimakkhitasāṭako refers to unwashed cloth. Having thoroughly washed it and so forth indicates the preliminary work for spreading. For washing, sewing, dyeing, and making it proper include the actions of examining, cutting, and binding, and by showing the spreading, it also indicates retraction and determination. Having prepared needles and other robe-making tools together with many bhikkhus—this shows the equipment for sewing. On that very day—this is said to avoid a store of preparation. The cloth received from the donor’s hand should be given by the Saṅgha to the bhikkhu who will spread it on that very day; if not given thus, it becomes a permanent store. The bhikkhu who spreads it must also spread the kathina on the very day it is received from the Saṅgha; if he does not, it becomes a store of preparation.
It is allowable to give gruel and food to the bhikkhus who are doing the preparation. This is said because there is no fault since it has been asked for; but it is not allowable to speak thus without being asked. Khalimakkhitasāṭako refers to new cloth. Having washed it well, etc., shows the spreading with prior actions. By washing, sewing, dyeing, and making it allowable, considering, cutting, and fixing are also shown. By showing the spreading, the withdrawal and the determination are also shown. Having prepared the requisites for robe-making, such as needles, together with many bhikkhus – this is a demonstration of the requisites for sewing. That very day – this is said to dispel accumulation of work. On the very day of receiving the cloth from the donor’s hand, it should be given by the Sangha to the spreading bhikkhu. If it is not given in this way, there is an accumulation of certainty. The spreader, too, should spread the kathina on the very day of receiving it from the Sangha. If he does not do so, there is an accumulation of process.
“It is permissible to give rice gruel and meals to monks who are preparing robes” — this is said because there is no fault in asking. If not asked, it is not permissible to speak thus. “A robe smeared with bran” refers to unstitched cloth. “Having well washed it” etc., shows the process of spreading, including washing, beating, dyeing, and sewing. The mention of spreading also indicates the steps of taking possession and determining. “Having prepared needles and other robe-making tools, along with many monks” — this shows the tools for sewing. “On that very day” — this is said to indicate the immediacy of the action. The cloth should be given by the Sangha to the spreading monk on the very day it is received from the donor. If not given, there is an accumulation of resources. The spreading monk should also spread the Kathina on the very day he receives it from the Sangha. If not done, there is an accumulation of actions.
ID1279
Aññāni ca bahūni ānisaṃsavatthāni detīti iminā attharitabbasāṭakoyeva kathinasāṭako nāma, tato aññe sāṭakā bahavopi kathinānisaṃsāyeva nāmāti dasseti. Etena ca “kathinānisaṃso”ti vatthāniyeva vuttāni na agghoti dīpeti. Yadi aggho vutto siyā, evaṃ sati “bahvānisaṃsāni kathinavatthāni detī”ti vattabbaṃ, evaṃ pana avatvā “bahūni kathinānisaṃsavatthāni detī”ti vuttaṃ, tena ñāyati “na aggho vutto”ti, tasmā bahvānisaṃsabhāvo agghavasena na gahetabbo, atha kho vatthavaseneva gahetabboti. Itaroti añño dāyako. Tathā tathā ovaditvā saññāpetabboti “upāsaka dānaṃ nāma saṅghassa dinnakālato paṭṭhāya mahapphalaṃ hoti mahānisaṃsaṃ, atthāro pana bhikkhūnaṃ upakāratthāya bhagavatā anuññāto, tasmā ñattiladdhampi aladdhampi mahapphalamevā”ti vā “upāsaka ayampi dāyako saṅghasseva deti, tvampi saṅghasseva desi, bhagavatā ca –
And it gives many other beneficial objects—this indicates that only the cloth to be spread is called the kathina cloth, and other cloths, even if many, are merely objects of kathina benefits. This also clarifies that “kathina benefits” refers only to the objects, not their value. If value were meant, it would be said, “It gives many beneficial kathina objects,” but instead it says, “It gives many objects of kathina benefits,” so it is understood that value is not intended. Therefore, the state of being highly beneficial should not be taken in terms of value but only in terms of the objects. Itaro means another donor. He should be instructed and persuaded in various ways—thus: “Lay supporter, a gift becomes highly fruitful and greatly beneficial from the time it is given to the Saṅgha; the spreading, however, was allowed by the Blessed One for the benefit of bhikkhus, so whether obtained by motion or not, it is highly fruitful,” or “Lay supporter, this donor gives only to the Saṅgha, and you too should give to the Saṅgha, for the Blessed One said—
Aññāni ca bahūni ānisaṃsavatthāni detīti iminā attharitabbasāṭakoyeva kathinasāṭako nāma, tato aññe sāṭakā bahavopi kathinānisaṃsāyeva nāmāti dasseti. Etena ca “kathinānisaṃso”ti vatthāniyeva vuttāni na agghoti dīpeti. Yadi aggho vutto siyā, evaṃ sati “bahvānisaṃsāni kathinavatthāni detī”ti vattabbaṃ, evaṃ pana avatvā “bahūni kathinānisaṃsavatthāni detī”ti vuttaṃ, tena ñāyati “na aggho vutto”ti, tasmā bahvānisaṃsabhāvo agghavasena na gahetabbo, atha kho vatthavaseneva gahetabboti. Itaroti añño dāyako. Tathā tathā ovaditvā saññāpetabboti “upāsaka dānaṃ nāma saṅghassa dinnakālato paṭṭhāya mahapphalaṃ hoti mahānisaṃsaṃ, atthāro pana bhikkhūnaṃ upakāratthāya bhagavatā anuññāto, tasmā ñattiladdhampi aladdhampi mahapphalamevā”ti vā “upāsaka ayampi dāyako saṅghasseva deti, tvampi saṅghasseva desi, bhagavatā ca –
“And it gives many other benefits” means that the robe to be spread out is indeed called the Kathina robe, and from that, many other robes are also called Kathina benefits. This indicates that only the objects are mentioned as “Kathina benefits,” not the value. If the value were mentioned, it should have been said, “It gives many beneficial objects related to Kathina,” but instead, it is said, “It gives many objects of Kathina benefits,” which shows that the value is not mentioned. Therefore, the abundance of benefits should not be understood in terms of value but rather in terms of the objects themselves. “Another” refers to a different donor. “In such and such a way, he should be advised and convinced” means, “Lay devotee, the offering given to the Sangha from the time it is given becomes of great fruit and great benefit. The spreading of the robe, however, has been allowed by the Blessed One for the benefit of the monks. Therefore, whether obtained by motion or not, it is still of great fruit.” Or, “Lay devotee, this donor also gives to the Sangha, and you too should give to the Sangha. The Blessed One has said—
ID1280
’Yo sīlavā sīlavantesu dadāti dānaṃ; Dhammena laddhaṃ supasannacitto; Abhisaddahaṃ kammaphalaṃ uḷāraṃ; Taṃ ve dānaṃ vipulaphalanti brūmī’ti. (ma. ni. 3.382) –
‘He who is virtuous gives a gift to the virtuous; Obtained righteously with a clear mind; Having firm faith in the excellent fruit of actions; That gift, I say, yields abundant fruit.’ (ma. ni. 3.382)—
’Yo sīlavā sīlavantesu dadāti dānaṃ; Dhammena laddhaṃ supasannacitto; Abhisaddahaṃ kammaphalaṃ uḷāraṃ; Taṃ ve dānaṃ vipulaphalanti brūmī’ti. (ma. ni. 3.382) –
‘One who is virtuous and gives to the virtuous, having obtained it righteously with a clear mind, firmly believing in the great fruit of kamma—such a gift, I declare, is abundant in fruit.’ (MN 3.382)—
ID1281
Vuttaṃ, tasmā saṅghassa dinnakālato paṭṭhāya mahapphalamevā”ti vā itiādīni vatvā saññāpetabbo.
It is said, therefore, it is highly fruitful from the time it is given to the Saṅgha,” and so forth—he should be persuaded with such statements.
Vuttaṃ, tasmā saṅghassa dinnakālato paṭṭhāya mahapphalamevā”ti vā itiādīni vatvā saññāpetabbo.
Thus, from the time it is given to the Sangha, it is of great fruit.” In this way, he should be advised and convinced.
ID1282
Yassa saṅgho kathinacīvaraṃ deti, tena bhikkhunā kathinaṃ attharitabbanti yojanā. Yo jiṇṇacīvaro hoti bhikkhu, tassa dātabbanti sambandho. Imasmiṃ ṭhāne idāni bhikkhū –
The bhikkhu to whom the Saṅgha gives the kathina robe must spread the kathina—this is the connection. It should be given to a bhikkhu whose robes are worn out—this is the relation. At this point, nowadays bhikkhus—
Yassa saṅgho kathinacīvaraṃ deti, tena bhikkhunā kathinaṃ attharitabbanti yojanā. Yo jiṇṇacīvaro hoti bhikkhu, tassa dātabbanti sambandho. Imasmiṃ ṭhāne idāni bhikkhū –
The monk to whom the Sangha gives the Kathina robe should spread the Kathina. The connection is that it should be given to a monk whose robe is worn out. In this context, the monks now—
ID1283
“Paṭiggahaṇañca sappāyaṃ, ñatti ca anusāvanaṃ; Kappabindu paccuddhāro, adhiṭṭhānattharāni ca; Niyojanānumodā ca, iccayaṃ kathine vidhī”ti. –
“Receiving and suitability, motion and announcement; Binding mark, retraction, determination, and spreading; Encouragement and rejoicing—this is the procedure for the kathina”—
“Paṭiggahaṇañca sappāyaṃ, ñatti ca anusāvanaṃ; Kappabindu paccuddhāro, adhiṭṭhānattharāni ca; Niyojanānumodā ca, iccayaṃ kathine vidhī”ti. –
“The receiving and suitability, the motion and announcement, the marking, the withdrawal, the determination, and the spreading, the assignment and rejoicing—this is the procedure for the Kathina.”—
ID1284
Imaṃ gāthaṃ āharitvā kathinadānakammavācāya paṭhamaṃ kathinacīvarassa paṭiggahaṇañca sappāyapucchanañca karonti, tadayuttaṃ viya dissati. Kasmāti ce? “Aṭṭhahaṅgehi samannāgato puggalo bhabbo kathinaṃ attharituṃ…pe… pubbakaraṇaṃ jānāti, paccuddhāraṃ jānāti, adhiṭṭhānaṃ jānāti, atthāraṃ jānāti, mātikaṃ jānāti, palibodhaṃ jānāti, uddhāraṃ jānāti, ānisaṃsaṃ jānātī”ti parivārapāḷiyañca (pari. 409),
Bring forth this verse, and with the disciplinary recitation for giving the kathina, they first perform the receiving of the kathina robe and the inquiry about suitability, which seems inappropriate. Why? Because in the Parivāra text (pari. 409), “A person endowed with eight qualities is capable of spreading the kathina… he knows the preliminary work, knows the retraction, knows the determination, knows the spreading, knows the framework, knows the obstacles, knows the completion, knows the benefits,” and
Imaṃ gāthaṃ āharitvā kathinadānakammavācāya paṭhamaṃ kathinacīvarassa paṭiggahaṇañca sappāyapucchanañca karonti, tadayuttaṃ viya dissati. Kasmāti ce? “Aṭṭhahaṅgehi samannāgato puggalo bhabbo kathinaṃ attharituṃ…pe… pubbakaraṇaṃ jānāti, paccuddhāraṃ jānāti, adhiṭṭhānaṃ jānāti, atthāraṃ jānāti, mātikaṃ jānāti, palibodhaṃ jānāti, uddhāraṃ jānāti, ānisaṃsaṃ jānātī”ti parivārapāḷiyañca (pari. 409),
Having brought this verse, they first perform the receiving of the Kathina robe and the inquiry about suitability in the Kathina offering ceremony, which seems appropriate. Why? “A person endowed with eight factors is capable of spreading the Kathina… he knows the preliminary duties, knows the withdrawal, knows the determination, knows the spreading, knows the matrix, knows the obstacles, knows the removal, and knows the benefits,” as stated in the Parivāra text (Parivāra 409),
ID1285
“Aṭṭhadhammavido bhikkhu, kathinatthāramarahati; Pubbapaccuddhārādhiṭṭhā-natthāro mātikāti ca; Palibodho ca uddhāro, ānisaṃsā panaṭṭhime”ti. (vi. vi. 2704, 2706) –
“A bhikkhu who knows the eight qualities is worthy of spreading the kathina; Preliminary work, retraction, determination, spreading, framework; Obstacles and completion, and the benefits as the eighth” (vi. vi. 2704, 2706)—
“Aṭṭhadhammavido bhikkhu, kathinatthāramarahati; Pubbapaccuddhārādhiṭṭhā-natthāro mātikāti ca; Palibodho ca uddhāro, ānisaṃsā panaṭṭhime”ti. (vi. vi. 2704, 2706) –
“A monk who knows the eight factors is worthy of spreading the Kathina; the preliminary duties, withdrawal, determination, spreading, matrix, obstacles, removal, and benefits—these eight.” (Vin. Vi. 2704, 2706)—
ID1286
Vinayavinicchayappakaraṇe ca āgatesu aṭṭhasu aṅgesu anāgatattā ca “pubbakaraṇaṃ sattahi dhammehi saṅgahitaṃ dhovanena vicāraṇena chedanena bandhanena sibbanena rajanena kappakaraṇenā”ti parivārapāḷiyañca (pari. 408),
In the Vinayavinicchaya text, these eight qualities are mentioned, but they do not include receiving and suitability; and in the Parivāra text (pari. 408), “The preliminary work is encompassed by seven factors: washing, examining, cutting, binding, sewing, dyeing, and making proper,” and
Vinayavinicchayappakaraṇe ca āgatesu aṭṭhasu aṅgesu anāgatattā ca “pubbakaraṇaṃ sattahi dhammehi saṅgahitaṃ dhovanena vicāraṇena chedanena bandhanena sibbanena rajanena kappakaraṇenā”ti parivārapāḷiyañca (pari. 408),
And in the Vinayavinicchaya text, the eight factors are mentioned, and since they are not yet present, “the preliminary duties are included in seven factors: washing, examining, cutting, sewing, dyeing, marking, and making the robe,” as stated in the Parivāra text (Parivāra 408),
ID1287
“Dhovanañca vicāro ca, chedanaṃ bandhanampi ca; Sibbanaṃ rajanaṃ kappaṃ, pubbakiccanti vuccatī”ti. (vi. vi. 2707) –
“Washing and examining, cutting and binding too; Sewing, dyeing, and making proper—this is called preliminary work” (vi. vi. 2707)—
“Dhovanañca vicāro ca, chedanaṃ bandhanampi ca; Sibbanaṃ rajanaṃ kappaṃ, pubbakiccanti vuccatī”ti. (vi. vi. 2707) –
“Washing, examining, cutting, sewing, dyeing, marking, and making—these are called the preliminary duties.” (Vin. Vi. 2707)—
ID1288
Vinayavinicchayappakaraṇe ca vuttesu sattasu pubbakaraṇesu anāgatattā ca.
In the Vinayavinicchaya text, these seven preliminary actions are mentioned, but they do not include receiving and suitability.
Vinayavinicchayappakaraṇe ca vuttesu sattasu pubbakaraṇesu anāgatattā ca.
And in the Vinayavinicchaya text, the seven preliminary duties are mentioned, and since they are not yet present.
ID1289
Na kevalañca pakaraṇesu anāgatameva, atha kho yuttipi na dissati. Kathaṃ? Paṭiggahaṇaṃ nāma “yo pana bhikkhu adinnaṃ mukhadvāraṃ āhāraṃ āhāreyya aññatra udakadantaponā, pācittiya”nti (pāci. 265) yāvakālikādīsu ajjhoharitabbesu catūsu kālikavatthūsu bhagavatā vuttaṃ, na cīvare, taṃ pana pādamūle ṭhapetvā dinnampi parammukhā dinnampi labbhateva. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379) “imaṃ cīvaraṃ itthannāmassa dammīti evaṃ parammukhā vā pādamūle ṭhapetvā ’imaṃ tumhāka’nti evaṃ sammukhā vā detī”ti, tasmā paṭiggahaṇakiccaṃ natthi, dāyakena cīvare dinne saṅghassa cittena sampaṭicchanamattameva pamāṇaṃ hoti.
Not only are they absent from the texts, but they also do not seem reasonable. How so? “Receiving” refers to what the Blessed One stated in the context of the four timely requisites to be consumed, such as in (pāci. 265), “If a bhikkhu consumes food not given through the mouth except water and tooth-wood, it is a pācittiya offense,” and not to robes. A robe can be received even if placed at the feet or given from a distance. For it is said in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379), “He gives it saying, ‘I give this robe to such-and-such,’ either from a distance or placing it at the feet saying, ‘This is yours,’ in person.” Thus, there is no task of receiving; when the donor gives the robe, the Saṅgha’s mental acceptance alone is the measure.
Na kevalañca pakaraṇesu anāgatameva, atha kho yuttipi na dissati. Kathaṃ? Paṭiggahaṇaṃ nāma “yo pana bhikkhu adinnaṃ mukhadvāraṃ āhāraṃ āhāreyya aññatra udakadantaponā, pācittiya”nti (pāci. 265) yāvakālikādīsu ajjhoharitabbesu catūsu kālikavatthūsu bhagavatā vuttaṃ, na cīvare, taṃ pana pādamūle ṭhapetvā dinnampi parammukhā dinnampi labbhateva. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379) “imaṃ cīvaraṃ itthannāmassa dammīti evaṃ parammukhā vā pādamūle ṭhapetvā ’imaṃ tumhāka’nti evaṃ sammukhā vā detī”ti, tasmā paṭiggahaṇakiccaṃ natthi, dāyakena cīvare dinne saṅghassa cittena sampaṭicchanamattameva pamāṇaṃ hoti.
Not only are they not present in the texts, but the appropriateness is also not seen. How? The receiving is mentioned in the rule, “If a monk consumes food that is not given, except for water and toothwood, it is an offense requiring confession” (Pācittiya 265), in the four temporal matters where consumption is allowed, but not for robes. However, even if given at the feet or given indirectly, it is still acceptable. For it is stated in the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 379), “This robe is given to such and such a monk,” whether given indirectly or placed at the feet, or given directly, “This is for you.” Therefore, there is no duty of receiving; when the donor gives the robe to the Sangha, it is merely a matter of the Sangha’s mind accepting it.
ID1290
Sappāyapucchanañca evaṃ karonti – ekena bhikkhunā “bhonto saṅghā saṅghassa kathine sampatte kassa puggalassa sappāyārahaṃ hotī”ti pucchite eko bhikkhu nāmaṃ vatvā “itthannāmassa therassa sappāyārahaṃ hotī”ti vadati, sappāyaiti ca nivāsanapārupanatthaṃ gahetvā vadanti. Etasmiṃ vacane saddato ca atthato ca adhippāyato ca yutti gavesitabbā hoti. Kathaṃ? Saddato vaggabhede satiyeva bahuvacanaṃ kattabbaṃ, na abhede, evaṃ saddato. Sappāyaitivacanañca anurūpattheyeva vattabbaṃ, na nivāsanapārupanatthe, evaṃ atthato. Idañca cīvaraṃ saṅgho kathinaṃ attharituṃ puggalassa deti, na nivāsanapārupanatthaṃ. Vuttañhi pāḷiyaṃ (mahāva. 307) “saṅgho imaṃ kathinadussaṃ itthannāmassa bhikkhuno deti kathinaṃ attharitu”nti, tasmā yutti gavesitabbā hoti. “Paṭiggahaṇañca sappāya”ntiādigāthāpi katthaci pāḷiyaṃ aṭṭhakathāṭīkādīsu ca na dissati, tasmā idha vuttanayeneva paṭipajjitabbaṃ.
They also perform the inquiry about suitability thus: One bhikkhu asks, “Venerables, now that the kathina has arrived for the Saṅgha, for which individual is it suitable?” and another bhikkhu, naming someone, says, “It is suitable for the elder so-and-so.” They take “suitable” to mean for wearing and covering. In this statement, reason must be sought from the perspective of grammar, meaning, and intent. How? Grammatically, the plural is used only when there is a distinction within a group, not otherwise—thus grammatically. The word “suitable” (sappāya) should be used only in the sense of appropriateness, not for wearing and covering—thus in meaning. This robe is given by the Saṅgha to an individual to spread the kathina, not for wearing and covering. For it is said in the canon (mahāva. 307), “The Saṅgha gives this kathina cloth to such-and-such a bhikkhu to spread the kathina,” so reason must be sought. The verse “Receiving and suitability” and so forth is not found anywhere in the canon, commentaries, or sub-commentaries, so one should proceed only as stated here.
Sappāyapucchanañca evaṃ karonti – ekena bhikkhunā “bhonto saṅghā saṅghassa kathine sampatte kassa puggalassa sappāyārahaṃ hotī”ti pucchite eko bhikkhu nāmaṃ vatvā “itthannāmassa therassa sappāyārahaṃ hotī”ti vadati, sappāyaiti ca nivāsanapārupanatthaṃ gahetvā vadanti. Etasmiṃ vacane saddato ca atthato ca adhippāyato ca yutti gavesitabbā hoti. Kathaṃ? Saddato vaggabhede satiyeva bahuvacanaṃ kattabbaṃ, na abhede, evaṃ saddato. Sappāyaitivacanañca anurūpattheyeva vattabbaṃ, na nivāsanapārupanatthe, evaṃ atthato. Idañca cīvaraṃ saṅgho kathinaṃ attharituṃ puggalassa deti, na nivāsanapārupanatthaṃ. Vuttañhi pāḷiyaṃ (mahāva. 307) “saṅgho imaṃ kathinadussaṃ itthannāmassa bhikkhuno deti kathinaṃ attharitu”nti, tasmā yutti gavesitabbā hoti. “Paṭiggahaṇañca sappāya”ntiādigāthāpi katthaci pāḷiyaṃ aṭṭhakathāṭīkādīsu ca na dissati, tasmā idha vuttanayeneva paṭipajjitabbaṃ.
The inquiry about suitability is done as follows: One monk asks, “Venerable Sangha, to whom is it suitable to give the Kathina robe that has come to the Sangha?” Another monk says the name, “It is suitable for such and such an elder.” They say “suitable” in the sense of being appropriate for wearing. In this statement, the appropriateness should be sought in terms of sound, meaning, and intention. How? In terms of sound, when there is a division into groups, the plural should be used, not when there is no division. Thus, in terms of sound. The word “suitable” should be used in the sense of being appropriate, not in the sense of being for wearing. Thus, in terms of meaning. And this robe is given by the Sangha to a person to spread the Kathina, not for wearing. For it is stated in the text (Mahāva. 307), “The Sangha gives this Kathina cloth to such and such a monk to spread the Kathina.” Therefore, the appropriateness should be sought. The verse “The receiving and suitability” is not found in the texts or commentaries, so the method stated here should be followed.
ID1291
Sace bahū jiṇṇacīvarā, vuḍḍhassa dātabbanti idaṃ kathinacīvarassa saṅghikattā “na ca, bhikkhave, saṅghikaṃ yathāvuḍḍhaṃ paṭibāhitabbaṃ, yo paṭibāheyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti iminā pāḷinayena (cūḷava. 311) vuttaṃ. Eteneva nayena sabbesu balavacīvaresu santesupi vuḍḍhasseva dātabbanti siddhaṃ. Vuḍḍhesu…pe… dātabbanti karaṇasannidhimocanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Tenevāha “sace vuḍḍho”tyādi. Navakatarenapi hi karaṇasannidhiṃ mocetvā kathine atthate anumodanaṃ karontassa saṅghassa pañcānisaṃsalābho hotīti. Apicātiādinā saṅghena kattabbavattaṃ dasseti. Vacanakkamo pana evaṃ kātabbo – kathinadussaṃ labhitvā saṅghe sīmāya sannipatite ekena bhikkhunā “bhante, saṅghassa idaṃ kathinadussaṃ uppannaṃ, saṅgho imaṃ kathinadussaṃ kathannāmassa bhikkhuno dadeyya kathinaṃ attharitu”nti vutte aññena “yo jiṇṇacīvaro, tassā”ti vattabbaṃ, tato purimena “bahū jiṇṇacīvarā”ti vā “natthi idha jiṇṇacīvarā”ti vā vutte aparena “tena hi vuḍḍhassā”ti vattabbaṃ, puna purimena “ko ettha vuḍḍho”ti vutte itarena “itthannāmo bhikkhū”ti vattabbaṃ, puna purimena “so bhikkhu tadaheva cīvaraṃ katvā attharituṃ sakkotī”ti vutte itarena “so sakkotī”ti vā “saṅgho mahātherassa saṅgahaṃ karissatī”ti vā vattabbaṃ, puna purimena “so mahāthero aṭṭhahi aṅgehi samannāgato”ti vutte itarena “āma samannāgato”ti vattabbaṃ, tato “sādhu suṭṭhu tassa dātabba”nti vutte byattena bhikkhunā paṭibalena saṅgho ñātabbo.
If there are many with worn-out robes, it should be given to the senior—this is stated because of the communal nature of the kathina robe, in accordance with the canonical rule (cūḷava. 311), “Bhikkhus, communal property should not be obstructed according to seniority; whoever obstructs it commits an offense of wrongdoing.” By this same principle, even if there are several valuable robes, it is established that they should be given to the senior. Among the seniors… it should be given—this is said to avoid a store of preparation. Hence it says, “If the senior…” and so forth. Even a junior, by avoiding a store of preparation and spreading the kathina, brings about the Saṅgha’s gain of the five benefits through rejoicing—this is established. Moreover… and so forth shows the duty to be performed by the Saṅgha. The order of statements should be as follows: When the kathina cloth is received and the Saṅgha is assembled within the boundary, one bhikkhu says, “Venerable sirs, this kathina cloth has arisen for the Saṅgha; to which bhikkhu should the Saṅgha give this kathina cloth to spread the kathina?” Another says, “To the one with worn-out robes.” Then the first says, “There are many with worn-out robes” or “There are no worn-out robes here,” and the other says, “Then to the senior.” The first says, “Who is the senior here?” and the other says, “The bhikkhu so-and-so.” The first says, “Can that bhikkhu make and spread the robe on that very day?” and the other says, “He can,” or “The Saṅgha will assist the great elder.” The first says, “Is that great elder endowed with the eight qualities?” and the other says, “Yes, he is endowed.” Then, “Good, it should certainly be given to him,” and a competent bhikkhu should inform the Saṅgha.
Sace bahū jiṇṇacīvarā, vuḍḍhassa dātabbanti idaṃ kathinacīvarassa saṅghikattā “na ca, bhikkhave, saṅghikaṃ yathāvuḍḍhaṃ paṭibāhitabbaṃ, yo paṭibāheyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti iminā pāḷinayena (cūḷava. 311) vuttaṃ. Eteneva nayena sabbesu balavacīvaresu santesupi vuḍḍhasseva dātabbanti siddhaṃ. Vuḍḍhesu…pe… dātabbanti karaṇasannidhimocanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Tenevāha “sace vuḍḍho”tyādi. Navakatarenapi hi karaṇasannidhiṃ mocetvā kathine atthate anumodanaṃ karontassa saṅghassa pañcānisaṃsalābho hotīti. Apicātiādinā saṅghena kattabbavattaṃ dasseti. Vacanakkamo pana evaṃ kātabbo – kathinadussaṃ labhitvā saṅghe sīmāya sannipatite ekena bhikkhunā “bhante, saṅghassa idaṃ kathinadussaṃ uppannaṃ, saṅgho imaṃ kathinadussaṃ kathannāmassa bhikkhuno dadeyya kathinaṃ attharitu”nti vutte aññena “yo jiṇṇacīvaro, tassā”ti vattabbaṃ, tato purimena “bahū jiṇṇacīvarā”ti vā “natthi idha jiṇṇacīvarā”ti vā vutte aparena “tena hi vuḍḍhassā”ti vattabbaṃ, puna purimena “ko ettha vuḍḍho”ti vutte itarena “itthannāmo bhikkhū”ti vattabbaṃ, puna purimena “so bhikkhu tadaheva cīvaraṃ katvā attharituṃ sakkotī”ti vutte itarena “so sakkotī”ti vā “saṅgho mahātherassa saṅgahaṃ karissatī”ti vā vattabbaṃ, puna purimena “so mahāthero aṭṭhahi aṅgehi samannāgato”ti vutte itarena “āma samannāgato”ti vattabbaṃ, tato “sādhu suṭṭhu tassa dātabba”nti vutte byattena bhikkhunā paṭibalena saṅgho ñātabbo.
“If there are many worn-out robes, it should be given to the senior” means that because the Kathina robe is communal, “Monks, communal property should not be withheld according to seniority. Whoever withholds it commits an offense of wrong conduct” (Cūḷava. 311). By this rule, even if there are many strong robes, it should be given to the senior. “To the seniors… it should be given” is said for the purpose of releasing the responsibility of making. Therefore, it is said, “If the senior” and so on. Even if it is new, by releasing the responsibility of making and rejoicing in the spreading of the Kathina, the Sangha gains five benefits. “Moreover” and so on shows the duty to be done by the Sangha. The order of speaking should be as follows: When the Sangha has obtained the Kathina cloth and has assembled within the boundary, one monk says, “Venerable Sirs, this Kathina cloth has arisen for the Sangha. The Sangha should give this Kathina cloth to such and such a monk to spread the Kathina.” Another should say, “To the one whose robe is worn out.” Then the first should say, “There are many worn-out robes” or “There are no worn-out robes here.” Then another should say, “Then to the senior.” Then the first should say, “Who is the senior here?” Another should say, “Such and such a monk.” Then the first should say, “Can that monk make the robe and spread it on the same day?” Another should say, “He can” or “The Sangha will support the senior monk.” Then the first should say, “Is that senior monk endowed with the eight factors?” Another should say, “Yes, he is endowed.” Then, “Good, it should be given to him.” The competent monk should inform the Sangha.
ID1292
Ettha ca “bhante, saṅghassā”tiādivacanaṃ “suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, idaṃ saṅghassa kathinadussaṃ uppannaṃ, yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho imaṃ kathinadussaṃ itthannāmassa bhikkhuno dadeyya kathinaṃ attharitu”nti imāya ñattipāḷiyā sameti. “Yo jiṇṇacīvaro, tassā”tiādi “saṅghena kassā”tiādi “saṅghena kassa dātabbaṃ, yo jiṇṇacīvaro hotī”tiādinā aṭṭhakathāvacanena (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306) sameti. “So mahāthero aṭṭhahaṅgehi samannāgato”tiādi “aṭṭhahaṅgehi samannāgato puggalo bhabbo kathinaṃ attharitu”ntiādikāya parivārapāḷiyā (pari. 409) sametīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Yassa pana dīyati, tassa ñattidutiyakammavācāya dātabbanti sambandho. Iminā imassa kathinadānakammassa garukattā na apalokanamattena dātabbanti imamatthaṃ pakāseti. Garukalahukānaṃ bhedo kammākammavinicchayakathāyaṃ āvi bhavissati.
Here, the statement “Venerable sirs, for the Saṅgha…” aligns with the motion text, “Listen to me, venerable sirs, this kathina cloth has arisen for the Saṅgha; if it is suitable for the Saṅgha, let the Saṅgha give this kathina cloth to such-and-such a bhikkhu to spread the kathina.” “To the one with worn-out robes…” and so forth aligns with the commentary statement (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306), “To whom should the Saṅgha give it? To the one with worn-out robes…” “That great elder is endowed with the eight qualities…” aligns with the Parivāra text (pari. 409), “A person endowed with eight qualities is capable of spreading the kathina…”—this should be understood. It should be given to him with a motion and second disciplinary recitation—this is the connection. This clarifies that, due to the gravity of this kathina-giving act, it should not be given merely by informal agreement. The distinction between grave and light acts will become clear in the discussion of disciplinary and non-disciplinary determinations.
Ettha ca “bhante, saṅghassā”tiādivacanaṃ “suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, idaṃ saṅghassa kathinadussaṃ uppannaṃ, yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho imaṃ kathinadussaṃ itthannāmassa bhikkhuno dadeyya kathinaṃ attharitu”nti imāya ñattipāḷiyā sameti. “Yo jiṇṇacīvaro, tassā”tiādi “saṅghena kassā”tiādi “saṅghena kassa dātabbaṃ, yo jiṇṇacīvaro hotī”tiādinā aṭṭhakathāvacanena (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306) sameti. “So mahāthero aṭṭhahaṅgehi samannāgato”tiādi “aṭṭhahaṅgehi samannāgato puggalo bhabbo kathinaṃ attharitu”ntiādikāya parivārapāḷiyā (pari. 409) sametīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Yassa pana dīyati, tassa ñattidutiyakammavācāya dātabbanti sambandho. Iminā imassa kathinadānakammassa garukattā na apalokanamattena dātabbanti imamatthaṃ pakāseti. Garukalahukānaṃ bhedo kammākammavinicchayakathāyaṃ āvi bhavissati.
Here, the words “Venerable Sirs, for the Sangha” and so on correspond to the motion text, “Venerable Sirs, may the Sangha hear me. This Kathina cloth has arisen for the Sangha. If it is suitable for the Sangha, the Sangha should give this Kathina cloth to such and such a monk to spread the Kathina.” The words “To the one whose robe is worn out” and so on correspond to the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 306), “To whom should the Sangha give? To the one whose robe is worn out.” The words “That senior monk is endowed with the eight factors” and so on correspond to the Parivāra text (Parivāra 409), “A person endowed with the eight factors is capable of spreading the Kathina.” It should be understood thus. For the one to whom it is given, it should be given by the motion and second announcement. This shows that because of the importance of this Kathina offering, it should not be given merely by informing. The distinction between heavy and light matters will be clarified in the discussion on the determination of what is and is not an offense.
ID1293
Evaṃ dinne pana kathine paccuddharitabbā adhiṭṭhātabbā vācā bhinditabbāti sambandho. Sace taṃ kathinadussaṃ niṭṭhitaparikammameva hotīti iminā kathinadussaṃ nāma na kevalaṃ pakatisāṭakameva hoti, atha kho pariniṭṭhitasattavidhapubbakiccacīvarampi hotīti dasseti, tasmā niṭṭhitacīvarasmiṃ dinne sattavidhapubbakiccakaraṇena attho natthi, kevalaṃ paccuddharaṇādīniyeva kātabbāni. Sace pana kiñci apariniṭṭhitaṃ hoti, antamaso kappabindumattampi, taṃ niṭṭhāpetvāyeva paccuddharaṇādīni kātabbāni. Gaṇṭhikapaṭṭapāsakapaṭṭāni pana sibbanantogadhāni, tānipi niṭṭhāpetvāyeva kātabbāni. Aniṭṭhāpento aniṭṭhitasibbanakiccameva hoti. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.462-463) “tattha katanti sūcikammapariyosānena kataṃ, sūcikammapariyosānaṃ nāma yaṃ kiñci sūciyā kattabbaṃ. Pāsakapaṭṭagaṇṭhikapaṭṭapariyosānaṃ katvā sūciyā paṭisāmana”nti. Idañhi kathinavattaṃ nāma buddhappasatthanti “atthatakathinānaṃ vo bhikkhave pañca kappissantī”tiādinā pasatthaṃ.
When the kathina is given thus, the recitation must be retracted, determined, or broken—this is the connection. If that kathina cloth is fully prepared—this indicates that the kathina cloth is not merely an ordinary cloth but can also be a robe with the seven preliminary tasks completed; thus, when a completed robe is given, there is no need to perform the seven preliminary tasks, and only retraction and so forth should be done. But if anything remains incomplete, even just a binding mark, it must be completed before retraction and so forth are performed. Knots, strips, and loops are included in sewing and must also be completed. Not completing them leaves the sewing task unfinished. For it is said in the commentary (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.462-463), “Here, made means made by completing the needlework; completion of needlework means whatever is to be done with a needle. Completing knots, strips, and loops and repairing with a needle.” This kathina procedure is praised by the Buddha—it is praised as in, “Bhikkhus, for those who have spread the kathina, five things will be permissible…”
Evaṃ dinne pana kathine paccuddharitabbā adhiṭṭhātabbā vācā bhinditabbāti sambandho. Sace taṃ kathinadussaṃ niṭṭhitaparikammameva hotīti iminā kathinadussaṃ nāma na kevalaṃ pakatisāṭakameva hoti, atha kho pariniṭṭhitasattavidhapubbakiccacīvarampi hotīti dasseti, tasmā niṭṭhitacīvarasmiṃ dinne sattavidhapubbakiccakaraṇena attho natthi, kevalaṃ paccuddharaṇādīniyeva kātabbāni. Sace pana kiñci apariniṭṭhitaṃ hoti, antamaso kappabindumattampi, taṃ niṭṭhāpetvāyeva paccuddharaṇādīni kātabbāni. Gaṇṭhikapaṭṭapāsakapaṭṭāni pana sibbanantogadhāni, tānipi niṭṭhāpetvāyeva kātabbāni. Aniṭṭhāpento aniṭṭhitasibbanakiccameva hoti. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.462-463) “tattha katanti sūcikammapariyosānena kataṃ, sūcikammapariyosānaṃ nāma yaṃ kiñci sūciyā kattabbaṃ. Pāsakapaṭṭagaṇṭhikapaṭṭapariyosānaṃ katvā sūciyā paṭisāmana”nti. Idañhi kathinavattaṃ nāma buddhappasatthanti “atthatakathinānaṃ vo bhikkhave pañca kappissantī”tiādinā pasatthaṃ.
When the Kathina is thus given, it should be withdrawn, determined, and the words should be broken. “If that Kathina cloth is already finished” means that the Kathina cloth is not merely an ordinary robe, but it can also be a robe that has completed the sevenfold preliminary duties. Therefore, when a finished robe is given, there is no need to perform the sevenfold preliminary duties; only the withdrawal and so on should be done. If, however, something is unfinished, even if only a mark remains, it should be completed before the withdrawal and so on are done. The knots, patches, and fringes should also be sewn inside, and they should be completed before the actions are done. Not completing them means not completing the sewing duties. For it is stated in the commentary (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.462-463), “Here, ‘done’ means done to the end of the needlework. ‘The end of the needlework’ means whatever needs to be done with the needle. After completing the fringes, patches, and knots, the needle should be put away.” “This Kathina practice is praised by the Buddha” means “For those who have completed the Kathina, five things are allowed,” and so on, as praised.
ID1294
Katapariyositaṃ pana kathinaṃ gahetvāti –
Having taken the fully completed kathina—
Katapariyositaṃ pana kathinaṃ gahetvāti –
“Having taken the Kathina that has been completed” means—
ID1295
“Dhovanañca vicāro ca, chedanaṃ bandhanampi ca; Sibbanaṃ rajanaṃ kappaṃ, pubbakiccanti vuccatī”ti. (vi. vi. 2707) –
“Washing and examining, cutting and binding too; Sewing, dyeing, and making proper—this is called preliminary work” (vi. vi. 2707)—
“Dhovanañca vicāro ca, chedanaṃ bandhanampi ca; Sibbanaṃ rajanaṃ kappaṃ, pubbakiccanti vuccatī”ti. (vi. vi. 2707) –
“Washing, examining, cutting, sewing, dyeing, marking, and making—these are called the preliminary duties.” (Vin. Vi. 2707)—
ID1296
Vuttāni sattavidhapubbakaraṇāni katvā pariyosāpitaṃ kathinacīvaraṃ gahetvā. Atthārakena bhikkhunā paccuddharitabbā adhiṭṭhātabbā vācā bhinditabbāti sambandho. Saṅghāṭiyā kathinaṃ attharitukāmo bhikkhu pubbe ticīvarādhiṭṭhānena adhiṭṭhitaṃ porāṇikaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ “imaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ paccuddharāmī”ti vatvā paccuddharitabbā, tato anadhiṭṭhitaṃ navaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ “imaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ adhiṭṭhāmī”ti vatvā adhiṭṭhātabbā, tato attharaṇakāle tameva adhiṭṭhitasaṅghāṭiṃ “imāya saṅghāṭiyā kathinaṃ attharāmī”ti vācā bhinditabbāti attho. Esa nayo itaresu. Etena kathinatthāraṇaṃ nāma vacībhedakaraṇameva hoti, na kiñci kāyavikārakaraṇanti imamatthaṃ dīpeti . Tathā hi vuttaṃ vinayatthamañjūsāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) “attharitabbanti attharaṇaṃ kātabbaṃ, tañca kho tathāvacībhedakaraṇamevāti daṭṭhabba”nti.
Having taken the kathina robe completed by performing the seven preliminary tasks as stated, the bhikkhu who spreads it must retract, determine, or break the recitation—this is the connection. A bhikkhu wishing to spread the kathina with the outer robe, having previously determined the old outer robe with the determination of the three robes, must say, “I retract this saṅghāṭi,” and retract it; then he must say, “I determine this saṅghāṭi,” and determine the new, undetermined outer robe; then, at the time of spreading, he must break the recitation with that determined outer robe, saying, “With this saṅghāṭi I spread the kathina”—this is the meaning. The same applies to the others. This clarifies that spreading the kathina is merely the act of breaking the recitation, not any physical action. For it is said in the Vinayatthamañjūsā (kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), “To be spread means spreading is to be done, and that should be understood as merely breaking the recitation.”
Vuttāni sattavidhapubbakaraṇāni katvā pariyosāpitaṃ kathinacīvaraṃ gahetvā. Atthārakena bhikkhunā paccuddharitabbā adhiṭṭhātabbā vācā bhinditabbāti sambandho. Saṅghāṭiyā kathinaṃ attharitukāmo bhikkhu pubbe ticīvarādhiṭṭhānena adhiṭṭhitaṃ porāṇikaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ “imaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ paccuddharāmī”ti vatvā paccuddharitabbā, tato anadhiṭṭhitaṃ navaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ “imaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ adhiṭṭhāmī”ti vatvā adhiṭṭhātabbā, tato attharaṇakāle tameva adhiṭṭhitasaṅghāṭiṃ “imāya saṅghāṭiyā kathinaṃ attharāmī”ti vācā bhinditabbāti attho. Esa nayo itaresu. Etena kathinatthāraṇaṃ nāma vacībhedakaraṇameva hoti, na kiñci kāyavikārakaraṇanti imamatthaṃ dīpeti . Tathā hi vuttaṃ vinayatthamañjūsāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) “attharitabbanti attharaṇaṃ kātabbaṃ, tañca kho tathāvacībhedakaraṇamevāti daṭṭhabba”nti.
Having completed the sevenfold preliminary duties, the Kathina robe is taken. The monk who spreads it should withdraw, determine, and break the words. A monk who wishes to spread the Kathina with the upper robe should first determine the old upper robe that has been previously determined with the three robes, saying, “I withdraw this upper robe,” and then determine the new upper robe, saying, “I determine this upper robe,” and then at the time of spreading, he should break the words with the determined upper robe, saying, “I spread the Kathina with this upper robe.” This is the method. The same applies to the others. This shows that the spreading of the Kathina is merely the breaking of words, not any physical action. For it is stated in the Vinayālaṅkāraṭīkā (Kaṅkhā. Abhi. Ṭī. Kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), “To be spread” means the spreading should be done, but it is merely the breaking of words, not any physical action.
ID1297
Tattha paccuddhāro tividho “imaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ paccuddharāmī”ti saṅghāṭiyā paccuddhāro, “imaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ paccuddharāmī”ti uttarāsaṅgassa paccuddhāro, “imaṃ antaravāsakaṃ paccuddharāmī”ti antaravāsakassa paccuddhāroti. Vuttañhetaṃ parivāre (pari. 408) “paccuddhāro tīhi dhammehi saṅgahito saṅghāṭiyā uttarāsaṅgena antaravāsakenā”ti. Adhiṭṭhānaṃ tividhaṃ “imaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ adhiṭṭhāmī”ti saṅghāṭiyā adhiṭṭhānaṃ, “imaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ adhiṭṭhāmī”ti uttarāsaṅgassa adhiṭṭhānaṃ, “imaṃ antaravāsakaṃ adhiṭṭhāmī”ti antaravāsakassa adhiṭṭhānanti. Vuttañhetaṃ parivāre (pari. 408) “adhiṭṭhānaṃ tīhi dhammehi saṅgahitaṃ saṅghāṭiyā uttarāsaṅgena antaravāsakenā”ti.
Here, retraction is threefold: “I retract this saṅghāṭi” for the outer robe, “I retract this uttarāsaṅga” for the upper robe, “I retract this antaravāsaka” for the underrobe. For it is said in the Parivāra (pari. 408), “Retraction is encompassed by three factors: the outer robe, the upper robe, and the underrobe.” Determination is threefold: “I determine this saṅghāṭi” for the outer robe, “I determine this uttarāsaṅga” for the upper robe, “I determine this antaravāsaka” for the underrobe. For it is said in the Parivāra (pari. 408), “Determination is encompassed by three factors: the outer robe, the upper robe, and the underrobe.”
Tattha paccuddhāro tividho “imaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ paccuddharāmī”ti saṅghāṭiyā paccuddhāro, “imaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ paccuddharāmī”ti uttarāsaṅgassa paccuddhāro, “imaṃ antaravāsakaṃ paccuddharāmī”ti antaravāsakassa paccuddhāroti. Vuttañhetaṃ parivāre (pari. 408) “paccuddhāro tīhi dhammehi saṅgahito saṅghāṭiyā uttarāsaṅgena antaravāsakenā”ti. Adhiṭṭhānaṃ tividhaṃ “imaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ adhiṭṭhāmī”ti saṅghāṭiyā adhiṭṭhānaṃ, “imaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ adhiṭṭhāmī”ti uttarāsaṅgassa adhiṭṭhānaṃ, “imaṃ antaravāsakaṃ adhiṭṭhāmī”ti antaravāsakassa adhiṭṭhānanti. Vuttañhetaṃ parivāre (pari. 408) “adhiṭṭhānaṃ tīhi dhammehi saṅgahitaṃ saṅghāṭiyā uttarāsaṅgena antaravāsakenā”ti.
Here, the withdrawal is threefold: “I withdraw this upper robe” is the withdrawal of the upper robe, “I withdraw this lower robe” is the withdrawal of the lower robe, “I withdraw this inner robe” is the withdrawal of the inner robe. For it is stated in the Parivāra (Parivāra 408), “The withdrawal is included in three things: the upper robe, the lower robe, and the inner robe.” The determination is threefold: “I determine this upper robe” is the determination of the upper robe, “I determine this lower robe” is the determination of the lower robe, “I determine this inner robe” is the determination of the inner robe. For it is stated in the Parivāra (Parivāra 408), “The determination is included in three things: the upper robe, the lower robe, and the inner robe.”
ID1298
Atha vā adhiṭṭhānaṃ duvidhaṃ kāyena adhiṭṭhānaṃ, vācāya adhiṭṭhānanti. Tattha porāṇikaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ “imaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ paccuddharāmī”ti paccuddharitvā navaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ hatthena gahetvā “imaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ adhiṭṭhāmī”ti cittena ābhogaṃ katvā kāyavikārakaraṇena kāyena vā adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ, vacībhedaṃ katvā vācāya vā adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.469; kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) “tattha yasmā dve cīvarassa adhiṭṭhānāni kāyena vā adhiṭṭheti, vācāya vā adhiṭṭhetīti vuttaṃ, tasmā…pe… adhiṭṭhātabbā”ti. Atha vā adhiṭṭhānaṃ duvidhaṃ sammukhādhiṭṭhānaparammukhādhiṭṭhānavasena. Tattha yadi cīvaraṃ hatthapāse ṭhitaṃ hoti, “imaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ adhiṭṭhāmī”ti vacībhedaṃ katvā adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ, atha antogabbhe vā sāmantavihāre vā hoti, ṭhapitaṭṭhānaṃ sallakkhetvā “etaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ adhiṭṭhāmī”ti vacībhedaṃ katvā adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.469; kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) “tatra duvidhaṃ adhiṭṭhānaṃ sace hatthapāse hotī”tiādi, vinayatthamañjūsāyañca (kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) “duvidhanti sammukhāparammukhābhedena duvidha”nti.
Alternatively, determination (adhiṭṭhāna) is twofold: determination by body (kāyena adhiṭṭhāna) and determination by speech (vācāya adhiṭṭhāna). In this regard, an old outer robe (saṅghāṭi) is relinquished by saying, “I relinquish this saṅghāṭi” (imaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ paccuddharāmi), and a new saṅghāṭi is taken in hand, determined by saying, “I determine this saṅghāṭi” (imaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ adhiṭṭhāmi), with mental resolve (cittena ābhoga) and bodily action (kāyavikārakaraṇena), or it should be determined by body, or by breaking into speech (vacībhedaṃ katvā) it should be determined by speech. For it is said in the commentary (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.469; kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), “There, because it is said that there are two ways of determining a robe—either by body or by speech—therefore… it should be determined.” Alternatively, determination is twofold by way of determination in presence (sammukhādhiṭṭhāna) and determination in absence (parammukhādhiṭṭhāna). In this case, if the robe is within reach (hatthapāse), it should be determined by saying, “I determine this saṅghāṭi” (imaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ adhiṭṭhāmi), breaking into speech; but if it is inside a room (antogabbhe) or in a neighboring monastery (sāmantavihāre), after noting its location (ṭhapitaṭṭhānaṃ sallakkhetvā), it should be determined by saying, “I determine that saṅghāṭi” (etaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ adhiṭṭhāmi), breaking into speech. For it is said in the commentary (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.469; kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), “There, determination is twofold: if it is within reach…” and so forth, and in the Vinayatthamañjūsā (kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), “‘Duvidha’ means twofold by the distinction of presence and absence.”
Alternatively, establishing is twofold: establishing by body, and establishing by speech. In this case, having formally withdrawn the old saṅghāṭi saying, “I withdraw this saṅghāṭi,” and having taken the new saṅghāṭi with the hand, one should establish it by body, having focused the mind on it saying, “I establish this saṅghāṭi,” making a bodily gesture; or one should establish it by speech, making a verbal declaration. For it is said in the commentary (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.469; kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), “There, since two establishings of a robe are stated, ‘one establishes by body, or one establishes by speech,’ therefore… it should be established.” Or else, establishing is twofold, in terms of establishing in presence and establishing in absence. There, if the robe is situated within reach, it should be established making a verbal declaration, saying “I establish this saṅghāṭi.” But if it is in an inner room or in a neighboring monastery, one should take note of the place where it is placed, and should establish making a verbal declaration, “I establish this saṅghāṭi.” For it is said in the commentary (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.469; kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) “There, establishing is twofold, if it is in reach,” and so on; and in the Vinayatthamañjūsā (kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), “twofold” means twofold through the distinction of in presence and in absence.”
Alternatively, adhiṭṭhāna (determination) is of two kinds: determination by body and determination by speech. Herein, having set aside the old robe with the thought, “I set aside this robe,” and taking a new robe in hand, one should determine it either by body, by making a bodily gesture with the thought, “I determine this robe,” or by speech, by uttering words. As stated in the commentary (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.469; kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā): “Here, since it is said that there are two ways of determining the robe—by body or by speech—therefore… it should be determined.” Alternatively, adhiṭṭhāna is of two kinds: determination in the presence of the object and determination in its absence. Herein, if the robe is within reach, one should determine it by uttering the words, “I determine this robe.” If it is in an inner chamber or a neighboring monastery, one should determine it by noting its location and uttering the words, “I determine this robe.” As stated in the commentary (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.469; kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā): “Here, adhiṭṭhāna is of two kinds: if it is within reach,” etc., and in the Vinayatthamañjūsā (kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā): **“Duvidha** means two kinds, distinguished as in the presence or absence of the object.”
ID1299
Atthāro katividho? Atthāro ekavidho. Vacībhedakaraṇeneva hi atthāro sampajjati, na kāyavikārakaraṇena. Ayamattho yathāvutta-parivārapāḷiyā ca “attharitabbanti attharaṇaṃ kātabbaṃ, tañca kho tathāvacībhedakaraṇamevāti daṭṭhabba”nti vinayatthamañjūsāvacanena ca viññāyati. Atha vā atthāro tividho vatthuppabhedena. Tattha yadi saṅghāṭiyā kathinaṃ attharitukāmo hoti, porāṇikā saṅghāṭi paccuddharitabbā, navā saṅghāṭi adhiṭṭhātabbā, “imāya saṅghāṭiyā kathinaṃ attharāmī”ti vācā bhinditabbā. Atha uttarāsaṅgena kathinaṃ attharitukāmo hoti, porāṇako uttarāsaṅgo paccuddharitabbo, navo uttarāsaṅgo adhiṭṭhātabbo, “iminā uttarāsaṅgena kathinaṃ attharāmī”ti vācā bhinditabbā. Atha antaravāsakena kathinaṃ attharitukāmo hoti, porāṇako antaravāsako paccuddharitabbo, navo antaravāsako adhiṭṭhātabbo, “iminā antaravāsakena kathinaṃ attharāmī”ti vācā bhinditabbā. Vuttañhetaṃ parivāre (pari. 413) “sace saṅghāṭiyā”tiādi.
How many kinds is the spreading (atthāro)? The spreading is of one kind. For the spreading is accomplished solely by breaking into speech (vacībhedakaraṇeneva), not by bodily action (kāyavikārakaraṇena). This meaning is understood from the Parivāra text as stated (pari. 413), “‘Attharitabba’ means it should be spread, and that too should be seen as merely breaking into speech,” and from the statement in the Vinayatthamañjūsā. Alternatively, the spreading is threefold according to the type of cloth (vatthuppabhedena). In this case, if one wishes to spread the kathina with a saṅghāṭi, the old saṅghāṭi should be relinquished (paccuddharitabbā), the new saṅghāṭi determined (adhiṭṭhātabbā), and speech should be broken by saying, “With this saṅghāṭi I spread the kathina” (imāya saṅghāṭiyā kathinaṃ attharāmi). If one wishes to spread the kathina with an upper robe (uttarāsaṅga), the old uttarāsaṅga should be relinquished, the new uttarāsaṅga determined, and speech broken by saying, “With this uttarāsaṅga I spread the kathina” (iminā uttarāsaṅgena kathinaṃ attharāmi). If one wishes to spread the kathina with an inner robe (antaravāsaka), the old antaravāsaka should be relinquished, the new antaravāsaka determined, and speech broken by saying, “With this antaravāsaka I spread the kathina” (iminā antaravāsakena kathinaṃ attharāmi). For this is said in the Parivāra (pari. 413), “If with a saṅghāṭi…” and so on.
How many kinds of spreading are there? Spreading is of one kind. For spreading is accomplished by making a verbal declaration only, not by making a bodily gesture. This meaning is understood from the previously mentioned Parivāra text and from the statement of the Vinayatthamañjūsā: “Attharitabba” means spreading should be done and that is to say, that it should be just making a verbal declaration of it”. Or else, spreadings are threefold, in terms of the object’s distinction. There, if one desires to spread the kathina with a saṅghāṭi, the old saṅghāṭi should be withdrawn, the new saṅghāṭi should be established, and speech should be articulated, “I spread the kathina with this saṅghāṭi.” But if one desires to spread the kathina with an upper robe, the old upper robe should be withdrawn, the new upper robe should be established, and speech should be articulated, “I spread the kathina with this upper robe.” But if one desires to spread the kathina with an under robe, the old under robe should be withdrawn, the new under robe should be established, and speech should be articulated, “I spread the kathina with this under robe.” This is stated in the Parivāra (pari. 413), “If with a saṅghāṭi,” and so on.
How many kinds of spreading (atthāra) are there? Spreading is of one kind. For spreading is accomplished only by the act of speech, not by bodily action. This meaning is understood from the Parivāra Pāḷi as stated: **“Attharitabba** means the spreading should be done, and it is to be understood that this is done only by the act of speech,” and from the statement in the Vinayatthamañjūsā. Alternatively, spreading is of three kinds, depending on the type of cloth. Herein, if one wishes to spread the Kathina with the upper robe, the old upper robe should be set aside, the new upper robe should be determined, and the words, “I spread the Kathina with this upper robe,” should be uttered. If one wishes to spread the Kathina with the lower robe, the old lower robe should be set aside, the new lower robe should be determined, and the words, “I spread the Kathina with this lower robe,” should be uttered. If one wishes to spread the Kathina with the inner robe, the old inner robe should be set aside, the new inner robe should be determined, and the words, “I spread the Kathina with this inner robe,” should be uttered. This is stated in the Parivāra (pari. 413): “If with the upper robe,” etc.
ID1300
Ettha siyā – kiṃ pana “imaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ paccuddharāmī”ti visesaṃ katvāva paccuddharitabbā, udāhu “imaṃ paccuddharāmī”ti sāmaññatopi paccuddharitabbāti? Parikkhāracoḷādhiṭṭhānena adhiṭṭhitaṃ cīvaraṃ “imaṃ paccuddharāmī”ti sāmaññato paccuddharitabbaṃ, na “imaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ paccuddharāmī”ti visesato paccuddharitabbaṃ. Kasmā? Pubbe aladdhanāmattā. Ticīvarādhiṭṭhānena adhiṭṭhitaṃ pana cīvaraṃ visesatoyeva paccuddharitabbaṃ, na sāmaññato. Kasmā? Paṭiladdhavisesanāmattā . Idha pana kathinādhikāre pubbeva ticīvarādhiṭṭhānena adhiṭṭhitattā visesatoyeva paccuddharitabbanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Vuttañhetaṃ parivāre (pari. 408) kathinādhikāre “paccuddhāro tīhi dhammehi saṅgahito saṅghāṭiyā uttarāsaṅgena antaravāsakenā”ti. Kiṃ pana niccatecīvarikoyeva kathinaṃ attharituṃ labhati, udāhu avatthātecīvarikopīti? Tecīvariko duvidho dhutaṅgatecīvarikavinayatecīvarikavasena. Tattha dhutaṅgatecīvariko “atirekacīvaraṃ paṭikkhipāmi, tecīvarikaṅgaṃ samādiyāmī”ti adhiṭṭhahitvā dhāraṇato sabbakālameva dhāreti. Vinayatecīvariko pana yadā ticīvarādhiṭṭhānena adhiṭṭhahitvā dhāretukāmo hoti, tadā tathā adhiṭṭhahitvā dhāreti. Yadā pana parikkhāracoḷādhiṭṭhānena adhiṭṭhahitvā dhāretukāmo hoti, tadā tathā adhiṭṭhahitvā dhāreti, tasmā ticīvarādhiṭṭhānassa dupparihārattā sabbadā dhāretuṃ asakkonto hutvā parikkhāracoḷavasena dhārentopi taṃ paccuddharitvā āsanne kāle ticīvarādhiṭṭhānena adhiṭṭhahantopi kathinaṃ attharituṃ labhatiyevāti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
Here it might be asked: Should it be relinquished specifically by saying, “I relinquish this saṅghāṭi” (imaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ paccuddharāmi), or can it be relinquished generally by saying, “I relinquish this” (imaṃ paccuddharāmi)? A robe determined by the determination of extra cloth (parikkhāracoḷādhiṭṭhānena) should be relinquished generally by saying, “I relinquish this” (imaṃ paccuddharāmi), not specifically by saying, “I relinquish this saṅghāṭi” (imaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ paccuddharāmi). Why? Because it had not previously received a specific name. However, a robe determined by the determination of the triple robe (ticīvarādhiṭṭhānena) should be relinquished specifically, not generally. Why? Because it has received a specific name. Here, in the context of the kathina privilege (kathinādhikāre), since it was already determined by the triple robe determination, it should be seen as relinquished specifically. For this is said in the Parivāra (pari. 408) in the context of the kathina privilege, “Relinquishment is encompassed by three things: with the saṅghāṭi, with the uttarāsaṅga, with the antaravāsaka.” Now, can only one who always uses the triple robe (niccatecīvariko) spread the kathina, or also one who does not always use it (avatthātecīvariko)? The triple robe user is twofold: one who observes the austerity of the triple robe (dhutaṅgatecīvarika) and one who follows the Vinaya triple robe (vinayatecīvarika). Among them, the dhutaṅgatecīvarika, having determined, “I reject extra robes and undertake the practice of the triple robe” (atirekacīvaraṃ paṭikkhipāmi, tecīvarikaṅgaṃ samādiyāmi), always wears it. The vinayatecīvarika, when wishing to wear it after determining it with the triple robe determination, does so accordingly; when wishing to wear it after determining it with the extra cloth determination, does so accordingly. Thus, being unable to always wear it due to the difficulty of maintaining the triple robe determination, even one who wears it as extra cloth and, after relinquishing it, determines it with the triple robe determination at a suitable time, can indeed spread the kathina—this should be understood.
Here it might be: Should the withdrawal be done specifically stating, “I withdraw this saṅghāṭi,” or should it be withdrawn generally saying, “I withdraw this”? A robe that has been established by the establishment of requisites should be withdrawn generally saying, “I withdraw this,” it should not be withdrawn specifically, “I withdraw this saṅghāṭi.” Why? Because it was not previously named. But a robe established by establishing the three robes should be withdrawn specifically, not generally. Why? Because it received a specific name. But here, in the section on the kathina, since it has been previously established by the establishing of the three robes, it should be understood that it is to be withdrawn specifically. This has been stated in the Parivāra (pari. 408) in the kathina section, “Withdrawal is comprised of three factors, by the saṅghāṭi, by the upper robe, by the under robe.” But can only one who always possesses the three robes spread the kathina, or can also one who does not always have the three robes, spread the kathina? There are two types of possessors of the three robes: the possessor of the three robes as an ascetic practice and the possessor of the three robes according to the Vinaya. The former keeps it at all times because they maintain them by determination that “I refuse extra robes, I undertake the practice of the three robes”. However, when one is the latter type of possessor of the three robes, when they wish to keep the three robes having established them, they establish and wear them in this way. But, when they wish to keep them, having established them by the way of establishing them as simple possessions, they so establish and keep them, therefore, even one who is unable to keep it always, because the determination of the triple-robe is difficult to maintain and keeping them as simple possessions, having formally withdrawn those robes, and determining them in the near future with the establishment of the three robes, should also be considered capable of spreading the kathina.
Here, one might ask: Should the robe be set aside by specifying, “I set aside this robe,” or can it be set aside generally, saying, “I set aside this”? A robe determined by the parikkhāracoḷādhiṭṭhāna (determination of the accessory cloth) should be set aside generally, saying, “I set aside this,” and not specifically, saying, “I set aside this robe.” Why? Because it was not previously designated by name. However, a robe determined by the ticīvarādhiṭṭhāna (determination of the three robes) should be set aside specifically, not generally. Why? Because it has been designated by name. Here, in the context of the Kathina, since the robe has already been determined by the ticīvarādhiṭṭhāna, it should be set aside specifically. This is stated in the Parivāra (pari. 408) in the context of the Kathina: “The setting aside is included in three things: the upper robe, the lower robe, and the inner robe.” One might also ask: Can only a permanent three-robed monk spread the Kathina, or can a temporary three-robed monk also do so? A three-robed monk is of two kinds: a dhutaṅgatecīvarika (one who undertakes the ascetic practice of using only three robes) and a vinayatecīvarika (one who follows the Vinaya rule of using three robes). Herein, the dhutaṅgatecīvarika, having determined, “I reject extra robes and undertake the practice of using only three robes,” wears them at all times. The vinayatecīvarika, however, when he wishes to wear robes determined by the ticīvarādhiṭṭhāna, does so, and when he wishes to wear robes determined by the parikkhāracoḷādhiṭṭhāna, he does so. Therefore, since it is difficult to always maintain the ticīvarādhiṭṭhāna, even if he wears robes as parikkhāracoḷa, he can still set them aside and, at the appropriate time, determine them by the ticīvarādhiṭṭhāna and spread the Kathina.
ID1301
Kacci nu bho kathinadānakammavācābhaṇanasīmāyameva kathinaṃ attharitabbaṃ, udāhu aññasīmāyāti? Yadi kathinadānakammavācābhaṇanabaddhasīmā vassūpanāyikakhettabhūtaupacārasīmāya anto ṭhitā, evaṃ sati tasmiṃyeva sīmamaṇḍale attharaṇaṃ kātabbaṃ. Kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce? “Pariniṭṭhitapubbakaraṇameva ce dāyako saṅghassa deti, sampaṭicchitvā kammavācāya dātabbaṃ. Tena ca tasmiṃyeva sīmamaṇḍale adhiṭṭhahitvā attharitvā saṅgho anumodāpetabbo”ti vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 308) āgatattā viññāyatīti. Yadi evaṃ “tasmiṃyeva sīmamaṇḍale”icceva ṭīkāyaṃ vuttattā “yasmiṃ kismiñci sīmamaṇḍale kammavācaṃ bhaṇitvā tasmiṃyeva sīmamaṇḍale attharitabba”nti vattabbaṃ, na “kathinadānakammavācābhaṇanabaddhasīmā vassūpanāyikakhettabhūtaupacārasīmāya anto ṭhitā”ti visesaṃ katvā vattabbanti? Na na vattabbaṃ. Kammavācābhaṇanasīmā hi baddhasīmābhūtā, kathinatthārasīmā pana upacārasīmābhūtā, upacārasīmā ca nāma baddhasīmaṃ avattharitvāpi gacchati, tasmā sā sīmā baddhasīmā ca hoti upacārasīmā cāti tasmiṃyeva sīmamaṇḍale kathinadānakammavācaṃ bhaṇitvā tattheva attharaṇaṃ kātabbaṃ, na yasmiṃ kismiñci sīmamaṇḍale kammavācaṃ bhaṇitvā tattheva attharaṇaṃ kattabbanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Evampi “upacārasīmāya”icceva vattabbaṃ, na “vassūpanāyikakhettabhūtaupacārasīmāyā”ti, tampi vattabbameva. Tesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ vassūpanāyikakhettabhūtāya eva upacārasīmāya kathinatthāraṃ kātuṃ labhati, na aññaupacārasīmāya. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306) “aññasmiṃ vihāre vutthavassāpi na labhantīti mahāpaccariyaṃ vutta”nti.
Is it the case, venerable sir, that the kathina must be spread only within the boundary where the kathina donation procedure is recited (kathinadānakammavācābhaṇanasīmā), or within another boundary? If the boundary where the kathina donation procedure is recited (kathinadānakammavācābhaṇanabaddhasīmā) is within the subsidiary boundary that is the field of the rains retreat (vassūpanāyikakhettabhūtaupacārasīmā), then the spreading should be done within that very boundary circle (sīmamaṇḍale). How is this known? It is known from the statement in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 308), “If the donor gives to the Sangha only what has been previously prepared, it should be accepted and given with the procedure recitation; and by that, having determined and spread it within that very boundary circle, the Sangha should have it rejoiced in.” If so, since it is said in the ṭīkā, “within that very boundary circle” (tasmiṃyeva sīmamaṇḍale), it should be said, “Having recited the procedure in any boundary circle, it should be spread in that very boundary circle,” and not specified as, “The boundary where the kathina donation procedure is recited is within the subsidiary boundary that is the field of the rains retreat.” No, it should not be said so. For the boundary of the procedure recitation (kammavācābhaṇanasīmā) is a fixed boundary (baddhasīmā), while the boundary for spreading the kathina (kathinatthārasīmā) is a subsidiary boundary (upacārasīmā). A subsidiary boundary can extend beyond a fixed boundary; therefore, that boundary is both a fixed boundary and a subsidiary boundary. Thus, having recited the kathina donation procedure within that very boundary circle, the spreading should be done there, not in just any boundary circle after reciting the procedure there—this should be understood. Even so, it should be said simply “subsidiary boundary” (upacārasīmāya), not “subsidiary boundary that is the field of the rains retreat” (vassūpanāyikakhettabhūtaupacārasīmāya)—yet this too should indeed be said. For those monks, it is permissible to spread the kathina only within the subsidiary boundary that is the field of their rains retreat, not within another subsidiary boundary. For it is said in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306), “Even those who have observed the rains retreat in another monastery do not obtain it, as stated in the Mahāpaccarī.”
Should the kathina be spread only within the boundary where the formal act of giving the kathina is recited, or in another boundary? If the bounded boundary, where the formal act of giving the kathina is recited, is situated within the boundary of the residence area where the rains retreat was entered, then the spreading should be done within that very same boundary area. How is this known? It is known because it is stated in the Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 308), “If the donor gives it to the Sangha only when the preliminary duties have been completed, it should be accepted and given with the formal act. And the Sangha, having established and spread it within that very same boundary area, should express their appreciation.” If so, since the ṭīkā just says, “within that very same boundary area,” shouldn’t it be said, “having recited the formal act in any boundary area whatsoever, it should be spread in that same boundary area,” and not specifying, “if the bounded boundary where the formal act of giving the kathina is recited is situated within the boundary of the residence area where the rains retreat was entered”? No, it should not be said. For the boundary for reciting the formal act is a bounded boundary, but the boundary for spreading the kathina is a boundary of the residing area, and the so-called boundary of the residing area even goes without fixing a bounded boundary, therefore, that boundary is both a bounded boundary and a boundary of the residing area, so having recited the formal act of giving the kathina in that very same boundary area, the spreading should be done there, it should not be understood that having recited the formal act in any boundary area whatsoever, the spreading should be done there. Even so, it should just be said, “in the boundary of the residing area,” not, “in the boundary of the residence area where the rains retreat was entered,” that too should be stated. The monks are allowed to perform the kathina spreading only within the boundary of the residence area of the place where the rains retreat was entered, not in another boundary of the residing area. For it is said in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306), “Even those who have spent the rains in another monastery do not receive it, it is stated in the Mahāpaccari.”
One might ask: Should the Kathina be spread only within the boundary where the Kathina offering ceremony and the recitation of the kammavācā took place, or can it be spread in another boundary? If the boundary where the Kathina offering ceremony and the recitation of the kammavācā took place is within the upacārasīmā (adjacent boundary) that serves as the vassūpanāyikakhetta (residence area for the rainy season), then the spreading should be done within that same boundary. How is this understood? As stated in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 308): “If the donor offers to the Sangha what has been previously prepared, it should be given after acceptance by the kammavācā. Having determined and spread it within that same boundary, the Sangha should be invited to rejoice.” Since the commentary states, “within that same boundary,” it should be said that the spreading should be done within the boundary where the kammavācā was recited, and not necessarily within the boundary where the Kathina offering ceremony and the recitation of the kammavācā took place, which is within the upacārasīmā that serves as the vassūpanāyikakhetta. This is because the kammavācā boundary is a fixed boundary, while the Kathina spreading boundary is an adjacent boundary. An adjacent boundary can extend beyond the fixed boundary, so the spreading should be done within the same boundary where the kammavācā was recited, and not just any boundary. Thus, it should be said, “within the upacārasīmā,” and not necessarily “within the upacārasīmā that serves as the vassūpanāyikakhetta,” though this is also acceptable. For those monks, the spreading of the Kathina is allowed only within the upacārasīmā that serves as the vassūpanāyikakhetta, and not within any other upacārasīmā. As stated in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306): “Even those who have completed the rainy season in another monastery do not gain the privilege,” as mentioned in the Mahāpaccariya.
ID1302
Yathicchasi, tathā bhavatu, api tu khalu “kammavācābhaṇanasīmā baddhasīmābhūtā, kathinatthārasīmā upacārasīmābhūtā”ti tumhehi vuttaṃ, tathābhūtabhāvo kathaṃ jānitabboti? Vuccate – kathinatthārasīmāyaṃ tāva upacārasīmābhūtabhāvo “sace pana ekasīmāya bahū vihārā honti, sabbe bhikkhū sannipātetvā ekattha kathinaṃ attharitabba”nti imissā aṭṭhakathāya (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306) atthaṃ saṃvaṇṇetuṃ “ekasīmāyāti ekaupacārasīmāyāti attho yujjatī”ti vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 306) āgatattā viññāyati. Kammavācābhaṇanasīmāya baddhasīmābhūtabhāvo pana “te ca kho hatthapāsaṃ avijahitvā ekasīmāyaṃ ṭhitā. Sīmā ca nāmesā baddhasīmā abaddhasīmāti duvidhā hotī”ti kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) āgatattā ca “sīmā ca nāmesā katamā, yattha hatthapāsaṃ avijahitvā ṭhitā kammappattā nāma hontīti anuyogaṃ sandhāya sīmaṃ dassento vibhāgavantānaṃ sabhāvavibhāvanaṃ vibhāgadassanamukheneva hotīti ‘sīmā ca nāmesā’tiādimāhā”ti vinayatthamañjūsāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. nidānavaṇṇanā) āgatattā ca viññāyati.
As you wish, so be it; however, you have said, “The boundary of the procedure recitation is a fixed boundary (baddhasīmābhūtā), and the boundary for spreading the kathina is a subsidiary boundary (upacārasīmābhūtā).” How is this nature to be known? It is explained: The subsidiary boundary nature of the kathina spreading boundary (kathinatthārasīmāya) is known from the statement in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 306), which, in explaining the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306), “If there are many monasteries within one boundary, all the monks should assemble and spread the kathina in one place,” says, “‘Within one boundary’ (ekasīmāya) means within one subsidiary boundary (ekaupacārasīmāya),” which fits the meaning. The fixed boundary nature of the procedure recitation boundary (kammavācābhaṇanasīmā) is known from the statement in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā), “And those who, without leaving reach (hatthapāsa), stand within one boundary—such a boundary is twofold: fixed (baddhasīmā) and unfixed (abaddhasīmā),” and from the Vinayatthamañjūsā (kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. nidānavaṇṇanā), “In response to the question, ‘What is this boundary where those standing without leaving reach are said to constitute a quorum for the act?’ it indicates the boundary by saying, ‘This boundary is…’ and so forth, showing its nature through classification.”
Let it be as you wish, but how is it to be known that “the boundary for reciting the formal act is a bounded boundary, the boundary for spreading the kathina is a boundary of the residing area,” as you have said? It is said – the fact that the boundary for spreading the kathina is a boundary of the residing area is known because, in order to explain the meaning of this commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306), “But if there are many monasteries within one boundary, all the monks should be gathered and the kathina should be spread in one place,” it is stated in the Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 306), “within one boundary, the meaning is that within one boundary of residing area, is appropriate.” But the fact that the boundary for reciting the formal act is a bounded boundary is known because it is stated in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā), “And these are within one boundary without leaving the hand-span. And this so-called boundary is twofold, bounded and unbounded,” and because it is stated in the Vinayatthamañjūsā (kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. nidānavaṇṇanā), “And this so-called boundary, what is it?, pointing out the boundary referring to the question, ‘in which monks staying without leaving the hand-span are called having reached the proper time for the act?’, the demonstration of division becomes an exposition by way of demonstrating the inherent nature of those possessing divisions, he said, ‘and this so-called boundary’ and so on.”
As you wish, so be it. However, you have said, “The kammavācā boundary is a fixed boundary, while the Kathina spreading boundary is an adjacent boundary.” How is this distinction to be understood? It is said: First, the nature of the Kathina spreading boundary as an adjacent boundary is understood from the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306): “If there are many monasteries within one boundary, all the monks should be assembled in one place to spread the Kathina,” and from the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 306): “Ekasīmāya** means within one adjacent boundary.” The nature of the kammavācā boundary as a fixed boundary is understood from the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā): “They stand within one boundary without leaving the reach of the hand. The boundary is of two kinds: fixed and unfixed,” and from the Vinayatthamañjūsā (kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. nidānavaṇṇanā): “Sīmā ca nāmesā** means this boundary is where, without leaving the reach of the hand, they stand and become entitled to perform the act,” etc.
ID1303
Tattha katividhā baddhasīmā, katividhā abaddhasīmāti? Tividhā baddhasīmā khaṇḍasīmāsamānasaṃvāsasīmāavippavāsasīmāvasena. Tividhā abaddhasīmā gāmasīmāudakukkhepasīmāsattabbhantarasīmāvasenāti daṭṭhabbā. Kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce? “Evaṃ ekādasa vipattisīmāyo atikkamitvā tividhasampattiyuttā nimittena nimittaṃ sambandhitvā sammatā sīmā baddhasīmāti veditabbā. Khaṇḍasīmā samānasaṃvāsasīmā avippavāsasīmāti tassāyeva bhedo. Abaddhasīmā pana gāmasīmā sattabbhantarasīmā udakukkhepasīmāti tividhā”ti kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) āgatattā viññāyati. Evaṃ tīsu baddhasīmāsu , tīsu abaddhasīmāsūti chasuyeva sīmāsu kammappattasaṅghassa catuvaggakaraṇīyādikammassa kattabbabhāvavacanato suddhāya upacārasīmāya kammavācāya abhaṇitabbabhāvo viññāyati. Antoupacārasīmāya baddhasīmāya sati taṃ baddhasīmaṃ avattharitvāpi upacārasīmāya gamanato sā baddhasīmā kammavācābhaṇanārahā ca hoti kathinatthārārahā cāti veditabbaṃ.
Therein, how many kinds of fixed boundaries (baddhasīmā) are there, and how many kinds of unfixed boundaries (abaddhasīmā)? The fixed boundary is threefold: partial boundary (khaṇḍasīmā), common residence boundary (samānasaṃvāsasīmā), and non-separation boundary (avippavāsasīmā). The unfixed boundary is threefold: village boundary (gāmasīmā), water-throwing boundary (udakukkhepasīmā), and seven-abbhantara boundary (sattabbhantarasīmā)—this should be understood. How is this known? It is known from the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā), “Thus, having transcended the eleven faulty boundaries, a boundary agreed upon by linking marker to marker with threefold success should be understood as a fixed boundary (baddhasīmā). Partial boundary (khaṇḍasīmā), common residence boundary (samānasaṃvāsasīmā), and non-separation boundary (avippavāsasīmā) are its distinctions. The unfixed boundary (abaddhasīmā), however, is threefold: village boundary (gāmasīmā), seven-abbhantara boundary (sattabbhantarasīmā), and water-throwing boundary (udakukkhepasīmā).” Thus, among these three fixed boundaries and three unfixed boundaries—six boundaries in total—it is understood from the statement that the Sangha competent for acts should perform acts like those requiring a quorum of four, that the recitation of the procedure (kammavācā) should not occur in a pure subsidiary boundary (upacārasīmā). When there is a fixed boundary within a subsidiary boundary, since the subsidiary boundary can extend beyond that fixed boundary, that fixed boundary is suitable both for reciting the procedure and for spreading the kathina—this should be understood.
Of these, how many kinds of bounded boundaries are there, and how many kinds of unbounded boundaries? There are three kinds of bounded boundaries: in terms of a partial boundary, a boundary with the same communion, and a boundary without being away. There are three kinds of unbounded boundaries: in terms of a village boundary, a boundary of the water-lifting area, and a boundary of seven abbhantaras. How is this known? It is known because it is stated in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā), “Thus, having transgressed eleven defective boundaries, a boundary that is endowed with the three kinds of accomplishment and that is connected by landmark to landmark is to be understood as a bounded boundary. The distinction of that very same boundary is a partial boundary, a boundary with the same communion, and a boundary without being away. But the unbounded boundary is threefold: a village boundary, a boundary of seven abbhantaras, and a boundary of the water-lifting area.” Thus, amongst these three bounded boundaries, and three unbounded boundaries, in these six boundaries in all, because the performing of the acts such as that which can be done by the group of four for the Sangha that has reached the proper time for the act has been stated, the fact that the formal act should not be recited in a pure boundary of residing area, is known. In the case of a bounded boundary within the boundary of residing area, because that boundary of residing area goes even without fixing that bounded boundary, that bounded boundary is both suitable for reciting the formal act and suitable for spreading the kathina, it should be understood.
Here, how many kinds of fixed boundaries are there, and how many kinds of unfixed boundaries? There are three kinds of fixed boundaries: khaṇḍasīmā (broken boundary), samānasaṃvāsasīmā (boundary of common residence), and avippavāsasīmā (boundary of non-separation). There are three kinds of unfixed boundaries: gāmasīmā (village boundary), udakukkhepasīmā (water-throwing boundary), and sattabbhantarasīmā (boundary of seven houses). How is this understood? As stated in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā): “Having passed beyond the eleven defective boundaries, a boundary connected by markers and endowed with three kinds of suitability is to be known as a fixed boundary. Its divisions are khaṇḍasīmā, samānasaṃvāsasīmā, and avippavāsasīmā. The unfixed boundary is of three kinds: gāmasīmā, sattabbhantarasīmā, and udakukkhepasīmā.” Thus, among the three fixed boundaries and the three unfixed boundaries, it is understood that the Sangha entitled to perform acts should not recite the kammavācā in a pure adjacent boundary. When an adjacent boundary includes a fixed boundary, even if one goes beyond the fixed boundary, that fixed boundary is still suitable for reciting the kammavācā and spreading the Kathina.
ID1304
Nanu ca pannarasavidhā sīmā aṭṭhakathāsu (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379; kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. akālacīvarasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) āgatā, atha kasmā chaḷeva vuttāti? Saccaṃ, tāsu pana pannarasasu sīmāsu upacārasīmā saṅghalābhavibhajanādiṭṭhānameva hoti, lābhasīmā tatruppādagahaṇaṭṭhānameva hotīti imā dve sīmāyo saṅghakammakaraṇaṭṭhānaṃ na honti, nigamasīmā nagarasīmā janapadasīmā raṭṭhasīmā rajjasīmā dīpasīmā cakkavāḷasīmāti imā pana sīmāyo gāmasīmāya samānagatikā gāmasīmāyameva antogadhāti na visuṃ vuttāti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Ettha ca upacārasīmāya baddhasīmaṃ avattharitvā gatabhāvo kathaṃ jānitabboti? “Upacārasīmā parikkhittassa vihārassa parikkhepena, aparikkhittassa parikkhepārahaṭṭhānena paricchinnā”ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379) vuttattā parikkhepaparikkhepārahaṭṭhānānaṃ anto baddhasīmāya vijjamānāya taṃ avattharitvā upacārasīmā gatā. Tathā hi “imissā upacārasīmāya ’saṅghassa dammī’ti dinnaṃ pana khaṇḍasīmasīmantarikāsu ṭhitānampi pāpuṇātī”ti (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379) vuttaṃ. Tena ñāyati “upacārasīmāya anto ṭhitā baddhasīmā upacārasīmāpi nāma hotī”ti. Hotu, evaṃ sati antoupacārasīmāyaṃ baddhasīmāya sati tattheva kathinadānakammavācaṃ vācāpetvā tattheva kathinaṃ attharitabbaṃ bhaveyya, antoupacārasīmāyaṃ baddhasīmāya avijjamānāya kathaṃ karissantīti? Antoupacārasīmāyaṃ baddhasīmāya avijjamānāya bahiupacārasīmāyaṃ vijjamānabaddhasīmaṃ vā udakukkhepalabhanaṭṭhānaṃ vā gantvā kammavācaṃ vācāpetvā puna vihāraṃ āgantvā vassūpanāyikakhettabhūtāya upacārasīmāyaṃ ṭhatvā kathinaṃ attharitabbanti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
But are not fifteen kinds of boundaries mentioned in the commentaries (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379; kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. akālacīvarasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā)? Why then are only six mentioned? True, but among those fifteen boundaries, the subsidiary boundary (upacārasīmā) is only for purposes like dividing Sangha gains, and the gain boundary (lābhasīmā) is only for taking what arises there; these two boundaries are not places for performing Sangha acts. The boundaries of a market town (nigamasīmā), city (nagarasīmā), countryside (janapadasīmā), region (raṭṭhasīmā), kingdom (rajjasīmā), island (dīpasīmā), and universe (cakkavāḷasīmā) follow the same course as the village boundary (gāmasīmā) and are included within it, so they are not mentioned separately—this should be understood. And here, how is it known that a subsidiary boundary extends beyond a fixed boundary? It is stated in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379), “The subsidiary boundary (upacārasīmā) is defined by the enclosure of an enclosed monastery or by the area worthy of enclosure for an unenclosed one,” meaning that within the enclosure or the area worthy of enclosure, where a fixed boundary exists, the subsidiary boundary extends beyond it. Indeed, it is said (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379), “What is given to the Sangha with ‘I give to the Sangha’ within this subsidiary boundary reaches even those standing in the interstices of partial boundaries (khaṇḍasīmasīmantarikāsu).” By this, it is understood, “A fixed boundary within a subsidiary boundary is also considered a subsidiary boundary.” Granted, if so, when there is a fixed boundary within a subsidiary boundary, the kathina donation procedure should be recited and the kathina spread there; but when there is no fixed boundary within a subsidiary boundary, what should be done? When there is no fixed boundary within a subsidiary boundary, one should go to a fixed boundary existing outside the subsidiary boundary or to a place where a water-throwing boundary can be obtained, recite the procedure, then return to the monastery and, standing within the subsidiary boundary that is the field of the rains retreat (vassūpanāyikakhettabhūtaupacārasīmā), spread the kathina—this should be understood.
But indeed, fifteen kinds of boundaries are mentioned in the commentaries (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379; kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. akālacīvarasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), so why are only six mentioned? It is true, but among those fifteen boundaries, the boundary of residing area is only the place for the distribution of gains of the Sangha, the boundary of gains is only the place for receiving that which has arisen there, these two boundaries are not the place for performing Sangha acts; the village boundary, the town boundary, the province boundary, the region boundary, the country boundary, the island boundary, and the world-system boundary, these boundaries have the same nature as the village boundary, they are included in the village boundary itself, therefore, they are not separately stated. And here, how is it known that the boundary of residing area goes without fixing a bounded boundary? Because it is said in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379), “The boundary of residing area is delimited by the enclosure of an enclosed monastery, and by the area suitable for enclosure of an unenclosed monastery”, when a bounded boundary exists within the enclosure and the area suitable for enclosure, the boundary of residing area has gone without fixing it. So it has been stated (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379), “But what is given with the words ‘I give to the Sangha’ in this boundary of the residing area also reaches those standing in the intervals between partial boundaries.” Therefore, it is known, “a bounded boundary situated within the boundary of residing area is also called a boundary of residing area.” Let it be, if so, in the case of a bounded boundary within the boundary of residing area, the formal act of giving the kathina should be recited there and the kathina should be spread there, but in the absence of a bounded boundary within the boundary of residing area, how will they do? In the absence of a bounded boundary within the boundary of residing area, having gone to a bounded boundary that exists outside the boundary of residing area or to a place where water is drawn, and having recited the formal act, having come back again to the monastery, and standing in the boundary of residing area which is the place where the rains retreat was entered, they should spread the kathina.
But are there not fifteen kinds of boundaries mentioned in the commentaries (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379; kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. akālacīvarasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā)? Why then are only six mentioned here? It is true, but among those fifteen boundaries, the adjacent boundary is only for the purpose of dividing gains and the like, and the gain boundary is only for the purpose of receiving gains. These two boundaries are not for the purpose of performing Sangha acts. The village boundary, town boundary, country boundary, kingdom boundary, island boundary, and world boundary are included within the village boundary and are not separately mentioned. Here, how is it known that the fixed boundary is included within the adjacent boundary? As stated in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379): “The adjacent boundary is defined by the enclosure of an enclosed monastery or by the suitable place for enclosing an unenclosed monastery.” Therefore, when the fixed boundary exists within the adjacent boundary, one can go beyond the fixed boundary and still be within the adjacent boundary. As stated (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379): “What is given within this adjacent boundary with the thought, ‘I give to the Sangha,’ reaches even those standing in the broken boundary or the boundary between boundaries.” Thus, it is understood that the fixed boundary within the adjacent boundary is also called an adjacent boundary. Granted, but if the fixed boundary exists within the adjacent boundary, should the Kathina offering ceremony and the kammavācā be recited there, and the Kathina spread there? If the fixed boundary does not exist within the adjacent boundary, what should be done? If the fixed boundary does not exist within the adjacent boundary, one should go to a place where the fixed boundary exists or to a place where water can be thrown, recite the kammavācā there, return to the monastery, and stand within the adjacent boundary that serves as the vassūpanāyikakhetta to spread the Kathina.
ID1305
Nanu ca bho evaṃ sante aññissā sīmāya ñatti, aññissā atthāro hoti, evaṃ sante “pariniṭṭhitapubbakaraṇameva ce dāyako saṅghassa deti, sampaṭicchitvā kammavācāya dātabbaṃ. Tena ca tasmiṃyeva sīmamaṇḍale adhiṭṭhahitvā attharitvā saṅgho anumodāpetabbo”ti vuttena vajirabuddhiṭīkāvacanena (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 308) virujjhatīti? Nanu avocumha “kammavācābhaṇanasīmā baddhasīmābhūtā, kathinatthārasīmā upacārasīmābhūtā”ti. Tasmā vajirabuddhiṭīkāvacanena na virujjhati. Tattha pubbe yebhuyyena baddhasīmavihārattā samaggaṃ saṅghaṃ sannipātetvā kammavācaṃ vācāpetvā upacārasīmabaddhasīmabhūte tasmiṃyeva vihāre attharaṇaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Baddhasīmavihāre ahontepi antoupacārasīmāyaṃ baddhasīmāya vijjamānāya tattheva sīmamaṇḍale kammavācaṃ vācāpetvā tattheva attharitabbabhāvo amhehipi vuttoyeva. Yadi pana na ceva baddhasīmavihāro hoti, na ca antoupacārasīmāyaṃ baddhasīmā atthi, evarūpe vihāre kammavācaṃ vācāpetuṃ na labhati, aññaṃ baddhasīmaṃ vā udakukkhepaṃ vā gantvā kammavācaṃ vācāpetvā attano vihāraṃ āgantvā vassūpanāyikakhettabhūtāya upacārasīmāya ṭhatvā kathinaṃ attharitabbaṃ. Evameva paramparabhūtā bahavo ācariyavarā karontīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
But venerable sir, if this is so, the announcement (ñatti) occurs in one boundary and the spreading (atthāro) in another; does this not contradict the statement in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 308), “If the donor gives to the Sangha only what has been previously prepared, it should be accepted and given with the procedure recitation; and by that, having determined and spread it within that very boundary circle (sīmamaṇḍale), the Sangha should have it rejoiced in”? Did we not say, “The boundary of the procedure recitation (kammavācābhaṇanasīmā) is a fixed boundary (baddhasīmābhūtā), and the boundary for spreading the kathina (kathinatthārasīmā) is a subsidiary boundary (upacārasīmābhūtā)”? Therefore, it does not contradict the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā statement. There, since monasteries were mostly fixed-boundary monasteries in the past, it was said with reference to assembling the united Sangha, reciting the procedure, and spreading it in that very monastery, which is both a subsidiary boundary and a fixed boundary. Even we have said that, if there is no fixed-boundary monastery but there is a fixed boundary within the subsidiary boundary, the procedure should be recited and the spreading done in that very boundary circle. However, if there is neither a fixed-boundary monastery nor a fixed boundary within the subsidiary boundary, in such a monastery one cannot recite the procedure; one should go to another fixed boundary or a water-throwing boundary, recite the procedure, return to one’s own monastery, and, standing within the subsidiary boundary that is the field of the rains retreat (vassūpanāyikakhettabhūtaupacārasīmā), spread the kathina. Thus, many eminent teachers in succession have done it—this should be understood.
But, sir, if this is so, the formal announcement (ñatti) would be in one boundary (sīmā), and the spreading (atthāra) in another. If this is so, wouldn’t it contradict the statement of the Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā (Vajira. ṭī. Mahāvagga 308) which says, “If the donor gives it as something already completed, the Saṅgha should receive it and give it with a kammavācā. And with that [cloth], having made the determination (adhiṭṭhahitvā) in that very boundary-assembly (sīmamaṇḍala), and having spread it, the Saṅgha should be made to rejoice”? Have we not said, “The boundary for reciting the kammavācā is the established boundary; the boundary for spreading the kaṭhina is the boundary of the surrounding area (upacārasīmā)”? Therefore, it does not contradict the statement of the Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā. Therein, it was previously stated concerning spreading in that very monastery, which is mostly an established-boundary monastery, after gathering the entire Saṅgha and having the kammavācā recited, referring the designated area is established as upacārasīmā. Even if there is no established-boundary monastery, when there is an established boundary within the surrounding area, we have also stated that the kammavācā should be recited in that very boundary-assembly and it should be spread there. But if there is neither an established-boundary monastery nor an established boundary within the surrounding area, in such a monastery, it is not permissible to recite the kammavācā. One should go to another established boundary or a water-demarcated boundary (udakukkhepa), recite the kammavācā, and return to one’s own monastery and, standing within the boundary of the surrounding area, which is the field for entering the rains retreat (vassūpanāyika-khetta), spread the kaṭhina. It should be understood that many excellent elders in the lineage do it this way.
But, venerable ones, if this is so, then the motion would belong to one boundary, and the spreading of the robe would belong to another. If so, then the statement in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 308) that “even if the donor has previously completed the preliminary actions, the Sangha should accept it and then perform the kammavācā before giving. Having established it within the same boundary circle, the Sangha should be invited to rejoice after spreading the robe” would be contradicted. Did we not say that “the boundary for performing the kammavācā is the fixed boundary, while the boundary for spreading the Kathina robe is the access boundary”? Therefore, there is no contradiction with the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā. There, it refers to spreading the robe within the same monastery, having gathered a harmonious Sangha in a fixed boundary monastery and performed the kammavācā, considering that the access boundary and fixed boundary are established in the same monastery. Even if the fixed boundary monastery is not present, but a fixed boundary exists within the access boundary, the kammavācā should be performed there, and the robe should be spread there as well, as we have also stated. However, if there is neither a fixed boundary monastery nor a fixed boundary within the access boundary, one cannot perform the kammavācā in such a monastery. One must go to another fixed boundary or a water boundary, perform the kammavācā there, return to one’s own monastery, and spread the Kathina robe while standing within the access boundary, which serves as the area for the rains residence. Similarly, many successive teachers have acted in this way, and this should be understood.
ID1306
Apare pana ācariyā “baddhasīmavirahāya suddhaupacārasīmāya sati tassaṃyeva upacārasīmāyaṃ ñattikammavācāpi vācetabbā, kathinaṃ attharitabbaṃ, na aññissā sīmāya ñatti, aññissā attharaṇaṃ kātabba”nti vadanti. Ayaṃ pana nesamadhippāyo – “kathinatthatasīmāyanti upacārasīmaṃ sandhāya vutta”nti vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 306) kathinatthāraṭṭhānabhūtāya sīmāya upacārasīmābhāvo vutto, tassaṃyeva ṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 308) pubbe niddiṭṭhapāṭhe “tasmiṃyeva sīmamaṇḍale adhiṭṭhahitvā attharitvā saṅgho anumodāpetabbo”ti kammavācābhaṇanasīmāyameva attharitabbabhāvo ca vutto, tasmā aññissā sīmāya ñatti, aññissā attharaṇaṃ na kātabbaṃ, tassaṃyeva upacārasīmāyaṃ kammavācaṃ sāvetvā tasmiṃyeva atthāro kātabbo, upacārasīmato bahi ṭhitaṃ baddhasīmaṃ gantvā attharaṇakiccaṃ natthīti.
However, some other teachers say, “When there is a pure subsidiary boundary (suddhaupacārasīmā) without a fixed boundary, both the announcement procedure (ñattikammavācā) and the spreading of the kathina should be done in that very subsidiary boundary; the announcement should not be in one boundary and the spreading in another.” Their intention is this: In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 306), “‘Kathinatthatasīmāya’” refers to the subsidiary boundary (upacārasīmā) as the place for spreading the kathina; and in the same ṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 308), in the previously cited text, “Having determined and spread it within that very boundary circle (sīmamaṇḍale), the Sangha should have it rejoiced in,” it is said that the spreading should occur in the same boundary where the procedure is recited. Therefore, the announcement and spreading should not be done in different boundaries; the procedure should be recited audibly in that very subsidiary boundary, and the spreading should be done there; there is no task of spreading by going to a fixed boundary outside the subsidiary boundary.
Other teachers, however, say, “If there is a pure boundary of the surrounding area (suddhaupacārasīmā) without an established boundary, the formal announcement (ñatti) and kammavācā should be recited in that very boundary of the surrounding area, and the kaṭhina should be spread [there]; the formal announcement should not be in one boundary and the spreading in another.” But this is not their intention – “In the boundary where the kaṭhina is spread (kathinatthatasīmā)” refers to the boundary of the surrounding area,” in the Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā (Vajira. ṭī. Mahāvagga 306), the boundary where the kaṭhina is spread is stated to be the boundary of the surrounding area. In the same ṭīkā (Vajira. ṭī. Mahāvagga 308), in the previously cited passage, “Having made the determination in that very boundary-assembly and having spread it, the Saṅgha should be made to rejoice,” it is also stated that it should be spread in the very boundary where the kammavācā is recited. Therefore, the formal announcement should not be in one boundary and the spreading in another; the kammavācā should be recited in that very boundary of the surrounding area, and the spreading should be done in that same place. There is no need to go to an established boundary outside the boundary of the surrounding area to perform the act of spreading.
Other teachers say, “When there is only an access boundary without a fixed boundary, the motion and kammavācā should be performed within that very access boundary, and the Kathina robe should be spread there. The motion should not belong to one boundary, and the spreading to another.” However, this is not their intended meaning. The Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 306) states, “The boundary for spreading the Kathina robe refers to the access boundary,” and it explains that the access boundary is the place for spreading the Kathina robe. In the same commentary (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 308), it is stated in a previously mentioned passage, “Having established it within the same boundary circle, the Sangha should be invited to rejoice after spreading the robe,” which indicates that the spreading should occur within the boundary where the kammavācā is performed. Therefore, the motion should not belong to one boundary, and the spreading to another. The kammavācā should be announced within the access boundary, and the spreading should be done there. There is no need to go outside the access boundary to a fixed boundary to perform the spreading.
ID1307
Tatrevaṃ vicāraṇā kātabbā – idaṃ bhāsantaresu “ñattī”ti kathitaṃ kathinadānakammaṃ catūsu saṅghakammesu ñattidutiyakammaṃ hoti, ñattidutiyakammassa navasu ṭhānesu kathinadānaṃ, garukalahukesu garukaṃ, yadi “upacārasīmāyaṃ cattāri saṅghakammāni kātabbānī”ti pakaraṇesu āgataṃ abhavissā, evaṃ sante tesaṃ ācariyānaṃ vacanānurūpato upacārasīmāyaṃ kathinadānañattikammavācaṃ vācetabbaṃ abhavissā, na pana pakaraṇesu “upacārasīmāyaṃ cattāri saṅghakammāni kātabbānī”ti āgataṃ, atha kho “saṅghalābhavibhajanaṃ, āgantukavattaṃ katvā ārāmappavisanaṃ , gamikassa bhikkhuno senāsanaāpucchanaṃ, nissayapaappassambhanaṃ, pārivāsikamānattacārikabhikkhūnaṃ aruṇuṭṭhāpanaṃ, bhikkhunīnaṃ ārāmappavisanaāpucchanaṃ iccevamādīni eva upacārasīmāya kattabbānī”ti āgataṃ, tasmā kathinadānañattidutiyakammavācā kevalāyaṃ upacārasīmāyaṃ na vācetabbāti siddhā. Kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce? “Avippavāsasīmā nāma tiyojanāpi hoti, evaṃ sante tiyojane ṭhitā lābhaṃ gaṇhissanti, tiyojane ṭhatvā āgantukavattaṃ pūretvā ārāmaṃ pavisitabbaṃ bhavissati, gamiko tiyojanaṃ gantvā senāsanaṃ āpucchissati, nissayapaṭipannassa bhikkhuno tiyojanātikkame nissayo paṭippassambhissati, pārivāsikena tiyojanaṃ atikkamitvā aruṇaṃ uṭṭhapetabbaṃ bhavissati, bhikkhuniyā tiyojane ṭhatvā ārāmappavisanaṃ āpucchitabbaṃ bhavissati, sabbampetaṃ upacārasīmāya paricchedavaseneva kātuṃ vaṭṭati, tasmā upacārasīmāyameva bhājetabba”nti evamādiaṭṭhakathāpāṭhato (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379) viññāyatīti.
Here, the following consideration should be made: This kathina donation act, called “ñatti” in other languages, is an announcement-second act (ñattidutiyakamma) among the four Sangha acts. Among the nine occasions for the announcement-second act, kathina donation is a weighty matter among heavy and light acts. If it were stated in the texts, “The four Sangha acts should be performed in a subsidiary boundary (upacārasīmā),” then, in accordance with those teachers’ words, the kathina donation announcement procedure could be recited in a subsidiary boundary. However, it is not stated in the texts, “The four Sangha acts should be performed in a subsidiary boundary”; rather, it is stated, “Dividing Sangha gains, performing the duty toward newcomers and entering the monastery, a departing monk inquiring about the lodging, ending dependence, rousing at dawn for monks under probation or penance, and nuns inquiring about entering the monastery—these and similar things are to be done in a subsidiary boundary.” Therefore, it is established that the kathina donation announcement-second procedure (kathinadānañattidutiyakammavācā) should not be recited in a mere subsidiary boundary. How is this known? It is known from commentary texts such as (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379), “The non-separation boundary (avippavāsasīmā) may extend even to three yojanas. If so, those standing three yojanas away would take gains; standing three yojanas away, they would fulfill the newcomer’s duty and enter the monastery; a departing monk would go three yojanas and inquire about the lodging; for a monk under dependence, dependence would cease after crossing three yojanas; a monk under probation would cross three yojanas to rouse at dawn; a nun standing three yojanas away would inquire about entering the monastery—all this is permissible only within the limits of a subsidiary boundary (upacārasīmā). Thus, it should be divided only in a subsidiary boundary,” and so forth.
Here, the following analysis should be made: this act of giving the kaṭhina, called “ñatti” (formal announcement) in other texts, is a ñatti-dutiya-kamma (a formal act requiring a motion and one announcement) among the four Saṅgha-kammas. Among the nine occasions for ñatti-dutiya-kamma, the giving of the kaṭhina is the most serious of the serious and minor [offences]. If it had been stated in the treatises, “Four Saṅgha-kammas should be performed within the boundary of the surrounding area,” then, according to the words of those teachers, the formal announcement and kammavācā for giving the kaṭhina should be recited within the boundary of the surrounding area. But it is not stated in the treatises, “Four Saṅgha-kammas should be performed within the boundary of the surrounding area.” Rather, it is stated, “Dividing the gains of the Saṅgha, performing the duties for newly-arrived monks and entering the monastery, a departing monk taking leave of his lodging, suspending the dependence (nissaya), and termination of it, rousing a monk practicing probation (pārivāsika) or undergoing manatta at dawn, a nun asking permission to enter the monastery, and so forth – these should be done within the boundary of the surrounding area.” Therefore, it is established that the ñatti-dutiya-kammavācā for giving the kaṭhina should not be recited solely within the boundary of the surrounding area. How is this known? It is known from the following Aṭṭhakathā passage (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 379): “A non-residence boundary (avippavāsasīmā) can be even three yojanas. If this is so, those residing within three yojanas will receive the gains; having fulfilled the duties for newly-arrived monks within three yojanas, they will have to enter the monastery; a departing monk will take leave of his lodging after going three yojanas; the dependence of a dependent monk will be terminated after exceeding three yojanas; a probationer will have to rise at dawn after exceeding three yojanas; a nun will have to ask permission to enter the monastery while standing within three yojanas. All this must be done within the boundary of the surrounding area, and therefore, it is appropriate that it be partitioned. Thus, the distribution should occur specifically within the area of the surrounding area.” And so on.
Here, the following consideration should be made: In some texts, the “motion” mentioned refers to the Kathina robe-giving ceremony, which is one of the four Sangha acts and falls under the category of ñattidutiyakamma. Among the nine occasions for ñattidutiyakamma, Kathina robe-giving is considered a serious matter. If it had been stated in the texts that “the four Sangha acts should be performed within the access boundary,” then according to those teachers, the motion and kammavācā for Kathina robe-giving should be performed within the access boundary. However, the texts do not state that “the four Sangha acts should be performed within the access boundary.” Instead, they mention acts such as dividing Sangha property, performing duties for incoming monks, entering the monastery, asking for lodging by a traveling monk, settling the dependence of a newly ordained monk, reinstating a monk undergoing probation or penance, and asking permission for nuns to enter the monastery, all of which are to be performed within the access boundary. Therefore, the motion and kammavācā for Kathina robe-giving should not be performed solely within the access boundary. How is this understood? The Aṭṭhakathā (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 379) explains that “the non-separation boundary can extend up to three yojanas. In such a case, those standing within three yojanas will receive the share, and after fulfilling the duties for incoming monks, they should enter the monastery. A traveling monk will go three yojanas and ask for lodging. The dependence of a monk undergoing training will cease if he goes beyond three yojanas. A monk on probation will have to reinstate himself after going beyond three yojanas. A nun will have to ask for permission to enter the monastery while standing within three yojanas. All these acts should be performed within the access boundary, as it is defined by its limits. Therefore, the access boundary alone should be divided.”
ID1308
Athevaṃ vadeyyuṃ – “upacārasīmā ñattidutiyakammavācāya ṭhānaṃ na hotī”ti tumhehi vuttaṃ, atha ca pana katapubbaṃ atthi. Tathā hi cīvarapaṭiggāhakasammuticīvaranidahakasammuticīvarabhājakasammutīnaṃ “suṇātu me…pe… dhārayāmīti imāya kammavācāya vā apalokanena vā antovihāre sabbasaṅghamajjhepi khaṇḍasīmāyapi sammannituṃ vaṭṭatiyevā”ti upacārasīmāyaṃ ñattidutiyakammavācāya nipphādetabbabhāvo aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 194) āgato. Bhaṇḍāgārassa pana “imaṃ pana bhaṇḍāgāraṃ khaṇḍasīmaṃ gantvā khaṇḍasīmāya nisinnehi sammannituṃ na vaṭṭati, vihāramajjheyeva ’suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho itthannāmaṃ vihāraṃ bhaṇḍāgāraṃ sammanneyyā’tiādinā nayena kammavācāya vā apalokanena vā sammannitabba”nti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 197) upacārasīmāyameva ñattidutiyakammavācāya sammannitabbabhāvo āgatoti.
Yet some might say, “You have said that a subsidiary boundary (upacārasīmā) is not a place for the announcement-second procedure (ñattidutiyakammavācā), but it has been done before. For instance, the designation of a robe-receiver, robe-storer, and robe-distributor can be performed within the monastery (antovihāre), even in the midst of the entire Sangha or in a partial boundary (khaṇḍasīmā), with the procedure ‘Listen to me… I undertake’ or by a simple declaration (apalokanena)—this is indeed permissible, as stated in the commentary (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 194). However, for the storehouse (bhaṇḍāgāra), it is said in the commentary (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 197), ‘This storehouse should not be designated by going to a partial boundary (khaṇḍasīma) and sitting there; it should be designated in the midst of the monastery (vihāramajjhe) with the procedure, “Listen to me, venerable ones, if the Sangha is ready, let the Sangha designate this monastery as a storehouse named so-and-so,” or by a simple declaration’—thus, the designation by the announcement-second procedure is stated to occur in the subsidiary boundary itself.’”
But they might say thus: “You have stated that ‘the boundary of the surrounding area is not the place for the ñatti-dutiya-kammavācā,’ but there is a precedent [of it being done]. Specifically, the Aṭṭhakathā (Vi. Saṅga. Aṭṭha. 194) states that the appointments of a receiver of robes (cīvarapaṭiggāhaka), a keeper of robes (cīvaranidahaka), and a distributor of robes (cīvarabhājaka) ‘should be appointed with the kammavācā: ’Let the Saṅgha hear me… (up to)… I bear it in mind,’ or by a simple announcement (apalokana), even within the monastery, in the midst of the entire Saṅgha, or even in a limited boundary (khaṇḍasīmā),’ implying that it should be effected by the ñatti-dutiya-kammavācā within the boundary of the surrounding area. As for the storehouse, the Aṭṭhakathā (Vi. Saṅga. Aṭṭha. 197) states: ‘But this storehouse should not be appointed by those residing in a limited boundary after going to the limited boundary; rather, it should be appointed in the very middle of the monastery with the kammavācā, beginning with, ’Let the Saṅgha, venerable sirs, hear me. If it is agreeable to the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha may appoint such-and-such a monastery as a storehouse,’ or by a simple announcement,’ implying that it should be appointed by the ñatti-dutiya-kammavācā specifically within the boundary of the surrounding area.”
Even if one were to say, “The access boundary is not a place for performing the ñattidutiyakamma,” you have stated this, but there are precedents. For example, the Aṭṭhakathā (Vi. Saṅga. Aṭṭha. 194) states that for the appointment of robe receivers, robe storers, and robe distributors, “the kammavācā or announcement should be performed within the access boundary, even in the middle of the Sangha or within a partial boundary.” Similarly, for the storeroom, the Aṭṭhakathā (Vi. Saṅga. Aṭṭha. 197) states, “One should not go to a partial boundary to appoint the storeroom. Instead, it should be appointed within the monastery itself, using the kammavācā or announcement: ‘Venerable ones, may the Sangha hear me. If the Sangha is ready, let the Sangha appoint such-and-such a monastery as the storeroom.’” Thus, the appointment should be made within the access boundary using the ñattidutiyakamma.
ID1309
Te evaṃ vattabbā – sacepi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ āgataṃ “antovihāre”ti pāṭho “vihāramajjhe”ti pāṭho ca upacārasīmaṃ sandhāya vuttoti maññamānā tumhe āyasmanto evaṃ avacuttha, te pana pāṭhā upacārasīmaṃ sandhāya aṭṭhakathācariyehi na vuttā, atha kho avippavāsasīmāsaṅkhātaṃ mahāsīmaṃ sandhāya vuttā. Kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce? Khaṇḍasīmāya vakkhamānattā. Khaṇḍasīmāya hi mahāsīmā eva paṭiyogī hoti. Upacārasīmāti ayamattho kathaṃ jānitabboti ce? “Imaṃ pana samānasaṃvāsakasīmaṃ sammannantehi pabbajjūpasampadādīnaṃ saṅghakammānaṃ sukhakaraṇatthaṃ paṭhamaṃ khaṇḍasīmā sammannitabbā…pe… evaṃ baddhāsu pana sīmāsu khaṇḍasīmāya ṭhitā bhikkhū mahāsīmāya kammaṃ karontānaṃ na kopenti , mahāsīmāya vā ṭhitā khaṇḍasīmāya kammaṃ karontānaṃ. Sīmantarikāya pana ṭhitā ubhinnampi na kopentī”ti vuttaaṭṭhakathāpāṭhavasena (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138) jānitabboti. Atha vā tehi āyasmantehi ābhatabhaṇḍāgārasammutipāṭhavasenapi ayamattho viññāyati. Kathaṃ? Cīvarapaṭiggāhakādipuggalasammutiyo pana antovihāre sabbasaṅghamajjhepi khaṇḍasīmāyampi sammannituṃ vaṭṭati, bhaṇḍāgārasaṅkhātavihārasammuti pana vihāramajjheyevāti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ, tattha visesakāraṇaṃ pariyesitabbaṃ.
They should be told: Even if you venerable ones said this, thinking that the commentary phrases “within the monastery” (antovihāre) and “in the midst of the monastery” (vihāramajjhe) refer to a subsidiary boundary (upacārasīmā), those phrases were not used by the commentary teachers to mean a subsidiary boundary; rather, they refer to the great boundary known as the non-separation boundary (avippavāsasīmā). How is this known? Because of the mention of the partial boundary (khaṇḍasīmā) that follows. For the partial boundary is directly related to the great boundary. How is this meaning of a subsidiary boundary to be understood? It is to be understood from the commentary text (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138), “When designating this common residence boundary (samānasaṃvāsakasīma), for the ease of performing Sangha acts like ordination and higher ordination, a partial boundary (khaṇḍasīmā) should first be designated… When boundaries are fixed in this way, monks standing in a partial boundary do not disrupt the act of those performing it in the great boundary (mahāsīmā), nor do those standing in the great boundary disrupt the act of those in the partial boundary; but those standing in the interstices (sīmantarikāya) do not disrupt either.” Alternatively, this meaning is also understood from the text about the storehouse designation brought up by those venerable ones. How so? It is stated in the commentary that designations of persons like the robe-receiver can be made either in the midst of the entire Sangha within the monastery or in a partial boundary, but the designation of the monastery as a storehouse (bhaṇḍāgārasaṅkhātavihārasammuti) should be done only in the midst of the monastery—here, the specific reason must be sought.
They should be told thus: “Even if it is stated in the Aṭṭhakathā, venerable sirs, you have spoken thus, thinking that the phrase ‘within the monastery’ and the phrase ‘in the middle of the monastery’ are referring to the boundary of the surrounding area. But those phrases were not spoken by the Aṭṭhakathā teachers referring to the boundary of the surrounding area. Rather, they were spoken referring to the great boundary (mahāsīmā), which is known as the non-residence boundary. How is this known? Because a limited boundary will be discussed later. For the counterpart of a limited boundary is the great boundary itself. How is this meaning of ‘boundary of surrounding area’ to be understood? It is to be understood from the following Aṭṭhakathā passage (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 138) which states, ‘When appointing this common-residence boundary (samānasaṃvāsakasīma), first a limited boundary (khaṇḍasīmā) should be appointed for the ease of performing Saṅgha-kammas such as ordination and full acceptance… (up to)… When boundaries have been established in this way, monks residing in the limited boundary do not create dissent (na kopenti) for those performing a kamma in the great boundary, nor do those residing in the great boundary [create dissent] for those performing a kamma in the limited boundary. But those residing in the boundary-interval (sīmantarikā) do not create dissent for either.’” Or this meaning is also known from the passage concerning the appointment of a storehouse, brought up by those venerable sirs. How? The appointments of individuals such as the receiver of robes, etc., should be appointed within the monastery, even in the midst of the entire Saṅgha, or even in a limited boundary; but the appointment of a monastery as a storehouse [should be done] only in the very middle of the monastery, it is stated in the Aṭṭhakathā. Therein, a specific reason should be sought.
They should be told: Even if you, venerable ones, think that the passages in the Aṭṭhakathā, such as “within the monastery” and “in the middle of the monastery,” refer to the access boundary, these passages were not spoken by the Aṭṭhakathā teachers with reference to the access boundary. Instead, they refer to the great boundary, known as the non-separation boundary. How is this understood? Because of the mention of the partial boundary. For the partial boundary is the counterpart of the great boundary. How then should the meaning of “access boundary” be understood? “When appointing a boundary for those living together, for the ease of performing Sangha acts such as ordination, the partial boundary should first be appointed… Thus, when the boundaries are fixed, monks standing in the partial boundary do not obstruct those performing acts in the great boundary, nor do those standing in the great boundary obstruct those performing acts in the partial boundary. Those standing in the intermediate space between boundaries do not obstruct either.” This is understood from the Aṭṭhakathā passage (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 138). Alternatively, this meaning can be understood from the passage on the appointment of the storeroom brought by those venerable ones. How? The appointment of individuals such as robe receivers can be made within the monastery, in the middle of the Sangha, or even in the partial boundary. However, the appointment of the monastery, designated as the storeroom, should be made only in the middle of the monastery, as stated in the Aṭṭhakathā. There, the reason for the distinction should be sought.
ID1310
Tatrevaṃ visesakāraṇaṃ paññāyati – “aññissā sīmāya vatthu aññissā kammavācā”ti vattabbadosaparihāratthaṃ vuttaṃ. Puggalasammutiyo hi puggalassa vatthuttā yadi mahāsīmabhūte antovihāre kattukāmā honti, sabbasaṅghamajjhe taṃ vatthubhūtaṃ puggalaṃ hatthapāse katvā kareyyuṃ. Yadi khaṇḍasīmāya kattukāmā, taṃ vatthubhūtaṃ puggalaṃ khaṇḍasīmaṃ ānetvā tattha sannipatitakammappattasaṅghassa hatthapāse katvā kareyyuṃ. Ubhayathāpi yathāvuttadoso natthi, bhaṇḍāgārasammuti pana bhaṇḍāgārassa vihārattā khaṇḍasīmaṃ ānetuṃ na sakkā, tasmā yadi taṃ sammutiṃ khaṇḍasīmāyaṃ ṭhatvā kareyyuṃ, vatthu mahāsīmāyaṃ hoti, kammavācā khaṇḍasīmāyanti yathāvuttadoso hoti, tasmiñca dose sati vatthuvipannattā kammaṃ vipajjati, tasmā mahāsīmabhūtavihāramajjheyeva sā sammuti kātabbāti aṭṭhakathācariyānaṃ mati, na upacārasīmāya ñattidutiyakammaṃ kātabbanti.
Here, the specific reason is understood as follows: It is stated to avoid the fault of saying, “The object is in one boundary, and the procedure is in another.” For designations of persons (puggalasammutiyo), since the object is the person, if they wish to do it within the great boundary (mahāsīmā) that is the monastery, they could do so in the midst of the entire Sangha, keeping that person as the object within reach (hatthapāse). If they wish to do it in a partial boundary (khaṇḍasīmā), they could bring that person as the object to the partial boundary and do it within reach of the Sangha assembled there competent for the act. In both cases, the aforementioned fault does not arise. However, the designation of a storehouse (bhaṇḍāgārasammuti), since the object is the monastery (vihārattā), cannot be brought to a partial boundary. Thus, if they were to perform that designation while standing in a partial boundary, the object would be in the great boundary, and the procedure in the partial boundary, resulting in the aforementioned fault. When that fault occurs, the act fails due to the object being defective. Therefore, according to the opinion of the commentary teachers, that designation should be done only in the midst of the great boundary that is the monastery (mahāsīmabhūtavihāramajjhe), not meaning that an announcement-second act (ñattidutiyakamma) should be performed in a subsidiary boundary (upacārasīmā).
The following specific reason is evident: it is stated to avoid the fault of saying, “The object (vatthu) is in one boundary, the kammavācā is in another.” For the appointments of individuals are based on the individual as the object. If they wish to perform it within the monastery, which is the great boundary, they may do so in the midst of the entire Saṅgha, making that individual who is the object within hand-reach (hatthapāsa). If they wish to perform it in the limited boundary, they may bring that individual who is the object to the limited boundary and perform it there, making him within hand-reach of the Saṅgha that has assembled and is ready for the kamma. In either case, there is no fault as mentioned above. But the appointment of a storehouse is based on the storehouse, which is [part of] the monastery. It cannot be brought to the limited boundary. Therefore, if they were to perform that appointment while residing in the limited boundary, the object would be in the great boundary, and the kammavācā would be in the limited boundary, resulting in the fault mentioned above. And when that fault exists, the kamma is invalid due to the object being invalid. Therefore, that appointment should be made only in the very middle of the monastery, which is the great boundary – this is the opinion of the Aṭṭhakathā teachers, not that the ñatti-dutiya-kamma should be performed within the boundary of the surrounding area.
Here, the reason for the distinction is clear: “The object belongs to one boundary, and the kammavācā to another,” this is said to avoid the fault. For the appointment of individuals pertains to the individual, and if they wish to perform it within the great boundary, they should do so in the middle of the Sangha, bringing the individual concerned within arm’s reach. If they wish to perform it in the partial boundary, they should bring the individual to the partial boundary and perform it there, bringing the individual within arm’s reach of the Sangha gathered for the act. In both cases, there is no fault as described. However, the appointment of the storeroom pertains to the monastery, and it is not possible to bring the storeroom to the partial boundary. Therefore, if they were to perform the appointment while standing in the partial boundary, the object would belong to the great boundary, and the kammavācā to the partial boundary, which would result in the fault described. When such a fault exists, the act becomes invalid due to the object being defective. Therefore, the Aṭṭhakathā teachers hold that the appointment should be made in the middle of the monastery, which is within the great boundary, and not in the access boundary using the ñattidutiyakamma.
ID1311
Athāpi evaṃ vadeyyuṃ “vihārasaddena avippavāsasīmabhūtā mahāsīmāva vuttā, na upacārasīmā”ti idaṃ vacanaṃ kathaṃ paccetabbanti? Imināyeva aṭṭhakathāvacanena. Yadi hi upacārasīmā vuttā bhaveyya, upacārasīmā nāma baddhasīmaṃ avattharitvāpi pavattā āvāsesu vā bhikkhūsu vā vaḍḍhantesu aniyamavasena vaḍḍhati, tasmā khaṇḍasīmaṃ avattharitvā pavattanato vihārena saha khaṇḍasīmā ekasīmāyeva hoti, evaṃ sati vihāre ṭhitaṃ bhaṇḍāgāraṃ khaṇḍasīmāya ṭhatvā sammannituṃ sakkā bhaveyya, na pana sakkā “khaṇḍasīmāya nisinnehi sammannituṃ na vaṭṭatī”ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 343) paṭisiddhattā. Tena ñāyati “imasmiṃ ṭhāne vihārasaddena avippavāsasīmabhūtā mahāsīmā vuttā, na upacārasīmā”ti. Upacārasīmāya aniyamavasena vaḍḍhanabhāvo kathaṃ jānitabboti? “Upacārasīmā parikkhittassa vihārassa parikkhepena, aparikkhittassa parikkhepārahaṭṭhānena paricchinnā hoti. Apica bhikkhūnaṃ dhuvasannipātaṭṭhānato vā pariyante ṭhitabhojanasālato vā nibaddhavasanakaāvāsato vā thāmamajjhimassa purisassa dvinnaṃ leḍḍupātānaṃ anto upacārasīmā veditabbā, sā pana āvāsesu vaḍḍhantesu vaḍḍhati, parihāyantesu parihāyati. Mahāpaccariyaṃ pana ’bhikkhūsupi vaḍḍhantesu vaḍḍhatī’ti vuttaṃ, tasmā sace vihāre sannipatitabhikkhūhi saddhiṃ ekābaddhā hutvā yojanasatampi pūretvā nisīdanti, yojanasatampi upacārasīmāva hoti, sabbesaṃ lābho pāpuṇātī”ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379) vacanatoti.
Yet they might further say, “How should we respond to the statement that ‘the term monastery (vihāra) means only the great boundary that is the non-separation boundary (avippavāsasīmā), not a subsidiary boundary (upacārasīmā)’?” It should be responded to with this very commentary statement. If the subsidiary boundary (upacārasīmā) were meant, since a subsidiary boundary operates beyond a fixed boundary (baddhasīmaṃ avattharitvāpi pavattā) and expands indefinitely as residences or monks increase, the partial boundary (khaṇḍasīmā) operating beyond it would, along with the monastery, be one and the same boundary (ekasīmā). If so, it would be possible to designate a storehouse (bhaṇḍāgāra) situated in the monastery while standing in a partial boundary—but it is not possible, as it is prohibited in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 343), “It is not permissible to designate it while sitting in a partial boundary (khaṇḍasīmāya nisinnehi).” By this, it is understood, “In this context, the term monastery (vihārasaddena) refers to the great boundary that is the non-separation boundary (avippavāsasīmā), not a subsidiary boundary (upacārasīmā).” How is the indefinite expansion of a subsidiary boundary to be known? It is stated in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379), “The subsidiary boundary (upacārasīmā) is defined by the enclosure of an enclosed monastery or by the area worthy of enclosure for an unenclosed one. Moreover, it should be understood as the subsidiary boundary within two stone-throws of a person of average strength from the place of regular assembly of monks, or from the dining hall at the boundary, or from the fixed residential quarters. It expands as residences increase and contracts as they decrease. In the Mahāpaccarī, it is said, ‘It expands as monks increase.’ Thus, if monks assembled in a monastery sit together filling even a hundred yojanas, that hundred yojanas is still a subsidiary boundary, and gains reach all.”
Or they might say, “How can the statement ‘The word ’monastery’ refers only to the great boundary, which is the non-residence boundary, not the boundary of the surrounding area’ be accepted?” By this very statement of the Aṭṭhakathā. For if the boundary of the surrounding area had been meant, the boundary of the surrounding area increases indefinitely, without being fixed, as the dwellings or monks increase, even without establishing an established boundary. Therefore, since it is established without establishing a limited boundary, the limited boundary becomes the same boundary as the monastery. If this were so, it would be possible to appoint the storehouse situated in the monastery while residing in the limited boundary. But it is not possible, because it is prohibited in the Aṭṭhakathā (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 343), stating, “It should not be appointed by those residing in the limited boundary.” Therefore, it is known that “Here, the word ‘monastery’ refers to the great boundary, which is the non-residence boundary, not the boundary of the surrounding area.” How is the fact that the boundary of the surrounding area increases indefinitely known? “The boundary of the surrounding area is defined by the enclosure of an enclosed monastery, or by the place suitable for an enclosure if it is not enclosed. Moreover, the boundary of the surrounding area is to be understood as within two stone-throws of an average man from the place where the monks regularly assemble, or from the dining hall situated at the edge, or from the dwelling where they constantly reside. But it increases as the dwellings increase, and decreases as they decrease. However, in the Mahāpaccari it is stated, ‘It also increases as the monks increase.’ Therefore, if they sit together with the monks assembled in the monastery, filling even a hundred yojanas, being united as one, the boundary of the surrounding area is even a hundred yojanas; the gains accrue to all,” according to the statement in the Aṭṭhakathā (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 379).
Even if one were to say, “The term ‘monastery’ refers to the great boundary, which is the non-separation boundary, not the access boundary,” how should this statement be accepted? By the very statement of the Aṭṭhakathā. For if the access boundary were meant, the access boundary, being unestablished, extends as the residences or monks increase, without fixed limits. Therefore, since the partial boundary, being unestablished, extends along with the monastery, the storeroom standing in the monastery could be appointed while standing in the partial boundary. However, this is not possible, as the Aṭṭhakathā (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 343) prohibits it, stating, “One should not appoint it while sitting in the partial boundary.” Thus, it is understood that in this context, the term “monastery” refers to the great boundary, which is the non-separation boundary, not the access boundary. How is the indefinite extension of the access boundary understood? “The access boundary is defined by the enclosure of an enclosed monastery or by the area suitable for enclosure in an unenclosed monastery. Alternatively, it is understood as the area within two stone throws of a medium-strength man from the place where monks regularly gather, the dining hall, or the permanent residence. It increases as the residences increase and decreases as they decrease. The Mahāpaccariya states, ‘It also increases as the monks increase.’ Therefore, if monks gather in a monastery and sit together, even filling a hundred yojanas, the access boundary becomes a hundred yojanas, and all receive the share.” This is stated in the Aṭṭhakathā (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 379).
ID1312
Yadi evaṃ upacārasīmāya kathinatthatabhāvo kasmā vuttoti? Kathinattharaṇaṃ nāma na saṅghakammaṃ, puggalakammameva hoti, tasmā vassūpanāyikakhettabhūtāya upacārasīmāya kātabbā hoti. Ñattikammavācā pana saṅghakammabhūtā, tasmā upacārasīmāya kātuṃ na vaṭṭati, suvisodhitaparisāya baddhābaddhasīmāyameva vaṭṭatīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Nanu ca bho “kathinaṃ attharituṃ ke labhanti, ke na labhanti? Gaṇanavasena tāva pacchimakoṭiyā pañca janā labhanti, uddhaṃ satasahassampi, pañcannaṃ heṭṭhā na labhantī”ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ, atha kasmā “kathinattharaṇaṃ nāma na saṅghakammaṃ, puggalakammameva hotī”ti vuttanti? “Na saṅgho kathinaṃ attharati, na gaṇo kathinaṃ attharati, puggalo kathinaṃ attharatī”ti parivāre (pari. 414) vuttattā ca apalokanakammādīnaṃ catunnaṃ saṅghakammānaṃ ṭhānesu apaviṭṭhattā ca. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana kathinatthārassa upacārabhūtaṃ kathinadānakammavācābhaṇanakālaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Tasmiñhi kāle kathinadāyakā cattāro, paṭiggāhako ekoti pacchimakoṭiyā pañca honti, tato heṭṭhā na labhatīti. Ñattikammavācāya saṅghakammabhāvo kathaṃ jānitabboti? “Catunnaṃ saṅghakammānaṃ ñattidutiyakammassa navasu ṭhānesu kathinadāna”nti āgatattā, “suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, idaṃ saṅghassa kathinadussaṃ uppanna”ntiādinā vuttattā cāti.
If so, why is it said that the spreading of the kathina (kathinatthatabhāvo) pertains to a subsidiary boundary (upacārasīmā)? The spreading of the kathina (kathinattharaṇa) is not a Sangha act (saṅghakamma) but an individual act (puggalakamma); therefore, it should be done in the subsidiary boundary that is the field of the rains retreat (vassūpanāyikakhettabhūtaupacārasīmā). However, the announcement procedure (ñattikammavācā) is a Sangha act; thus, it is not permissible to do it in a subsidiary boundary but is permissible only in a fixed or unfixed boundary with a fully purified assembly—this should be understood. But venerable sir, it is said in the commentary, “Who can spread the kathina, and who cannot? By number, at the final limit, five persons can, up to a hundred thousand, but fewer than five cannot.” Why then is it said, “The spreading of the kathina is not a Sangha act but an individual act”? Because it is stated in the Parivāra (pari. 414), “The Sangha does not spread the kathina, a group does not spread the kathina, an individual spreads the kathina,” and because it does not fall among the four Sangha acts like the declaration act (apalokanakamma). In the commentary, however, it is said with reference to the time of reciting the kathina donation procedure (kathinadānakammavācābhaṇanakāla), which is incidental to the spreading. At that time, there are four donors of the kathina and one recipient, making five at the final limit; fewer than that cannot—this is the meaning. How is the Sangha-act nature of the announcement procedure to be known? It is known from the statements, “Among the nine occasions for the announcement-second act (ñattidutiyakamma) of the four Sangha acts, there is kathina donation,” and “Listen to me, venerable ones, this kathina cloth has arisen for the Sangha…” and so forth.
If so, why is it stated that the kaṭhina should be spread within the boundary of the surrounding area? The spreading of the kaṭhina is not a Saṅgha-kamma, it is an individual kamma (puggalakamma). Therefore, it should be done within the boundary of the surrounding area, which is the field for entering the rains retreat. But the formal announcement and kammavācā are a Saṅgha-kamma. Therefore, it is not appropriate to do it within the boundary of the surrounding area; it is appropriate only in an established or non-established boundary with a well-purified assembly. But, sir, it is stated in the Aṭṭhakathā, “Who are eligible to spread the kaṭhina, and who are not? In terms of number, at the very least five people are eligible, and up to a hundred thousand or more; less than five are not eligible.” Then why is it stated, “The spreading of the kaṭhina is not a Saṅgha-kamma, it is an individual kamma”? Because it is stated in the Parivāra (Pari. 414), “The Saṅgha does not spread the kaṭhina, a group (gaṇa) does not spread the kaṭhina, an individual (puggalo) spreads the kaṭhina,” and because it is not included among the four Saṅgha-kammas of simple announcement, etc. But in the Aṭṭhakathā, it is stated in reference to the time of reciting the kammavācā for giving the kaṭhina, which is preliminary to the spreading of the kaṭhina. For at that time, there are at least four donors of the kaṭhina and one receiver, making five at the very least; less than that is not eligible. How is the fact that the formal announcement and kammavācā are a Saṅgha-kamma known? Because it is stated, “Among the four Saṅgha-kammas, the giving of the kaṭhina is a ñatti-dutiya-kamma in nine instances,” and because it is stated, “Let the Saṅgha, venerable sirs, hear me. This kaṭhina cloth has arisen for the Saṅgha,” and so on.
If this is so, why is it said that the access boundary is the place for spreading the Kathina robe? The spreading of the Kathina robe is not a Sangha act but an individual act. Therefore, it should be performed within the access boundary, which serves as the area for the rains residence. However, the motion and kammavācā are Sangha acts, and thus cannot be performed within the access boundary. They should be performed within a well-defined assembly in a fixed or unfixed boundary. But, venerable ones, the Aṭṭhakathā states, “Who is eligible to spread the Kathina robe, and who is not? In terms of numbers, at the minimum, five people are eligible, and up to a hundred thousand, but fewer than five are not.” Why then is it said that “the spreading of the Kathina robe is not a Sangha act but an individual act”? Because the Parivāra (Pari. 414) states, “The Sangha does not spread the Kathina robe, nor does a group, but an individual spreads it,” and because it is not included among the four Sangha acts, such as the act of announcement. However, the Aṭṭhakathā refers to the time of performing the kammavācā for giving the Kathina robe, which is an accessory to the spreading of the Kathina robe. At that time, there are four givers and one receiver, making five at the minimum, and fewer than that are not eligible. How is it understood that the motion and kammavācā are Sangha acts? Because it is stated, “Among the four Sangha acts, the ñattidutiyakamma is performed on nine occasions, including the giving of the Kathina robe,” and because it is said, “Venerable ones, may the Sangha hear me. This Kathina cloth has arisen for the Sangha,” etc.
ID1313
Apare pana ācariyā “bhāsantaresu ñattīti vuttā kathinadānakammavācā atthārakiriyāya pavisati, atthārakiriyā ca upacārasīmāyaṃ kātabbā, tasmā kathinadānakammavācāpi upacārasīmāyaṃ kātabbāyevā”ti vadanti, tesaṃ ayamadhippāyo – mahāvaggapāḷiyaṃ (mahāva. 306) “evañca pana, bhikkhave, kathinaṃ attharitabba”nti ārabhitvā “byattena bhikkhunā paṭibalena saṅgho ñāpetabbo…pe… evaṃ kho, bhikkhave, atthataṃ hoti kathina”nti kathinadānañattikammavācāto paṭṭhāya yāva anumodanā pāṭho āgato, parivārapāḷiyañca (pari. 412) “kathinatthāro jānitabbo”ti uddesassa niddese “sace saṅghassa kathinadussaṃ uppannaṃ hoti, saṅghena kathaṃ paṭipajjitabbaṃ, atthārakena kathaṃ paṭipajjitabbaṃ, anumodakena kathaṃ paṭipajjitabba”nti pucchaṃ nīharitvā “saṅghena ñattidutiyena kammena kathinatthārakassa bhikkhuno dātabbaṃ…pe… anumodāmā”ti ñattito paṭṭhāya yāva anumodanā pāṭho āgato, tasmā ñattito paṭṭhāya yāva anumodanā sabbo vidhi kathinatthārakiriyāyaṃ pavisati, tato kathinatthārakiriyāya upacārasīmāyaṃ kattabbāya sati ñattisaṅkhātakathinadānakammavācāpi upacārasīmāyaṃ kattabbāyevāti.
However, other teachers say, “The kathinadānakammavācā, referred to as ñatti in other languages, enters into the act of spreading (atthārakiriyā), and the act of spreading must be performed within the upacārasīmā; therefore, the kathinadānakammavācā too must certainly be performed within the upacārasīmā.” Their intention is this: In the Mahāvaggapāḷi (mahāva. 306), beginning with “And thus, monks, the kathina is to be spread,” it states, “A competent and capable monk should inform the Saṅgha… thus, monks, the kathina is spread,” and from the kathinadānañattikammavācā up to the anumodanā, the text is given. In the Parivārapāḷi (pari. 412), under the exposition of the instruction “The spreading of the kathina should be known,” the question is raised, “If kathina cloth has arisen for the Saṅgha, how should the Saṅgha proceed, how should the spreader proceed, how should the one who rejoices proceed?” and it is answered, “The Saṅgha should give it to the monk who is to spread the kathina by a motion and a second act… up to… we rejoice,” with the text from the ñatti up to the anumodanā being provided. Therefore, from the ñatti up to the anumodanā, the entire procedure enters into the act of spreading the kathina; since the act of spreading must be done within the upacārasīmā, the kathinadānakammavācā, known as ñatti, must also certainly be performed within the upacārasīmā.
Other teachers, however, say: “Because in other texts, the motion (ñatti) refers to the formal act of giving the Kaṭhina-cloth, which is included in the act of spreading (atthārakiriyā), and the act of spreading should be done within the boundary of communal use (upacārasīmā), therefore the formal act of giving the Kaṭhina-cloth should also be done within the boundary of communal use.” Their meaning is this: In the Mahāvagga Pāḷi (Mahāva. 306), beginning with “And in this way, monks, the Kaṭhina should be spread,” and continuing “by a competent and capable monk, the Saṅgha should be informed… thus, monks, is the Kaṭhina spread,” the text from the formal act of giving the Kaṭhina-cloth to the recitation of the anumodanā is provided. Also, in the Parivāra Pāḷi (Pari. 412), in the explanation of the section “The spreading of the Kaṭhina should be known,” having raised the question, “If a Kaṭhina-cloth has arisen for the Saṅgha, how should the Saṅgha proceed, how should the spreader proceed, how should those who express appreciation (anumodanā) proceed?” then the statement from the motion up to the anumodanā: “By the Saṅgha, through a formal act consisting of a motion and a second statement, it should be given to the monk who is the spreader of the Kaṭhina… we express our appreciation” is given. Therefore, from the motion to the anumodanā, the entire procedure is included in the act of spreading the Kaṭhina (kathinatthārakiriyā). Hence, as the act of spreading the Kaṭhina (kathinatthārakiriyā) is to be done in boundary of communal use (upacārasīmā), even the formal act of donation of the Kaṭhina (kathinadānakammavācā), which is a motion, should be done in the boundary of communal use.
Furthermore, some teachers say, “The kathina-donation motion (ñatti) and formal act (kammavācā) are to be performed within the proximity boundary (upacārasīmā) because the kathina-spreading (atthārakiriyā) must be done within the proximity boundary, and the kathina-donation motion and formal act are included in the kathina-spreading.” Their intention is as follows: In the Mahāvagga (Mahāva. 306), it begins with, “Thus, monks, the kathina should be spread,” and continues up to the passage, “The kathina is thus spread,” which includes the kathina-donation motion and formal act starting from the motion and ending with the rejoicing. In the Parivāra (Pari. 412), in the explanation of the passage, “The kathina-spreading should be understood,” it is asked, “If kathina-cloth has been produced for the Saṅgha, how should the Saṅgha proceed? How should the spreader proceed? How should the rejoicers proceed?” After resolving these questions, it is stated, “The Saṅgha should give the kathina-spreading to the monk through a motion and one announcement (ñattidutiya kamma)… up to the rejoicing.” Therefore, the entire procedure from the motion up to the rejoicing is included in the kathina-spreading. Thus, since the kathina-spreading must be done within the proximity boundary, the kathina-donation motion and formal act, which are part of the kathina-spreading, must also be performed within the proximity boundary.
ID1314
Tatrevaṃ vicāraṇā kātabbā – atthārakiriyāya visuṃ anāgatāya sati “sabbo vidhi atthārakiriyāyaṃ pavisatī”ti vattabbaṃ bhaveyya, atha ca pana mahāvaggapāḷiyañca parivārapāḷiyañca atthārakiriyā visuṃ āgatāyeva, tasmā ñattisaṅkhātā kathinadānakammavācā atthārakiriyāyaṃ na pavisati, kevalaṃ atthārakiriyāya upacārabhūtattā pana tato paṭṭhāya anukkamena vuttaṃ. Yathā “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, sīmaṃ sammannitu”nti sīmāsammutiṃ anujānitvā “evañca pana, bhikkhave, sammannitabbā”ti sīmāsammutividhiṃ dassento “paṭhamaṃ nimittā kittetabbā…pe… evametaṃ dhārayāmī”ti nimittakittanena saha sīmāsammutikammavācā desitā, tattha nimittakittanaṃ sīmāsammutikammaṃ na hoti, kammavācāyeva sīmāsammutikammaṃ hoti, tathāpi sīmāsammutikammavācāya upacārabhāvato saha nimittakittanena sīmāsammutikammavācā desitā. Yathā ca upasampadākammavidhiṃ desento “paṭhamaṃ upajjhaṃ gāhāpetabbo…pe… evametaṃ dhārayāmī”ti upajjhāyagāhāpanādinā saha upasampadākammaṃ desitaṃ, tattha upajjhāyagāhāpanādi upasampadākammaṃ na hoti, ñatticatutthakammavācāyeva upasampadākammaṃ hoti, tathāpi upasampadākammassa samīpe bhūtattā upajjhāyagāhāpanādinā saha ñatticatutthakammavācā desitā, evamettha kathinadānakammavācā atthārakiriyā na hoti, tathāpi atthārakiriyāya upacārabhūtattā kathinadānañattidutiyakammavācāya saha kathinatthārakiriyā desitā, tasmā kathinadānakammavācā atthārakiriyāyaṃ na pavisatīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
Here, the consideration should be as follows: If the act of spreading had not been separately mentioned, it might be said, “The entire procedure enters into the act of spreading.” However, in both the Mahāvaggapāḷi and the Parivārapāḷi, the act of spreading is indeed mentioned separately. Therefore, the kathinadānakammavācā, known as ñatti, does not enter into the act of spreading; rather, it is stated sequentially thereafter merely as a preliminary to the act of spreading. For example, just as after permitting the designation of a sīmā with “I allow, monks, the designation of a sīmā,” the procedure for designating a sīmā is shown with “And thus, monks, it should be designated… first, the boundary markers should be announced… thus I hold it,” and the sīmāsammutikammavācā is taught along with the announcement of the markers, yet the announcement of the markers is not the sīmāsammutikamma—only the kammavācā is the sīmāsammutikamma—still, due to its preliminary nature to the sīmāsammutikammavācā, it is taught together with the announcement of the markers. Similarly, in teaching the procedure for upasampadā, it is said, “First, the preceptor should be taken… thus I hold it,” and the upasampadākamma is taught along with taking the preceptor and so forth, yet taking the preceptor and so forth is not the upasampadākamma—only the ñatticatutthakammavācā is the upasampadākamma—still, due to its proximity to the upasampadākamma, the ñatticatutthakammavācā is taught together with taking the preceptor and so forth. Likewise here, the kathinadānakammavācā is not the act of spreading, yet due to its preliminary nature to the act of spreading, the kathinatthārakiriyā is taught together with the kathinadānañattidutiyakammavācā. Thus, it should be understood that the kathinadānakammavācā does not enter into the act of spreading.
The following analysis should be made on this point: If the act of spreading (atthārakiriyā) was not presented separately, then it would be proper to say, “the whole procedure is included in the act of spreading.” However, in both the Mahāvagga Pāḷi and the Parivāra Pāḷi, the act of spreading is indeed presented separately. Therefore, the formal act of giving the Kaṭhina, which is a motion, is not included in the act of spreading. It is simply stated sequentially from that point onward, since it is, however, a precedent condition for the act of spreading. For example, after authorizing the agreement on a boundary with, “I allow, monks, the agreement on a boundary,” and while presenting the procedure for agreeing on a boundary with “And in this way, monks, it should be agreed upon,” the formal act of agreeing on a boundary is taught together with the description of the landmarks, “First, the landmarks should be described… thus, I retain this.” There, describing the landmarks is not the formal act of agreeing on a boundary; the formal act (kammavācā) alone is the act of boundary agreement. Nevertheless, because of being a precedent to the formal act of boundary agreement, the formal act of boundary agreement is taught together with the description of the landmarks. Similarly, while teaching the procedure for the ordination ceremony, “First, the preceptor should be secured… Thus, I retain this”, the ordination procedure is described together with securing the preceptor, and so on. In that case, securing the preceptor and so on are not the act of ordination; the formal act consisting of a motion and three statements (ñatticatutthakammavācā) alone is the ordination. Nevertheless, because of being proximate to the ordination, the formal act consisting of a motion and three statements is taught together with securing the preceptor and so on. Similarly, here, the formal act of giving the Kaṭhina is not the act of spreading. Nevertheless, because of being a precedent condition for the act of spreading, the act of spreading the Kaṭhina is taught together with the formal act consisting of a motion and a second statement for giving the Kaṭhina. Therefore, it should be understood that the formal act of giving the Kaṭhina is not included in the act of spreading.
Here, the following consideration should be made: If the kathina-spreading were a separate procedure not yet arrived, one could say that the entire procedure is included in the kathina-spreading. However, in both the Mahāvagga and the Parivāra, the kathina-spreading is clearly a separate procedure. Therefore, the kathina-donation motion and formal act, designated as a motion, are not included in the kathina-spreading. They are merely preparatory to the kathina-spreading, and thus are mentioned sequentially. For example, the Buddha said, “I allow, monks, the boundary (sīmā) to be agreed upon,” and after allowing the boundary agreement, he explained the procedure for establishing the boundary, saying, “First, the markers should be announced… up to ‘thus it should be maintained.’” Here, the announcement of the markers is not the boundary agreement; only the formal act is the boundary agreement. Nevertheless, because the boundary agreement formal act is preparatory, it is taught along with the announcement of the markers. Similarly, when explaining the procedure for the higher ordination (upasampadā), it is said, “First, a preceptor should be appointed… up to ‘thus it should be maintained.’” Here, the appointment of the preceptor is not the higher ordination; only the motion and three announcements (ñatticatuttha kammavācā) constitute the higher ordination. However, because the appointment of the preceptor is closely related to the higher ordination, it is taught along with the motion and three announcements. In the same way, the kathina-donation motion and formal act are not the kathina-spreading, but because they are preparatory to the kathina-spreading, they are taught along with the kathina-spreading. Therefore, it should be understood that the kathina-donation motion and formal act are not included in the kathina-spreading.
ID1315
Atha vā ñattidutiyakammavācā ca atthāro cāti ime dve dhammā atulyakiriyā atulyakattāro atulyakammā atulyakālā ca honti, tena viññāyati “bhāsantaresu ñattīti vuttā ñattidutiyakammavācā atthārakiriyāyaṃ na pavisatī”ti. Tattha kathaṃ atulyakiriyā honti? Kammavācā dānakiriyā hoti, atthāro pannarasadhammānaṃ kāraṇabhūtā atthārakiriyā, evaṃ atulyakiriyā. Kathaṃ atulyakattāroti? Kammavācāya kattā saṅgho hoti, atthārassa kattā puggalo, evaṃ atulyakattāro honti. Kathaṃ atulyakammā honti? Kammavācāya kammaṃ kathinadussaṃ hoti, atthārassa kammaṃ kathinasaṅkhātā samūhapaññatti, evaṃ atulyakammā honti. Kathaṃ atulyakālā honti? Kathinadānakammavācā pubbakaraṇapaccuddhāraadhiṭṭhānānaṃ pubbe hoti, atthāro tesaṃ pacchā, evaṃ atulyakālā hontīti. Atha vā atthāro “imāya saṅghāṭiyā kathinaṃ attharāmī”tiādinā vacībhedasaṅkhātena ekena dhammena saṅgahito, na ñattianussāvanādinā anekehi dhammehi saṅgahito. Vuttañhetaṃ parivāre (pari. 408) “atthāro ekena dhammena saṅgahito vacībhedenā”ti. Imināpi kāraṇena jānitabbaṃ “na ñatti atthāre paviṭṭhā”ti.
Alternatively, the ñattidutiyakammavācā and the atthāro are two distinct phenomena: they differ in action, performer, object, and time. Hence, it is understood that “The ñattidutiyakammavācā, referred to as ñatti in other languages, does not enter into the act of spreading.” How do they differ in action? The kammavācā is an act of giving, while the atthāro is the act of spreading, which is the cause of the fifteen phenomena—thus, they differ in action. How do they differ in performer? The performer of the kammavācā is the Saṅgha, while the performer of the atthāro is an individual—thus, they differ in performer. How do they differ in object? The object of the kammavācā is the kathina cloth, while the object of the atthāro is the kathina as a collective designation—thus, they differ in object. How do they differ in time? The kathinadānakammavācā occurs before the preliminary acts, removal, and determination, while the atthāro occurs after them—thus, they differ in time. Alternatively, the atthāro is encompassed by a single phenomenon, known as verbal expression, such as “With this saṅghāṭi, I spread the kathina,” and not by multiple phenomena like ñatti and announcement. This is stated in the Parivāra (pari. 408), “The atthāro is encompassed by one phenomenon, verbal expression.” By this reason too, it should be known that “The ñatti does not enter into the atthāro.”
Alternatively, the formal act consisting of a motion and a second statement, and the spreading, these two things have dissimilar actions, dissimilar agents, dissimilar objects, and dissimilar times. It is understood that “the formal act consisting of a motion and a second statement, called ‘motion’ in other texts, is not included in the act of spreading.” How are they of dissimilar actions? The formal act (kammavācā) is the act of giving; the spreading is the act of spreading which is the cause of the fifteen conditions. Thus, they are of dissimilar actions. How are they of dissimilar agents? The agent of the formal act is the Saṅgha; the agent of the spreading is the individual. Thus, they are of dissimilar agents. How are they of dissimilar objects? The object of the formal act is the Kaṭhina-cloth; the object of the spreading is the collective designation called ‘Kaṭhina’. Thus, they are of dissimilar objects. How are they of dissimilar times? The formal act of giving the Kaṭhina occurs before the preliminary actions, the lifting of the old cloth, and the determination; the spreading occurs after them. Thus, they are of dissimilar times. Alternatively, the spreading is encompassed by one thing known as a specific declaration with the words like “With this Saṅghāṭī, I spread the Kaṭhina,” and is not encompassed by many things like the motion and declaration. It is stated in the Parivāra (Pari. 408): “The spreading is encompassed by one factor, by a specific declaration.” By this reason also, it should be known that “The motion is not included in the spreading”.
Alternatively, the motion and one announcement (ñattidutiya kammavācā) and the kathina-spreading are two distinct actions with different performers, different procedures, and different timings. Thus, it is understood that “the motion mentioned in other contexts does not enter into the kathina-spreading.” How are they different in action? The formal act is an act of giving, while the kathina-spreading is the act of spreading, which is the cause for the fifteen benefits. Thus, they are different in action. How are they different in performers? The performer of the formal act is the Saṅgha, while the performer of the kathina-spreading is an individual. Thus, they are different in performers. How are they different in procedure? The procedure of the formal act involves the kathina-cloth, while the procedure of the kathina-spreading involves the collective designation of the kathina. Thus, they are different in procedure. How are they different in timing? The kathina-donation formal act occurs before the preliminary actions, the removal, and the determination, while the kathina-spreading occurs after these. Thus, they are different in timing. Alternatively, the kathina-spreading is encompassed by a single factor, namely, the verbal declaration, “I spread the kathina with this robe,” and not by multiple factors such as the motion and announcements. This is stated in the Parivāra (Pari. 408): “The kathina-spreading is encompassed by a single factor, the verbal declaration.” For this reason, it should be understood that the motion is not included in the kathina-spreading.
ID1316
Aññe pana ācariyā evaṃ vadanti – “kathinatthāraṃ ke labhanti, ke na labhantīti? Gaṇanavasena tāva pacchimakoṭiyā pañca janā labhanti, uddhaṃ satasahassampi, pañcannaṃ heṭṭhā na labhantī”ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306) āgatattā “heṭṭhimantato pañca bhikkhū kathinatthāraṃ labhanti, tato appakatarā na labhantī”ti viññāyati. “Pañcannaṃ janānaṃ vaṭṭatīti pacchimakoṭiyā cattāro kathinadussassa dāyakā, eko paṭiggāhakoti pañcannaṃ janānaṃ vaṭṭatī”ti kaṅkhāvitaraṇīṭīkāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) āgatattā tasmiṃ vākye “vaṭṭatī”ti kiriyāya kattā “so kathinatthāro”ti vuccati, tasmā atthāroti iminā “imāya saṅghāṭiyā kathinaṃ attharāmī”ti vuttaattharaṇakiriyā na adhippetā, catūhi bhikkhūhi atthārakassa bhikkhuno ñattiyā dānaṃ adhippetanti viññāyati. “Kathinatthāraṃ ke labhanti…pe… uddhaṃ satasahassanti idaṃ atthārakassa bhikkhuno saṅghassa kathinadussadānakammaṃ sandhāya vutta”nti vinayavinicchayaṭīkāyaṃ vuttaṃ. Tasmimpi pāṭhe ñattiyā dinnaṃyeva sandhāya “pañca janā atthāraṃ labhantī”ti idaṃ vacanaṃ aṭṭhakathācariyehi vuttaṃ, “imāya saṅghāṭiyā kathinaṃ attharāmī”tiādi puggalassa attharaṇaṃ sandhāya na vuttanti ṭīkācariyassa adhippāyo. Evaṃ kaṅkhāvitaraṇīṭīkā-vinayavinicchayaṭīkākārakehi ācariyehi “ñattidutiyakammaṃ atthāro nāmā”ti vinicchitattā upacārasīmāyaṃ kathinadānañattikammavācākaraṇaṃ yuttanti viññāyatīti vadanti.
Yet other teachers say, “Who obtains the kathinatthāra, and who does not? In terms of number, at the lower limit, five persons obtain it; upward, even a hundred thousand may, but fewer than five do not obtain it,” as stated in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306). Thus, it is understood that “At the minimum, five monks obtain the kathinatthāra, and fewer than that do not.” In the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇīṭīkā (kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), it is stated, “‘It is proper for five persons’ means that at the lower limit, four are the donors of the kathina cloth, and one is the recipient, thus it is proper for five persons.” In that statement, the subject of the verb “vaṭṭati” (is proper) is called “that kathinatthāro.” Therefore, by “atthāro,” the act of spreading expressed as “With this saṅghāṭi, I spread the kathina” is not intended; rather, the giving by four monks to the monk who spreads through ñatti is intended. In the Vinayavinicchayaṭīkā, it is said, “‘Who obtains the kathinatthāra… upward, a hundred thousand’ refers to the Saṅgha’s act of giving the kathina cloth to the monk who spreads.” In that text too, the statement “Five persons obtain the atthāra” by the commentary teachers refers only to what is given through ñatti, not to the individual’s spreading expressed as “With this saṅghāṭi, I spread the kathina”—this is the subcommentator’s intention. Thus, according to the teachers in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇīṭīkā and Vinayavinicchayaṭīkā, since it is determined that “The ñattidutiyakamma is called atthāro,” it is understood that performing the kathinadānañattikammavācā within the upacārasīmā is appropriate.
Other teachers, however, say the following: “Who receives the spreading of the Kaṭhina, and who does not? In terms of enumeration, at the very least, five people receive it, and upwards of a hundred thousand, but less than five do not receive it.” Because it is stated in the commentary (Mahāva. aṭṭha. 306), it is understood that “At the very minimum, five monks receive the spreading of the Kaṭhina, fewer than that do not receive it.” “It is proper for five people”, at the very least, four are donors of the Kaṭhina cloth and one is the recipient. “It is proper for five people,” it is stated in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇīṭīkā (Kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā). In that statement the verb, “It is proper,” the subject is, “that spreading of the Kaṭhina”. Therefore, by this word ‘spreading’ (atthāro), the act of spreading which is declared as, “With this Saṅghāṭī, I spread the Kaṭhina,” is not intended. It is understood that the donation by means of motion to the spreading monk by four monks is intended. “Who receives the spreading of the Kaṭhina… upwards of a hundred thousand; this is said with reference to the formal act of the Saṅgha giving the Kaṭhina cloth to the spreading monk”, it is stated in the Vinayavinicchayaṭīkā. Also in that text, with reference to the giving by motion, the statement “five people receive the spreading” was stated by the commentators of the commentary. The intention of the sub-commentary (ṭīkā) teacher is that it was not spoken with reference to the spreading of the individual, “with this Sanghati, I spread the Kathina,” and so on. Thus, because it has been determined by the teachers of the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇīṭīkā and Vinayavinicchayaṭīkā that “the formal act of motion and a second statement is called spreading (atthāro)”, it is understood that doing the formal act of giving by motion of the Kaṭhina in the boundary of communal use is proper,” they say.
Other teachers say, “Who obtains the kathina-spreading, and who does not? According to the count, at the final stage, five individuals obtain it, and beyond that, even a hundred thousand, but fewer than five do not obtain it.” This is stated in the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 306), and thus it is understood that “the last five monks obtain the kathina-spreading, and fewer than that do not.” “It applies to five individuals”—at the final stage, four are the donors of the kathina-cloth, and one is the recipient, making five individuals to whom it applies. This is stated in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī-ṭīkā (Kaṅkhā. Abhi. Ṭī. Kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā). In this statement, the doer of the action “applies” is called “the kathina-spreader.” Therefore, the term “kathina-spreading” does not refer to the act of spreading with the phrase, “I spread the kathina with this robe,” but rather refers to the giving of the kathina-cloth to the spreading monk by four monks through a motion. It is understood that “Who obtains the kathina-spreading… up to even a hundred thousand” refers to the Saṅgha’s act of giving the kathina-cloth to the spreading monk, as stated in the Vinayavinicchaya-ṭīkā. In this passage, since the giving is done through a motion, the statement “five individuals obtain the spreading” is made by the commentary teachers, and the phrase “I spread the kathina with this robe” refers to the individual’s act of spreading, not the collective act. Thus, the teachers of the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī-ṭīkā and the Vinayavinicchaya-ṭīkā, having determined that “the motion and one announcement is called the kathina-spreading,” say that it is appropriate to perform the kathina-donation motion and formal act within the proximity boundary.
ID1317
Tatrevaṃ vicāraṇā kātabbā – “ñattidutiyakammaṃyeva atthāro nāmā”ti ṭīkācariyā na vadeyyuṃ. Vadeyyuṃ ce, aṭṭhakathāya viruddho siyā. Kathaṃ viruddhoti ce? “Chinnavassā vā pacchimikāya upagatā vā na labhanti, aññasmiṃ vihāre vutthavassāpi na labhantīti mahāpaccariyaṃ vutta”nti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306) āgatattā “te chinnavassādayo kathinatthāraṃ na labhantī”ti viññāyati. Yadi ñattidutiyakammaṃ atthāro nāma siyā, evaṃ sati te bhikkhū ñattidutiyakammepi gaṇapūrakabhāvena appaviṭṭhā siyuṃ. Atha ca pana “purimikāya upagatānaṃ pana sabbe gaṇapūrakā hontī”ti aṭṭhakathāya (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306) vuttattā te ñattidutiyakamme paviṭṭhāva honti, tasmā aṭṭhakathācariyo pañcānisaṃsahetubhūtaṃ “imāya saṅghāṭiyā kathinaṃ attharāmī”tiādikaṃ vacībhedaṃyeva “atthāro”ti vadati, na ñattidutiyakammaṃ, tasmā te chinnavassādayo pañcānisaṃsahetubhūtaṃ kathinatthāraṃ na labhanti, ñattidutiyakamme pana catuvaggasaṅghapūrakabhāvaṃ labhantīti viññāyati. Punapi vuttaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ “sace purimikāya upagatā cattāro vā honti tayo vā dve vā eko vā, itare gaṇapūrake katvā kathinaṃ attharitabba”nti. Evaṃ alabbhamānakathinatthāreyeva chinnavassādayo gaṇapūrake katvā ñattidutiyakammavācāya kathinadussaṃ dāpetvā purimikāya upagatehi kathinassa attharitabbabhāvato “ñattidutiyakammaṃyeva atthāro nāmāti ṭīkācariyā na vadeyyu”nti avacimhāti.
Here, the consideration should be as follows: The subcommentary teachers would not say, “The ñattidutiyakamma alone is called atthāro.” If they did, it would contradict the commentary. How so? In the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306), it is stated in the Mahāpaccarī, “Those who have interrupted their rains or arrived on the last day do not obtain it, nor do those who have completed the rains in another monastery,” and thus it is understood that “Those with interrupted rains and so forth do not obtain the kathinatthāra.” If the ñattidutiyakamma were called atthāro, then those monks would not participate in the ñattidutiyakamma even as quorum fillers. However, since the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306) states, “But all those who arrived on the first term are quorum fillers,” they do participate in the ñattidutiyakamma. Therefore, the commentary teacher refers to the verbal expression “With this saṅghāṭi, I spread the kathina,” which is the cause of the five privileges, as “atthāro,” not the ñattidutiyakamma. Thus, it is understood that those with interrupted rains and so forth do not obtain the kathinatthāra, which is the cause of the five privileges, but they do obtain the role of quorum fillers in the ñattidutiyakamma with a group of four. Furthermore, the commentary states, “If those who arrived on the first term are four, three, two, or one, the others should be made quorum fillers, and the kathina should be spread.” Thus, since those with interrupted rains and so forth, who do not obtain the kathinatthāra, are made quorum fillers and the kathina cloth is given through the ñattidutiyakammavācā, and those who arrived on the first term must spread the kathina, the subcommentary teachers would not say, “The ñattidutiyakamma alone is called atthāro”—so we have said.
The following consideration should be made here: The teachers of the sub-commentary should not say that “the formal act consisting of a motion and a second statement alone is ‘spreading’.” If they were to say so, it would contradict the commentary. How is it contradictory? Since it is said in the commentary (Mahāva. aṭṭha. 306), “Those who have broken the rains or have entered the latter part do not receive it, even those who have spent the rains in another monastery do not receive it,” as stated in the Mahāpaccariya, it is understood that “those who have broken the rains and so forth do not receive the spreading of the Kaṭhina.” If the formal act consisting of a motion and a second statement were called ‘spreading’, then those monks would also not be included in the count even for the formal act consisting of a motion and a second statement. However, because it is stated in the commentary (Mahāva. aṭṭha. 306), “But for those who have entered the first [rains], all are included in the count,” they are indeed included in the formal act consisting of a motion and a second statement. Therefore, the commentary teacher refers only to the specific declaration which is the cause of the five advantages, such as “With this Saṅghāṭī, I spread the Kaṭhina,” as “spreading,” not the formal act consisting of a motion and a second statement. Thus, it is understood that those who have broken the rains and so on do not receive the spreading of the Kaṭhina, which is the cause of the five advantages, but they do receive the status of completing a group of four for the formal act consisting of a motion and a second statement. Again, it is stated in the commentary, “If those who have entered the first [rains] are four, three, two, or one, having made up the rest of the count, the Kaṭhina should be spread.” Thus, only in the case of the unreceivable spreading of the Kaṭhina, having made those who have broken the rains, etc. complete the group, giving the Kaṭhina cloth through the formal act consisting of a motion and a second statement, and because those who have entered the first [rains] should spread the Kaṭhina. “The teachers of the sub-commentary should not say that ‘only the formal act consisting of a motion and a second statement is spreading (atthāro)’,” we stated.
Here, the following consideration should be made: The commentary teachers would not say, “The motion and one announcement itself is called the kathina-spreading.” If they did, it would contradict the commentary. How would it contradict? The commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 306) states, “Those who have broken the rains or arrived at the end do not obtain it, and even those who have completed the rains in another monastery do not obtain it,” and thus it is understood that “those who have broken the rains, etc., do not obtain the kathina-spreading.” If the motion and one announcement were called the kathina-spreading, then those monks would not be included in the motion and one announcement even as part of the group. However, the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 306) states, “Those who arrived earlier are all part of the group,” and thus they are included in the motion and one announcement. Therefore, the commentary teacher refers to the verbal declaration, “I spread the kathina with this robe,” which is the cause for the five benefits, as the “kathina-spreading,” and not the motion and one announcement. Thus, those who have broken the rains, etc., do not obtain the kathina-spreading, which is the cause for the five benefits, but they do obtain inclusion in the group of four for the motion and one announcement. Furthermore, the commentary states, “If those who arrived earlier are four, three, two, or one, the others should be made part of the group, and the kathina should be spread.” Thus, even when the kathina-spreading is not obtainable, those who have broken the rains, etc., are made part of the group, and the kathina-cloth is given through the motion and one announcement, and the kathina is spread by those who arrived earlier. Therefore, we have said, “The commentary teachers would not say that the motion and one announcement itself is called the kathina-spreading.”
ID1318
Nanu ca bho imasmimpi aṭṭhakathāvacane “itare gaṇapūrake katvā kathinaṃ attharitabba”nti vacanena catuvaggasaṅghena kattabbaṃ ñattidutiyakammaṃyeva “atthāro”ti vuttanti? Na, pubbāparavirodhato. Pubbe hi chinnavassādīnaṃ kathinaṃ attharituṃ alabbhamānabhāvo vutto, idha “ñattidutiyakammaṃ atthāro”ti vutte tesampi labbhamānabhāvo vutto bhaveyya, na aṭṭhakathācariyā pubbāparaviruddhaṃ katheyyuṃ, tasmā “katvā”ti padaṃ “attharitabba”nti padena sambajjhantena samānakālavisesanaṃ akatvā pubbakālavisesanameva katvā sambandhitabbaṃ, evaṃ sati pubbavacanenāparavacanaṃ gaṅgodakena yamunodakaṃ viya saṃsandati, pacchāpi ca “kammavācaṃ sāvetvā kathinaṃ attharāpetvā dānañca bhuñjitvā gamissantī”ti visuṃ kammavācāsāvanaṃ visuṃ kathinattharaṇaṃ pubbāparānukkamato vuttaṃ , tasmā ñattidutiyakammaṃ atthāro nāma na hoti, kevalaṃ atthārassa kāraṇameva upacārameva hotīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Kiñca bhiyyo – “na saṅgho kathinaṃ attharati, na gaṇo kathinaṃ attharati, puggalo kathinaṃ attharatī”ti parivāravacanena (pari. 414) ayamattho jānitabboti.
But isn’t it the case that in this commentary statement too, “The others should be made quorum fillers, and the kathina should be spread,” it is said that the ñattidutiyakamma, which must be performed by a group of four monks, is itself “atthāro”? No, due to the contradiction between earlier and later statements. Earlier, it was stated that those with interrupted rains and so forth cannot spread the kathina; if it were said here that “The ñattidutiyakamma is atthāro,” it would imply that they too could obtain it, and the commentary teachers would not present such a contradiction between earlier and later statements. Therefore, the word “katvā” (having made) should not be connected with “attharitabba” (should be spread) as a simultaneous qualifier but as a prior qualifier. In this way, the earlier statement aligns with the later one, like the waters of the Ganges with the Yamunā. Furthermore, it is stated later, “Having had the kammavācā recited, having had the kathina spread, and having eaten the donation, they will depart,” distinguishing the recitation of the kammavācā from the spreading of the kathina in a sequential order. Thus, the ñattidutiyakamma is not called atthāro; it is merely a preliminary and a cause for the atthāro—this should be understood. Moreover, by the statement in the Parivāra (pari. 414), “The Saṅgha does not spread the kathina, a group does not spread the kathina, an individual spreads the kathina,” this meaning should be known.
Now, sir, in this statement of the commentary, too, by saying, “having made the others to complete the group, the Kaṭhina should be spread,” isn’t it said that the formal act of motion and the second proclamation to be done by a fourfold Saṅgha is “the spreading (atthāro)”? No, because of the contradiction between the former and the latter. Earlier, it was mentioned that the ones who have broken the rains cannot receive the spreading of the Kathina, here if it is said that the formal act consisting of a motion and second statement is the spreading”, the status of receivability even for them would be mentioned. Commentary teachers will not declare a contradiction between former and latter. Therefore, the word “having made (katvā)” is related to the word “should be spread (attharitabba)” by making it only a qualification of the previous time without making it to qualify the same time. When this is done, the later sentence fits with the earlier sentence, like the water of the Yamunā with the water of the Ganges. Furthermore, “Having declared the formal act, having spread the Kaṭhina, having enjoyed the gift, they will depart,” the separate declaration of the formal act and the separate spreading of the Kaṭhina are declared in order of anterior and posterior. Therefore, the formal act consisting of a motion and a second statement is not ‘spreading’; it should be understood that it is only the cause of the spreading, a precedent condition. Moreover, “The Saṅgha does not spread the Kaṭhina, the group does not spread the Kaṭhina, an individual spreads the Kaṭhina,” by the statement of the Parivāra (Pari. 414), this meaning should be known.
But, sir, in this commentary passage, “The others should be made part of the group, and the kathina should be spread,” does this not mean that the motion and one announcement to be performed by the group of four is called the “kathina-spreading”? No, because of the contradiction between the earlier and later statements. Earlier, it was stated that those who have broken the rains, etc., cannot spread the kathina, but here, if it were said that the motion and one announcement is the kathina-spreading, then they would also be able to do so. The commentary teachers would not make contradictory statements. Therefore, the word “having made” should be connected with the word “should be spread” as a simultaneous qualification, not as a prior qualification. In this way, the earlier statement and the later statement harmonize like the waters of the Ganges and the Yamuna. Furthermore, it is later stated, “Having announced the formal act, having spread the kathina, and having received the gift, they will depart.” Here, the announcement of the formal act and the spreading of the kathina are separately mentioned in sequence. Therefore, the motion and one announcement is not called the kathina-spreading; it is merely the cause or preparatory action for the kathina-spreading. This should be understood. Moreover, the Parivāra passage (Pari. 414) states, “The Saṅgha does not spread the kathina, the group does not spread the kathina, the individual spreads the kathina,” and this meaning should be understood.
ID1319
Yadi evaṃ kaṅkhāvitaraṇīṭīkā-vinayavinicchayaṭīkāsu āgatapāṭhānaṃ adhippāyo kathaṃ bhāsitabbo bhaveyya. Nanu kaṅkhāvitaraṇīṭīkāyaṃ “vaṭṭatī”ti imissā kiriyāya kattā “so kathinatthāro”ti vutto, vinayavinicchayaṭīkāyañca “kathinadussadānakamma”nti padaṃ “sandhāyā”ti kiriyāya kammaṃ, kathinatthāro…pe… idaṃ “vutta”nti kiriyāya kammaṃ hoti. Evaṃ ṭīkāsu nītatthato āgatapāṭhesu santesu “ñattidutiyakammaṃyeva atthāro nāmāti ṭīkācariyā na vadeyyu”nti na vattabbanti? Yenākārena aṭṭhakathāvacanena ṭīkāvacanañca pubbāparaaṭṭhakathāvacanañca aviruddhaṃ bhaveyya, tenākārena ṭīkāpāṭhānaṃ adhippāyo gahetabbo. Kathaṃ? Kaṅkhāvitaraṇīaṭṭhakathāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) “so sabbantimena paricchedena pañcannaṃ janānaṃ vaṭṭatī”ti āgato, tasmiṃ aṭṭhakathāvacane codakena codetabbassa atthitāya taṃ pariharituṃ “pañcannaṃ janānaṃ vaṭṭatīti pacchimakoṭiyā cattāro kathinadussassa dāyakā, eko paṭiggāhakoti pañcannaṃ janānaṃ vaṭṭatī”ti pāṭho ṭīkācariyena vutto, kathaṃ codetabbaṃ atthīti? Bho aṭṭhakathācariya “so sabbantimena paricchedena pañcannaṃ janānaṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vutto, evaṃ sati pañcannaṃ kathinatthārakānaṃ eva so kathinatthāro vaṭṭati, na ekadviticatupuggalānanti attho āpajjati, evaṃ sati “na saṅgho kathinaṃ attharati, na gaṇo kathinaṃ attharati, puggalo kathinaṃ attharatī”ti āgatapāḷiyā virujjhanato āgamavirodho āpajjati, taṃ codanaṃ pariharanto “pañcannaṃ janānaṃ vaṭṭatīti pacchimakoṭiyā cattāro kathinadussassa dāyakā, eko paṭiggāhakoti pañcannaṃ janānaṃ vaṭṭatī”ti pāṭho ṭīkācariyena vutto. Tatthāyamadhippāyo – bho codakācariya aṭṭhakathācariyena kathinatthārakāle pañcannaṃ atthārakānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ vasena “so sabbantimena paricchedena pañcannaṃ janānaṃ vaṭṭatī”ti pāṭho na vutto, atha kho saṅghena atthārakassa kathinadussadānakāle pacchimakoṭiyā cattāro kathinadussassa dāyakā, eko paṭiggāhakoti pañcannaṃ dāyakapaṭiggāhakapuggalānaṃ atthitāya so pacchā kattabbo atthāro vaṭṭati, kāraṇasampattiyā phalasampatti hoti, tasmā tasmiṃ aṭṭhakathāvacane āgamavirodho nāpajjatīti.
If so, how should the intention of the passages in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇīṭīkā and Vinayavinicchayaṭīkā be expressed? Isn’t it the case that in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇīṭīkā, the subject of the verb “vaṭṭati” (is proper) is said to be “that kathinatthāro,” and in the Vinayavinicchayaṭīkā, “kathinadussadānakamma” is the object of the verb “sandhāya” (referring to), and “kathinatthāro… this was said” is the object of the verb “vutta” (was said)? Given that these passages in the subcommentaries explicitly convey this meaning, should it not be said that “The subcommentary teachers would not say, ‘The ñattidutiyakamma alone is called atthāro’”? The intention of the subcommentary passages should be understood in a way that does not contradict the commentary statement, the subcommentary statement, or the earlier and later commentary statements. How so? In the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇīaṭṭhakathā (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), it is stated, “That applies to five persons at the final limit,” and since there is something to be questioned by a questioner in that commentary statement, the subcommentary teacher stated, “‘It is proper for five persons’ means that at the lower limit, four are the donors of the kathina cloth, and one is the recipient, thus it is proper for five persons,” to refute it. What is to be questioned? Venerable commentary teacher, you said, “That applies to five persons at the final limit,” which implies that it applies only to five kathinatthārakas and not to one, two, three, or four persons. This leads to a contradiction with the canonical text, “The Saṅgha does not spread the kathina, a group does not spread the kathina, an individual spreads the kathina,” causing a conflict with the scriptures. To refute that objection, the subcommentary teacher stated, “‘It is proper for five persons’ means that at the lower limit, four are the donors of the kathina cloth, and one is the recipient, thus it is proper for five persons.” The intention there is this: Venerable questioning teacher, the commentary teacher did not state, “That applies to five persons at the final limit,” in terms of five monks as spreaders at the time of spreading the kathina; rather, at the time of the Saṅgha giving the kathina cloth to the spreader, it applies because of the presence of five persons—four donors of the kathina cloth and one recipient at the lower limit. Thus, the spreading to be done later is proper due to the fulfillment of the cause leading to the fulfillment of the result. Therefore, there is no contradiction with the scriptures in that commentary statement.
If so, how should the meaning of the statements found in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇīṭīkā and Vinayavinicchayaṭīkā be explained? Well, in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇīṭīkā, the subject of the verb “is proper” is stated as “that spreading of the Kaṭhina”. And in Vinayavinicchayaṭīkā, the word “the formal act of giving the Kaṭhina cloth” is the object of the verb “with reference to (sandhāya)”, and ‘the spreading of the Kaṭhina…this’ is the object of the verb ‘stated’. Since the statements literally derived are present in the sub-commentaries thus, shouldn’t it be said that the sub-commentary teachers should not declare “only the formal act consisting of a motion and the second statement is the spreading?” By whatever way the statement of the sub-commentary will be without contradiction with the statement of commentary and both the previous and latter statements of the commentary, by that very same way the meaning of the sub-commentary statements is to be accepted. How? In Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī commentary (Kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), it comes, “That, at the very least, is proper for five people.” In that commentary statement, because there is a point to be challenged by a challenger, to refute it, the statement, “It is proper for five people”, at the very least, four are donors of the Kaṭhina cloth and one is the recipient. “It is proper for five people”, was stated by the teacher of the sub-commentary. How is there something to be challenged? Oh, respected commentator, “That, at the very least, is proper for five people”, this has been said. If that is the case, that spreading of the Kaṭhina is proper for five spreaders of the Kaṭhina, not for one, two, three, or four individuals; so this meaning is reached. If it is so, there comes the contradiction with the tradition, because it contradicts the statement that has come, “The Sangha does not spread the Kathina, a group does not spread the Kathina, an individual spreads the Kathina”. Refuting that challenge, the statement, “It is proper for five people”, at the very least, four are donors of the Kaṭhina cloth and one is the recipient. “It is proper for five people”, was stated by the sub-commentary teacher. Herein, this is the meaning: O, teacher of the challenger, by the commentary teacher, in the statement, “That, at the very least, is proper for five people,” it was not stated with reference to five spreading monks at the time of spreading the Kaṭhina. Rather, at the time of the Saṅgha giving the Kaṭhina cloth to the spreader, at the very least, four are donors of the Kaṭhina cloth, one is the recipient; therefore, because of the presence of five donor and recipient individuals, that spreading which is to be done later is proper. Because of the perfection of the cause, there is perfection of the result. Therefore, in that commentary statement, no contradiction with the tradition is encountered.
If this is so, how should the intention of the passages found in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī-ṭīkā and the Vinayavinicchaya-ṭīkā be explained? In the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī-ṭīkā, it is said, “It applies,” and the doer of this action is called “the kathina-spreader.” In the Vinayavinicchaya-ṭīkā, the word “kathina-cloth donation act” refers to the object of the action, and the kathina-spreading… up to “is said” refers to the object of the action. Thus, since the passages in the commentaries are clear in meaning, should it not be said that “the commentary teachers would not say that the motion and one announcement itself is called the kathina-spreading”? The intention of the commentary passages should be understood in a way that does not contradict the earlier and later commentary statements. How? In the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī commentary (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), it is said, “It applies to five individuals in this final reckoning.” In this commentary passage, since there is something to be questioned by the questioner, to resolve it, the passage “It applies to five individuals”—at the final stage, four are the donors of the kathina-cloth, and one is the recipient, making five individuals to whom it applies—was stated by the commentary teacher. How should this be questioned? Sir, the commentary teacher said, “It applies to five individuals in this final reckoning.” Thus, it applies to the five kathina-spreaders, not to one, two, or four individuals. If this is so, it contradicts the passage, “The Saṅgha does not spread the kathina, the group does not spread the kathina, the individual spreads the kathina.” To resolve this objection, the passage “It applies to five individuals”—at the final stage, four are the donors of the kathina-cloth, and one is the recipient, making five individuals to whom it applies—was stated by the commentary teacher. The intention here is: Sir, the objector, the commentary teacher did not say, “It applies to five individuals in this final reckoning,” referring to the five spreading monks at the time of the kathina-spreading. Rather, at the time of the Saṅgha’s donation of the kathina-cloth, at the final stage, there are four donors of the kathina-cloth and one recipient, making five donor-recipient individuals, and thus the subsequent spreading applies to them. Due to the fulfillment of the cause, the result is achieved. Therefore, in this commentary passage, there is no contradiction with the text.
ID1320
Vinayavinicchayaṭīkāyampi “kathinatthāraṃ ke labhanti, ke na labhantīti? Gaṇanavasena tāva pacchimakoṭiyā pañca janā labhanti, uddhaṃ satasahassampi, pañcannaṃ heṭṭhā na labhantī”ti aṭṭhakathāvacane parehi pucchitabbassa atthitāya taṃ pucchaṃ vissajjetuṃ “idaṃ atthārakassa bhikkhuno saṅghassa kathinadussadānakammaṃ sandhāya vutta”nti pāṭho ṭīkācariyena vutto. Kathaṃ pucchitabbanti ce? Bho aṭṭhakathācariya “heṭṭhimakoṭiyā pañcannaṃ janānaṃ vaṭṭatī”ti idaṃ vacanaṃ kiṃ pañcānisaṃsassa kāraṇabhūtaṃ “imāya saṅghāṭiyā kathinaṃ attharāmī”tiādiatthārakiriyaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, udāhu atthārassa kāraṇabhūtaṃ kathinadussadānakammanti. Kathaṃ vissajjanāti? Bho bhadramukha “heṭṭhimakoṭiyā pañcannaṃ janānaṃ vaṭṭatī”ti idaṃ pañcānisaṃsassa kāraṇabhūtaṃ “imāya saṅghāṭiyā kathinaṃ attharāmī”tiādikaṃ atthārakiriyaṃ sandhāya aṭṭhakathācariyena na vuttaṃ, atha kho atthārassa kāraṇabhūtaṃ kathinadānakammaṃ sandhāya vuttanti . Tatrāyamadhippāyo – saṅghena atthārakassa dinnadussena eva kathinatthāro sambhavati, na ṭhitikāya laddhacīvarena vā puggalikacīvarena vā sambhavati, tañca kathinadussadānakammaṃ cattāro kathinadussadāyakā, eko paṭiggāhakoti pañcasu bhikkhūsu vijjamānesuyeva sampajjati, na tato ūnesūti pacchimakoṭiyā pañcannaṃ vaṭṭati, kāraṇasiddhiyā phalasiddhi hoti, teneva ca kāraṇena “kathinadussadānakammaṃ vutta”nti mukhyavasena avatvā “sandhāya vutta”nti upacāravasenāha. Evaṃ vutteyeva aṭṭhakathāvacanassa pubbāparavirodho natthi, aṭṭhakathāvacanena ca ṭīkāvacanaṃ viruddhaṃ na hotīti daṭṭhabbaṃ, “apalokanādisaṅghakammakaraṇatthaṃ baddhasīmā bhagavatā anuññātā”ti iminā vinayalakkhaṇena ca sameti.
In the Vinayavinicchayaṭīkā too, regarding the commentary statement, “Who obtains the kathinatthāra, and who does not? In terms of number, at the lower limit, five persons obtain it; upward, even a hundred thousand may, but fewer than five do not,” since there is something to be asked by others, the subcommentary teacher stated, “This refers to the Saṅgha’s act of giving the kathina cloth to the monk who spreads,” to answer that question. How is it to be asked? Venerable commentary teacher, does the statement “It applies to five persons at the lower limit” refer to the act of spreading, such as “With this saṅghāṭi, I spread the kathina,” which is the cause of the five privileges, or to the act of giving the kathina cloth, which is the cause of the spreading? How is it answered? Venerable sir, the commentary teacher did not state, “It applies to five persons at the lower limit,” referring to the act of spreading, such as “With this saṅghāṭi, I spread the kathina,” which is the cause of the five privileges; rather, it refers to the act of giving the kathina, which is the cause of the spreading. The intention there is this: The spreading of the kathina is possible only with the cloth given by the Saṅgha to the spreader, not with cloth received at the appointed time or personal cloth. That act of giving the kathina cloth is accomplished only when five monks are present—four donors of the kathina cloth and one recipient—and not with fewer than that. Thus, it applies to five at the lower limit; the fulfillment of the cause leads to the fulfillment of the result. For this reason, it is not said directly, “The act of giving the kathina cloth was stated,” but rather, “It was stated referring to,” using a figurative expression. When stated this way, there is no contradiction between the earlier and later parts of the commentary statement, and the subcommentary statement does not contradict the commentary statement—this should be understood. It also accords with the Vinaya characteristic that “A designated sīmā was allowed by the Blessed One for performing Saṅgha acts like apalokana.”
Also, in the Vinayavinicchayaṭīkā, it is said: “Who receives the spreading of the kathina, and who does not? In terms of number, at the lower limit, five people receive it, and upwards of a hundred thousand, but below five do not receive it” - because in the statement of the commentary there is the existence of something to be asked by others, to answer that question, the teacher of the ṭīkā gave the reading, “This was said concerning the kamma of giving the kathina cloth of the Order to the bhikkhu who spreads.” How is it to be asked? Venerable teacher of the commentary, this statement “it is allowable for five people at the lower limit”, was it said concerning the act of spreading, starting with “With this sanghati, I spread the kathina”, which is the cause of the five advantages, or the kamma of giving the kathina cloth, which is the cause of spreading? How is it to be answered? Venerable and amiable one, “It is allowable for five people at the lower limit” - this was not said by the commentary teacher concerning the act of spreading, such as “With this sanghati, I spread the kathina,” which is the cause of the five advantages. Rather, it was said concerning the kamma of giving the kathina, which is the cause of the spreading. The intention here is this - the spreading of the kathina comes about only through the cloth given by the Sangha to the one who spreads; it does not come about through cloth obtained while remaining stationary or through personal cloth. And that kamma of giving the kathina cloth occurs only when there are five bhikkhus: four who give the kathina cloth and one who receives it. It is not accomplished with fewer than that. Therefore, it is allowable at the lower limit of five. When the cause is accomplished, the result is accomplished. For that same reason, he did not say “the kamma of giving the kathina cloth is stated” in an absolute sense, but rather “said concerning,” in a figurative sense. It should be understood that only when this is stated is there no contradiction between the earlier and later parts of the commentary’s statement, and the commentary’s statement does not contradict the statement of the ṭīkā. And it also agrees with this characteristic of the Vinaya: “The bounded সীমা was allowed by the Blessed One for the purpose of performing Sangha-kammas such as apalokana.”
In the Vinayavinicchayaṭīkā, it is stated: “Who receives the spreading of the Kathina, and who does not? First, regarding the final group, five individuals receive it, and even beyond a hundred thousand, but those below the five do not receive it.” Since this is a question asked by others in the commentary, it should be answered by saying, “This passage refers to the act of offering Kathina cloth to the Sangha by the spreading monk.” This explanation is given by the ṭīkācariya. How should the question be asked? Venerable commentator, “Does the statement ‘it applies to the five individuals at the lower end’ refer to the five benefits arising from the act of spreading, such as ‘I spread the Kathina with this robe,’ or does it refer to the act of offering Kathina cloth as the cause for the spreading?” How should it be answered? Venerable sir, “The statement ‘it applies to the five individuals at the lower end’ refers to the five benefits arising from the act of spreading, such as ‘I spread the Kathina with this robe,’ but the commentator did not say this; rather, it refers to the act of offering Kathina cloth as the cause for the spreading.” The intention here is that the spreading of the Kathina occurs only when the Sangha offers the cloth to the spreading monk, not when the cloth is obtained through standing or personal robes. This act of offering Kathina cloth is completed among five monks: four who offer the cloth and one who receives it. It does not occur with fewer than five. Thus, it applies to the final group of five. The accomplishment of the cause leads to the accomplishment of the result. Therefore, it is said, “It is spoken with reference to the act of offering Kathina cloth,” primarily not directly but figuratively. When explained thus, there is no contradiction between the earlier and later statements in the commentary, and the commentary does not contradict the ṭīkā. It should also be understood that this aligns with the characteristic of the Vinaya as stated: “The boundary fixed by the Blessed One is for the purpose of performing Sangha acts such as invitation, etc.”
ID1321
“Imāya saṅghāṭiyā kathinaṃ attharāmī”tiādikā pana atthārakiriyā apalokanādīsu catūsu saṅghakammesu appaviṭṭhā, adhiṭṭhānādayo viya pañcānisaṃsalābhakāraṇabhūtā puggalakiriyāva hotīti vassūpanāyikakhettabhūtāya antoupacārasīmāya kātabbā, tasmā antoupacārasīmāyaṃ baddhasīmāya avijjamānāya bahiupacārasīmāyaṃ baddhasīmaṃ vā udakukkhepasattabbhantaralabhamānaṭṭhānaṃ vā gantvā ñattidutiyakammena kathinadussaṃ dāpetvā puna vihāraṃ āgantvā antoupacārasīmāyameva kathinattharaṇaṃ pubbācariyehi kataṃ, taṃ sukatameva hotīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Evaṃ aggahetvā suddhaupacārasīmāyameva ñattidutiyakammaṃ kātabbanti gayhamāne sati tesaṃ āyasmantānaṃ diṭṭhānugatiṃ āpajjamānā sissānusissā dhuvavāsatthāya vihāradānādiapalokanakammaṃ vā uposathapavāraṇādiñattikammaṃ vā sīmāsammannanādiñattidutiyakammaṃ vā upasampadādiñatticatutthakammaṃ vā upacārasīmāyameva kareyyuṃ, evaṃ karontā bhagavato sāsane mahantaṃ jaṭaṃ mahantaṃ gumbaṃ mahantaṃ visamaṃ kareyyuṃ, tasmā tamakaraṇatthaṃ yuttito ca āgamato ca anekāni kāraṇāni āharitvā kathayimhāti.
However, the act of spreading, such as “With this saṅghāṭi, I spread the kathina,” is not included among the four Saṅgha acts like apalokana; like determination and so forth, it is merely an individual act that is the cause of obtaining the five privileges. Therefore, it must be performed within the antoupacārasīmā, which is the field of the rains retreat. Thus, when there is no designated sīmā within the antoupacārasīmā, the earlier teachers went to a designated sīmā outside the upacārasīmā or to a place within the range of water sprinkling, gave the kathina cloth through the ñattidutiyakamma, and then returned to the monastery to perform the kathina spreading only within the antoupacārasīmā. This was well done—this should be understood. If it is taken that the ñattidutiyakamma should be performed solely within the upacārasīmā without this understanding, then those venerable ones’ disciples, following their view, might perform Saṅgha acts like giving a monastery for permanent residence, or uposatha, pavāraṇā, and other acts requiring a ñatti, or the designation of a sīmā requiring a ñattidutiyakamma, or upasampadā requiring a ñatticatutthakamma, solely within the upacārasīmā. By doing so, they would create great confusion, a great tangle, and great unevenness in the Blessed One’s teaching. Therefore, to prevent this, we have explained it with many reasons from both logic and scriptures.
But the act of spreading, such as “With this sanghati, I spread the kathina”, is not included among the four sanghakamma, such as apalokanā. Like placing under special determination, they are only personal actions that are the cause of receiving the five advantages. They should be done in the inner boundary, which is the field for residence during the rains. Therefore, when there is no bounded inner boundary, going to the outer boundary, or a place within the throw of water and seven abbhantara, requesting that the kathina cloth be given through the formal act with a motion and second, and then returning to the monastery, the spreading of the kathina within the inner boundary was done by the former teachers. It should be understood that this is well done. If, without accepting this, it is accepted that the formal act with a motion and second should be done only in a boundary that is solely an outer boundary, then the students and their students, following the views of those venerable ones, might perform an apalokana-kamma, such as the donation of a monastery for permanent residence, or a formal act with a motion, such as uposatha and pavāraṇā, or a formal act with a motion and second, such as the determination of boundaries, or a formal act with a motion and fourfold repetition, such as full ordination, within the outer boundary. Doing so, they would create a great tangle, a great thicket, a great obstruction in the Blessed One’s Dispensation. Therefore, we have presented and related many reasons, both from reason and from scripture, to prevent that.
However, the act of spreading, such as “I spread the Kathina with this robe,” is not included in the four Sangha acts like invitation, etc. It is merely a personal act, like determination, etc., which serves as the cause for obtaining the five benefits. It should be done within the boundary of the residence, which is like a field for the rainy season. Therefore, if the boundary of the residence is not fixed, one should go outside the boundary or to a place within a stone’s throw where water can be thrown, perform the act of offering Kathina cloth through a motion and second, return to the monastery, and spread the Kathina within the boundary of the residence. This is what was done by the ancient teachers, and it is perfectly acceptable. Thus, it should be understood. If one insists on performing the motion and second only within the pure boundary, then those venerable ones, following their view, would perform acts like donation of monasteries, invitation, Uposatha, Pavāraṇā, boundary marking, ordination, etc., only within the boundary. By doing so, they would create great confusion, great complexity, and great irregularity in the Buddha’s dispensation. Therefore, to avoid this, we have brought forth many reasons from logic and scripture and explained them.
ID1322
Sāsane gāravaṃ katvā, saddhammassānulomato; Mayā kataṃ vinicchayaṃ, sammā cintentu sādhavo.
Having respect for the teaching, in conformity with the true Dhamma, I have made this determination; let the virtuous consider it well.
Having paid respect to the Dispensation, and in accordance with the true Dhamma, May the wise rightly consider the determination made by me.
Having shown respect for the Dispensation, in accordance with the true Dhamma; The analysis I have made, let the virtuous ones consider it rightly.
ID1323
Punappunaṃ vicintetvā, yuttaṃ ce hoti gaṇhantu; No ce yuttaṃ mā gaṇhantu, sammāsambuddhasāvakāti.
Having considered it repeatedly, if it is proper, let them accept it; if it is not proper, let them not accept it, as disciples of the Fully Enlightened One.
After repeatedly considering, if it is proper, accept it; If it is not proper, do not accept it, O disciples of the Perfectly Enlightened One.
Having reflected again and again, if it is reasonable, accept it; If it is not reasonable, do not accept it, O disciples of the Rightly Enlightened One.
ID1324
Ito parānipi kāraṇasādhakāni āharanti ācariyā, tesaṃ paṭivacanena ativitthāro bhavissati, upacārasīmāya catunnaṃ saṅghakammānaṃ kataṭṭhānabhāvo pubbe vuttova, tasmā taṃ vacanaṃ manasi katvā saṃsayaṃ akatvā dhāretabboti.
Hereafter, teachers bring forth more reasons to establish this, but responding to them would become too lengthy. The fact that the four Saṅgha acts are performed within the upacārasīmā has already been stated earlier. Therefore, keeping that statement in mind, it should be held without doubt.
Beyond this, teachers bring forth reasons that establish causes, and responding to them would be excessively lengthy. The status of the outer boundary as the place for performing the four sangha-kammas has already been mentioned. Therefore, keeping that statement in mind, it should be retained without doubt.
Other teachers also bring forth reasons to establish this. Their refutation would lead to excessive elaboration. The fact that the four Sangha acts are performed within the boundary has been previously stated. Therefore, bearing that statement in mind, one should hold it without doubt.
ID1325
“Imāya saṅghāṭiyā kathinaṃ attharāmī”ti vācā bhinditabbāti kiṃ ettakena vacībhedena kathinaṃ atthataṃ hoti, udāhu añño koci kāyavikāro kātabbo? Na kātabbo. Ettakeneva hi vacībhedena atthataṃ hoti, kathinaṃ. Vuttañhetaṃ parivāre (pari. 408) “atthāro ekena dhammena saṅgahito vacībhedenā”ti.
“With this saṅghāṭi, I spread the kathina”—this verbal expression must be uttered. Is the kathina spread merely by this verbal expression, or is some physical gesture also to be made? It is not to be made. The kathina is spread by this verbal expression alone. This is stated in the Parivāra (pari. 408), “The atthāro is encompassed by one phenomenon, verbal expression.”
“It should be declared by the words, ‘With this sanghati, I spread the kathina’” - Does the kathina become spread merely by this declaration of words? Or should some other physical action be done? It should not be done. Indeed, it becomes spread simply by this declaration of words, the kathina. It is said in the Parivāra (pari. 408): “Spreading is encompassed by one factor: the declaration of words.”
“The statement ‘I spread the Kathina with this robe’ should be uttered.” Does the Kathina become spread merely by this utterance, or is some other bodily action required? No other action is required. The Kathina becomes spread merely by this utterance. As stated in the Parivāra (pari. 408): “The spreading is accomplished by one factor, the verbal utterance.”
ID1326
Evaṃ kathinatthāraṃ dassetvā anumodāpanaanumodane dassento “tena kathinatthārakenā”tiādimāha. Tattha yena bhikkhunā “imāya saṅghāṭiyā kathinaṃ attharāmī”tiādinā vacībhedena kathinaṃ atthataṃ, tena “kathinassa atthārā pannarasa dhammā jāyantī”ti parivāre (pari. 403) āgatattā kathinatthārena saheva pañca ānisaṃsā āgatā, atha kasmā saṅghaṃ anumodāpetīti? Kiñcāpi atthārakassa bhikkhuno pañca ānisaṃsā āgatā, saṅghassa pana anāgatā, tasmā saṅghassa ca āgamanatthaṃ saṅghaṃ anumodāpeti, saṅgho ca anumodanaṃ karoti, evaṃ kate ubhinnampi ānisaṃsā āgatā honti. Vuttañhetaṃ parivāre (pari. 403) “dvinnaṃ puggalānaṃ atthataṃ hoti kathinaṃ atthārakassa ca anumodakassa cā”ti. Ettha ca kathinatthārakabhikkhuto vuḍḍhataro bhikkhu tasmiṃ saṅghe atthi, idha vuttanayena atthārakena “bhante”ti vattabbaṃ, anumodakena “āvuso”ti. Yadi pana kathinatthārako bhikkhu sabbesaṃ vuḍḍhataro hoti, tena “āvuso”ti vattabbaṃ, itarehi “bhante”ti, evaṃ sesanayadvayepi. Evaṃ sabbesaṃ atthataṃ hoti kathinanti. Imesu pana saṅghapuggalesu ye tasmiṃ vihāre purimikāya vassaṃ upagantvā paṭhamapavāraṇāya pavāritā, teyeva anumodituṃ labhanti, chinnavassā vā pacchimikāya upagatā vā aññasmiṃ vihāre vutthavassā vā na labhanti, ananumodantāpi ānisaṃsaṃ na labhanti.
Having thus shown the kathinatthāra, he now shows the anumodanā and the act of rejoicing with “By that kathinatthāraka” and so forth. There, the monk by whom the kathina was spread with the verbal expression “With this saṅghāṭi, I spread the kathina” and so forth—since it is stated in the Parivāra (pari. 403), “From the spreading of the kathina, fifteen phenomena arise,” the five privileges come along with the kathinatthāra. Then why does he have the Saṅgha rejoice? Although the five privileges come to the monk who spreads, they do not come to the Saṅgha. Therefore, to bring them to the Saṅgha as well, he has the Saṅgha rejoice, and the Saṅgha performs the rejoicing. When this is done, the privileges come to both. This is stated in the Parivāra (pari. 403), “The kathina is spread for two persons: the spreader and the one who rejoices.” Here, if there is a monk senior to the kathinatthāraka monk in that Saṅgha, the spreader should say “Bhante” as stated, and the one who rejoices should say “Āvuso.” But if the kathinatthāraka monk is senior to all, he should say “Āvuso,” and the others should say “Bhante”—likewise in the other two cases. Thus, the kathina is spread for all.
Having shown the spreading of the kathina in this way, he states “By that bhikkhu who spreads the kathina” and so forth, showing the rejoicing and causing of rejoicing. There, the kathina is spread by the bhikkhu with the declaration of words such as “With this sanghati, I spread the kathina”. Because it is stated in the Parivāra (pari. 403) that “Fifteen factors arise from the spreading of the kathina”, the five advantages have come along with the spreading of the kathina. Then why does he cause the Sangha to rejoice? Although the five advantages have come to the bhikkhu who spreads, they have not yet come to the Sangha. Therefore, he causes the Sangha to rejoice so that they will also come to the Sangha, and the Sangha performs the rejoicing. When this is done, the advantages come to both. It is said in the Parivāra (pari. 403): “The kathina is spread for two individuals: for the one who spreads and for the one who rejoices.” And here, if there is a bhikkhu senior to the bhikkhu who spreads the kathina in that Sangha, in this case he should be addressed by the spreader as “Bhante”, and by the rejoicer as “Āvuso”. But if the bhikkhu who spreads the kathina is senior to all, he should address others as “Āvuso,” and the others should address him as “Bhante.” The same applies to the other two cases. Thus, the kathina is spread for all. But among these Sangha members, only those who entered the rains in that monastery for the first period and made the first invitation are eligible to rejoice. Those who have interrupted their rains, or entered for the later period, or spent the rains in another monastery are not eligible, nor do they receive the advantages, even if they do not rejoice.
Having thus explained the spreading of the Kathina, the text now shows the rejoicing and approval: “Therefore, by the spreading of the Kathina…” Here, the monk who spreads the Kathina by uttering, “I spread the Kathina with this robe,” etc., obtains the five benefits along with the spreading, as stated in the Parivāra (pari. 403): “Fifteen things arise from the spreading of the Kathina.” Why then does he request the Sangha to rejoice? Although the spreading monk obtains the five benefits, the Sangha does not. Therefore, to enable the Sangha to obtain them, he requests the Sangha to rejoice, and the Sangha rejoices. When this is done, both obtain the benefits. As stated in the Parivāra (pari. 403): “The Kathina becomes spread for two individuals: the spreader and the rejoicer.” Here, if the spreading monk is senior to the rejoicing monk in that Sangha, he should address him as “Venerable sir,” and the rejoicing monk should address him as “Friend.” If the spreading monk is the senior most in the Sangha, he should address the others as “Friend,” and they should address him as “Venerable sir.” The same applies in other cases. Thus, the Kathina becomes spread for all. Among these Sangha individuals, only those who entered the monastery in the earlier period of the rains and completed the first Pavāraṇā are entitled to rejoice. Those who broke the rains or entered in the later period or stayed in another monastery do not obtain the benefits, even if they do not rejoice.
ID1327
Evaṃ kathinatthāraṃ dassetvā idāni cīvaravibhāgaṃ dassetuṃ “evaṃ atthate pana kathine”tiādimāha. Tattha sace kathinacīvarena saddhiṃ ābhataṃ ānisaṃsanti iminā ekaṃ atthatacīvarameva kathinacīvaraṃ nāma, tato aññaṃ tena saddhiṃ ābhataṃ sabbaṃ cīvaraṃ kathinānisaṃsacīvaraṃ nāmāti dasseti. Vakkhati hi “avasesakathinānisaṃse balavavatthānī”tiādi. Tena ñāyati “vatthameva idha ānisaṃso nāma, na aggho, kathinasāṭakena saddhiṃ ābhatānaṃ aññasāṭakānaṃ bahulavasena attharitabbaṃ, na kathinasāṭakassa mahagghavasenā”ti. Bhikkhusaṅgho anissaro, atthatakathino bhikkhuyeva issaro. Kasmā? Dāyakehi vicāritattā. Bhikkhusaṅgho issaro, kasmā? Dāyakehi avicāritattā, mūlakathinassa ca saṅghe dinnattā. Avasesakathinānisaṃseti tassa dinnavatthehi avasesakathinānisaṃsavatthe. Balavavatthānīti attharitabbakathinasāṭakaṃyeva ahataṃ vā ahatakappaṃ vā dātuṃ vaṭṭati, ānisaṃsacīvaraṃ pana yathāsatti yathābalaṃ purāṇaṃ vā abhinavaṃ vā dubbalaṃ vā balavaṃ vā dātuṃ vaṭṭati, tasmā tesu dubbalavatthe ṭhitikāya dinne laddhabhikkhussa upakārakaṃ na hoti, tasmā upakāraṇayoggāni balavavatthāni dātabbānīti adhippāyo. Vassāvāsikaṭhitikāya dātabbānīti yattakā bhikkhū vassāvāsikacīvaraṃ labhiṃsu, te ṭhapetvā tesaṃ heṭṭhato paṭṭhāya yathākkamaṃ dātabbāni. Therāsanato paṭṭhāyāti yattakā bhikkhū tissaṃ kathinatthatasīmāyaṃ santi, tesu jeṭṭhakabhikkhuto paṭṭhāya dātabbāni. Āsanaggahaṇaṃ pana yathāvuḍḍhaṃ nisinne sandhāya kataṃ. Etena vassāvāsikakathinānisaṃsānaṃ samānagatikataṃ dīpeti. Garubhaṇḍaṃ na bhājetabbanti kathinasāṭakena saddhiṃ ābhatesu mañcapīṭhādikaṃ garubhaṇḍaṃ na bhājetabbaṃ, saṅghikavaseneva paribhuñjitabbanti attho. Tattha garubhaṇḍavinicchayo anantarakathāyaṃ āvi bhavissati.
Having thus shown the kathinatthāra, he now says “When the kathina has been spread thus” and so forth to show the distribution of robes. There, “If the privilege comes with the kathina robe” indicates that only one robe spread is called the kathina robe, and all other robes brought with it are called kathina privilege robes. He will say later, “The remaining kathina privileges are strong cloth” and so forth. From this, it is known that “Here, privilege means cloth, not value; the robes brought with the kathina cloth should be spread based on their abundance, not the high value of the kathina cloth.” “The Saṅgha is not the authority”—the monk who has spread the kathina is the authority. Why? Because it was considered by the donors. “The Saṅgha is the authority”—why? Because it was not considered by the donors, and the original kathina was given to the Saṅgha. “The remaining kathina privileges”—the cloths given to him that are the remaining kathina privilege cloths. “Strong cloth”—only the kathina cloth to be spread, whether unused or nearly unused, may be given; but the privilege robes may be given according to ability and strength, whether old or new, weak or strong. Thus, when weak cloths are given at the appointed time, they are not helpful to the recipient monk; therefore, strong cloths suitable for helping should be given—this is the intention.
Having thus shown the spreading of the kathina, now, to show the distribution of robes, he states “When the kathina has been spread in this way,” and so forth. There, “if along with the kathina cloth there has been brought any that brings the advantage” - by this, he indicates that only a single spread cloth is called the kathina cloth, and any other cloth brought along with it is called kathina-advantage cloth. Indeed, he will say, “the remaining kathina-advantages are strong cloths” and so forth. By this, it is understood that “here, ‘advantage’ refers to cloth, not to value, and the distribution should be made primarily according to the abundance of other cloths brought along with the kathina cloth, not according to the high value of the kathina cloth.” The Sangha of Bhikkhus is not the owner, only the bhikkhu whose kathina has been spread is the owner. Why? Because it was allocated by the donors. The Sangha of Bhikkhus is the owner, Why? Because it was not allocated by the donors, and because the original kathina was given to the Sangha. Remaining kathina-advantages refers to the remaining cloths that bring the kathina advantage among those cloths that were given. Strong cloths - it is only proper to give the unsewn or prepared-as-if-unsewn kathina cloth that is to be spread, but kathina-advantage cloth may be given, as far as one’s ability and strength allow, whether it is old or new, weak or strong. Therefore, if weak cloths are given among them, because it is given based on the temporary arrangement, they are not helpful to the bhikkhu who receives them. Therefore, strong cloths suitable for providing help should be given. This is the intention. Should be given based on the temporary arrangement for those who stayed for the rains means that they should be given in order, starting from the lowest after setting aside as many bhikkhus as received the rains-residence cloth. Starting from the seat of the Thera - they should be given starting from the most senior bhikkhu among as many bhikkhus as are present in that boundary where the kathina has been spread. But the reference to “seat” is made with reference to sitting in order of seniority. By this, he indicates that the distribution of rains-residence cloths and kathina-advantage cloths share the same principle. Valuable property should not be divided - valuable property such as couches and chairs, brought along with the kathina cloth, should not be divided; it should be used as belonging to the Sangha. The determination of valuable property will become clear in the following discussion.
Having thus explained the spreading of the Kathina, the text now explains the distribution of robes: “When the Kathina is spread…” Here, “if the Kathina robe is brought along with other benefits,” this indicates that only the robe used for spreading is called the Kathina robe, while all other robes brought along with it are called Kathina benefit robes. As it is said: “The remaining Kathina benefits are strong cloths,” etc. Thus, it is understood that the benefit here refers to the cloth itself, not its value. The cloths brought along with the Kathina cloth should mostly be spread, not because the Kathina cloth is valuable. “The Sangha of monks is not the owner,” the monk who has spread the Kathina is the owner. Why? Because the donors have designated it. “The Sangha of monks is the owner,” why? Because the donors have not designated it, and the root Kathina was given to the Sangha. “The remaining Kathina benefits” refer to the remaining Kathina benefit cloths given along with that cloth. “Strong cloths” means that only the Kathina cloth to be spread can be given new or unused, while the benefit robes can be given old or new, weak or strong, according to one’s ability. Therefore, if weak cloths are given by standing, they are of no use to the monk who receives them. Hence, strong cloths suitable for use should be given. “They should be given to those who have completed the rains residence,” meaning they should be given to those monks who have received the rains residence cloth, starting from the lowest in order. “Starting from the senior seats,” meaning they should be given starting from the senior most monks present within the boundary of the Kathina spreading. The seating arrangement is based on seniority. This indicates that the rains residence and Kathina benefits follow the same procedure. “Heavy goods should not be distributed,” meaning heavy goods like beds and chairs brought along with the Kathina cloth should not be distributed but should be used communally by the Sangha. The discussion on heavy goods will be clear in the subsequent explanation.
ID1328
Imasmiṃ pana ṭhāne vattabbaṃ atthi. Kathaṃ? Idāni bhikkhū kathinānisaṃsacīvaraṃ kusapātaṃ katvā vibhajanti, taṃ yuttaṃ viya na dissatīti. Kasmāti ce? “Avasesakathinānisaṃse balavavatthāni vassāvāsikaṭhitikāya dātabbāni, ṭhitikāya abhāve therāsanato paṭṭhāya dātabbānī”ti vacanatoti. Evaṃ sante kattha kusapāto kātabboti? Bhaṇḍāgāre ṭhapitacīvareti. Kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce? “Ussannaṃ hotīti bahu rāsikataṃ hoti, bhaṇḍāgāraṃ na gaṇhāti. Sammukhībhūtenāti antoupacārasīmāyaṃ ṭhitena. Bhājetunti kālaṃ ghosāpetvā paṭipāṭiyā bhājetuṃ…pe… evaṃ ṭhapitesu cīvarapaṭivīsesu kuso pātetabbo”ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 343) vuttattā, tasmā imissaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttanayeneva bhājetabbanti amhākaṃ khanti.
There is something to be said at this point. How so? Now, monks distribute the kathina privilege robes by casting lots, which does not seem proper. Why not? Because it is said, “The remaining kathina privileges, strong cloths, should be given at the appointed time for the rains residence; in the absence of the appointed time, they should be given starting from the senior’s seat.” If so, where should the casting of lots be done? In the robes stored in the storehouse. How is this known? Because it is stated in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 343), “‘It becomes excessive’ means it becomes a large heap and the storehouse cannot contain it. ‘By one present’ means by one standing within the antoupacārasīmā. ‘Distribute’ means to distribute in order after announcing the time… thus, among the robes so placed, the lot should be cast.” Therefore, it should be distributed according to the method stated in this commentary—that is our preference.
But at this point, there is something to be said. How so? Nowadays, bhikkhus divide the kathina-advantage cloth by making a lottery with blades of kusa grass, and that does not seem proper. Why is that? Because of the statement, “The remaining kathina-advantages, being strong cloths, should be given based on the temporary arrangement for those who stayed for the rains; in the absence of a temporary arrangement, they should be given starting from the seat of the Thera.” This being the case, where should the lottery be made? In the cloth stored in the storehouse. How is it known? Because it is said in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 343): “It is abundant” means it is piled up high, and does not fit in the storehouse. “By one who is present” means by one standing within the inner boundary. “Let him divide” means, after announcing the time, let him divide according to the order… (as before) … When shares of cloth have been set aside in this way, a lottery should be cast. Therefore, it is our preference that the division should be done according to the method stated in this commentary.
Here, something should be said. How? Nowadays, monks distribute Kathina benefit robes by drawing lots, which does not seem proper. Why? Because the statement says: “The remaining Kathina benefits are strong cloths and should be given to those who have completed the rains residence by standing, and in the absence of standing, starting from the senior seats.” If so, where should the lot be drawn? In the storeroom where the robes are kept. How is it known? “When it is abundant,” meaning when there is a large quantity, the storeroom cannot hold it. “In the presence,” meaning within the boundary of the residence. “They should distribute,” after announcing the time, they should distribute in order… etc. Thus, after setting aside the robe portions, the lot should be drawn. As stated in the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 343), therefore, according to the method stated in this commentary, they should distribute. This is our understanding.
ID1329
Ekacce pana bhikkhū ekekassa ekekasmiṃ cīvare appahonte cīvaraṃ parivattetvā akappiyavatthuṃ gahetvā bhājenti, taṃ atioḷārikameva. Aññepi ekaccānaṃ cīvarānaṃ mahagghatāya ekaccānaṃ appagghatāya samagghaṃ kātuṃ na sakkāti tatheva karonti, tampi oḷārikameva. Tattha hi akappiyavatthunā parivattanepi tassa vicāraṇepi bhāgaggahaṇepi āpattiyeva hoti. Eke “kathinaṃ nāma dubbicāraṇīya”nti vatvā attharaṇaṃ na karonti, puggalikavaseneva yathājjhāsayaṃ vicārenti, taṃ pana yadi dāyakehi puggalasseva dinnaṃ, puggalena ca saṅghassa apariccajitaṃ, evaṃ sati attano santakattā yuttaṃ viya dissati. Yadi pana saṅghassa vā gaṇassa vā dinnaṃ, puggalassa dinnepi saṅghassa vā gaṇassa vā pariccajitaṃ, evaṃ sante saṅghagaṇānaṃ santakattā ayuttaṃ bhaveyya. Apare pana kathinavasena paṭiggahite vicāretuṃ dukkaranti maññamānā “na mayaṃ kathinavasena paṭiggaṇhāma, vassāvāsikabhāveneva paṭiggaṇhāmā”ti vatvā yathāruci vicārenti, tampi ayuttaṃ. Vassāvāsikampi hi saṅghassa dinnaṃ saṅghikaṃ hotiyeva, puggalassa dinnaṃ puggalikaṃ. Kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce? “Sace pana tesaṃ senāsane paṃsukūliko vasati, āgatañca taṃ disvā ’tumhākaṃ vassāvāsikaṃ demā’ti vadanti, tena saṅghassa ācikkhitabbaṃ. Sace tāni kulāni saṅghassa dātuṃ na icchanti, ’tumhākaṃyeva demā’ti vadanti, sabhāgo bhikkhu ’vattaṃ katvā gaṇhāhī’ti vattabbo, paṃsukūlikassa panetaṃ na vaṭṭatī”ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318; vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 219) vuttattā.
However, some monks, when there are not enough robes for each one, exchange the robes, take improper items, and distribute them—this is indeed very coarse. Others, due to the high value of some robes and the low value of others, cannot equalize the value and do the same—this too is coarse. For in exchanging with improper items, considering them, or taking portions, there is only an offense. Some say, “The kathina is difficult to manage,” and do not perform the spreading, managing it as they wish as personal property. If it was given by the donors to an individual and not relinquished to the Saṅgha, it seems proper as it belongs to him. But if it was given to the Saṅgha or a group, or even given to an individual but relinquished to the Saṅgha or a group, then it belongs to the Saṅgha or group and would be improper. Others, thinking it difficult to manage what was received for the kathina, say, “We do not accept it for the kathina; we accept it only as rains residence robes,” and manage it as they please—this too is improper. For even rains residence robes, if given to the Saṅgha, are Saṅgha property; if given to an individual, they are individual property. How is this known? Because it is stated in the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318; vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 219), “If a rag-robe wearer lives in their lodging and, seeing what has come, they say, ‘We give you rains residence robes,’ he should inform the Saṅgha. If those families do not wish to give to the Saṅgha and say, ‘We give only to you,’ a suitable monk should be told, ‘Perform the duty and take it,’ but this is not proper for a rag-robe wearer.”
But some bhikkhus, when there is not enough for each one to have a single robe, exchange robes and, taking improper materials, make the distribution. This is extremely crude. Others also, because of the high value of some robes and the low value of others, cannot make them of equal value, and so they act as they are, this too is crude. Indeed, in that case, even with the exchange with an improper object, and in its allocation, and in taking a share, there is an offense. Some, saying, “The kathina is difficult to allocate,” do not do the spreading, and they allocate as they please, simply as personal property. But if that was given by the donors to an individual, and not relinquished by the individual to the Sangha, in such a case, because it is one’s own property, it seems proper. But if it was given to the Sangha or to a group, or even if given to an individual, it was relinquished to the Sangha or to a group, in such a case, it would be improper, because it is the property of the Sangha or group. Others, thinking that what has been received as kathina is difficult to allocate, say, “We do not receive it as kathina; we receive it as the rains-residence allowance,” and then allocate as they please. That too is improper. Indeed, even the rains-residence allowance, if given to the Sangha, becomes Sangha property; if given to an individual, it becomes personal property. How is it known? Because it is said in the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318; vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 219): “But if a pamsukulika monk lives in their dwelling, and seeing him arrive, they say, ‘We will give you the rains-residence allowance,’ he should inform the Sangha. If those families do not wish to give to the Sangha, and say, ‘We will give it to you,’ a bhikkhu who has a share should be told, ‘Perform the duties and take it.’ But this is not allowable for a pamsukulika monk.”
However, some monks, unable to give each monk a separate robe, exchange robes and take unsuitable cloths to distribute, which is highly improper. Others, due to the high value of some robes and the low value of others, cannot make an equal distribution and do the same, which is also improper. In such cases, exchanging unsuitable cloths, considering them, and taking a share all incur offenses. Some say, “The Kathina is difficult to manage,” and do not spread it, but manage it personally according to their inclination. This seems proper only if the donors have given it personally and the individual has not relinquished it to the Sangha, as it then appears to be his own property. But if it was given to the Sangha or a group, even if given to an individual, if relinquished to the Sangha or group, then it would be improper, as it belongs to the Sangha or group. Others, thinking it difficult to manage what is received under the Kathina, say, “We do not receive it under the Kathina, but under the rains residence,” and manage it as they please, which is also improper. For the rains residence robe, if given to the Sangha, belongs to the Sangha; if given to an individual, belongs to the individual. How is it known? “If a rag-robe dweller lives in their lodging, and seeing him, they say, ‘We give you the rains residence robe,’ he should inform the Sangha. If those families do not wish to give to the Sangha, but say, ‘We give it to you,’ a participating monk should be told, ‘After performing the duty, take it,’ but this does not apply to a rag-robe dweller.” As stated in the commentary (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 318; Vin. Saṅga. Aṭṭha. 219).
ID1330
Vassāvāsikaṃ duvidhaṃ saddhādeyyatatruppādavasena. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318) “iti saddhādeyye dāyakamanussā pucchitabbā, tatruppāde pana kappiyakārakā pucchitabbā”ti. Saddhādeyyavassāvāsikampi savihārāvihāravasena duvidhaṃ. Vuttañhetaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318) “mahāpadumatthero panāha na evaṃ kātabbaṃ. Manussā hi attano āvāsapaṭijagganatthāya paccayaṃ denti, tasmā aññehi bhikkhūhi tattha pavisitabba”nti, “yesaṃ pana senāsanaṃ natthi, kevalaṃ paccayameva denti, tesaṃ paccayaṃ avassāvāsike senāsane gāhetuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti ca. Tatruppādavassāvāsikaṃ nāma kappiyakārakānaṃ hatthe kappiyavatthupaabhuñjanatthāya dinnavatthuto nibbattaṃ. Vuttampi cetaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318) “kappiyakārakānañhi hatthe ’kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ paribhuñjathā’ti dinnavatthuto yaṃ yaṃ kappiyaṃ, taṃ sabbaṃ paribhuñjituṃ anuññāta”nti. Evaṃ vassāvāsikacīvarampi pubbe yebhuyyena saṅghasseva denti, tasmā “kathinacīvaraṃ demā”ti vutte kathinacīvarabhāvena paṭiggahetabbaṃ, “vassāvāsikaṃ demā”ti vutte vassāvāsikacīvarabhāveneva paṭiggahetabbaṃ. Kasmā? “Yathā dāyakā vadanti, tathā paṭipajjitabba”nti (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 325) vacanato.
Rains residence robes are of two kinds: those given out of faith and those arising from circumstances. It is stated in the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318), “Thus, for robes given out of faith, the donor people should be asked; for those arising from circumstances, the lawful stewards should be asked.” Rains residence robes given out of faith are also of two kinds: those within the monastery and those outside it. It is stated in the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318), “The Elder Mahāpaduma said, ‘It should not be done this way. People give resources for maintaining their own lodging, so other monks should enter there,’” and “For those who have no lodging and give only resources, it is proper to take those resources to a lodging not used for the rains residence.” Rains residence robes arising from circumstances are those produced from cloth given into the hands of lawful stewards for the use of lawful items. This is stated in the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318), “Whatever is lawful from the cloth given into the hands of lawful stewards with ‘Use lawful items,’ all of that is permitted to be used.” Thus, rains residence robes were mostly given to the Saṅgha in the past. Therefore, when they say, “We give kathina robes,” they should be accepted as kathina robes; when they say, “We give rains residence robes,” they should be accepted as rains residence robes. Why? Because it is stated (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 325), “It should be done as the donors say.”
The rains-residence allowance is twofold: that based on faithful giving and that produced on the spot. It is said in the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318): “Thus, in the case of faithful giving, the donor laypeople should be asked. But in the case of that produced on the spot, the kappiyakāraka should be asked.” The rains-residence allowance based on faithful giving is also twofold, according to whether it is for one’s own monastery or not. It is said in the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318): “But Mahāpaduma Thera said, ‘It should not be done like this. People give requisites for the maintenance of their own dwellings. Therefore, other bhikkhus should enter there,’ and ‘But in the case of those who have no dwelling, and give only requisites, it is allowable to have their requisites used in a dwelling that is not a rains-residence dwelling.’” The rains-residence allowance produced on the spot is that which arises from the materials given into the hands of the kappiyakāraka for the use of allowable materials. It is also said in the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318): “From the materials given into the hands of the kappiyakāraka, saying ‘Use the allowable materials,’ whatever is allowable, all that is permitted to be used.” Thus, even the rains-residence cloth is generally given to the Sangha. Therefore, when it is said, “We will give the kathina cloth,” it should be received as kathina cloth; when it is said, “We will give the rains-residence allowance,” it should be received as the rains-residence cloth. Why? Because of the saying (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 325): “One should act according to how the donors speak.”
The rains residence robe is of two kinds: faith-offering and necessity. As stated in the commentary (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 318): “In the case of a faith-offering, the donor should be asked; in the case of necessity, the steward should be asked.” The faith-offering rains residence robe is also of two kinds: with or without a residence. As stated in the commentary (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 318): “The Elder Mahāpaduma said, ‘It should not be done thus. People give requisites for the maintenance of their own residence, so other monks should not enter there.’ But for those who have no lodging and give only requisites, it is permissible to take the requisites even in a non-residence lodging.” The necessity rains residence robe refers to what is given into the hands of the stewards for the use of suitable cloths and goods. As stated in the commentary (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 318): “For the stewards, whatever is given into their hands for the use of suitable goods, all of it is permitted to be used.” Thus, previously, most rains residence robes were given to the Sangha. Therefore, when it is said, “We give the Kathina robe,” it should be received as a Kathina robe; when it is said, “We give the rains residence robe,” it should be received as a rains residence robe. Why? “One should act as the donors say,” as stated in the commentary (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 325).
ID1331
Kiñci avatvā hatthe vā pādamūle vā ṭhapetvā gate kiṃ kātabbanti? Tattha sace “idaṃ vatthu cetiyassa vā saṅghassa vā parapuggalassa vā atthāya pariṇata”nti jāneyya, tesaṃ atthāya paṭiggahetabbaṃ. Atha “mamatthāya pariṇata”nti jāneyya, attano atthāya paṭiggahetabbaṃ. Vuttañhetaṃ parivāre (pari. 329) “nava adhammikadānānī”tiādi. Atha na kiñci jāneyya, attano hatthe vā pādamūle vā kiñci avatvā ṭhapitaṃ tasseva puggalikaṃ hoti. Na hi cetiyādīnaṃ atthāya pariṇataṃ kiñci avatvā bhikkhussa hatthe vā pādamūle vā ṭhapetīti. Vuttañhetaṃ samantapāsādikāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379) “puggalassa detīti ’imaṃ cīvaraṃ itthannāmassa dammī’ti evaṃ parammukhā vā pādamūle ṭhapetvā ’imaṃ, bhante, tumhākaṃ dammī’ti evaṃ sammukhā vā detī”tiādi.
Having placed something in the hand or at the foot without saying anything and then departed, what should be done? In that case, if one knows, “This item has been intended for the benefit of a cetiya, the Saṅgha, or another individual,” it should be accepted for their benefit. However, if one knows, “It has been intended for my benefit,” it should be accepted for one’s own benefit. This is stated in the Parivāra (pari. 329), “Nine unrighteous gifts,” and so forth. If nothing is known, what is placed in one’s hand or at one’s foot without anything being said belongs personally to that individual. For it is not the case that something intended for the benefit of a cetiya or the like is placed in a bhikkhu’s hand or at his foot without any statement. It is said in the Samantapāsādikā (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379), “‘He gives to an individual’ means either saying, ‘I give this robe to so-and-so’ in their absence, or placing it at their feet and saying, ‘Venerable, I give this to you’ in their presence,” and so forth.
Furthermore, if he left without saying anything, placing it in the hand or at the foot, what should be done? In that case, if one knows, “This object has been designated for the cetiyā, or the Saṅgha, or another person,” it should be accepted on their behalf. But if one knows, “It has been designated for me,” it should be accepted for oneself. This has been stated in the Parivāra (pari. 329), “Nine unrighteous gifts,” and so forth. But if one does not know anything, something placed in one’s hand or at one’s foot without saying anything belongs to that individual. For one does not place something designated for a cetiyā, etc., in a bhikkhu’s hand or at his foot without saying anything. This has been stated in the Samantapāsādikā (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379), “Gives to an individual, meaning, having placed it directly before him saying ‘I give this robe to so-and-so,’ or placing at the feet saying ‘Venerable sir, I give this to you,’ and so on.”
If someone leaves something without speaking, placing it in one’s hand or at one’s feet, what should be done? In this case, if one knows, “This item is intended for the benefit of a shrine, the Sangha, or another individual,” it should be accepted for their benefit. If one knows, “It is intended for my benefit,” it should be accepted for one’s own benefit. This is stated in the Parivāra (pari. 329) under “nine improper gifts,” etc. If one does not know anything, whatever is placed in one’s hand or at one’s feet without speaking becomes the personal property of that individual. For it is not the case that something intended for the benefit of a shrine, etc., is placed in a monk’s hand or at his feet without speaking. This is stated in the Samantapāsādikā (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379): “It is given to an individual—meaning, ‘I give this robe to such-and-such a person,’ either by placing it at his feet in his absence or by saying, ‘Venerable, I give this to you,’ in his presence.”
ID1332
“Imissaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttanayeneva bhājetabba”nti vuttaṃ, kathaṃ bhājetabbanti? “Avasesakathinānisaṃse balavavatthāni vassāvāsikaṭhitikāya dātabbānī”ti vuttattā ye bhikkhū imasmiṃ vasse vassāvāsikaṃ na labhiṃsu, tesaṃ heṭṭhato paṭṭhāya ekekaṃ cīvaraṃ vā sāṭakaṃ vā dātabbaṃ. Atha cīvarānaṃ vā sāṭakānaṃ vā avasiṭṭhesu santesu puna therāsanato paṭṭhāya dutiyabhāgo dātabbo. Tato cīvaresu vā sāṭakesu vā khīṇesu ye labhanti, tesu pacchimassa vassādīni sallakkhetabbāni. Na kevalaṃ tasmiṃ kathinatthatadivase dinnadussāni eva kathinānisaṃsāni nāma honti, atha kho yāva kathinassa ubbhārā saṅghaṃ uddissa dinnacīvarānipi saṅghikena tatruppādena ārāmikehi ābhatacīvarānipi kathinānisaṃsāniyeva honti. Tasmā tādisesu cīvaresu uppajjamānesu yathāvuttasallakkhitavassassa bhikkhuno heṭṭhato paṭṭhāya punappunaṃ gāhetabbaṃ. “Ṭhitikāya abhāve therāsanato paṭṭhāya dātabbānī”ti (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306) vacanato tasmiṃ vasse vassāvāsikacīvarānaṃ anuppajjanato vā uppajjamānesupi ṭhitikāya agāhāpanato vā vassāvāsikaṭhitikāya abhāve sati laddhabbakathinānisaṃse tassaṃ upacārasīmāyaṃ sabbe bhikkhū paṭipāṭiyā nisīdāpetvā therāsanato paṭṭhāya ṭhitikaṃ katvā ekekassa bhikkhuno ekekaṃ cīvaraṃ vā sāṭakaṃ vā dātabbaṃ. Saṅghanavakassa dānakālepi mahātherā āgacchanti, “bhante, vīsativassānaṃ dīyati, tumhākaṃ ṭhitikā atikkantā”ti na vattabbā, ṭhitikaṃ ṭhapetvā tesaṃ datvā pacchā ṭhitikāya dātabbaṃ. Dutiyabhāge pana therāsanaṃ āruḷhe pacchā āgatānaṃ paṭhamabhāgo na pāpuṇāti, dutiyabhāgato vassaggena dātabbo. Ayaṃ ṭhitikāvicāro catupaccayabhājanakathāto (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 202) gahetabboti.
It is said, “It should be divided according to the method stated in this commentary,” but how should it be divided? Since it is stated, “The remaining benefits of the kathina, the substantial items, should be given to the residents of the rains retreat,” the bhikkhus who did not receive rains-retreat robes this year should be given one robe or cloth each, starting from the most junior. Then, if there are still robes or cloths remaining, a second distribution should be made starting from the senior-most. If the robes or cloths are exhausted, the years of rains retreats of the last recipients should be noted. It is not only the cloths given on the day of the kathina spreading that constitute the benefits of the kathina; rather, even robes given to the Saṅgha up until the lifting of the kathina, as well as robes brought by monastery attendants through appropriate means, are indeed considered kathina benefits. Therefore, when such robes arise, they should be repeatedly distributed, starting from the bhikkhu whose years of rains retreats were noted as mentioned. It is said in (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306), “In the absence of a residency agreement, they should be given starting from the senior-most,” meaning that if no rains-retreat robes are provided that year, or if they arise but are not distributed due to a residency agreement, in the absence of such an agreement, all bhikkhus within that upacāra-sīmā should be seated in order, and one robe or cloth should be given to each bhikkhu starting from the senior-most after establishing a residency agreement. Even when giving to the Saṅgha novices, if senior elders arrive and it is said, “Venerables, those with twenty years are being given; your residency agreement has passed,” this should not be said. After setting aside the residency agreement and giving to them, it should then be distributed according to the residency agreement. In the second distribution, those who arrive late after the senior-most position has been taken do not receive the first share; they should be given according to years of rains retreats starting from the second share. This consideration of the residency agreement is to be taken from the discussion on the four requisites in (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 202).
“It should be distributed according to the method stated in this commentary,” it is said. How should it be distributed? Since it is said, “The remaining kathina benefits, strong cloth, should be given according to the order of seniority during the rains residence,” therefore, the bhikkhus who did not receive the rains residence cloth this year, one robe or cloth should be given, starting from the most junior. Then, if robes or cloths remain, a second share should be given, starting from the most senior (therāsana). After that, when the robes or cloths are exhausted, the rains, etc., of those who received them should be considered. Not only are the cloths given on that kathina spreading day considered kathina benefits, but also all robes given to the Saṅgha, up to the lifting of the kathina, robes brought by lay-people through support of Sangha-owned assets and given to Sangha, are considered kathina benefits. Therefore, when such robes arise, they should be repeatedly taken, starting from the most junior bhikkhu, based on the aforementioned seniority. Because of the statement, “In the absence of seniority, it should be given starting from the therāsana (most senior seat)” (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306), in that year, due to the non-arising of rains residence robes, or even if they arise, due to not being able to give by seniority, in the absence of rains residence seniority, having all the bhikkhus within the boundary of invitation seated in order, starting from the therāsana, establishing seniority, each bhikkhu should be given one robe or cloth. Even if senior monks (mahātherā) arrive at the time of giving to the most junior of the Sangha (Saṅghanavaka), they should not be told, “Venerable Sir, it is being given to those with twenty years, your seniority has passed.” Seniority should be established, giving to them, and then giving according to seniority afterwards. However, when the second distribution reaches the therāsana, those who arrived afterwards do not receive the first share; they should be given the second share according to their years. This consideration of seniority should be taken from the catupaccayabhājanakathā (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 202).
“It should be distributed according to the method stated in this commentary,” it is said. How should it be distributed? “The remaining benefits of the Kathina should be given to those who have stayed for the rains-residence, starting with the most senior.” Therefore, monks who did not receive the rains-residence robe this year should be given one robe or one cloth each, starting from the most junior. If there are remaining robes or cloths, a second portion should be given starting from the most senior. When the robes or cloths are exhausted, the remaining benefits of the Kathina should be considered for the latter part of the rains. Not only the cloths given on the day of the Kathina ceremony are considered Kathina benefits, but also any cloths given to the Sangha up until the dismantling of the Kathina, as well as cloths brought by monastery workers. Therefore, when such cloths arise, they should be repeatedly given to the monk who has been identified as the rightful recipient according to the aforementioned method. “If there is no fixed order, it should be given starting from the most senior,” as stated (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306). If during that year no rains-residence robes arise, or even if they arise but are not claimed, and if the fixed order is absent, then all monks within the boundary should be seated in order, and starting from the most senior, one robe or one cloth should be given to each monk. Even when giving to a newly ordained monk, senior monks should not be told, “Venerable, this is given for twenty years, your fixed order has passed.” Instead, after giving to them, the fixed order should be given later. In the second portion, if senior monks arrive later, they do not receive the first portion but should be given from the second portion up to the end of the rains. This is the consideration of the fixed order, which should be understood from the discussion on the distribution of the four requisites (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 202).
ID1333
Nanu ca bho ekaccāni kathinānisaṃsacīvarāni mahagghāni, ekaccāni appagghāni honti, kathaṃ ekekassa ekekasmiṃ dinne agghasamattaṃ bhaveyyāti? Vuccate – bhaṇḍāgāracīvarabhājane agghasamattaṃ icchitabbaṃ. Tathā hi vuttaṃ cīvarakkhandhake (mahāva. 343) “tena kho pana samayena saṅghassa bhaṇḍāgāre cīvaraṃ ussannaṃ hoti. Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ – anujānāmi, bhikkhave, sammukhībhūtena saṅghena bhājetuṃ…pe… atha kho cīvarabhājakānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ etadahosi ’kathaṃ nu kho cīvaraṃ bhājetabba’nti. Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ – anujānāmi, bhikkhave, paṭhamaṃ uccinitvā tulayitvā vaṇṇāvaṇṇaṃ katvā bhikkhū gaṇetvā vaggaṃ bandhitvā cīvarapaṭivīsaṃ ṭhapetu”nti. Aṭṭhakathāyañca (mahāva. aṭṭha. 343) “uccinitvāti ’idaṃ thūlaṃ, idaṃ saṇhaṃ, idaṃ ghanaṃ, idaṃ tanukaṃ, idaṃ paribhuttaṃ, idaṃ aparibhuttaṃ, idaṃ dīghato ettakaṃ, puthulato ettaka’nti evaṃ vatthāni vicinitvā. Tulayitvāti ’idaṃ ettakaṃ agghati, idaṃ ettaka’nti evaṃ agghaparicchedaṃ katvā. Vaṇṇāvaṇṇaṃ katvāti sace sabbesaṃ ekekameva dasadasaagghanakaṃ pāpuṇāti, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ. No ce pāpuṇāti, yaṃ nava vā aṭṭha vā agghati, taṃ aññena ekaagghanakena ca dviagghanakena ca saddhiṃ bandhitvā etena upāyena same paṭivīse ṭhapetvāti attho . Bhikkhū gaṇetvā vaggaṃ bandhitvāti sace ekekassa dīyamāne divaso na pahoti, dasa dasa bhikkhū gaṇetvā dasa dasa cīvarapaṭivīse ekavaggaṃ bandhitvā ekaṃ bhaṇḍikaṃ katvā evaṃ cīvarapaṭivīsaṃ ṭhapetuṃ anujānāmīti attho. Evaṃ ṭhapitesu cīvarapaṭivīsesu kuso pātetabbo”ti vuttaṃ. Tena ñāyati “bhaṇḍāgāracīvarabhājane agghasamattaṃ icchitabbaṃ, kusapāto ca kātabbo”ti.
But surely some robes benefiting from the kathina are expensive, while others are inexpensive—how can there be equality of value when one is given to each? It is said: In the distribution of robes from the storeroom, equality of value should be aimed for. Indeed, it is stated in the Cīvarakkhandhaka (mahāva. 343), “At that time, robes accumulated in the Saṅgha’s storeroom. They reported this matter to the Blessed One: ‘I allow, bhikkhus, the Saṅgha present to distribute them… Then the bhikkhus distributing the robes thought, “How should the robes be distributed?” They reported this matter to the Blessed One: “I allow, bhikkhus, first sorting them, weighing them, classifying them by quality, counting the bhikkhus, grouping them, and setting a robe portion for each.”’ And in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 343), “‘Sorting them’ means examining the items thus: ‘This is coarse, this is fine, this is thick, this is thin, this is used, this is unused, this is so long, this is so wide.’ ‘Weighing them’ means determining their value thus: ‘This is worth so much, that is worth so much.’ ‘Classifying them by quality’ means if each bhikkhu can receive one item worth ten, that is ideal. If not, an item worth nine or eight should be grouped with one worth one or two, so that by this method equal portions are established. ‘Counting the bhikkhus and grouping them’ means if there isn’t enough time in a day to give to each individually, count ten bhikkhus at a time, group ten robe portions together as one bundle, and set the robe portions thus—I allow this.” It is said, “A lot should be cast for the robe portions set in this way.” Hence, it is understood, “In distributing robes from the storeroom, equality of value should be aimed for, and a lot should be cast.”
But, indeed, some kathina benefit robes are expensive, and some are inexpensive. How can it be of equal value when one is given to each? It is said – in the distribution of treasury robes, equality of value should be desired. Thus, it is said in the Cīvarakkhandhaka (mahāva. 343), “At that time, robes accumulated in the Sangha’s treasury. They informed the Blessed One of this matter. – I allow, monks, for the Sangha, being present, to distribute… … Then it occurred to the robe-distributing monks, ‘How indeed should the robes be distributed?’ They informed the Blessed One of this matter. – I allow, monks, first gathering, weighing, sorting by color, counting the monks, grouping them, and setting aside a share of robes.” And in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 343), “Gathering means examining the cloths, ‘This is thick, this is thin, this is dense, this is sparse, this has been used, this has not been used, this is so long, this is so wide.’ Weighing means determining the value, ‘This is worth so much, this is worth so much.’ Sorting by color, if for all of them, a share worth ten each is achieved, this is good. If it is not achieved, what is worth nine or eight should be combined with one worth one or two, and in this way, equal shares should be established. Counting the monks, grouping them, if giving to each one is not possible in a day, counting ten ten monks, bundling ten ten robe shares into one group, making one bundle, in this way, I allow the setting aside of robe shares. When the robe shares have been set aside in this way, lots should be cast,” it is said. Therefore, it is understood that “in the distribution of treasury robes, equality of value should be desired, and lots should be cast.”
But, sir, some Kathina benefit robes are valuable, while others are of little value. How can each monk receive an equal share? It is said that the equal value should be considered as in the distribution of monastery storehouse robes. As stated in the Cīvarakkhandhaka (mahāva. 343): “At that time, the Sangha’s storehouse was full of robes. They informed the Blessed One, who said, ‘I allow the Sangha to distribute them in person…’ Then the monks distributing the robes wondered, ‘How should the robes be distributed?’ They informed the Blessed One, who said, ‘I allow you to first select, weigh, classify by quality, count the monks, form groups, and set aside a portion of robes.’” The commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 343) explains: **“Selecting** means examining the robes, ‘This is thick, this is thin, this is heavy, this is light, this is worn, this is unworn, this is so long, this is so wide.’ Weighing means determining, ‘This is worth so much, this is worth so much.’ Classifying by quality means if each robe is worth ten units, that is good. If not, robes worth nine or eight units should be combined with those worth one or two units to make equal portions. Counting the monks and forming groups means if distributing to each monk individually would take too long, groups of ten monks should be formed, and ten portions of robes should be set aside for each group.” It is also said, “When the portions are set aside, a lot should be drawn.” Thus, it is understood that in the distribution of monastery storehouse robes, equal value should be considered, and a lot should be drawn.
ID1334
Imasmiṃ pana kathinānisaṃsacīvarabhājane agghasamattaṃ na icchitabbaṃ, kusapāto ca na kātabbo. Tathā hi vuttaṃ kathinakkhandhakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306) “evaṃ atthate pana kathine sace kathinacīvarena saddhiṃ ābhataṃ ānisaṃsaṃ dāyakā ’yena amhākaṃ kathinaṃ gahitaṃ, tasseva demā’ti denti, bhikkhusaṅgho anissaro. Atha avicāretvāva datvā gacchanti, bhikkhusaṅgho issaro, tasmā sace kathinatthārakassa sesacīvarānipi dubbalāni honti, saṅghena apaloketvā tesampi atthāya vatthāni dātabbāni, kammavācā pana ekāyeva vaṭṭati. Avasesakathinānisaṃse balavavatthāni vassāvāsikaṭhitikāya dātabbāni. Ṭhitikāya abhāve therāsanato paṭṭhāya dātabbāni”icceva vuttaṃ, na vuttaṃ “agghaparicchedaṃ katvā”ti vā “kusapāto kātabbo”ti vā. Tena ñāyati “kathinānisaṃsacīvarāni vassāvāsikaṭhitikāya vā vuḍḍhatarato vā paṭṭhāyeva dātabbāni, neva agghasamattaṃ kātabbaṃ, na kuso pātetabbo”ti.
However, in distributing robes benefiting from the kathina, equality of value is not to be aimed for, nor should a lot be cast. Indeed, it is stated in the commentary on the Kathinakkhandhaka (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306), “When the kathina has been spread, if the donors give robes along with the kathina benefits, saying, ‘We give this to the one for whom our kathina was taken,’ the bhikkhu Saṅgha has no authority. But if they give without specifying and leave, the bhikkhu Saṅgha has authority. Therefore, if the remaining robes for the one who spread the kathina are of poor quality, the Saṅgha, after consultation, should give substantial items for their benefit as well—one kammavācā is sufficient. The remaining substantial items benefiting from the kathina should be given to the rains-retreat residents. In the absence of a residency agreement, they should be given starting from the senior-most.” It does not say, “After determining their value,” or “A lot should be cast.” Hence, it is understood, “Robes benefiting from the kathina should be given only to the rains-retreat residents or starting from the most senior, without aiming for equality of value or casting a lot.”
But in this distribution of kathina benefit robes, equality of value should not be desired, and lots should not be cast. Thus, it is said in the Kathinakkhandhaka commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306), “When the kathina has been spread in this way, if the donors give the benefits brought along with the kathina robes, saying, ‘We give it to the one who took our kathina,’ the bhikkhu Sangha has no power. But if they give without specifying and leave, the bhikkhu Sangha has power. Therefore, if the remaining robes of the kathina spreader are also weak, the Sangha, having declared, should give cloths for them as well, but only one formal announcement (kammavācā) is appropriate. The remaining kathina benefits, strong cloth, should be given according to the order of seniority during the rains residence. In the absence of seniority, it should be given starting from the therāsana,” it is said. It is not said, “Determining the value,” or “Lots should be cast.” Therefore, it is understood that “kathina benefit robes should be given according to the order of seniority during the rains residence or starting from the eldest, and equality of value should not be made, nor should lots be cast.”
However, in the distribution of Kathina benefit robes, equal value should not be considered, nor should a lot be drawn. As stated in the Kathinakkhandhaka commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306): “When the Kathina is established, if the donors bring the Kathina benefit robes along with the Kathina cloth and say, ‘We give these to the one who has undertaken the Kathina,’ the Sangha has no authority. If they give without consulting, the Sangha has authority. Therefore, if the remaining robes for the Kathina sponsor are weak, the Sangha should, after informing, give cloths for their benefit. The formal act is only one. The remaining Kathina benefits should be given to those who have stayed for the rains-residence, starting with the most senior.” It is not said, “Determine the value” or “Draw a lot.” Thus, it is understood that Kathina benefit robes should be given to those who have stayed for the rains-residence or starting from the most senior, without considering equal value or drawing lots.
ID1335
Idāni pana vassāvāsikabhāvena adinnattā vassāvāsikaṭhitikāya akatattā ca kathinatthatacīvarato ca kathinatthārakassa avasesacīvaratthāya dinnavatthato ca avasesakathinānisaṃse balavavatthāni vuḍḍhatarato paṭṭhāya ekassa bhikkhussa ekaṃ vatthaṃ dātabbaṃ, tesu pana varaṃ varaṃ vuḍḍhassa dātabbaṃ . Kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce? “Pacchimavassūpanāyikadivase pana sace kālaṃ ghosetvā sannipatite saṅghe koci dasahatthaṃ vatthaṃ āharitvā vassāvāsikaṃ deti, āgantuko sace bhikkhusaṅghatthero hoti, tassa dātabbaṃ. Navako ce hoti, sammatena bhikkhunā saṅghatthero vattabbo ’sace, bhante, icchatha, paṭhamabhāgaṃ muñcitvā idaṃ vatthaṃ gaṇhathā’ti. Amuñcantassa na dātabbaṃ. Sace pana pubbe gāhitaṃ muñcitvā gaṇhāti, dātabbaṃ. Eteneva upāyena dutiyattherato paṭṭhāya parivattetvā pattaṭṭhāne āgantukassa dātabbaṃ. Sace paṭhamavassūpagatā dve tīṇi cattāri pañca vā vatthāni alatthuṃ, laddhaṃ laddhaṃ eteneva upāyena vissajjāpetvā yāva āgantukassa samakaṃ hoti, tāva dātabbaṃ. Tena pana samake laddhe avasiṭṭho anubhāgo therāsane dātabbo”ti senāsanakkhandhakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318) vacanato taṃsaṃvaṇṇanābhūtāyaṃ vimativinodaniyañca (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.318) “āgantuko sace bhikkhūti cīvare gāhite pacchā āgato āgantuko bhikkhu. Pattaṭṭhāneti vassaggena pattaṭṭhāne. Paṭhamavassūpagatāti āgantukassa āgamanato puretarameva pacchimikāya vassūpanāyikāya vassūpagatā. Laddhaṃ laddhanti dāyakānaṃ santikā āgatāgatasāṭaka”nti vacanato, vajirabuddhiṭīkāyañca (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 318) “paṭhamabhāgaṃ muñcitvāti idaṃ ce paṭhamagāhitavatthuto mahagghaṃ hotīti likhita”nti vacanato ca viññāyati. Evaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ṭīkāsu ca vassāvāsikadāne pacchā ābhataṃ mahagghavatthaṃ mahātherato paṭṭhāya parivattetvā tehi anicchitaṃyeva vassaggena pattassa pacchā āgatassa bhikkhuno dātabbabhāvassa vuttattā varaṃ varaṃ vuḍḍhassa dātabbanti viññāyati.
Now, since they have not been given as rains-retreat robes and no residency agreement has been made, the substantial items remaining from the kathina-spreading robes and those given for the benefit of the remaining robes of the kathina-spreader should be given—one item to each bhikkhu starting from the most senior, with the best items given to the most senior. How is this understood? It is said, “On the last day of entering the rains retreat, if someone brings a ten-hand-length cloth and gives it as a rains-retreat robe after the Saṅgha has assembled with the time announced, if a newcomer is the Saṅgha elder, it should be given to him. If he is a novice, the designated bhikkhu should say to the Saṅgha elder, ‘If you wish, Venerable, relinquishing the first share, take this cloth.’ If he does not relinquish it, it should not be given. But if he relinquishes what was previously taken and accepts it, it should be given. By this method, it should be rotated starting from the second elder, and given to the newcomer when his turn comes. If those who entered the rains retreat first received two, three, four, or five cloths, each received item should be distributed by this method until the newcomer’s share equals theirs. Once his share equals theirs, the remaining portion should be given to the senior-most,” according to the commentary on the Senāsanakkhandhaka (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318). And in the Vimativinodanī, which explains this (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.318), “‘If a newcomer is a bhikkhu’ refers to a bhikkhu who arrives after the robes have been taken. ‘When his turn comes’ means according to years of rains retreats. ‘Those who entered the rains retreat first’ refers to those who entered the rains retreat on the last day before the newcomer’s arrival. ‘Each received item’ refers to the cloths brought from the donors.” And in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 318), “‘Relinquishing the first share’ is written as meaning if this is more valuable than the cloth previously taken.” Thus, it is understood from the commentary and sub-commentaries that in giving rains-retreat robes, a valuable cloth brought later should be rotated starting from the great elder, and if they do not wish for it, it should be given to the bhikkhu whose turn comes by years of rains retreats—hence, the best should be given to the most senior.
Now, because it was not given by way of rains residence, and because seniority of rains residence was not established, the remaining kathina benefits, strong cloth, from the kathina spreading robe and from the cloth given for the remaining robes of the kathina spreader, should be given, one cloth to one bhikkhu, starting from the eldest. But among them, the best should be given to the eldest. How is this known? Because in the Senāsanakkhandhaka commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318) it is said: “But on the day of the latter rains entry, if, having announced the time and the Sangha having gathered, someone brings a ten-hand cloth and gives it as a rains residence gift, if a newcomer is the Sangha elder (bhikkhusaṅghatthero), it should be given to him. If he is junior, the Sangha elder should be told by an appointed bhikkhu, ‘If, Venerable Sir, you wish, relinquishing the first share, take this cloth.’ If he does not relinquish, it should not be given. But if he relinquishes what was taken before and takes it, it should be given. In this same way, going in turn from the second elder onwards, at the place where it is due, it should be given to the newcomer. If two, three, four, or five cloths were obtained by those who entered the rains first, giving away what was received, in this same way, until it is equal for the newcomer, it should be given. When equality has been achieved by him, the remaining share should be given at the therāsana,” and in the Vimativinodanī, a sub-commentary on that (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.318) it is said, “If a newcomer bhikkhu, a newcomer bhikkhu who arrived after the robes were taken. At the place where it is due, at the place where it is due according to years. Those who entered the rains first, those who entered the rains residence with the latter rains entry before the arrival of the newcomer. What was received, the cloths that have come from the donors,” and in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 318), it is written, “Relinquishing the first share, if this is more expensive than the cloth taken first,” therefore, it is known. Thus, because in the commentary and sub-commentaries, in the giving of the rains residence gift, it is stated that an expensive cloth brought later should be given, going in turn from the senior monk, and even if they do not desire it, to the bhikkhu who arrived later, at the place where it is due according to years, therefore, it is known that the best should be given to the eldest.
Now, because the rains-residence status was not given and the fixed order was not established, and because the Kathina sponsor’s remaining robes were given for the benefit of the Kathina, the remaining Kathina benefits should be given starting from the most senior, one cloth to each monk. Among them, the best should be given to the most senior. How is this understood? “On the day of the latter rains-residence, if after announcing the time and the Sangha has gathered, someone brings a ten-cubit cloth and gives it for the rains-residence, if a visiting monk is the senior monk of the Sangha, it should be given to him. If he is newly ordained, the appointed monk should inform the senior monk of the Sangha, ‘Venerable, if you wish, relinquish the first portion and take this cloth.’ If he does not relinquish it, it should not be given. If he relinquishes what he previously received and takes it, it should be given. In this way, starting from the second senior, it should be rotated until it reaches the visiting monk. If in the first rains-residence, two, three, four, or five cloths were not obtained, they should be distributed in this manner until the visiting monk receives an equal share. When an equal share is obtained, the remaining portion should be given to the senior monks.” This is stated in the Senāsanakkhandhaka commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318) and explained in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.318): “A visiting monk** is one who arrives after the cloths have been received. At the proper time means at the end of the rains. First rains-residence means those who arrived before the visiting monk on the latter rains-residence day. Obtained means cloths brought by donors.” The Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 318) states: “Relinquishing the first portion** means if this cloth is more valuable than the first received.” Thus, it is understood that after the rains-residence offering, if a valuable cloth is brought later, it should be rotated starting from the senior monks, and if they do not wish to take it, it should be given to the monk who arrived last at the end of the rains. Therefore, the best should be given to the most senior.
ID1336
“Sace paṭhamavassūpagatā dve tīṇi cattāri pañca vā vatthāni alatthu”nti vatthagaṇanāya eva vuttattā, agghagaṇanāya avuttattā ca kathinānisaṃsavatthassa ca vassāvāsikagatikabhāvassa vacanato kathinānisaṃsavatthāni vatthagaṇanāvaseneva bhājetabbāni, na agghasamabhāvenāti ca daṭṭhabbāni, teneva ca kāraṇena “yo bahūni kathinānisaṃsavatthāni deti, tassa santakeneva attharitabba”nti (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306) vuttaṃ. Bahūni hi kathinānisaṃsavatthāni vibhajanakāle saṅghassa upakārakāni hontīti.
Since it is said, “If those who entered the rains retreat first received two, three, four, or five cloths,” mentioning only the number of cloths and not their value, and because robes benefiting from the kathina follow the same rule as rains-retreat robes, it should be understood that robes benefiting from the kathina are to be distributed only by the number of cloths, not by equality of value. For this very reason, it is said (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306), “Whoever gives many robes benefiting from the kathina, they should be spread with his own property.” For many robes benefiting from the kathina are beneficial to the Saṅgha at the time of distribution.
Because it is stated, “If two, three, four, or five cloths were obtained by those who entered the rains first,” with the counting of cloths only, and not with the counting of value, and because the kathina benefit cloth is said to be of the rains residence category, kathina benefit cloths should be considered as to be distributed only by the counting of cloths, not by equality of value. And for that same reason, it is said, “He who gives many kathina benefit cloths, it should be spread with his own” (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306). For many kathina benefit cloths are helpful to the Sangha at the time of distribution.
“If in the first rains-residence, two, three, four, or five cloths were not obtained,” this refers to counting the cloths, not their value. Since the Kathina benefit cloths are related to the rains-residence, they should be distributed by counting the cloths, not by equal value. Therefore, it is stated (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306): “One who gives many Kathina benefit cloths should be satisfied with his own share.” For many Kathina benefit cloths are beneficial to the Sangha when distributed.
ID1337
Pāḷiaṭṭhakathādīhi, netvā vuttaṃ vinicchayaṃ; Kathine cīvare mayhaṃ, cintayantu vicakkhaṇā.
Having derived the decision from the Pali texts and commentaries, let the wise reflect on my thoughts regarding the kathina robe.
With the Pāḷi, commentaries, and so on, I have brought the decision; Concerning the kathina robe, let the wise consider my thoughts.
The wise should consider the decision stated in the Pali commentaries; Regarding the Kathina robes, let the discerning reflect.
ID1338
Cintayitvā punappunaṃ, yuttaṃ ce dhārayantu taṃ; Ayuttañce ito aññaṃ, pariyesantu kāraṇanti.
Having reflected again and again, if it is proper, let them accept it; if it is improper, let them seek another reason elsewhere.
Considering again and again, if it is suitable, hold on to it; If it is unsuitable, seek another reason from this.
After reflecting again and again, if it is suitable, let them uphold it; If it is unsuitable, let them seek another reason.
ID1339
“Yo ca tattha cīvaruppādo, so nesaṃ bhavissatī”ti cīvarasseva atthatakathinānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ santakabhāvassa bhagavatā vuttattā cīvarato aññāni saṅghaṃ uddissa dinnāni piṇḍapātādīni vatthūni upacārasīmaṃ paviṭṭhassa āgatāgatassa saṅghassa santakaṃ honti. Tathā hi vuttaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306) “kathinaṃ attharāpetvā dānañca bhuñjitvā gamissanti , ānisaṃso pana itaresaṃyeva hotī”ti. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, sāmaṇerānaṃ upaḍḍhapaṭivīsaṃ dātu”nti (mahāva. 343) pāṭhaṃ upanissāya kathinānisaṃsacīvarampi sāmaṇerānaṃ upaḍḍhapaṭivīsaṃyeva denti, na panevaṃ kātabbaṃ. Bhaṇḍāgāre ṭhapitañhi akālacīvarameva sāmaṇerānaṃ upaḍḍhapaṭivīsaṃ katvā dātabbaṃ. Vassāvāsikakathinānisaṃsādikālacīvaraṃ pana samakameva dātabbaṃ. Vuttañhetaṃ cīvarakkhandhakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 343) “sāmaṇerānaṃ upaḍḍhapaṭivīsanti ettha ye sāmaṇerā attissarā bhikkhusaṅghassa kattabbakammaṃ na karonti, uddesaparipucchāsu yuttā ācariyupajjhāyānaṃyeva vattapaṭipattiṃ karonti, aññesaṃ na karonti, etesaṃyeva upaḍḍhabhāgo dātabbo. Ye pana purebhattañca pacchābhattañca bhikkhusaṅghasseva kattabbakiccaṃ karonti, tesaṃ samako dātabbo. Idañca piṭṭhisamaye uppannena bhaṇḍāgāre ṭhapitena akālacīvareneva kathitaṃ, kālacīvaraṃ pana samakameva dātabba”nti.
Since the Blessed One said, “Whatever robe-arising there is will belong to them,” referring to the ownership of robes by the bhikkhus for whom the kathina was spread, items other than robes—such as almsfood—given to the Saṅgha become the property of the Saṅgha, whether arriving or present within the upacāra-sīmā. Indeed, it is stated in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306), “Having spread the kathina, they will enjoy the gift and depart, but the benefit belongs only to the others.” Based on the text, “I allow, bhikkhus, giving half a portion to sāmaṇeras” (mahāva. 343), some give half a portion of the kathina-benefit robes to sāmaṇeras as well, but this should not be done. Only unseasonal robes placed in the storeroom should be given as half portions to sāmaṇeras. Seasonal robes, such as those for the rains retreat or kathina benefits, should be given equally. It is stated in the commentary on the Cīvarakkhandhaka (mahāva. aṭṭha. 343), “‘Half a portion to sāmaṇeras’ refers to those sāmaṇeras who are independent and do not perform tasks for the bhikkhu Saṅgha, who are engaged in recitation and questioning and fulfill duties only to their teachers and preceptors, not to others—these should be given half a share. But those who perform tasks for the bhikkhu Saṅgha before and after meals should be given an equal share. This is said regarding unseasonal robes placed in the storeroom arising at a later time; seasonal robes, however, should be given equally.”
“And whatever robe-acquisition there is, that will be theirs,” because the Blessed One stated that only robes belong to the bhikkhus who spread the kathina, other things given to the Sangha, such as alms food, belong to the Sangha that has entered the boundary of invitation, whoever comes. Thus, it is said in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306), “Having had the kathina spread, they will partake of the offering and depart, but the benefits belong to the others.” Thinking of the passage, “I allow, monks, giving half a share to novices” (mahāva. 343), they give only half a share of the kathina benefit robe to novices, but it should not be done this way. Indeed, only non-season robes placed in the treasury should be given to novices, making it half a share. But season robes, such as rains residence and kathina benefits, should be given equally. This has been stated in the Cīvarakkhandhaka commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 343), “Half a share to novices, here, those novices who are self-important, who do not do the duties to be done for the bhikkhu Sangha, who are engaged in study and questioning, who do only the duties of their teachers and preceptors, who do not do for others, only to these should half a share be given. But those who do the duties to be done for the bhikkhu Sangha both before and after the meal, to them an equal share should be given. And this is said with regard to non-season robes placed in the treasury that arise at a later time; season robes, however, should be given equally.”
“The arising of robes there will belong to them,” as the Blessed One said regarding the personal ownership of robes by monks who have completed the Kathina. Therefore, other things given to the Sangha, such as almsfood, etc., become the property of the Sangha that has entered the boundary. As stated in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306): “After spreading the Kathina and receiving the offering, they will depart, but the benefit belongs to others.” “I allow novices to be given half a portion,” based on this passage (mahāva. 343), Kathina benefit robes should also be given to novices as half a portion, but this should not be done. For in the storehouse, only out-of-season robes should be given to novices as half a portion. Rains-residence and Kathina benefit robes, however, should be given equally. This is stated in the Cīvarakkhandhaka commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 343): **“Half a portion for novices** refers to those novices who are self-willed and do not perform duties for the Sangha, but follow the practices of their teachers and preceptors in recitation and questioning, and do not follow others. Only these should be given half a portion. Those who perform duties for the Sangha before and after meals should be given an equal portion. This refers to out-of-season robes stored in the storehouse during the time of scarcity. Seasonal robes, however, should be given equally.”
ID1340
Kacci nu kho sāmaṇerā vassaṃ upagatā, yena ānisaṃsaṃ labheyyunti? Āma upagatāti. Kathaṃ viññāyatīti? “Atha cattāro bhikkhū upagatā, eko paripuṇṇavasso sāmaṇero, so ce pacchimikāya upasampajjati, gaṇapūrako ceva hoti, ānisaṃsañca labhatī”ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306) vacanato vajirabuddhiṭīkāyañca (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 306) “pacchimikāya upasampanno paṭhamapavāraṇāya pavāretumpi labhati, vassiko ca hoti, ānisaṃsañca labhatīti sāmaṇerānaṃ vassūpagamanaṃ anuññātaṃ hoti. Sāmaṇerā kathinānisaṃsaṃ labhantīti vadantī”ti vacanatoti.
Do sāmaṇeras enter the rains retreat so that they might receive benefits? Yes, they do. How is this known? From the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306), “If four bhikkhus have entered the rains retreat and one sāmaṇera has completed his rains retreat, if he receives full ordination on the last day, he completes the quorum and receives the benefit.” And in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 306), “One ordained on the last day can participate in the first invitation ceremony, becomes a rains-retreat resident, and receives the benefit—thus, sāmaṇeras entering the rains retreat is permitted. They say sāmaṇeras receive kathina benefits.”
Have novices indeed entered the rains residence, by which they may receive the benefits? Yes, they have entered. How is this known? Because it is said in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306), “If four bhikkhus have entered, and one is a fully ordained novice, if he obtains full ordination with the latter entry, he is both a number-completer, and he receives the benefits,” and in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 306), it is said, “One ordained with the latter entry is also able to make the first invitation (pavāraṇā), and he is one who has resided for the rains, and he receives the benefits; therefore, the entry into the rains residence of novices is permitted. They say that novices receive the kathina benefits.”
Do novices who have entered the rains-residence receive the benefit? Yes, they do. How is this understood? “If four monks have entered, and one is a fully ordained novice, if he receives higher ordination on the latter day, he completes the group and receives the benefit,” as stated in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306). The Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 306) states: “One who receives higher ordination on the latter day is allowed to participate in the first Pavāraṇā, is considered a rains-residence monk, and receives the benefit. Thus, novices are allowed to enter the rains-residence. They say that novices receive the Kathina benefit.”
ID1341
Tatruppādesu kathinānisaṃsesu yadi ārāmikā taṇḍulādīhi vatthāni cetāpenti, vatthehipi taṇḍulādīni cetāpenti, tattha kathaṃ paṭipajjitabbanti? Vibhajanakāle vijjamānavatthuvasena kātabbaṃ. Tathā hi vuttaṃ vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 306) “tatruppādena taṇḍulādinā vatthūsu cetāpitesu atthatakathinānameva tāni vatthāni pāpuṇanti. Vatthehi pana taṇḍulādīsu cetāpitesu sabbesaṃ tāni pāpuṇantīti vutta”nti. “Sace pana ekasīmāyaṃ bahū vihārā hontī”ti ettha katarasīmā adhippetāti? Upacārasīmā. Upacārasīmāyaṃyeva hi saṅghalābhavibhajanādikaṃ sijjhati. Vuttañhetaṃ vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 306) “kathinatthatasīmāyanti upacārasīmaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, upacārasīmaṭṭhassa matakacīvarādibhāgiyatāya baddhasīmāya tatruppādābhāvato viññeyyametaṃ ’upacārasīmāva adhippetā’ti”.
Regarding the benefits of the kathina arising there, if monastery attendants exchange items like rice for cloths, or cloths for items like rice, how should one proceed? At the time of distribution, it should be done based on the existing items. Indeed, it is stated in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 306), “When items like rice are exchanged for cloths through appropriate means, those cloths belong only to the bhikkhus for whom the kathina was spread. But when cloths are exchanged for items like rice, they belong to all.” In the phrase, “If there are many vihāras within one sīmā,” which sīmā is intended? The upacāra-sīmā. For it is only within the upacāra-sīmā that the distribution of the Saṅgha’s gains and so forth is accomplished. It is stated in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 306), “‘The sīmā where the kathina was spread’ refers to the upacāra-sīmā, as it should be understood that there is no arising of such items within a formally bound sīmā due to the sharing of a deceased bhikkhu’s robes and the like—thus, the upacāra-sīmā is intended.”
Regarding the benefits of the kathina, in cases where lay supporters exchange rice and other goods for robes, or exchange robes for rice and other goods, how should one proceed? It should be done according to the goods available at the time of distribution. Thus, it is said in the Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā (Vajira. ṭī. Mahāvagga 306): “When robes are acquired by exchanging tatruppāda – rice and other things – those robes belong only to those who spread the kathina. But when rice and other things are acquired by exchanging robes, those things belong to everyone.” “If there are many monasteries in one sīmā,” which sīmā is intended here? The upacāra-sīmā. For it is only in the upacāra-sīmā that the distribution of Sangha’s acquisitions and other things can be successfully carried out. It is said in the Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā (Vajira. ṭī. Mahāvagga 306): “kathinatthatasīmā” refers to the upacāra-sīmā; it should be understood that this means that only the upacāra-sīmā is intended, given that the baddha-sīmā is not subject to tatruppāda because the portions of cloth for the deceased, and so on are applicable to those who dwell within upacāra-sīmā.”
Regarding the benefits of the Kathina in those instances, if monastery workers offer cloth in exchange for rice, etc., or offer rice, etc., in exchange for cloth, how should one proceed? It should be done according to the availability of the cloth at the time of distribution. As stated in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 306): “When rice, etc., is offered in exchange for cloth in those instances, the cloth reaches only those whose Kathina is completed. But when rice, etc., is offered in exchange for cloth, it reaches everyone.” “If there are many monasteries within one boundary,” which boundary is intended here? The proximate boundary (upacārasīmā). For it is only within the proximate boundary that the distribution of communal gains, etc., is accomplished. As stated in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 306): “The boundary for the completion of the Kathina” refers to the proximate boundary. Since the fixed boundary (baddhasīmā) does not apply to the deceased’s robe, etc., it should be understood that the proximate boundary is intended.
ID1342
Evaṃ kathinatthāraṃ dassetvā saṅghe rucitāya mātikāpalibodhaubbhāre adassetvāva ante ānisaṃsaṃ dassetuṃ “atthatakathinānaṃ vo bhikkhave”tiādimāha. Tattha aṭṭhavidhā mātikā pakkamanantikā, niṭṭhānantikā, sanniṭṭhānantikā, nāsanantikā, savanantikā, āsāvacchedikā, sīmātikkantikā, sahubbhārāti. Tattha atthatakathino bhikkhu katapariyositaṃ cīvaraṃ ādāya “imaṃ vihāraṃ na paccessāmī”ti pakkamati, tassa bhikkhuno upacārasīmātikkameneva kathinubbhāro bhavati, pañcānisaṃsāni alabhaneyyo hoti. Ayaṃ kathinubbhāro pakkamanamevassa antabhūtattā pakkamanantiko nāma hoti.
Having thus shown the spreading of the kathina, without showing the lifting of the impediments to the framework approved by the Saṅgha, the benefits are shown at the end with, “To you, bhikkhus, for whom the kathina was spread…” and so forth. Therein, the eightfold framework consists of pakkamanantikā, niṭṭhānantikā, sanniṭṭhānantikā, nāsanantikā, savanantikā, āsāvacchedikā, sīmātikkantikā, and sahubbhāra. Among these, a bhikkhu for whom the kathina was spread takes his completed robe and departs, thinking, “I will not return to this vihāra.” For that bhikkhu, the kathina is lifted merely by crossing the upacāra-sīmā, and he becomes unable to receive the five benefits. This lifting of the kathina, having departure as its end, is called pakkamanantiko.
Having thus shown the spreading of the kathina, without showing the mātikā (headings), and the release (from the palibodha) accepted by the Sangha, to finally show the benefits, he states, “atthatakathinānaṃ vo bhikkhave” and so on. Among them, the eight types of mātikā are: departure limit (pakkamanantikā), completion limit (niṭṭhānantikā), firm decision limit (sanniṭṭhānantikā), destruction limit (nāsanantikā), hearing limit (savanantikā), cessation of hope (āsāvacchedikā), boundary limit (sīmātikkantikā), and removal together (sahubbhārāti). Among them, a bhikkhu who has spread the kathina takes a finished robe and departs, thinking, “I will not return to this monastery.” For that bhikkhu, the removal of the kathina occurs simply by crossing the upacāra-sīmā; he becomes ineligible for the five benefits. This removal of the kathina is called pakkamanantika because departure is its limit.
Having thus explained the completion of the Kathina, without showing the obstruction of the mātikā (categories) approved by the Saṅgha, the benefits are explained at the end: “For those bhikkhus whose Kathina is completed,” etc. Herein, there are eight categories: departure-based, completion-based, decision-based, destruction-based, hearing-based, cutting off of hope, crossing the boundary, and shared completion. Herein, a bhikkhu whose Kathina is completed takes a finished robe and departs, thinking, “I will not return to this monastery.” For that bhikkhu, as soon as he crosses the proximate boundary, the Kathina is lifted, and he becomes ineligible for the five benefits. This lifting of the Kathina, being based on departure, is called departure-based.
ID1343
Atthatakathino bhikkhu aniṭṭhitameva attano bhāgabhūtaṃ cīvaraṃ ādāya aññaṃ vihāraṃ gato, tassa bahiupacārasīmagatassa evaṃ hoti “imasmiṃyeva vihāre imaṃ cīvaraṃ kāressāmi, na purāṇavihāraṃ paccessāmī”ti, so bahisīmāyameva taṃ cīvaraṃ kāreti, tassa bhikkhuno tasmiṃ cīvare niṭṭhite kathinubbhāro hoti. Ayaṃ kathinubbhāro cīvaraniṭṭhānamevassa antoti niṭṭhānantiko nāma.
A bhikkhu for whom the kathina was spread takes his unfinished robe, which is his share, and goes to another vihāra. While outside the upacāra-sīmā, he thinks, “I will make this robe in this vihāra and not return to the original vihāra.” He makes the robe outside the sīmā, and when that robe is completed, his kathina is lifted. This lifting of the kathina, having the completion of the robe as its end, is called niṭṭhānantiko.
A bhikkhu who has spread the kathina, having taken his allotted robe which is not yet complete, goes to another monastery. While he is outside the upacāra-sīmā, it occurs to him, “I will complete this robe in this very monastery; I will not return to the former monastery.” He completes that robe outside the boundary. For that bhikkhu, the removal of the kathina occurs upon the completion of that robe. This removal of the kathina is called niṭṭhānantika because the completion of the robe is its limit.
A bhikkhu whose Kathina is completed takes an unfinished robe belonging to him and goes to another monastery. While outside the proximate boundary, he thinks, “I will make this robe in this very monastery and will not return to the old monastery.” He makes the robe outside the boundary, and for that bhikkhu, when the robe is completed, the Kathina is lifted. This lifting of the Kathina, being based on the completion of the robe, is called completion-based.
ID1344
Bhikkhu atthatakathino akatacīvaramādāya pakkamati, tassa bahiupacārasīmagatassa evaṃ hoti “imaṃ cīvaraṃ neva kāressāmi, porāṇavihārañca na paccessāmī”ti, tassa bhikkhuno tena sanniṭṭhānena kathinubbhāro hoti. Ayaṃ kathinubbhāro sanniṭṭhānamevassa antoti sanniṭṭhānantiko nāma.
A bhikkhu for whom the kathina was spread departs with an unmade robe. While outside the upacāra-sīmā, he thinks, “I will neither make this robe nor return to the original vihāra.” For that bhikkhu, the kathina is lifted by that resolution. This lifting of the kathina, having the resolution as its end, is called sanniṭṭhānantiko.
A bhikkhu who has spread the kathina departs with his robe unfinished. While he is outside the upacāra-sīmā, it occurs to him, “I will neither complete this robe nor return to the original monastery.” For that bhikkhu, the removal of the kathina occurs with that firm decision. This removal of the kathina is called sanniṭṭhānantika because firm decision is its limit.
A bhikkhu whose Kathina is completed takes an unmade robe and departs. While outside the proximate boundary, he thinks, “I will not make this robe, nor will I return to the old monastery.” For that bhikkhu, the Kathina is lifted by that decision. This lifting of the Kathina, being based on the decision, is called decision-based.
ID1345
Atthatakathino bhikkhu akatameva cīvaraṃ ādāya pakkamati, bahisīmagatassa tassa evaṃ hoti “idhevimaṃ cīvaraṃ kāressāmi, na ca porāṇavihāraṃ paccessāmī”ti, tassa cīvaraṃ kurumānaṃ corādīhi nassati, agyādīhi vinassati, kathinubbhāro hoti. Ayaṃ kathinubbhāro nāsanamevassa antoti nāsanantiko nāma.
A bhikkhu for whom the kathina was spread departs with an unmade robe. While outside the sīmā, he thinks, “I will make this robe here and not return to the original vihāra.” While making the robe, it is lost to thieves or destroyed by fire or the like, and his kathina is lifted. This lifting of the kathina, having loss as its end, is called nāsanantiko.
A bhikkhu who has spread the kathina departs taking an unfinished robe. While residing outside the boundary, it occurs to him, “I will complete this robe here; and I will not return to the original monastery.” While he is making the robe, it is destroyed by thieves or other dangers, or is ruined by fire or other causes; the removal of kathina occurs. This removal of the kathina is called nāsanantika because destruction is its limit.
A bhikkhu whose Kathina is completed takes an unmade robe and departs. While outside the boundary, he thinks, “I will make this robe here and will not return to the old monastery.” While he is making the robe, it is stolen by thieves or destroyed by fire, etc., and the Kathina is lifted. This lifting of the Kathina, being based on the destruction, is called destruction-based.
ID1346
Atthatakathino bhikkhu akatacīvaramādāya “imaṃ vihāraṃ paccessāmī”ti cintetvā pakkamati , tassa bahisīmagatassa evaṃ hoti “idhevimaṃ cīvaraṃ kāressāmī”ti, so katacīvaro suṇāti “vihāre kira saṅghena kathinaṃ ubbhata”nti, tena savanamattenassa kathinaṃ ubbhataṃ hoti. Ayaṃ kathinabbhāro savanamevassa antoti savanantiko nāma.
A bhikkhu for whom the kathina was spread departs with an unmade robe, thinking, “I will return to this vihāra.” While outside the sīmā, he thinks, “I will make this robe here.” Having made the robe, he hears, “It seems the Saṅgha has lifted the kathina at the vihāra.” By merely hearing this, his kathina is lifted. This lifting of the kathina, having hearing as its end, is called savanantiko.
A bhikkhu who has spread the kathina, taking his unfinished robe, departs thinking, “I will return to this monastery.” While he is outside the sīmā, it occurs to him, “I will complete this robe here.” He completes the robe and hears, “It is said that the Sangha has removed the kathina in the monastery.” The kathina is removed for him simply by hearing that. This removal of the kathina is called savanantika because hearing is its limit.
A bhikkhu whose Kathina is completed takes an unmade robe and departs, thinking, “I will return to this monastery.” While outside the boundary, he thinks, “I will make this robe here.” Having made the robe, he hears, “The Saṅgha has lifted the Kathina in the monastery.” Upon merely hearing this, the Kathina is lifted for him. This lifting of the Kathina, being based on hearing, is called hearing-based.
ID1347
Atthatakathino bhikkhu aññattha paccāsācīvarakāraṇā pakkamati, tassa bahisīmagatassa evaṃ hoti “idha bahisīmāyameva cīvarapaccāsaṃ payirupāsāmi, na vihāraṃ paccessāmī”ti, so tattheva taṃ cīvarapaccāsaṃ payirupāsati, so taṃ cīvarapaccāsaṃ alabhamāno cīvarāsā pacchijjati, teneva tassa bhikkhuno kathinubbhāro bhavati. Ayaṃ kathinubbhāro āsāvacchedasahitattā āsāvacchediko nāma.
A bhikkhu for whom the kathina was spread departs elsewhere due to expectation of a robe. While outside the sīmā, he thinks, “I will pursue my expectation of a robe here outside the sīmā and not return to the vihāra.” He pursues that expectation there but, failing to obtain the robe, his expectation is cut off, and thus his kathina is lifted. This lifting of the kathina, associated with the cutting off of expectation, is called āsāvacchediko.
A bhikkhu who has spread the kathina departs in order to make a robe with expectation elsewhere. While he is outside the boundary (sīmā), it occurs to him, “I shall cultivate hope for this robe right here, outside the boundary, I will not return to the monastery”. He keeps on anticipating the prospect of the robe, right there. Without receiving that expected robe, his hope for the robe is cut off. By that very fact, the kathina is removed for that bhikkhu. This removal of the kathina, since it is accompanied by the cutting off of hope, is called āsāvacchedika.
A bhikkhu whose Kathina is completed departs with the intention of seeking robe material elsewhere. While outside the boundary, he thinks, “I will seek robe material here outside the boundary and will not return to the monastery.” He seeks the robe material there, but being unable to obtain it, his hope for the robe is cut off, and the Kathina is lifted for him. This lifting of the Kathina, being accompanied by the cutting off of hope, is called hope-cutting-off-based.
ID1348
Atthatakathino bhikkhu akatacīvaraṃ ādāya “imaṃ vihāraṃ paccessāmī”ti cintetvā pakkamati, so bahisīmagato taṃ cīvaraṃ kāreti, so katacīvaro “vihāraṃ paccessāmī”ti cintento bahiupacārasīmāyameva kathinubbhārakālaṃ vītināmeti, tassa kathinubbhāro bhavati. Ayaṃ kathinubbhāro cīvarakālassa antimadivasasaṅkhātāya sīmāya atikkantattā sīmātikkantiko nāma.
A bhikkhu for whom the kathina was spread departs with an unmade robe, thinking, “I will return to this vihāra.” He makes the robe outside the sīmā and, having completed it, thinks, “I will return to the vihāra,” but he passes the time for lifting the kathina while still outside the upacāra-sīmā, and his kathina is lifted. This lifting of the kathina, due to passing the boundary of the robe season’s final day, is called sīmātikkantiko.
A bhikkhu who has spread the kathina departs with an unfinished robe, thinking, “I will return to this monastery.” He goes outside the sīmā and completes that robe. Having completed the robe and thinking, “I will return to the monastery,” he spends the time of the kathina removal right there, outside the upacāra-sīmā. The kathina is removed for him. This removal of kathina is called sīmātikkantika, because it’s due to the exceeding of the boundary, which means the final day for the period of making robe.
A bhikkhu whose Kathina is completed takes an unmade robe and departs, thinking, “I will return to this monastery.” While outside the boundary, he makes the robe. Having made the robe, he thinks, “I will return to the monastery,” but he spends the time for lifting the Kathina outside the proximate boundary, and the Kathina is lifted for him. This lifting of the Kathina, being based on crossing the boundary, is called boundary-crossing-based.
ID1349
Atthatakathino bhikkhu cīvaraṃ ādāya “imaṃ vihāraṃ paccessāmī”ti cintetvā pakkamati, so katacīvaro “vihāraṃ paccessāmī”ti cintento paccāgantvā vihāre kathinubbhāraṃ pappoti, tassa bhikkhuno vihāre bhikkhūhi saha kathinubbhāro bhavati. Ayaṃ kathinubbhāro vihāre bhikkhūhi saha katattā sahubbhāro nāma. Ayaṃ aṭṭhavidho kathinubbhāro aṭṭha mātikā nāma. Vuttañhetaṃ kathinakkhandhakapāḷiyaṃ (mahāva. 310) “aṭṭhimā, bhikkhave, mātikā kathinassa ubbhārāya pakkamanantikā niṭṭhānantikā sanniṭṭhānantikā nāsanantikā savanantikā āsāvacchedikā sīmātikkantikā sahubbhārāti. Bhikkhu atthatakathino katacīvaramādāya pakkamati ’na paccessa’nti, tassa bhikkhuno pakkamanantiko kathinubbhāro”tiādi, vinayavinicchayappakaraṇe ca –
A bhikkhu for whom the kathina was spread departs with a robe, thinking, “I will return to this vihāra.” Having made the robe, he returns, thinking, “I will return to the vihāra,” and reaches the lifting of the kathina at the vihāra. His kathina is lifted together with the bhikkhus at the vihāra. This lifting of the kathina, done together with the bhikkhus at the vihāra, is called sahubbhāro. These eight types of kathina lifting are the eightfold framework. It is stated in the Kathinakkhandhaka text (mahāva. 310), “There are, bhikkhus, these eight frameworks for the lifting of the kathina: pakkamanantikā, niṭṭhānantikā, sanniṭṭhānantikā, nāsanantikā, savanantikā, āsāvacchedikā, sīmātikkantikā, and sahubbhāra. A bhikkhu for whom the kathina was spread departs with a completed robe, thinking, ‘I will not return,’ and his kathina is lifted by departure,” and so forth, and in the Vinayavinicchaya treatise—
A bhikkhu who spread the kathina, takes his robe, departs thinking “I will return to this monastery.” Having completed the robe, intending to return to the monastery, he comes back and reaches the removal of the kathina in the monastery. The removal of the kathina occurs for that bhikkhu together with the bhikkhus in the monastery. This removal of the kathina, since it is performed together with the bhikkhus in the monastery, is called sahubbhāra. This eightfold removal of the kathina is called the eight mātikās. It is stated in the Kathinakkhandhaka Pāḷi (Mahāva. 310): “Monks, these are the eight headings for the removal of the kathina: departure limit, completion limit, firm decision limit, destruction limit, hearing limit, cessation of hope, boundary limit, and removal together. A bhikkhu who has spread the kathina, taking a completed robe, departs, thinking, ‘I shall not return.’ For that bhikkhu, the removal of the kathina is with a departure limit,” and so on. And in the Vinayavinicchaya-pakaraṇa:
A bhikkhu whose Kathina is completed takes a robe and departs, thinking, “I will return to this monastery.” Having made the robe, he thinks, “I will return to the monastery,” and upon returning, he attains the lifting of the Kathina in the monastery. For that bhikkhu, the Kathina is lifted together with the bhikkhus in the monastery. This lifting of the Kathina, being done together with the bhikkhus, is called shared-completion-based. These are the eight categories of lifting the Kathina. As stated in the Kathinakkhandhaka (Mahāva. 310): “There are, bhikkhus, eight categories for the lifting of the Kathina: departure-based, completion-based, decision-based, destruction-based, hearing-based, hope-cutting-off-based, boundary-crossing-based, and shared-completion-based.”
ID1350
“Pakkamanañca niṭṭhānaṃ, sanniṭṭhānañca nāsanaṃ; Savanamāsā ca sīmā ca, sahubbhāroti aṭṭhimā”ti. (vi. vi. 2709);
“Departure, completion, resolution, loss, hearing, cutting off of expectation, passing the boundary, and lifting together—these eight.” (vi. vi. 2709);
“Departure, completion, firm decision, and destruction; Hearing, hope, boundary, and removal together are these eight.” (Vi. Vi. 2709);
“Departure, completion, decision, destruction, hearing, hope, boundary, and shared completion—these eight.” (Vi. Vi. 2709);
ID1351
Palibodho duvidho āvāsapalibodho, cīvarapalibodhoti. Tattha “yasmiṃ vihāre kathinaṃ atthataṃ hoti, tasmiṃ vasissāmī”ti aññattha gacchantopi “puna taṃ vihāraṃ āgacchissāmī”ti sāpekkho hoti. Ayaṃ āvāsapalibodho nāma. Tassa bhikkhuno cīvaraṃ akataṃ vā hoti apariyositaṃ vā, “aññato cīvaraṃ lacchāmī”ti āsā vā anupacchinnā hoti. Ayaṃ cīvarapalibodho nāma. Vuttañhetaṃ kathinakkhandhake (mahāva. 325) “katame ca, bhikkhave, dve kathinassa palibodhā? Āvāsapalibodho ca cīvarapalibodho ca. Kathañca, bhikkhave, āvāsapalibodho hoti? Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu vasati vā tasmiṃ āvāse, sāpekkho vā pakkamati ’paccessa’nti, evaṃ kho, bhikkhave, āvāsapalibodho hoti. Kathañca, bhikkhave, cīvarapalibodho hoti? Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhuno cīvaraṃ akataṃ vā hoti vippakataṃ vā, cīvarāsā vā anupacchinnā, evaṃ kho, bhikkhave, cīvarapalibodho hotī”ti.
Impediments are of two kinds: residence impediment and robe impediment. Therein, thinking, “I will reside in the vihāra where the kathina was spread,” even if one goes elsewhere, one remains expectant, thinking, “I will return to that vihāra.” This is called āvāsapalibodho. For that bhikkhu, the robe is either unmade or unfinished, or the expectation of receiving a robe from elsewhere remains uncut. This is called cīvarapalibodho. It is stated in the Kathinakkhandhaka (mahāva. 325), “And what, bhikkhus, are the two impediments to the kathina? Residence impediment and robe impediment. How, bhikkhus, is there a residence impediment? Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu resides in that residence or departs with expectation, thinking, ‘I will return’—thus, bhikkhus, there is a residence impediment. And how, bhikkhus, is there a robe impediment? Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu’s robe is unmade or incomplete, or his expectation of a robe is uncut—thus, bhikkhus, there is a robe impediment.”
Obstruction (palibodha) is twofold: obstruction by residence and obstruction by robe. Of these, “I will live in this monastery where the kathina has been spread,” even though going elsewhere, he is still attached, [thinking,] “I will return to that monastery.” This is called obstruction by residence. That bhikkhu’s robe is either unfinished or incomplete, or his hope, “I will obtain a robe from elsewhere,” is not cut off. This is called obstruction by robe. It is stated in the Kathinakkhandhaka (Mahāva. 325): “And what, monks, are the two obstructions to the kathina? Obstruction by residence and obstruction by robe. And how, monks, is there obstruction by residence? Here, monks, a bhikkhu either lives in that residence, or departs with attachment, thinking, ‘I will return.’ Thus, monks, is obstruction by residence. And how, monks, is there obstruction by robe? Here, monks, a bhikkhu’s robe is either unfinished or incomplete, or his hope for a robe is not cut off. Thus, monks, is obstruction by robe.”
There are two kinds of obstructions: residence obstruction and robe obstruction. Herein, even when going elsewhere, one thinks, “I will stay in the monastery where the Kathina was completed,” or “I will return to that monastery.” This is called residence obstruction. For that bhikkhu, the robe is either unmade or unfinished, or he has an unbroken hope, thinking, “I will obtain a robe from elsewhere.” This is called robe obstruction. As stated in the Kathinakkhandhaka (Mahāva. 325): “What, bhikkhus, are the two obstructions of the Kathina? Residence obstruction and robe obstruction. And how, bhikkhus, does residence obstruction occur? Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu either resides in that monastery or departs with the intention of returning. Thus, bhikkhus, residence obstruction occurs. And how, bhikkhus, does robe obstruction occur? Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu’s robe is either unmade or unfinished, or his hope for a robe is unbroken. Thus, bhikkhus, robe obstruction occurs.”
ID1352
Ubbhāro duvidho aṭṭhamātikāubbhāraantarubbhāravasena. Tattha bahiupacārasīmagatānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ vasena vuttā satta kathinubbhārā ca bahiupacārasīmaṃ gantvā nivattetvā kathinatthatavihāre antarubbhāraṃ patvā bhikkhūhi saha antarubbhārassa katattā sahubbhārasaṅkhāto eko kathinubbhāro cāti ime aṭṭha kathinubbhārā aṭṭhamātikāya paviṭṭhattā aṭṭhamātikāubbhāro nāma. Bahisīmaṃ agantvā tasmiṃyeva vihāre nisīditvā kathinubbhāraṃ ñattidutiyakammavācāya kathinubbhāro aṭṭhamātikāya appaviṭṭho hutvā kālaparicchedaṃ appatvā antarāyeva katattā antarubbhāro nāma.
Lifting is of two kinds: through the eightfold framework and interim lifting. Therein, the seven kathina liftings stated for bhikkhus outside the upacāra-sīmā, and one kathina lifting called sahubbhāro, due to returning to the vihāra where the kathina was spread and performing the interim lifting together with the bhikkhus—these eight kathina liftings, being included in the eightfold framework, are called aṭṭhamātikāubbhāro. The lifting of the kathina by a motion and second kammavācā, performed by those residing in that vihāra without going outside the sīmā, not included in the eightfold framework and done before the time limit as an interim act, is called antarubbhāro.
Removal is twofold: removal within the eight mātikā and removal within (antarubbhāra). Among these, the seven removals of the kathina mentioned with regard to the bhikkhus who have gone outside the upacāra-sīmā, and one removal of kathina called sahubbhāra which happened because they went outside the upacāra-sīmā, returned, arrived the intermediate removal in kathina spreading monastery, and did the internal removal together with the bhikkhus; these eight removals of the kathina, since they are included within the eight mātikā, are called removal within the eight mātikā. Not going outside the boundary, but remaining in that very monastery and removing the kathina by a motion-and-resolution (ñattidutiyakamma-vācā), is called antarubbhāra, because it is performed between, not included within the eight mātikā, and not reaching the period limitation.
The lifting is of two kinds: the eight-category lifting and the internal lifting. Herein, the seven liftings of the Kathina are stated for bhikkhus who have gone outside the proximate boundary. After going outside the proximate boundary and returning, they attain the internal lifting in the monastery where the Kathina was completed. The lifting done together with the bhikkhus is called shared-completion-based, and thus these eight liftings of the Kathina are included in the eight categories and are called eight-category lifting. Not having gone outside the boundary, sitting in the same monastery, the lifting of the Kathina is done by the motion and second announcement (ñatti-dutiya-kammavācā). This lifting, not being included in the eight categories and not reaching the time limit, is done in the interim and is called internal lifting.
ID1353
Antarubbhārasahubbhārā ñattidutiyakammavācāyeva katā, evaṃ sante ko tesaṃ visesoti? Antarubbhāro bahisīmaṃ agantvā antosīmāyameva ṭhitehi bhikkhūhi kato. Sahubbhāro bahisīmaṃ gatena bhikkhunā paccāgantvā taṃ antarubbhāraṃ patvā tehi antosīmaṭṭhehi bhikkhūhi saha katoti ayametesaṃ viseso. Pakkamanantikādayo satta kathinubbhārā na kammavācāya katā, kevalaṃ dvinnaṃ palibodhānaṃ upacchedena pañcahi ānisaṃsehi vigatattā kathinubbhārā nāma honti. Vuttañhetaṃ ācariyabuddhadattattherena vinayavinicchaye –
Both the interim lifting and the joint lifting are performed with a motion and second kammavācā—what, then, is the difference between them? The interim lifting is performed by bhikkhus remaining within the sīmā without going outside, while the joint lifting is performed by a bhikkhu who went outside the sīmā, returned, reached the interim lifting, and performed it together with those bhikkhus within the sīmā—this is their distinction. The seven kathina liftings, such as pakkamanantikā, are not performed with a kammavācā; they are called kathina liftings merely because the two impediments are cut off and the five benefits are lost. It is stated by the teacher Buddhadatta Thera in the Vinayavinicchaya—
The antarubbhāra and the sahubbhāra are both performed by a motion-and-resolution (ñattidutiyakamma-vācā). This being so, what is the difference between them? The antarubbhāra is performed by bhikkhus who remain within the boundary, without going outside the boundary. The sahubbhāra is performed by a bhikkhu who, having gone outside the boundary, returns, arrives at that internal removal (antarubbhāra), and performs it together with those bhikkhus who are dwelling within the boundary. This is the difference between them. The seven removals of kathina, starting with pakkamanantikā, are not performed by a formal act of the Sangha (kammavācā); they are called removals of kathina simply because they are free from the five benefits due to the cessation of the two obstructions. It is stated by the Venerable Ācariya Buddhadatta in the Vinayavinicchaya:
The internal lifting and the shared-completion lifting are done by the motion and second announcement. What, then, is the difference between them? The internal lifting is done by bhikkhus who have not gone outside the boundary but remain within the boundary. The shared-completion lifting is done by a bhikkhu who has gone outside the boundary and returned, attaining the internal lifting together with the bhikkhus within the boundary. This is the difference between them. The seven liftings, from departure-based onwards, are not done by formal motion. They are merely the lifting of the Kathina due to the cutting off of the two obstructions and the loss of the five benefits. As stated by the venerable Ācariya Buddhādatta in the Vinayavinicchaya:
ID1354
“Aṭṭhannaṃ mātikānaṃ vā, antarubbhāratopi vā; Ubbhārāpi duve vuttā, kathinassa mahesinā”ti.
“The lifting of the kathina is said by the Great Sage to be twofold: either through the eight frameworks or through the interim lifting.”
“Either through the eight mātikās, or through the internal removal, These two removals of the kathina were stated by the Great Sage.”
“The lifting of the Kathina is said to be of two kinds: by the eight categories or by the internal lifting.”
ID1355
Taṭṭīkāyampi “aṭṭhannaṃ mātikānanti bahisīmagatānaṃ vasena vuttā. Pakkamanantikādayo satta mātikā bahisīmaṃ gantvā antarubbhāraṃ sampattassa vasena vuttā, sahubbhāro imāsaṃ aṭṭhannaṃ mātikānaṃ vasena ca. Antarubbhāratopi vāti bahisīmaṃ agantvā tattheva vasitvā kathinubbhārakammena ubbhatakathinānaṃ vasena labbhanato antarubbhāroti mahesinā kathinassa ubbhārā duve vuttāti yojanā. Bahisīmaṃ gantvā āgatassa vasena saubbhāro, bahisīmaṃ agatānaṃ vasena antarubbhāroti ekoyeva ubbhāro dvidhā vutto”ti vuttaṃ.
In its sub-commentary too, “‘Through the eight frameworks’ refers to those stated for bhikkhus outside the sīmā. The seven frameworks, such as pakkamanantikā, are stated for one who goes outside the sīmā and reaches the interim lifting, and sahubbhāro is also within these eight frameworks. ‘Or through the interim lifting’ means it is obtained by those who reside there without going outside the sīmā and lift the kathina through the kathina-lifting procedure—thus, the Great Sage has stated the lifting of the kathina as twofold. The joint lifting is for one who went outside the sīmā and returned, while the interim lifting is for those who did not go outside—thus, one lifting is spoken of in two ways.”
And in the commentary to that: “through the eight mātikās” – those are stated in regard to bhikkhus dwelling outside the boundary. The seven mātikās, starting with pakkamanantikā, are mentioned. The sahubbhāra is stated with reference to someone who, having gone outside the sīmā, has arrived at the internal removal (antarubbhāra). These eight mātikās are mentioned by means of them. “Or through the internal removal” – the explanation is that the Great Sage declared two removals of the kathina: the antarubbhāra, because it is obtained by those who, without going outside the boundary, have remained there and removed the kathina by means of the kathina removal act; and the sahubbhāra by means of one who has gone outside the boundary and has returned. “A single removal has been declared in two ways: sahubbhāra by one going and returning outside the boundary and antarubbhāra by those not going outside the boundary.” It has been said.
In the commentary as well: “The eight categories” are stated for those who have gone outside the boundary. The seven categories, from departure-based onwards, are stated for one who has gone outside the boundary and attained the internal lifting. The shared-completion lifting is included in these eight categories. “Or by the internal lifting” refers to those who have not gone outside the boundary but remain there and lift the Kathina by formal motion. Thus, the great ones have stated that the lifting of the Kathina is of two kinds. The shared-completion lifting is for one who has gone outside the boundary and returned, while the internal lifting is for those who have not gone outside the boundary. Thus, the same lifting is stated in two ways.
ID1356
Kasmā pana antarubbhāravasena kammavācāya kathinaṃ ubbhatanti? Mahādānaṃ dātukāmehi upāsakehi āgatassa saṅghassa akālacīvaraṃ dātukāmehi yācitattā. Vuttañhi bhikkhunīvibhaṅgapāḷiyaṃ (pāci. 925) “tena kho pana samayena aññatarena upāsakena saṅghaṃ uddissa vihāro kārāpito hoti, so tassa vihārassa mahe ubhatosaṅghassa akālacīvaraṃ dātukāmo hoti. Tena kho pana samayena ubhatosaṅghassa kathinaṃ atthataṃ hoti. Atha kho so upāsako saṅghaṃ upasaṅkamitvā kathinuddhāraṃ yācī”tiādi. Kathaṃ pana kammavācā kātabbāti? “Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho kathinaṃ uddhareyya, esā ñatti. Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, saṅgho kathinaṃ uddharati. Yassāyasmato khamati kathinassa uddhāro, so tuṇhassa. Yassa nakkhamati, so bhāseyya. Ubbhataṃ saṅghena kathinaṃ, khamati saṅghassa, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmī”ti evaṃ kātabbāti. Vuttañhi bhikkhunīvibhaṅge “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, kathinaṃ uddharituṃ, evañca pana, bhikkhave, kathinaṃ uddharitabbaṃ. Byattena bhikkhunā paṭibalena saṅgho ñāpetabbo – suṇātu me…pe… dhārayāmī”ti.
Why, then, is the kathina lifted by a kammavācā through the interim lifting? Because lay devotees, wishing to give a great gift, or those wishing to give unseasonal robes to the Saṅgha, requested it. It is stated in the Bhikkhunīvibhaṅga text (pāci. 925), “At that time, a certain lay devotee had a vihāra built for the Saṅgha and wished to give unseasonal robes to both Saṅghas for the great festival of that vihāra. At that time, the kathina had been spread for both Saṅghas. Then that lay devotee approached the Saṅgha and requested the lifting of the kathina,” and so forth. How, then, should the kammavācā be performed? “Listen to me, Venerables, may the Saṅgha hear: If the Saṅgha is ready, let the Saṅgha lift the kathina—this is the motion. Listen to me, Venerables, may the Saṅgha hear: The Saṅgha lifts the kathina. Let him to whom the lifting of the kathina is agreeable remain silent; let him to whom it is not agreeable speak. The kathina has been lifted by the Saṅgha; it is agreeable to the Saṅgha, therefore silent—thus I hold it.” It should be done thus. It is stated in the Bhikkhunīvibhaṅga, “I allow, bhikkhus, the lifting of the kathina, and thus, bhikkhus, the kathina should be lifted: A competent bhikkhu should inform the Saṅgha—‘Listen to me…’ and so forth.”
But why is the kathina removed by means of a formal act of Sangha (kammavācā) on account of internal removal (antarubbhāra)? Because the lay devotees, wishing to give a great offering, and wishing to give out-of-season robes to the Sangha that has arrived, have requested it. Indeed, it is stated in the Bhikkhunīvibhaṅga Pāḷi (Pāci. 925): “Now at that time, a certain lay follower had a monastery built for the Sangha. He, wanting to give out-of-season robes for both Sanghas in celebration of that monastery. At that time, the kathina had been spread for both Sanghas. Then that lay follower approached the Sangha and requested the removal of the kathina,” and so on. And how should the formal act (kammavācā) be performed? “Let the Sangha, venerable sirs, listen to me. If it is appropriate for the Sangha, the Sangha should remove the kathina. This is the motion. Let the Sangha, venerable sirs, listen to me. The Sangha removes the kathina. Whichever venerable one approves of the removal of the kathina, let him be silent. Whoever does not approve, let him speak. The kathina has been removed by the Sangha. It is approved by the Sangha; therefore it is silent. Thus I hold it.” It should be performed in this way. Indeed, it is stated in the Bhikkhunīvibhaṅga: “I allow, monks, the removal of the kathina. And thus, monks, the kathina should be removed. A competent, capable bhikkhu should inform the Sangha: ‘Let the Sangha… (as before)… Thus I hold it.’”
Why is the Kathina lifted by formal motion in the case of the internal lifting? Because lay devotees, wishing to make great offerings, request the Saṅgha for out-of-season robes. As stated in the Bhikkhunīvibhaṅga (Pāci. 925): “At that time, a lay devotee had a monastery built for the Saṅgha and wished to offer out-of-season robes to both Saṅghas. At that time, the Kathina was completed for both Saṅghas. Then that lay devotee approached the Saṅgha and requested the lifting of the Kathina,” etc. How should the formal motion be done? “Venerable sirs, may the Saṅgha listen to me. If it seems appropriate to the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha may lift the Kathina. This is the motion. Venerable sirs, may the Saṅgha listen to me. The Saṅgha lifts the Kathina. If it is acceptable to the venerable ones, they should remain silent. If it is not acceptable, they should speak. The Kathina has been lifted by the Saṅgha. It is acceptable to the Saṅgha, therefore they remain silent. Thus, I hold it.” This is how it should be done. As stated in the Bhikkhunīvibhaṅga: “I allow, bhikkhus, the lifting of the Kathina. And thus, bhikkhus, the Kathina should be lifted. A competent and capable bhikkhu should inform the Saṅgha: ‘Venerable sirs, may the Saṅgha listen to me… thus I hold it.’”
ID1357
Etena ca kathinubbhārena pubbe kataṃ kathinadussadānañattidutiyakammavācaṃ ubbhatanti vadanti, na pana kathinadussadānañattidutiyakammaṃ ubbhataṃ, atha kho atthārakammamevāti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Yadi hi kathinadussadānañattidutiyakammaṃ ubbhataṃ bhaveyya, tāya kammavācāya kathinadussadānassa sijjhanato imāya kathinubbhārakammavācāya taṃ pubbe dinnadussaṃ puna āharāpetabbaṃ siyā, na pañcānisaṃsavigamanaṃ. Yasmā pana imāya kathinubbhārakammavācāya pañcānisaṃsavigamanameva hoti, na pubbe dinnakathinadussassa puna āharāpanaṃ. Tena viññāyati “pañcānisaṃsalābhakāraṇaṃ attharaṇakammameva imāya kathinabbhārakammavācāya uddharīyati, na kathinadussadānañattidutiyakammavācāti, tasmā kathinubbhārakammavācākaraṇato pacchā saṅghassa uppannaṃ cīvaraṃ akālacīvaraṃ hoti, saṅgho pañcānisaṃse na labhati, cīvaraṃ sabbasaṅghikaṃ hutvā āgatāgatassa saṅghassa bhājanīyaṃ hotīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Ayamattho kathinadussadānañattidutiyakammavācāya ca kathinubbhārakammavācāya ca atthañca adhippāyañca suṭṭhu vinicchinitvā pubbāparaṃ saṃsanditvā paccetabboti.
They say that this kathina lifting with a kammavācā lifts the earlier motion and second kammavācā for giving kathina cloth, but it should be understood that it is not the motion and second kammavācā for giving kathina cloth that is lifted, but rather the act of spreading itself. For if the motion and second kammavācā for giving kathina cloth were lifted, since the giving of kathina cloth was accomplished by that kammavācā, this kathina-lifting kammavācā would require the re-offering of the previously given cloth, not the loss of the five benefits. But since this kathina-lifting kammavācā results only in the loss of the five benefits and not the re-offering of the previously given kathina cloth, it is understood that “only the act of spreading, which is the cause of obtaining the five benefits, is lifted by this kathina-lifting kammavācā, not the motion and second kammavācā for giving kathina cloth. Therefore, after the kathina-lifting kammavācā is performed, any robes arising for the Saṅgha become unseasonal robes, the Saṅgha does not receive the five benefits, and the robes become the property of the entire Saṅgha, to be shared by the Saṅgha present or arriving.” This meaning should be thoroughly determined by examining the motion and second kammavācā for giving kathina cloth and the kathina-lifting kammavācā, their meanings and intentions, and correlating the earlier and later contexts.
And by this removal of the kathina, they say that the previously performed motion-and-resolution (ñattidutiyakamma-vācā) for giving the kathina cloth is removed. However, it should be understood that it is not the motion-and-resolution (ñattidutiyakamma-vācā) for giving the kathina cloth that is removed, but rather the act of spreading. For if the motion-and-resolution for giving the kathina cloth were removed, then, since the giving of the kathina cloth is accomplished by that formal act, that cloth previously given would have to be taken back again by this kathina removal formal act, and not the cessation of the five benefits. But since by this kathina removal formal act, only the cessation of the five benefits occurs, and not the taking back of the previously given kathina cloth. From this it is understood that “only the act of spreading, which is the cause of obtaining the five benefits, is removed by this kathina removal formal act, and not the motion-and-resolution for giving the kathina cloth.” Therefore, it should be understood that after the performance of the kathina removal formal act, any robe that arises for the Sangha is an out-of-season robe; the Sangha does not obtain the five benefits; and the robe, becoming the property of the whole Sangha, is to be distributed to the Sangha that has come and gone. This matter should be understood by properly discerning the meaning and purpose of both the motion-and-resolution for giving the kathina cloth and the kathina removal formal act, and by comparing the earlier and later [statements].
By this lifting of the Kathina, the previously done formal motion and second announcement for the Kathina robe are said to be lifted, but not the formal motion and second announcement for the Kathina robe itself. Rather, it is the completion of the purpose that is lifted. For if the formal motion and second announcement for the Kathina robe were lifted, then by that formal motion, the Kathina robe would have to be brought again, and the loss of the five benefits would not occur. But since by this formal motion for lifting the Kathina, only the loss of the five benefits occurs, and the previously given Kathina robe is not brought again, it should be understood that the purpose of the formal motion and second announcement for the Kathina robe and the formal motion for lifting the Kathina should be carefully discerned and reconciled.
ID1358
Ettha siyā – kathinubbhāraṃ yācantānaṃ sabbesaṃ kathinubbhāro dātabbo, udāhu ekaccānanti, kiñcettha – yadi tāva sabbesaṃ dātabbo, kathinubbhārakammena pañcānisaṃsavigamanato saṅghassa lābhantarāyo bhaveyya, atha ekaccānaṃ mukholokanaṃ viya siyāti? Yadi kathinatthāramūlakalābhato kathinubbhāramūlakalābho mahanto bhaveyya, tesaṃ yācantānaṃ kathinubbhāro dātabbo. Yadi appako, na dātabbo. Yadi samo, kulappasādatthāya dātabboti. Tathā hi vuttaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pāci. aṭṭha. 927) “kīdiso kathinuddhāro dātabbo, kīdiso na dātabboti? Yassa atthāramūlako ānisaṃso mahā, ubbhāramūlako appo, evarūpo na dātabbo. Yassa pana atthāramūlako ānisaṃso appo, ubbhāramūlako mahā, evarūpo dātabbo. Samānisaṃsopi saddhāparipālanatthaṃ dātabbovā”ti. Imināpi viññāyati “pañcānisaṃsānaṃ kāraṇabhūtaṃ atthārakammameva uddharīyati, na kathinadussadānabhūtaṃ ñattidutiyakamma”nti.
Here a question might arise: Should the kathina lifting be given to all who request it, or only to some? What is the case here? If it is given to all, there would be a loss of other gains for the Saṅgha due to the loss of the five benefits through the kathina-lifting act; but if it is given only to some, it might seem like favoritism. If the gain from lifting the kathina would be greater than the gain from spreading it, the kathina lifting should be given to those who request it. If it is less, it should not be given. If it is equal, it should be given for the sake of inspiring confidence in families. Indeed, it is stated in the commentary (pāci. aṭṭha. 927), “What kind of kathina lifting should be given, and what kind should not? One whose benefit from spreading is great and benefit from lifting is small should not be given. But one whose benefit from spreading is small and benefit from lifting is great should be given. Even if the benefits are equal, it should be given to maintain faith.” From this too, it is understood that “only the act of spreading, which is the cause of the five benefits, is lifted, not the motion and second kammavācā that constitutes the giving of kathina cloth.”
Here it might be asked: “Should the removal of the kathina be granted to all those who request the removal of the kathina, or only to some?” What is the issue here? If it should be granted to all, then the Sangha would be obstructed from its benefit because the five advantages are terminated by the act of removing the kathina. If it is granted to some, it would be like favoritism. If the benefit from the removal of the kathina is greater than the benefit from the origin of spreading the kathina, then the removal of the kathina should be granted to those requesting it. If it is smaller, it should not be granted. If it is equal, it should be granted for the sake of inspiring faith in the lineage. Thus, it has been said in the Aṭṭhakathā (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 927): “What kind of kathina removal should be granted, and what kind should not be granted? If the benefit rooted in the spreading is great, and the benefit rooted in the removal is small, such a one should not be granted. But if the benefit rooted in the spreading is small, and the benefit rooted in the removal is great, such a one should be granted. Even if the benefits are equal, it should still be granted for the sake of maintaining faith.” From this, too, it is understood that “only the act of spreading, which is the cause of the five benefits, is removed, not the motion-and-resolution which is the giving of the kathina cloth.”
Here, it may be asked: Should the lifting of the Kathina be given to all who request it, or only to some? If it is given to all, the Saṅgha’s gain may be hindered by the loss of the five benefits due to the lifting of the Kathina. But if it is given to some, it may be like showing favoritism. If the gain based on the completion of the Kathina is greater than the gain based on the lifting of the Kathina, then the lifting should be given to those who request it. If it is small, it should not be given. If it is equal, it should be given to foster faith in the families. As stated in the commentary (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 927): “What kind of lifting of the Kathina should be given, and what kind should not? If the benefit based on the completion is great and the benefit based on the lifting is small, it should not be given. But if the benefit based on the completion is small and the benefit based on the lifting is great, it should be given. Even if the benefits are equal, it should be given to foster faith.” By this, it is understood that the purpose of the formal motion and second announcement for the Kathina robe is to lift the completion of the purpose, not the Kathina robe itself.
ID1359
Ānisaṃsakathāyaṃ pañcāti idāni vuccamānā anāmantacārādayo pañca kiriyā. Kappissantīti kappā bhavissanti, anāpattikāraṇā bhavissantīti attho. Anāmantacāroti anāmantetvā caraṇaṃ. Yo hi dāyakehi bhattena nimantito hutvā sabhatto samāno vihāre santaṃ bhikkhuṃ anāmantetvā kulesu cārittaṃ āpajjati, tassa bhikkhuno cārittasikkhāpadena pācittiyāpatti hoti, sā āpatti atthatakathinassa na hotīti attho. Tattha cārittasikkhāpadaṃ nāma “yo pana bhikkhu nimantito sabhatto samāno santaṃ bhikkhuṃ anāpucchā purebhattaṃ vā pacchābhattaṃ vā kulesu cārittaṃ āpajjeyya aññatra samayā, pācittiyaṃ. Tatthāyaṃ samayo cīvaradānasamayo cīvarakārasamayo, ayaṃ tattha samayo”ti acelakavagge pañcamasikkhāpadaṃ (pāci. 299-300). Cīvaravippavāsoti tiṇṇaṃ cīvarānaṃ aññatarena vā sabbena vā vinā hatthapāse akatvā aruṇuṭṭhāpanaṃ, evaṃ karotopi dutiyakathinasikkhāpadena āpatti na hotīti adhippāyo. Tattha ca dutiyakathinasikkhāpadaṃ nāma “niṭṭhitacīvarasmiṃ pana bhikkhunā ubbhatasmiṃ kathine ekarattampi ce bhikkhu ticīvarena vippavaseyya aññatra bhikkhusammutiyā, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiya”nti āgataṃ nissaggiyesu dutiyasikkhāpadaṃ (pārā. 472).
In the discussion of benefits, pañca means the five actions now being mentioned, such as anāmantacāra and others. Kappissantī means they will be proper, that is, they will be reasons for non-offense. Anāmantacāro means going without informing. For a bhikkhu who, having been invited to a meal by donors and being fully satisfied, goes to families without informing a bhikkhu present in the monastery, incurs a pācittiya offense under the cāritta training rule; the meaning is that this offense does not apply to one who spreads the kathina. The cāritta training rule is: “If a bhikkhu, invited and fully satisfied, goes to families before or after the meal without informing a bhikkhu present, except at the proper time, it is a pācittiya. Here, the proper time is the time for giving robes, the time for making robes; this is the proper time,” the fifth training rule in the acelaka section (pāci. 299-300). Cīvaravippavāso means being separated from one or all of the three robes beyond arm’s reach without raising the dawn; the intention is that even doing so does not incur an offense under the second kathina training rule. The second kathina training rule is: “When the robe-making is completed and the kathina is spread by a bhikkhu, if he is separated from the triple robe even for one night, except with the agreement of the bhikkhus, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya,” found in the second training rule of the nissaggiya section (pārā. 472).
In the discourse on advantages, “pañcā” refers to the five actions that are now being discussed, such as going without informing, and so forth. “Kappissanti” means they will be allowable, meaning they will be reasons for non-offense. “Anāmantacāro” means going without informing. For a bhikkhu who has been invited to a meal by lay supporters, and is with a meal, if he goes to families without informing a present bhikkhu in the monastery, that bhikkhu commits a pācittiya offense through the training rule concerning going amongst families; that offense does not apply to one who has spread the kathina cloth, is the meaning. The training rule concerning going amongst families, namely, is the fifth training rule in the Acelaka section: “Should any bhikkhu, being invited, and being with a meal, go amongst families before or after the meal without taking leave of a present bhikkhu, except at the proper time, it is to be confessed (pācittiya). The proper time here is the time for giving robes, the time for making robes; this is the proper time here” (pāci. 299-300). “Cīvaravippavāso” means rising at dawn without having one of the three robes or all of them within reach, not placing them within reach. Even doing this, it means that he will not have an offense through the second kathina training rule. And that second kathina training rule, namely, is stated amongst the rules entailing expiation as the second training rule: “When a bhikkhu has finished his robes, and the kathina privileges have been removed, should a bhikkhu live apart from even one of his three robes for even one night, except with the permission of the bhikkhus, it is to be forfeited and confessed” (pārā. 472).
In the discussion of benefits, five refers to the five actions now being mentioned, such as going without informing, etc. Will be permissible means they will be allowable, and there will be no offense. Going without informing means going without announcing. For instance, if a monk, having been invited by donors for a meal and having eaten, goes to families without informing another monk present in the monastery, that monk commits an offense under the rule on visiting families, which is a pācittiya offense. However, this offense does not apply when the kathina is in effect. Here, the rule on visiting families is as follows: “If a monk, having been invited and having eaten, visits families before or after the meal without informing another monk, except on appropriate occasions, it is a pācittiya offense. The appropriate occasions here are the time of giving robes, the time of making robes, etc.” This is the fifth rule in the Acelaka Vagga (pāci. 299-300). Separation from robes means keeping any of the three robes beyond arm’s reach without assigning them, even if done so after dawn. According to the second kathina rule, no offense is committed. The second kathina rule states: “When the kathina is in effect, if a monk spends even a single night without one of the three robes, except with the permission of the monks, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense.” This is the second rule in the Nissaggiya section (pārā. 472).
ID1360
Gaṇabhojananti etena gaṇabhojanasikkhāpadena anāpatti vuttāti sambandho. Tattha gaṇabhojanaṃ nāma “amhākaṃ bhattaṃ dethā”ti bhikkhūnaṃ viññattiyā vā “amhākaṃ bhattaṃ gaṇhathā”ti dāyakānaṃ nimantanena vā akappiyavohārena cattāro vā atirekā vā bhikkhū ekato paṭiggaṇhitvā ekato bhuñjanaṃ. Gaṇabhojanasikkhāpadaṃ nāma “gaṇabhojane aññatra samayā pācittiyaṃ. Tatthāyaṃ samayo gilānasamayo cīvaradānasamayo cīvarakārasamayo addhānagamanasamayo nāvābhiruhanasamayo mahāsamayo samaṇabhattasamayo, ayaṃ tattha samayo”ti āgataṃ bhojanavagge dutiyasikkhāpadaṃ (pāci. 215). Anadhiṭṭhitaṃ avikappitaṃ vaṭṭatīti paṭhamakathinasikkhāpadena āpatti na hotīti adhippāyo. Tattha paṭhamakathinasikkhāpadaṃ nāma “niṭṭhitacīvarasmiṃ pana bhikkhunā ubbhatasmiṃ kathine dasāhaparamaṃ atirekacīvaraṃ dhāretabbaṃ, taṃ atikkāmayato nissaggiyaṃ pācittiya”nti āgataṃ nissaggiyesu paṭhamasikkhāpadaṃ (pārā. 472). Kathinatthatasīmāyāti upacārasīmaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Matakacīvaranti matassa cīvaraṃ. Tatruppādenāti saṅghasantakena ārāmuyyānakhettavatthuādinā. Yaṃ saṅghikaṃ cīvaraṃ uppajjati, taṃ tesaṃ bhavissatīti iminā cīvarameva kathinatthārakānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ santakaṃ hoti, tato aññaṃ piṇḍapātabhesajjādikaṃ āgatāgatassa saṅghassa santakaṃ hotīti dasseti.
Gaṇabhojana means there is no offense under the gaṇabhojana training rule, as stated in connection. Here, gaṇabhojana means four or more bhikkhus accepting and eating together, either by the bhikkhus’ request, “Give us food,” or by the donors’ invitation, “Take our food,” in an improper manner. The gaṇabhojana training rule is: “Group eating, except at the proper time, is a pācittiya. Here, the proper time is the time of sickness, the time for giving robes, the time for making robes, the time of traveling, the time of boarding a boat, the great occasion, the meal for ascetics; this is the proper time,” found in the second training rule of the bhojana section (pāci. 215). Anadhiṭṭhitaṃ avikappitaṃ vaṭṭatī means there is no offense under the first kathina training rule; this is the intention. The first kathina training rule is: “When the robe-making is completed and the kathina is spread by a bhikkhu, an extra robe may be held for a maximum of ten days; exceeding that is a nissaggiya pācittiya,” found in the first training rule of the nissaggiya section (pārā. 472). Kathinatthatasīmāyā refers to the boundary including the surrounding area. Matakacīvara means the robe of a deceased person. Tatruppādenā means by what arises there, such as monastery property, gardens, fields, or land. Yaṃ saṅghikaṃ cīvaraṃ uppajjati, taṃ tesaṃ bhavissatī indicates that only the saṅghika robe becomes the property of the bhikkhus spreading the kathina, while other items like almsfood or medicine belong to the entire saṅgha as they come.
“Gaṇabhojana” With this, it is connected that non-offense is stated through the training rule about group eating. Therein, group eating, namely, is that four or more bhikkhus eating together, having received together based on an unallowable statement, either the bhikkhus making a request, ‘Give us food,’ or lay supporters offering, ‘Take food from us.’ The gaṇabhojana training rule, namely, is the second training rule in the bhojana section, stated as: “In the case of group eating, it is to be confessed, except at the proper time. The proper time here is the time of illness, the time for giving robes, the time for making robes, the time of going on a journey, the time of boarding a boat, a large gathering time, the time of a meal for recluses. This is the proper time here,” (pāci. 215). “Anadhiṭṭhitaṃ avikappitaṃ vaṭṭatī” means that there is no offense through the first kathina training rule. Therein, the first kathina training rule, namely, is given in the rules requiring forfeiture, as the first training rule “When a bhikkhu has completed his robes, and the kathina privileges have been removed, he may keep an extra robe for a maximum of ten days; if he exceeds that, it is to be forfeited and confessed.” (pārā. 472). “Kathinatthatasīmāyā” is said with reference to the boundary of the surrounding area. “Matakacīvara” is the robe of a deceased person. “Tatruppādenā” means with the property belonging to the Sangha, such as a monastery, a pleasure garden, a field, an estate, and so forth. “Yaṃ saṅghikaṃ cīvaraṃ uppajjati, taṃ tesaṃ bhavissatī” By this, he shows that only the robe becomes the property of the bhikkhus who have spread the kathina cloth, and that any other requisites, like almsfood, medicine, and so on, become the property of the Sangha who have come and gone.
Group meal refers to the rule on group meals, and it is stated that no offense is committed. A group meal is when four or more monks, at the invitation of donors or by their own request, receive food together and eat together. The rule on group meals is as follows: “Eating in a group, except on appropriate occasions, is a pācittiya offense. The appropriate occasions here are the time of illness, the time of giving robes, the time of making robes, the time of traveling, the time of boarding a boat, the time of a large gathering, and the time of the meal for ascetics.” This is the second rule in the Bhojana Vagga (pāci. 215). Unassigned and unexchanged means no offense is committed under the first kathina rule. The first kathina rule states: “When the kathina is in effect, a monk may keep an extra robe for a maximum of ten days. Exceeding this period, it becomes a nissaggiya pācittiya offense.” This is the first rule in the Nissaggiya section (pārā. 472). The boundary for the kathina purpose refers to the proximity boundary. Funeral robe means the robe of a deceased person. Through that arising refers to the Sangha’s property, such as monastery grounds, gardens, fields, etc. Any Sangha robe that arises will belong to them means that the robe is the property of the monks who have participated in the kathina, while other things like alms food and medicine belong to the Sangha as they come.
ID1361
Evaṃ aṭṭhaṅgasampanno, lajjī bhikkhu supesalo; Kareyya kathinatthāraṃ, ubbhārañcāpi sādhukanti.
Thus, a virtuous bhikkhu endowed with the eight qualities, modest and skillful, should spread the kathina and perform the removal well.
Thus, one endowed with eight factors, a conscientious bhikkhu, virtuous; should perform the spreading of the kathina, and also its proper removal.
Thus, a monk endowed with eight qualities, who is conscientious and well-behaved, should properly perform the kathina and its removal.
ID1362
Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinaya collection
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is an embellishment of the explanation, summarizing the Vinaya,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which elaborates on the Vinaya Saṅgaha,
ID1363
Kathinatthāravinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma
The section named Kathinatthāravinicchayakathālaṅkāro
The chapter named Embellishment of the Discourse on the Determination of the Spreading of the Kathina
the chapter on the determination of the kathina is concluded.
ID1364
Ekūnatiṃsatimo paricchedo.
The twenty-ninth chapter.
is the twenty-ninth section.
This is the twenty-ninth chapter.
ID1365
ID1366
227. Evaṃ kathinavinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni garubhaṇḍādivinicchayaṃ dassetuṃ “garubhaṇḍānīti etthā”tiādimāha. Tattha garūti –
227. Having explained the determination of kathina, now to show the determination of garubhaṇḍa and other matters, it begins with “garubhaṇḍānīti etthā”. Here, garu—
227. Having thus explained the determination of the kathina, now, in order to show the determination of heavy property and so on, he says, starting with “garubhaṇḍānīti etthā”. There, “garū”ti -
227. Having discussed the determination of the kathina, now to explain the determination of heavy goods, etc., it begins with “heavy goods, etc.” Here, heavy means—
ID1367
“Pume ācariyādimhi, garu mātāpitūsupi; Garu tīsu mahante ca, dujjarālahukesu cā”ti. –
“In masculine form for teacher and so on, garu for mother and father too; garu in three genders for great things, and also for what is heavy or hard to bear”—
“In the masculine, it means a teacher and so on, ‘garu’ also refers to mother and father; ‘Garu’ in the three [genders] means great, and also difficult to digest, and light.” -
“In the case of teachers, etc., and also parents, heavy is used in many contexts, such as in the case of the three great ones and in the case of the difficult and the light.”—
ID1368
Vuttesu anekatthesu alahukavācako. Bhaṇḍa-saddo “bhājanādiparikkhāre, bhaṇḍaṃ mūladhanepi cā”ti ettha bhājanādiparikkhārattho hoti. Vacanattho pana garanti uggacchanti uggatā pākaṭā hontīti garūni, bhaḍitabbāni icchitabbānīti bhaṇḍāni, garūni ca tāni bhaṇḍāni cāti garubhaṇḍāni, ārāmādīni vatthūni. Iti ādinā nayena senāsanakkhandhake bhagavatā dassitāni imāni pañca vatthūni garubhaṇḍāni nāmāti yojetabbaṃ.
Among these various meanings, it denotes “not light.” The word bhaṇḍa in “vessels and equipment, or bhaṇḍa as capital wealth” refers to vessels and equipment here. The literal meaning is: they are prominent, they rise, they are evident, hence garūni; they are to be desired or sought, hence bhaṇḍāni; thus, garubhaṇḍāni means heavy items, such as monasteries and lands. Therefore, these five objects shown by the Blessed One in the senāsanakkhandhaka are to be understood as garubhaṇḍāni.
Amongst the many meanings stated, it is a word for not-light. The word “Bhaṇḍa” means “vessel and other requisites; ‘bhaṇḍa’ is also capital.” Here it means a vessel and other requisites. But the meaning of the word is: that which is ‘garu’ are those things that rise up, those that are raised up and become evident; ‘bhaṇḍāni’ are those things that should be divided, those that should be desired; “garubhaṇḍāni” are both ‘garūni’ and ‘bhaṇḍāni,’ things such as monasteries and the like. It should be connected that in this way, these five things shown by the Blessed One in the Senāsanakkhandhaka are called heavy property.
In many contexts, it denotes something not light. The term goods refers to “vessels and other requisites, as well as capital wealth.” Here, it means vessels and other requisites. The meaning of the word is that which is heavy, prominent, and manifest. Desirable and sought-after things are called goods. Thus, heavy goods refer to monastery grounds, etc. These five things are to be understood as heavy goods, as shown by the Buddha in the Senāsana Khandhaka.
ID1369
Mañcesu masārakoti mañcapāde vijjhitvā tattha aṭaniyo pavesetvā kato. Bundikābaddhoti aṭanīhi mañcapāde ḍaṃsāpetvā pallaṅkasaṅkhepena kato. Kuḷīrapādakoti assameṇḍakādīnaṃ pādasadisehi pādehi kato. Yo vā pana koci vaṅkapādako, ayaṃ vuccati “kuḷīrapādako”ti. Āhaccapādakoti ayaṃ pana “āhaccapādako nāma mañco aṅge vijjhitvā kato hotī”ti evaṃ parato pāḷiyaṃyeva (pāci. 131) vutto, tasmā aṭaniyo vijjhitvā tattha pādasikhaṃ pavesetvā upari āṇiṃ datvā katamañco āhaccapādakoti veditabbo. Pīṭhepi eseva nayo.
Among beds, masārako means one made by piercing the legs of the bed and inserting crossbars there. Bundikābaddho means one made by binding the legs with crossbars in the form of a cot. Kuḷīrapādako means one made with legs resembling those of a horse or sheep, or any with curved legs, called “kuḷīrapādako.” Āhaccapādako is explained later in the text itself (pāci. 131) as “a bed called āhaccapādako is one made by piercing the frame,” so it should be understood as a bed made by piercing and inserting the leg ends, secured with a peg above. The same applies to seats.
Amongst beds, “masārako” is made by piercing the legs of the bed and inserting crossbars there. “Bundikābaddho” is made by striking the legs of the bed with crossbars and in the manner of a couch. “Kuḷīrapādako” is made with legs similar to the feet of horses, rams, and so forth. Or, whatever kind of curved leg, this is called “kuḷīrapādako”. “Āhaccapādako” This is stated later in the text (pāci. 131) itself, thus: “A bed called ‘āhaccapādako’ is made by piercing the frame,” Therefore, the bed made by piercing crossbars, inserting the top of the legs there and fixing a pin on top, is to be known as ‘āhaccapādako’. The same method applies to stools as well.
In beds, with a masāraka means a bed with legs pierced and fitted with crossbars. Bound with cords means a bed with legs tied with cords, made in the manner of a couch. With crab legs means a bed with legs resembling those of a goat or deer. Alternatively, any bed with curved legs is called “crab-legged.” With inserted legs means a bed made by piercing the frame and inserting the legs, as stated in the Pāli (pāci. 131). Thus, a bed with legs inserted into crossbars and secured with pegs is called “inserted-legged.” The same applies to chairs.
ID1370
Uṇṇabhisiādīnaṃ pañcannaṃ aññatarāti uṇṇabhisi coḷabhisi vākabhisi tiṇabhisi paṇṇabhisīti imesaṃ pañcannaṃ bhisīnaṃ aññatarā . Pañca bhisiyoti pañcahi uṇṇādīhi pūritabhisiyo. Tūlagaṇanāya hi etāsaṃ gaṇanā. Tattha uṇṇaggahaṇena na kevalaṃ eḷakalomameva gahitaṃ, ṭhapetvā pana manussalomaṃ yaṃ kiñci kappiyākappiyamaṃsajātīnaṃ pakkhicatuppadānaṃ lomaṃ, sabbaṃ idha uṇṇaggahaṇeneva gahitaṃ, tasmā channaṃ cīvarānaṃ, channaṃ anulomacīvarānañca aññatarena bhisicchaviṃ katvā taṃ sabbaṃ pakkhipitvā bhisiṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Eḷakalomāni pana apakkhipitvā kambalameva catugguṇaṃ vā pañcaguṇaṃ vā pakkhipitvā katāpi uṇṇabhisisaṅkhameva gacchati. Coḷabhisiādīsu yaṃ kiñci navacoḷaṃ vā purāṇacoḷaṃ vā saṃharitvā vā anto pakkhipitvā vā katā coḷabhisi, yaṃ kiñci vākaṃ pakkhipitvā katā vākabhisi, yaṃ kiñci tiṇaṃ pakkhipitvā katā tiṇabhisi, aññatra suddhatamālapattaṃ yaṃ kiñci paṇṇaṃ pakkhipitvā katā paṇṇabhisīti veditabbā. Tamālapattaṃ pana aññena missameva vaṭṭati, suddhaṃ na vaṭṭati. Bhisiyā pamāṇaniyamo natthi, mañcabhisi pīṭhabhisi bhūmattharaṇabhisi caṅkamanabhisi pādapuñchanabhisīti etāsaṃ anurūpato sallakkhetvā attano rucivasena pamāṇaṃ kātabbaṃ. Yaṃ panetaṃ uṇṇādipañcavidhatūlampi bhisiyaṃ vaṭṭati, taṃ masūrakepi vaṭṭatīti kurundiyaṃ vuttaṃ. Tattha masūraketi cammamayabhisiyaṃ. Etena masūrakaṃ paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatīti siddhaṃ hoti.
Uṇṇabhisiādīnaṃ pañcannaṃ aññatarā refers to one of the five types of mattresses: uṇṇabhisi, coḷabhisi, vākabhisi, tiṇabhisi, or paṇṇabhisi. Pañca bhisiyo means five mattresses filled with these five materials: wool and so on. They are counted by the stuffing. Here, uṇṇaggahaṇa includes not only sheep wool but, excluding human hair, any permissible or impermissible hair from winged or four-footed animals; all are included under uṇṇaggahaṇa. Thus, making a mattress cover with one of the six robes or six permissible robe-like materials and filling it with all this is allowed. Even a blanket made fourfold or fivefold with sheep wool alone, without other hair, is still called uṇṇabhisi. For coḷabhisi and others, coḷabhisi is made with any new or old cloth, gathered or stuffed inside; vākabhisi with any bark; tiṇabhisi with any grass; and paṇṇabhisi with any leaves except pure tamāla leaves. Tamāla leaves are permissible only when mixed with others, not alone. There is no size restriction for mattresses; considering bed mattresses, seat mattresses, floor coverings, walking mattresses, or foot-wiping mattresses, the size should be made according to preference. What is permissible as five types of stuffing like wool in mattresses is also permissible in masūraka, as stated in the Kurundī. Here, masūrake means a leather mattress. This establishes that using a masūraka is permissible.
“Uṇṇabhisiādīnaṃ pañcannaṃ aññatarā” means any one of the five, namely, the wool mattress, the cloth mattress, the bark mattress, the grass mattress, and the leaf mattress. “Pañca bhisiyo” means mattresses filled with the five, wool and the rest. This is the count according to filling with down. Here, by the term ‘wool,’ not only sheep’s wool is taken, but excluding human hair, whatever allowable and unallowable animal flesh types, feathers of birds and fur of four-footed animals, all this is taken here by the term ‘wool’; therefore, it is allowable to make a covering of a mattress out of any one of the six types of cloth or six kinds of lining cloths, and having put all that in, to make the mattress. But even a mattress made by putting in four-fold or five-fold felt without adding sheep’s wool is included under the term of wool mattress. In the case of cloth mattresses and others, a “coḷabhisi” is made by collecting any new cloth or old cloth and inserting it inside; a “vākabhisi” is made by inserting any bark; a “tiṇabhisi” is made by inserting any kind of grass; a “paṇṇabhisī” is to be known as that made by inserting any kind of leaf, except for pure tamāla leaves. But tamāla leaves are allowable only when mixed with other things; they are not allowable alone. There is no rule as to the size of a mattress; considering the size in accordance with a bed mattress, a stool mattress, a ground-spread mattress, a walking-path mattress, and a foot-wiping mattress, the size should be made according to one’s preference. But this fivefold filling beginning with wool, which is allowable for mattresses, that is also allowable for a masūraka, as stated in the Kurundi. There, “masūrake” means a leather mattress. By this it is established that it is allowable to use a masūraka.
One of the five, such as a wool-stuffed mattress refers to a mattress stuffed with wool, cotton, bark, grass, or leaves. Five mattresses means mattresses stuffed with these five materials. The counting here is based on the filling material. The term wool includes not only sheep’s wool but also any hair from humans or animals, whether permissible or not, such as bird feathers or the hair of four-footed animals. Thus, all such materials are included under wool. Therefore, it is permissible to make a mattress by covering it with any of the six robes or six additional robes and stuffing it with these materials. However, a mattress made by stuffing only wool without sheep’s wool, or by stuffing a blanket folded four or five times, is still considered a wool-stuffed mattress. In the case of cotton-stuffed mattresses, any new or old cloth collected and stuffed inside is called a cotton-stuffed mattress. Any bark stuffed inside is called a bark-stuffed mattress. Any grass stuffed inside is called a grass-stuffed mattress. Any leaves, except the purest tamāla leaves, stuffed inside are called a leaf-stuffed mattress. Pure tamāla leaves are not allowed, but mixed with other materials, they are permissible. There is no fixed size for mattresses; they should be made according to one’s preference, considering the size of beds, chairs, floor coverings, walking mats, and foot-wiping mats. The same applies to masāraka mattresses. Here, masāraka refers to a leather-stuffed mattress. Thus, it is established that a masāraka mattress is permissible to use.
ID1371
Bimbohane tīṇi tūlāni rukkhatūlaṃ latātūlaṃ poṭakītūlanti. Tattha rukkhatūlanti simbalirukkhādīnaṃ yesaṃ kesañci rukkhānaṃ tūlaṃ. Latātūlanti khīravalliādīnaṃ yāsaṃ kāsañci latānaṃ tūlaṃ. Poṭakītūlanti poṭakītiṇādīnaṃ yesaṃ kesañci tiṇajātikānaṃ antamaso ucchunaḷādīnampi tūlaṃ. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.297) pana “poṭakītūlanti erakatiṇatūla”nti vuttaṃ, etehi tīhi sabbabhūtagāmā saṅgahitā honti. Rukkhavallitiṇajātiyo hi muñcitvā añño bhūtagāmo nāma natthi, tasmā yassa kassaci bhūtagāmassa tūlaṃ bimbohane vaṭṭati, bhisiṃ pana pāpuṇitvā sabbampetaṃ “akappiyatūla”nti vuccati na kevalañca bimbohane etaṃ tūlameva, haṃsamorādīnaṃ sabbasakuṇānaṃ, sīhādīnaṃ sabbacatuppadānañca lomampi vaṭṭati. Piyaṅgupupphabakuḷapupphādi pana yaṃ kiñci pupphaṃ na vaṭṭati. Tamālapattaṃ suddhameva na vaṭṭati, missakaṃ pana vaṭṭati, bhisīnaṃ anuññātaṃ pañcavidhaṃ uṇṇāditūlampi vaṭṭati. Addhakāyikāni pana bimbohanāni na vaṭṭanti. Addhakāyikānīti upaḍḍhakāyappamāṇāni, yesu kaṭito paṭṭhāya yāva sīsaṃ upadahanti ṭhapenti. Sīsappamāṇaṃ pana vaṭṭati, sīsappamāṇaṃ nāma yassa vitthārato tīsu kaṇṇesu dvinnaṃ kaṇṇānaṃ antaraṃ miniyamānaṃ vidatthi ceva caturaṅgulañca hoti, majjhaṭṭhānaṃ muṭṭhiratanaṃ hoti, dīghato pana diyaḍḍharatanaṃ vā dviratanaṃ vāti kurundiyaṃ vuttaṃ, ayaṃ sīsappamāṇassa ukkaṭṭhaparicchedo, ito uddhaṃ na vaṭṭati, heṭṭhā pana vaṭṭatīti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 297) vuttaṃ. Tattha “tīsu kaṇṇesu dvinnaṃ kaṇṇāna”nti pāṭhaṃ upanidhāya bimbohanassa ubhosu antesu ṭhapetabbacoḷakaṃ tikoṇameva karonti ekacce. “Idañca ṭhānaṃ gaṇṭhiṭṭhāna”nti vadanti.
For pillows, three types of stuffing are: rukkhatūla, tree cotton like from the simbalī tree; latātūla, creeper cotton like from the milk-vine; and poṭakītūla, grass cotton like from poṭakī grass or even sugarcane stalks. In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.297), poṭakītūla is specified as eraka grass cotton. These three encompass all plant types, as there are no plants beyond trees, creepers, and grasses. Thus, cotton from any plant is permissible for pillows. However, reaching a mattress, all this is called “akappiyatūla.” Not only this cotton but also feathers from all birds like swans or peacocks and hair from all four-footed animals like lions are permissible in pillows. Flowers like piyaṅgu or bakula are not allowed. Pure tamāla leaves are not permissible, but mixed ones are. The five types of stuffing like wool permitted for mattresses are also allowed. Addhakāyikāni pillows, meaning half-body-sized ones used from waist to head, are not permissible. Sīsappamāṇa, head-sized, is permissible; in the Kurundī, it is said to be, at maximum, a span and four fingers wide at two of its three corners, a fist-width at the middle, and one-and-a-half or two cubits long. The commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 297) states that larger than this is not allowed, but smaller is.
In a bolster, there are three kinds of stuffing: tree-stuffing, creeper-stuffing, and grass-stuffing. Therein, “rukkhatūla” is the stuffing of any trees, like the silk-cotton tree and others. “Latātūla” is the stuffing of any creepers, like the milk-vine and others. “Poṭakītūla” is the stuffing of any grasses, like poṭakī grass and others, even including sugar-cane reeds and so on. In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.297), however, it is said, “poṭakītūla” means the stuffing of eraka grass. By these three, all plant life is included. For apart from trees, creepers, and grasses, there is no other plant life. Therefore, the stuffing of any plant life is allowable for a bolster; however, after it is covered, all this is called “unallowable stuffing”. And not only is this filling allowed for use in a bolster, the hair of all birds, such as geese and peacocks, and of all four-footed animals, such as lions, is also allowable. But any kind of flower, such as piyaṅgu flowers and bakula flowers, is not allowable. Tamāla leaves are not allowable alone, but they are allowable when mixed. The fivefold wool and other stuffing allowed for mattresses is also allowable. But half-body sized bolsters are not allowable. “Addhakāyikānī” means those of half-body size, on which one rests, placing [the body] from the waist up to the head. But the size of a head-rest is allowable. “Sīsappamāṇaṃ” namely that which is one vidatthi and four fingerbreadths wide when measured across the distance between two of the three corners. The center is one fist ratana, and it is one and a half ratanas or two ratanas long, this is stated in Kurundi. This is the maximum limit for the size of a headrest. Anything more than this is not allowable; but less than this is allowable, as it is stated in the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 297). There, taking the phrase, “of the three corners, between two corners,” as a basis, some make the cloth to be placed at both ends of the bolster only triangular. They say, “This place is the knot-place.”
In pillows, there are three types of stuffing: tree cotton, creeper cotton, and grass cotton. Tree cotton refers to the cotton from trees like the silk-cotton tree. Creeper cotton refers to the cotton from creepers like the milk creeper. Grass cotton refers to the cotton from grasses like the poṭakī grass, including even sugarcane fibers. According to the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.297), grass cotton refers to the cotton from eraka grass. These three types cover all plant-based materials. Apart from trees, creepers, and grasses, there are no other plant-based materials. Therefore, any plant-based cotton suitable for pillows is called “impermissible cotton.” Not only in pillows but also the feathers of birds like swans and peacocks, and the hair of animals like lions, are permissible. However, flowers like the piyaṅgu and bakuḷa are not permissible. Pure tamāla leaves are not allowed, but mixed with other materials, they are permissible. The five types of stuffing, such as wool, are allowed for mattresses. Half-body pillows are not permissible. Half-body pillows are those that cover half the body, from the waist to the head. However, head-sized pillows are permissible. Head-sized means the width between the ears is four fingers, and the length is one and a half or two hands. This is the maximum size; anything larger is not permissible, but smaller is allowed, as stated in the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 297). Here, “between the ears” refers to the triangular shape of the pillow, with the width between the ears being four fingers and the middle part being one hand’s width. Some make the pillow triangular, calling it a “knot place.”
ID1372
Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.297) pana “sīsappamāṇaṃ nāma yattha gīvāya saha sakalaṃ sīsaṃ ṭhapetuṃ sakkā, tassa ca muṭṭhiratanaṃ vitthārappamāṇanti dassento ‘vitthārato’tiādimāha. Idañca bimbohanassa ubhosu antesu ṭhapetabbacoḷappamāṇadassanaṃ, tassa vasena bimbohanassa vitthārappamāṇaṃ paricchijjati, taṃ vaṭṭaṃ vā caturassaṃ vā katvā sibbitaṃ yathā koṭito koṭi vitthārato puthulaṭṭhānaṃ muṭṭhiratanappamāṇaṃ hoti, evaṃ sibbitabbaṃ, ito adhikaṃ na vaṭṭati. Taṃ pana antesu ṭhapitacoḷaṃ koṭiyā koṭiṃ āhacca diguṇaṃ kataṃ tikaṇṇaṃ hoti, tesu tīsu kaṇṇesu dvinnaṃ kaṇṇānaṃ antaraṃ vidatthicaturaṅgulaṃ hoti, majjhaṭṭhānaṃ koṭito koṭiṃ āhacca muṭṭhiratanaṃ hoti, idamassa ukkaṭṭhappamāṇa”nti vuttattā bimbohanassa ubhosu antesu ṭhapetabbacoḷakaṃ pakatiyāyeva tikaṇṇaṃ na hoti, atha kho koṭiyā koṭiṃ āhacca diguṇakatakāleyeva hoti, tasmā taṃ coḷakaṃ vaṭṭaṃ vā hotu caturassaṃ vā, diguṇaṃ katvā miniyamānaṃ tikaṇṇameva hoti, dvinnañca kaṇṇānaṃ antaraṃ caturaṅgulādhikavidatthimattaṃ hoti, tassa ca coḷakassa majjhaṭṭhānaṃ muṭṭhiratanaṃ hoti, tasseva coḷakassa pamāṇena bimbohanassa majjhaṭṭhānampi muṭṭhiratanaṃ hotīti viññāyatīti.
In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.297), sīsappamāṇa means where the entire head with the neck can be placed, with a fist-width as its measure, as explained with “in width” and so forth. This refers to the cloth placed at both ends of the pillow, determining its width, sewn round or square so that from edge to edge at the widest point it is a fist-width; larger is not allowed. When doubled at the ends, it becomes triangular, with the distance between two corners being a span and four fingers, and the middle from edge to edge a fist-width; this is its maximum size. Thus, the cloth is not naturally triangular but becomes so when doubled, whether round or square, with the specified measures understood accordingly.
But in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.297), “sīsappamāṇaṃ” means where it is possible to place the entire head together with the neck. Showing that its width is one fist ratana, he says, “vitthārato”, and so on. This is showing the size of the cloth to be placed at both ends of the bolster. By that, the width of the bolster is determined. Having made it round or square and sewn, such that the width from edge to edge is one fist ratana at the widest place, it should be sewn in this way. More than this is not allowable. That cloth, placed at the ends, folded double from edge to edge, becomes three-cornered. Of those three corners, the distance between two corners is one vidatthi and four fingerbreadths. The center, taken from edge to edge, is one fist ratana. This is its maximum size.” Because it is stated that the cloth to be placed at both ends of the bolster is not three-cornered by nature, but only when it is made double from edge to edge; therefore, whether that cloth is round or square, when it is made double and measured, it is only three-cornered, and the distance between two corners is a vidatthi plus four fingerbreadths, and the center of that cloth is a fist ratana, and by the size of that very cloth the center of the bolster is also understood to be a fist ratana.
According to the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.297), head-sized means where the entire head, including the neck, can be placed. The width is one hand’s width. This refers to the size of the cloth placed at both ends of the pillow, which determines the pillow’s width. The pillow should be sewn in a circular or square shape, with the width at the widest part being one hand’s width. The cloth placed at the ends, when doubled, forms a triangle, with the width between the ears being four fingers and the middle part being one hand’s width. Thus, the middle part of the pillow is also one hand’s width. This is to be understood.
ID1373
“Kambalameva…pe… uṇṇabhisisaṅkhameva gacchatīti sāmaññato vuttattā gonakādiakappiyampi uṇṇamayattharaṇaṃ bhisiyaṃ pakkhipitvā sayituṃ vaṭṭatīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Masūraketi cammamayabhisiyaṃ, cammamayaṃ pana bimbohanaṃ tūlapuṇṇampi na vaṭṭatī”ti ca vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.297) vuttaṃ. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.297) pana “sīsappamāṇanti yattha galavāṭakato paṭṭhāya sabbasīsaṃ upadahanti, taṃ sīsappamāṇaṃ hoti, tañca ukkaṭṭhaparicchedato tiriyaṃ muṭṭhiratanaṃ hotīti dassetuṃ ‘yattha vitthārato tīsu kaṇṇesū’tiādimāha. Majjhaṭṭhānaṃ muṭṭhiratanaṃ hotīti bimbohanassa majjhaṭṭhānaṃ tiriyato muṭṭhiratanappamāṇaṃ hotī”ti vuttaṃ. Arañjaroti bahuudakagaṇhanakā mahācāṭi. Jalaṃ gaṇhituṃ alanti arañjaro, vaṭṭacāṭi viya hutvā thokaṃ dīghamukho majjhe paricchedaṃ dassetvā katoti gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. Vuttañhetaṃ aṭṭhakathāyanti ajjhāhārasambandho.
“Kambalameva…pe… uṇṇabhisisaṅkhameva gacchatī” implies generally that even impermissible items like gonaka wool can be used in a mattress covering for lying on, as noted. Masūrake means a leather mattress; a leather pillow, even stuffed with cotton, is not permissible, says the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.297). In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.297), sīsappamāṇa means where the whole head from the throat is placed, a fist-width across at maximum, as explained with “in width at three corners” and so forth; the pillow’s middle is a fist-width across.
“Kambalameva…pe… uṇṇabhisisaṅkhameva gacchatī” Because it is stated generally, it should be understood that it is allowable to lie down, having inserted even an unallowable mat made of wool such as gonaka, into a mattress. “Masūrake” means in a leather mattress, but a leather bolster, even if stuffed with down, is not allowable.” This is also said in Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.297). But in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.297) “sīsappamāṇa” means where one rests the whole head, starting from the nape of the neck, that is the size of a headrest. And showing that at most, it is one fist ratana across, he says, “yattha vitthārato tīsu kaṇṇesū”, and so on. “Majjhaṭṭhānaṃ muṭṭhiratanaṃ hotī” means that the center of the bolster, across, is the size of one fist ratana.” “Arañjaro” is a large water jar that can hold much water. That which is able to hold water is an “arañjaro”; it is like a round jar, with a somewhat long mouth, made showing a division in the middle, is said in the gaṇṭhipada. The connection with “it is said in the commentary” is implied.
“Only a blanket… is considered a wool-stuffed mattress” means that even a blanket made from goat hair, etc., is permissible to use as a mattress. Masāraka refers to a leather-stuffed mattress. However, a leather pillow, even if stuffed with cotton, is not permissible, as stated in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.297). According to the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.297), head-sized means where the entire head, from the neck, can be placed. The width is one hand’s width. The middle part of the pillow is also one hand’s width. Arañjara refers to a large water vessel with a wide mouth. It is called arañjara because it is used to collect water. It is shaped like a round vessel with a slightly elongated mouth and a marked middle part, as mentioned in the commentary.
ID1374
Dvisaṅgahāni dve hontīti dve paṭhamadutiyaavissajjiyāni “ārāmo ārāmavatthū”ti ca “vihāro vihāravatthū”ti ca vuttadvedvevatthusaṅgahāni honti. Tatiyaṃ avissajjiyaṃ “mañco pīṭhaṃ bhisi bimbohana”nti vuttacatuvatthusaṅgahaṃ hoti. Catutthaṃ avissajjiyaṃ “lohakumbhī lohabhāṇakaṃ lohavārako lohakaṭāhaṃ vāsi pharasu kuṭhārī kudālo nikhādana”nti vuttanavakoṭṭhāsavantaṃ hoti. Pañcamaṃ avissajjiyaṃ “valli veḷu muñjaṃ pabbajaṃ tiṇaṃ mattikā dārubhaṇḍaṃ mattikābhaṇḍa”nti vuttaaṭṭhabhedanaṃ aṭṭhapabhedavantaṃ hotīti yojanā. Pañcanimmalalocanoti maṃsacakkhudibbacakkhudhammacakkhubuddhacakkhusamantacakkhūnaṃ vasena nimmalapañcalocano.
Dvisaṅgahāni dve hontī means there are two, encompassing the first and second inalienable pairs: “ārāmo ārāmavatthu” and “vihāro vihāravatthu,” each including two items. The third, inalienable, includes four items: “mañco pīṭhaṃ bhisi bimbohana.” The fourth, inalienable, includes nine portions: “lohakumbhī lohabhāṇakaṃ lohavārako lohakaṭāhaṃ vāsi pharasu kuṭhārī kudālo nikhādana.” The fifth, inalienable, includes eight types: “valli veḷu muñjaṃ pabbajaṃ tiṇaṃ mattikā dārubhaṇḍaṃ mattikābhaṇḍa.” Pañcanimmalalocano means one with five pure eyes: the flesh-eye, divine-eye, dhamma-eye, Buddha-eye, and all-seeing-eye.
Dvisaṅgahāni dve hontīti, the two [items] to be relinquished first and second, are two sets of property grouped as “a monastery and the monastery’s property” and “a dwelling and the dwelling’s property.” Tatiyaṃ avissajjiyaṃ, the third [item] not to be relinquished, is the fourfold set of property grouped as “a bed, a chair, a mattress, a pillow.” Catutthaṃ avissajjiyaṃ, the fourth [item] not to be relinquished, comprises nine categories, grouped as “an iron pot, an iron basin, an iron bowl, an iron cauldron, a knife, an axe, a hatchet, a hoe, a spade.” Pañcamaṃ avissajjiyaṃ, the fifth [item] not to be relinquished, is made up of the eight types grouped as “creeper, bamboo, muñja grass, pabbaja grass, grass, clay, wooden articles, clay articles.” Pañcanimmalalocanoti, the five pure eyes, namely, the flesh-eye, the divine eye, the Dhamma-eye, the Buddha-eye, and the all-encompassing eye.
Dvisaṅgahāni dve hontīti: There are two non-distributable categories: the first and second, namely, “monastery and monastery land” and “dwelling and dwelling land.” Tatiyaṃ avissajjiyaṃ: The third non-distributable category includes “bed, chair, mattress, and pillow.” Catutthaṃ avissajjiyaṃ: The fourth non-distributable category includes “iron pot, iron vessel, iron pan, iron bowl, axe, hatchet, adze, spade, and digging tool.” Pañcamaṃ avissajjiyaṃ: The fifth non-distributable category includes “vines, bamboo, muñja grass, pabbaja grass, straw, clay, wooden utensils, and earthenware.” Pañcanimmalalocano: One who is endowed with the five pure eyes: the fleshly eye, the divine eye, the eye of wisdom, the eye of the Buddha, and the universal eye.
ID1375
Senāsanakkhandhake avissajjiyaṃ kīṭāgirivatthusmiṃ avebhaṅgiyanti ettha “senāsanakkhandhake gāmakāvāsavatthusmiṃ avissajjiyaṃ kīṭāgirivatthusmiṃ avebhaṅgiya”nti vattabbaṃ. Kasmā? Dvinnampi vatthūnaṃ senāsanakkhandhake āgatattā. Senāsanakkhandhaketi ayaṃ sāmaññādhāro. Gāmakāvāsavatthusmiṃ kīṭāgirivatthusminti visesādhāro. Ayamattho pāḷiṃ oloketvā paccetabbo. Teneva hi samantapāsādikāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 321) “senāsanakkhandhake”ti avatvā “idha”icceva vuttaṃ, idhāti iminā gāmakāvāsavatthuṃ dasseti, kīṭāgirivatthu pana sarūpato dassitameva. Sāmaññādhāro pana taṃsaṃvaṇṇanābhāvato avuttopi sijjhatīti na vuttoti viññāyati.
Senāsanakkhandhake avissajjiyaṃ kīṭāgirivatthusmiṃ avebhaṅgiya should say “senāsanakkhandhake gāmakāvāsavatthusmiṃ avissajjiyaṃ kīṭāgirivatthusmiṃ avebhaṅgiya,” because both items are found in the senāsanakkhandhaka. Senāsanakkhandhake is the general context; gāmakāvāsavatthusmiṃ kīṭāgirivatthusmiṃ is the specific context. This meaning should be confirmed by examining the text. Hence, in the Samantapāsādikā (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 321), instead of “senāsanakkhandhake,” it says “idha,” meaning gāmakāvāsavatthu; kīṭāgirivatthu is explicitly shown. The general context, lacking commentary, is implicitly valid though not stated.
Senāsanakkhandhake avissajjiyaṃ kīṭāgirivatthusmiṃ avebhaṅgiyanti, regarding “the indivisible items in the chapter on lodgings in the Kīṭāgiri case,” it should be said, “in the chapter on lodgings, indivisible in the village residence case, in the Kīṭāgiri case.” Why? Because both properties are included in the chapter on lodgings. Senāsanakkhandhaketi, this is a general basis. Gāmakāvāsavatthusmiṃ kīṭāgirivatthusminti, this is a specific basis. This meaning should be understood by examining the Pāḷi. Therefore, in the Samantapāsādikā (Cūḷava. aṭṭha. 321), instead of “in the chapter on lodgings”, only “here” is said; idhāti, by “here” it indicates the village residence property; the Kīṭāgiri property, however, is shown in its own form. But the general basis, although not stated because of the absence of commentary on it, is established and thus not mentioned, it is understood.
Senāsanakkhandhake avissajjiyaṃ kīṭāgirivatthusmiṃ avebhaṅgiya: Here, it should be said, “In the Senāsanakkhandhaka, the non-distributable category in the village residence context and the non-distributable category in the Kīṭāgiri context.” Why? Because both contexts are included in the Senāsanakkhandhaka. Senāsanakkhandhake: This is a general term. Gāmakāvāsavatthusmiṃ kīṭāgirivatthusmi: These are specific terms. This meaning should be understood by examining the Pali text. Thus, in the Samantapāsādikā (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 321), instead of saying “Senāsanakkhandhake,” it simply says “here,” indicating the village residence context, while the Kīṭāgiri context is implied by similarity. The general term, however, is understood even if not explicitly stated due to the absence of its explanation.
ID1376
228. Thāvarena ca thāvaraṃ, garubhaṇḍena ca garubhaṇḍanti ettha pañcasu koṭṭhāsesu purimadvayaṃ thāvaraṃ, pacchimattayaṃ garubhaṇḍanti veditabbaṃ. Samakameva detīti ettha ūnakaṃ dentampi vihāravatthusāmantaṃ gahetvā dūrataraṃ dukkhagopaṃ vissajjetuṃ vaṭṭatīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Vakkhati hi “bhikkhūnañce mahagghataraṃ…pe… sampaṭicchituṃ vaṭṭatī”ti. Jānāpetvāti bhikkhusaṅghassa jānāpetvā, apaloketvāti attho. Nanu tumhākaṃ bahutaraṃ rukkhāti vattabbanti idaṃ sāmikesu attano bhaṇḍassa mahagghataṃ ajānitvā dentesu taṃ ñatvā theyyacittena gaṇhato avahāro hotīti vuttaṃ. Vihārena vihāro parivattetabboti savatthukena aññesaṃ bhūmiyaṃ katapāsādādinā, avatthukena vā savatthukaṃ parivattetabbaṃ, avatthukaṃ pana avatthukeneva parivattetabbaṃ kevalaṃ pāsādassa bhūmito athāvarattā. Evaṃ thāvaresupi thāvaravibhāgaṃ ñatvāva parivattetabbaṃ.
228. Thāvarena ca thāvaraṃ, garubhaṇḍena ca garubhaṇḍa means among the five categories, the first two are thāvara (immovable), and the last three are garubhaṇḍa (heavy items). Samakameva detī means giving an equal item; even giving less while taking a nearby monastery land to avoid distant hardship is permissible, as will be said: “If bhikkhus receive something more valuable… it is permissible to accept.” Jānāpetvā means informing the bhikkhu saṅgha, i.e., with their consent. Nanu tumhākaṃ bahutaraṃ rukkhāti vattabba means if donors give without knowing their item’s higher value and it is taken with a theft-mind, it becomes misappropriation. Vihārena vihāro parivattetabbo means a monastery with land should be exchanged for one with buildings on others’ land or a landless one for a landed one; a landless one should be exchanged only for another landless one due to its immovability from the ground. Similarly, immovable items should be exchanged knowing their division.
228. Thāvarena ca thāvaraṃ, garubhaṇḍena ca garubhaṇḍanti, of the five categories, the first two are thāvaraṃ (immovable), and the last three are garubhaṇḍa (heavy goods), it should be understood. Samakameva detīti, it should be understood that even giving something less, it is permissible to relinquish something farther away, and harder to protect, taking [into consideration] the area surrounding the vihara’s property. Because it will say: “If it is more valuable for the monks… it is allowable to accept” (…). Jānāpetvāti, having informed the Saṅgha of monks, meaning, having consulted. Nanu tumhākaṃ bahutaraṃ rukkhāti vattabbanti, this is said because it is a theft if, when the owners, not knowing the high value of their goods, give them, and one, knowing it, takes them with a thieving mind. Vihārena vihāro parivattetabboti, a building made on another’s land, with its property, or without its property should be exchanged with something with property; but something without property [should be exchanged] only with something without property, simply because the building is immovable from the ground. Thus, even regarding immovables, one should exchange them only after knowing the classification of immovables.
228. Thāvarena ca thāvaraṃ, garubhaṇḍena ca garubhaṇḍa: Here, among the five categories, the first two are thāvara (immovable), and the last three are garubhaṇḍa (heavy goods). Samakameva detī: Even if one gives less, it is permissible to accept it as a distant and difficult-to-protect monastery land. It is said, “If the monks have something more valuable… it is permissible to accept it.” Jānāpetvā: Having informed the Sangha, seeking permission is the meaning. Nanu tumhākaṃ bahutaraṃ rukkhāti vattabba: This is said when the owner, not knowing the high value of their own goods, gives them away, and someone, knowing this, takes them with a thieving mind, which constitutes misappropriation. Vihārena vihāro parivattetabbo: A monastery with land may be exchanged for another monastery with land, or a monastery without land may be exchanged for one with land, but a monastery without land should only be exchanged for another without land, due to the inferiority of the building’s foundation. Similarly, immovable properties should be exchanged after understanding their classifications.
ID1377
“Kappiyamañcā sampaṭicchitabbāti iminā suvaṇṇādivicittaṃ akappiyamañcaṃ ’saṅghassā’ti vuttepi sampaṭicchituṃ na vaṭṭatīti dasseti. ’Vihārassa demā’ti vutte saṅghassa vaṭṭati, na puggalassa khettādi viyāti daṭṭhabba”nti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.321) vuttaṃ. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷvagga 3.321) pana “kappiyamañcā sampaṭicchitabbāti ’saṅghassa demā’ti dinnaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Sace pana ’vihārassa demā’ti vadanti, suvaṇṇarajatamayādiakappiyamañcepi sampaṭicchituṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ. Na kevalaṃ…pe… parivattetuṃ vaṭṭantīti iminā athāvarena thāvarampi athāvarampi parivattetuṃ vaṭṭatīti dasseti. Thāvarena athāvarameva hi parivattetuṃ na vaṭṭati. “Akappiyaṃ vā mahagghaṃ kappiyaṃ vāti ettha akappiyaṃ nāma suvaṇṇamayamañcādi akappiyabhisibimbohanāni ca. Mahagghaṃ kappiyaṃ nāma dantamayamañcādi, pāvārādikappiyaattharaṇādīni cā”ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ vuttaṃ, vimativinodaniyaṃ pana “akappiyaṃ vāti āsandiādi, pamāṇātikkantaṃ bimbohanādi ca. Mahagghaṃ kappiyaṃ vāti suvaṇṇādivicittaṃ kappiyavohārena dinna”nti vuttaṃ.
“Kappiyamañcā sampaṭicchitabbā” shows that a bed adorned with gold etc., being impermissible, cannot be accepted even if offered as “for the saṅgha”; if offered as “for the monastery,” it is permissible for the saṅgha, not an individual, like fields, says the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.321). The Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷvagga 3.321) says it refers to what is given as “for the saṅgha”; if said as “for the monastery,” even an impermissible bed of gold or silver can be accepted. Na kevalaṃ…pe… parivattetuṃ vaṭṭantī shows that both movable and immovable items can be exchanged with immovable ones, but immovable cannot be exchanged with immovable alone. “Akappiyaṃ vā mahagghaṃ kappiyaṃ vā”: akappiyaṃ means gold beds or impermissible mattress-pillows; mahagghaṃ kappiyaṃ means ivory beds or permissible coverings like pāvāra, says the Sāratthadīpanī; the Vimativinodanī says akappiyaṃ is a couch etc., or oversised pillows, and mahagghaṃ kappiyaṃ is gold-adorned items given permissibly.
“Kappiyamañcā sampaṭicchitabbāti, by this it is shown that even if a beautifully decorated bed made of gold etc., is said to be ‘for the Sangha,’ one shouldn’t accept it. if it says ‘We give to the vihāra’, it is permitted for the Sangha, not for an individual as a field, etc.’ This is said in Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.321). In Saratthadipani(sārattha. ṭī. cūḷvagga 3.321), on the other hand, “kappiyamañcā sampaṭicchitabbā, it is said with reference to that given, saying ‘We give to the Sangha’. But if they say, ‘We give to the Vihāra’, it is permissible to accept even beds made of gold, silver, etc., that are not allowable.” Na kevalaṃ…pe… parivattetuṃ vaṭṭantīti, by this it shows that it is permissible to exchange even immovables for immovables and movables. For, it is not permissible to exchange only movables for immovables. “Akappiyaṃ vā mahagghaṃ kappiyaṃ vāti, here akappiyaṃ** refers to things not allowable such as a bed made of gold and the unallowable mattress and pillows. Mahagghaṃ kappiyaṃ refers to things such as a bed made of ivory, and allowable covering such as blankets, etc.” This is said in the Sāratthadīpanī. In the Vimativinodanī, however, “akappiyaṃ vāti refers to a long chair, etc., and a pillow that exceeds the prescribed size. Mahagghaṃ kappiyaṃ vā**ti refers to allowable items given with the designation “allowable,” decorated with gold, etc.
“Kappiyamañcā sampaṭicchitabbā: This indicates that even if a gold-decorated bed is offered to the Sangha, it is not permissible to accept it. However, if it is said, “We offer it to the monastery,” it is permissible for the Sangha, but not for an individual, like a field, etc. This is explained in the Vimativinodanī (Vinaya Ṭīkā, Cūḷavagga 2.321). The Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha Ṭīkā, Cūḷavagga 3.321) states, “kappiyamañcā sampaṭicchitabbā: This refers to what is given with the words, ‘We offer it to the Sangha.’ If, however, they say, ‘We offer it to the monastery,’ even a gold or silver bed that is not permissible may be accepted.” Na kevalaṃ…pe… parivattetuṃ vaṭṭantī: This indicates that even immovable property may be exchanged for movable property, but immovable property cannot be exchanged for immovable property. “Akappiyaṃ vā mahagghaṃ kappiyaṃ vā: Here, akappiyaṃ refers to gold-decorated beds, etc., and non-permissible pillows. Mahagghaṃ kappiyaṃ refers to ivory-decorated beds, etc., and permissible coverings like pāvāra, etc. The Sāratthadīpanī explains this, while the Vimativinodanī states, “akappiyaṃ vā: This refers to chairs, etc., and pillows exceeding the permissible size. Mahagghaṃ kappiyaṃ vā: This refers to gold-decorated items offered under the guise of being permissible.”
ID1378
229. “Kāḷaloha …pe… bhājetabbo”ti vuttattā vaṭṭakaṃsalohamayampi bhājanaṃ puggalikampi sampaṭicchitumpi pariharitumpi vaṭṭati puggalānaṃ pariharitabbasseva bhājetabbattāti vadanti, taṃ upari “kaṃsalohavaṭṭalohabhājanavikati saṅghikaparibhogena vā gihivikaṭā vā vaṭṭatī”tiādikena mahāpaccarivacanena virujjhati. Imassa hi “vaṭṭalohakaṃsalohānaṃ yena kenaci kato sīhaḷadīpe pādaggaṇhanako bhājetabbo”ti vuttassa mahāaṭṭhakathāvacanassa paṭikkhepāya taṃ mahāpaccarivacanaṃ pacchā dassitaṃ, tasmā vaṭṭalohakaṃsalohamayaṃ yaṃ kiñci pādaggaṇhanakavārakampi upādāya abhājanīyameva, gihīhi dīyamānampi puggalassa sampaṭicchitumpi na vaṭṭati. Pārihāriyaṃ na vaṭṭatīti pattādiparikkhāraṃ viya sayameva paṭisāmetvā paribhuñjituṃ na vaṭṭati. Gihisantakaṃ viya ārāmikādayo ce sayameva gopetvā viniyogakāle ānetvā paṭidenti, paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati, “paṭisāmetvā bhikkhūnaṃ dethā”ti vattumpi vaṭṭatīti.
229. “Kāḷaloha …pe… bhājetabbo” implies that even round bronze vessels, whether personal, can be accepted and used, but only divisible among those entitled to use them; this contradicts the later Mahāpaccari statement “kaṃsalohavaṭṭalohabhājanavikati saṅghikaparibhogena vā gihivikaṭā vā vaṭṭatī,” which refutes the great commentary’s “bronze or round metal items made by anyone, like footed ones in Sri Lanka, are divisible,” showing that such bronze or round metal items, including footed bowls, are not divisible, nor can individuals accept them from laypeople. Pārihāriyaṃ na vaṭṭatī means they cannot be personally stored and used like bowls; if monastery attendants store and bring them for use like lay property, it is permissible, and saying “store and give to the bhikkhus” is allowed.
229. “Kāḷaloha …pe… bhājetabbo”ti, because it says that black metal…should be divided,’ some say that a vessel, even if personal, made of bell metal or bronze, it is appropriate to accept it and use, since only usable items for individuals are divisible, but this is contradicted by the Mahāpaccari text such as “bronze, bell-metal and any vessel made out of such alloy may be used as Sanghika property or as a personal article, or altered by lay people”(…). Because this Mahapaccari text was later shown in order to refute the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā text which says that ‘any bronze or bell-metal foot-scraper made by anyone in Sri Lanka should be distributed.’, therefore, anything made of bell metal or bronze, including even foot-scrapers or bowls, is not to be divided, nor is it allowable even to accept them from lay people for an individual. Pārihāriyaṃ na vaṭṭatīti, one is not allowed to put aside and use it oneself, like a bowl and other requisites. If monastery attendants and others, like [what is owned by] laypeople, themselves protect it and, at the time of use, bring and give, it is permissible to use, it’s even permissible to say, ‘Put it aside and give it to the monks.’
229. “Kāḷaloha …pe… bhājetabbo”: Since it is said that even a vessel made of iron or brass may be accepted and used by an individual, but it must be divided among individuals because it is meant for personal use. However, this is contradicted by the Mahāpaccarīvacana, which states, “Vessels made of iron or brass, whether used by the Sangha or laypeople, are permissible.” This contradicts the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, which states, “Iron or brass vessels, regardless of how they are made, must be divided in Sri Lanka for foot-washing purposes.” Therefore, any vessel made of iron or brass, even if offered by laypeople, cannot be accepted by an individual. Pārihāriyaṃ na vaṭṭatī: It is not permissible to use requisites like bowls, etc., by oneself without permission. Like laypeople’s belongings, the monastery workers may guard them and bring them when needed, but they must be offered to the monks with the words, “Please offer them to the monks after arranging them.”
ID1379
Paṇṇasūci nāma lekhanīti vadanti. Attanā laddhānipītiādinā paṭiggahaṇe doso natthi, pariharitvā paribhogova āpattikaroti dasseti. Yathā cettha, evaṃ upari bhājanīyavāsiādīsu attano santakesupi.
Paṇṇasūci means a writing stylus, they say. Attanā laddhānipī and so forth show no fault in receiving; only personal use after storing incurs an offense; likewise with divisible axes etc., even if personally owned.
Paṇṇasūci is said to be a writing instrument. Attanā laddhānipītiādinā, there is no fault in accepting; only using it after having put it aside is an offence. As it is here, so it is in the case of usable knives etc., even those belonging to oneself.
Paṇṇasūci nāma lekhanīti vadanti: The writing tool is called a leaf-needle. Attanā laddhānipī: There is no fault in receiving it oneself, but using it after receiving it incurs an offense. This applies similarly to other utensils like knives, etc., even if they are one’s own possessions.
ID1380
Anāmāsampīti suvaṇṇādimayampi, sabbaṃ taṃ āmasitvā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati.
Anāmāsampī means even items of gold etc.; all can be touched and used.
Anāmāsampīti, even if it is made of gold, etc., all that is allowed to be touched and used.
Anāmāsampī: Even if made of gold, etc., all such items may be touched and used.
ID1381
Upakkhareti upakaraṇe. Sikharaṃ nāma yena paribbhamantā chindanti. Pattabandhako nāma pattassa gaṇṭhiādikārako. “Paṭimānaṃ suvaṇṇādipattakārako”tipi vadanti.
Upakkhare means equipment. Sikharaṃ means what they use to cut while turning. Pattabandhako means a bowl’s knot-maker or, some say, a bowl-maker of gold etc.
Upakkhareti, on equipment. Sikharaṃ is that by which the revolving [part] is cut. Pattabandhako is the maker of knots, etc., for the bowl. Some also say, “Paṭimānaṃ is a maker of bowls from gold, etc.”
Upakkhare: This refers to tools. Sikharaṃ: This refers to what is used to cut while rotating. Pattabandhako: This refers to the one who makes the knot, etc., for the bowl. Some say, “The one who measures and makes bowls of gold, etc.”
ID1382
“Aḍḍhabāhūti kapparato paṭṭhāya yāva aṃsakūṭa”nti gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. “Aḍḍhabāhu nāma vidatthicaturaṅgulantipi vadantī”ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.321) vuttaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyampi (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 321) “aḍḍhabāhūti kapparato paṭṭhāya yāva aṃsakūṭanti likhita”nti vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.321) pana “aḍḍhabāhuppamāṇā nāma aḍḍhabāhumattā, aḍḍhabyāmamattātipi vadantī”ti vuttaṃ. Yottānīti cammarajjukā. Tatthajātakāti saṅghikabhūmiyaṃ jātā.
“Aḍḍhabāhū” means from the elbow to the shoulder tip, say the notes; the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.321) says a span and four fingers; the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 321) agrees; the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.321) says half a cubit or half a fathom. Yottānī means leather or rope straps. Tatthajātakā means grown on saṅghika land.
“Aḍḍhabāhūti, from the elbow up to the shoulder joint,” is said in the Gaṇṭhipada. “Aḍḍhabāhu is also said to be four fingerbreadths from a vidatthi,” is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.321). Also, in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 321), “aḍḍhabāhūti, it is written from the elbow up to the shoulder joint.” In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.321), however, “aḍḍhabāhuppamāṇā are those that are the measure of half an arm, some say half a fathom.” Yottānīti, leather straps. Tatthajātakāti, grown on Sanghika land.
“Aḍḍhabāhū: From the elbow to the shoulder, as stated in the Gaṇṭhipadesu. “Aḍḍhabāhu: Some say it is four vidatthis long. This is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha Ṭīkā, Cūḷavagga 2.321). The Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira Ṭīkā, Cūḷavagga 321) also states, “aḍḍhabāhū: From the elbow to the shoulder.” The Vimativinodanī (Vinaya Ṭīkā, Cūḷavagga 2.321) states, “aḍḍhabāhuppamāṇā: This refers to the length of half an arm, or half a fathom.” Yottānī: This refers to leather straps. Tatthajātakā: These are born on Sangha land.
ID1383
“Aṭṭhaṅgulasūcidaṇḍamattoti dīghaso aṭṭhaṅgulamatto pariṇāhato paṇṇasūcidaṇḍamatto”ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī.. Cūḷavagga 3.321) vimativinodaniyaṃ pana (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.321) “aṭṭhaṅgulasūcidaṇḍamattoti saradaṇḍādisūciākāratanudaṇḍakamattopī”ti vuttaṃ. Aṭṭhaṅgulappamāṇoti dīghato aṭṭhaṅgulappamāṇo. Rittapotthakopīti alikhitapotthakopi, idañca paṇṇappasaṅgena vuttaṃ.
“Aṭṭhaṅgulasūcidaṇḍamatto” in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.321) means eight fingers long and stylus-thick in girth; the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.321) says even as thin as an arrow-shaft stylus. Aṭṭhaṅgulappamāṇo means eight fingers in length. Rittapotthakopī means even an unwritten book, said in connection with leaves.
“Aṭṭhaṅgulasūcidaṇḍamattoti, eight fingerbreadths long, of the size of a writing stylus in circumference,” it is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī.. Cūḷavagga 3.321). In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.321) however, “aṭṭhaṅgulasūcidaṇḍamattoti, even of the size of a small stick shaped like a needle, made of reed, etc.” Aṭṭhaṅgulappamāṇoti, eight fingerbreadths in length. Rittapotthakopīti, even a blank book; and this is said in connection with leaves.
“Aṭṭhaṅgulasūcidaṇḍamatto: The length of the leaf-needle handle is eight aṅgulas. This is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha Ṭīkā, Cūḷavagga 3.321). The Vimativinodanī (Vinaya Ṭīkā, Cūḷavagga 2.321) states, “aṭṭhaṅgulasūcidaṇḍamatto: This refers to the handle of a needle, etc., like a reed handle.” Aṭṭhaṅgulappamāṇo: This refers to the length of eight aṅgulas. Rittapotthakopī: This refers to an uninscribed book, and this is said in connection with leaves.
ID1384
Āsandikoti caturassapīṭhaṃ vuccati “uccakampi āsandika”nti (cūḷava. 297) vacanato . Ekatobhāgena dīghapīṭhameva hi aṭṭhaṅgulapādakaṃ vaṭṭati, caturassāsandiko pana pamāṇātikkantopi vaṭṭatīti veditabbo. Sattaṅgo nāma tīsu disāsu apassayaṃ katvā katamañco, ayampi pamāṇātikkantopi vaṭṭati. Bhaddapīṭhanti vettamayaṃ pīṭhaṃ vuccati. Pīṭhikāti pilotikabandhaṃ pīṭhameva. Eḷakapādapīṭhaṃ nāma dārupaṭikāya uparipāde ṭhapetvā bhojanaphalakaṃ viya katapīṭhaṃ vuccati. Āmaṇḍakavaṇṭakapīṭhaṃ nāma āmalakākārena yojitabahaupādapīṭhaṃ. Imāni tāva pāḷiyaṃ āgatapīṭhāni. Dārumayaṃ pana sabbampi pīṭhaṃ vaṭṭati.
Āsandiko means a square seat, as “even a high āsandika” (cūḷava. 297) indicates; a long seat with one side eight fingers is permissible, but a square āsandiko, even oversized, is allowed. Sattaṅgo means a bed with supports on three sides, permissible even if oversized. Bhaddapīṭha means a cane seat. Pīṭhikā means a seat bound with cloth strips. Eḷakapādapīṭha means a seat made like a dining tray with wooden supports on top. Āmaṇḍakavaṇṭakapīṭha means a seat with many legs joined like an āmalaka fruit. These are the seats in the text; all wooden seats are permissible.
Āsandikoti, a four-cornered chair is called, because of the statement “even a high āsandika”(cūḷava. 297). A long chair with a single extension is permitted to have legs of eight fingerbreadths. But a square four-cornered chair, even if it exceeds the measure, is allowable. Sattaṅgo is a chair made with a support on three sides. This also, even if it exceeds the measurement, is permissible. Bhaddapīṭhanti, a chair made of cane. Pīṭhikāti, a chair bound with cloth. Eḷakapādapīṭhaṃ is said to be a chair made like a dining board with legs placed on top of a wooden plank. Āmaṇḍakavaṇṭakapīṭhaṃ is a chair with many supports arranged in the shape of an āmalaka fruit. These are the chairs mentioned in the Pāḷi. But any chair made of wood is permissible.
Āsandiko: This refers to a four-legged chair. It is called “high chair” (Cūḷavagga 297). A long chair with one side elevated is also permissible if it has eight-aṅgula legs. A four-legged chair, even if exceeding the size, is permissible. Sattaṅgo: This refers to a bed made without support on three sides. This also exceeds the size but is permissible. Bhaddapīṭha: This refers to a wicker chair. Pīṭhikā: This refers to a cloth-bound chair. Eḷakapādapīṭhaṃ: This refers to a chair with wooden legs and a board on top like a dining table. Āmaṇḍakavaṇṭakapīṭhaṃ: This refers to a chair with many legs arranged like an āmalaka fruit. These are the chairs mentioned in the Pali texts. All wooden chairs are permissible.
ID1385
“Ghaṭṭanaphalakaṃ nāma yattha ṭhapetvā rajitacīvaraṃ hatthena ghaṭṭenti. Ghaṭṭanamuggaro nāma anuvātādighaṭṭanatthaṃ katoti vadantī”ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.321) vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.321) “ghaṭṭanaphalakaṃ ghaṭṭanamuggaroti idaṃ rajitacīvaraṃ ekasmiṃ maṭṭhe daṇḍamuggare veṭhetvā ekassa maṭṭhaphalakassa upari ṭhapetvā upari aparena maṭṭhaphalakena nikkujjitvā eko upari akkamitvā tiṭṭhati, dve janā upariphalakaṃ dvīsu koṭīsu gahetvā aparāparaṃ ākaḍḍhanavikaḍḍhanaṃ karonti, etaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Hatthe ṭhapāpetvā hatthena paharaṇaṃ pana niṭṭhitarajanassa cīvarassa allakāle kātabbaṃ, idaṃ pana phalakamuggarehi ghaṭṭanaṃ sukkhakāle thaddhabhāvavimocanatthanti daṭṭhabba”nti vuttaṃ. “Ambaṇanti phalakehi pokkharaṇīsadisakatapānīyabhājanaṃ. Rajanadoṇīti yattha pakkarajanaṃ ākiritvā ṭhapentī”ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ pana “ambaṇanti ekadoṇikanāvāphalakehi pokkharaṇīsadisaṃ kataṃ. Pānīyabhājanantipi vadanti. Rajanadoṇīti ekadārunāva kataṃ rajanabhājanaṃ. Udakadoṇīti ekadārunāva kataṃ udakabhājana”nti vuttaṃ.
“Ghaṭṭanaphalakaṃ” means a board on which dyed robes are rubbed by hand; ghaṭṭanamuggaro means a mallet for beating against the wind, says the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.321). The Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.321) says it refers to wrapping a dyed robe around a smooth stick mallet, placing it on a smooth board, covering it with another board, one standing on top while two pull it back and forth by the ends; hand-beating is for wet robes after dyeing, while board-mallet beating softens dry stiff robes. “Ambaṇa” in the Sāratthadīpanī means a water vessel made like a lotus pond with boards; the Vimativinodanī says a single-board boat-like lotus-shaped water vessel. Rajanadoṇī means a dye vat where dye is poured; the Vimativinodanī says a single-wood dye vessel; udakadoṇī a single-wood water vessel.
“Ghaṭṭanaphalakaṃ is that on which the dyed robe is placed and rubbed by hand. Ghaṭṭanamuggaro is made for rubbing down-strokes, etc, it is said.” This is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.321). In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.321), “ghaṭṭanaphalakaṃ ghaṭṭanamuggaroti, this refers to the dyed robe being wrapped around a smooth stick or club, placed on a smooth board, and covered on top with another smooth board; one person stands on top, pressing down, while two people take hold of the top board at two corners and pull it back and forth. This is said with reference to this. But rubbing with the hand after placing [the robe] on the hand should be done when the completely dyed robe is still wet, but this rubbing with a board and club is to be done when it is dry, to loosen the stiffness.” “Ambaṇanti, a water receptacle made with planks, resembling a pond. Rajanadoṇīti, where the prepared dye is poured and kept,” it is said in the Sāratthadīpanī. But in the Vimativinodanī, “ambaṇanti made with planks [in a form] resembling a one-doṇi-boat-shaped pond. Some also say it is a water receptacle. Rajanadoṇīti a dye receptacle made from a single-wood boat. Udakadoṇīti, a water receptacle made from a single-wood boat.”
“Ghaṭṭanaphalakaṃ: This refers to the board on which dyed robes are placed and beaten with the hand. Ghaṭṭanamuggaro: This refers to what is made for beating against the wind, etc. This is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha Ṭīkā, Cūḷavagga 3.321). The Vimativinodanī (Vinaya Ṭīkā, Cūḷavagga 2.321) states, “ghaṭṭanaphalakaṃ ghaṭṭanamuggaro: This refers to the dyed robe being wrapped around a stick or mallet and placed on a board, then covered with another board and pressed down by someone standing on it. Two people hold the upper board at both ends and pull it back and forth. This is what is meant. Beating with the hand after placing it on the hand is done after the dyeing is complete, but beating with boards and mallets is done when the robe is dry to remove stiffness. “Ambaṇa: This refers to a vessel made of boards like a pond. Rajanadoṇī: This refers to where dye is poured and left. This is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī. The Vimativinodanī states, “ambaṇa: This refers to a vessel made of a single board like a pond. Some call it a drinking vessel. Rajanadoṇī: This refers to a dye vessel made of a single wooden board. Udakadoṇī: This refers to a water vessel made of a single wooden board.”
ID1386
“Bhūmattharaṇaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti akappiyacammaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Paccattharaṇagatikanti iminā mañcapīṭhepi attharituṃ vaṭṭatīti dīpeti. Pāvārādipaccattharaṇampi garubhaṇḍanti eke. Noti apare, vīmaṃsitvā gahetabba”nti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.321) vuttaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 321) pana “daṇḍamuggaro nāma ’yena rajitacīvaraṃ pothenti, tampi garubhaṇḍamevā’ti vuttattā, ’paccattharaṇagatika’nti vuttattā ca api-saddena pāvārādipaccattharaṇaṃ sabbaṃ garubhaṇḍamevāti vadanti. Eteneva suttena aññathā atthaṃ vatvā pāvārādipaccattharaṇaṃ na garubhaṇḍaṃ, bhājanīyameva, senāsanatthāya dinnapaccattharaṇameva garubhaṇḍanti vadanti. Upaparikkhitabba”nti vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.321) pana “bhūmattharaṇaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti akappiyacammaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Tattha bhūmattharaṇasaṅkhepena sayitumpi vaṭṭatiyeva. Paccattharaṇagatikanti iminā mañcādīsu attharitabbaṃ mahācammaṃ eḷakacammaṃ nāmāti dassetī”ti vuttaṃ. Chattamuṭṭhipaṇṇanti tālapaṇṇaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Pattakaṭāhanti pattapacanakaṭāhaṃ. Gaṇṭhikāti cīvaragaṇṭhikā. Vidhoti kāyabandhanavidho.
“Bhūmattharaṇaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatī” refers to impermissible leather, says the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.321); paccattharaṇagatika indicates it can be spread on beds or seats; some say pāvāra coverings are garubhaṇḍa, others disagree, to be investigated. The Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 321) says all coverings like pāvāra are garubhaṇḍa due to “mallet” and “paccattharaṇagatika,” though some say only coverings given for lodging are garubhaṇḍa, others divisible; to be examined. The Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.321) says it refers to impermissible leather spreadable on the floor or for lying on; paccattharaṇagatika means large leather like goat hide for beds. Chattamuṭṭhipaṇṇa refers to palm leaves. Pattakaṭāha means a bowl-cooking pot. Gaṇṭhikā means a robe knot. Vidho means a waistband tie.
“Bhūmattharaṇaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti, is said with reference to an unallowable animal skin. Paccattharaṇagatikanti, by this, it indicates that it is permissible to spread it even on a bed or chair. “Some say that even blankets, etc. are heavy goods. Others say no. It should be considered carefully,” is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.321). However, in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 321), “daṇḍamuggaro ‘That with which the dyed robe is beaten is also heavy goods’, it is said. And because it says ‘paccattharaṇagatika’, some say that by the word ‘api’, all coverings such as blankets are heavy goods. By this very sutta, having stated the meaning otherwise, they say that blankets and other coverings are not heavy goods, they are to be distributed, only coverings given for lodging are heavy goods. It should be examined.” In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.321), however, “bhūmattharaṇaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti is said in reference to unallowable animal skin. There, it is permissible even to sleep on a ground covering. Paccattharaṇagatikanti, by this it shows that a large animal skin, a sheep skin, etc., should be spread on beds and the like.” Chattamuṭṭhipaṇṇanti is said with reference to a palmyra leaf. Pattakaṭāhanti, a cauldron for cooking bowls. Gaṇṭhikāti a robe knot. Vidhoti means fastening of a waist-band.
“Bhūmattharaṇaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatī: This refers to non-permissible hides. Paccattharaṇagatika: This indicates that it is permissible to spread them on beds and chairs. Some say that coverings like pāvāra are heavy goods. Others disagree, and this should be carefully considered. The Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha Ṭīkā, Cūḷavagga 3.321) states this. The Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira Ṭīkā, Cūḷavagga 321) states, “daṇḍamuggaro: This refers to what is used to beat dyed robes, and it is also considered heavy goods. Since it is said, ‘paccattharaṇagatika,’ all coverings like pāvāra are heavy goods. However, according to this sutta, coverings like pāvāra are not heavy goods but utensils, and only coverings given for monastery use are heavy goods. This should be examined. The Vimativinodanī (Vinaya Ṭīkā, Cūḷavagga 2.321) states, “bhūmattharaṇaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatī: This refers to non-permissible hides. It is permissible to sleep on them briefly. Paccattharaṇagatika: This indicates that large hides like goat hides may be spread on beds, etc.” Chattamuṭṭhipaṇṇa: This refers to palm leaves. Pattakaṭāha: This refers to the bowl’s lid. Gaṇṭhikā: This refers to robe knots. Vidho: This refers to body bindings.
ID1387
Idāni vinayatthamañjūsāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. dubbalasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) āgatanayo vuccate – ārāmo nāma pupphārāmo vā phalārāmo vā. Ārāmavatthu nāma tesaṃyeva ārāmānaṃ atthāya paricchinditvā ṭhapitokāso. Tesu vā ārāmesu vinaṭṭhesu tesaṃ porāṇakabhūmibhāgo. Vihāro nāma yaṃ kiñci pāsādādisenāsanaṃ. Vihāravatthu nāma tassa patiṭṭhānokāso. Mañco nāma masārako bundikābaddho kuḷīrapādako āhaccapādakoti imesaṃ pubbe vuttānaṃ catunnaṃ mañcānaṃ aññataro. Pīṭhaṃ nāma masārakādīnaṃyeva catunnaṃ pīṭhānaṃ aññataraṃ. Bhisi nāma uṇṇabhisiādīnaṃ pañcannaṃ bhisīnaṃ aññataraṃ. Bimbohanaṃ nāma rukkhatūlalatātūlapoṭakītūlānaṃ aññatarena puṇṇaṃ. Lohakumbhī nāma kāḷalohena vā tambalohena vā yena kenaci katakumbhī. Lohabhāṇakādīsupi eseva nayo. Ettha pana bhāṇakanti arañjaro vuccati. Vārakoti ghaṭo. Kaṭāhaṃ kaṭāhameva. Vāsiādīsu valliādīsu ca duviññeyyaṃ nāma natthi…pe….
Now, the method presented in the Vinayatthamañjūsā (Kaṅkhā. Abhi. Ṭī. commentary on the weak training rule) is stated: Ārāmo means a flower garden or a fruit garden. Ārāmavatthu means the space demarcated and set aside specifically for those gardens, or, when those gardens are destroyed, the original land portion of them. Vihāro means any dwelling such as a mansion or lodging. Vihāravatthu means the site on which it stands. Mañco means one of the four types of beds previously mentioned: one with a frame, bound with straps, with crab-like legs, or with detachable legs. Pīṭhaṃ means one of the four types of seats made of the same materials as the beds. Bhisi means one of the five types of mattresses, such as one made of wool. Bimbohanaṃ means something filled with one of the following: tree cotton, vine cotton, or cloth cotton. Lohakumbhī means a pot made of black iron, copper, or any other metal. The same method applies to lohabhāṇakā and similar terms. Here, bhāṇaka refers to a metal vessel, vārako to a jar, and kaṭāhaṃ simply to a cauldron. In terms like vāsi (axe) and valli (creeper), there is nothing requiring dual interpretation…
Now, the method presented in the Vinayatthamañjūsā (Kankhā. Abhi. Ṭī. Dubbalasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) is being explained: ārāma (monastery grounds) refers to either a flower garden or a fruit orchard. Ārāmavatthu (site for monastery grounds) refers to the area designated and set aside for those very monasteries, or, when those monasteries have been destroyed, their original foundational area. Vihāra (monastery) refers to any dwelling such as a mansion. Vihāravatthu (site for monastery) refers to its place of establishment. Mañca (bed) refers to one of the four previously mentioned types of beds: Masāraka, Bundikābaddha, Kuḷīrapādaka, or Āhaccapādaka. Pīṭha (seat) refers to one of the four types of seats such as Masāraka, etc.. Bhisi (mattress) refers to one of the five types of mattresses, such as one filled with wool, etc.. Bimbohana (cushion) refers to something that is filled with one of the following: cotton from trees, cotton from creepers, cotton from pods, or cotton-wool. Lohakumbhī (metal pot) refers to a pot made of black metal, copper, or any other metal. The same method applies to lohabhāṇaka (metal container) and so on. Here, bhāṇaka refers to a water jar. Vāraka means a pot. Kaṭāha is just a Kaṭāha. In regard to vāsi (knife) and so on, and in the case of creepers and so on, there is nothing difficult to understand…etc…
Now, the method that has come down in the Vinayatthamañjūsā (Kaṅkhā. Abhi. Ṭī. Dubbalasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) is explained: Ārāma means a flower garden or a fruit garden. Ārāmavatthu refers to the space demarcated and set aside for the purpose of those gardens. Or, if those gardens are destroyed, it refers to the ancient portion of that land. Vihāra means any dwelling place such as a mansion or other lodging. Vihāravatthu refers to the foundation space of that dwelling. Mañca refers to any one of the four types of beds previously mentioned: a bed with a masāraka frame, one with a bundikābaddha frame, one with kuḷīra legs, or one with āhacca legs. Pīṭha refers to any one of the four types of seats made of masāraka, etc. Bhisi refers to any one of the five types of mattresses, such as those made of wool, etc. Bimbohanaṃ refers to a pillow filled with any one of the following: tree cotton, plant cotton, or cotton from a poṭakī. Lohakumbhī refers to a pot made of any kind of metal, whether black iron or copper. The same applies to lohabhāṇakā, etc. Here, bhāṇaka refers to a vessel called arañjara. Vārako means a water pot. Kaṭāhaṃ is simply a cooking pot. Vāsi, etc., and valli, etc., are not to be understood in two ways…pe….
ID1388
Tattha thāvarena thāvaranti vihāravihāravatthunā ārāmaārāmavatthuṃ vihāravihāravatthuṃ. Itarenāti athāvarena, pacchimarāsittayenāti vuttaṃ hoti. Akappiyenāti suvaṇṇamayamañcādinā ceva akappiyabhisibimbohanehi ca. Mahagghakappiyenāti dantamayamañcādinā ceva pāvārādinā ca. Itaranti athāvaraṃ. Kappiyaparivattanena parivattetunti yathā akappiyaṃ na hoti, evaṃ parivattetuṃ…pe… evaṃ tāva thāvarena thāvaraparivattanaṃ veditabbaṃ. Itarena itaraparivattane pana mañcapīṭhaṃ mahantaṃ vā hotu, khuddakaṃ vā, antamaso caturaṅgulapādakaṃ gāmadārakehi paṃsvāgārakesu kīḷantehi katampi saṅghassa dinnakālato paṭṭhāya garubhaṇḍaṃ hoti…pe… satagghanakena vā sahassagghanakena vā mañcena aññaṃ mañcasatampi labhati, parivattetvā gahetabbaṃ. Na kevalaṃ mañcena mañcoyeva, ārāmaārāmavatthuvihāravihāravatthupīṭhabhisibimbohanānipi parivattetuṃ vaṭṭanti. Esa nayo pīṭhabhisibimbohanesupi.
Tattha thāvarena thāvara means using a permanent object like a vihāra or vihāravatthu to exchange for an ārāma or ārāmavatthu, or a vihāra or vihāravatthu. Itarenā means with a non-permanent object, as implied by the latter group of items. Akappiyenā means with an impermissible item like a bed made of gold or an impermissible mattress or cushion. Mahagghakappiyenā means with a valuable permissible item like a bed made of ivory or a blanket. Itara means a non-permanent object. Kappiyaparivattanena parivattetu means to exchange it in such a way that it becomes permissible… Thus, the exchange of permanent objects with permanent ones should be understood first. In the case of itarena itaraparivattane, whether a bed or seat is large or small—even one with legs as short as four fingers, made by village children playing in a mud hut—once it is given to the Saṅgha, it becomes a heavy item… If one can obtain a hundred beds in exchange for a bed worth a hundred or a thousand, it should be exchanged and taken. Not only can a bed be exchanged for another bed, but ārāma, ārāmavatthu, vihāra, vihāravatthu, seats, mattresses, and cushions can also be exchanged. The same method applies to seats, mattresses, and cushions.
There, with an immovable by means of an immovable, meaning with a monastery and monastery site, a monastery grounds and monastery site, a monastery and monastery site. By the other, meaning by the non-immovable, that is, the last mentioned groups of three, that has to be understood. By what is improper, is meant a bed made out of gold and the like, and also with improper mattress and pillows. By what is valuable and proper, is meant a thing made out of ivory and the like, and also with a cloak and so on. The other means non-immovable. Exchange it through a proper exchange, meaning, exchange it in such a way, so that it becomes proper… etc… In this way, the exchange of an immovable by means of an immovable is to be understood. As to the exchange of the other by the other, whether the bed or seat is large or small, ultimately even if it is made with four-inch legs by village children playing in sand houses, from the time it is given to the Saṅgha, it becomes a heavy article… etc… even if one obtains a hundred other beds with one bed worth a hundred or a thousand, having exchanged it, it should be taken. Not only is a bed exchangeable for a bed, but monastery grounds, monastery site, monastery, monastery site, seat, mattress, and cushions can also be exchanged. This same method applies to the seat, mattress, and cushions.
There, with a permanent item, a permanent item means exchanging a monastery or monastery land for a garden or garden land. With the other means with a non-permanent item, as explained by the latter part of the sentence. With what is improper means items such as a golden or silver bed, etc., as well as improper mattresses and pillows. With what is highly valuable and proper means items such as a bed made of ivory, etc., or a canopy, etc. The other means a non-permanent item. By exchanging with what is proper means to exchange in such a way that the improper item is no longer improper…pe… Thus, one should understand the exchange of permanent items with permanent items. In the exchange of non-permanent items with non-permanent items, whether the bed or seat is large or small, even if it is a four-finger-legged bed made by village children playing in the sand, it becomes a heavy article belonging to the Sangha from the moment it is given…pe… Even if one obtains a hundred beds in exchange for a bed worth a hundred or a thousand, it should be taken after exchanging. Not only beds, but gardens, garden lands, monasteries, monastery lands, seats, mattresses, and pillows can also be exchanged. The same applies to seats, mattresses, and pillows.
ID1389
Kāḷalohatambalohakaṃsalohavaṭṭalohānanti ettha kaṃsalohaṃ vaṭṭalohañca kittimalohaṃ. Tīṇi hi kittimalohāni kaṃsalohaṃ vaṭṭalohaṃ hārakūṭanti. Tattha tiputambe missetvā kataṃ kaṃsalohaṃ. Sīsatambe missetvā kataṃ vaṭṭalohaṃ. Rasatambe missetvā kataṃ hārakūṭaṃ. Tena vuttaṃ “kaṃsalohaṃ vaṭṭalohañca kittimaloha”nti. Tato atirekanti tato atirekagaṇhanako. Sārakoti majjhe makuḷaṃ dassetvā mukhavaṭṭivitthataṃ katvā piṭṭhito nāmetvā kātabbaṃ ekaṃ bhājanaṃ. Sarāvantipi vadanti. Ādi-saddena kañcanakādīnaṃ gihiupakaraṇānaṃ gahaṇaṃ. Tāni hi khuddakānipi garubhaṇḍāneva gihiupakaraṇattā. Pi-saddena pageva mahantānīti dasseti, imāni pana bhājanīyāni bhikkhupakaraṇattāti adhippāyo. Yathā ca etāni, evaṃ kuṇḍikāpi bhājanīyā. Vakkhati hi “yathā ca mattikābhaṇḍe, evaṃ lohabhaṇḍepi kuṇḍikā bhājanīyakoṭṭhāsameva bhajatī”ti. Saṅghikaparibhogenāti āgantukānaṃ vuḍḍhatarānaṃ datvā paribhogena. Gihivikaṭāti gihīhi vikatā paññattā, attano vā santakakaraṇena virūpaṃ katā. Puggalikaparibhogena na vaṭṭatīti āgantukānaṃ adatvā attano santakaṃ viya gahetvā paribhuñjituṃ na vaṭṭati. Pipphalikoti kattari. Ārakaṇṭakaṃ sūcivedhakaṃ. Tāḷaṃ yantaṃ. Kattarayaṭṭhivedhako kattarayaṭṭhivalayaṃ. Yathā tathā ghanakataṃ lohanti lohavaṭṭi lohaguḷo lohapiṇḍi lohacakkalikanti evaṃ ghanakataṃ lohaṃ. Khīrapāsāṇamayānīti mudukakhīravaṇṇapāsāṇamayāni.
Kāḷalohatambalohakaṃsalohavaṭṭalohāna—here, kaṃsaloha and vaṭṭaloha refer to artificial alloys. There are three artificial alloys: kaṃsaloha, vaṭṭaloha, and hārakūṭa. Among them, kaṃsalohaṃ is made by mixing tin and copper, vaṭṭalohaṃ by mixing lead and copper, and hārakūṭaṃ by mixing mercury and copper. Hence it is said, “kaṃsaloha and vaṭṭaloha are artificial alloys.” Tato atireka means exceeding that category. Sārako refers to a vessel made by shaping a bud-like center, flattening the mouth, and bending it from the back; some call it sarāva. The term ādi includes household utensils made of gold and similar materials, which, though small, are considered heavy items due to their nature as laypeople’s possessions. The particle pi indicates that larger items are even more so, whereas these vessels are intended for monks’ use. Just as these are vessels, so too is a kuṇḍikā (water pot); for it will be said, “Just as in the case of clay vessels, so too with metal vessels, a kuṇḍikā falls under the category of vessels.” Saṅghikaparibhogenā means by giving it to newcomers or senior monks for use. Gihivikaṭā means altered or fashioned by laypeople, or made unsightly by being treated as their own property. Puggalikaparibhogena na vaṭṭatī means it is not permissible to use it as one’s own possession without giving it to newcomers. Pipphaliko means scissors. Ārakaṇṭakaṃ means a needle-piercer. Tāḷaṃ means a latch. Kattarayaṭṭhivedhako means a staff-ring piercer. Yathā tathā ghanakataṃ loha means solid metal shaped as a rod, ball, lump, or disc. Khīrapāsāṇamayānī means items made of soft, milk-colored stone.
Regarding black iron, copper, bronze, and alloy, here bronze and alloy are artificial metals. For there are three artificial metals: bronze, alloy, and Hārakūṭa. Among them, what is made by mixing tin and copper is called bronze. What is made by mixing lead and copper is called alloy. What is made by mixing mercury and copper is called hārakūṭa. Therefore, it is said, “bronze and alloy are artificial metals.” More than that is one who takes more than that. Sāraka is a vessel to be made, showing the bud in the middle, having made the circumference of the mouth wide, and bent at the back. Some say Sarāva as well. The word ‘etc’ includes household utensils like gold and so on. For those, even if they are small, are heavy articles because they are household utensils. The word ‘pi’ indicates that those are obviously large ones, but these are meant to be shared, as utensils for bhikkhus, this is the meaning. And just as these, so too Kuṇḍikā (water-pot) is also meant to be shared. For it will be said, “Just as with clay utensils, so too with metal utensils, the Kuṇḍikā falls into the category of shareable items.” By the Saṅgha’s usage, means having given it to the elder newcomers to use. Altered by householders means declared, made unfit by householders, or made unsightly by making it their own. It is not allowable for individual use, means it is not allowable to take it as one’s own without giving it to newcomers, and to use it. Pipphalika means scissors. Ārakaṇṭaka means a needle-piercer. Tāḷa means a lock. Kattarayaṭṭhivedhaka means a scissor-handle ring. Metal made somehow or other means metal made solid, like a metal rod, a lump of metal, a metal ingot, a metal wheel. Made of milky stone means made of soft, milky-colored stone.
Kāḷaloha, tambaloha, kaṃsaloha, and vaṭṭaloha: Here, kaṃsaloha and vaṭṭaloha are types of impure metal. There are three types of impure metals: kaṃsaloha, vaṭṭaloha, and hārakūṭa. Among these, kaṃsaloha is made by mixing three parts of tin. Vaṭṭaloha is made by mixing one part of tin. Hārakūṭa is made by mixing half a part of tin. Hence, it is said, “kaṃsaloha and vaṭṭaloha are impure metals.” More than that means taking more than the allowed amount. Sāraka refers to a vessel made by showing a bud in the middle, widening the mouth, and bending it from the back. Some call it sarāva. The word ādi includes household items such as gold, etc. Even small items are considered heavy articles because they are household items. The word pi indicates that even larger items are included. These vessels are meant for the use of monks. Just as these are, so too is a water pot. It is said, “Just as earthenware, so too metalware; a water pot is also a vessel.” Used by the Sangha means given to senior visiting monks for use. Gihivikaṭā refers to items altered by laypeople or made unattractive by their own actions. Not permissible for personal use means it is not allowed to take and use for oneself without giving it to visiting monks, as if it were one’s own property. Pipphalika refers to scissors. Ārakaṇṭakaṃ is a needle. Tāḷaṃ is a tool. Kattarayaṭṭhivedhako is the ring of a scissors handle. Loha forged in any way refers to metal rods, metal balls, metal lumps, or metal discs. Made of milk-stone means made of soft, milk-colored stone.
ID1390
Gihivikaṭānipi na vaṭṭanti anāmāsattā. Pi-saddena pageva saṅghikaparibhogena vā puggalikaparibhogena vāti dasseti. Senāsanaparibhogo pana sabbakappiyo, tasmā jātarūpādimayā sabbāpi senāsanaparikkhārā āmāsā. Tenāha “senāsanaparibhoge panā”tiādi.
Gihivikaṭānipi na vaṭṭanti because they are untouchable. The particle pi indicates that this applies whether used collectively by the Saṅgha or individually. However, use as lodging equipment is entirely permissible; thus, all lodging furnishings made of gold or similar materials are touchable. Hence it is said, “senāsanaparibhoge panā” and so forth.
Even those altered by householders are not allowable, because they are not to be touched. By the word ‘pi’, it is shown that it is not allowable even by the Sangha’s common use or by individual use. But the use of dwellings is universally allowable. Therefore, all dwelling requisites made of gold, etc., are touchable. Therefore, he said, “But regarding the use of dwellings”, etc.
Gihivikaṭā items are also not permissible because they are not pure. The word pi indicates that they are not permissible whether used by the Sangha or personally. However, the use of lodging is always permissible, so all lodging accessories made of gold, etc., are pure. Hence, it is said, “but in the use of lodging…” and so on.
ID1391
Sesāti tato mahattarī vāsi. Yā panāti yā kuṭhārī pana. Kudālo antamaso caturaṅgulamattopi garubhaṇḍameva. Nikhādanaṃ caturassamukhaṃ vā hotu doṇimukhaṃ vā vaṅkaṃ vā ujukaṃ vā, antamaso sammuñjanīdaṇḍavedhanampi, daṇḍabandhañce, garubhaṇḍameva. Tenāha “kudālo daṇḍabandhanikhādanaṃ vā agarubhaṇḍaṃ nāma natthī”ti. Sipāṭikā nāma khurakoso, sikharaṃ pana daṇḍabandhanikhādanaṃ anulometīti āha “sikharampi nikhādaneneva saṅgahita”nti. Sace pana vāsi adaṇḍakaṃ phalamattaṃ, bhājanīyaṃ. Upakkhareti vāsiādibhaṇḍe.
Sesā means a larger axe. Yā panā means “but that axe.” Kudālo—even one as small as four fingers—is still a heavy item. Nikhādanaṃ, whether square-mouthed, trough-shaped, curved, or straight—even a broomstick piercing—is a heavy item if attached to a handle. Hence it is said, “There is no such thing as a non-heavy item like a hoe or a handled digging tool.” Sipāṭikā means a razor sheath, but a blade follows the category of piercing tools; thus it is said, “sikharampi nikhādaneneva saṅgahita”. If an axe is just a bladeless fruit-sized piece, it is a vessel item. Upakkhare means equipment like axes.
The rest refers to larger knife than that. But whichever, means whichever type of axe. Kudāla (hoe), even if it is only four inches in size, is definitely a heavy article. Nikhādana (digging tool), whether it has a square mouth, a trough-shaped mouth, is curved or straight, even down to a broom handle piercer, if it is a handle binding, it is a heavy article. Therefore, he said, “There is no hoe or handle-binding digging tool that is not a heavy article.” Sipāṭikā means a razor case, but Sikhara (peak) conforms to a handle-binding digging tool, so he says, “Sikhara is also included in Nikhādana.” But if the knife is without a handle, just the blade, it is shareable. Regarding utensils means regarding utensils such as knives.
The rest refers to larger axes. And what refers to an axe. A shovel, even if it is only four fingers long, is still a heavy article. A digging tool may have a square mouth, a bowl-shaped mouth, a curved or straight mouth, or even a handle with a screw, and even if it has a handle binding, it is still a heavy article. Hence, it is said, “A shovel or a digging tool with a handle binding is not a light article.” Sipāṭikā refers to a razor case, and the handle binding of a digging tool is also included. Hence, it is said, “the handle is also included in the digging tool.” If an axe has no handle and only a blade, it is a vessel. Upakkhara refers to tools such as axes, etc.
ID1392
Pattabandhako nāma pattassa gaṇṭhikādikārako. “Paṭimānaṃ suvaṇṇādipattakārako”tipi vadanti. Tipucchedanakasatthaṃ suvaṇṇacchedanakasatthaṃ kataparikammacammacchindanakakhuddakasatthanti imāni cettha tīṇi pipphalikaṃ anulomantīti āha “ayaṃ pana viseso”tiādi. Itarānīti mahākattariādīni.
Pattabandhako means something that binds a bowl, such as a knot; some say, “It is a bowl-maker of gold or similar materials.” The three items—tin-cutting scissors, gold-cutting scissors, and leather-cutting small knives—also align with pipphalika, hence it is said, “ayaṃ pana viseso” and so forth. Itarānī means large scissors and similar tools.
Pattabandhaka means a maker of straps, etc., for a bowl. Some also say, “Paṭimāna is a maker of bowls made of gold, etc.” Here, these three – a chisel for cutting tin, a chisel for cutting gold, and a small knife for cutting prepared leather – conform to Pipphalika (scissors), so he said, “But this is the difference,” etc. The others means large scissors, etc.
Pattabandhako refers to one who makes knots in a bowl. Some say it refers to one who makes bowls of gold, etc., to a specific measure. A three-edged knife, a gold-cutting knife, and a small knife for cutting prepared leather are the three types of scissors included here. Hence, it is said, “this is the distinction” and so on. The others refer to large scissors, etc.
ID1393
Aḍḍhabāhuppamāṇāti kapparato paṭṭhāya yāva aṃsakūṭappamāṇā, vidatthicaturaṅgulappamāṇāti vuttaṃ hoti. Tatthajātakāti saṅghikabhūmiyaṃ jātā, ārakkhasaṃvidhānena rakkhitattā rakkhitā ca sā mañjūsādīsu pakkhittaṃ viya yathā taṃ na nassati, evaṃ gopanato gopitā cāti rakkhitagopitā. Tatthajātakāpi pana arakkhitā garubhaṇḍameva na hoti. Saṅghakamme ca cetiyakamme ca kateti iminā saṅghasantakena cetiyasantakaṃ rakkhituṃ parivattituñca vaṭṭatīti dīpeti. Suttaṃ panāti vaṭṭitañceva avaṭṭitañca suttaṃ.
Aḍḍhabāhuppamāṇā means from the elbow to the shoulder tip, approximately four finger-widths long. Tatthajātakā means grown on Saṅgha land, protected by arrangements, and safeguarded as if stored in a box to prevent loss—thus rakkhitagopitā. Even those grown there, if unprotected, are not heavy items. Saṅghakamme ca cetiyakamme ca kate indicates that Saṅgha property can be used to protect or exchange for shrine property. Suttaṃ panā means thread, whether twisted or untwisted.
Up to half the length of the arm extends from the elbow up to the top of the shoulder, meaning the length of a span plus four fingers. Grown there means grown on the Saṅgha’s land, and protected because of the arrangement for protection, and also guarded like something put in a chest, etc., so that it does not get lost, thus it is protected and guarded. But even if it is grown there, if it is unprotected, it is not a heavy article. When Saṅgha business and Cetiya business have been done, by this he indicates that it is proper to protect and exchange what belongs to the Saṅgha for what belongs to the Cetiya. Thread, however, means both twisted and untwisted thread.
Half a cubit in length means from the elbow to the shoulder, or four fingers in width. Born there means born on Sangha land, protected by security measures, and thus safeguarded. Just as something placed in a chest does not perish, so too it is protected. Even if born there, if not protected, it is not a heavy article. In Sangha matters and cetiya matters, this indicates that Sangha property and cetiya property can be protected and exchanged. But the thread refers to both exchanged and unexchanged thread.
ID1394
Aṭṭhaṅgulasūcidaṇḍamattoti antamaso dīghaso aṭṭhaṅgulamatto pariṇāhato sīhaḷa-paṇṇasūcidaṇḍamatto. Etthāti veḷubhaṇḍe. Daḍḍhaṃ gehaṃ yesaṃ teti daḍḍhagehā. Na vāretabbāti “mā gaṇhitvā gacchathā”ti na nisedhetabbā. Desantaragatena sampattavihāre saṅghikāvāse ṭhapetabbā.
Aṭṭhaṅgulasūcidaṇḍamatto means at least eight fingers long and as thick as a Sinhala leaf-needle. Etthā means among bamboo items. Daḍḍhagehā means those with sturdy homes. Na vāretabbā means they should not be prevented by saying, “Do not take it and go.” They should be placed in a Saṅgha lodging at a monastery reached in another region.
As much as an eight-finger-length needle case means at least eight finger-lengths long and around the size of the circumference of a Sri Lankan palm-leaf needle case. Here, means in regards to bamboo articles. Those whose houses are strong are those with strong houses. Should not be prevented, meaning, they should not be forbidden by saying, “Do not take them and go.” One who has gone to another region and obtained them, should place them in the Saṅgha’s dwelling in the vihāra that he arrived at.
An eight-finger-long needle handle means even if it is eight fingers long and thick, like a Sinhalese palm needle handle. Here refers to bamboo articles. Those whose house is burned are called daḍḍhagehā. They should not be prevented means they should not be stopped by saying, “Do not take and go.” They should be placed in a Sangha residence in another region.
ID1395
Avasesañca chadanatiṇanti muñjapabbajehi avasesaṃ yaṃ kiñci chadanatiṇaṃ. Aṭṭhaṅgulappamāṇopīti vitthārato aṭṭhaṅgulappamāṇo. Likhitapotthako pana garubhaṇḍaṃ na hoti. Kappiyacammānīti migādīnaṃ cammāni. Sabbaṃ cakkayuttayānanti rathasakaṭādikaṃ sabbaṃ cakkayuttayānaṃ. Visaṅkhatacakkaṃ pana yānaṃ bhājanīyaṃ. Anuññātavāsi nāma yā sipāṭikāya pakkhipitvā pariharituṃ sakkāti vuttā. Muṭṭhipaṇṇaṃ tālapattaṃ. Tañhi muṭṭhinā gahetvā pariharantīti “muṭṭhipaṇṇa”nti vuccati. “Muṭṭhipaṇṇanti chattacchadapaṇṇamevā”ti keci. Araṇīsahitanti araṇīyugaḷaṃ, uttarāraṇī adharāraṇīti araṇīdvayanti attho. Phātikammaṃ katvāti antamaso taṃagghanakavālikāyapi thāvaraṃ vaḍḍhikammaṃ katvā. Kuṇḍikāti ayakuṇḍikā ceva tambalohakuṇḍikā ca. Bhājanīyakoṭṭhāsameva bhajatīti bhājanīyapakkhameva sevati , na tu garubhaṇḍanti attho. Kañcanako pana garubhaṇḍamevāti adhippāyo.
Avasesañca chadanatiṇa means any remaining thatching grass, such as muñja or pabbaja. Aṭṭhaṅgulappamāṇopī means even eight fingers wide. However, a written manuscript is not a heavy item. Kappiyacammānī means hides of deer and similar animals. Sabbaṃ cakkayuttayāna means all wheeled vehicles like chariots or carts. An unassembled wheel vehicle is a vessel item. Anuññātavāsi means an axe permitted to be carried in a sheath. Muṭṭhipaṇṇaṃ means palm leaf, so called because it is carried in the fist. Some say, “muṭṭhipaṇṇa” refers only to umbrella or canopy leaves. Araṇīsahita means a pair of firesticks: an upper and a lower stick. Phātikammaṃ katvā means reinforced, even with sand worth its value. Kuṇḍikā means both an iron pot and a copper pot. Bhājanīyakoṭṭhāsameva bhajatī means it belongs solely to the vessel category, not heavy items; however, a golden one is a heavy item.
And the remaining thatching grass, means whatever thatching grass remains besides Muñja and Pabbaja grass. Even as much as eight finger-breadths, meaning an eight-finger-breadth in width. But a written book is not a heavy article. Proper leather means the hides of deer, etc. All wheeled vehicles refers to all wheeled vehicles such as chariots, carts, etc. But a vehicle with its wheels disassembled is to be shared. Allowed knife means that which can be carried after putting it inside Sipāṭikā (a razor case). Muṭṭhipaṇṇa is a palm leaf. Because that is carried by grasping it with a fist, it is called “Muṭṭhipaṇṇa”. Some say, “Muṭṭhipaṇṇa” means only the leaves for covering an umbrella. Including Araṇī means the Araṇī pair, the upper Araṇī and the lower Araṇī, meaning the two Araṇīs. Having made it a means of increase, having made immovable property increase even with at least sand equal to its value. Kuṇḍikā means both an iron Kuṇḍikā and a copper Kuṇḍikā. It falls into the category of what is to be shared means it belongs to the shareable category, not a heavy article. The intention is that what made out of gold, however, is a heavy article.
The remaining thatching grass refers to any thatching grass other than muñja and pabbaja. Even if eight fingers in length means in detail, eight fingers in length. A written book, however, is not a heavy article. Permitted hides refer to hides of deer, etc. All vehicles with wheels include chariots, carts, etc. A vehicle with a broken wheel, however, is a vessel. Anuññātavāsi refers to a razor that can be carried in a razor case. Muṭṭhipaṇṇa refers to a palm leaf. It is called “muṭṭhipaṇṇa” because it is carried by hand. Some say, “muṭṭhipaṇṇa** means only umbrella leaves.” With a fire drill** means a pair of fire drills, the upper and lower fire drills, i.e., two fire drills. Having performed the strengthening ritual means even if it is strengthened with a small stone worth a penny. Kuṇḍikā refers to both iron and copper water pots. It serves only as a vessel means it is used only as a vessel, not as a heavy article. A gold pot, however, is a heavy article.
ID1396
Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinaya collection,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is an explanation of the Vinayasaṅgaha,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is adorned with the explanation of the Vinaya summary,
ID1397
Garubhaṇḍavinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma
this is called the Discussion on the Determination of Heavy Items,
is the chapter named Garubhaṇḍavinicchayakathālaṅkāra
The chapter on the determination of heavy articles is called
ID1398
Tiṃsatimo paricchedo.
the thirtieth chapter.
The thirtieth chapter.
The thirtieth section.
ID1399
ID1400
230. Evaṃ garubhaṇḍavinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni codanādivinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ “codanādivinicchayoti ettha panā”tiādimāha. Tattha codīyate codanā, dosāropananti attho. Ādi-saddena sāraṇādayo saṅgaṇhāti. Vuttañhetaṃ kammakkhandhake (cūḷava. 4, 5) “codetvā kataṃ hoti, sāretvā kataṃ hoti, āpattiṃ ropetvā kataṃ hotī”ti. “Codetuṃ pana ko labhati, ko na labhatī”ti idaṃ anuddhaṃsanādhippāyaṃ vināpi codanālakkhaṇaṃ dassetuṃ vuttaṃ. Sīlasampannoti idaṃ dussīlassa vacanaṃ appamāṇanti adhippāyena vuttaṃ. Bhikkhunīnaṃ pana bhikkhuṃ codetuṃ anissarattā ‘bhikkhunimevā’ti vuttaṃ. Satipi bhikkhunīnaṃ bhikkhūsu anissarabhāve tāhi katacodanāpi codanārahattā codanāyevāti adhippāyena “pañcapi sahadhammikā labhantī”ti vuttaṃ. Bhikkhussa sutvā codetītiādinā codako yesaṃ sutvā codeti, tesampi vacanaṃ pamāṇamevāti sampaṭicchitattā tesaṃ codanāpi ruhatevāti dassetuṃ “thero suttaṃ nidassesī”ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.385-386) vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.386) pana “amūlakacodanāpasaṅgena samūlakacodanālakkhaṇādiṃ dassetuṃ ’codetuṃ pana ko labhati, ko na labhatī’tiādi āraddhaṃ. ‘Bhikkhussa sutvā codetī’tiādisuttaṃ yasmā ye codakassa aññesaṃ vipattiṃ pakāsenti, tepi tasmiṃ khaṇe codakabhāve ṭhatvāva pakāsenti, tesañca vacanaṃ gahetvā itaropi yasmā codetuñca asampaṭicchantaṃ tehi titthiyasāvakapariyosānehi paṭhamacodakehi sampaṭicchāpetuñca labhati, tasmā idha sādhakabhāvena uddhaṭanti veditabba”nti vuttaṃ.
230. Having explained the determination of heavy items, now to explain the determination of reproof and related matters, it begins with “codanādivinicchayoti ettha panā” and so forth. Here, codanā means being reproved, that is, the act of attributing fault. The term ādi includes admonition and similar actions. It is said in the Kammakkhandhaka (Cūḷava. 4, 5), “It is done by reproving, it is done by admonishing, it is done by attributing an offense.” “Codetuṃ pana ko labhati, ko na labhatī” is stated to show the characteristics of reproof without implying accusation, meaning “Who is entitled to reprove, and who is not?” Sīlasampanno is said with the intent that the word of an immoral person lacks authority. Since nuns lack authority to reprove monks, it is said, “bhikkhunimevā”. Despite nuns’ lack of authority over monks, their reproof is valid as reproof due to its legitimacy, hence “pañcapi sahadhammikā labhantī” is stated. Bhikkhussa sutvā codetī and so forth indicate that reprovers who hear from others have their words accepted as authoritative, and their reproof is valid, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.385-386), “The elder pointed out the text.” In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.386), it is said, “To show the characteristics of valid reproof in contrast to baseless reproof, ‘codetuṃ pana ko labhati, ko na labhatī’ and so forth were begun. The text ‘bhikkhussa sutvā codetī’ and similar statements mean that those who reveal others’ faults to the reprover also stand as reprovers at that moment, and since another can reprove based on their words and compel acceptance from one who does not accept—up to the disciples of other sects as initial reprovers—it should be understood as cited here for evidential purposes.”
230. Having thus explained the determination of heavy articles, he now begins to explain the determination of accusation, etc., with “But here, regarding the determination of accusation, etc.” There, what is accused is accusation, meaning the imputation of an offense. The word “etc.” includes reproving, and so forth. This has been stated in the Kammakkhandhaka (Cūḷava. 4, 5): “There is what is done after accusing, what is done after reproving, what is done after imputing an offense.” “But who is able to accuse, who is not able?” This is said to show the characteristics of accusation, even without the intention of rebuking, etc. Endowed with virtuous behavior – this is said with the intention that the words of an immoral person are not authoritative. But because bhikkhunīs are not empowered to accuse a bhikkhu, ‘only a bhikkhunī’ is said. Even though bhikkhunīs lack authority over bhikkhus, because an accusation made by them is still an accusation due to its being worthy of being an accusation, it is said, “Even the five co-religionists are able,” with the intention that it is indeed an accusation. He accuses after hearing from a bhikkhu, etc., the words of those from whom the accuser hears and accuses are authoritative, it has been accepted, hence the accusation from them is indeed appropriate, for showing this, it is said in the Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (Sārattha. ṭī. 2.385-386) that “the elder presented the sutta”. In Vimativinodaniyaṃ (Vi. Vi. ṭī. 1.386) on the other hand, it is said “with reference to a baseless accusation, to show the characteristics etc. of a well-founded accusation, ’Who is able to accuse, who is not able?’ etc. was begun. ‘He accuses after hearing from a Bhikkhu,’ etc. this sutta, because those who reveal the offence of others to the accuser, they too are at that moment in the position of accuser and reveal it, and taking their words, another also is able to accuse, and also if he does not accept it, he is made to accept it, ending with those followers of heretics, by the original accusers, therefore here it should be understood as presented as valid proof.”
230. Having explained the determination of heavy articles, now the determination of accusations, etc., is explained: “Accusations, etc.” Here, accusation means to accuse, to lay blame. The word ādi includes reminders, etc. It is said in the Kammakkhandhaka (Cūḷava. 4, 5): “It is done by accusing, by reminding, by establishing the offense.” “But who is entitled to accuse, and who is not?” This is said to show the characteristic of accusation without the need for a formal inquiry. “One who is virtuous” is said with the intention of indicating that the words of a virtuous person are immeasurable. Since nuns have no authority over monks, “only nuns” is said. Even if nuns accuse monks, since they have no authority, such accusations are still valid as accusations. Hence, it is said, “even five who are in accordance with the Dhamma are entitled.” “Having heard, a monk accuses” means that the accuser, having heard, accuses, and since their words are accepted as valid, their accusation is also valid. Hence, it is said, “The elder pointed out the Sutta” in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.385-386). In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.386), however, it is said, “To show the characteristic of a well-founded accusation, avoiding the fault of a baseless accusation, ‘but who is entitled to accuse, and who is not?’ etc., is begun. ‘Having heard, a monk accuses’ etc., because those who reveal the faults of others to the accuser are also, at that moment, in the role of accusers, and their words are accepted. Therefore, even if the accused does not accept the accusation, the accuser can make them accept it with the help of those who reveal the faults, as in the case of the followers of other sects. Hence, they are brought forward here as valid accusers.”
ID1401
Garukānaṃ dvinnanti pārājikasaṅghādisesānaṃ. Avasesānanti thullaccayādīnaṃ pañcannaṃ āpattīnaṃ. Micchādiṭṭhi nāma “natthi dinna”ntiādinayappavattā dasavatthukā diṭṭhi. “Antavā loko anantavā loko”tiādikā antaṃ gaṇhāpakadiṭṭhi antaggāhikā nāma. Ājīvahetu paññattānaṃ channanti ājīvahetupi āpajjitabbānaṃ uttarimanussadhamme pārājikaṃ, sañcaritte saṅghādiseso, “yo te vihāre vasati, so arahā”ti pariyāyena thullaccayaṃ, bhikkhussa paṇītabhojanaviññattiyā pācittiyaṃ, bhikkhuniyā paṇītabhojanaviññattiyā pāṭidesanīyaṃ, sūpodanaviññattiyā dukkaṭanti imesaṃ parivāre (pari. 287) vuttānaṃ channaṃ. Na hetā āpattiyo ājīvahetu eva paññattā sañcarittādīnaṃ aññathāpi āpajjitabbato. Ājīvahetupi etāsaṃ āpajjanaṃ sandhāya evaṃ vuttaṃ, ājīvahetupi paññattānanti attho. Diṭṭhivipattiājīvavipattīhi codentopi tammūlikāya āpattiyā eva codeti.
Garukānaṃ dvinna means the two grave offenses: pārājika and saṅghādisesa. Avasesāna means the remaining five offenses: thullaccaya and so forth. Micchādiṭṭhi means the wrong view operating in the manner of “There is no gift” and similar statements, based on ten grounds. The view that “The world is finite or infinite” and suchlike, grasping extremes, is called antaggāhikā. Ājīvahetu paññattānaṃ channa refers to the six offenses established due to livelihood, which can also be committed for that reason: pārājika regarding superhuman states, saṅghādisesa regarding mediation, thullaccaya by indirectly saying, “The one living in your monastery is an arahant,” pācittiya by a monk requesting fine food, pāṭidesanīya by a nun requesting fine food, and dukkaṭa by requesting rice porridge, as stated in the Parivāra (Pari. 287). These offenses are not established solely for livelihood, as they can be committed otherwise, like mediation; they are mentioned thus because they can be committed for livelihood reasons.
Of the two serious ones refers to Pārājika and Saṅghādisesa. Of the remaining ones refers to the five offenses: Thullaccaya, etc. Wrong view means the ten-item view that proceeds in the manner of “there is nothing given,” etc. The view that leads to grasping extremes, such as “the world is finite, the world is infinite,” etc., is called Antaggāhikā (holding to extremes). Of the six prescribed because of livelihood, means the six offences where the reason of livelihood is a cause of committing them: Pārājika for super-human states; Saṅghādisesa for acting as a go-between; Thullaccaya indirectly by saying, “Whoever dwells in your monastery is an Arahant”; Pācittiya for requesting a fine meal from a bhikkhu; Pāṭidesanīya for requesting a fine meal from a bhikkhunī; Dukkaṭa for requesting soup and rice, these are the six stated in the Parivāra (Pari. 287). These offenses are not prescribed solely because of livelihood, as Sañcaritta, etc., can be committed in other ways as well. It is said in this way with reference to committing these even because of livelihood, that is, they are prescribed even because of livelihood, that is the meaning. One who accuses regarding a view-offense or a livelihood-offense is actually accusing regarding the offense rooted in that.
Of the two grave offenses refers to pārājika and saṅghādisesa. The rest refers to the five offenses from thullaccaya, etc. Wrong view refers to the tenfold wrong view, such as “there is no gift,” etc. Antaggāhikā refers to the view that holds the world to be finite or infinite, etc. Six offenses prescribed for the sake of livelihood include pārājika for claiming superhuman states, saṅghādisesa for scheming, thullaccaya for saying, “He who lives in your monastery is an arahant,” pācittiya for inviting a monk to superior food, pāṭidesanīya for inviting a nun to superior food, and dukkaṭa for inviting to rice porridge, as explained in the Parivāra (Pari. 287). These offenses are not prescribed solely for the sake of livelihood, as they can be committed for other reasons as well. Hence, it is said, “prescribed for the sake of livelihood,” meaning that they can be committed for the sake of livelihood. Even when accusing someone of wrong view or wrong livelihood, one accuses them of the offense rooted in that.
ID1402
“Kasmā maṃ na vandasī”ti pucchite “assamaṇosi, asakyaputtiyosī”ti avandanakāraṇassa vuttattā antimavatthuṃ ajjhāpanno na vanditabboti vadanti. Codetukāmatāya eva avanditvā attanā vattabbassa vuttamatthaṃ ṭhapetvā avandiyabhāve taṃ kāraṇaṃ na hotīti cūḷagaṇṭhipade majjhimagaṇṭhipade ca vuttaṃ. Antimavatthuajjhāpannassa avandiyesu avuttattā tena saddhiṃ sayantassa sahaseyyāpattiyā abhāvato, tassa ca paṭiggahaṇassa ruhanato tadeva yuttataranti viññāyati. Kiñcāpi yāva so bhikkhubhāvaṃ paṭijānāti, tāva vanditabbo, yadā pana “assamaṇomhī”ti paṭijānāti, tadā na vanditabboti ayamettha viseso veditabbo. Antimavatthuṃ ajjhāpannassa hi bhikkhubhāvaṃ paṭijānantasseva bhikkhubhāvo, na tato paraṃ. Bhikkhubhāvaṃ appaṭijānanto hi anupasampannapakkhaṃ bhajati. Yasmā āmisaṃ dento attano icchitaṭṭhāneyeva deti, tasmā paṭipāṭiyā nisinnānaṃ yāgubhattādīni dentena ekassa codetukāmatāya adinnepi codanā nāma na hotīti āha “na tāva tā codanā hotī”ti.
When asked, “Why don’t you pay homage to me?” and answered, “Because you are not a monk, not a son of the Sakya,” indicating the reason for not paying homage, some say the person falls under the last ground and should not be paid homage. However, due to the desire to reprove, not paying homage and stating the reason oneself—beyond the intended meaning—does not constitute that reason for being unworthy of homage, as stated in the Cūḷagaṇṭhipada and Majjhimagaṇṭhipada. Since one who falls under the last ground is not listed among those unworthy of homage, there is no offense of sleeping together with him, and his acceptance is valid; thus, this seems more reasonable. Although he should be paid homage as long as he claims monkhood, when he admits, “I am not a monk,” he should not be paid homage—this distinction should be understood. Since one giving alms gives only where he wishes, not giving to one among those seated in order due to a desire to reprove does not constitute reproof; hence it is said, “na tāva tā codanā hotī”.
When asked, “Why do you not pay respect to me?”, because the reason for not paying respect is stated as “You are not a monk, you are not a son of the Sakyan”, some say that one who has committed the final offense should not be paid respect. It is said in the Cūḷagaṇṭhipada and the Majjhimagaṇṭhipada that, without paying homage, on account of desire to accuse and leaving aside the meaning of what should have been said by himself, that does not become the reason, that is, that he has been treated with disrespect. Because it is not stated among the ones to whom no homage is to be paid, that a person has committed the last offence, and therefore, there is no offence of sleeping together because he sleeps with him; and because it is appropriate that his acceptance is appropriate, therefore, that view is known to be more reasonable. Although as long as he professes to be a bhikkhu, homage should be paid to him, but when he professes, “I am not a monk,” then homage should not be paid; this distinction should be understood here. For one who has committed the final offense, his bhikkhuhood exists only as long as he professes to be a bhikkhu, not beyond that. For one who does not profess to be a bhikkhu joins the ranks of the non-ordained. Because he gives material things only in the place he desires, therefore, when giving rice gruel, cooked rice, etc., to those sitting in a row, even if he does not give to one out of a desire to accuse him, that is not called an accusation, thus he said, “That is not yet an accusation.”
When asked, “Why do you not pay respect to me?” and one replies, “You are not a monk, not a son of the Sakyan,” the reason for not paying respect is stated, and it is said that one should not pay respect to someone who has committed the ultimate offense. Some say that the intention to accuse is the reason for not paying respect, and that the reason for not paying respect is not valid if one does not pay respect while intending to accuse. This is stated in the Cūḷagaṇṭhipada and the Majjhimagaṇṭhipada. Since there is no offense of sharing a bed with someone who has committed the ultimate offense, and since accepting from them is permissible, it is more appropriate. Even though one should pay respect to such a person as long as they claim to be a monk, once they say, “I am not a monk,” one should not pay respect to them. For someone who has committed the ultimate offense, their status as a monk exists only as long as they claim to be a monk; beyond that, they fall into the category of the unordained. Since a donor gives material gifts according to their own wishes, when giving rice gruel or food to those seated in order, if one does not give to someone due to the intention to accuse, it is not considered an accusation. Hence, it is said, “it is not yet an accusation.”
ID1403
231. Codetabboti cudito, cudito eva cuditako, aparādhavanto puggalo. Codetīti codako, aparādhapakāsako. Cuditako ca codako ca cuditakacodakā. Ubbāhikāyāti ubbahanti viyojenti etāya alajjīnaṃ tajjaniṃ vā kalahaṃ vāti ubbāhikā, saṅghasammuti, tāya. Vinicchinanaṃ nāma tāya sammatabhikkhūhi vinicchinanameva. Alajjussannāya hi parisāya samathakkhandhake āgatehi dasahaṅgehi samannāgatā dve tayo bhikkhū tattheva vuttāya ñattidutiyakammavācāya sammannitabbā. Vuttañhetaṃ samathakkhandhake (cūḷava. 231-232) –
231. Codetabboti cudito, meaning one who is reproved; cudito eva cuditako, a person with a fault. Codetīti codako, one who reproves, a revealer of faults. Together, they are cuditakacodakā, the reproved and the reprover. Ubbāhikāyā means “by means of ubbāhikā,” a Saṅgha agreement by which shameless ones are expelled or disputes are settled. The determination means adjudication by monks appointed through that agreement. For in a gathering dominated by the shameless, two or three monks endowed with the ten qualities stated in the Samathakkhandhaka must be appointed by a motion and seconding announcement as described there. It is said in the Samathakkhandhaka (Cūḷava. 231-232):
231. Codetabboti means one who is accused, the very one who is accused is a cuditako, a person with an offense. Codetīti is a codako, one who exposes an offense. Cuditako ca codako ca are cuditakacodakā. Ubbāhikāyāti, that by which they separate, remove the shameless ones, or by which they subdue reprimands or disputes, is ubbāhikā, the consent of the Sangha; by that. Vinicchinanaṃ, by that, is the decision made by the bhikkhus who have been authorized by it. Indeed, for a community full of shameless, two or three bhikkhus who are endowed with the ten qualities mentioned in the Samathakkhandhaka should be authorized by the ñattidutiyakammavācā procedure, described therein. It has been said in the Samathakkhandhaka (cūḷava. 231-232) –
231. “Codetabbo” means one who is to be reproached; “cuditako” refers to the person who has committed an offense. “Codako” means the one who reproaches, the one who exposes the offense. Both “cuditako” and “codako” are referred to as “cuditakacodakā.” “Ubbāhikāyā” refers to the act of separating or removing, a Sangha resolution used to reproach or settle disputes among the shameless. The decision is made by the monks appointed for this purpose. In the case of a shameless assembly, when the ten qualities are present, two or three monks should be appointed right there by a motion and one proclamation, as stated in the Samathakkhandhaka (Cūḷava. 231-232):
ID1404
“Tehi ce, bhikkhave, bhikkhūhi tasmiṃ adhikaraṇe vinicchiyamāne anantāni ceva bhassāni jāyanti, na cekassa bhāsitassa attho viññāyati . Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, evarūpaṃ adhikaraṇaṃ ubbāhikāya vūpasametuṃ. Dasahaṅgehi samannāgato bhikkhu ubbāhikāya sammannitabbo, sīlavā hoti, pātimokkhasaṃvarasaṃvuto viharati ācāragocarasampanno aṇumattesu vajjesu bhayadassāvī samādāya sikkhati sikkhāpadesu , bahussuto hoti sutadharo sutasannicayo, ye te dhammā ādikalyāṇā majjhekalyāṇā pariyosānakalyāṇā sātthaṃ sabyañjanaṃ kevalaparipuṇṇaṃ parisuddhaṃ brahmacariyaṃ abhivadanti, tathārūpassa dhammā bahussutā honti dhātā vacasā paricitā manasānupekkhitā diṭṭhiyā suppaṭividdhā, ubhayāni kho panassa pātimokkhāni vitthārena svāgatāni honti suvibhattāni suppavattīni suvinicchitāni suttaso anubyañjanaso, vinaye kho pana cheko hoti asaṃhīro, paṭibalo hoti ubho atthapaccatthike assāsetuṃ saññāpetuṃ nijjhāpetuṃ pekkhetuṃ passituṃ pasādetuṃ, adhikaraṇasamuppādavūpasamakusalo hoti, adhikaraṇaṃ jānāti, adhikaraṇasamudayaṃ jānāti, adhikaraṇanirodhaṃ jānāti, adhikaraṇanirodhagāminipaṭipadaṃ jānāti. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, imehi dasahaṅgehi samannāgataṃ bhikkhuṃ ubbāhikāya sammannituṃ.
“If, monks, while those monks are adjudicating that matter, endless words arise and the meaning of any one statement is not understood, I allow such a matter to be settled by ubbāhikā. A monk endowed with ten qualities should be appointed for ubbāhikā: he is virtuous, restrained by the Pātimokkha, conducts himself well in behavior and resort, sees danger in the slightest faults, undertakes and trains in the training rules, is learned, retains what he has heard, accumulates learning, has heard, retained, recited, mentally investigated, and thoroughly penetrated with view those teachings that are good in the beginning, middle, and end, meaningful and well-phrased, completely perfect and pure in the holy life; both Pātimokkhas are well-studied, well-divided, well-established, and well-determined by thread and letter; he is skilled and unshakable in the Vinaya, capable of consoling, convincing, reasoning with, observing, and satisfying both parties in a dispute, skilled in the arising, settling, cessation, and path to cessation of matters. I allow a monk endowed with these ten qualities to be appointed for ubbāhikā.
“If, bhikkhus, while those bhikkhus are deciding that case, endless speeches arise, and the meaning of what is said is not understood, I allow, bhikkhus, the settlement of such a case by ubbāhikā. A bhikkhu endowed with ten qualities should be authorized by ubbāhikā: he is virtuous, he dwells restrained by the restraint of the Pātimokkha, accomplished in conduct and resort, seeing danger in the slightest faults, he trains himself by undertaking the training rules; he is learned, a bearer of what is heard, a treasurer of what is heard, those teachings that are good in the beginning, good in the middle, good in the end, with the right meaning, with the right phrasing, that proclaim the completely fulfilled, pure ব্রহ্মচর্য (brahmacariya, holy life), such teachings are much heard by him, retained, practiced verbally, examined by the mind, well-penetrated by view; both Pātimokkha are well-received by him in detail, well-divided, well-managed, well-decided, according to the text and the commentary; moreover, he is skilled in Vinaya, unshakeable, capable of reassuring, convincing, clearing up, examining, seeing, and inspiring confidence in both parties in the dispute; He is skilled in the arising and settling of disputes, he knows a dispute, he knows the origin of a dispute, he knows the cessation of a dispute, he knows the practice leading to the cessation of a dispute. I allow, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu endowed with these ten qualities to be authorized by ubbāhikā.
“If, monks, while those monks are settling the dispute, endless discussions arise and no meaning is understood from anyone’s speech, I allow, monks, such a dispute to be settled by means of an ubbāhikā. A monk endowed with ten qualities should be appointed for the ubbāhikā: he is virtuous, restrained by the Pātimokkha, perfect in conduct and resort, seeing danger in the slightest faults, undertaking and training in the training rules; he is learned, a bearer of the teachings, one who has retained what he has learned; those teachings that are good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end, with their meaning and phrasing, proclaiming the perfectly complete and pure holy life—such teachings he has learned much of, retained, recited verbally, examined mentally, and penetrated well by view; both Pātimokkhas are well-learned by him in detail, well-divided, well-applied, well-pondered, well-penetrated by rule and by detailed explanation; he is skilled in the origin and settlement of disputes, knows what a dispute is, knows the origin of a dispute, knows the cessation of a dispute, and knows the path leading to the cessation of a dispute. I allow, monks, a monk endowed with these ten qualities to be appointed for the ubbāhikā.”
ID1405
“Evañca pana, bhikkhave, sammannitabbo. Paṭhamaṃ bhikkhu yācitabbo, yācitvā byattena bhikkhunā paṭibalena saṅgho ñāpetabbo –
“And thus, monks, he should be appointed. First, a monk should be requested; having been requested, a competent monk should inform the Saṅgha:
“And, bhikkhus, he should be authorized in this way. First, a bhikkhu should be requested; after requesting, the Sangha should be informed by a competent and capable bhikkhu –
“And, monks, he should be appointed thus. First, a monk should be requested. Having been requested, a competent and capable monk should inform the Sangha:
ID1406
“Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, amhākaṃ imasmiṃ adhikaraṇe vinicchiyamāne anantāni ceva bhassāni jāyanti, na cekassa bhāsitassa attho viññāyati. Yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho itthannāmañca itthannāmañca bhikkhuṃ sammanneyya ubbāhikāya imaṃ adhikaraṇaṃ vūpasametuṃ, esā ñatti.
’May the Saṅgha listen to me, venerable sirs. While we adjudicate this matter, endless words arise, and the meaning of any one statement is not understood. If it seems timely to the Saṅgha, let the Saṅgha appoint such-and-such monk and such-and-such monk by ubbāhikā to settle this matter. This is the motion.
“May the Sangha, venerable sirs, listen to me. While this dispute of ours is being decided, endless speeches arise, and the meaning of what is said is not understood. If it is agreeable to the Sangha, let the Sangha authorize the bhikkhus named so-and-so and so-and-so to settle this dispute by ubbāhikā. This is the motion.
‘Venerable sirs, let the Sangha listen to me. While we are settling this dispute, endless discussions arise, and no meaning is understood from anyone’s speech. If it seems appropriate to the Sangha, the Sangha may appoint such-and-such monks to settle this dispute by means of an ubbāhikā. This is the motion.’
ID1407
“Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, amhākaṃ imasmiṃ adhikaraṇe vinicchiyamāne anantāni ceva bhassāni jāyanti, na cekassa bhāsitassa attho viññāyati. Saṅgho itthannāmañca itthannāmañca bhikkhuṃ sammannati ubbāhikāya imaṃ adhikaraṇaṃ vūpasametuṃ. Yassāyasmato khamati itthannāmassa ca itthannāmassa ca bhikkhuno sammuti ubbāhikāya imaṃ adhikaraṇaṃ vūpasametuṃ, so tuṇhassa. Yassa nakkhamati, so bhāseyya.
’May the Saṅgha listen to me, venerable sirs. While we adjudicate this matter, endless words arise, and the meaning of any one statement is not understood. The Saṅgha appoints such-and-such monk and such-and-such monk by ubbāhikā to settle this matter. To whoever agrees with the appointment of such-and-such monk and such-and-such monk by ubbāhikā to settle this matter, let him remain silent. Whoever does not agree, let him speak.
“May the Sangha, venerable sirs, listen to me. While this dispute of ours is being decided, endless speeches arise, and the meaning of what is said is not understood. The Sangha authorizes the bhikkhus named so-and-so and so-and-so to settle this dispute by ubbāhikā. Let that venerable one for whom the authorization of the bhikkhus named so-and-so and so-and-so to settle this dispute by ubbāhikā is agreeable, remain silent. Let him who disagrees, speak.
‘Venerable sirs, let the Sangha listen to me. While we are settling this dispute, endless discussions arise, and no meaning is understood from anyone’s speech. The Sangha appoints such-and-such monks to settle this dispute by means of an ubbāhikā. If it is acceptable to the venerable ones that such-and-such monks be appointed to settle this dispute by means of an ubbāhikā, let them remain silent. If it is not acceptable, let them speak.’
ID1408
“Sammato saṅghena itthannāmo ca itthannāmo ca bhikkhu ubbāhikāya imaṃ adhikaraṇaṃ vūpasametuṃ, khamati saṅghassa, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmī”ti.
‘Such-and-such monk and such-and-such monk have been appointed by the Saṅgha by ubbāhikā to settle this matter. It is agreeable to the Saṅgha, therefore silent; thus I hold it.’
“The bhikkhus named so-and-so and so-and-so have been authorized by the Sangha to settle this dispute by ubbāhikā. It is agreeable to the Sangha, therefore it is silent. Thus I hold this.”
‘The Sangha has appointed such-and-such monks to settle this dispute by means of an ubbāhikā. It is acceptable to the Sangha, therefore they remain silent. Thus I hold it.’“
ID1409
Tehi ca sammatehi visuṃ vā nisīditvā tassā eva vā parisāya “aññehi na kiñci kathetabba”nti sāvetvā taṃ adhikaraṇaṃ vinicchitabbaṃ. Tumhākanti cuditakacodake sandhāya vuttaṃ.
Those appointed should either sit separately or, after announcing to that same assembly, ‘No one else should speak,’ adjudicate the matter. Tumhāka is said with reference to the reproved and the reprover.
And those who are authorized, sitting separately, or informing that very assembly that ‘nothing should be said by others’, should decide that case. Tumhākanti is said with reference to the accused and the accuser.
Having been appointed, they should sit apart or within the assembly, announcing, “No one else should speak,” and then settle the dispute. “Tumhāka” refers to the cuditakacodakā.
ID1410
“Kimhīti kismiṃ vatthusmiṃ. Kimhi nampi na jānāsīti kimhi nanti vacanampi na jānāsi. Nāssa anuyogo dātabboti nāssa pucchā paṭipucchā dātabbā”ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.385-386) vuttaṃ, vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.386) pana – kimhīti kismiṃ vatthusmiṃ, kataravipattiyanti attho. Kimhi naṃ nāmāti idaṃ “katarāya vipattiyā etaṃ codesī”ti yāya kāyaci viññāyamānāya bhāsāya vuttepi codakassa vinaye apakataññutāya “sīlācāradiṭṭhiājīvavipattīsu katarāyāti maṃ pucchatī”ti viññātuṃ asakkontassa pucchā, na pana “kimhī”tiādipadatthamattaṃ ajānantassa. Na hi anuvijjako codakaṃ bālaṃ aparicitabhāsāya “kimhi na”nti pucchati. Kimhi nampi na jānāsīti idampi vacanamattaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ na hoti. “Kataravipattiyā”ti vutte “asukāya vipattiyā”ti vattumpi “na jānāsī”ti vacanassa adhippāyameva sandhāya vuttanti gahetabbaṃ. Teneva vakkhati “nāssa anuyogo dātabbo”ti.
‘Kimhī’ means ‘on what basis?’ ‘Kimhi nampi na jānāsī’ means ‘You don’t even know what “on what” means?’ ‘Nāssa anuyogo dātabbo’ means ‘No questioning or counter-questioning should be given to him,’ as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.385-386). In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.386), however, kimhī means ‘on what basis, which transgression?’ ‘Kimhi naṃ nāmā’ refers to a question like, ‘For which transgression do you reprove him?’—asked in any intelligible language—but due to the reprover’s lack of Vinaya knowledge, he cannot understand, ‘He’s asking me which of the transgressions: virtue, conduct, view, or livelihood?’ This is not about ignorance of the mere meaning of ‘kimhī’ and similar terms. An examiner does not ask a foolish reprover unfamiliar with the language, ‘On what basis?’ ‘Kimhi nampi na jānāsī’ is not said regarding mere words but implies, ‘You don’t even know,’ referring to the intent behind the question, ‘Which transgression?’ Hence it will be said, ‘No questioning should be given to him.’
“Kimhīti means in what matter. Kimhi nampi na jānāsīti means you do not even know the word “kimhi nanti”. Nāssa anuyogo dātabboti means he should not be questioned or cross-questioned,” is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.385-386). However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.386) it says – kimhīti means in what matter, meaning which kind of offense. Kimhi naṃ nāmāti, even when it is stated in any understandable language like ‘With which fault do you accuse him?’, since the accuser is ignorant of the Vinaya, it is a question of one who is not able to comprehend, thinking, ‘He’s asking me, which among the moral, behavioral, view, or livelihood faults?’, but it isn’t that of one not grasping the simple meanings of kimhi, etc. For the investigator doesn’t ask the accuser, who is ignorant, in an unfamiliar wording ‘Kimhi na’. Kimhi nampi na jānāsīti, even this is not said with reference to the mere word. When it has been stated ‘Through what fault’, to say ‘you do not know’ even how to state ‘due to such and such a fault,’ must be comprehended as spoken only with reference to the meaning. Therefore, it will say, “He should not be questioned.”
“Kimhī” means on what ground. “Kimhi nampi na jānāsī” means you do not even know the meaning of the words. “Nāssa anuyogo dātabbo” means no further questioning should be done. This is explained in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.385-386). In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.386), however, “kimhī” means on what ground, referring to which kind of downfall. “Kimhi naṃ nāmā” means “by which downfall are you accusing him?” Even when such words are spoken, due to the accuser’s lack of understanding of the Vinaya, he cannot comprehend whether it is a downfall of virtue, conduct, view, or livelihood. It is not that the investigator questions the accuser, who is unskilled in language, with just the words “kimhi na.” “Kimhi nampi na jānāsī” also refers to the mere words, not the meaning. When asked, “By which downfall?” and one replies, “By such-and-such downfall,” the meaning of “you do not know” is implied. Therefore, it is said, “no further questioning should be done.”
ID1411
“Tassa nayo dātabbo”ti tassāti bālassa lajjissa. “Tassa nayo dātabbo”ti vatvā ca “kimhi naṃ codesīti sīlavipattiyā”tiādi adhippāyappakāsanameva nayadānaṃ vuttaṃ, na pana kimhi-naṃ-padānaṃpariyāyamattadassanaṃ. Na hi bālo “kataravipattiyaṃ naṃ codesī”ti imassa vacanassa atthe ñātepi vipattippabhedaṃ, attanā codiyamānaṃ vipattisarūpañca jānituṃ sakkoti, tasmā teneva ajānanena alajjī apasādetabbo. Kimhi nanti idampi upalakkhaṇamattaṃ. Aññena vā yena kenaci ākārena aviññutaṃ pakāsetvā vissajjetabbova. “Dummaṅkūnaṃ puggalānaṃ niggahāyā”tiādivacanato “alajjīniggahatthāya…pe… paññatta”nti vuttaṃ. Ehitīti eti, hi-kāro ettha āgamo daṭṭhabbo, āgamissatīti attho. Diṭṭhasantānenāti diṭṭhaniyāmena. Alajjissa paṭiññāya eva kātabbanti vacanapaṭivacanakkameneva dose āvibhūtepi alajjissa “asuddho aha”nti dosasampaṭicchanapaṭiññāya eva āpattiyā kātabbanti attho. Keci pana “alajjissa etaṃ natthīti suddhapaṭiññāya eva anāpattiyā kātabbanti ayamettha attho saṅgahito”ti vadanti, taṃ na yuttaṃ anuvijjakasseva niratthakattāpattito, codakeneva alajjipaṭiññāya ṭhātabbato. Dosopagamapaṭiññā eva hi idha paṭiññāti adhippetā, teneva vakkhati “etampi natthi, etampi natthīti paṭiññaṃ na detī”tiādi.
‘Tassa nayo dātabbo’ means the method should be given to him, the foolish, ashamed one. Having said, ‘The method should be given to him,’ it continues with, ‘“On what basis do you reprove him? For a lapse in virtue?”’ and so forth, indicating the explanation of intent as the giving of the method, not merely showing synonyms for kimhi-naṃ. A fool, even if he understands the meaning of ‘Which transgression do you reprove him for?’ cannot discern the types of transgressions or the nature of the transgression he is being reproved for; thus, due to his ignorance, the shameless one must be censured. Kimhi na is merely an example. Alternatively, he should be dismissed by revealing his ignorance in any way. As it is said, ‘For the censure of obstinate persons,’ it states, ‘alajjīniggahatthāya…pe… paññatta’. Ehitī means ‘he comes,’ with hi as an augment, meaning ‘he will come.’ Diṭṭhasantānenā means by a seen sequence. ‘Alajjissa paṭiññāya eva kātabba’ means even if the fault becomes evident through the sequence of statements and responses, it should be acted upon only with the shameless one’s admission, ‘I am impure.’ Some say, ‘It should be deemed non-offensive only with the shameless one’s claim of purity, “I have none of this,”’ but this is illogical, as it would render the examiner’s role pointless and imply the reprover must rely on the shameless one’s claim. The admission of fault is what is intended here as paṭiññā, hence it will say, ‘He does not admit, “This is not so, that is not so.”’
“Tassa nayo dātabbo”ti tassāti refers to the ignorant and shameless one. “Tassa nayo dātabbo” having been stated, and to show his meaning “Kimhi naṃ codesīti sīlavipattiyā,” etc., the providing of method(nayadānaṃ) has been spoken of, and not only the presenting of the mere synonym of kimhi-naṃ-padānaṃ. For even when the fool knows the meaning of these statements, such as, “By which fault are you accusing him?”, he will be unable to know the differences of those faults, the nature of fault with which he is being charged. Therefore, because of that very ignorance, the shameless person must be disgraced. Kimhi nanti, even this is just a general indication. In some other way, or by any other manner, the unknowing should definitely be displayed, and he should be dismissed. Since it is said “for the subjugation of dull-witted persons,” and so on, so it is stated, “For the purpose of subduing the shameless, and so on, it is laid down.” Ehitīti means eti, and the hi- word is understood here as an augment; it means āgamissati(will come). Diṭṭhasantānenāti means by an observed course. Alajjissa paṭiññāya eva kātabbanti, even when, in the course of answering and responding, the fault of the shameless one is revealed, it means that the offense should be dealt with only upon the shameless one’s admission “I am impure,” acknowledging the fault. Some, however, say, “This does not exist for the shameless one; so, the meaning conveyed here is that it should be done as non-offense, based on the acknowledgement of purity,” that is not correct. Because the investigation itself would become pointless. It should be based only on the shameless one’s confession made by the accuser. Indeed, here, “confession” is the acceptance of his guilt, for that reason, it says, “This also is not there, this also is not there, he does not make a confession”, and so on.
“Tassa nayo dātabbo” means the method should be given to the shameless one. By saying, “The method should be given to him,” it is meant that the intention is to clarify the meaning, not to explain the words “kimhi naṃ.” A fool, even if he knows the meaning of the words, cannot understand the details of the downfall or the nature of the downfall he is being accused of. Therefore, the shameless one should be reproached by one who does not know. “Kimhi na” is merely an indication. Alternatively, it should be explained in any way that makes it clear. From the statement, “For the restraint of shameless persons,” it is said, “it is prescribed for the restraint of the shameless.” “Ehitī” means to come; the particle “hi” here should be seen as an augment, meaning “will come.” “Diṭṭhasantānenā” means by the seen method. “Alajjissa paṭiññāya eva kātabba” means that even when the faults are evident, the shameless one should admit the offense by confessing, “I am impure.” Some, however, say, “This is not the case for the shameless; it should be done by a pure confession of non-offense,” but this is not correct, as it would render the investigator’s action meaningless. The accuser should stand by the confession of the shameless one. The confession here is intended to admit the fault, hence it is said, “He does not admit this, nor that.”
ID1412
Tadatthadīpanatthanti alajjissa dose āvibhūtepi tassa dosopagamapaṭiññāya eva kātabbatādīpanatthaṃ. Vivādavatthusaṅkhāte atthe paccatthikā atthapaccatthikā. Saññaṃ datvāti tesaṃ kathāpacchedatthaṃ abhimukhakaraṇatthañca saddaṃ katvā. Vinicchinituṃ ananucchavikoti asuddhoti saññāya codakapakkhe paviṭṭhattā anuvijjakabhāvato bahibhūtattā anuvijjituṃ asakkuṇeyyattaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Sandehe eva hi sati anuvijjituṃ sakkā, asuddhaladdhiyā pana sati cuditakena vuttaṃ sabbaṃ asaccatopi paṭibhāti, kathaṃ tattha anuvijjanā siyāti.
Tadatthadīpanattha means for the purpose of clarifying that even when the shameless one’s fault is evident, it should be acted upon only with his admission of fault. Atthapaccatthikā means opponents in the matter, referring to the issue in dispute. Saññaṃ datvā means making a sound to interrupt their speech or to direct attention. Vinicchinituṃ ananucchaviko means unfit to adjudicate, said with reference to joining the reprover’s side due to a perception of impurity, thus being external to the examiner’s role and unable to examine. Examination is possible only when there is doubt; with a perception of impurity, all statements by the reproved seem false, so how could there be examination?
Tadatthadīpanatthanti, even when the fault of the shameless one is revealed, that it should be done only upon his admission of fault is for the purpose of illustrating that principle. The disputants in a matter of dispute are atthapaccatthikā. Saññaṃ datvāti, making a sound to interrupt their speech and to bring them face to face. Vinicchinituṃ ananucchavikoti is said with reference to the inability to investigate, having taken the side of the accuser with the perception “he is impure,” having become excluded from the status of an investigator. Indeed, only when there is doubt is it possible to investigate. When, however, there is the conviction of impurity, everything said by the accused appears to be false, so how could there be an investigation there?
“Tadatthadīpanattha” means to clarify that even when the faults of the shameless are evident, they should be dealt with by admitting the fault. In the context of a dispute, the opponents are “atthapaccatthikā.” “Saññaṃ datvā” means to give them a sign, making a sound to cut off their speech and to face them. “Vinicchinituṃ ananucchaviko” means that since the accuser is on the side of the accused, being outside the role of the investigator, it is not possible to investigate. For when there is doubt, investigation is possible, but when there is a perception of impurity, everything said by the accused seems false, so how can investigation be possible there?
ID1413
Tathā nāsitakova bhavissatīti iminā vinicchayampi adatvā saṅghato viyojanaṃ nāma liṅganāsanā viya ayampi eko nāsanappakāroti dasseti. Ekasambhogaparibhogāti idaṃ attano santikā tesaṃ vimocanatthaṃ vuttaṃ, na pana tesaṃ aññamaññasambhoge yojanatthaṃ.
‘Tathā nāsitakova bhavissatī’ indicates that expelling him from the Saṅgha without adjudication is a form of expulsion, like gender expulsion. Ekasambhogaparibhogā is said for the purpose of freeing them from oneself, not for connecting them in mutual use.
Tathā nāsitakova bhavissatīti, by this, it shows that separating from the Sangha without even giving a decision is like the destruction of one’s identity, this is also a type of expulsion. Ekasambhogaparibhogāti, this is said for the purpose of releasing them from one’s own presence, not for the purpose of joining them in mutual association with each other.
“Tathā nāsitakova bhavissatī” means that even without giving a decision, expulsion from the Sangha is like a sign of disappearance. “Ekasambhogaparibhogā” refers to the act of freeing them from one’s own presence, not to the act of making them share with each other.
ID1414
Viraddhaṃ hotīti sañcicca āpattiṃ āpanno hoti. Ādito paṭṭhāya alajjī nāma natthīti idaṃ “pakkhānaṃ anurakkhaṇatthāya paṭiññaṃ na detī”ti imassa alajjīlakkhaṇasambhavassa karaṇavacanaṃ. Paṭicchāditakālato paṭṭhāya alajjī nāma eva, purimo lajjibhāvo na rakkhatīti attho. Paṭiññaṃ na detīti “sace mayā katadosaṃ vakkhāmi, mayhaṃ anuvattakā bhijjissantī”ti paṭiññaṃ na deti. Ṭhāne na tiṭṭhatīti lajjiṭṭhāne na tiṭṭhati, kāyavācāsu vītikkamo hoti evāti adhippāyo. Tenāha “vinicchayo na dātabbo”ti, pubbe pakkhikānaṃ paṭiññāya vūpasamitassapi adhikaraṇassa duvūpasantatāya ayampi tathā nāsitakova bhavissatīti adhippāyo.
Viraddhaṃ hotī means he intentionally commits an offense. ‘Ādito paṭṭhāya alajjī nāma natthī’ is a causal statement for ‘He does not admit to protect his faction,’ suggesting the existence of shamelessness. From the time of concealment onward, he is indeed shameless; his prior shame does not protect him. ‘Paṭiññaṃ na detī’ means he does not admit, thinking, ‘If I confess my fault, my followers will abandon me.’ ‘Ṭhāne na tiṭṭhatī’ means he does not remain in a position of shame, implying transgression in body and speech. Hence it says, ‘vinicchayo na dātabbo’, meaning adjudication should not be given; even a matter previously settled by factional admission remains unsettled, and thus he is expelled in this way.
Viraddhaṃ hotīti means he has intentionally committed an offense. Ādito paṭṭhāya alajjī nāma natthīti, this is a statement establishing the possibility of the characteristic of a shameless one, which is “he does not give a confession for the sake of protecting his factions.” From the time of concealing, he is indeed called shameless, he does not maintain his former state of shamefulness; this is the meaning. Paṭiññaṃ na detīti means, “If I speak of the fault I have committed, my followers will be divided,” so he does not confess. Ṭhāne na tiṭṭhatīti means he does not remain in the place of a shameful person; the meaning is that there is transgression in body and speech. Therefore, he says, “vinicchayo na dātabbo”, the meaning is that even though a dispute has been settled previously by the confession of those in factions, because of being poorly settled, this one too will be expelled in the same way.
“Viraddhaṃ hotī” means one has intentionally committed an offense. “Ādito paṭṭhāya alajjī nāma natthī” means that from the beginning, there is no shamelessness; it is a statement made to protect the factions. From the time of concealment, shamelessness arises; the former state of shame is not maintained. “Paṭiññaṃ na detī” means, “If I admit the fault I have committed, my supporters will break away,” so he does not admit. “Ṭhāne na tiṭṭhatī” means he does not stand in the place of shame; there is transgression in body and speech. Therefore, it is said, “No decision should be given,” meaning that even if the dispute was previously settled by the confession of the factions, it remains unsettled, and thus he remains as if expelled.
ID1415
232. Adinnādānavatthuṃ vinicchinantena pañcavīsati avahārā sādhukaṃ sallakkhetabbāti ettha pañcavīsati avahārā nāma pañca pañcakāni, tattha pañca pañcakāni nāma nānābhaṇḍapañcakaṃ ekabhaṇḍapañcakaṃ sāhatthikapañcakaṃ pubbapayogapañcakaṃ theyyāvahārapañcakanti. Tathā hi vuttaṃ kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. dutiyapārājikavaṇṇanā) “te pana avahārā pañca pañcakāni samodhānetvā sādhukaṃ sallakkhetabbā”tiādi. Tattha nānābhaṇḍapañcakaekabhaṇḍapañcakāni padabhājane (pārā. 92) vuttānaṃ “ādiyeyya, hareyya, avahareyya, iriyāpathaṃ vikopeyya, ṭhānā cāveyyā”ti imesaṃ padānaṃ vasena labbhanti. Tathā hi vuttaṃ porāṇehi –
232. Adinnādānavatthuṃ vinicchinantena pañcavīsati avahārā sādhukaṃ sallakkhetabbā means that in adjudicating a case of taking what is not given, the twenty-five modes of theft should be carefully considered. Here, pañcavīsati avahārā refers to five sets of five. These pañca pañcakāni are: the set of various items, the set of a single item, the set of personal action, the set of prior effort, and the set of theft. As stated in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. commentary on the second pārājika), ‘These modes of theft, comprising five sets of five, should be carefully considered,’ and so forth. The sets of various items and a single item are derived from the terms in the Padabhājana (Pārā. 92): ‘ādiyeyya, hareyya, avahareyya, iriyāpathaṃ vikopeyya, ṭhānā cāveyya.’ As the ancients said:
232. Adinnādānavatthuṃ vinicchinantena pañcavīsati avahārā sādhukaṃ sallakkhetabbāti, here, pañcavīsati avahārā means five sets of five. Therein, pañca pañcakāni means the fivefold set of various items, the fivefold set of a single item, the fivefold set of personal action, the fivefold set of prior effort, and the fivefold set of theft. Thus, it has been said in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. dutiyapārājikavaṇṇanā), “These modes of taking should be well considered, combining them into five sets of five,” and so on. Herein, the fivefold set of various items and the fivefold set of a single item are obtained based on the terms “ādiyeyya, hareyya, avahareyya, iriyāpathaṃ vikopeyya, ṭhānā cāveyyā” stated in the Padabhājana (pārā. 92). Thus it has been said by the ancients –
232. “When settling a case of theft, the twenty-five methods of removal should be carefully considered.” Here, the “twenty-five methods of removal” are five sets of five. Among them, the “five sets of five” are: the fivefold method of various goods, the fivefold method of a single item, the fivefold method of direct action, the fivefold method of prior arrangement, and the fivefold method of theft. As stated in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Dutiyapārājikavaṇṇanā): “These methods of removal, the five sets of five, should be carefully considered.” Among them, the fivefold method of various goods and the fivefold method of a single item are obtained from the words stated in the Pārājika (Pārā. 92): “He takes, he carries away, he removes, he disturbs the posture, he moves from the place.” As stated by the ancients:
ID1416
“Ādiyanto harantova; Haranto iriyāpathaṃ; Vikopento tathā ṭhānā; Cāventopi parājiko”ti.
‘Taking and carrying off; Carrying off and disrupting posture; Disrupting and removing from place; All these make one pārājika.’
“Taking away, carrying; Carrying, changing posture; And displacing from position; Even removing is a Pārājika.”
“One who takes, one who carries away; One who carries away disturbs the posture; One who disturbs the posture moves from the place; One who moves from the place is defeated.”
ID1417
Tattha nānābhaṇḍapañcakaṃ saviññāṇakaaviññāṇakavasena daṭṭhabbaṃ, itaraṃ saviññāṇakavaseneva. Kathaṃ? Ādiyeyyāti ārāmaṃ abhiyuñjati, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Sāmikassa vimatiṃ uppādeti, āpatti thullaccayassa. Sāmiko “na mayhaṃ bhavissatī”ti dhuraṃ nikkhipati, āpatti pārājikassa. Hareyyāti aññassa bhaṇḍaṃ haranto sīse bhāraṃ theyyacitto āmasati, dukkaṭaṃ. Phandāpeti, thullaccayaṃ. Khandhaṃ oropeti, pārājikaṃ. Avahareyyāti upanikkhittaṃ bhaṇḍaṃ “dehi me bhaṇḍa”nti vuccamāno “nāhaṃ gaṇhāmī”ti bhaṇati, dukkaṭaṃ. Sāmikassa vimatiṃ uppādeti, thullaccayaṃ. Sāmiko “na mayhaṃ bhavissatī”ti dhuraṃ nikkhipati, pārājikaṃ. Iriyāpathaṃ vikopeyyāti “sahabhaṇḍahārakaṃ nessāmī”ti paṭhamaṃ pādaṃ atikkāmeti, thullaccayaṃ. Dutiyaṃ pādaṃ atikkāmeti, pārājikaṃ. Ṭhānā cāveyyāti thalaṭṭhaṃ bhaṇḍaṃ theyyacitto āmasati, dukkaṭaṃ. Phandāpeti, thullaccayaṃ. Ṭhānā cāveti, pārājikaṃ. Evaṃ tāva nānābhaṇḍapañcakaṃ veditabbaṃ. Sassāmikassa pana dāsassa vā tiracchānagatassa vā yathāvuttena abhiyogādinā nayena ādiyanaharaṇa avaharaṇa iriyāpathavikopana ṭhānācāvanavasena ekabhaṇḍapañcakaṃ veditabbaṃ. Tenāhu porāṇā –
Here, the set of various items should be viewed in terms of sentient and non-sentient objects, while the other set applies only to sentient objects. How so? Ādiyeyya: Engaging with an ārāma incurs a dukkaṭa; causing doubt in the owner incurs a thullaccaya; if the owner relinquishes it, thinking, ‘It won’t be mine,’ it becomes a pārājika. Hareyya: Intending theft, one touches a load on the head to carry off another’s goods—a dukkaṭa; shaking it—a thullaccaya; lowering it from the shoulder—a pārājika. Avahareyya: When told, ‘Give me my goods,’ regarding deposited goods, saying, ‘I’m not taking it’—a dukkaṭa; causing doubt in the owner—a thullaccaya; if the owner relinquishes it, thinking, ‘It won’t be mine’—a pārājika. Iriyāpathaṃ vikopeyya: Intending to take a goods-bearer, stepping one foot forward—a thullaccaya; stepping the second foot—a pārājika. Ṭhānā cāveyya: Touching goods on land with theft intent—a dukkaṭa; shaking it—a thullaccaya; removing it from its place—a pārājika. Thus, the set of various items should be understood. For goods with an owner, such as a slave or animal, the ekabhaṇḍapañcakaṃ should be understood by the methods of engaging, carrying off, taking, disrupting posture, and removing from place, as described. Hence the ancients said:
Therein, the fivefold set of various items should be seen in terms of animate and inanimate, the other only in terms of animate. How? Ādiyeyyāti, he attacks a monastery, an offense of dukkaṭa. He causes doubt in the owner, an offense of thullaccaya. The owner abandons responsibility, thinking, “It will not be mine,” an offense of pārājika. Hareyyāti, carrying another’s goods, if he touches the load on his head with the intention of stealing, it is a dukkaṭa. If he causes it to move, it is a thullaccaya. If he lowers it from his shoulder, it is a pārājika. Avahareyyāti, when asked, “Give me my deposited goods,” if he says, “I did not take it,” it is a dukkaṭa. He causes doubt in the owner, it is a thullaccaya. The owner abandons responsibility, thinking, “It will not be mine,” it is a pārājika. Iriyāpathaṃ vikopeyyāti, thinking, “I will take away the fellow-carrier’s goods,” he steps over with the first foot, it is a thullaccaya. He steps over with the second foot, it is a pārājika. Ṭhānā cāveyyāti, he touches goods lying on the ground with the intention of stealing, it is a dukkaṭa. He causes it to move, it is a thullaccaya. He moves it from its place, it is a pārājika. Thus, the fivefold set of various items should be understood. But of a slave, or an animal, belonging to another, in the previously stated method, by attacking, and so on, by way of taking, carrying, removing, changing the posture, moving from position, the ekabhaṇḍapañcakaṃ should be understood. Therefore the ancients stated -
Here, the fivefold method of various goods should be understood as pertaining to both sentient and insentient beings, while the other pertains only to sentient beings. How? “He takes” means he engages with the monastery; the offense is a dukkaṭa. He causes doubt in the owner; the offense is a thullaccaya. The owner gives up the burden, thinking, “It will not be mine”; the offense is a pārājika. “He carries away” means while carrying another’s goods, he touches the load with the intention to steal; the offense is a dukkaṭa. He causes it to shake; the offense is a thullaccaya. He lowers it from the shoulder; the offense is a pārājika. “He removes” means when the goods are placed nearby, and being told, “Give me the goods,” he says, “I am not taking them”; the offense is a dukkaṭa. He causes doubt in the owner; the offense is a thullaccaya. The owner gives up the burden, thinking, “It will not be mine”; the offense is a pārājika. “He disturbs the posture” means with the intention to take the goods, he moves the first foot; the offense is a thullaccaya. He moves the second foot; the offense is a pārājika. “He moves from the place” means he touches goods on the ground with the intention to steal; the offense is a dukkaṭa. He causes it to shake; the offense is a thullaccaya. He moves it from the place; the offense is a pārājika. Thus, the fivefold method of various goods should be understood. As for the fivefold method of a single item, it should be understood in the same way as above, in terms of taking, carrying away, removing, disturbing the posture, and moving from the place, with regard to a slave or an animal belonging to an owner. As the ancients say:
ID1418
“Tattha nānekabhaṇḍānaṃ, pañcakānaṃ vasā pana; Ādiyanādipañcakā, duvidhāti udīritā”ti.
‘Not by various items, but by the power of the five sets; The five acts of taking and so forth are declared as twofold.’
“There, in the case of various items, And in the case of the fivefold sets; The fivefold sets of taking, etc., Are declared to be twofold.”
“Among them, for various goods, the fivefold method is twofold; The fivefold method of taking and so on is declared.”
ID1419
Katamaṃ sāhatthikapañcakaṃ? Sāhatthiko āṇattiko nissaggiyo atthasādhako dhuranikkhepoti. Tathā hi vuttaṃ –
What is the sāhatthikapañcakaṃ? Personal action, command, relinquishment, achieving the aim, and relinquishing burden. As it is said:
What is the sāhatthikapañcakaṃ? It is personal action, command, discarding, accomplishing the purpose, and abandoning responsibility. Thus, it is said –
What is the “fivefold method of direct action”? Direct action is authoritative, relinquishable, purposeful, and involves giving up the burden. As stated:
ID1420
“Sāhatthāṇattiko ceva, nissaggiyotthasādhako; Dhuranikkhepako cāti, idaṃ sāhatthapañcaka”nti.
‘Personal action and command, relinquishment and achieving the aim; And relinquishing burden—this is the set of personal action.’
“Personal action, command, And discarding, accomplishing the purpose; And abandoning responsibility, This is the fivefold set of personal action.”
“Direct action, authoritative, relinquishable, purposeful, and giving up the burden; This is the fivefold method of direct action.”
ID1421
Tattha sāhatthiko nāma parassa bhaṇḍaṃ sahatthā avaharati. Āṇattiko nāma “asukassa bhaṇḍaṃ avaharā”ti aññaṃ āṇāpeti. Nissaggiyo nāma suṅkaghātaparikappitokāsānaṃ anto ṭhatvā bahi pātanaṃ. Atthasādhako nāma “asukassa bhaṇḍaṃ yadā sakkosi, tadā taṃ avaharā”ti āṇāpeti. Tattha sace paro anantarāyiko hutvā taṃ avaharati, āṇāpakassa āṇattikkhaṇeyeva pārājikaṃ. Parassa vā pana telakumbhiyā pādagghanakaṃ telaṃ avassaṃ pivanakāni upāhanādīni pakkhipati , hatthato muttamatteyeva pārājikaṃ. Dhuranikkhepo pana ārāmābhiyogaupanikkhittabhaṇḍavasena veditabbo. Tāvakālikabhaṇḍadeyyāni adentassapi eseva nayoti idaṃ sāhatthikapañcakaṃ.
Here, sāhatthiko means one who personally takes another’s goods. Āṇattiko means one who commands another, ‘Take so-and-so’s goods.’ Nissaggiyo means throwing goods out from within a designated toll area. Atthasādhako means commanding, ‘Take so-and-so’s goods whenever you can’; if the other takes it without hindrance, the commander incurs a pārājika at the moment of command. Or, placing footwear worth a foot into another’s oil pot, it becomes a pārājika once released from the hand. Dhuranikkhepo should be understood in terms of engaging with an ārāma or deposited goods. The same applies to not giving temporary goods—this is the set of personal action.
Therein, sāhatthiko means taking another’s goods with one’s own hand. Āṇattiko means commanding another, “Take the goods of so-and-so.” Nissaggiyo means throwing something outside from inside a place designated for customs duties. Atthasādhako means commanding, “Take the goods of so-and-so when you are able.” Therein, if the other person takes it without delay, the one who commanded is guilty of pārājika at the moment of command. Or if into another’s oil pot, he throws a foot-valuable quantity of oil, shoes, etc. for drinking, he is guilty of pārājika as soon as it is released from the hand. Dhuranikkhepo, however, should be understood by way of attacking a monastery and depositing goods. The same principle applies to not giving temporary goods that are to be given. This is the sāhatthikapañcakaṃ.
Here, “direct action” means taking another’s goods directly with one’s own hand. “Authoritative” means ordering another, “Take such-and-such goods.” “Relinquishable” means throwing out from within a boundary marked for tax collection. “Purposeful” means ordering, “Take such-and-such goods when you can.” Here, if the other takes it without obstruction, it is a pārājika at the moment of ordering. If, however, one takes a handful of oil from another’s oil jar or puts on another’s sandals, it is a pārājika as soon as it leaves the hand. “Giving up the burden” should be understood in terms of engaging with the monastery and placing the goods nearby. Even if one does not give the goods temporarily, this is the method. This is the fivefold method of direct action.
ID1422
Katamaṃ pubbapayogapañcakaṃ? Pubbapayogo sahapayogo saṃvidāvahāro saṅketakammaṃ nimittakammanti. Tena vuttaṃ –
What is the pubbapayogapañcakaṃ? Prior effort, joint effort, agreed transaction, prearranged action, and signaled action. Hence it is said:
What is the pubbapayogapañcakaṃ? Prior effort, joint effort, concerted taking, signal action, and prearranged sign. Therefore, it is said –
What is the “fivefold method of prior arrangement”? Prior arrangement, simultaneous arrangement, agreement to remove, symbolic action, and indicative action. As stated:
ID1423
“Pubbasahapayogo ca, saṃvidāharaṇaṃ tathā; Saṅketakammaṃ nimittaṃ, idaṃ sāhatthapañcaka”nti.
‘Prior and joint effort, agreed transaction as well; Prearranged action and signal—this is the set of personal action.’
“Prior and joint effort, And concerted taking; Signal action, prearranged sign, This is the fivefold set of personal action.”
“Prior arrangement, simultaneous arrangement, agreement to remove, symbolic action, and indicative action; This is the fivefold method of direct action.”
ID1424
Tattha āṇattivasena pubbapayogo veditabbo. Ṭhānācāvanavasena, khilādīni saṅkāmetvā khettādiggahaṇavasena ca sahapayogo veditabbo. Saṃvidāvahāro nāma “asukaṃ nāma bhaṇḍaṃ avaharissāmā”ti saṃvidahitvā sammantayitvā avaharaṇaṃ. Evaṃ saṃvidahitvā gatesu hi ekenapi tasmiṃ bhaṇḍe ṭhānā cāvite sabbesaṃ avahāro hoti. Saṅketakammaṃ nāma sañjānanakammaṃ. Sace hi purebhattādīsu yaṃ kiñci kālaṃ paricchinditvā “asukasmiṃ kāle itthannāmaṃ bhaṇḍaṃ avaharā”ti vutto saṅketato apacchā apure taṃ avaharati, saṅketakārakassa saṅketakaraṇakkhaṇeyeva avahāro. Nimittakammaṃ nāma saññuppādanatthaṃ akkhinikhaṇanādinimittakaraṇaṃ . Sace hi evaṃ katanimittato apacchā apure “yaṃ avaharā”ti vutto, taṃ avaharati, nimittakārakassa nimittakkhaṇeyeva avahāroti idaṃ pubbapayogapañcakaṃ.
Therein, pubbapayogo is to be understood as preliminary effort by way of command. Sahapayogo is to be understood as joint effort by way of displacement from a place, or by transferring stakes and so forth, and seizing fields and the like. Saṃvidāvahāro is the act of stealing after arranging and agreeing, saying, “We will steal such-and-such an item,” having planned it together. Indeed, when it has been so planned and they have gone, even if only one of them displaces that item from its place, it becomes stealing for all. Saṅketakammaṃ is an act of signaling. For if, having specified a certain time such as before the meal and said, “At such a time, steal such-and-such an item,” and one steals it later or earlier than the agreed signal, the stealing occurs for the one who made the signal at the very moment of signaling. Nimittakammaṃ is the making of a sign, such as winking, to generate recognition. For if, after such a sign is made, one is told, “Steal that,” and steals it later or earlier, the stealing occurs for the one who made the sign at the very moment of making it. This is the pentad of preliminary efforts.
Therein, pubbapayogo (preparatory action) should be understood as being due to command. Sahapayogo (concurrent action) should be understood as moving from a place, and as taking a field, etc., after transferring clods of earth, etc. Saṃvidāvahāro (conspiracy) is theft after conspiring and agreeing, “We will steal such and such an item.” For when they have conspired in this way and gone, even if only one person moves that item from its place, it is theft for all. Saṅketakammaṃ (making a sign) means the action of making a signal. For if, having set a certain time before or after the meal, “Steal such and such an item at such a time,” he steals it after the sign, either later or earlier, the one making the sign commits theft at the very moment of making the sign. Nimittakammaṃ (making a gesture) is making a gesture, such as blinking the eye, in order to create a sign. If, after such a gesture has been made, one who has been told “Steal whatever,” steals it, either after or before, the one making the gesture commits theft at the moment of the gesture. This is the quintet of preparatory actions.
Here, pubbapayoga should be understood as prior effort through command. Sahapayoga should be understood as simultaneous effort through displacement of place, clearing obstacles like thorns, and taking possession of fields, etc. Saṃvidāvahāra means taking something after agreeing and resolving, “I will take such and such an item.” For when they have agreed and departed, even if one person displaces that item, it is considered taken by all. Saṅketakamma means an act of agreement. If, for example, a specific time is designated beforehand, such as before a meal, and it is said, “At such and such time, I will take such and such an item,” and later, before or after that time, the item is taken, the act of taking is considered to have occurred at the moment of agreement. Nimittakamma means creating a sign, such as winking, for the purpose of arousing recognition. If, after such a sign has been made, it is said, “Take what I have indicated,” and the item is taken, the act of taking is considered to have occurred at the moment the sign was made. This is the fivefold prior effort.
ID1425
Katamaṃ theyyāvahārapañcakaṃ? Theyyāvahāro pasayhāvahāro parikappāvahāro paṭicchannāvahāro kusāvahāroti. Tena vuttaṃ –
What is the theyyāvahārapañcakaṃ? It is stealing by theft, stealing by force, stealing by scheming, stealing by concealment, and stealing by substitution. Hence it is said:
What is the theyyāvahārapañcakaṃ (quintet of theft)? It is theyyāvahāra (stealthy theft), pasayhāvahāra (forceful theft), parikappāvahāra (premeditated theft), paṭicchannāvahāra (concealed theft), and kusāvahāra (lot-theft). Therefore it was said:
What is the theyyāvahārapañcaka? The fivefold theft is: theft by stealth, theft by force, theft by arrangement, theft by concealment, and theft by substitution. Thus it is said:
ID1426
“Theyyā pasayhā parikappā, paṭicchannā kusā tathā; Avahārā ime pañca, theyyāvahārapañcaka”nti.
“Theft, force, scheming, concealment, and substitution as well; these five acts of stealing are the pentad of theft.”
“Theyyā, pasayhā, parikappā, paṭicchannā, kusā tathā; Avahārā ime pañca, theyyāvahārapañcaka’nti.”
“Theft by stealth, theft by force, theft by arrangement, theft by concealment, and theft by substitution—these five are the fivefold theft.”
ID1427
Tattha yo sandhicchedādīni katvā adissamāno avaharati, kūṭatulākūṭamānakūṭakahāpaṇādīhi vā vañcetvā gaṇhāti, tassevaṃ gaṇhato avahāro theyyāvahāroti veditabbo. Yo pana pasayha balakkārena paresaṃ santakaṃ gaṇhāti gāmaghātakādayo viya, attano pattabalito vā vuttanayeneva adhikaṃ gaṇhāti rājabhaṭādayo viya, tassevaṃ gaṇhato avahāro pasayhāvahāroti veditabbo. Parikappetvā gahaṇaṃ pana parikappāvahāro nāma.
Therein, one who steals secretly by breaking into a house or the like, or takes by deceiving with false scales, false measures, or false coins, such a person’s act of taking is to be understood as theyyāvahāro. But one who takes the property of others by force, like village raiders, or takes more than their due share by the aforementioned method, like royal soldiers, such a person’s act of taking is to be understood as pasayhāvahāro. Taking after scheming is called parikappāvahāro.
Therein, whoever steals unseen after committing a breach, etc., or takes by deceiving with false scales, false measures, false coins, etc., his taking in this manner should be understood as theyyāvahāro (stealthy theft). Whoever forcefully takes what belongs to others by force, like village plunderers, etc., or takes more than his due share, in the manner already stated, like royal soldiers, etc., his taking in this manner should be understood as pasayhāvahāro (forceful theft). Taking after planning, however, is called parikappāvahāro (premeditated theft).
Here, one who takes something by breaking into a house, etc., without being seen, or deceives with false weights, measures, or coins, such taking is to be understood as theyyāvahāra (theft by stealth). One who takes the property of others by force, like village raiders, or takes more than what is due by his own strength, like royal soldiers, such taking is to be understood as pasayhāvahāra (theft by force). Taking after making a plan is called parikappāvahāra (theft by arrangement).
ID1428
So bhaṇḍokāsassa vasena duvidho. Tatrāyaṃ bhaṇḍaparikappo – sāṭakatthiko antogabbhaṃ pavisitvā “sace sāṭako bhavissati, gaṇhissāmi. Sace suttaṃ, na gaṇhissāmī”ti parikappetvā andhakāre pasibbakaṃ gaṇhāti. Tatra ce sāṭako hoti, uddhāreyeva pārājikaṃ. Suttañce hoti, rakkhati. Bahi nīharitvā muñcitvā “sutta”nti ñatvā puna āharitvā ṭhapeti, rakkhatiyeva. “Sutta”nti ñatvāpi yaṃ laddhaṃ, taṃ gahetabbanti gacchati, padavārena kāretabbo. Bhūmiyaṃ ṭhapetvā gaṇhāti, uddhāre pārājikaṃ. “Coro coro”ti anubandho chaḍḍetvā palāyati, rakkhati. Sāmikā disvā gaṇhanti, rakkhatiyeva. Añño ce gaṇhāti, bhaṇḍadeyyaṃ. Sāmikesu nivattantesu sayaṃ disvā paṃsukūlasaññāya “pagevetaṃ mayā gahitaṃ, mama dāni santaka”nti gaṇhantassapi bhaṇḍadeyyameva. Tattha yvāyaṃ “sace sāṭako bhavissati, gaṇhissāmī”tiādinā nayena pavatto parikappo, ayaṃ bhaṇḍaparikappo nāma. Okāsaparikappo pana evaṃ veditabbo – ekacco pana parapariveṇādīni paviṭṭho kiñci lobhaneyyabhaṇḍaṃ disvā gabbhadvārapamukhaheṭṭhā pāsādadvārakoṭṭhakarukkhamūlādivasena paricchedaṃ katvā “sace maṃ etthantare passissanti, daṭṭhukāmatāya gahetvā vicaranto viya dassāmi. No ce passissanti , harissāmī”ti parikappeti, tassa taṃ ādāya parikappitaparicchedaṃ atikkantamatte avahāro hoti. Iti yvāyaṃ vuttanayeneva pavatto parikappo, ayaṃ okāsaparikappo nāma. Evamimesaṃ dvinnaṃ parikappānaṃ vasena parikappetvā gaṇhato avahāro parikappāvahāroti veditabbo.
That is twofold by way of the object schemed and the place schemed. Herein, this is bhaṇḍaparikappo: one desiring a robe enters a room, scheming, “If there is a robe, I will take it; if there is thread, I will not take it,” and in the dark takes a sack. If it contains a robe, it is a pārājika offense upon lifting it. If it is thread, he is safe. Taking it outside, releasing it, and knowing it as “thread,” he brings it back and places it down, remaining safe. Even knowing it as “thread,” if he thinks, “What I have obtained should be taken,” and goes, he is to be dealt with step-by-step. If he places it on the ground and takes it, it is a pārājika upon lifting. Pursued as “Thief! Thief!” he discards it and flees, remaining safe. If the owners see and take it, he remains safe. If another takes it, it is a bhaṇḍadeyya offense. Even if the owners return, and he himself, seeing it with the perception of abandoned cloth, thinks, “Indeed, I took it before; now it is mine,” and takes it, it is still only a bhaṇḍadeyya offense. Therein, this scheming that proceeds by the method of “If there is a robe, I will take it” and so forth is called bhaṇḍaparikappo. But okāsaparikappo is to be understood thus: one entering another’s monastery or the like, seeing some desirable item, designates a boundary by way of the room’s door, porch, base of a mansion’s door, gate, or tree root, scheming, “If they see me within this area, I will show it as if I took it to look at it out of curiosity; if they do not see me, I will steal it.” For him, the stealing occurs the moment he takes it and crosses the designated boundary. Thus, this scheming proceeding by the aforementioned method is called okāsaparikappo. Hence, the act of taking by scheming through these two types of scheming is to be understood as parikappāvahāro.
This is of two kinds according to the object of possession. Of these, this is bhaṇḍaparikappo (planning with respect to an article): someone desiring a cloth enters a room and plans, “If it is a cloth, I will take it. If it is thread, I will not take it,” and takes a bag in the dark. If there is a cloth in it, at the very lifting he is defeated (pārājika). If it is thread, he is protected. If, having taken it out and, having untied it and realized it is “thread”, he brings it back and places it, he is still protected. If, knowing it is “thread”, he thinks “Whatever is obtained, I take that,” and leaves, he should be dealt with by each step. If he puts down on the ground and picks up, at the moment of lifting he is defeated. He flees having thrown away pursuit as “Thief, thief”, he is protected. The owners seeing catch, he is still protected. If another person catches, he is liable to give the article. If the owners turn back, he himself, seeing it, takes it with the perception of refuse, thinking, “This was taken by me earlier, now it is mine,” he is also liable to give the article. Herein, this planning, which occurs in the manner “If it is a cloth, I will take it,” and so on, is called bhaṇḍaparikappo. Okāsaparikappo (planning with respect to a location), however, should be understood thus: someone, having entered another’s dwelling, etc., sees some desirable object and makes a determination with respect to the door of the room, the base of the staircase, the foot of a tree, etc., thinking, “If they see me in between here, showing myself as if looking around due to a desire to see. If they don’t see me, I will take it,” his theft occurs as soon as he crosses the boundary determined, taking it. Thus, this planning, occurring in the manner stated, is called okāsaparikappo. Thus, the theft of one who takes after planning by way of these two kinds of planning, should be understood as parikappāvahāro.
This is twofold based on the object or the opportunity. Here, bhaṇḍaparikappa (planning regarding an object) is as follows: A person desiring a cloth enters a room and thinks, “If there is a cloth, I will take it. If there is thread, I will not take it.” Having planned thus, he takes something in the dark. If it is a cloth, it is a pārājika offense at the moment of lifting. If it is thread, he is exempt. If he takes it out, examines it, and knowing it is thread, puts it back, he is still exempt. If he knows it is thread and takes what he has found, he should be made to return it. If he places it on the ground and takes it, it is a pārājika offense at the moment of lifting. If he is chased, shouting “Thief! Thief!” and he abandons it and flees, he is exempt. If the owners see and take it, he is still exempt. If someone else takes it, it is a returnable item. If the owners turn back and he sees it, thinking it is discarded, and takes it, saying, “This was taken by me, now it is mine,” it is still a returnable item. Here, the planning that proceeds in the manner of “If there is a cloth, I will take it,” etc., is called bhaṇḍaparikappa. Okāsaparikappa (planning regarding an opportunity) is to be understood as follows: Someone enters another’s dwelling, etc., sees some desirable object, and marks a boundary at the door, window, or base of a pillar, thinking, “If they see me within this area, I will pretend to be wandering around looking at things. If they do not see me, I will take it.” When he takes it and crosses the planned boundary, it is considered taken. Thus, the planning that proceeds in this manner is called okāsaparikappa. In this way, taking after planning in these two ways is to be understood as parikappāvahāra (theft by arrangement).
ID1429
Paṭicchādetvā pana avaharaṇaṃ paṭicchannāvahāro. So evaṃ veditabbo – yo bhikkhu uyyānādīsu paresaṃ omuñcitvā ṭhapitaṃ aṅgulimuddikādiṃ disvā “pacchā gaṇhissāmī”ti paṃsunā vā paṇṇena vā paṭicchādeti, tassa ettāvatā uddhāro natthīti na tāva avahāro hoti. Yadā pana sāmikā vicinantā apassitvā “sve jānissāmā”ti sālayāva gatā honti, athassa taṃ uddharato uddhāre avahāro. “Paṭicchannakāleyeva etaṃ mama santaka”nti sakasaññāya vā “gatādāni te, chaḍḍitabhaṇḍaṃ ida”nti paṃsukūlasaññāya vā gaṇhantassa pana bhaṇḍadeyyaṃ. Tesu dutiyatatiyadivase āgantvā vicinitvā adisvā dhuranikkhepaṃ katvā gatesupi gahitaṃ bhaṇḍadeyyameva. Pacchā ñatvā codiyamānassa adadato sāmikānaṃ dhuranikkhepe avahāro hoti. Kasmā? Yasmā tassa payogena tehi na diṭṭhaṃ. Yo pana tathārūpaṃ bhaṇḍaṃ yathāṭhāne ṭhitaṃyeva appaṭicchādetvā theyyacitto pādena akkamitvā kaddame vā vālikāya vā paveseti, tassa pavesitamatteyeva avahāro.
Stealing by concealing is paṭicchannāvahāro. It is to be understood thus: a bhikkhu in a garden or similar place, seeing a ring or the like left behind by others, conceals it with earth or leaves, thinking, “I will take it later.” For him, there is no lifting at that point, so it is not yet stealing. But when the owners search, fail to find it, and go to their lodging thinking, “We will know tomorrow,” then for him, stealing occurs upon lifting it. If he takes it with the perception, “At the time of concealment, it became mine,” or with the perception of abandoned cloth, “They are gone; this is discarded property,” it is a bhaṇḍadeyya offense. Even if they return on the second or third day, search, fail to see it, and abandon it, what he takes is still only a bhaṇḍadeyya offense. Later, when questioned and refusing to return it, stealing occurs at the owners’ abandonment. Why? Because due to his action, they did not see it. But one who, with a thieving mind, steps on such an item left in its place without concealing it, pressing it into mud or sand, for him, stealing occurs the moment it is pressed in.
Theft by concealing, however, is paṭicchannāvahāro. It should be understood thus: when a bhikkhu sees a finger-ring, etc., that has been taken off and left by someone else in a park, etc., and covers it with dust or a leaf, thinking, “I will take it later,” by this much there is no lifting, so there is not yet theft. However, when the owners, searching and not finding it, have gone home, thinking, “We will know tomorrow,” then, upon his lifting it, theft occurs at the moment of lifting. But for one who takes it with the perception of ownership, thinking, “This was mine at the very time of concealing,” or with the perception of refuse, thinking, “They have now gone, this is an abandoned article,” he is liable for the goods. If they, on the second or third day, come back, search, and not finding it, having abandoned the effort, have gone, what is taken is still liable to be given as the article. Later, knowing, if he is being accused and does not give it, when the owner abandons the effort, it becomes theft. Why? Because due to his action, they did not see it. Whoever, however, stepping on such an object with his foot without concealing it, where it stands, or pushes it into mud or sand with a thieving mind, theft occurs at the very moment of pushing it in.
Taking after concealing is called paṭicchannāvahāra (theft by concealment). It is to be understood as follows: A monk sees a ring, etc., left by others in a park, etc., and thinks, “I will take it later,” and covers it with dust or leaves. At this point, there is no offense of lifting, and it is not yet considered taken. But when the owners search, do not find it, and say, “We will know tomorrow,” and go away, then if he lifts it, it is considered taken at the moment of lifting. If he takes it thinking, “This is now mine,” with self-awareness, or thinking, “They have gone, this is discarded,” with the perception of a discarded item, it is a returnable item. If they return on the second or third day, search, do not find it, and abandon the search, and he takes it, it is still a returnable item. If later, knowing it, he is accused and does not return it, it is considered taken when the owners abandon the search. Why? Because it was not seen by them due to his effort. But if he steps on such an object, thinking of theft, without concealing it, and presses it into mud or sand, it is considered taken at the moment of pressing.
ID1430
Kusaṃ saṅkāmetvā pana avaharaṇaṃ kusāvahāro nāma. Sopi evaṃ veditabbo – yo bhikkhu vilīvamayaṃ vā tālapaṇṇamayaṃ vā katasaññāṇaṃ yaṃ kiñci kusaṃ pātetvā cīvare bhājiyamāne attano koṭṭhāsassa samīpe ṭhitaṃ samagghataraṃ vā mahagghataraṃ vā samasamaṃ vā agghena parassa koṭṭhāsaṃ haritukāmo attano koṭṭhāse patitaṃ kusaṃ parassa koṭṭhāse pātetukāmatāya uddharati, rakkhati tāva. Parassa koṭṭhāse pātite rakkhateva. Yadā pana tasmiṃ patite parassa koṭṭhāsato parassa kusaṃ uddharati, uddhaṭamatte avahāro. Sace paṭhamataraṃ parassa koṭṭhāsato kusaṃ uddharati, attano koṭṭhāse pātetukāmatāya uddhāre rakkhati, pātanepi rakkhati. Attano koṭṭhāsato pana attano kusaṃ uddharato uddhāreyeva rakkhati, taṃ uddharitvā parakoṭṭhāse pātentassa hatthato muttamatte avahāro hoti, ayaṃ kusāvahāro. Ayamettha saṅkhepo, vitthāro pana samantapāsādikato (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.92) gahetabbo.
Stealing by substituting with a blade of grass is called kusāvahāro. It too is to be understood thus: a bhikkhu, when a share is being divided in a robe with a marker made of bamboo or palm leaf, desiring to take a portion of equal or greater value or even the same value from another’s share near his own, lifts the blade of grass that fell in his portion with the intent to place it in the other’s portion—he remains safe at that point. When it is placed in the other’s portion, he remains safe still. But when, with it placed there, he lifts the blade of grass from the other’s portion, stealing occurs the moment it is lifted. If he first lifts the blade of grass from the other’s portion with the intent to place it in his own portion, he remains safe upon lifting and placing it. But when he lifts his own blade of grass from his portion and, having lifted it, places it in the other’s portion, stealing occurs the moment it leaves his hand. This is kusāvahāro. This is the summary here; the details should be taken from the Samantapāsādikā (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.92).
Theft by exchanging a lot, however, is kusāvahāro (lot-theft). It should be understood thus: when a bhikkhu, having dropped some marked lot made of wicker or palm leaf, when robes are being distributed, wishing to take from another’s portion something of equal or greater value, or equal, that is near his own portion, lifts the lot that has fallen in his own portion with the intention of dropping it in another’s portion, he is protected for the time being. When it is dropped in another’s portion, he is still protected. But when, after it has fallen there, he lifts the other’s lot from the other’s portion, theft occurs at the moment of lifting. If, initially, he lifts the lot from another’s portion, with the intention of dropping it in his own portion, at the lifting he is protected; even at the dropping, he is protected. But when he lifts his own lot from his own portion, at the very lifting he is protected; when, having lifted it, he drops it in the other’s portion, theft occurs at the moment it is released from his hand. This is kusāvahāro. This is the summary here, but the details should be taken from the Samantapāsādikā (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.92).
Taking after shifting straw is called kusāvahāra (theft by substitution). It is to be understood as follows: A monk, while cloth is being distributed, shifts a straw mat or palm leaf, etc., and places it near his own share. Desiring to take a more valuable, larger, or equal portion from another’s share, he lifts a straw from his own share and places it in another’s share. At this point, he is exempt. When he lifts a straw from another’s share and places it in his own, it is considered taken at the moment of lifting. If he first lifts a straw from another’s share and places it in his own, he is exempt at the moment of lifting and placing. But if he lifts his own straw and places it in another’s share, it is considered taken when it is released from his hand. This is kusāvahāra. This is the summary here; the details should be taken from the Samantapāsādikā (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.92).
ID1431
Tulayitvāti upaparikkhitvā.
Tulayitvā means having examined.
Tulayitvāti (having weighed) means having examined.
Tulayitvā means having examined.
ID1432
Sāmīcīti vattaṃ, āpatti pana natthīti adhippāyo.
Sāmīcī means proper conduct, with the implication that there is no offense.
Sāmīcīti (proper conduct) means duty, but the meaning is that there is no offense.
Sāmīcī means proper conduct, but there is no offense intended.
ID1433
Mahājanasammaddoti mahājanasaṅkhobho. Bhaṭṭhe janakāyeti apagate janakāye. “Idañca kāsāvaṃ attano santakaṃ katvā etasseva bhikkhuno dehī”ti kiṃ kāraṇā evamāha? Cīvarassāmikena dhuranikkhepo kato, tasmā tassa adinnaṃ gahetuṃ na vaṭṭati. Avahārakopi vippaṭisārassa uppannakālato paṭṭhāya cīvarassāmikaṃ pariyesanto vicarati “dassāmī”ti, cīvarassāmikena ca “mameta”nti vutte etenapi avahārakena ālayo pariccatto, tasmā evamāha. Yadi evaṃ cīvarassāmikoyeva “attano santakaṃ gaṇhāhī”ti kasmā na vuttoti? Ubhinnaṃ kukkuccavinodanatthaṃ. Kathaṃ? Avahārakassa “mayā sahatthena na dinnaṃ, bhaṇḍadeyyameta”nti kukkuccaṃ uppajjeyya , itarassa “mayā paṭhamaṃ dhuranikkhepaṃ katvā pacchā adinnaṃ gahita”nti kukkuccaṃ uppajjeyyāti.
Mahājanasammaddo means the commotion of a great crowd. Bhaṭṭhe janakāye means when the crowd has dispersed. “‘Give this robe, having made it his own, to that very bhikkhu’”—why did he say this? The owner of the robe had abandoned it, so it is not permissible to take what is not given. The one who stole it, too, searches for the robe’s owner from the time remorse arises, intending to return it, saying, “I will give it back.” When the robe’s owner says, “It is mine,” the thief relinquishes attachment. Therefore, he spoke thus. If so, why did the robe’s owner not say, “Take what is your own”? To dispel the anxiety of both. How? The thief might think, “I did not give it with my own hand; this is a bhaṇḍadeyya offense,” and become anxious. The other might think, “I abandoned it first and later took what was not given,” and become anxious.
Mahājanasammaddoti (crowd of people) means a great commotion of people. Bhaṭṭhe janakāyeti (when the crowd had dispersed) means when the crowd of people had departed. “Idañca kāsāvaṃ attano santakaṃ katvā etasseva bhikkhuno dehī”ti (and make this robe your own possession and give it to this very monk), why does he say this? The owner of the robe has abandoned ownership, therefore it is not proper to take what has not been given by him. The thief also, from the time remorse arose, has been searching for the owner of the robe, thinking, “I will give it,” and when the owner of the robe said, “It is mine,” even the thief abandoned attachment. Therefore, he says this. If so, why didn’t the owner of the robe himself say, “Take it as your own possession?” To dispel the scruples of both. How? The thief might have the scruple, “It was not given by my own hand, it is liable for goods,” and the other might have the scruple, “I first abandoned ownership and then took what was not given.”
Mahājanasammadda means the disturbance of a large crowd. Bhaṭṭhe janakāye means when the crowd has departed. “This robe, having made it his own, give it to this monk”—why is this said? Because the owner of the robe has abandoned the search, it is not proper for him to take it as stolen. The taker, from the moment of regret, seeks the owner of the robe, saying, “I will give it.” When the owner says, “It is mine,” the taker’s attachment is also relinquished. Therefore, it is said thus. If so, why is it not said, “The owner himself should take it as his own”? To dispel the doubts of both. How? The taker might think, “I did not give it with my own hand, this is a returnable item,” and the other might think, “I first abandoned the search, then took it as stolen.”
ID1434
Samagghanti appagghaṃ.
Samaggha means of little value.
Samagghanti (of equal value) means of lesser value.
Samaggha means of equal value.
ID1435
Dāruatthaṃ pharatīti dārūhi kattabbakiccaṃ sādheti. Mayi santetiādi sabbaṃ raññā pasādena vuttaṃ, therena pana “ananucchavikaṃ kata”nti na maññitabbaṃ.
Dāruatthaṃ pharatī means he accomplishes a task to be done with wood. Mayi sante and so forth—all this was said by the king out of faith, but the elder should not think it inappropriate.
Dāruatthaṃ pharatīti (serves the purpose of wood) means fulfills the task to be done with wood. Mayi santetiādi (while I am here, etc.), all this was said by the king out of devotion, but it should not be thought by the Thera, “Something unsuitable was done.”
Dāruatthaṃ pharatī means accomplishing what is to be done with wood. Mayi sante, etc., all this is said by the king out of faith, but the elder should not think, “This is inappropriate.”
ID1436
Ekadivasaṃ dantakaṭṭhacchedanādinā yā ayaṃ agghahāni vuttā, sā bhaṇḍassāminā kiṇitvā gahitameva sandhāya vuttā. Sabbaṃ panetaṃ aṭṭhakathācariyappamāṇena gahetabbaṃ. Pāsāṇañca sakkharañca pāsāṇasakkharaṃ.
The loss of value mentioned regarding cutting tooth-sticks on a single day refers only to what was bought and taken by the owner of the goods. All this should be understood according to the authority of the commentary teachers. Pāsāṇasakkharaṃ means stones and gravel.
The loss of value mentioned here, due to cutting firewood, etc., on one day, was said with reference to what was purchased and taken by the owner of the goods. All this, however, should be taken according to the standard of the commentary teachers. Stone and gravel is pāsāṇasakkharaṃ.
The loss of value mentioned for one day due to cutting toothwood, etc., refers to what the owner has bought and taken. All this should be understood according to the commentary teachers. Pāsāṇasakkhara means stone and gravel.
ID1437
“Dhāreyya atthaṃ vicakkhaṇo”ti imasseva vivaraṇaṃ “āpattiṃ vā anāpattiṃ vā”tiādi. “Sikkhāpadaṃ samaṃ tenā”ti ito pubbe ekā gāthā –
“‘A wise one would discern the meaning’”—its explanation is ‘whether it is an offense or not’ and so forth. Before this, there is one verse:
The explanation of “Dhāreyya atthaṃ vicakkhaṇo” (the wise one should bear the meaning) is “Āpattiṃ vā anāpattiṃ vā”tiādi (whether it is an offense or not an offense, etc.). Before this, there is one verse “Sikkhāpadaṃ samaṃ tenā”ti:
The explanation of “Dhāreyya atthaṃ vicakkhaṇo” is “āpattiṃ vā anāpattiṃ vā”, etc. “Sikkhāpadaṃ samaṃ tenā”—before this, there is one verse:
ID1438
“Dutiyaṃ adutiyena, yaṃ jinena pakāsitaṃ; Parājitakilesena, pārājikapadaṃ idhā”ti.
“The second, with no second, proclaimed by the Conqueror; by him who has defeated defilements, this is the pārājika rule here.”
“Dutiyaṃ adutiyena, yaṃ jinena pakāsitaṃ; Parājitakilesena, pārājikapadaṃ idhā’ti.”
“The second, declared by the Victor, the unsurpassed one, who has conquered defilements; here, the pārājika rule.”
ID1439
Tāya saddhiṃ ghaṭetvā adutiyena parājitakilesena jinena dutiyaṃ yaṃ idaṃ pārājikapadaṃ pakāsitaṃ, idha tena samaṃ anekanayavokiṇṇaṃ gambhīratthavinicchayaṃ aññaṃ kiñci sikkhāpadaṃ na vijjatīti yojanā. Tattha parājitakilesenāti santāne puna anuppattidhammatāpādane catūhi maggañāṇehi saha vāsanāya samucchinnasabbakilesena. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.159) pana “parājitakilesenāti vijitakilesena, nikilesenāti attho”ti vuttaṃ. Idhāti imasmiṃ sāsane.
Combining it with that, it means: That second pārājika rule, proclaimed by the Conqueror who has no second, who has defeated defilements, here there exists no other training rule equal to it, intricate with many methods and deep in meaning and judgment. Therein, parājitakilesena means by him whose defilements have been completely eradicated, along with their traces, by the four path-knowledges ensuring they do not arise again in the continuum. But in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.159), it is said: “parājitakilesena means by him who has conquered defilements, free of defilements.” Idha means in this dispensation.
Combining with that, the connection is: There is no other precept in this world equal to this second pārājika precept, declared by the Conqueror who had no peer and who had defeated defilements, interwoven with various methods and a profound determination of meaning. There, parājitakilesenāti (by one who has defeated defilements) means by one who has utterly eradicated all defilements, together with their tendencies, by means of the four path-knowledges, making them unable to arise again in his continuum. However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.159) it is said, “parājitakilesenā”ti (by one who has defeated defilements) means by one who has conquered defilements, by one who is without defilements, is the meaning. Idhāti (here) means in this dispensation.
Connecting this with the previous, the second pārājika rule declared by the Victor, the unsurpassed one, who has conquered defilements, is here equal to no other rule, being profound in meaning and varied in interpretation. Here, parājitakilesena means with defilements completely eradicated by the four path knowledges, along with their latent tendencies, in the continuum. In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.159), it is said, “parājitakilesena** means one who has conquered defilements, free from defilements.” Idha** means in this dispensation.
ID1440
Tenāti tena dutiyapārājikasikkhāpadena. Attho nāma pāḷiattho. Vinicchayo nāma pāḷimuttavinicchayo. Attho ca vinicchayo ca atthavinicchayā, te gambhīrā yasminti gambhīratthavinicchayaṃ . Vatthumhi otiṇṇeti codanāvasena vā attanāva attano vītikkamārocanavasena vā saṅghamajjhe adinnādānavatthusmiṃ otiṇṇe. Etthāti otiṇṇe vatthusmiṃ. Vinicchayoti āpattānāpattiniyamanaṃ. Avatvāvāti “tvaṃ pārājikaṃ āpanno”ti avatvāva. Kappiyepi ca vatthusminti attanā gahetuṃ kappiye mātupituādisantakepi vatthusmiṃ. Lahuvattinoti theyyacittuppādena lahuparivattino. Āsīvisanti sīghameva sakalasarīre pharaṇasamatthavisaṃ.
Tena means by that second pārājika training rule. Attho means the meaning of the text. Vinicchayo means the judgment beyond the text. Meaning and judgment are atthavinicchayā, and because they are profound, it is gambhīratthavinicchayaṃ. Vatthumhi otiṇṇeti means involved in a matter, either by accusation or by self-confession of a transgression in the midst of the Sangha regarding taking what was not given. Ettha means in that involved matter. Vinicchayo means determining offense or non-offense. Avatvāvā means without saying, “You have committed a pārājika.” Kappiyepi ca vatthusmiṃ means even in a matter permissible to take, such as that belonging to parents or the like. Lahuvattino means those who quickly turn to thieving intent. Āsīvisa means a poison capable of swiftly spreading throughout the entire body.
Tenāti (by that) means by that second pārājika precept. Attho (meaning) is the meaning of the Pāli. Vinicchayo (determination) is the determination apart from the Pāli. Meaning and determination are atthavinicchayā, since these are profound, it is gambhīratthavinicchayaṃ (profound in meaning and determination). Vatthumhi otiṇṇeti (when a case has arisen), when a case of taking what is not given has arisen in the midst of the Sangha, either by way of an accusation or by way of one’s own reporting of one’s transgression. Etthāti (here) means in the arisen case. Vinicchayoti (determination) means the determination of whether it is an offense or not. Avatvāvāti (without saying) means without saying, “You have committed a pārājika.” Kappiyepi ca vatthusminti (even in the case of a permissible object) means even in the case of an object belonging to one’s mother, father, etc., that is permissible for one to take. Lahuvattinoti (of one who acts lightly) means of one who changes lightly due to the arising of a thieving mind. Āsīvisanti (venomous snake) means poison that is capable of spreading quickly throughout the entire body.
Tena means by that second pārājika rule. Attha means the meaning of the text. Vinicchaya means the determination according to the text. Meaning and determination are atthavinicchaya, and because they are profound, it is gambhīratthavinicchaya. Vatthumhi otiṇṇe means being involved in a case of theft, either through accusation or by confessing one’s own transgression in the midst of the Sangha. Ettha means in that case. Vinicchaya means determining whether there is an offense or not. Avatvāvā means without saying, “You have committed a pārājika offense.” Kappiyepi ca vatthusmi means even in a case where it is permissible to take, such as the property of one’s parents. Lahuvattino means those whose minds quickly turn to theft. Āsīvisa means poison that can quickly spread throughout the entire body.
ID1441
233. Pakatimanussehi uttaritarānaṃ buddhādiuttamapurisānaṃ adhigamadhammoti uttarimanussadhammo, tassa paresaṃ ārocanaṃ uttarimanussadhammārocanaṃ. Taṃ vinicchinantena cha ṭhānāni sodhetabbānīti yojanā. Tattha kiṃ te adhigatanti adhigamapucchā. Kinti te adhigatanti upāyapucchā. Kadā te adhigatanti kālapucchā. Kattha te adhigatanti okāsapucchā. Katame te kilesā pahīnāti pahīnakilesapucchā. Katamesaṃ tvaṃ dhammānaṃ lābhīti paṭiladdhadhammapucchā. Idāni tameva chaṭṭhānavisodhanaṃ vitthāretumāha “sace hī”tiādi. Tattha ettāvatāti ettakena byākaraṇavacanamattena na sakkāro kātabbo. Byākaraṇañhi ekassa ayāthāvatopi hotīti. Imesu chasu ṭhānesu sodhanatthaṃ evaṃ vattabboti yathā nāma jātarūpapatirūpakampi jātarūpaṃ viya khāyatīti jātarūpaṃ nighaṃsanatāpanachedanehi sodhetabbaṃ, evameva idāneva vuttesu chasu ṭhānesu pakkhipitvā sodhanatthaṃ vattabbo. Vimokkhādīsūti ādi-saddena samāpattiñāṇadassanamaggabhāvanāphalasacchikiriyādiṃ saṅgaṇhāti. Pākaṭo hoti adhigatavisesassa satisammosābhāvato. Sesapucchāsupi “pākaṭo hotī”ti pade eseva nayo.
233. The quality superior to ordinary humans, the attainment of supreme persons like the Buddha, is uttarimanussadhammo; announcing it to others is uttarimanussadhammārocanaṃ. In judging it, six points must be clarified. Therein: Kiṃ te adhigata is questioning the attainment. Kinti te adhigata is questioning the means. Kadā te adhigata is questioning the time. Kattha te adhigata is questioning the place. Katame te kilesā pahīnā is questioning the abandoned defilements. Katamesaṃ tvaṃ dhammānaṃ lābhī is questioning the attained qualities. Now, to elaborate on this clarification of the six points, it says, “Sace hī” and so forth. Therein, ettāvatā means by this mere statement of declaration, respect should not be given, for a declaration may also come from one who is not truthful. Imesu chasu ṭhānesu sodhanatthaṃ evaṃ vattabbo means he should be spoken to thus to purify these six points: just as counterfeit gold resembling real gold must be tested by rubbing, heating, and cutting, so too he must be examined by being placed in these six points for purification. Vimokkhādīsu—by the word ādi, it includes emancipation, attainments, knowledge and vision, path development, and fruit realization. Pākaṭo hoti means it becomes evident due to the absence of mindfulness lapse regarding the attained distinction. In the remaining questions, the phrase “pākaṭo hoti” follows the same method.
233. Uttarimanussadhammo is the attained states of superior men, such as Buddhas, etc., exceeding ordinary human beings; reporting that to others is uttarimanussadhammārocanaṃ. One determining that should purify six points, is the connection. There, kiṃ te adhigatanti (what have you attained?) is the question about attainment. Kinti te adhigatanti (how have you attained?) is the question about the method. Kadā te adhigatanti (when did you attain?) is the question about the time. Kattha te adhigatanti (where did you attain?) is the question about the place. Katame te kilesā pahīnāti (which defilements have you abandoned?) is the question about the abandoned defilements. Katamesaṃ tvaṃ dhammānaṃ lābhīti (which states have you obtained?) is the question about the obtained states. Now, to elaborate on that very sixfold purification, he says “sace hī”tiādi (if indeed, etc.). Therein, ettāvatāti (by this much) means by this mere statement of declaration, respect should not be given. For the declaration of one can be untrue. Imesu chasu ṭhānesu sodhanatthaṃ evaṃ vattabboti (in these six points, for the sake of purification, he should be questioned thus): just as a counterfeit of gold looks like gold, gold should be purified by rubbing, heating, and cutting, in the same way, he should be questioned for the sake of purification by putting him in these six points just mentioned. Vimokkhādīsūti (in freedom, etc.), by the word ādi (etc.), he includes attainment, knowledge, vision, path cultivation, fruition realization, etc. Pākaṭo hoti (becomes evident) due to the absence of forgetting of the special attainment. In the remaining questions also, in the word “pākaṭo hotī”ti (becomes evident), this very method applies.
233. The higher Dhamma attained by the supreme persons such as the Buddha, which is beyond ordinary human beings, is uttarimanussadhammārocana (declaration of the higher Dhamma). One who determines this should purify six points. Here, kiṃ te adhigata is a question about attainment. Kinti te adhigata is a question about the method. Kadā te adhigata is a question about the time. Kattha te adhigata is a question about the place. Katame te kilesā pahīnā is a question about the defilements abandoned. Katamesaṃ tvaṃ dhammānaṃ lābhī is a question about the Dhammas attained. Now, to elaborate on the purification of the sixth point, it is said, “sace hī”, etc. Here, ettāvatā means that with just this much of a declaration, one should not be honored. For a declaration can be made by one who is not truly accomplished. Imesu chasu ṭhānesu sodhanatthaṃ evaṃ vattabbo means that just as genuine gold is tested by cutting, heating, and rubbing, so too should one be tested by these six points. Vimokkhādīsū means including attainments, knowledge, vision, path, development, fruition, and realization. Pākaṭo hoti means that the attainment of distinction is evident due to the absence of loss of mindfulness. In the remaining questions, “pākaṭo hotī” is to be understood in the same way.
ID1442
Sabbesañhi attanā adhigatamaggena pahīnā kilesā pākaṭā hontīti idaṃ yebhuyyavasena vuttaṃ. Kassaci hi attanā adhigatamaggavajjhakilesesu sandeho uppajjatiyeva mahānāmassa sakkassa viya. So hi sakadāgāmī samānopi “tassa mayhaṃ, bhante, evaṃ hoti – ko su nāma me dhammo ajjhattaṃ appahīno, yena me ekadā lobhadhammāpi cittaṃ pariyādāya tiṭṭhanti, dosadhammāpi cittaṃ pariyādāya tiṭṭhanti, mohadhammāpi cittaṃ pariyādāya tiṭṭhantī”ti (ma. ni. 1.175) bhagavantaṃ pucchi. Ayaṃ kira rājā sakadāgāmimaggena lobhadosamohā niravasesā pahīyantīti saññī ahosīti.
Sabbesañhi attanā adhigatamaggena pahīnā kilesā pākaṭā honti—this is said generally. For some, doubt arises even regarding defilements eradicated by their attained path, as with Mahānāma the Sakyan. For he, though a once-returner, asked the Blessed One, “Venerable Sir, it occurs to me: What quality within me remains unabandoned, due to which sometimes states of greed, hatred, and delusion overpower my mind and persist?” (ma. ni. 1.175). It is said he thought that greed, hatred, and delusion are entirely abandoned by the once-returner’s path.
Sabbesañhi attanā adhigatamaggena pahīnā kilesā pākaṭā hontīti (for all, the defilements abandoned by the path they have attained are evident), this is said generally. For in some, doubt arises about the defilements to be abandoned by the path they have attained, like in Mahānāma the Sakyan. For he, even though being a once-returner, asked the Blessed One, “It occurs to me, venerable sir, ‘What state is not abandoned internally by me, due to which sometimes states of greed overcome my mind, states of aversion overcome my mind, states of delusion overcome my mind?’” (ma. ni. 1.175). It seems this king was of the view that by the path of once-returning, greed, aversion, and delusion are abandoned without remainder.
Sabbesañhi attanā adhigatamaggena pahīnā kilesā pākaṭā hontī is said generally. For some, doubt may arise even about defilements abandoned by the path they have attained, like the great Sakka. For he, though a once-returner, asked the Blessed One, “Venerable sir, I have this thought: What Dhamma has not been abandoned within me, due to which lustful thoughts, hateful thoughts, and deluded thoughts sometimes arise and persist in my mind?” (ma. ni. 1.175). It is said that this king thought he had abandoned lust, hate, and delusion completely by the once-returner path.
ID1443
Yāya paṭipadāya yassa ariyamaggo āgacchati, sā pubbabhāgapaṭipatti āgamanapaṭipadā. Sodhetabbāti suddhā, udāhu na suddhāti vicāraṇavasena sodhetabbā. “Na sujjhatīti tattha tattha pamādapaṭipattisambhavato. Apanetabboti attano paṭiññāya apanetabbo”ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.197-198). Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.197) pana “na sujjhatīti pucchiyamāno paṭipattikkamaṃ ullaṅghitvā kathesi. Apanetabboti tayā vuttakkamenāyaṃ dhammo na sakkā adhigantunti adhigatamānato apanetabbo”ti vuttaṃ. “Sujjhatī”ti vatvā sujjhanākāraṃ dassetuṃ “dīgharatta”ntiādi vuttaṃ. Paññāyatīti etthāpi “yadī”ti padaṃ ānetvā yadi so bhikkhu tāya paṭipadāya paññāyatīti sambandho. Catūsu paccayesu alaggattā “ākāse pāṇisamena cetasā”ti vuttaṃ. Vuttasadisaṃ byākaraṇaṃ hotīti yojanā. Tattha vuttasadisanti tassa bhikkhuno byākaraṇaṃ imasmiṃ sutte vuttena sadisaṃ, samanti attho. Khīṇāsavassa paṭipattisadisā paṭipatti hotīti dīgharattaṃ suvikkhambhitakilesattā, idañca arahattaṃ paṭijānantassa vasena vuttaṃ. Tenāha “khīṇāsavassa nāmā”tiādi. Khīṇāsavassa nāma…pe… na hotīti pahīnavipallāsattā, jīvitanikantiyā ca abhāvato na hoti, puthujjanassa pana appahīnavipallāsattā jīvitanikantisabbhāvato ca appamattakenapi hoti, evaṃ suvikkhambhitakilesassa vattanasekkhadhammapaṭijānanaṃ iminā bhayuppādanena, ambilādidassane kheḷuppādādinā ca na sakkā vīmaṃsituṃ, tasmā tassa vacaneneva taṃ saddhātabbaṃ.
The preliminary practice by which the noble path comes to one is āgamanapaṭipadā. Sodhetabbā means it must be examined as to whether it is pure or not. “Na sujjhatī” means it is not purified due to the possibility of negligent practice here and there. Apanetabbo means he must be refuted based on his own claim, according to the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.197-198). But in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.197), it is said: “Na sujjhatī” means when questioned, he explained beyond the sequence of practice; apanetabbo means he must be refuted from his conceit of attainment, saying, “This quality cannot be attained by the method you stated.” Having said “it is purified” and to show the manner of purification, it says “dīgharatta” and so forth. Paññāyati—here too, adding the word “if,” the connection is: if that bhikkhu is known by that practice. “Ākāse pāṇisamena cetasā” is said due to non-attachment to the four requisites. The explanation is similar to what was stated, meaning his declaration is similar to what is stated in this discourse. Khīṇāsavassa paṭipattisadisā paṭipatti hoti means the practice resembles that of one whose taints are destroyed, due to defilements being well-suppressed for a long time; this is said with regard to one claiming arahantship. Hence it says, “Khīṇāsavassa nāma” and so forth. Khīṇāsavassa nāma…pe… na hoti means it does not occur due to the absence of perversions and craving for life; but for an ordinary person, due to unabandoned perversions and the presence of craving for life, it occurs even with little. Thus, claiming the qualities of a trainee by one whose defilements are well-suppressed cannot be investigated by inducing fear or by salivation at the sight of sour fruit and the like; therefore, his word alone should be trusted.
The preliminary practice by which the noble path arises for someone is the preliminary practice of arrival, āgamanapaṭipadā. Sodhetabbāti should be investigated, by way of examining whether it is pure or impure. “Na sujjhatīti, because unmindful practice is possible in various places. Apanetabboti, he should be removed from his own assertion,” so it is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.197-198). In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.197), however, it is said: “na sujjhatīti, when questioned, he spoke transgressing the order of practice. Apanetabboti, he should be removed from the pride of attainment, [with the words] ‘This Dhamma cannot be attained by the sequence you have stated’“. Having said,”It is purified,” in order to show the manner of purification, it is said, “dīgharatta”ntiādi (for a long time) and so on. Paññāyatīti, here also, connecting by bringing the word “yadī” (if), the connection is: if that bhikkhu is known through that practice. Because of non-attachment to the four requisites, it is said “ākāse pāṇisamena cetasā”ti (with a mind like a hand in the sky). The explanation is similar to what has been said, that is the connection. There, vuttasadisanti, the explanation of that bhikkhu is similar to what is said in this sutta; it is identical, that is the meaning. Khīṇāsavassa paṭipattisadisā paṭipatti hotīti, because his defilements have been well-eradicated for a long time, and this is said with reference to one claiming Arahatship. Therefore, he said, “khīṇāsavassa nāmā”tiādi (for one whose taints are destroyed, etc.). Khīṇāsavassa nāma…pe… na hotīti (For a taint-destroyed one…it does not occur), because of the eradication of perversions and the absence of craving for life, it does not occur; but for a worldling, because of the non-eradication of perversions and the presence of craving for life, it occurs even with a little. Thus, for one whose defilements have been well-eradicated, a claim to the state and practice of a stream-enterer, by this instilling of fear, and by the arising of spittle at the sight of tamarind, etc., it cannot be tested; therefore, it should be believed on the basis of his own statement.
The path by which the noble path arises for someone is called the āgamanapaṭipadā (the path of approach). Sodhetabbā means it should be purified, whether it is pure or not, by means of investigation. “Na sujjhatī” means it does not become pure due to the occurrence of negligence in practice here and there. Apanetabbo means it should be removed according to one’s own acknowledgment. This is explained in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.197-198). In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.197), however, “na sujjhatī” means that when questioned, one speaks by transgressing the practice. Apanetabbo means that this Dhamma cannot be attained in the way you have described, so it should be removed from what has been attained. After saying “sujjhatī”, the manner of purification is shown by saying “dīgharatta” (for a long time), etc. Paññāyatī here also means that if the monk is recognized by that practice, the connection is established. Because it is not connected to the four requisites, it is said “ākāse pāṇisamena cetasā” (with a mind like a hand in space). The explanation is similar to what has been said. Here, vuttasadisa means that the monk’s explanation is similar to what has been said in this sutta, meaning it is equal. Khīṇāsavassa paṭipattisadisā paṭipatti hotī means that the practice is similar to that of one whose defilements have been thoroughly subdued for a long time, and this is said with reference to one who claims arahantship. Therefore, it is said “khīṇāsavassa nāmā”, etc. Khīṇāsavassa nāma…pe… na hotī means that because delusions have been abandoned and there is no attachment to life, it does not exist. For an ordinary person, however, because delusions are not abandoned and there is attachment to life, even a little of it exists. Thus, for one whose defilements have been thoroughly subdued, the declaration of being a trainee is made through this means of instilling fear. Just as one cannot examine sourness by seeing something sour or by salivating, etc., so too, one should believe his statement.
ID1444
Ayaṃ bhikkhu sampannaveyyākaraṇoti idaṃ na kevalaṃ abhāyanakameva sandhāya vuttaṃ ekaccassa sūrajātikassa puthujjanassapi abhāyanato, rajjanīyārammaṇānaṃ badarasāḷavādiambilamaddanādīnaṃ upayojanepi kheḷuppādāditaṇhuppattirahitaṃ sabbathā suvisodhitameva sandhāya vuttanti veditabbaṃ.
Ayaṃ bhikkhu sampannaveyyākaraṇo—this is not said merely with reference to fearlessness, for some ordinary persons bold by nature are also fearless; rather, it is said with reference to one completely purified, free from salivation or craving even when using desirable objects like sour fruits, mangoes, or the like.
Ayaṃ bhikkhu sampannaveyyākaraṇoti (This bhikkhu is accomplished in explanation), this is not said only with reference to fearlessness, even for a certain worldling of noble birth who is without fear; it should be understood as said with reference to one who is entirely purified, without the arising of craving in the form of saliva, etc., even when employing objects of attachment, such as the crushing of jujube fruit, tamarind and so on.
Ayaṃ bhikkhu sampannaveyyākaraṇo means this is not only said with reference to the absence of fear, as even some ordinary persons of a brave nature are fearless. It should be understood as referring to being thoroughly purified, free from craving even when using attractive objects like badara, sāḷa, sour fruits, etc., and free from salivation, etc.
ID1445
234. “Nīharitvāti sāsanato nīharitvā”ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.45) vuttaṃ, vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.45) pana “nīharitvāti pāḷito uddharitvā”ti. Tathā hi “pañcahupāli, aṅgehi samannāgatena bhikkhunā nānuyuñjitabbaṃ. Katamehi pañcahi? Suttaṃ na jānāti, suttānulomaṃ na jānātī”tiādipāḷito (pari. 442) suttaṃ suttānulomañca nīhariṃsu, “anāpatti evaṃ amhākaṃ ācariyānaṃ uggaho paripucchāti bhaṇatī”ti evamādito ācariyavādaṃ, “āyasmā upāli evamāha ’anāpatti āvuso supinantenā”ti (pārā. 78) evamādito attanomatiṃ nīhariṃsu. Sā ca therassa attanomati suttena saṅgahitattā suttaṃ jātaṃ, evamaññāpi suttādīhi saṅgahitāva gahetabbā, netarāti veditabbaṃ. Atha vā nīharitvāti vibhajitvā, sāṭṭhakathaṃ sakalaṃ vinayapiṭakaṃ suttādīsu catūsu padesesu pakkhipitvā catudhā vibhajitvā vinayaṃ pakāsesuṃ tabbinimuttassa abhāvāti adhippāyo. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyampi (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 45) “nīharitvāti ettha sāsanato nīharitvāti attho…pe… tāya hi attanomatiyā thero etadaggaṭṭhapanaṃ labhati. Apica vuttañhetaṃ bhagavatā ’anupasampannena paññattena vā apaññattena vā vuccamāno…pe… anādariyaṃ karoti, āpatti dukkaṭassā’ti. Tattha hi paññattaṃ nāma suttaṃ, sesattayaṃ apaññattaṃ nāma. Tenāyaṃ ’catubbidhañhi vinayaṃ, mahātherā’ti gāthā suvuttā”ti vuttaṃ.
234. “Nīharitvā” means having removed from the dispensation, according to the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.45); but in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.45), “nīharitvā” means having extracted from the text. Indeed, from the text “Upāli, a bhikkhu endowed with five qualities should not be questioned. What five? He does not know the sutta, he does not know the suttānuloma…” (pari. 442), they extracted the sutta and suttānuloma; from “There is no offense, this is the teaching and inquiry of our teachers,” they extracted the teachers’ tradition; from “Venerable Upāli said, ‘Friends, there is no offense in a dream’” (pārā. 78) and the like, they extracted personal opinion. Since the elder’s personal opinion was included in the sutta, it became sutta; similarly, others too should be understood as included in the sutta and so forth, not otherwise. Alternatively, nīharitvā means having divided; having placed the entire Vinaya with its commentary into the four categories of sutta and so forth, they divided it into four and expounded the Vinaya, with nothing excluded from this, is the implication. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 45), it is said: “Nīharitvā” means having removed from the dispensation… indeed, by that personal opinion, the elder gained the foremost designation. Moreover, it is said by the Blessed One: “When spoken to by an unordained person regarding what is prescribed or not prescribed… he shows disrespect, it is an offense of wrongdoing.” Therein, paññattaṃ means sutta; the remaining three are apaññattaṃ. Thus, this verse, “The Vinaya is fourfold, great elders,” is well-spoken.
234. “Nīharitvāti, having expelled from the teaching,” it is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.45). In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.45), however, “nīharitvāti, having extracted from the Pāḷi.” Thus, “a bhikkhu endowed with five factors should not be further questioned. What five? He does not know the sutta, he does not know what conforms to the sutta” from this Pāḷi (pari. 442), they extracted the sutta and what conforms to the sutta. From “non-offense, this is the learning and questioning of our teachers,” and so forth, the teachers’ opinion. From “Venerable Upāli says thus, ‘There is no offense, friends, due to a dream emission’” (pārā. 78), and so on, they extracted personal opinion. And that personal opinion of the elder, being included in the sutta, became the sutta. In this way, others included by the sutta, etc., should be accepted, not the others, it should be understood. Or, nīharitvāti, having divided; having placed the entire Vinaya Piṭaka, together with the commentary, in the four categories of sutta, etc., having divided it into four parts, they expounded the Vinaya, the intention being that there is nothing outside of those. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 45) as well, “nīharitvāti, here the meaning is, having expelled from the teaching…pe… For by that personal opinion, the elder obtains the position of foremost. Moreover, it is said by the Blessed One, ‘being spoken to by an unordained person, whether concerning what has been laid down or what has not been laid down…pe… he shows disrespect, there is an offense of wrong-doing.’ There, paññattaṃ (what has been laid down) means the sutta, the remaining three are apaññattaṃ (what has not been laid down). Therefore, this verse, ‘the fourfold Vinaya, the great elders’, is well-spoken.”
234. “Nīharitvā means having extracted from the teaching,” as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.45). In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.45), however, “nīharitvā means having extracted from the Pāḷi.” For example, “Upāli, a monk endowed with five qualities should not be questioned. What five? He does not know the sutta, he does not know the conformity of the sutta,” etc., thus they extracted the sutta and its conformity from the Pāḷi (Pari. 442). They extracted the teacher’s statement, saying, “There is no offense, thus our teachers have learned and questioned,” etc. They extracted their own opinion, saying, “Venerable Upāli said, ’There is no offense, friend, even in a dream,” etc. (Pārā. 78). That opinion of the elder, being included in the sutta, became a sutta. Thus, other suttas, etc., should also be taken as included. Otherwise, it should not be taken. Alternatively, nīharitvā means having divided, having placed the entire Vinaya Piṭaka into four sections in the suttas, etc., and having divided it into four parts, they expounded the Vinaya, free from that. This is the meaning. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Pārājika 45), “nīharitvā means having extracted from the teaching,” etc.… By that opinion, the elder attained the highest position. Moreover, it is said by the Blessed One, “When an unordained person is spoken to about what is prescribed or not prescribed… he disregards it, there is an offense of wrong-doing.” There, paññattaṃ means the sutta, and the other three are apaññattaṃ. Therefore, this verse is well-spoken: “The Vinaya is fourfold, O great elders.”
ID1446
Vuttanti milindapañhe nāgasenattherena vuttaṃ. Pajjate anena atthoti padaṃ, bhagavatā kaṇṭhādivaṇṇuppattiṭṭhānaṃ āhacca visesetvā bhāsitaṃ padaṃ āhaccapadaṃ, bhagavatoyeva vacanaṃ. Tenāha “āhaccapadanti suttaṃ adhippeta”nti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.45) vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.45) pana “kaṇṭhādivaṇṇuppattiṭṭhānakaraṇādīhi nīharitvā attano vacīviññattiyāva bhāsitaṃ vacanaṃ āhaccapada”nti vuttaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 45) pana “aṭṭha vaṇṇaṭṭhānāni āhacca vuttena padanikāyenāti attho, udāhaṭena kaṇṭhokkantena padasamūhenāti adhippāyo”ti vuttaṃ. “Idaṃ kappati, idaṃ na kappatī”ti evaṃ avisesetvā “yaṃ bhikkhave mayā ’idaṃ na kappatī’ti appaṭikkhittaṃ , tañce akappiyaṃ anulometi, kappiyaṃ paṭibāhati, taṃ vo na kappatī”tiādinā (mahāva. 305) vuttasāmaññalakkhaṇaṃ idha rasoti adhippetanti āha “rasoti suttānuloma”nti. Rasoti sāro “pattaraso”tiādīsu (dha. sa. 628-630) viya, paṭikkhittānuññātasuttasāroti attho. Rasoti vā lakkhaṇaṃ paṭivatthukaṃ anuddharitvā lakkhaṇānulomena vuttattā. Rasenāti tassa āhaccabhāsitassa rasena, tato uddhaṭena vinicchayenāti attho. Suttachāyā viya hi suttānulomanti. Dhammasaṅgāhakapabhutiācariyaparamparato ānītā aṭṭhakathātanti idha “ācariyavaṃso”ti adhippetāti āha “ācariyavaṃsoti ācariyavādo”ti, ācariyavādo “ācariyavaṃso”ti vutto pāḷiyaṃ vuttānaṃ ācariyānaṃ paramparāya ābhatova pamāṇanti dassanatthaṃ. Adhippāyoti kāraṇopapattisiddho uhāpohanayapavatto paccakkhādipamāṇapatirūpako. Adhippāyoti ettha “attanomatī”ti keci atthaṃ vadanti.
Vutta means stated by the Elder Nāgasena in the Milindapañha. A word by which meaning is carried is a pada; a word spoken by the Blessed One, specifically articulated with reference to the throat and other places of articulation, is āhaccapada, the Blessed One’s own utterance. Hence it is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.45): “Āhaccapada” means sutta is intended. But in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.45), it is said: “Āhaccapada” means a statement expressed solely by his own verbal intimation, extracted by means of articulation from the throat and so forth. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 45), it is said: It means a group of words uttered by striking the eight places of articulation; the implication is a collection of words pronounced from the throat. The general characteristic stated as “Bhikkhus, whatever I have not objected to, saying, ‘This is not allowable,’ if it conforms to the unallowable and obstructs the allowable, that is not allowable for you” (mahāva. 305) and so forth is intended here as raso, hence it says “rasoti suttānuloma”. Raso means essence, as in “leaf-essence” and the like (dha. sa. 628-630), meaning the essence of the sutta that prohibits and permits. Alternatively, raso means characteristic, stated in accordance with the characteristic without extracting the specific object. Rasenā means by the essence of that spoken utterance, by the judgment extracted therefrom. For suttānuloma is like the shadow of the sutta. The commentary tradition brought down from the lineage of teachers like Dhammasaṅgāhaka is intended here as “ācariyavaṃso”, hence it says “ācariyavaṃsoti ācariyavādo”; ācariyavādo is called ācariyavaṃso, meaning it is authoritative as brought through the succession of teachers stated in the text, to show this. Adhippāyo means reasoning established by cause, proceeding by inference and evident through direct perception and other proofs. Some say “adhippāyo” here means personal opinion.
Vuttanti, it was stated by the elder Nāgasena in the Milindapañha. The word (pada) is that by which meaning is reached; a word specifically spoken by the Blessed One, touching the places of origin of sounds such as the throat, etc., is an āhaccapada, the very word of the Blessed One. Therefore he said, “āhaccapadanti, the sutta is intended,” so it is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.45). In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.45), however, “speech spoken by extracting from the places of origin of sounds such as the throat, etc., with one’s own verbal intimation, is āhaccapada,” it is said. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 45), however, “by touching the eight places of sound production, by the collection of words thus spoken, that is the meaning; it is the meaning of the collections of phonemes articulated at the throat with effort and the like”. “This is allowable, this is not allowable,” not thus specifying, “Whatever, monks, has not been forbidden by me, saying, ‘This is not allowable,’ if that conforms to the unallowable, and opposes the allowable, that is not allowable for you,” and so on (mahāva. 305), the general characteristic thus stated is intended here as ‘rasa’ (essence) – thus he said “rasoti suttānuloma”nti (essence means what conforms to the sutta). Rasoti, the essence, like “pattaraso” (the essence of the leaf) and so forth (dha. sa. 628-630), it is the essence of the suttas concerning what is prohibited and allowed. Or, Rasoti, the characteristic; because it is stated in conformity with the characteristic without extracting it directly, it is called rasa. Rasenāti, by the essence of that which has been spoken specifically, by the decision extracted from that. For what conforms to the sutta is like the shadow of the sutta. The tradition of teachers from the compilers of the Dhamma onward is intended here as “ācariyavaṃsa” (the lineage of teachers) – thus he said “ācariyavaṃsoti ācariyavādo”ti (the lineage of teachers means the teachers’ opinion). The teachers’ opinion is called “ācariyavaṃsa” (the lineage of teachers) to show that what is brought down by the lineage of teachers mentioned in the Pāḷi is authoritative. Adhippāyoti (Intention) means the reasoned opinion, established by cause and reason, and functioning by way of inference, which is a representation of a direct proof or any other authoritative method. Some say the meaning of adhippāyoti is “one’s own opinion (attanomati)”.
Vutta means what was said by the elder Nāgasena in the Milindapañha. The word pada means what is suitable by this. The word āhaccapada means the word spoken by the Blessed One, having specifically referred to the place of the production of throat sounds, etc. Therefore, it is said “āhaccapada means the sutta is intended,” as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.45). In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.45), however, “having extracted by means of the production of throat sounds, etc., the word spoken by one’s own verbal intimation is called āhaccapada.” In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Pārājika 45), it is said, “having referred to the eight places of sound production, the meaning is that it is spoken by the word-group, meaning the words uttered by the throat.” Without specifying, “This is allowable, this is not allowable,” thus, “What, monks, I have not rejected as ‘this is not allowable,’ if it conforms to what is not allowable and obstructs what is allowable, that is not allowable for you,” etc. (Mahāva. 305), the characteristic of the universal is intended here as the essence. Therefore, it is said “rasoti suttānuloma”. Raso means the essence, like “pattaraso” (the essence of a leaf), etc. (Dha. Sa. 628-630), meaning the essence of the sutta that is rejected or allowed. Raso also means the characteristic, having not extracted the covering, it is spoken according to the characteristic. Rasenā means by the essence of what is spoken by reference, by the decision extracted from that. Like the shadow of a sutta, it is the conformity of the sutta. The commentaries brought by the Dhammasaṅgāhaka and the succession of teachers are here intended as “ācariyavaṃso”, meaning the teacher’s statement. The teacher’s statement is called “ācariyavaṃso” in the Pāḷi, meaning the succession of teachers who have brought the Pāḷi. Adhippāyo means the intention, established by the cause, proceeding by means of reasoning, resembling the measure of direct perception, etc. Adhippāyo here, some say, means “attanomatī” (one’s own opinion).
ID1447
Vinayapiṭake pāḷīti idha adhikāravasena vuttaṃ, sesapiṭakesupi suttādicatunayā yathānurūpaṃ labbhanteva.
Vinayapiṭake pāḷī is stated here with reference to the context; the fourfold method of sutta and so forth is indeed found in the other pitakas as appropriate.
Vinayapiṭake pāḷīti, it is said here with reference to the subject matter; in the other Piṭakas as well, the four methods of sutta, etc., are obtained as appropriate.
Vinayapiṭake pāḷī means here it is said with reference to the Vinaya Piṭaka, but in the other Piṭakas, the fourfold sutta, etc., are also found accordingly.
ID1448
“Mahāpadesāti mahāokāsā. Mahantāni vinayassa patiṭṭhāpanaṭṭhānāni, yesu patiṭṭhāpito vinayo vinicchinīyati asandehato, mahantāni vā kāraṇāni mahāpadesā, mahantāni vinayavinicchayakāraṇānīti vuttaṃ hoti. Atthato pana ’yaṃ bhikkhave’tiādinā vuttāsādhippāyā pāḷiyeva mahāpadesāti vadanti. Tenevāha ‘ye bhagavatā evaṃ vuttā’tiādi. Ime ca mahāpadesā khandhake āgatā, tasmā tesaṃ vinicchayakathā tattheva āvi bhavissatīti idha na vuccatī”ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.45) vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.45) pana “mahāpadesāti mahāokāsā mahāvisayā, te atthato ’yaṃ bhikkhavetiādipāḷivasena akappiyānulomato kappiyānulomato ca puggalehi nayato tathā tathā gayhamānā atthanayā eva. Te hi bhagavatā sarūpato avuttesupi paṭikkhittānulomesu anuññātānulomesu ca sesesu kiccesu nivattipavattihetutāya mahāgocarāti ’mahāpadesā’ti vuttā, na pana ’yaṃ bhikkhave mayā idaṃ na kappatī’tiādinā vuttā sādhippāyā pāḷiyeva tassā sutte paviṭṭhattā. ’Suttānulomampi sutte otāretabbaṃ…pe… suttameva balavatara’nti (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.45) hi vuttaṃ. Na hesā sādhippāyā pāḷi sutte otāretabbā, na gahetabbā vā hoti. Yenāyaṃ suttānulomaṃ siyā, tasmā imaṃ pāḷiadhippāyaṃ nissāya puggalehi gahitā yathāvuttaatthāva suttānulomaṃ, taṃpakāsakattā pana ayaṃ pāḷipi suttānulomanti gahetabbaṃ. Tenāha ‘ye bhagavatā evaṃ vuttā’tiādi. ’Yaṃ bhikkhave’tiādipāḷinayena hi puggalehi gahitabbā ye akappiyānulomādayo atthā vuttā, te mahāpadesāti attho”ti vuttaṃ.
“Mahāpadesā” means great bases, great foundations of the Vinaya by which the Vinaya is established and judged without doubt; or great reasons, meaning great causes for Vinaya judgment. In meaning, however, they say the text itself beginning with “Bhikkhus, whatever…” is the mahāpadesā. Hence it says, “Ye bhagavatā evaṃ vuttā” and so forth. These mahāpadesā are found in the Khandhaka, so their discussion will be evident there and is not stated here, according to the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.45). But in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.45), it is said: “Mahāpadesā” means great domains, great scopes; in meaning, they are ways of understanding taken by persons through the method of the text “Bhikkhus, whatever…” as conforming to the unallowable or allowable. Indeed, though not explicitly stated by the Blessed One, they are called mahāpadesā because they are causes for cessation or continuation in the remaining matters conforming to what is prohibited or permitted, due to their vast scope; not merely the text with that implication, since it is included in the sutta. For it is said, “Suttānuloma too must be included in the sutta… the sutta is stronger” (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.45). This text with implication is neither to be included in the sutta nor taken as such, by which it would be suttānuloma; therefore, the meanings taken by persons relying on this textual implication, as stated, are suttānuloma, and this text too is to be taken as suttānuloma because it reveals that. Hence it says, “Ye bhagavatā evaṃ vuttā” and so forth. The meaning is that the meanings taken by persons through the method of the text “Bhikkhus, whatever…” as conforming to the unallowable and so forth are the mahāpadesā.
“Mahāpadesāti, great occasions. Great places for establishing the Vinaya, on which the Vinaya, when established, is decided without doubt; or, great reasons are mahāpadesā, meaning great reasons for deciding the Vinaya. But in meaning, ‘Whatever, monks’ and so on, what is said with that intention, the Pāḷi itself is the great authorities, they say. Therefore he said ‘ye bhagavatā evaṃ vuttā’tiādi (which were thus spoken by the Blessed One, etc.). And these great authorities are found in the Khandhakas; therefore, the discussion of their decision will be evident there and is not stated here,” it is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.45). In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.45), however, “mahāpadesāti, great occasions, great subject matters; in meaning, they are the principles concerning meaning, being grasped by people in various ways, from what conforms to the unallowable and what conforms to the allowable, by way of reasoning, starting with the Pāḷi ‘Whatever, monks’. Though these are not stated in their specific form by the Blessed One, because they are the great resort as causes for cessation and continuation in remaining duties, in what conforms to the prohibited and what conforms to the permitted, they are called ‘mahāpadesā’ (great authorities); but it is not just the Pāḷi itself, with its intention, starting with ‘Whatever, monks, has not been forbidden by me, saying, ’This is not allowable’, because that is included in the sutta. It has been said, ‘What conforms to the sutta should also be applied to the sutta…pe… the sutta itself is stronger’ (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.45). This Pāḷi, with its intention, should not be applied to the sutta, nor should it be accepted. By which this would become what conforms to the sutta; therefore, relying on the intention of this Pāḷi, the meanings as stated, grasped by people, are what conforms to the sutta, but because this Pāḷi illuminates that, it should also be accepted as what conforms to the sutta. Therefore, he said, ‘ye bhagavatā evaṃ vuttā’tiādi (which were thus spoken by the Blessed One, etc.). ‘Whatever, monks’ - by the method of this Pāḷi, the meanings of what conforms to the unallowable, etc., which should be grasped by people, which are stated, those are the great authorities, that is the meaning,” it is said.
“Mahāpadesā means great authorities. They are the great foundations for establishing the Vinaya, where the Vinaya is established and decided without doubt, or the great causes mahāpadesā, meaning the great causes for deciding the Vinaya. In meaning, however, the Pāḷi spoken by “What, monks,” etc., is called the great authorities. Therefore, it is said ‘ye bhagavatā evaṃ vuttā’, etc. These great authorities are found in the Khandhaka, therefore their discussion will be clearly seen there, so it is not mentioned here,” as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.45). In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.45), however, “mahāpadesā means great opportunities, great subjects, meaning the Pāḷi spoken by “What, monks,” etc., is taken by individuals according to what is not allowable or allowable, etc. They are called mahāpadesā because they are the great domains for turning back or proceeding in other matters not spoken by the Blessed One, in what is rejected or allowed, etc. They are not the Pāḷi spoken by “What, monks, I have not rejected as ‘this is not allowable,” etc., because that Pāḷi has entered the sutta. ‘The conformity of the sutta should also be included in the sutta… the sutta is indeed more powerful’ (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1.45). That Pāḷi of intention should not be included in the sutta, nor should it be taken. Therefore, this Pāḷi of intention should be taken as the conformity of the sutta, based on the meaning as stated by individuals. Therefore, it is said ‘ye bhagavatā evaṃ vuttā’, etc. The meanings spoken as what is not allowable, etc., taken by individuals according to the Pāḷi method of “What, monks,” etc., are the great authorities,” it is said.
ID1449
Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyampi (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 45) “parivāraṭṭhakathāyaṃ idha ca kiñcāpi ’suttānulomaṃ nāma cattāro mahāpadesā’ti vuttaṃ, atha kho mahāpadesanayasiddhaṃ paṭikkhittāpaṭikkhittaṃ anuññātānanuññātaṃ kappiyākappiyanti atthato vuttaṃ hoti. Tattha yasmā ’ṭhānaṃ okāso padesoti kāraṇavevacanāni ’aṭṭhānametaṃ, ānanda, anavakāso’tiādi sāsanato, ’niggahaṭṭhāna’nti ca ’asandiṭṭhiṭṭhāna’nti ca ’asandiṭṭhi ca pana padeso’ti ca lokato, tasmā mahāpadesāti mahākāraṇānīti attho. Kāraṇaṃ nāma ñāpako hetu idhādhippetaṃ, mahantabhāvo pana tesaṃ mahāvisayattā mahābhūtānaṃ viya. Te duvidhā vinayamahāpadesā suttantikamahāpadesā cāti. Tattha vinayamahāpadesā vinaye yogaṃ gacchanti, itare ubhayatthāpi, teneva parivāre (pari. 442) anuyogavatte ’dhammaṃ na jānāti, dhammānulomaṃ na jānātī’ti” vuttaṃ. Tattha dhammanti ṭhapetvā vinayapiṭakaṃ avasesaṃ piṭakadvayaṃ, dhammānulomanti suttantike cattāro mahāpadesetiādi.
In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 45), it is said: Though in the Parivāraṭṭhakathā and here it is stated, “Suttānuloma means the four great bases,” yet in meaning it refers to what is established by the method of the great bases: what is prohibited or not prohibited, permitted or not permitted, allowable or unallowable. Therein, since “place, opportunity, basis” are synonyms for cause—as in “This is impossible, Ānanda, without opportunity” and so forth from the dispensation, and “place of censure,” “place of view,” “a basis indeed” from common usage—therefore, mahāpadesā means great causes. Cause here means an indicative reason, and their greatness is due to their vast scope, like the great elements. They are twofold: Vinaya great bases and Suttanta great bases. Therein, the Vinaya great bases apply to the Vinaya; the others apply to both. Hence in the Parivāra (pari. 442), in the context of questioning, it is said, “He does not know the Dhamma, he does not know the dhammānuloma,” and so forth. Therein, dhamma means the remaining two pitakas excluding the Vinaya Pitaka; dhammānuloma means the four great bases of the Suttanta.
In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 45) as well, “although in the Parivāra commentary and here it is said, ‘What conforms to the sutta means the four great authorities,’ nevertheless, what is established by the method of the great authorities – what is prohibited and not prohibited, what is allowed and not allowed, what is allowable and unallowable – is stated in meaning. There, because ‘place, occasion, and designation’ are synonyms for ‘reason,’ from the teaching, ‘This, Ānanda, is impossible, it is not an occasion’ and so on; and ‘place of censure’ and ‘place of non-indication’ and ‘non-indication is also a designation’ from the world; therefore, mahāpadesāti (great authorities), means great reasons. Reason means the informing cause, intended here; but their greatness is due to their great scope, like that of the great elements. They are of two kinds: Vinaya great authorities and Suttanta great authorities. Of these, the Vinaya great authorities apply to the Vinaya; the others apply to both. Therefore, in the Parivāra (pari. 442), in the section on questioning, it is said, ‘He does not know the Dhamma, he does not know what conforms to the Dhamma.’ There, dhammanti, excluding the Vinaya Piṭaka, the remaining two Piṭakas; dhammānulomanti, the four great authorities in the Suttanta, and so on.
In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Pārājika 45), “although in the Parivāra commentary and here it is said ‘the four great authorities are called the conformity of the sutta,’ nevertheless, the great authorities are established by the method of what is rejected, not rejected, allowed, not allowed, allowable, and not allowable. There, because ‘place, opportunity, and cause are synonyms,’ as in ‘this is not the place, Ānanda, there is no opportunity’ from the teaching, and ‘place of restraint’ and ‘place of doubt’ and ‘place of doubt’ from the world, therefore, mahāpadesā means the great causes. Cause means the indicator, the reason, intended here, but their greatness is due to their being great subjects, like the great elements. They are twofold: the Vinaya great authorities and the Suttanta great authorities. There, the Vinaya great authorities apply to the Vinaya, the others apply to both. Therefore, in the Parivāra (Pari. 442), in the inquiry section, ‘he does not know the Dhamma, he does not know the conformity of the Dhamma,’ etc., is said. There, dhamma means excluding the Vinaya Piṭaka, the remaining two Piṭakas, dhammānuloma means the four great authorities in the Suttanta, etc.
ID1450
Yadi sāpi tattha tattha bhagavatā pavattitā pakiṇṇakadesanāva aṭṭhakathā, sā pana dhammasaṅgāhakehi paṭhamaṃ tīṇi piṭakāni saṅgāyitvā tassa atthavaṇṇanānurūpeneva vācanāmaggaṃ āropitattā “ācariyavādo”ti vuccati “ācariyā vadanti saṃvaṇṇenti pāḷiṃ etenā”ti katvā. Tenāha “ācariyavādo nāma…pe… aṭṭhakathātantī”ti. Tisso hi saṅgītiyo āruḷhoyeva buddhavacanassa atthasaṃvaṇṇanābhūto kathāmaggo mahāmahindattherena tambapaṇṇidīpaṃ ābhato, pacchā tambapaṇṇiyehi mahātherehi sīhaḷabhāsāya ṭhapito nikāyantaraladdhisaṅkarapariharaṇatthaṃ. Bhagavato pakiṇṇakadesanābhūtā ca suttānulomabhūtā ca aṭṭhakathā yasmā dhammasaṅgāhakattherehi pāḷivaṇṇanākkamena saṅgahetvā vuttā, tasmā ācariyavādoti vuttā. Etena ca aṭṭhakathā suttasuttānulomesu atthato saṅgayhatīti veditabbaṃ. Yathā ca esā, evaṃ attanomatipi pamāṇabhūtā. Na hi bhagavato vacanaṃ vacanānulomañca anissāya aggasāvakādayopi attano ñāṇabalena suttābhidhammavinayesu kiñci sammutiparamatthabhūtaṃ atthaṃ vattuṃ sakkonti, tasmā sabbampi vacanaṃ sutte suttānulome ca saṅgayhati. Visuṃ pana aṭṭhakathādīnaṃ saṅgahitattā tadavasesaṃ suttasuttānulomato gahetvā catudhā vinayo niddiṭṭho.
Even if that too is miscellaneous teaching given by the Blessed One here and there as commentary, since it was first recited by the Dhammasaṅgāhaka elders in the three pitakas and placed in the recitation tradition in accordance with its explanation of meaning, it is called “ācariyavādo”, meaning “the teachers say, they explain the text by this.” Hence it says, “Ācariyavādo nāma… aṭṭhakathātantī”. Indeed, the discourse tradition, which is the explanation of the meaning of the Buddha’s word, ascended through the three councils, was brought to the island of Tambapaṇṇi by the Elder Mahinda, and later established in the Sinhala language by the great elders of Tambapaṇṇi to avoid confusion with other sectarian views. Since the commentary, being both the miscellaneous teaching of the Blessed One and suttānuloma, was compiled and stated by the Dhammasaṅgāhaka elders in the order of textual explanation, it is called ācariyavādo. By this, it should be understood that the commentary is included in the meaning of sutta and suttānuloma. Just as this is so, personal opinion too is authoritative. For even the chief disciples and others cannot state any meaning—conventional or ultimate—in the Sutta, Abhidhamma, or Vinaya by their own knowledge without relying on the Buddha’s word and its conformity; thus, all statements are included in sutta and suttānuloma. Yet, since the commentary and so forth are separately included, the Vinaya is designated as fourfold by taking the remainder apart from sutta and suttānuloma.
If that commentary is also the scattered teachings given by the Blessed One in various places, that is called “ācariyavādo” (teachers’ opinion) because, after the Dhamma compilers first recited the three Piṭakas, they arranged the path of expression precisely in conformity with the explanation of the meaning of that, saying “the teachers say, they explain the Pāḷi by this”. Therefore, he said, “ācariyavādo nāma…pe… aṭṭhakathātantī”ti (the teachers’ opinion is…the commentary tradition). The path of discourse, which is the explanation of the meaning of the Buddha’s word, established in the three councils, was brought to the island of Tambapaṇṇi by the elder Mahāmahinda; later, it was established in the Sīhaḷa language by the great elders of Tambapaṇṇi, in order to avoid mixing with the doctrines of other schools. And because the commentary, which is the scattered teachings of the Blessed One and what conforms to the sutta, was compiled and stated by the elder Dhamma compilers in the order of the Pāḷi explanation, it is called the teachers’ opinion. By this, it should be understood that the commentary is included in the sutta and what conforms to the sutta in meaning. And just as this is, so also is personal opinion authoritative. For even the chief disciples, etc., without relying on the word of the Blessed One and what conforms to the word, cannot, by the power of their own knowledge, state any meaning, conventional or ultimate, in the Suttas, Abhidhamma, and Vinaya; therefore, all speech is included in the sutta and what conforms to the sutta. But separately, because the commentary, etc., are included, having taken what remains from the sutta and what conforms to the sutta, the Vinaya is stated in four ways.
If even there, the scattered teachings given by the Blessed One here and there are the commentary, but because the Dhammasaṅgāhaka first recited the three Piṭakas and then established the method of recitation according to the explanation of their meaning, it is called “ācariyavādo”, meaning “the teachers say, they praise the Pāḷi by this.” Therefore, it is said “ācariyavādo nāma…pe… aṭṭhakathātantī”. The three recitations were indeed undertaken for the purpose of explaining the meaning of the Buddha’s words, the path of discussion brought by the great elder Mahinda to the island of Tambapaṇṇi, later established in the Sinhalese language by the great elders of Tambapaṇṇi to avoid the confusion of gaining from other sects. Because the commentaries, which are the scattered teachings of the Blessed One and the conformity of the suttas, were compiled by the Dhammasaṅgāhaka elders in the order of the Pāḷi explanation, they are called ācariyavādo. By this, the commentary is understood to be included in the suttas and the conformity of the suttas in meaning. Just as this is, so too is one’s own opinion authoritative. For even the chief disciples, etc., cannot state any meaning, whether conventional or ultimate, in the Suttas, Abhidhamma, or Vinaya without relying on the Buddha’s words and their conformity. Therefore, all statements are included in the suttas and the conformity of the suttas. However, because the commentaries, etc., are separately compiled, the rest is taken from the suttas and the conformity of the suttas, and the Vinaya is explained in four ways.
ID1451
Kiñcāpi attanomati suttādīhi saṃsanditvāva parikappīyati, tathāpi sā na suttādīsu visesato niddiṭṭhāti āha “suttasuttānulomaācariyavāde muñcitvā”ti. Anubuddhiyāti suttādīniyeva anugatabuddhiyā. Nayaggāhenāti suttādito labbhamānanayaggahaṇena. Attanomatiṃ sāmaññato paṭhamaṃ dassetvā idāni tameva visesetvā dassento “apicā”tiādimāha. Tattha “suttantābhidhammavinayaṭṭhakathāsū”ti vacanato piṭakattayassapi sādhāraṇā esā kathāti veditabbā. Theravādoti mahāsumattherādīnaṃ gāho. Idāni tattha paṭipajjitabbākāraṃ dassento āha “taṃ panā”tiādi. Tattha atthenāti attanā nayato gahitena atthena. Pāḷinti attano gāhassa nissayabhūtaṃ sāṭṭhakathaṃ pāḷiṃ. Pāḷiyāti tappaṭikkhepatthaṃ parenābhatāya sāṭṭhakathāya pāḷiyā, attanā gahitaṃ atthaṃ nissāya, pāḷiñca saṃsanditvāti attho. Ācariyavādeti attanā parena ca samuddhaṭaaṭṭhakathāya. Otāretabbāti ñāṇena anuppavesetabbā. Otarati ceva sameti cāti attanā uddhaṭehi saṃsandanavasena otarati, parena uddhaṭena sameti. Sabbadubbalāti asabbaññupuggalassa dosavāsanāya yāthāvato atthasampaṭipattiabhāvato vuttaṃ.
Although personal opinion is conceived in conformity with sutta and so forth, it is not specifically designated in sutta and so forth, hence it says, “Suttasuttānulomaācariyavāde muñcitvā”. Anubuddhiyā means with understanding following sutta and so forth. Nayaggāhenā means by grasping the method obtained from sutta and so forth. Having generally shown personal opinion first, now specifying it, it says, “Apicā” and so forth. Therein, “Suttantābhidhammavinayaṭṭhakathāsu” indicates that this discussion is common to all three pitakas. Theravādo means the view of elders like Mahāsuma. Now, showing the manner of practice therein, it says, “Taṃ panā” and so forth. Therein, atthenā means with the meaning grasped by one’s own method. Pāḷi means the text with commentary that is the basis of one’s view. Pāḷiyā means with the text with commentary brought by another for the purpose of refuting it; it means comparing one’s grasped meaning and the text. Ācariyavāde means in the commentary extracted by oneself and another. Otāretabbā means it must be entered into with knowledge. Otarati ceva sameti cā means it enters by comparison with what is extracted by oneself and agrees with what is extracted by another. Sabbadubbalā means all are weak because, due to the traces of faults in a non-omniscient person, there is no perfect attainment of meaning as it is.
Although personal opinion is examined only by comparing it with the sutta, etc., still, it is not specifically stated in the sutta, etc. - thus he said, “suttasuttānulomaācariyavāde muñcitvā”ti (apart from the sutta, what conforms to the sutta, and the teachers’ opinion). Anubuddhiyāti, by a mind following the sutta, etc. Nayaggāhenāti, by grasping the method obtainable from the sutta. Having first shown personal opinion in general, now, clarifying that very thing, he said, “apicā”ti, and so on. There, from the statement “suttantābhidhammavinayaṭṭhakathāsū”ti, it should be understood that this discourse is common to all three Piṭakas. Theravādoti, the opinion of Mahāsumathera and others. Now, showing the manner of practice therein, he said, “taṃ panā”tiādi (but that, etc.). There, atthenāti, by the meaning grasped by oneself, according to the method. Pāḷinti, the Pāḷi together with the commentary, which is the basis of one’s own opinion. Pāḷiyāti, by the Pāḷi together with the commentary brought by another, in order to refute that; having compared one’s own grasped meaning and the Pāḷi, that is the meaning. Ācariyavādeti, in the commentary extracted by oneself and by another. Otāretabbāti, should be entered by knowledge. Otarati ceva sameti cāti, it is applied by way of comparison with what has been extracted by oneself; it agrees with what has been extracted by another. Sabbadubbalāti, it is said because of the inability of a non-omniscient person to properly understand the meaning, due to the latent tendencies of defects.
Although one’s own opinion is formulated in conjunction with the suttas, etc., it is not specifically mentioned in the suttas, etc., thus it is said “suttasuttānulomaācariyavāde muñcitvā”. Anubuddhiyā means following the understanding of the suttas, etc. Nayaggāhenā means taking the method obtained from the suttas, etc. Having first shown one’s own opinion in general, now explaining it in detail, it is said “apicā”, etc. There, “suttantābhidhammavinayaṭṭhakathāsū” means this discussion is common to all three Piṭakas. Theravādo means the acceptance of the great elder Suma, etc. Now, showing the manner of practice there, it is said “taṃ panā”, etc. There, atthenā means by the meaning taken by oneself according to the method. Pāḷi means the Pāḷi, which is the basis of one’s acceptance, the commentary with the Pāḷi. Pāḷiyā means the Pāḷi brought by others for the purpose of rejecting it, relying on the meaning taken by oneself, and conforming to the Pāḷi. Ācariyavāde means the commentary extracted by oneself and others. Otāretabbā means it should be entered by knowledge. Otarati ceva sameti cā means it enters by means of comparison with what is extracted by oneself, and it agrees with what is extracted by others. Sabbadubbalā means the inability to fully understand the meaning due to the residual defilements of an individual who is not omniscient.
ID1452
Pamādapāṭhavasena ācariyavādassa suttānulomena asaṃsandanāpi siyāti āha “itaro na gahetabbo”ti. Samentameva gahetabbanti ye suttena saṃsandanti, evarūpāva atthā mahāpadesato uddharitabbāti dasseti tathā tathā uddhaṭaatthānaṃyeva suttānulomattā. Tenāha “suttānulomato hi suttameva balavatara”nti. Atha vā suttānulomassa suttekadesattepi sutte viya “idaṃ kappati, idaṃ na kappatī”ti paricchinditvā āhaccabhāsitaṃ kiñci natthīti āha “suttā…pe… balavatara”nti. Appaṭivattiyanti appaṭibāhiyaṃ. Kārakasaṅghasadisanti pamāṇattā saṅgītikārakasaṅghasadisaṃ. “Buddhānaṃ ṭhitakālasadisa”nti iminā buddhānaṃyeva kathitadhammabhāvaṃ dasseti, dharamānabuddhasadisanti vuttaṃ hoti. Sutte hi paṭibāhite buddhova paṭibāhito hoti. “Sakavādī suttaṃ gahetvā kathetīti sakavādī attano suttaṃ gahetvā voharati. Paravādī suttānulomanti aññanikāyavādī attano nikāye suttānulomaṃ gahetvā kathetī”ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.45) vuttaṃ.
Due to the recitation of negligence, even the non-conformity of the teacher’s opinion with the sutta might occur, thus it is said, “the other should not be accepted.” Only that which conforms should be accepted—this indicates that only meanings that conform to the sutta should be extracted according to the great standards, as only such extracted meanings possess conformity with the sutta. Therefore, it is said, “for it is due to conformity with the sutta that the sutta itself is stronger.” Alternatively, even though conformity with the sutta is a partial aspect of the sutta, there is nothing definitively stated like “this is permissible, this is not permissible” as in the sutta itself, thus it is said, “sutta…pe… stronger.” Irrefutable means unopposable. Similar to the council of compilers means akin to the council of those who recited it, due to its authoritative measure. “Similar to the time of the Buddhas’ establishment”—by this, it shows that it is indeed the doctrine taught by the Buddhas, meaning it is akin to a living Buddha. For when the sutta is opposed, it is as if the Buddha himself is opposed. “The proponent of one’s own doctrine takes and expounds the sutta”—the proponent of one’s own doctrine takes and uses their own sutta. “The opponent uses conformity with the sutta”—a proponent of another sect takes and expounds what conforms to the sutta in their own sect, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.45).
He says “itaro na gahetabbo” [the other is not to be accepted] because, due to the reading “negligence,” the statement of the teachers might not be consistent with what accords with the suttas. Saying, “Samentameva gahetabba” [Only what accords should be accepted], he indicates that only such meanings as are consistent with the suttas should be extracted from the Great Authorities (mahāpadesa), because the meanings extracted in such a way accord with the suttas. Therefore, he said, “suttānulomato hi suttameva balavatara” [indeed, what accords with a sutta, is more authoritative because it is a sutta]. Or, even though the meaning which corresponds with Sutta is a part of Sutta, there is nothing that stated definitively, like in the sutta, declaring, “This is allowable, this is not allowable.” Therefore, he said “suttā…pe… balavatara” [from the Sutta…etc…is more authoritative]. Appaṭivattiyati means unassailable. Kārakasaṅghasadisanti means, comparable to the assembly of compilers (of the Buddhist Canon), in authority. By saying, “Buddhānaṃ ṭhitakālasadisa” [comparable to the time when the Buddhas lived], it points out that what they speak is the Dhamma spoken by Buddhas themselves. It means that it is similar to a Buddha who keeps abiding in Dhamma. Because when a Sutta is refuted, the Buddha himself is refuted. “Sakavādī suttaṃ gahetvā kathetīti means a proponent of his own view quotes a sutta of his own. Paravādī suttānulomanti means a proponent of another school quotes what accords with the suttas in their own school,” it is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.45).
In the sense of the ground of heedlessness, even if there is no agreement with the teacher’s statement, it is said, “the other should not be accepted.” “Only what is in agreement should be accepted”—thus, those who are in accordance with the sutta should be understood in this way. The meanings extracted in various ways should be in accordance with the sutta. Therefore, it is said, “for what is in accordance with the sutta, the sutta itself is indeed stronger.” Alternatively, even if only a part of the sutta is in accordance, it should be determined as “this is allowable, this is not allowable,” and nothing should be added beyond what is spoken. Thus, it is said, “the sutta… is indeed stronger.” “Unopposable” means not to be obstructed. “Similar to the Sangha of the compilers” means it is comparable to the Sangha of the compilers of the Council. “Similar to the time of the Buddhas”—this indicates that it is the nature of the Dhamma spoken by the Buddhas themselves. It is said to be similar to the time of the present Buddha. For if the sutta is opposed, the Buddha himself is opposed. “One who speaks according to his own tradition takes up the sutta and speaks”—thus, one who speaks according to his own tradition takes up his own sutta and declares it. “One who speaks according to another tradition”—one belonging to another sect takes up what is in accordance with the sutta of his own sect and speaks. This is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.45).
ID1453
Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.45) pana “sakavādī suttaṃ gahetvā kathetītiādīsu yo yathābhūtamatthaṃ gahetvā kathanasīlo, so sakavādī. Suttanti saṅgītittayāruḷhaṃ pāḷivacanaṃ. Paravādīti mahāvihāravāsī vā hotu aññanikāyavāsī vā, yo viparītato atthaṃ gahetvā kathanasīlo, sova idha ’paravādī’ti vutto. Suttānulomanti saṅgītittayāruḷhaṃ vā anāruḷhaṃ vā yaṃ kiñci vipallāsato vā vañcanāya vā ’saṅgītittayāgatamida’nti dassiyamānaṃ suttānulomaṃ. Keci ’aññanikāye suttānuloma’nti vadanti, taṃ na yuttaṃ sakavādīparavādīnaṃ ubhinnampi saṅgītittayāruḷhasuttādīnameva gahetabbato. Tathā hi vakkhati ’tisso saṅgītiyo āruḷhaṃ pāḷiāgataṃ paññāyati, gahetabba’ntiādi (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.45). Na hi sakavādī aññanikāyasuttādiṃ pamāṇato gaṇhāti. Yena tesu suttādīsu dassitesu tattha ṭhātabbaṃ bhaveyya, vakkhati ca ’paro tassa akappiyabhāvasādhakaṃ suttato bahuṃ kāraṇañca vinicchayañca dasseti…pe… sādhūti sampaṭicchitvā akappiyeyeva ṭhātabba’nti (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.45), tasmā paravādināpi saṅgītittaye anāruḷhampi anāruḷhamicceva dassīyati, kevalaṃ tassa tassa suttādino saṅgītittaye anāgatassa kūṭatā, āgatassa ca byañjanacchāyāya aññathā adhippāyayojanā ca visesā, tattha ca yaṃ kūṭaṃ, taṃ apanīyati. Yaṃ aññathā yojitaṃ, taṃ tassa viparītatādassanatthaṃ tadaññena suttādinā saṃsandanā karīyati. Yo pana paravādinā gahito adhippāyo suttantādinā saṃsandati, so sakavādināpi attano gāhaṃ vissajjetvā gahetabboti ubhinnampi saṅgītittayāgatameva suttaṃ pamāṇanti veditabbaṃ. Teneva kathāvatthupakaraṇe ’sakavāde pañca suttasatāni paravāde pañcā’ti, suttasahassampi adhippāyaggahaṇanānattena saṅgītittayāgatameva gahitaṃ, na nikāyantare”ti vuttaṃ.
However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.45), regarding “the proponent of one’s own doctrine takes and expounds the sutta” and so forth, it is said: One who is accustomed to expounding by taking the meaning as it truly is, that one is the proponent of one’s own doctrine. Sutta refers to the canonical text established in the three councils. Opponent—whether a resident of the Mahāvihāra or of another sect—whoever is accustomed to expounding by taking the meaning in a contrary way is called the “opponent” here. Conformity with the sutta—whether established in the three councils or not, anything that is presented as “this comes from the three councils” through distortion or deceit is conformity with the sutta. Some say, “conformity with the sutta in another sect,” but this is not proper, since both the proponent and opponent should take only what is established in the three councils, such as the sutta. Indeed, it will be said, “The canonical text established in the three councils is known and should be accepted” and so on (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.45). The proponent of one’s own doctrine does not take the sutta of another sect as authoritative. If it were so, one would have to stand by what is shown in those suttas. It will also be said, “The opponent shows much reasoning and judgment from the sutta to prove its impermissibility…pe… having accepted it as ‘well said,’ one should stand by its impermissibility” (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.45). Therefore, even by the opponent, what is not established in the three councils is shown as unestablished, and the distinction lies merely in the spuriousness of a sutta not found in the three councils, or in the alternate interpretation of intent through the shadow of wording in what is found there. What is spurious is removed, and what is interpreted differently is compared with another sutta or similar text to show its contrary nature. However, an intent taken by the opponent that conforms to the sutta or similar text should be accepted by the proponent, relinquishing their own grasp, as both should understand the sutta established in the three councils as the authority. Thus, in the Kathāvatthupakaraṇa, it is said, “In one’s own doctrine, five hundred suttas; in the opponent’s, five,” and even a thousand suttas, though differing in the grasp of intent, are taken as established in the three councils, not from another sect.
However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.45), in regard to “sakavādī suttaṃ gahetvā kathetīti” etc., he who is in the habit of explaining after grasping the meaning as it really is, he is the sakavādī (proponent of his own view). Suttanti means the canonical word (pāḷivacanaṃ) established in the three councils. Paravādīti, whether he is a resident of the Mahāvihāra or one of another sect, whoever is in the habit of explaining after grasping the meaning in a distorted way, only he is here called ‘paravādī’ (proponent of the other view). Suttānulomanti means any Sutta that is perverted or a fabrication, whether it has come down through three Councils or not, that pretends that it is “the meaning consistent with Sutta which is come down through Three Councils”. Some say ‘the suttānuloma in another sect,’ but that is not correct because both proponents of one’s own view and other view have to take only those [texts] which is brought down through the three councils, such as suttas and so on. Thus, he will say ‘what has come down in the Pāli that has been rehearsed in the three councils is recognized as to be accepted’ and so on (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.45). Indeed, a proponent of his own view does not accept a sutta, etc., of another school as authoritative. As a result, When those suttas and so on are presented to them, they should stay on that, and he will also say, ‘the other shows many reasons and decisions from the sutta proving the unallowable nature of that…etc… having approved with ’it is well’, one should remain only in the unallowable’ (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.45), therefore, even what has not been brought down in the three councils is presented by the proponent of the other view as only not having been brought down. Only, the fakeness of that sutta etc. that have not come down in the three councils, and the interpretation according to a different intention through the guise of the wording of what has come down are the special features. And therein, whatever is fake is removed. Whatever is interpreted differently, its comparison is made with another sutta, etc., by one who knows that, in order to show its distorted nature. But, whatever intention that is taken by the proponent of the other view that agrees with the Suttanta and so on, that should be taken by the proponent of his own view after abandoning his own grasp. Therefore it should be understood that the sutta that has come down in the three councils is authoritative for both. Therefore, in the Kathāvatthupakaraṇa, it is said, ‘five hundred suttas in one’s own view and five in the other view’, even a thousand suttas, due to the difference in grasping the meaning, only what has come down in the three councils is taken, not what is in other schools.’
In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.45), however, “one who speaks according to his own tradition takes up the sutta and speaks”—here, one who is accustomed to speaking after grasping the meaning as it truly is, is called “one who speaks according to his own tradition.” “Sutta” means the Pāli text included in the three Councils. “One who speaks according to another tradition”—whether a resident of the Mahāvihāra or another sect, one who is accustomed to speaking after grasping the meaning in a distorted way is here called “one who speaks according to another tradition.” “In accordance with the sutta”—whether included in the three Councils or not, whatever is shown to be in accordance with the three Councils through distortion or deceit is called “in accordance with the sutta.” Some say, “in accordance with the sutta of another sect,” but this is not correct, for both the one who speaks according to his own tradition and the one who speaks according to another tradition should take up only what is included in the three Councils. For it is said, “the three Councils are recognized as the Pāli that has come down, and it should be taken up” (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1.45). Indeed, one who speaks according to his own tradition does not take the sutta of another sect as authoritative. When such suttas are shown, one should stand by them, and it is said, “the other, having shown much reasoning and judgment from the sutta to establish its unallowability… having accepted it as good, should stand by what is unallowable” (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1.45). Therefore, even for one who speaks according to another tradition, what is not included in the three Councils should be shown as not included. Only the falsity of what has not come down in the three Councils, and the distortion of the wording and meaning of what has come down, should be removed. What has been distorted should be corrected by comparing it with another sutta. However, if the meaning taken up by one who speaks according to another tradition agrees with the sutta, then even one who speaks according to his own tradition should relinquish his own view and accept it. Thus, it should be understood that for both, only the sutta included in the three Councils is authoritative. Therefore, in the Kathāvatthupakaraṇa, it is said, “in one’s own tradition, five hundred suttas; in another tradition, five,” and even a thousand suttas are taken as included in the three Councils due to the diversity of meaning, not as belonging to another sect.
ID1454
Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 45) pana “paravādīti amhākaṃ samayavijānanako aññanikāyikoti vuttaṃ. Paravādī suttānulomanti kathaṃ? ’Aññatra udakadantaponā’ti suttaṃ sakavādissa, tadanulomato nāḷikeraphalassa udakampi udakameva hotīti paravādī ca.
In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 45), however, it is said: “Opponent” refers to one from another sect who understands our tradition. “The opponent uses conformity with the sutta”—how so? The sutta “except for water used to clean teeth” belongs to the proponent of one’s own doctrine, and in conformity with it, the opponent also holds that even the water of a coconut fruit is simply water.
However, in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 45), “paravādī” means ‘one of another sect who knows our doctrine’. How is paravādī suttānuloma [an opponent using suttanta-conformity]? ‘Except for water and tooth-cleaning sticks’ is a sutta for a proponent of his own view; consistent with that, even the water of a coconut is just water - so says the proponent of the other view.
In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Pārājika 45), however, “one who speaks according to another tradition” is said to be one who knows the time of another sect. “One who speaks according to another tradition in accordance with the sutta”—how? The sutta “apart from water, toothwood” is for one who speaks according to his own tradition, but in accordance with it, the water of a coconut fruit is also just water, says one who speaks according to another tradition.
ID1455
’Nāḷikerassa yaṃ toyaṃ, purāṇaṃ pittavaḍḍhanaṃ; Tameva taruṇaṃ toyaṃ, pittaghaṃ balavaḍḍhana’nti. –
“The water of a coconut, when old, increases bile; that same water, when fresh, destroys bile and increases strength.”—
‘The liquid of a coconut, that is old, increases bile; that same young liquid, destroys bile and increases strength.’ –
“The water of the coconut, old, increases bile; the same water, young, destroys bile and increases strength.”
ID1456
Evaṃ paravādinā vutte sakavādī dhaññaphalassa gatikattā, āhāratthassa ca pharaṇato ’yāvakālikameva ta’nti vadanto paṭikkhipatī”ti. Khepaṃ vā garahaṃ vā akatvāti “kiṃ iminā”ti khepaṃ paṭikkhepaṃ chaḍḍanaṃ vā “kimesa bālo vadati, kimesa bālo jānātī”ti garahaṃ nindaṃ vā akatvā. Suttānulomanti attanā avuttaṃ aññanikāye suttānulomaṃ. “Sutte otāretabbanti sakavādinā sutte otāretabba”nti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.45). Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.45) pana “sutte otāretabbanti yassa suttassa anulomanato idaṃ suttānulomaṃ akāsi, tasmiṃ, tadanurūpe vā aññatarasmiṃ sutte attanā gahitaṃ suttānulomaṃ atthato saṃsandanavasena otāretabbaṃ. ’Iminā ca iminā ca kāraṇena imasmiṃ sutte saṃsandatī’ti saṃsandetvā dassetabbanti attho”ti vuttaṃ. Suttasmiṃyeva ṭhātabbanti attano sutteyeva ṭhātabbaṃ. Ayanti sakavādī. Paroti paravādī. Ācariyavādo sutte otāretabboti yassa suttassa saṃvaṇṇanāvasena ayaṃ ācariyavādo pavatto, tasmiṃ, tādise ca aññasmiṃ sutte pubbāparaatthasaṃsandanavasena otāretabbaṃ. Gārayhācariyavādoti pamādalikhito, bhinnaladdhikehi ca ṭhapito, esa nayo sabbattha.
When the opponent says this, the proponent of one’s own doctrine, due to the nature of a grain fruit and its nourishing quality, counters, saying, “It is only permissible as a daytime food,” thus rejecting it. “Without disparagement or reproach”—without disparagement, meaning rejection or dismissal like “What is this?” or reproach, meaning criticism like “What does this fool say? What does this fool know?” Conformity with the sutta—something not stated by oneself but conforming to the sutta in another sect. “It should be traced to the sutta”—the proponent of one’s own doctrine should trace it to the sutta, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.45). However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.45), it is said: “It should be traced to the sutta”—the conformity with the sutta that one has made according to a certain sutta or another consistent with it should be traced by comparing it to the meaning of the conformity with the sutta one has taken, showing “It conforms to this sutta for this and that reason.” “One should stand by the sutta itself”—one should stand by one’s own sutta alone. This one refers to the proponent of one’s own doctrine. The other refers to the opponent. “The teacher’s opinion should be traced to the sutta”—the teacher’s opinion, expressed as a commentary on a certain sutta, should be traced to that sutta or another similar one by comparing the meaning of its prior and subsequent parts. “A contemptible teacher’s opinion”—one written negligently or established by those of differing views; this method applies everywhere.
When a proponent of the other view says this, the proponent of his own view refutes saying that it is [considered] a cereal because it can move from place to place, and it extends that which is for the purpose of nutriment, so “it is only allowed for the specified time.” Khepaṃ vā garahaṃ vā akatvāti means without making a dismissal, “What of this?” a rejection, throwing away; or making a blame or reproach like, “What does this fool say, what does this fool know?”. Suttānulomanti means the meaning consistent with Sutta, that are not spoken by oneself but found in another school. In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.45) it is said that “Sutte otāretabba” [should be brought down to Suttas], means ‘a proponent of his own view should bring down to the Suttas’. However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.45), “sutte otāretabba”ti means ‘it should be aligned, by way of comparison in meaning, with the suttanta with which one made the inference for accordance to the Sutta, or with another similar suttanta. The meaning is that it should be presented having aligned [them, saying,] ‘It accords with this suttanta because of these and these reasons.’ Suttasmiṃyeva ṭhātabbanti means one should stay firm only on one’s Sutta. Ayanti means the proponent of own view. Paroti means the opponent. Ācariyavādo sutte otāretabboti means the commentary is to be applied to the sutta which it glosses, or another similar one, connecting the meanings of what comes before and after. Gārayhācariyavādoti means what is written down carelessly, and what has been established by those of wrong view; this method applies everywhere.
Thus, when one who speaks according to another tradition speaks thus, one who speaks according to his own tradition, due to the nature of grain fruits and their nourishing quality, says, “it is only temporary,” and rejects it. “Without rejection or censure”—without saying, “what is this?” or rejecting it, or discarding it, or saying, “what does this fool say, what does this fool know?” and censuring or blaming. “In accordance with the sutta”—what is not spoken by oneself but is in accordance with the sutta of another sect. “Should be brought down to the sutta”—thus, one who speaks according to his own tradition should bring it down to the sutta, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.45). In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.45), however, “should be brought down to the sutta”—whatever sutta has been made in accordance with this, in that or in another similar sutta, the meaning taken up should be brought down by comparing it. ‘By this and this reason, it agrees with this sutta’—thus, it should be shown by comparison. “Should stand by the sutta itself”—one should stand by one’s own sutta. “This”—one who speaks according to his own tradition. “The other”—one who speaks according to another tradition. “The teacher’s statement should be brought down to the sutta”—whatever sutta has been praised, in that or in another sutta, the teacher’s statement should be brought down by comparing the earlier and later meanings. “A blameworthy teacher’s statement”—written out of negligence, or established by those of wrong views, this is the method in all cases.
ID1457
Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 45) pana – paro ācariyavādanti “suṅkaṃ pariharatīti ettha upacāraṃ okkamitvā kiñcāpi pariharati, avahāro evā”ti aṭṭhakathāvacanato “tathā karonto pārājikamāpajjatī”ti paravādinā vutte sakavādī “suṅkaṃ pariharati, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti suttaṃ tattheva āgatamahāaṭṭhakathāvacanena saddhiṃ dassetvā paṭisedheti. Tathā karontassa dukkaṭamevāti. Paro attanomatinti ettha “purebhattaṃ parasantakaṃ avaharāti purebhattameva harissāmīti vāyamantassa pacchābhattaṃ hoti, purebhattapayogova so, tasmā mūlaṭṭho na muccatīti tumhākaṃ theravādattā mūlaṭṭhassa pārājikamevā”ti paravādinā vutte sakavādī “taṃ saṅketaṃ pure vā pacchā vā taṃ bhaṇḍaṃ avaharati, mūlaṭṭhassa anāpattī”ti suttaṃ dassetvā paṭikkhipati.
In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 45), however, it is said: The opponent’s teacher’s opinion—“In ‘avoiding customs duty,’ even though one avoids it by entering through a detour, it is still theft”—based on the commentary’s statement, when the opponent says, “One who does so commits a pārājika offense,” the proponent of one’s own doctrine counters, showing with the sutta “avoiding customs duty, an offense of wrong conduct” along with the statement from the great commentary found there, that it is only an offense of wrong conduct for one who does so. The opponent’s own view—here, when the opponent says, “ ‘Stealing another’s property before noon’—if one strives to steal before noon but it happens after noon, it is still a pre-noon effort, so due to your Theravāda, the original intent remains, and it is a pārājika offense,” the proponent of one’s own doctrine counters, showing the sutta, “Whether before or after, if one steals that property intentionally, there is no offense for the original intent,” thus rejecting it.
However, in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 45) – paro ācariyavādanti means, ‘in the statement ‘he avoids tax,’ even though he avoids, having crossed over into the vicinity, it is a transaction.’ When it is said by a proponent of the other view that, ‘One who does like that falls into a pārājika’ according to the statement of the commentary, a proponent of his own view refutes, showing, ‘he avoids tax, there is a dukkaṭa offense’ along with the statement of the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā that has come there itself. For one doing thus, there is only a dukkaṭa. Paro attanomatinti: Here, in the statement “purebhattaṃ parasantakaṃ avaharā” [‘taking before the meal what belongs to another’], for one who striving thinking, ‘I will take it only before the meal’, it becomes after-the-meal; it is only an action of before-the-meal; therefore, the owner is not freed.’ When a proponent of the other view says, ‘Since it is your Theravāda, for the owner, there is a pārājika offense,’, a proponent of his own view refutes by showing the sutta, ‘That agreement, whether before or after, he steals that goods; the owner has no offense’.
In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Pārājika 45), however—“the other’s teacher’s statement”—“carrying around a tax,” here, having entered into a metaphor, even though he carries it around, it is just theft. From the commentary, “thus doing, he commits a pārājika offense,” when one who speaks according to another tradition says thus, one who speaks according to his own tradition says, “carrying around a tax, the offense is a dukkaṭa,” and rejects it by showing the sutta along with the great commentary. Thus doing, it is only a dukkaṭa. “The other’s own opinion”—here, “stealing before the meal”—intending to steal before the meal, but it becomes after the meal, thus the effort is for the before-meal, therefore the root is not freed, according to your Theravāda, the root is a pārājika offense,” when one who speaks according to another tradition says thus, one who speaks according to his own tradition says, “whether before or after, that article is stolen, there is no offense for the root,” and rejects it by showing the sutta.
ID1458
Paro suttanti “aniyatahetudhammo sammattaniyatahetudhammassa ārammaṇapaccayena paccayo”ti suttaṃ paṭṭhāne likhitaṃ dassetvā “ariyamaggassa na nibbānamevārammaṇa”nti paravādinā vutte sakavādī ārammaṇattikādisuttānulomena otaratīti paṭikkhipati. Suttānulome otarantaṃyeva hi suttaṃ nāma, netaraṃ. Tena vuttaṃ “pāḷiāgataṃ paññāyatī”ti ettakenapi siddhe “tisso saṅgītiyo āruḷhaṃ pāḷiāgataṃ paññāyatī”tiādi. Tādisañhi pamādalekhanti ācariyo. “Appamādo amatapadaṃ, pamādo maccuno pada”nti (dha. pa. 21) vacanato dinnabhojane bhuñjitvā parissayāni parivajjitvā satiṃ paccupaṭṭhapetvā viharanto nicco hotīti. Evarūpassa atthassa āruḷhampi suttaṃ na gahetabbaṃ. Tena vuttaṃ “no ce tathā paññāyatī”ti siddhepi “no ce tathā paññāyati, na otarati na sametīti. Bāhirakasuttaṃ vā”ti vuttattā attano suttampi atthena asamentaṃ na gahetabbaṃ. Paro ācariyavādantiādīsu dvīsu nayesu pamādalekhavasena tattha tattha āgataṭṭhakathāvacanaṃ theravādehi saddhiṃ yojetvā veditabbaṃ.
The opponent’s sutta—when the opponent, showing the sutta written in the Paṭṭhāna, “A condition with an uncertain cause is a condition for a factor with a certain cause through the condition of object,” says, “The noble path does not have only nibbāna as its object,” the proponent of one’s own doctrine counters by tracing it with conformity to the sutta, such as the Ārammaṇattika. For only that which is traced in conformity with the sutta is called a sutta, not otherwise. Thus, it is said, “The canonical text is known,” and even with this alone it is established, “The canonical text established in the three councils is known” and so forth. Such a text is written negligently, as the teacher says, “Heedfulness is the path to the deathless; negligence is the path to death” (dha. pa. 21). One who, having eaten given food, avoids dangers, establishes mindfulness, and dwells thus becomes constant—this kind of meaning, even if established in a sutta, should not be accepted. Thus, it is said, “If it is not so known,” and even though established, “If it is not so known, it neither traces nor conforms.” “An external sutta”—because it is said so, even one’s own sutta that does not conform in meaning should not be accepted. The opponent’s teacher’s opinion and so forth—in these two methods, the commentary statements found here and there due to negligent writing should be understood as aligned with the Theravāda.
Paro suttanti: When a proponent of the other view shows the written statement of the Paṭṭhāna, ‘The condition that causes uncertainty is a condition through object-predominance for the condition that causes certainty,’ and says, ‘For the noble path, nibbāna is not the only object,’ a proponent of his own view refutes, bringing it down by accordance with the Sutta on the three of object and so on. Indeed, what is called Sutta is only that accords with the Sutta, not the other. Therefore, it is said, “What is stated in the Pāli has come down in the three councils’ even though it is already established with this much, it further says ‘tisso saṅgītiyo āruḷhaṃ pāḷiāgataṃ paññāyatī’ and so on. The teacher says, ‘Such a thing is negligent writing’. From the saying,”Non-negligence is the path to the deathless; negligence is the path to death” (dha. pa. 21), one is permanent when one eats the given food, avoids dangers and maintains mindfulness. Even a sutta that has come down containing such a meaning should not be accepted. Therefore it is said, even though it is established with “no ce tathā paññāyatī” [if it is not so known], it says “no ce tathā paññāyati, na otarati na sameti” [if it is not so known, it does not descend, it does not agree]. Since it is said, “Bāhirakasuttaṃ vā” [or an external sutta], even one’s own sutta, that does not agree in meaning should not be accepted. In such cases like paro ācariyavādanti [another’s commentarial statement] the two methods should be understood having combined the commentarial statements, which are found here and there, due to negligent writing, with the Theravāda tradition.
“The other’s sutta”—“the indeterminate nature of phenomena is a condition for the determinate nature of phenomena as an object condition,” showing the sutta written in the Paṭṭhāna, “the noble path has only nibbāna as its object,” when one who speaks according to another tradition says thus, one who speaks according to his own tradition rejects it by bringing it down in accordance with the sutta on the object triad. For bringing it down in accordance with the sutta is indeed called the sutta, not the other. Therefore, it is said, “the Pāli that has come down is recognized,” thus even with this much, “the three Councils are recognized as the Pāli that has come down” and so on. For such a teacher writes out of negligence. “Heedfulness is the path to the deathless, heedlessness is the path to death” (Dha. Pa. 21), thus having eaten the given meal, avoiding dangers, establishing mindfulness, he dwells constantly. For such a meaning, even if a sutta is included, it should not be taken up. Therefore, it is said, “if it is not recognized thus,” even if established, “if it is not recognized thus, it should not be brought down or accepted. An external sutta”—thus, even one’s own sutta, if it does not agree in meaning, should not be taken up. “The other’s teacher’s statement” and so on—in these two methods, the commentary should be understood by connecting it with the Theravāda.
ID1459
Athāyaṃ ācariyavādaṃ gahetvā katheti, paro suttanti paravādinā “mūlabījaṃ nāma haliddi siṅgiveraṃ vacā…pe… bīje bījasaññī chindati vā chedāpeti vā bhindati vā…pe… āpatti pācittiyassā”ti (pāci. 91) tumhākaṃ pāṭhattā “haliddigaṇṭhiṃ chindantassa pācittiya”nti vutte sakavādī “yāni vā panaññāni atthi mūle jāyanti, mūle sañjāyantī”tiādiṃ dassetvā tassa aṭṭhakathāsaṅkhātena ācariyavādena paṭikkhipati. Na hi gaṇṭhimhi gaṇṭhi jāyatīti. Paro suttānulomanti paravādinā “anāpatti evaṃ amhākaṃ ācariyānaṃ uggaho”ti vacanassānulomato “amhākaṃ porāṇabhikkhū ekapāsāde gabbhaṃ thaketvā anupasampannena sayituṃ vaṭṭatīti tathā katvā āgatā, tasmā amhākaṃ vaṭṭatīti tumhesu eva ekaccesu vadantesu “tumhākaṃ na kiñci vattuṃ sakkā”ti vutte sakavādī “suttaṃ suttānulomañca uggahitakānaṃyeva ācariyānaṃ uggaho pamāṇa”ntiādiaṭṭhakathāvacanaṃ dassetvā paṭisedheti. Paro attanomatinti “dvāraṃ vivaritvā anāpucchā sayitesu ke muccantī”ti ettha pana dvepi janā muccanti – yo ca yakkhagahitako, yo ca bandhitvā nipajjāpitoti tumhākaṃ theravādattā aññe sabbepi yathā tathā vā nipannādayopi muccantīti paṭisedheti.
Now, this one expounds by taking the teacher’s opinion, the opponent’s sutta—when the opponent says, due to your text, “The root-seed means turmeric, ginger, vacā…pe… one who cuts, has cut, or breaks a seed with the perception of a seed…pe… incurs an offense of expiation” (pāci. 91), “Cutting a turmeric bulb incurs an offense of expiation,” the proponent of one’s own doctrine counters with “Or whatever else exists that grows from a root, arises from a root” and so on, rejecting it with the teacher’s opinion known as the commentary. For a bulb does not grow from a bulb. The opponent’s conformity with the sutta—when the opponent says, “There is no offense; this is the tradition of our teachers,” and in conformity with that statement, “Our ancient monks, having secured a room in a single monastery, deemed it permissible to sleep with an unordained person and acted accordingly, so it is permissible for us,” and when some of you say, “You cannot say anything,” the proponent of one’s own doctrine counters, showing the commentary statement, “The sutta and conformity with the sutta are the authority only for the traditions of those who have learned them,” thus refuting it. The opponent’s own view—regarding “Who is released when sleeping without permission after opening the door?”—according to your Theravāda, both are released: one possessed by a spirit and one bound and laid down; thus, all others lying down in any manner are also released, and he refutes it.
Athāyaṃ ācariyavādaṃ gahetvā katheti, paro suttanti: When a proponent of the other view says, ‘Since the root-seed is turmeric, ginger, sweet flag…etc…; one who with the intention of seed, cuts or causes to cut, breaks…etc… a seed, there is an offence of expiation’ (pāci. 91) is your reading; Therefore ‘One who is cutting the Turmeric bulb has an Pacittiya offense.’, a proponent of his own view, refutes with the commentary, which is the statement of the commentary, by showing statements like, ‘Or, there are others which arise from the root, are born from the root’. Indeed, a bulb is not born from a bulb. Paro suttānulomanti: When a proponent of the other view says, ‘Consistent with the statement, ’For us, there is no offence; this is the received tradition of our teachers,’ some of you say, ‘It is allowable for our ancient monks to sleep with an unordained person having closed off a room in a single-story building; Therefore, it is allowable for us,’ and when it is said, ‘Nothing can be said to you,’ a proponent of his own view refutes by showing the commentarial statement such as, ‘The received tradition of only those teachers who have learned the Sutta and what accords with the Sutta is authoritative.’
“Then, taking up the teacher’s statement, he speaks, the other’s sutta”—when one who speaks according to another tradition says, “the root seed is turmeric, ginger, vacā… cutting or causing to be cut or breaking the seed with the perception of a seed… the offense is a pācittiya” (Pāci. 91), and you recite, “cutting a turmeric root, the offense is a pācittiya,” one who speaks according to his own tradition says, “whatever other things arise from the root, are born from the root,” and so on, and rejects it by showing the teacher’s statement called the commentary. For a knot does not arise from a knot. “The other’s sutta in accordance”—when one who speaks according to another tradition says, “there is no offense, thus our teachers have learned,” in accordance with this statement, “our ancient monks, having closed the room in a single building, it is allowable for an unordained person to sleep,” thus having done so, they have come, therefore it is allowable for us,” when some of you say thus, “you have nothing to say,” one who speaks according to his own tradition says, “the sutta and what is in accordance with the sutta are indeed the learning of the teachers who have learned,” and so on, and rejects it by showing the commentary. “The other’s own opinion”—“opening the door without asking, who are freed among those who sleep?” here, two people are freed—one who is possessed by a yakkha, and one who is bound and made to lie down, according to your Theravāda, all others, even those lying down and so on, are freed,” and rejects it.
ID1460
Atha panāyaṃ attanomatiṃ gahetvā katheti, paro suttanti “āpattiṃ āpajjantī”ti paravādinā vutte sakavādī “divā kilantarūpo mañce nisinno pāde bhūmito amocetvāva niddāvasena nipajjati, tassa anāpattī”tiādiaṭṭhakathāvacanaṃ dassetvā ekabhaṅgena nipannādayopi muccantīti paṭisedheti.
Now, this one expounds by taking their own view, the opponent’s sutta—when the opponent says, “They incur an offense,” the proponent of one’s own doctrine counters, showing the commentary statement, “One exhausted during the day sits on a couch without lifting their feet from the ground and lies down due to sleepiness; there is no offense for them,” and with a single argument, even those lying partially are released, thus refuting it.
Paro attanomatinti: Here, in ‘Having opened the door, who are released among those sleeping without asking permission?’, both persons are released – he who is seized by a yakkha, and he who is made to lie down having been tied up; since it is your Theravāda, he refutes saying, ‘All others are released, also those who slept however or else.’
“Then, taking up his own opinion, he speaks, the other’s sutta”—when one who speaks according to another tradition says, “they commit an offense,” one who speaks according to his own tradition says, “one who is tired during the day, sitting on a bed, without freeing his feet from the ground, sleeps due to sleepiness, there is no offense for him,” and so on, and rejects it by showing the commentary, saying that even those lying down and so on are freed in one way.
ID1461
Athāyaṃ attanomatiṃ gahetvā katheti, paro suttānulomanti “domanassampāhaṃ devānaminda duvidhena vadāmi sevitabbampi asevitabbampītiādivacanehi (dī. ni. 2.360) saṃsandanato sadārapose doso tumhākaṃ natthi, tena vuttaṃ ’puttadārassa saṅgaho”ti (khu. pā. 5.6; su. ni. 265) paravādinā vutte “kiñcāpi sakavādī bahussuto na hoti, atha kho rāgasahiteneva akusalena bhavitabba”nti paṭikkhipati. Sesesupi iminā nayena aññathāpi anurūpato yojetabbaṃ, idaṃ sabbaṃ upatissattherādayo āhu. Dhammasiritthero pana “ettha paroti vutto aññanikāyiko, so pana attano suttādīniyeva āharati, tāni sakavādī attano suttādimhi otāretvā sace sameti, gaṇhāti. No ce, paṭikkhipatī”ti vadatīti āgataṃ.
Now, this one expounds by taking their own view, the opponent’s conformity with the sutta—when the opponent says, “Due to statements like ‘I say, O Lord of the gods, that displeasure is twofold: to be pursued and not to be pursued’ (dī. ni. 2.360), there is no fault in always supporting a wife, hence it is said, ‘Support for sons and wife’ (khu. pā. 5.6; su. ni. 265),” the proponent counters, “Even if the proponent of one’s own doctrine is not very learned, one must still be unskillful due to attachment,” thus rejecting it. In the rest, this method can also be applied differently as appropriate; all this was said by Upatissa Thera and others. However, Dhammasiri Thera says, “Here, the opponent refers to one from another sect, who brings only their own suttas and so forth; the proponent of one’s own doctrine traces them in their own sutta and, if they conform, accepts them; if not, rejects them.”
Atha panāyaṃ attanomatiṃ gahetvā katheti, paro suttanti: When a proponent of the other view says, ‘committing an offense,’ a proponent of his own view refutes showing a commentarial statement like, ‘He who, during the day, being tired, sits on a bed, and without moving his feet from the ground, lies down through the influence of sleep, he has no offence,’ and says, ‘Those who lie down in one posture, etc., are also released.’
“Then, taking up his own opinion, he speaks, the other’s sutta in accordance”—“I declare, O king of the gods, sorrow is of two kinds, to be cultivated and not to be cultivated,” and so on (Dī. Ni. 2.360), by comparison, “you have no fault in the proper support of a wife, therefore it is said, ‘the support of wife and children’” (Khu. Pā. 5.6; Su. Ni. 265), when one who speaks according to another tradition says thus, “even if one who speaks according to his own tradition is not learned, still, one should act with unwholesome qualities accompanied by lust,” and rejects it. In the rest, this method should be applied in other appropriate ways, all this is said by the elders like Upatissa. The elder Dhammasiri, however, says, “here, ‘the other’ is said to be one of another sect, but he brings only his own suttas, and one who speaks according to his own tradition brings them down to his own sutta, and if they agree, he accepts them. If not, he rejects them,” thus it is said.
ID1462
Nanu ca “suttānulomato suttameva balavatara”nti heṭṭhā vuttaṃ, idha pana “suttaṃ suttānulome otāretabba”ntiādi kasmā vuttanti? Nāyaṃ virodho, “suttānulomato suttameva balavatara”nti idañhi sakamateyeva suttaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Tattha hi sakamatipariyāpannameva suttādiṃ sandhāya “attanomati sabbadubbalā, attanomatito ācariyavādo balavataro, ācariyavādato suttānulomaṃ balavataraṃ, suttānulomato suttameva balavatara”nti ca vuttaṃ. Idha pana paravādinā ānītaṃ aññanikāye suttaṃ sandhāya “suttānulome suttaṃ otāretabba”ntiādi vuttaṃ, tasmā paravādinā ānītaṃ suttādi attano suttānulomaācariyavādaattanomatīsu otāretvā samentaṃyeva gahetabbaṃ, itaraṃ na gahetabbanti ayaṃ nayo idha vuccatīti na koci pubbāparavirodhoti ayaṃ sāratthadīpaniyāgato (sārattha. ṭī. 2.45) nayo. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.45) pana “yaṃ kiñci kūṭasuttaṃ bāhirakasuttādivacanaṃ na gahetabbanti dassetuṃ suttaṃ suttānulome otāretabbantiādi vutta”nti vuttaṃ.
But isn’t it said below, “Due to conformity with the sutta, the sutta itself is stronger,” yet here it says, “The sutta should be traced in conformity with the sutta” and so forth—why is this? There is no contradiction. “Due to conformity with the sutta, the sutta itself is stronger” is said with reference to the sutta in one’s own tradition. There, it refers to the sutta and so forth included in one’s own tradition: “One’s own view is the weakest of all; the teacher’s opinion is stronger than one’s own view; conformity with the sutta is stronger than the teacher’s opinion; due to conformity with the sutta, the sutta itself is stronger.” But here, regarding the sutta brought by the opponent from another sect, it says, “The sutta should be traced in conformity with the sutta” and so forth. Thus, the method here is that the sutta and so forth brought by the opponent should be traced in one’s own conformity with the sutta, teacher’s opinion, and personal view, and only what conforms should be accepted, not the rest—this is the method stated here, so there is no contradiction between what precedes and follows, according to the method from the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.45). However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.45), it is said, “To show that any spurious sutta or statement like an external sutta should not be accepted, it is said, ‘The sutta should be traced in conformity with the sutta’ and so forth.”
Now, it was said above, “What accords with a sutta is more authoritative than a sutta,” so why is it said here, “A sutta should be brought down into what accords with the suttas,” etc.? There is no contradiction here. Indeed, “what accords with a sutta is more authoritative than a sutta” is said with reference to a sutta in one’s own doctrine. There, with reference to a sutta, etc., that is within one’s own view, it is said “one’s own view is the weakest of all, the commentarial statement is more authoritative than one’s own view, what accords with the suttas is more authoritative than the commentarial statement, and the sutta itself is more authoritative than what accords with the suttas.” But here, with reference to a sutta of another school that has been brought by a proponent of the other view, it is said “A sutta should be brought down into what accords with the suttas”, etc. Therefore, a sutta, etc., that has been brought by a proponent of the other view should be accepted only if it accords when brought down into one’s own suttas, what accords with the suttas, the commentarial statement, and one’s own view; the other should not be accepted – this is the method that is being stated here. Therefore, there is no contradiction between what comes before and after – this is the method that comes in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.45). However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.45), it is said that “suttaṃ suttānulome otāretabba” etc. is said in order to show that any fake sutta or the statement of external suttas, etc. should not be accepted.
But was it not said above, “what is in accordance with the sutta, the sutta itself is indeed stronger,” why is it said here, “the sutta should be brought down to what is in accordance with the sutta” and so on? There is no contradiction here, for “what is in accordance with the sutta, the sutta itself is indeed stronger” is said with reference to the sutta that agrees with one’s own opinion. There, with reference to what is included in one’s own opinion, it is said, “one’s own opinion is entirely weak, the teacher’s statement is stronger than one’s own opinion, what is in accordance with the sutta is stronger than the teacher’s statement, what is in accordance with the sutta, the sutta itself is indeed stronger.” Here, however, with reference to the sutta brought by one who speaks according to another tradition, it is said, “the sutta should be brought down to what is in accordance with the sutta,” and so on. Therefore, the sutta brought by one who speaks according to another tradition should be brought down to one’s own sutta, what is in accordance with the sutta, the teacher’s statement, and one’s own opinion, and only what agrees should be accepted, the other should not be accepted. This is the method stated here, and there is no contradiction between the earlier and later statements, as this is the method from the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.45). In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.45), however, it is said, “whatever false sutta, external sutta, and so on, should not be accepted,” thus to show this, it is said, “the sutta should be brought down to what is in accordance with the sutta,” and so on.
ID1463
Bāhirakasuttanti tisso saṅgītiyo anāruḷhaguḷhavessantarādīni ca mahāsaṅghikanikāyavāsīnaṃ suttāni. Vedallādīnanti ādi-saddena guḷhaummaggādiggahaṇaṃ veditabbaṃ . Itaraṃ gārayhasuttaṃ na gahetabbaṃ. “Attanomatiyameva ṭhātabba”nti iminā aññanikāyato ānītasuttatopi sakanikāye attanomatiyeva balavatarāti dasseti. “Sakavādī suttaṃ gahetvā katheti, paravādī suttamevā”ti evamādinā samānajātikānaṃ vasena vāro na vutto. Suttassa sutteyeva otāraṇaṃ bhinnaṃ viya hutvā na paññāyati, vuttanayeneva ca sakkā yojetunti.
External sutta—suttas like the secret Vessantara and others not established in the three councils, as well as those of the Mahāsaṅghika sect. Vedalla and so forth—the term ādi indicates the inclusion of texts like the secret Ummagga, which should be understood. Other contemptible suttas should not be accepted. “One should stand only by one’s own view”—this shows that even a sutta brought from another sect is stronger than one’s own view within one’s own sect. “The proponent of one’s own doctrine takes and expounds the sutta, the opponent only the sutta”—in this way, no distinction is stated based on those of the same lineage. The tracing of a sutta within a sutta seems distinct and unclear, but it can be reconciled by the method stated.
Bāhirakasuttanti [External Suttas] are those like the obscure Vessantara [Jātaka], that have not been rehearsed in the three councils and the suttas of those of the Mahāsaṅghika school. By the word Vedallādīnanti ādi [etc.], one should understand the inclusion of the obscure Ummagga [Jātaka], etc. Other censurable suttas should not be accepted. By saying, “One should stay firm only on one’s own view,” it shows that one’s own view in one’s own school is more authoritative than even a sutta brought from another school. The turn has not been stated by way of those of the same type, like “A proponent of his own view states a sutta, a proponent of the other view, only a sutta” etc. The application of a sutta to a sutta itself does not appear to be distinct, and it can be applied by the stated method.
“External sutta”—the suttas of the Mahāsaṅghika sect and others, not included in the three Councils, such as the Guḷha and Vessantara. “Vedalla and so on”—by the word “and so on,” the hidden paths and so on should be understood. Other blameworthy suttas should not be accepted. “One should stand by one’s own opinion”—this shows that even if a sutta is brought from another sect, one’s own opinion in one’s own sect is indeed stronger. “One who speaks according to his own tradition takes up the sutta and speaks, one who speaks according to another tradition takes up the sutta itself”—thus, the section is not stated for those of the same kind. The bringing down of the sutta to the sutta itself does not appear to be divided, and it can be connected according to the stated method.
ID1464
Idāni sakavādīparavādīnaṃ kappiyākappiyādibhāvaṃ sandhāya vivāde uppanne tattha paṭipajjitabbavidhiṃ dassento āha “atha panāyaṃ kappiyanti gahetvā kathetī”tiādi. Atha vā evaṃ suttasuttānulomādimukhena sāmaññato vivādaṃ dassetvā idāni visesato vivādavatthuṃ tabbinicchayamukhena suttādiñca dassetuṃ “atha panāyaṃ kappiya”ntiādi vuttaṃ. Tattha sutte ca suttānulome ca otāretabbanti sakavādinā attanoyeva sutte ca suttānulome ca otāretabbaṃ. Paro kāraṇaṃ na vindatīti paravādī kāraṇaṃ na labhati. Suttato bahuṃ kāraṇañca vinicchayañca dassetīti paravādī attano suttato bahuṃ kāraṇañca vinicchayañca āharitvā dasseti, “sādhūti sampaṭicchitvā akappiyeyeva ṭhātabba”nti iminā attano nikāye suttādīni alabhantena sakavādinā paravādīvacaneyeva ṭhātabbanti vadati. Sutte ca suttānulome cāti ettha ca-kāro vikappanattho, tena ācariyavādādīnampi saṅgaho. Tenāha “kāraṇañca vinicchayañca dassetī”ti. Tattha kāraṇanti suttādinayaṃ nissāya attanomatiyā uddhaṭaṃ hetuṃ. Vinicchayanti aṭṭhakathāvinicchayaṃ.
Now, showing the method to be followed when a dispute arises between the proponent of one’s own doctrine and the opponent regarding what is permissible or impermissible, it is said, “Now, this one expounds by taking it as permissible” and so forth. Alternatively, having generally shown the dispute through the sutta and conformity with the sutta, now to specifically show the subject of the dispute and the sutta and so forth through the method of judgment, it is said, “Now, this one as permissible” and so forth. Therein, “It should be traced in the sutta and conformity with the sutta”—the proponent of one’s own doctrine should trace it in their own sutta and conformity with the sutta. “The opponent finds no reason”—the opponent does not obtain a reason. “He shows much reasoning and judgment from the sutta”—the opponent brings and shows much reasoning and judgment from their own sutta, “Having accepted it as ‘well said,’ one should stand by its impermissibility”—this means that if the proponent of one’s own doctrine finds no sutta or similar text in their own sect, they should stand by the opponent’s statement. “In the sutta and conformity with the sutta”—here, the ca indicates an alternative, thus including the teacher’s opinion and so forth. Therefore, it is said, “He shows reasoning and judgment.” Therein, reasoning refers to a cause extracted based on one’s own view relying on the method of the sutta and so forth. Judgment refers to the commentary’s judgment.
Now, wishing to show the method of conduct when a dispute arises between one’s own party and another party regarding what is allowable and what is not allowable, he says, “atha panāyaṃ kappiyanti gahetvā kathetī” and so on. Or, having thus shown the dispute in general by means of the suttas, the texts analogous to the suttas, etc., now, to show in detail the subject of the dispute, the method of deciding it, and the suttas, etc., it is said, “atha panāyaṃ kappiya” and so on. There, sutte ca suttānulome ca otāretabbati, by the one holding his own view, it should be brought down to his own sutta and to what is analogous to the sutta. Paro kāraṇaṃ na vindatīti, the other party does not find a reason. Suttato bahuṃ kāraṇañca vinicchayañca dassetīti, the other party, bringing many reasons and decisions from his own suttas, shows them. “sādhūti sampaṭicchitvā akappiyeyeva ṭhātabba”ti, by this, he says that one of his own group who does not find suttas, etc., in his own sect, should remain with the other group’s words. Sutte ca suttānulome cāti, here the word ca has the meaning of alternative; therefore the views of his own teachers are also included. Hence he has said: “kāraṇañca vinicchayañca dassetī”ti. There kāraṇa means the reason extracted based on his own opinion, with connection to the sutta etc.. Vinicchaya means the decision from commentaries.
Now, to explain the procedure to be followed when a dispute arises concerning what is allowable (kappiya) and what is not allowable (akappiya) among those who hold different views, it is said: “But if one takes this as allowable and speaks thus” and so on. Alternatively, having shown the dispute in a general way through the Sutta and its conformity, now the specific grounds of dispute are explained through the method of decision-making, and the Sutta and other texts are also shown: “But if one takes this as allowable” and so on. Here, “it should be resolved through the Sutta and its conformity” means that the one holding their own view should resolve it through the Sutta and its conformity. “The other party does not obtain a reason” means the opposing party does not gain a valid reason. “They show much reasoning and decision based on the Sutta” means the opposing party brings forth much reasoning and decision based on their own Sutta and presents it. “Having accepted it as good, one should stand by what is not allowable” means that if one cannot find support in the Sutta and other texts within their own school, they should stand by the opposing party’s statement. “Through the Sutta and its conformity”: here, the word “ca” (and) indicates an alternative meaning, thus including the views of teachers and others. Therefore, it is said: “They show reasoning and decision.” Here, “reasoning” refers to the cause drawn from one’s own opinion based on the method of the Sutta and other texts. “Decision” refers to the decision of the commentary.
ID1465
Dvinnampi kāraṇacchāyā dissatīti sakavādīparavādīnaṃ ubhinnampi kappiyākappiyabhāvasādhakaṃ kāraṇapatirūpakacchāyā dissati. Tattha kāraṇacchāyāti suttādīsu “kappiya”nti gāhassa, “akappiya”nti gāhassa ca nimittabhūtena kicchena paṭipādanīyaṃ avibhūtakāraṇaṃ kāraṇacchāyā, kāraṇapatirūpakanti attho. Yadi dvinnampi kāraṇacchāyā dissati, kasmā akappiyeyeva ṭhātabbanti āha “vinayañhi patvā”tiādi. “Vinayaṃ patvā”ti vuttamevatthaṃ pākaṭataraṃ katvā dassento āha “kappiyākappiyavicāraṇaṃ āgammā”ti. Rundhitabbantiādīsu dubbiññeyyavinicchaye kappiyākappiyabhāve sati “kappiya”nti gahaṇaṃ rundhitabbaṃ, “akappiya”nti gahaṇaṃ gāḷhaṃ kātabbaṃ, aparāparappavattaṃ kappiyaggahaṇaṃ sotaṃ pacchinditabbaṃ, garukabhāvasaṅkhate akappiyeyeva ṭhātabbanti attho. Atha vā rundhitabbanti kappiyasaññāya vītikkamakāraṇaṃ rundhitabbaṃ, taṃnivāraṇacittaṃ daḷhataraṃ kātabbaṃ. Sotaṃ pacchinditabbanti tattha vītikkamappavatti pacchinditabbā. Garukabhāveti akappiyabhāveti attho.
“A semblance of reasoning is seen in both”—a semblance resembling the reasoning that establishes permissibility or impermissibility is seen in both the proponent of one’s own doctrine and the opponent. Therein, semblance of reasoning—a reason that is difficult to establish due to being a sign of grasping “permissible” or “impermissible” in the sutta and so forth, not clearly a reason, is a semblance of reasoning, meaning something resembling a reason. If a semblance of reasoning is seen in both, why should one stand by impermissibility alone? It is said, “For when it comes to the Vinaya” and so forth. To make the meaning of “when it comes to the Vinaya” clearer, it is said, “When it comes to examining permissibility and impermissibility.” In “It should be restrained” and so forth, when there is a judgment difficult to discern regarding permissibility or impermissibility, grasping “permissible” should be restrained, grasping “impermissible” should be firmly established, the recurring grasp of permissibility should have its flow cut off, and one should stand by impermissibility, known as its weighty nature. Alternatively, “It should be restrained”—the cause of transgression due to the perception of permissibility should be restrained, and the mind preventing it should be made firmer. “Its flow should be cut off”—the occurrence of transgression there should be interrupted. “Weighty nature” means the nature of impermissibility.
Dvinnampi kāraṇacchāyā dissatīti, for both one’s own party and another party, a semblance of reason supporting both the allowability and non-allowability is seen. There kāraṇacchāyā means an unclear/unmanifested reasoning that, in the Suttas and so on, should be followed with difficulty and as an indication for either taking ‘allowable’ or ‘not allowable’. That is called the shadow of cause, a semblance of a reason. If a semblance of reason is seen for both, why is it said that one should stand firm in the unallowable? He says, “vinayaṃhi patvā” and so on. Showing more clearly what has just been said as “vinayaṃ patvā”, he states “kappiyākappiyavicāraṇaṃ āgammā”ti. In statements such as Rundhitabbanti, when there is a hard-to-decide conclusion about what is allowable and what is not allowable, taking it as “allowable” should be obstructed; taking it as “not allowable” should be made firm, preventing the repeated occurrence of accepting what is allowable, the stream should be cut off, one should remain firm in the gravity, the state of unallowable. Or, rundhitabbanti, the cause of transgression with the perception of allowability should be obstructed; the thought of preventing that should be made stronger. Sotaṃ pacchinditabbanti, the flow of transgression there should be cut off. Garukabhāveti, meaning in the state of unallowability.
“The shadow of reasoning is seen for both” means that for both the one holding their own view and the opposing party, the shadow of reasoning, which resembles a valid reason, is seen in establishing what is allowable and what is not. Here, “the shadow of reasoning” refers to the indistinct reason that is difficult to establish and serves as a sign for accepting something as allowable or not allowable in the Sutta and other texts. It means a semblance of reasoning. If the shadow of reasoning is seen for both, why should one stand by what is not allowable? It is said: “For having reached the Vinaya” and so on. Explaining the meaning more clearly, it is said: “Having come to the examination of what is allowable and what is not allowable.” “It should be restrained” and so on: in a dispute where it is difficult to discern what is allowable and what is not, the acceptance of something as allowable should be restrained, and the acceptance of something as not allowable should be firmly established. The repeated acceptance of what is allowable should be cut off at the source, and in the case of seriousness, one should stand by what is not allowable. Alternatively, “it should be restrained” means that the cause of transgressing due to the perception of something as allowable should be restrained, and the mind should be made firmer to prevent it. “Cut off at the source” means that the occurrence of transgression there should be cut off. “In the case of seriousness” means in the case of it being not allowable.
ID1466
Bahūhi suttavinicchayakāraṇehīti bahūhi suttehi ceva tato ānītavinicchayakāraṇehi ca. Atha vā suttena aṭṭhakathāvinicchayena ca laddhakāraṇehi. Attano gahaṇaṃ na vissajjetabbanti sakavādinā attano “akappiya”nti gahaṇaṃ na vissajjetabbanti attho.
“With many reasons from sutta judgments”—with many suttas and reasons derived from their judgments. Alternatively, with reasons obtained from the sutta and the commentary’s judgment. “One’s own grasp should not be relinquished”—the proponent of one’s own doctrine should not relinquish their grasp of “impermissible.”
Bahūhi suttavinicchayakāraṇehīti, with many suttas and the reasons for decisions brought from them. Or, with reasons derived from the sutta and the decision of the commentary. Attano gahaṇaṃ na vissajjetabbanti, it means that one’s own view should not be abandoned by the person defending his own side.
“By many reasons for decision based on the Sutta” means by many Suttas and the reasons for decision derived from them. Alternatively, by reasons obtained through the Sutta and the decision of the commentary. “One should not abandon one’s own position” means that the one holding their own view should not abandon their position of considering something as not allowable.
ID1467
Idāni vuttamevatthaṃ nigamento “eva”ntiādimāha. Tattha yoti sakavādīparavādīsu yo koci. Keci pana “sakavādīsuyeva yo koci idhādhippeto”ti vadanti, evaṃ sante “atha panāyaṃ kappiyanti gahetvā kathetī”tiādīsu sabbattha ubhopi sakavādinoyeva siyuṃ heṭṭhā vuttasseva nigamanavasena “eva”ntiādinā vuttattā, tasmā taṃ na gahetabbaṃ. Atirekakāraṇaṃ labhatīti ettha suttādīsu purimaṃ purimaṃ atirekakāraṇaṃ nāma, yo vā suttādīsu catūsu bahutaraṃ kāraṇaṃ labhati, so atirekakāraṇaṃ labhati nāma.
Now, concluding the stated meaning, it is said with “thus” and so forth. Therein, who—anyone among the proponent of one’s own doctrine or the opponent. Some say, “Only someone from the proponents of one’s own doctrine is intended here,” but if so, in “Now, this one expounds by taking it as permissible” and so forth, both would always be proponents of one’s own doctrine, since it is stated with “thus” and so forth as a conclusion of what was said below; therefore, this should not be accepted. “Obtains an additional reason”—here, in the sutta and so forth, each prior one is an additional reason, or whoever obtains more reasons in the fourfold sutta and so forth is said to obtain an additional reason.
Now, as a conclusion to what has just been said, he says, “eva” and so on. In that, yoti, whoever among one’s own party and another party. But some say, “Whoever is amongst the ones own party is intended here”. But in that case, “atha panāyaṃ kappiyanti gahetvā kathetī” and so forth, everywhere both would be only the ones holding their own views because by the concluding words, ‘’eva’’ and so on, it has been stated as has been declared above, therefore, that should not be accepted. Atirekakāraṇaṃ labhatīti, here, in the suttas, etc., the first one is called the superior reason. Or, whoever obtains the greater reason among the four, the suttas etc., he is said to obtain the superior reason.
Now, having summarized the meaning thus, it is said: “Thus” and so on. Here, “who” refers to anyone among those holding their own view and the opposing party. Some, however, say that only those holding their own view are intended here. If that were the case, then in all instances, both would be those holding their own view, as it is said below in the summary: “Thus” and so on. Therefore, that should not be taken. “They obtain an excess of reasoning”: here, in the Sutta and other texts, the earlier and earlier reasons are called an excess of reasoning. Or, whoever obtains more reasons than the four in the Sutta and other texts obtains an excess of reasoning.
ID1468
Suṭṭhu pavatti etassāti, suṭṭhu pavattati sīlenāti vā suppavatti. Tenāha “suppavattīti suṭṭhu pavatta”nti. Vācāya uggataṃ vācuggataṃ, vacasā suggahitanti vuttaṃ hoti. Atha vā vācuggatanti vācāya uggataṃ, tattha nirantaraṃ ṭhitanti attho. Suttatoti imassa vivaraṇaṃ “pāḷito”ti. Ettha ca “suttaṃ nāma sakalaṃ vinayapiṭaka”nti vuttattā puna suttatoti tadatthapaṭipādakaṃ suttābhidhammapāḷivacanaṃ adhippetaṃ. Anubyañjanasoti imassa vivaraṇaṃ “paripucchato ca aṭṭhakathāto cā”ti. Pāḷiṃ anugantvā atthassa byañjanato pakāsanato “anubyañjana”nti hi paripucchā aṭṭhakathā ca vuccati. Ettha ca aṭṭhakathāya visuṃ gahitattā “paripucchā”ti theravādo vutto. Atha vā paripucchāti ācariyassa santikā pāḷiyā atthasavanaṃ. Aṭṭhakathāti pāḷimuttakavinicchayo. Tadubhayampi pāḷiṃ anugantvā atthassa byañjanato “anubyañjana”nti vuttaṃ.
That which proceeds well is well-progressing, or it progresses well through virtue—thus it is said, “Well-progressing means proceeding well.” That which is uttered by speech is spoken utterance, meaning well-grasped by speech. Alternatively, spoken utterance—uttered by speech, meaning abiding in it continuously. “From the sutta”—its explanation is “from the canonical text.” Here, since it is said, “The sutta is the entire Vinaya Piṭaka,” again “from the sutta” refers to the canonical text of the sutta and Abhidhamma that elucidates its meaning. “By each letter”—its explanation is “from questioning and from the commentary.” Since it clarifies the meaning by following the canonical text through its letters, “by each letter” refers to questioning and the commentary. Here, since the commentary is taken separately, “questioning” refers to the Theravāda. Alternatively, questioning—hearing the meaning of the canonical text from a teacher. Commentary—judgment apart from the canonical text. Both, following the canonical text, are called “by each letter” due to clarifying the meaning through its letters.
Well-proceeded is its, or it proceeds well by habit, therefore suppavatti. Therefore he says, “suppavattīti suṭṭhu pavatta”ti. That which has come forth through speech is vācuggataṃ, it means well-grasped by speech. Or vācuggatanti, that which has come forth through speech, means constantly fixed there. Suttatoti, the explanation of this is “pāḷito”ti. And here, since it has been said, “suttaṃ nāma sakalaṃ vinayapiṭaka”, again, suttatoti, the statement of the sutta and abhidhamma Pāḷi that explains its meaning is intended. Anubyañjanasoti, the explanation of this is “paripucchato ca aṭṭhakathāto cā”ti. Following the Pāḷi, and because of the explanation of the meaning through its expressions, questioning and commentary are called “anubyañjana”. And here, since the commentary has been taken separately, “paripucchā”ti, the Theravāda is mentioned. Or, paripucchāti, learning the meaning of the Pāḷi from a teacher. Aṭṭhakathāti, the decision outside of the Pāḷi. Both of them, following the Pāḷi, are said to be “anubyañjana”, due to explaining the meaning through its expressions.
“Well-practiced” means that it is well-practiced through virtue. Therefore, it is said: “Well-practiced means well-practiced.” “Elevated in speech” means well-grasped by speech. Alternatively, “elevated in speech” means elevated by speech, and there it stands without interruption. “From the Sutta”: the explanation of this is “from the Pali.” Here, since it is said that “the Sutta refers to the entire Vinaya Piṭaka,” the word “from the Sutta” again refers to the Sutta, Abhidhamma, and Pali texts that convey that meaning. “Through the minor details”: the explanation of this is “through questioning and the commentary.” Following the Pali, the exposition of the meaning through the details is called “minor details,” which refers to questioning and the commentary. Here, since the commentary is taken separately, “questioning” refers to the Theravāda. Alternatively, “questioning” means hearing the meaning of the Pali from a teacher. “Commentary” refers to the decision based on the Pali. Both of these, following the Pali, are called “minor details” because they expound the meaning.
ID1469
Vinayeti vinayācāre. Teneva vakkhati “vinayaṃ ajahanto avokkamanto”tiādi. Tattha patiṭṭhānaṃ nāma sañcicca āpattiyā anāpajjanādinā hotīti āha “lajjibhāvena patiṭṭhito”ti, tena lajjī hotīti vuttaṃ hoti. Vinayadharassa lakkhaṇe vattabbe kiṃ iminā lajjibhāvenāti āha “alajjī hī”tiādi. Tattha bahussutopīti iminā paṭhamalakkhaṇasamannāgamaṃ dasseti. Lābhagarukatāyāti iminā vinaye ṭhitatāya abhāve paṭhamalakkhaṇayogā kiccakaro na hoti, atha kho akiccakaro anatthakaro evāti dasseti. Saṅghabhedassa pubbabhāge pavattakalahassetaṃ adhivacanaṃ saṅgharājīti. Kukkuccakoti aṇumattesupi vajjesu bhayadassanavasena kukkuccaṃ uppādento. Tantiṃ avisaṃvādetvāti pāḷiṃ aññathā akatvā. Avokkamantoti anatikkamanto.
“In the Vinaya”—in the conduct of the Vinaya. Thus, it will be said, “Not abandoning the Vinaya, not transgressing” and so forth. Therein, establishment occurs through not intentionally incurring an offense and so on—thus it is said, “Established through conscientiousness,” meaning one is conscientious. When speaking of the characteristics of a Vinaya holder, why mention conscientiousness? It is said, “For one without conscience” and so forth. Therein, “Even if highly learned”—this shows the presence of the first characteristic. “Due to attachment to gain”—this shows that, due to the absence of steadfastness in the Vinaya, one with the first characteristic does not perform duties but instead performs what is improper and harmful. “Community strife”—this is a designation for the quarrel occurring before a schism in the Sangha. “Anxious”—one who generates anxiety by seeing danger even in minor faults. “Without distorting the text”—without altering the canonical text. “Not transgressing”—not going beyond.
Vinayeti, in the discipline of the Vinaya. Therefore, he will say, “vinayaṃ ajahanto avokkamanto” and so on. There, establishment is through not committing the offence intentionally, etc., therefore he says, “lajjibhāvena patiṭṭhito”ti, by that it is said he is possessed of a sense of shame. Why this sense of shame when discussing the characteristics of a Vinaya expert?, he replies, “alajjī hī” and so on. There, bahussutopīti, by this, he shows the fulfillment of the first characteristic. Lābhagarukatāyāti, by this, he shows that in the absence of being established in the Vinaya, being endowed with the first characteristic is not beneficial, but rather, it is unbeneficial and harmful. This is a designation for the quarrel that occurs in the preliminary stage of a schism in the Sangha, saṅgharājīti. Kukkuccakoti, arousing scruples due to seeing danger even in the slightest faults. Tantiṃ avisaṃvādetvāti, without misrepresenting the Pāḷi. Avokkamantoti, not transgressing.
“In the Vinaya” means in the practice of the Vinaya. Therefore, it is said: “Not abandoning the Vinaya, not transgressing” and so on. Here, “establishment” means not committing an offense intentionally and so on. Therefore, it is said: “Established through a sense of shame,” meaning that one is ashamed. When describing the characteristics of a Vinaya-holder, why is this sense of shame mentioned? It is said: “One who is shameless” and so on. Here, “learned” shows the possession of the first characteristic. “Respecting gain” shows that if one is not established in the Vinaya, the first characteristic does not fulfill its function, but rather becomes non-functional and harmful. The term “Saṅgharājī” refers to the preliminary stage of schism in the Saṅgha, which is synonymous with dispute. “Scrupulous” means producing scruples even in minor offenses due to seeing danger. “Not distorting the text” means not altering the Pali. “Not transgressing” means not going beyond.
ID1470
Vitthunatīti atthaṃ adisvā nitthunati, vitthambhati vā. Vipphandatīti kampati. Santiṭṭhituṃ na sakkotīti ekasmiṃyeva atthe patiṭṭhātuṃ na sakkoti. Tenāha “yaṃ yaṃ parena vuccati, taṃ taṃ anujānātī”ti. Sakavādaṃ chaḍḍetvā paravādaṃ gaṇhātīti “ucchumhi kasaṭaṃ yāvajīvikaṃ, raso sattāhakāliko, tadubhayavinimutto ca ucchu nāma visuṃ natthi, tasmā ucchupi vikāle vaṭṭatī”ti paravādinā vutte tampi gaṇhāti. Ekekalomanti palitaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Yamhīti yasmiṃ puggale. Parikkhayaṃ pariyādānanti atthato ekaṃ.
“Distorts”—complains about the meaning without seeing it, or becomes rigid. “Vacillates”—wavers. “Cannot stand firm”—cannot remain fixed in a single meaning. Thus, it is said, “Whatever the opponent says, he agrees to it.” “Abandoning one’s own doctrine, he takes the opponent’s doctrine”—when the opponent says, “In sugarcane, the bitterness is lifelong, the juice is for seven days, and apart from both there is no separate sugarcane, so sugarcane is permissible even at the wrong time,” he accepts that too. “A single grey hair”—referring to greyness. “In whom”—in which person. “Exhaustion, depletion”—one in meaning.
Vitthunatīti, he grumbles without seeing the meaning, or he stiffens. Vipphandatīti, he trembles. Santiṭṭhituṃ na sakkotīti, he is not able to be established in just one point. Therefore, he says, “yaṃ yaṃ parena vuccati, taṃ taṃ anujānātī”ti. Sakavādaṃ chaḍḍetvā paravādaṃ gaṇhātīti, when it is said by another party that, “The sediment in sugarcane is allowed for life, the juice for seven days, and there is no sugarcane apart from both, therefore, sugarcane is also allowed at the wrong time,” he accepts that too. Ekekalomanti, said with reference to a grey hair. Yamhīti, in which person. Parikkhayaṃ pariyādānanti, are the same in meaning.
“Complains” means grumbling without seeing the meaning, or boasting. “Agitates” means trembling. “Unable to settle” means unable to settle on a single point. Therefore, it is said: “Whatever is said by another, they agree to it.” “Abandoning their own view and adopting the view of another” means that when the opposing party says, “Sugar cane is a lifetime supply, juice is for seven days, and what is free from both is not considered sugar cane, therefore sugar cane is allowable at the wrong time,” they also accept that. “One by one” refers to gray hair. “In whom” means in which person. “Exhaustion and depletion” mean the same in meaning.
ID1471
Ācariyaparamparāti ācariyānaṃ vinicchayaparamparā. Teneva vakkhati “attanomatiṃ pahāya…pe… yathā ācariyo ca ācariyācariyo ca pāḷiñca paripucchañca vadanti, tathā ñātuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti. Na hi ācariyānaṃ nāmamattato paramparajānane payojanaṃ atthi. Pubbāparānusandhitoti pubbavacanassa aparavacanena saha atthasambandhajānanato. Atthatoti saddatthapiṇḍatthaadhippetatthādito. Kāraṇatoti tadatthupapattito. Ācariyaparamparanti imasseva vevacanaṃ “theravādaṅga”nti, therapaṭipāṭinti attho. Dve tayo parivaṭṭāti dve tayo paramparā.
“Succession of teachers”—the succession of teachers’ judgments. Thus, it will be said, “Abandoning one’s own view…pe… it is proper to know as the teacher, the teacher’s teacher, the canonical text, and questioning say.” There is no purpose in knowing the succession merely by the teachers’ names. “Connection of prior and subsequent”—due to knowing the connection of meaning between prior and subsequent statements. “By meaning”—by the meaning of words, condensed meaning, intended meaning, and so forth. “By reason”—due to the establishment of that meaning. “Succession of teachers”—its synonym is “link of the Theravāda,” meaning the sequence of elders. “Two or three cycles”—two or three successions.
Ācariyaparamparāti, the lineage of teachers’ decisions. Therefore, he will say, “abandoning one’s own opinion…pe… just as the teacher and the teacher’s teacher say, and both the Pāḷi and the questioning, so it should be understood”. For there is no benefit in knowing the lineage of teachers merely by name. Pubbāparānusandhitoti, knowing the connection of the meaning of the former statement with the latter statement. Atthatoti, from the literal meaning, the summarized meaning, the intended meaning, etc. Kāraṇatoti, from the justification of that meaning. The synonym of Ācariyaparampara is “theravādaṅga”nti, the lineage of elder’s practice. Dve tayo parivaṭṭāti, two or three lineages.
“Teacher lineage” means the succession of teachers’ decisions. Therefore, it is said: “Abandoning one’s own opinion… one should understand as the teacher and the teacher’s teacher, the Pali, and the questioning say.” There is no purpose in merely knowing the names of teachers in succession. “Connected with the former and the latter” means knowing the connection of meaning between the former and the latter statements. “In meaning” means in the meaning of words, the meaning of phrases, and the intended meaning. “In reasoning” means in the arising of that meaning. “Teacher lineage” is synonymous with “Theravāda,” meaning the tradition of the elders. “Two or three cycles” means two or three successions.
ID1472
Imehi ca pana tīhi lakkhaṇehīti ettha paṭhamena lakkhaṇena vinayassa suṭṭhu uggahitabhāvo vutto, dutiyena tattha lajjibhāvena ceva acalatāya ca suppatiṭṭhitatā, tatiyena pāḷiaṭṭhakathāsu sarūpena anāgatānampi tadanulomato ācariyehi dinnanayato vinicchinituṃ samatthatā. Otiṇṇe vatthusminti codanāvasena vītikkamavatthusmiṃ saṅghamajjhe otiṇṇe. Codakena ca cuditakena ca vutte vattabbeti evaṃ otiṇṇavatthuṃ nissāya codakena “diṭṭhaṃ suta”ntiādinā, cuditakena “atthī”tiādinā ca yaṃ vattabbaṃ, tasmiṃ vattabbe vutteti attho. Vatthu oloketabbanti tassa tassa sikkhāpadassa vatthu oloketabbaṃ. “Tiṇena vā paṇṇena vā…pe… yo āgaccheyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti hidaṃ nissaggiye aññātakaviññattisikkhāpadassa (pārā. 517) vatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ.
“And by these three characteristics”—here, the first characteristic indicates the thorough learning of the Vinaya; the second, steadfastness in it through conscientiousness and unwavering commitment; the third, the ability to judge even matters not explicitly found in the canonical text and commentary by the method given by teachers in conformity with them. “In a matter brought up”—in a matter brought up in the midst of the Sangha due to an accusation of transgression. “In what is to be said by the accuser and the accused”—in what is to be said regarding the matter brought up, by the accuser with “seen, heard” and so forth, and by the accused with “there is” and so forth, when it is said. “The basis should be examined”—the basis of each training rule should be examined. “With grass or leaves…pe… whoever comes, an offense of wrong conduct”—this is established in the basis of the training rule on requesting from an unrelated person in the Nissaggiya (pārā. 517).
Imehi ca pana tīhi lakkhaṇehīti, here, by the first characteristic, the good grasp of the Vinaya is mentioned, by the second, well-established in it due to a sense of shame and steadfastness, by the third, the ability to decide based on the Pāḷi and commentaries, even what has not come in its form, due to the tradition given by the teachers analogous to that. Otiṇṇe vatthusminti, when a case of transgression has been brought before the Sangha, by means of an accusation. Codakena ca cuditakena ca vutte vattabbeti, thus, regarding the case that has been brought forward, when what should be said has been said by the accuser (“seen, heard,” and so on) and by the accused (“there is,” and so on). Vatthu oloketabbanti, the case of that particular training rule should be looked at. “With grass or with leaves…pe… whoever should come, there is an offence of wrong-doing,” this was established in the case of the aññātakaviññatti training rule of nissaggiya (pārā. 517).
“By these three characteristics”: here, the first characteristic shows the thorough learning of the Vinaya, the second shows being firmly established through a sense of shame and unshakability, and the third shows the ability to decide according to the method given by teachers, in line with the Pali and commentaries, even for future cases. “In a case that has arisen” means in a case of transgression that has arisen in the midst of the Saṅgha due to an accusation. “What should be said when spoken by the accuser and the accused” means that in such a case, based on the accusation, the accuser says, “I have seen, I have heard,” and the accused says, “It is so,” and what should be said in that situation is said. “The case should be examined” means the case of each training rule should be examined. “Whether it is grass or leaves… if one should come, there is an offense of wrong-doing” is laid down in the case of the training rule on receiving from an unrelated woman (Pārā. 517).
ID1473
Thullaccayadubbhāsitāpattīnaṃ mātikāya anāgatattā “pañcannaṃ āpattīnaṃ aññatara”nti vuttaṃ. Tikadukkaṭanti “anupasampanne upasampannasaññī ujjhāyati khīyati, āpatti dukkaṭassā”tiādinā (pāci. 106) āgataṃ tikadukkaṭaṃ. Aññataraṃ vā āpattinti “kāle vikālasaññī, āpatti dukkaṭassa, kāle vematiko, āpatti dukkaṭassā”tiādikaṃ (pāci. 250) dukadukkaṭaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ.
Since gross offenses and offenses of wrong speech are not included in the summary, it is said, “One of the five offenses.” “Triple wrong conduct”—referring to what is stated as “One with the perception of an ordained person toward an unordained person grumbles or complains, an offense of wrong conduct” and so forth (pāci. 106). “Or another offense”—referring to the pair of wrong conduct like “At the right time with the perception of the wrong time, an offense of wrong conduct; at the right time with uncertainty, an offense of wrong conduct” and so forth (pāci. 250).
Because thullaccaya and dubbhāsita offences are not come under mātikā, “pañcannaṃ āpattīnaṃ aññatara”nti is stated. Tikadukkaṭanti, “anupasampanne upasampannasaññī ujjhāyati khīyati, āpatti dukkaṭassā”tiādinā (pāci. 106), the group-of-three-dukkata that is stated. Aññataraṃ vā āpattinti “kāle vikālasaññī, āpatti dukkaṭassa, kāle vematiko, āpatti dukkaṭassā”tiādikaṃ (pāci. 250), said with reference to the group-of-two-dukkata.
Since the matrix of grave offenses and wrong speech offenses has not been mentioned, it is said: “One of the five offenses.” “Threefold wrong-doing” refers to what is found in “If one, perceiving a non-ordained person as ordained, complains or is displeased, there is an offense of wrong-doing” and so on (Pāc. 106). “One of the offenses” refers to what is found in “If one, perceiving the wrong time as the right time, there is an offense of wrong-doing; if one is in doubt about the time, there is an offense of wrong-doing” and so on (Pāc. 250), referring to twofold wrong-doing.
ID1474
Antarāpattinti ettha tasmiṃ tasmiṃ sikkhāpade āgatavatthuvītikkamaṃ vinā aññasmiṃ vatthuvītikkame nidānato pabhuti vinītavatthupariyosānā antarantarā vuttā āpatti. Idha pana “vatthuṃ oloketī”ti visuṃ gahitattā tadavasesā antarāpattīti gahitā. Paṭilātaṃ ukkhipatīti idampi visibbanasikkhāpade (pāci. 350) āgataṃ, tattha ḍayhamānaṃ alātaṃ aggikapālādito bahi patitaṃ avijjhātameva paṭiukkhipati, puna yathāṭhāne ṭhapetīti attho. Vijjhātaṃ pana paṭikkhipantassa pācittiyameva.
“Intervening offense”—here, in each training rule, an offense stated intermittently between the beginning and end of the investigated basis, apart from transgressing the stated basis itself, is an intervening offense. However, since “examining the basis” is taken separately here, the remaining are taken as intervening offenses. “He lifts back what was taken”—this too is stated in the training rule on sewing (pāci. 350); there, a burning firebrand that has fallen outside from a firepot or similar, unextinguished, he lifts back and places it in its original position. But lifting one that is extinguished incurs an offense of expiation.
Antarāpattinti, here, without transgressing the cases that have come in each particular training rule, in other cases of transgression, the offences mentioned in between, from the beginning of the origin story to the end of the decided case. But here, since “vatthuṃ oloketī”ti has been taken separately, the rest are taken as the intermediate offences. Paṭilātaṃ ukkhipatīti, this too has come in the visibbanasikkhāpade (pāci. 350), there, a burning torch that has fallen outside from a fireplace, etc., he picks it up without extinguishing and places it back in its original place. But for picking up one that has been extinguished, there is only a pācittiya.
“Intermediate offense”: here, in each training rule, the transgression of the case that has arisen is called an intermediate offense, from the cause up to the conclusion of the case. Here, however, since “the case is examined” is taken separately, the remaining intermediate offenses are taken as such. “Picks up a fallen ember” is also found in the training rule on scattering (Pāc. 350), where a burning ember that has fallen outside from a fire pot is picked up and placed back in its original position. If it is extinguished, there is only a pacittiya offense.
ID1475
Anāpattinti ettha antarantarā vuttā anāpattipi atthi, “anāpatti, bhikkhave, iddhimassa iddhivisaye”tiādi viya sāpi saṅgayhati. Sikkhāpadantaresūti vinītavatthuṃ antokatvā ekekasmiṃ sikkhāpadantare.
“No offense”—here, there are also no-offense cases stated intermittently, like “There is no offense, monks, for one with psychic power in the realm of psychic power,” and these are included too. “In other training rules”—including the investigated basis within each of the other training rules.
Anāpattinti, here, there are also the non-offences mentioned in between, like, “anāpatti, bhikkhave, iddhimassa iddhivisaye”, they are also included. Sikkhāpadantaresūti, having included the decided case, in each interval of training rules.
“No offense”: here, intermediate no offenses are also mentioned, such as “There is no offense, monks, for one who has supernormal powers in the sphere of supernormal powers,” and so on, which should also be considered. “In other training rules” means in each training rule, up to the conclusion of the case.
ID1476
Pārājikāpattīti na vattabbanti idaṃ āpannapuggalena lajjidhamme ṭhatvā yathābhūtaṃ āvikaraṇepi dubbinicchayaṃ adinnādānādiṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Yaṃ pana methunādīsu vijānanaṃ, taṃ vattabbameva. Tenāha “methunadhammavītikkamo hī”tiādi. Yo pana alajjitāya paṭiññaṃ adatvā vikkhepaṃ karoti, tassa āpatti na sakkā oḷārikāpi vinicchinituṃ. Yāva so yathābhūtaṃ nāvikaroti, saṅghassa ca āpattisandeho na vigacchati, tāva nāsitakova bhavissati. Sukhumāti attanopi duviññeyyasabhāvassa lahuparivattino cittassa sīghaparivattitāya vuttaṃ. Sukhumāti vā cittaparivattiyā sukhumatāya sukhumā. Tenāha “cittalahukā”ti, cittaṃ viya lahukāti attho. Atha vā cittaṃ lahu sīghaparivatti etesanti cittalahukā. Teti te vītikkame. Taṃvatthukanti te adinnādānamanaussaviggahavītikkamā vatthu adhiṭṭhānaṃ kāraṇametassāti taṃvatthukaṃ.
“It should not be said as a pārājika offense”—this is said regarding theft and similar matters difficult to judge, even if a conscientious person truthfully confesses while standing in the quality of shame. However, in cases of sexual misconduct and so forth, it must indeed be said. Thus, it is said, “The transgression of sexual conduct indeed” and so forth. For one who, without confessing due to lack of shame, creates confusion, even a gross offense cannot be judged. Until he truthfully confesses and the Sangha’s doubt about the offense is dispelled, he remains as if expelled. “Subtle”—said due to the swift changeability of the mind, which is difficult even for oneself to discern by nature. “Subtle”—or subtle due to the subtlety of mental changeability. Thus, it is said, “Swift-minded,” meaning swift like the mind. Alternatively, swift-minded—those whose minds are swift and quickly changeable; they refers to those transgressions. “Based on that”—that transgression of theft, harsh speech, or dispute is the basis, the reason for it, thus based on that.
Pārājikāpattīti na vattabbanti, this is said with reference to a theft, etc., that is difficult to decide, even when the person who has committed it, standing in shame, reveals it as it really is. But as for knowing in cases of sexual intercourse, etc., that should indeed be stated. Therefore, he says, “methunadhammavītikkamo hī” and so on. But, for the one who makes a scattered statement without offering the acknowledgment due to lack of shame, his offence cannot be determined, even the gross. As long as he does not reveal it as it really is, and the Sangha’s doubt about the offence is not dispelled, he will be expelled. Sukhumāti, said due to the rapid transformation of the mind, which is of a nature difficult even for oneself to discern, and which changes slightly. Or Sukhumāti, because of subtly state of changing of mind. Therefore, he says, “cittalahukā”ti, meaning light like the mind. Or, the mind is light, quickly changing, for these, thus cittalahukā. Teti, those transgressions. Taṃvatthukanti, those cases of theft and killing a human being are the basis, the foundation, the cause of that, therefore taṃvatthukaṃ.
“One should not say ‘Parājika offense’”: this is said with reference to the difficulty of deciding cases like theft, etc., even when a person who has committed an offense confesses truthfully while standing in a state of shame. However, in cases of sexual misconduct, it should be said. Therefore, it is said: “For the transgression of sexual misconduct” and so on. But if one, due to shamelessness, does not confess and creates confusion, it is not possible to decide even a gross offense. As long as one does not confess truthfully and the Saṅgha’s doubt about the offense is not removed, one will remain unconfessed. “Subtle” refers to the quick changeability of the mind, which is difficult to discern and is light by nature. “Subtle” also refers to the subtlety of the mind’s changeability. Therefore, it is said: “Light-minded,” meaning light like the mind. Alternatively, “light-minded” means those whose minds are light and quickly changeable. “Based on that” means that the basis of those transgressions of theft, assault, etc., is the cause.
ID1477
Yaṃ ācariyo bhaṇati, taṃ karohītiādi sabbaṃ lajjīpesalaṃ kukkuccakameva sandhāya vuttaṃ. Yo yāthāvato pakāsetvā suddhimeva gavesati, tenapi. Pārājikosīti na vattabboti anāpattikoṭiyāpi saṅkiyamānattā vuttaṃ. Teneva “pārājikacchāyā”ti vuttaṃ. “Sīlāni sodhetvāti yaṃvatthukaṃ kukkuccaṃ uppannaṃ, taṃ amanasikaritvā avasesasīlāni sodhetvā”ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.45) vuttaṃ, vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.45) pana “sīlāni sodhetvāti yasmiṃ vītikkame pārājikāsaṅkā vattati, tattha pārājikābhāvapakkhaṃ gahetvā desanāvuṭṭhānagāminīnaṃ āpattīnaṃ sodhanavasena sīlāni sodhetvā”ti. Pākaṭabhāvato sukhavalañjatāya ca “dvattiṃsākāraṃ tāva manasi karohī”ti vuttaṃ, upalakkhaṇavasena vā. Aññasmiṃ kammaṭṭhāne kataparicayena tameva manasi kātabbaṃ. Yaṃ kiñci vā abhirucitaṃ manasi kātuṃ vaṭṭateva. Kammaṭṭhānaṃ ghaṭayatīti antarantarā khaṇḍaṃ adassetvā cittena saddhiṃ ārammaṇabhāvena cirakālaṃ ghaṭayati. Saṅkhārā pākaṭā hutvā upaṭṭhahantīti vipassanākammaṭṭhāniko ce, tassa saṅkhārā pākaṭā hutvā upaṭṭhahanti.
“Do what the teacher says” and all this is said with reference to a conscientious, virtuous person who is anxious. Even for one who reveals it as it is and seeks only purification, “It should not be said as pārājika”—said because it is suspected even in the category of no offense. Thus, it is said, “The shadow of pārājika.” “Having purified the virtues”—in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.45), it is said, “Having purified the virtues—ignoring the anxiety arisen based on that, purifying the remaining virtues.” However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.45), it is said, “Having purified the virtues”—where there is suspicion of pārājika in a transgression, taking the side of no pārājika and purifying the virtues by resolving offenses leading to confession and restoration. Due to its evident nature and ease of adornment, it is said, “For now, attend to the thirty-two aspects,” or as an illustrative example. Alternatively, one may attend to whatever meditation subject one prefers or is familiar with. “He strives in the meditation subject”—he strives with it for a long time as an object with the mind, without showing any interruption intermittently. “The formations appear clearly”—if he is practicing insight meditation, the formations appear clearly to him.
Yaṃ ācariyo bhaṇati, taṃ karohītiādi, all this is said with reference to one who is scrupulous and gentle with shame. The one who reveals it as it is and seeks purification, tenapi. Pārājikosīti na vattabboti, said because it is also doubted as belonging to the category of non-offence. Therefore, “pārājikacchāyā”ti is stated. “Sīlāni sodhetvāti, whatever the case the scruple has arisen from, without paying attention to it, purifying the remaining precepts,” thus it is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.45). But in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.45), “sīlāni sodhetvāti, in which transgression there is doubt of a pārājika, taking the side of there being no pārājika, purifying the precepts by means of cleansing the offences that lead to confession and emerging,”. Because it is evident and easy to access, “dvattiṃsākāraṃ tāva manasi karohī”ti is stated, or as an indication. If one is familiar with another meditation subject, that should be brought to mind. Or, whatever one is inclined to, it is proper to bring to mind. Kammaṭṭhānaṃ ghaṭayatīti, without showing the break in between, he connects it with the mind for a long time as the object. Saṅkhārā pākaṭā hutvā upaṭṭhahantīti, if he is a practitioner of insight meditation, his formations become evident and present themselves.
“What the teacher says, do that” and so on: all this is said with reference to the scrupulous and shameful. One who explains things as they are and seeks only purity, “should not be told ‘You are a Parājika offender’”, because even in the case of no offense, there is doubt. Therefore, it is said: “The shadow of Parājika.” “Purifying the virtues”: when a scruple arises regarding a certain matter, one should disregard it and purify the remaining virtues. This is explained in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.45). However, in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.45), it is said: “Purifying the virtues” means that in a transgression where there is doubt about Parājika, one should take the side of non-Parājika and purify the virtues by confessing the offenses that lead to desisting. “First consider the thirty-two aspects” is said because of its clarity and pleasantness, or as a sign. In another meditation subject, one should focus on what one is familiar with. Or, one should focus on whatever is pleasing. “Engages in the meditation subject” means that without seeing gaps, one engages with the object for a long time. “The formations become clear and appear”: for one who practices insight meditation, the formations become clear and appear.
ID1478
Sace katapārājikavītikkamo bhaveyya, tassa satipi asaritukāmatāya vippaṭisāravatthuvasena punappunaṃ taṃ upaṭṭhahatīti cittekaggataṃ na vindati. Tena vuttaṃ “kammaṭṭhānaṃ na ghaṭayatī”tiādi. Kammaṭṭhānaṃ na ghaṭayatīti cittakkhobhādibahulassa suddhasīlassapi cittaṃ na samādhiyati, taṃ idha pārājikamūlanti na gahetabbaṃ. Katapāpamūlakena vippaṭisārenevettha cittassa asamādhiyanaṃ sandhāya “kammaṭṭhānaṃ na ghaṭayatī”tiādi vuttaṃ. Tenāha “vippaṭisāragginā”tiādi. Attanāti cittena karaṇabhūtena puggalo kattā jānāti, paccatte vā karaṇavacanaṃ, attā sayaṃ jānātīti attho. Aññā ca devatā jānantīti ārakkhadevatāhi aññā paracittaviduniyo devatā jānanti.
If there were a pārājika transgression committed, even if he does not wish to recall it, that matter repeatedly arises due to remorse, so he does not attain one-pointedness of mind. Thus, it is said, “The meditation subject does not connect” and so forth. “The meditation subject does not connect”—for one overwhelmed by mental agitation and so forth, even with pure virtue, the mind is not concentrated; this should not be taken here as rooted in pārājika. It is said, “The meditation subject does not connect” and so forth, with reference to the mind’s lack of concentration due to remorse rooted in committed evil. Thus, it is said, “With the fire of remorse” and so forth. “By oneself”—the person as the doer knows with the mind as the instrument, or in the active sense, the self knows by itself. “And other deities know”—protective deities or other deities with knowledge of others’ minds know.
If he had committed the transgression of pārājika, even though he does not want to remember it, it repeatedly presents itself as an object of remorse. Therefore, he does not attain one-pointedness of mind. Hence it is said, “kammaṭṭhānaṃ na ghaṭayatī” and so on. Kammaṭṭhānaṃ na ghaṭayatīti, even for one of pure morality, if there is an abundance of mental agitation, etc., the mind does not become concentrated. That here is not to be taken as rooted in pārājika. It is with reference to the mind’s lack of concentration due to remorse rooted in the committed evil that it is said, “kammaṭṭhānaṃ na ghaṭayatī” and so on. Therefore, he says, “vippaṭisāragginā” and so on. Attanāti, with the mind as the instrument, the person as the agent knows; or, in a reflexive sense of instrument, the self knows by itself. Aññā ca devatā jānantīti, other deities, apart from the guardian deities, who know the minds of others, know.
If one has committed a Parājika transgression, due to the desire to conceal it, the object of remorse arises repeatedly, and thus one does not attain one-pointedness of mind. Therefore, it is said: “One does not engage in the meditation subject” and so on. “One does not engage in the meditation subject”: even for one of pure virtue, if the mind is often disturbed, it does not become concentrated. Here, the root of Parājika should not be taken. The non-concentration of the mind due to remorse rooted in past evil is referred to here: “One does not engage in the meditation subject” and so on. Therefore, it is said: “By the fire of remorse” and so on. “By oneself” means the person knows by the mind as the doer, or it is a verbal expression of doing, meaning one knows by oneself. “Other deities know”: other deities who know the minds of others, such as guardian deities, know.
ID1479
Imasmiṃ ṭhāne paṇḍitehi vicāretabbaṃ kāraṇaṃ atthi. Kathaṃ? Idāni ekacce vinayadharā paṭhamapārājikavisaye vatthumhi otiṇṇe itthiyā vā purisena vā gahaṭṭhena vā pabbajitena vā codiyamāne cuditakaṃ bhikkhuṃ pucchitvā paṭiññāya adīyamānāya taṃ bhikkhuṃ susāne ekakameva sayāpenti, evaṃ sayāpiyamāno so bhikkhu sace bhayasantāsavirahito sabbarattiṃ tasmiṃ susāne sayituṃ vā nisīdituṃ vā sakkoti, taṃ “parisuddho eso”ti vinicchinanti. Sace pana bhayasantāsappatto sabbarattiṃ sayituṃ vā nisīdituṃ vā na sakkoti, taṃ “asuddho”ti vinicchinanti, taṃ ayuttaṃ viya dissati. Kasmāti ce? Aṭṭhakathāya viruddhoti, aṭṭhakathāyaṃ dutiyatatiyapārājikavisaye eva tathārūpo vicāro vutto, na paṭhamacatautthapārājikavisaye. Vuttañhi tattha “methunadhammavītikkamo hi uttarimanussadhammavītikkamo ca oḷāriko, adinnādānamanussaviggahavītikkamā pana sukhumā cittalahukā, te sukhumeneva āpajjati, sukhumena rakkhati, tasmā visesena taṃvatthukaṃ kukkuccaṃ pucchiyamāno”ti. Ṭīkāyañca (sārattha. ṭī. 2.45) vuttaṃ “taṃvatthukanti te adinnādānamanussaviggahavītikkamā vatthu adhiṭṭhānaṃ kāraṇametassāti taṃvatthuka”nti, idampi ekaṃ kāraṇaṃ.
In this context, there is a matter to be investigated by the wise. How so? Nowadays, some Vinaya experts, when a monk is accused by a woman or man, layperson or monastic, regarding an incident falling under the first pārājika offense, question the accused monk. If the monk does not admit to the accusation, they make him sleep alone in a cemetery. If that monk, while sleeping there, is free from fear and dread and able to sleep or sit in that cemetery all night, they judge him as “pure.” But if, overcome by fear and dread, he is unable to sleep or sit there all night, they judge him as “impure.” This seems improper. Why? Because it contradicts the Commentary. In the Commentary, such an investigation is mentioned only for the second and third pārājika offenses, not for the first or fourth. It is stated there: “The transgression of sexual conduct and the transgression of superhuman states are gross, while the taking of what is not given and violence against a human are subtle and light in mind. These are committed subtly, protected subtly, and thus when questioned specifically about such matters, one with remorse arises” (pāci. 239). And in the Subcommentary (sārattha. ṭī. 2.45), it is said: “‘Taṃvatthuka’ means those transgressions of taking what is not given and violence against a human are the basis, the cause, of it—thus taṃvatthuka.” This too is one reason.
In this matter, there is a reason for the learned to investigate. How so? Now, some Vinaya experts, in the case of the first pārājika offense, when the basis is entered into, whether questioned by a woman or a man, a householder or a renunciant, after questioning the accused monk, and if he does not admit to it, they make that monk lie down alone in a charnel ground. When he is made to lie down thus, if that monk, free from fear and terror, is able to lie or sit in that charnel ground for the whole night, they determine, “He is pure.” But if, overcome by fear and terror, he is not able to lie or sit for the whole night, they determine, “He is impure.” This seems inappropriate. Why? Because it contradicts the Commentary. In the Commentary, such an investigation is only mentioned in the context of the second and third pārājika offenses, not in the context of the first and fourth pārājika offenses. For it is said there, “Transgression of the law of sexual intercourse and transgression of the law of higher human states are gross; however, transgressions of taking what is not given and taking a human life are subtle, of a fickle mind. They occur in a subtle way and are protected in a subtle way, therefore, being questioned about the doubt based on those actions.” And in the sub-commentary (Sārattha. ṭī. 2.45) it is said, “taṃvatthuka means that the taking of what is not given and the taking of human life are its basis, its foundation, its cause,” this too is one reason.
In this case, the wise should investigate the reason. How? Nowadays, some Vinaya experts, when a matter involving the first pārājika offense arises and a woman or a man, whether lay or monastic, accuses a monk, after questioning the accused monk and he admits it but does not confess, they make that monk sleep alone in a charnel ground. If, while being made to sleep there, the monk, free from fear and agitation, is able to lie down or sit in that charnel ground all night, they conclude, “He is pure.” But if he is overcome by fear and agitation and cannot lie down or sit there all night, they conclude, “He is impure.” This seems inappropriate. Why? Because it contradicts the commentary. The commentary states that such an investigation is prescribed only in cases involving the second and third pārājika offenses, not the first or fourth. For it is said there: “The transgression of sexual misconduct and the transgression of superhuman qualities are gross, while the transgression of stealing and physical assault are subtle and easily committed. Therefore, when questioning about such subtle matters, one should inquire with special care.” The sub-commentary (Sārattha-ṭīkā 2.45) also states: “The term ‘taṃvatthuka’ refers to the basis of the offense, meaning the act of stealing or physical assault is the cause for such an investigation.” This is one reason.
ID1480
Tatthāpi aññe paṇḍitepi vinicchināpetvā tesampi pārājikacchāyādissaneyeva tathā vinicchayo kātabbo, na suddhabhāvadissane. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ “āpattīti avatvā ’sacassa ācariyo dharati…pe… atha daharassapi pārājikacchāyāva upaṭṭhāti, tenapi ’pārājikosī’ti na vattabbo. Dullabho hi buddhuppādo, tato dullabhatarā pabbajjā ca upasampadā ca, evaṃ pana vattabba”nti, idamekaṃ. Nisīdāpiyamānopi vivittokāseyeva nisīdāpetabbo, na susāne. Vuttañhi tattha “vivittaṃ okāsaṃ sammajjitvā divāvihāraṃ nisīditvā”tiādi, idamekaṃ. Vivittokāse nisīdāpiyamānopi divāyeva nisīdāpetabbo, na rattiṃ. Tathā hi vuttaṃ “divasaṃ atikkantampi na jānāti, so divasātikkame upaṭṭhānaṃ āgato evaṃ vattabbo”ti, idamekaṃ.
Even there, other wise ones, having made a judgment, should decide in a way that only suggests the shadow of a pārājika offense, not purity. For it is said in the Commentary: “Without saying ‘an offense,’ if his teacher recalls… and even for a young monk, only the shadow of a pārājika appears, he should not be told, ‘You are a pārājika.’ For the arising of a Buddha is rare, and rarer still are ordination and higher ordination. Thus, it should be stated otherwise.” This is one point. Even when made to sit, he should be made to sit only in a secluded place, not a cemetery. It is said there: “Having swept a secluded place and sat in a daytime dwelling…” and so forth. This is one point. Even when made to sit in a secluded place, it should be during the day, not at night. Indeed, it is said: “Even if the day passes and he does not know it, when he comes to the assembly after the day has passed, he should be told thus…” This is one point.
Even there, other learned individuals should also be made to decide, and the decision should be made according to the semblance of pārājika that they see, not according to the perception of purity. For it is said in the Commentary, “Without saying ‘there is an offense’, ‘If his teacher lives…etc… Then even for a young one, only the semblance of pārājika arises, even by him it should not be said, ’You are one who has committed a pārājika.’ For a Buddha’s arising is rare; rarer than that are the going forth and the higher ordination. However, it should be said thus,’” this is one. Even when made to sit, he should be made to sit in a secluded place, not in a charnel ground. For it is said there, “Having swept a secluded place, having sat for the day’s abiding,” and so on, this is one. Even when made to sit in a secluded place, he should be made to sit during the day, not at night. Thus it is said, “He does not know even if the day has passed. He, having come to the dwelling place after the passing of the day, should be spoken to thus,” this is one.
Furthermore, even when other wise ones are consulted, their judgment should be made in accordance with the shadow of a pārājika offense, not in terms of absolute purity. For the commentary states: “Without declaring the offense, if his teacher remembers… even for a young monk, only the shadow of a pārājika appears, and thus he should not be declared a pārājika. For the arising of a Buddha is rare, and even rarer are ordination and higher ordination. Therefore, it should be said thus.” This is one point. Even when making him sit, he should be made to sit in a secluded place, not in a charnel ground. For it is said there: “Having swept a secluded place, he should sit there during the day.” This is another point. Even when making him sit in a secluded place, it should be done during the day, not at night. For it is said: “Even if the day has passed, he does not know it. When he comes for the meeting after the day has passed, he should be addressed thus.” This is another point.
ID1481
Īdisaṃ vidhānaṃ sayaṃ ārocite eva vidhātabbaṃ, na parehi codiyamāne. Tathā hi vuttaṃ “evaṃ katavītikkamena bhikkhunā sayameva āgantvā ārocite paṭipajjitabba”nti. Atha kasmā idāni evaṃ karontīti? Gihīnaṃ asakkhikaaṭṭakaraṇe udake nimujjāpanaṃ viya maññamānā evaṃ karonti. Tampi māyākusalā manussā vividhehi upāyehi vitathaṃ karonti, tasmā saccampi hoti, asaccampi hoti. Teneva ca kāraṇena mahosadhapaṇḍitādayo bodhisattā asakkhikampi aṭṭaṃ udakanimujjāpanādinā na vinicchinanti, ubhinnaṃ vacanaṃ parisaṃ gāhāpetvā tesaṃ vacanañca kiriyañca pariggahetvā saccañca vitathañca ñatvāva vinicchinanti. Sāsane pana bhikkhū sūrajātikāpi santi, bhīrukajātikāpi santi. Susānañca nāma pakatimanussānampi bhayasantāsakaraṃ hoti, rattikāle pana ativiya bhayānakaṃ hutvā upaṭṭhāti , evaṃbhūte susāne rattiyaṃ eko asahāyo hutvā nipajjāpiyamāno bhīrukajātiko bhikkhu parisuddhasīlopi samāno kiṃ na bhāyeyya, kathaṃ sabbarattiṃ sayituṃ vā nisīdituṃ vā sakkuṇeyya, tathārūpaṃ bhikkhuṃ “aparisuddho”ti vadanto kathaṃ kiccakaro bhavissati.
Such a procedure should be applied only when he confesses himself, not when accused by others. Indeed, it is said: “When a monk who has committed such a transgression comes and confesses himself, it should be dealt with accordingly.” Then why do they act this way now? Thinking it resembles laypeople submerging someone in water when there are no witnesses, they do so. Yet even that, skilled tricksters among people can falsify through various means, so it may be true or false. For this very reason, great wise ones like Mahosadha and other bodhisattas do not judge a case without witnesses by submerging in water or similar means; they have the assembly accept both parties’ statements, examine their words and actions, and judge only after knowing truth from falsehood. In the monastic discipline, there are monks of bold disposition and those of timid disposition. A cemetery naturally induces fear and dread even in ordinary people, and at night it becomes exceedingly terrifying. In such a cemetery, at night, lying down alone without a companion, how could a timid monk—even one of pure virtue—not be afraid? How could he sleep or sit all night? Declaring such a monk “impure” how could that be proper?
Such a procedure should only be carried out when he himself has revealed it, not when being questioned by others. Thus it is said, “When a monk who has committed such a transgression comes on his own and reveals it, one should proceed thus.” Then why are they doing this now? They do this thinking it to be like the immersion in water in legal proceedings without witnesses amongst lay people. But even that, skilled illusionists can falsify in various ways, therefore, it can be true or false. And for that reason, Bodhisattas like the Great Physician and others do not decide even unwitnessed legal cases by water immersion and so forth. They make the assembly accept the words of both parties and, having grasped their words and actions, they determine the truth and falsehood and only then decide. But in the Dispensation, there are monks who are of a solar nature and also monks who are of a timid nature. And a charnel ground is something that causes fear and terror even in ordinary humans. Especially at night, it becomes extremely terrifying. In such a charnel ground, being made to lie down alone and unsupported at night, what monk of a timid nature, even if he possesses pure moral conduct, would not be afraid? How could he be able to lie or sit for the whole night? Saying that such a monk is “impure,” how will one be a doer of what should be done?
Such a procedure should be followed only when the monk himself reports it, not when others accuse him. For it is said: “When a monk has committed such a transgression, he should come forward and report it himself.” Then why do they act thus now? They act thus, thinking it is like making a layperson dive into water when there is no witness. Even those skilled in deceit can make falsehoods appear true through various means, so both truth and falsehood arise. For this reason, wise beings like Mahosadha and the Bodhisattas do not judge based on diving into water or similar methods when there are no witnesses. They consider the statements and actions of both parties, discern the truth and falsehood, and only then make a judgment. In the Dispensation, there are monks who are naturally brave and those who are naturally timid. A charnel ground is frightening even to ordinary people, and at night it becomes especially terrifying. When a timid monk, even if pure in virtue, is made to lie down alone in such a charnel ground at night without companions, how could he not be afraid? How could he lie down or sit there all night? Declaring such a monk “impure” would not fulfill the duty.
ID1482
Alajjī pana sūrajātiko attano vajjaṃ paṭicchādetukāmo bhāyantopi abhāyanto viya hutvā “sace vikāraṃ dassessāmi, anatthaṃ me karissantī”ti anatthabhayena adhivāsetvā sayituṃ vā nisīdituṃ vā sakkuṇeyya, evarūpaṃ puggalaṃ “parisuddho”ti vadanto kathaṃ suvinicchito bhavissatīti. Idampi ekaṃ kāraṇaṃ.
On the other hand, a shameless monk of bold disposition, wishing to conceal his fault, though afraid, might act unafraid, thinking, “If I show any change, they will harm me,” and out of fear of harm endure it and manage to sleep or sit. Declaring such a person “pure,” how could that be a sound judgment? This too is one reason.
But a shameless one, of a solar nature, wishing to conceal his own fault, even though afraid, may act as if unafraid, thinking, “If I show a change, they will do harm to me.” Overcome by the fear of harm, he may be able to lie or sit. Saying that such a person is “pure,” how will one have decided well? This too is one reason.
A shameless, brave monk, wishing to conceal his fault, might endure and lie down or sit there all night, pretending not to be afraid, thinking, “If I show fear, they will harm me.” Declaring such a person “pure” would not be a proper judgment. This is another reason.
ID1483
Athāpi vadeyyuṃ – yathā udake nimujjāpitamanussānaṃ asaccavādīnaṃ devatānubhāvena kumbhīlādayo āgantvā gaṇhantā viya upaṭṭhahanti, tasmā asaccavādino sīghaṃ plavanti, saccavādīnaṃ pana na upaṭṭhahanti, tasmā te sukhena nisīdituṃ sakkonti, evaṃ tesampi bhikkhūnaṃ aparisuddhasīlānaṃ devatānubhāvena sīhabyagghādayo āgatā viya paññāyanti, tasmā te sabbarattiṃ sayituṃ vā nisīdituṃ vā na sakkonti. Parisuddhasīlānaṃ pana tathā na paññāyanti, tasmā te sabbarattiṃ devatāhi rakkhitā hutvā bhayasantāsarahitā susāne sayituṃ vā nisīdituṃ vā sakkonti, evaṃ devatā sakkhiṃ katvā vinicchitattā suvinicchitameva hotīti, tampi tathā na sakkā vattuṃ. Kasmā? Aṭṭhakathāṭīkādīsu tathā avuttattā. Aṭṭhakathāyañhi “vivittaṃ okāsaṃ sammajjitvā divāvihāraṃ nisīditvā sīlāni sodhetvā ’dvattiṃsākāraṃ tāva manasikarohī’ti vattabbo. Sace tassa arogaṃ sīlaṃ kammaṭṭhānaṃ ghaṭayati, saṅkhārā pākaṭā hutvā upaṭṭhahanti, upacārappanāppattaṃ viya cittaṃ ekaggaṃ hoti, divasaṃ atikkantampi na jānāti…pe… yassa pana sīlaṃ bhinnaṃ hoti, tassa kammaṭṭhānaṃ na ghaṭayati, patodābhitunnaṃ viya cittaṃ kampati, vippaṭisāragginā ḍayhati, tattapāsāṇe nisinno viya taṅkhaṇaññeva vuṭṭhātī”ti ettakameva vuttaṃ.
Some might say: “Just as when people are submerged in water, by the power of deities, crocodiles and the like appear to seize liars, causing them to float quickly, while truthful ones face no such thing and can sit comfortably, so too, for monks of impure virtue, by the power of deities, lions, tigers, and the like appear, preventing them from sleeping or sitting all night. But for those of pure virtue, no such thing appears, and guarded by deities, free from fear and dread, they can sleep or sit in a cemetery all night. Thus, judged with deities as witnesses, it is surely well-judged.” But this cannot be said either. Why? Because it is not stated thus in the Commentaries or Subcommentaries. For in the Commentary it is said: “Having swept a secluded place and sat in a daytime dwelling, purifying his virtue, he should be told, ‘First attend to the thirty-two parts.’ If his virtue is intact, his meditation subject connects, the formations become evident, his mind becomes concentrated as if reaching access or absorption, and he does not even notice the day passing… But if his virtue is broken, the meditation subject does not connect, his mind trembles like one poked with a stick, burns with the fire of remorse, and he rises instantly as if sitting on a hot stone.” Only this much is stated.
But they might say – just as water monsters, and so on, by the power of the deities, appear to seize those who are immersed in water and who speak falsehood, therefore, those who speak falsehood quickly surface, but for those who speak the truth, they do not appear, therefore, they are able to sit at ease; similarly, for those monks who have impure moral conduct, lions, tigers, and so on, appear as if they have come, by the power of the deities, therefore, they are not able to lie or sit for the whole night. But for those with pure moral conduct, such do not appear, therefore, protected by the deities for the whole night, free from fear and terror, they are able to lie or sit in the charnel ground. Thus, having determined with deities as witnesses, it is well determined, this too cannot be said so. Why? Because it is not spoken thus in the Commentary, Sub-commentary, and so on. For in the Commentary it is said, “Having swept a secluded place, having sat for the day’s abiding, having purified his moral conduct, he should be told, ‘Now, apply your mind to the thirty-two parts of the body.’ If his unimpaired moral conduct engages with the meditation subject, the formations become manifest, and his mind becomes concentrated as if it has reached access and absorption. He does not know even if the day has passed…etc… But for one whose moral conduct is broken, his meditation subject does not engage, his mind trembles like one struck with a goad, he burns with the fire of remorse, like one sitting on a heated stone, he gets up immediately,” only this much is said.
Moreover, some might say: “Just as when people who speak falsely are made to dive into water, creatures like crocodiles appear by the power of deities and seize them, causing the liars to flee quickly, while the truthful remain unharmed and can sit comfortably, so too for monks who are impure in virtue, creatures like lions and tigers appear by the power of deities, causing them to be unable to lie down or sit all night. But for those pure in virtue, such creatures do not appear, and thus, protected by deities, they can lie down or sit in the charnel ground all night without fear. Therefore, judging based on the testimony of deities is proper.” This too cannot be accepted. Why? Because it is not stated thus in the commentaries or sub-commentaries. For the commentary states: “Having swept a secluded place, he should sit there during the day, purify his virtue, and be told, ‘First reflect on the thirty-two parts of the body.’ If his virtue is unbroken and his meditation subject progresses, the formations become clear, and his mind becomes unified as if reaching access concentration. He does not know even if the day has passed… But for one whose virtue is broken, the meditation subject does not progress. His mind trembles like one struck by a goad, burns with the fire of remorse, and he rises immediately as if sitting on a hot stone.” Only this much is said.
ID1484
Ṭīkāyampi (sārattha. ṭī. 2.45) “kammaṭṭhānaṃ ghaṭayatīti antarantarā khaṇḍaṃ adassetvā cittena saddhiṃ ārammaṇabhāvena cirakālaṃ ghaṭayati. Saṅkhārā pākaṭā upaṭṭhahantīti vipassanākammaṭṭhāniko ce, tassa saṅkhārā pākaṭā hutvā upaṭṭhahanti. Sace katapārājikavītikkamo bhaveyya, tassa satipi asaritukāmatāya vippaṭisāravatthuvasena punappunaṃ taṃ upaṭṭhahatīti cittekaggataṃ na vindatī”ti ettakameva vuttaṃ.
In the Subcommentary too (sārattha. ṭī. 2.45), it is said: “‘Kammaṭṭhānaṃ ghaṭayati’ means it connects with the mind as an object for a long time without interruption. ‘Saṅkhārā pākaṭā upaṭṭhahanti’ means if he practices insight meditation, the formations become evident to him. If he has committed a pārājika offense, even if he does not wish to recall it, it repeatedly arises as an object of remorse, so he does not attain mental concentration.” Only this much is stated.
In the sub-commentary (Sārattha. ṭī. 2.45) also, “kammaṭṭhānaṃ ghaṭayatī” means it engages with the mind in the manner of an object for a long time, without showing the break in between. Saṅkhārā pākaṭā upaṭṭhahantī means if he is a practitioner of insight meditation, his formations become manifest and arise. If he should have committed a pārājika transgression, even if he has the desire not to remember it, because it is the object of remorse, it repeatedly arises, so he does not attain one-pointedness of mind,” only this much is said.
The sub-commentary (Sārattha-ṭīkā 2.45) also states: “The term ‘kammaṭṭhānaṃ ghaṭayati’ means he engages with the object of meditation for a long time without interruption. ‘Saṅkhārā pākaṭā upaṭṭhahanti’ means if he is practicing insight meditation, the formations become clear. But if he has committed a pārājika offense, due to the basis of remorse and the desire to forget, the formations repeatedly arise, and he does not attain one-pointedness of mind.” Only this much is said.
ID1485
Vimativinodaniyampi (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.45) “kammaṭṭhānaṃ ghaṭayatīti vippaṭisāramūlakena vikkhepena antarantarā khaṇḍaṃ adassetvā pabandhavasena cittena saṅghaṭayati. Saṅkhārāti vipassanākammaṭṭhānavasena vuttaṃ. Sāpattikassa hi paguṇampi kammaṭṭhānaṃ na suṭṭhu upaṭṭhāti. Pageva pārājikassa. Tassa hi vippaṭisāraninnatāya cittaṃ ekaggaṃ na hoti. Ekassa pana vitakkavikkhepādibahulassa suddhasīlassapi cittaṃ na samādhiyati, taṃ idha pārājikamūlanti na gahetabbaṃ. Katapāpamūlakena vippaṭisārenevettha cittassa asamādhiyanaṃ sandhāya ‘kammaṭṭhānaṃ na ghaṭayatī’tiādi vutta”nti ettakameva vuttaṃ, na vuttaṃ “devatānubhāvenā”tiādi, tasmā yadi buddhasāsane sagāravo sikkhākāmo bhikkhu dutiyatatiyapārājikavisaye attano kañci vītikkamaṃ disvā “pārājikaṃ āpanno nu kho ahaṃ, na nu kho”ti saṃsayapakkhando vinayadharaṃ upasaṅkamitvā taṃ vītikkamaṃ yathābhūtaṃ ācikkhitvā puccheyya, tato vinayadharena aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttanayeneva “sabbaṃ pubbavidhānaṃ katvā vivittaṃ okāsaṃ sammajjitvā divāvihāraṃ nisīditvā sīlāni sodhetvā dvattiṃsākāre tāva manasikarohī”ti ettakameva vattabbo , na vattabbo “susāne seyyaṃ kappehī”tiādi. Āgatakālepi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ āgatanayeneva pucchitvā aṭṭhakathāyaṃ āgatanayenevassa suddhāsuddhabhāvo vattabboti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
In the Vimativinodanī too (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.45), it is said: “‘Kammaṭṭhānaṃ ghaṭayati’ means it connects with the mind continuously without interruption caused by remorse-based distraction. ‘Saṅkhārā’ refers to insight meditation practice. For one with an offense, even a well-mastered meditation subject does not arise clearly—how much less for a pārājika offender! Due to the inclination toward remorse, his mind does not concentrate. Yet even for one of pure virtue with much discursive thought or distraction, the mind may not concentrate; this should not be taken here as rooted in a pārājika offense. It is with remorse rooted in committed evil that the mind’s lack of concentration is meant by ‘kammaṭṭhānaṃ na ghaṭayati’ and so forth.” Only this much is stated, not “by the power of deities” or similar. Therefore, if a monk in the Buddha’s dispensation, respectful and eager to train, seeing some transgression in the second or third pārājika domain, wonders, “Have I committed a pārājika or not?” and, uncertain, approaches a Vinaya expert, truthfully recounts the transgression, and asks, then the Vinaya expert should say only what is stated in the Commentary: “After completing all preliminary procedures, sweep a secluded place, sit in a daytime dwelling, purify your virtue, and first attend to the thirty-two parts.” He should not say, “Sleep in a cemetery,” or the like. When he returns, he should be questioned and his purity or impurity declared according to the method stated in the Commentary.
In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. vi. ṭī. 1.45) also, “kammaṭṭhānaṃ ghaṭayatī” means it engages continuously with the mind, without showing the break in between caused by the distraction rooted in remorse. Saṅkhārā is spoken with reference to the insight meditation subject. For one with an offense, even a well-practiced meditation subject does not arise properly. How much less for one who has committed a pārājika. For him, due to the mind’s inclination towards remorse, the mind does not become concentrated. But for one who is pure in morality, if the mind has a lot of distracting thoughts and the like, and does not become concentrated, one shouldn’t take that as a reason for pārājika here. With regards to only the non-concentration of mind, the ‘kammaṭṭhānaṃ na ghaṭayatī’ and so forth, is spoken in the context of remorse for misdeeds done.” Only this much is said. It is not said, “by the power of the deities,” and so on. Therefore, if a monk who is respectful of the Buddha’s Dispensation, desires the training, seeing some transgression of his own regarding the second and third pārājika offenses, and is perplexed, “Have I fallen into a pārājika or not?”, he should approach a Vinaya expert, and, after relating that transgression as it actually happened, should ask. Then, the Vinaya expert should, according to the method spoken of in the Commentary, say only, “Having done all the preliminary procedures, having swept a secluded place, having sat for the day’s abiding, having purified his moral conduct, now, apply your mind to the thirty-two parts of the body,” he should not say, “Make a bed in the charnel ground,” and so on. Even in future times, having questioned according to the method that has come in the Commentary, one should understand that the state of purity or impurity should be spoken of according to the method that has come in the Commentary.
The Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.45) also states: “The term ‘kammaṭṭhānaṃ ghaṭayati’ means he engages with the object of meditation continuously despite the distraction rooted in remorse. ‘Saṅkhārā’ refers to insight meditation. For one who has committed an offense, even a familiar meditation subject does not appear clearly. How much more so for one who has committed a pārājika offense? Due to the inclination toward remorse, his mind does not become unified. But even for one with much discursive thought, though pure in virtue, the mind does not become concentrated. Here, the root is not the pārājika offense but the remorse arising from past evil deeds, which prevents the mind from becoming concentrated.” Only this much is said, not that deities intervene. Therefore, if a monk who respects the Buddha’s Dispensation and desires to train sees any transgression in the second or third pārājika offenses and thinks, “Have I committed a pārājika offense or not?” he should approach a Vinaya expert, confess the transgression truthfully, and inquire. Then the Vinaya expert should follow the method prescribed in the commentary: “After completing all preliminary procedures, sweep a secluded place, sit there during the day, purify your virtue, and first reflect on the thirty-two parts of the body.” Only this much should be said, not “Make him sleep in a charnel ground.” Even when the time comes, the inquiry should follow the method prescribed in the commentary, and his purity or impurity should be declared accordingly.
ID1486
Evaṃ hotu, evaṃ sante idāni paṭhamapārājikavisaye codentānaṃ kathaṃ vinicchayo kātabboti? Codakena vatthusmiṃ ārocite cuditako pucchitabbo “santametaṃ, no”ti evaṃ vatthuṃ upaparikkhitvā bhūtena vatthunā codetvā sāretvā ñattisampadāya anussāvanasampadāya taṃ adhikaraṇaṃ vūpasametabbaṃ. Evampi alajjī nāma “etampi natthi, etampi natthī”ti vadeyya, paṭiññaṃ na dadeyya, atha kiṃ kātabbanti? Evampi alajjissa paṭiññāya eva āpattiyā kāretabbaṃ yathā taṃ tipiṭakacūḷābhayattherenāti. Vuttañhetaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.385-386) “evaṃ lajjinā codiyamāno alajjī bahūsupi vatthūsu uppannesu paṭiññaṃ na deti, so ’neva suddho’ti vattabbo, na ’asuddho’ti, jīvamatako nāma āmakapūtiko nāma cesa. Sace panassa aññampi tādisaṃ vatthu uppajjati, na vinicchitabbaṃ, tathā nāsitakova bhavissatī”tiādi.
So be it. If this is so, how should judgment be made now for those accusing regarding the first pārājika domain? When the accuser reports the matter, the accused should be asked, “Is this true or not?” After examining the matter, accusing and reminding him with the true matter, the case should be settled with the accomplishment of the motion and announcement. Even so, a shameless one might say, “This isn’t so, that isn’t so,” and not admit it. Then what should be done? Even in this case, action should be taken based on the shameless one’s admission of the offense, as done by the Elder Cūḷābhaya of the Tipiṭaka. It is said in the Commentary (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.385-386): “When a shameless one, accused by a virtuous one, does not admit even when many matters arise, he should neither be called ‘pure’ nor ‘impure.’ He is like a living corpse, a rotting carcass. If another such matter arises for him, it should not be judged; he will remain expelled as such.”
Let it be so. This being so, how should the determination be made for those who accuse in the case of the first pārājika offense? When the basis is brought up by the accuser, the accused should be asked, “Is this so, or not?” Thus, having investigated the basis, and having charged him based on a true basis, having urged him, with the accomplishment of a formal statement and the accomplishment of a proclamation, that case should be settled. Even so, a shameless one might say, “This is not so, this is also not so,” and might not admit. Then what should be done? Even so, a penalty should be imposed on the shameless one for the offense based on his own confession, just as it was done by the elder Thera Cūḷābhaya of the three Piṭakas. It is said in the Commentary (Pārā. aṭṭha. 2.385-386), “Thus, being questioned by a conscientious one, a shameless one does not admit even when many bases have arisen. He should be spoken of as ‘not pure,’ not as ‘impure.’ He is one who is living, he is one who is like raw carrion. If another such basis arises for him, it should not be determined, for he will be as if he has been destroyed,” and so on.
So be it. If this is the case, how should judgment be made in the first pārājika offense when accusers arise? When the accuser reports the matter, the accused should be questioned: “Is this true or not?” After investigating the matter, the accusation should be made with a true basis, and the dispute should be settled through the proper procedures of motion and proclamation. Even if a shameless one says, “This is not so, that is not so,” and does not admit, what should be done? Even for such a shameless one, the offense should be established through his admission, as done by the Elder Tipiṭaka Cūḷābhaya. For the commentary states (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.385-386): “When a shameless one is accused, even if many grounds arise, he does not admit. He should be declared ‘not pure,’ not ‘impure.’ He is called ‘one who clings to life’ or ‘one who is like raw pus.’ If another such ground arises, it should not be judged, for he will remain as before.”
ID1487
235. Evaṃ vinayadharalakkhaṇañca chaṭṭhānaolokanañca viditvā idāni…pe… vinicchayo veditabboti yojanā. Kimatthanti āha “yā sā…pe… jānanattha”nti. Yā sā pubbe vuttappabhedā codanā atthi, tassāyeva sampattivipattijānanatthaṃ ādimajjhapaayosānādīnaṃ vasena vinicchayo veditabbo, na avuttacodanāpabhedajānanatthanti attho. Seyyathidanti pucchanatthe nipāto, so vinicchayo katamoti attho.
235. Thus, understanding the characteristics of a Vinaya expert and the sixfold investigation, now… the judgment should be understood—this is the connection. For what purpose? It says: “Yā sā… jānanattha.” The judgment should be understood by way of its beginning, middle, and end, for the sake of knowing the success or failure of that accusation previously mentioned in its various forms, not for knowing unmentioned types of accusation—this is the meaning. “Seyyathidaṃ” is a particle used in questioning, meaning “What is that judgment?”
235. Thus, having known the characteristics of a Vinaya expert and the observation of the six points, now…etc… the determination should be understood, is the connection. For what purpose? He says, “yā sā…pe… jānanattha”nti. Whatever accusation of various kinds spoken of previously, the determination should be understood for the purpose of knowing the attainment and non-attainment of that very accusation, according to the beginning, middle, and end, and so on, not for the purpose of knowing the unmentioned kinds of accusations. Seyyathida is an indeclinable particle in the sense of questioning, meaning, “What is that determination?”
235. Having understood the characteristics of a Vinaya expert and the sixth method of investigation, now… the judgment should be understood as follows. For what purpose? It is said: “For the purpose of knowing the success or failure of the previously stated types of accusation.” The judgment should be understood in terms of the beginning, middle, and end of the accusation, not for knowing unstated types of accusation. For example, the particle “seyyathida” indicates the purpose of questioning, meaning the judgment should be made accordingly.
ID1488
Codanāya kati mūlāni, kati vatthūni, kati bhūmiyoti ettha “katihākārehī”tipi vattabbaṃ. Vuttañhetaṃ parivāre (pari. 362) codanākaṇḍe “codanāya kati mūlāni, kati vatthūni, kati bhūmiyo, katihākārehi codetī”ti. Mettacitto vakkhāmi, no dosantaroti etassapi parato “codanāya imā pañca bhūmiyo. Katamehi dvīhākārehi codeti, kāyena vā codeti, vācāya vā codeti, imehi dvīhākārehi codetī”ti vattabbaṃ. Kasmā? Codanākaṇḍe (pari. 362) tathā vijjamānatoti. Pannarasasu dhammesu patiṭṭhātabbanti parisuddhakāyasamācāratā, parisuddhavacīsamācāratā, mettacitte paccupaṭṭhitatā, bahussutatā, ubhayapātimokkhasvāgatatā, kālena vacanatā, bhūtena vacanatā, saṇhena vacanatā, atthasañhitena vacanatā, mettacitto hutvā vacanatā, kāruññatā, hitesitā, anukampatā, āpattivuṭṭhānatā, vinayapurekkhāratāti. Vuttañhetaṃ upālipañcake (pari. 436) “codakenupāli bhikkhunā paraṃ codetukāmena evaṃ paccavekkhitabbaṃ – parisuddhakāyasamācāro nu khomhi…pe… parisuddhavacīsamācāro nu khomhi…pe… mettaṃ nu kho me cittaṃ paccupaṭṭhitaṃ sabrahmacārīsu…pe… bahussuto nu khomhi sutadharo sutasannicayo…pe… ubhayāni kho me pātimokkhāni vitthārena svāgatāni…pe… kālena vakkhāmi, no akālena, bhūtena vakkhāmi, no abhūtena, saṇhena vakkhāmi, no pharusena, atthasañhitena vakkhāmi, no anatthasañhitena, mettacitto vakkhāmi, no dosantaro…pe… kāruññatā, hitesitā, anukampatā, āpattivuṭṭhānatā, vinayapurekkhāratā”ti.
Codanāya kati mūlāni, kati vatthūni, kati bhūmiyo—here, “katihākārehi” (by how many modes) could also be said. It is stated in the Parivāra (pari. 362) in the section on accusation: “How many roots, how many matters, how many grounds, by how many modes does one accuse?” “Mettacitto vakkhāmi, no dosantaro” (I will speak with a mind of loving-kindness, not with ill will)—later it should be said: “These are the five grounds of accusation. By which two modes does one accuse? One accuses by body or by speech—these are the two modes.” Why? Because it is so found in the section on accusation (pari. 362). “Pannarasasu dhammesu patiṭṭhātabbaṃ” (It should be established in fifteen qualities): purity in bodily conduct, purity in verbal conduct, a mind established in loving-kindness, great learning, mastery of both Pātimokkhas, speaking at the right time, speaking truthfully, speaking gently, speaking beneficially, speaking with a mind of loving-kindness, compassion, intent on welfare, sympathy, ability to rehabilitate from offenses, and prioritizing the Vinaya. It is stated in the Upāli Pañcaka (pari. 436): “Upāli, a monk wishing to accuse another should reflect thus: ‘Am I pure in bodily conduct…? Am I pure in verbal conduct…? Is my mind established in loving-kindness toward fellow monastics…? Am I greatly learned, retaining and accumulating teachings…? Are both Pātimokkhas well-mastered by me…? Do I speak at the right time, not the wrong time; truthfully, not falsely; gently, not harshly; beneficially, not harmfully; with a mind of loving-kindness, not with ill will…? Compassion, intent on welfare, sympathy, ability to rehabilitate from offenses, prioritizing the Vinaya.’”
Codanāya kati mūlāni, kati vatthūni, kati bhūmiyoti here, “in how many ways” should also be said. It is said in the Parivāra (Pari. 362), in the section on accusation, “How many roots are there of accusation, how many bases, how many grounds, in how many ways does he accuse?” Mettacitto vakkhāmi, no dosantaroti after this also, “These are the five grounds of accusation. In which two ways does he accuse? He accuses by body, or he accuses by speech. In these two ways he accuses,” should be said. Why? Because it is found thus in the section on accusation (Pari. 362). Pannarasasu dhammesu patiṭṭhātabbanti: purity of bodily conduct, purity of verbal conduct, establishment of a mind of loving-kindness, being learned, mastery of both Pātimokkhas, speaking at the right time, speaking based on truth, speaking gently, speaking connected with the good, speaking with a mind of loving-kindness, compassion, benevolence, sympathy, removal from offenses, prioritizing the Vinaya. It is said in the Upālipañcaka (Pari. 436), “The monk Upāli, the accuser, wishing to accuse another, should reflect thus: – Am I pure in bodily conduct…etc… Am I pure in verbal conduct…etc… Is my mind established in loving-kindness towards fellow monks…etc… Am I learned, remembering what is heard, accumulating what is heard…etc… Are both Pātimokkhas well mastered by me in detail…etc… I will speak at the right time, not at the wrong time, I will speak based on truth, not based on falsehood, I will speak gently, not harshly, I will speak connected with the good, not connected with what is not good, I will speak with a mind of loving-kindness, not with a mind of ill will…etc… compassion, benevolence, sympathy, removal from offenses, prioritizing the Vinaya.”
How many roots, grounds, and bases are there in an accusation? Here, “in how many ways” should also be said. For it is stated in the Parivāra (Pari. 362) in the chapter on accusations: “How many roots, grounds, and bases are there in an accusation? In how many ways does one accuse?” With a mind of loving-kindness, I will speak, not with hatred. Here too, it should be said: “There are these five bases in an accusation. In how many ways does one accuse? One accuses either by body or by speech. In these two ways, one accuses.” Why? Because it is found thus in the chapter on accusations (Pari. 362). One should establish oneself in the fifteen qualities: purity in bodily conduct, purity in verbal conduct, being established in a mind of loving-kindness, being learned, being well-versed in both Pātimokkhas, speaking at the right time, speaking truthfully, speaking gently, speaking meaningfully, speaking with a mind of loving-kindness, being compassionate, wishing for the welfare of others, being sympathetic, being skilled in settling offenses, and prioritizing the Vinaya. For it is stated in the Upāli Pañcaka (Pari. 436): “When a monk wishes to accuse another, he should reflect thus: ‘Am I pure in bodily conduct… Am I pure in verbal conduct… Is my mind established in loving-kindness toward my fellow monks… Am I learned, a bearer of the teachings, an accumulator of the teachings… Are both Pātimokkhas well-known to me in detail… Do I speak at the right time, not at the wrong time… Do I speak truthfully, not falsely… Do I speak gently, not harshly… Do I speak meaningfully, not meaninglessly… Do I speak with a mind of loving-kindness, not with hatred… Am I compassionate, wishing for the welfare of others, sympathetic, skilled in settling offenses, and prioritizing the Vinaya?’”
ID1489
Tattha kāruññatāti kāruṇikabhāvo. Iminā karuṇā ca karuṇāpubbabhāgo ca dassito . Hitesitāti hitagavesanatā . Anukampatāti tena hitena saṃyojanatā. Āpattivuṭṭhānatāti āpattito vuṭṭhāpetvā suddhante patiṭṭhāpanatā. Vatthuṃ codetvā sāretvā paṭiññaṃ āropetvā yathāpaṭiññāya kammakaraṇaṃ vinayapurekkhāratā nāma. Amūlakampi samūlakampi “mūla”nti gahetvā vadantīti āha “dve mūlānī”ti. Kālena vakkhāmītiādīsu eko ekaṃ okāsaṃ kāretvā codento kālena vadati nāma. Saṅghamajjhe gaṇamajjhe salākaggayāguaggavitakkamāḷakabhikkhācāramaggaāsanasālādīsu, upaṭṭhākehi parivāritakkhaṇe vā codento akālena vadati nāma. Tacchena vatthunā codento bhūtena vadati nāma. Tucchena codento abhūtena vadati nāma. “Ambho mahallaka parisāvacara paṃsukūlika dhammakathika patirūpaṃ tava ida”nti vadanto pharusena vadati nāma. “Bhante, mahallakā parisāvacarā paṃsukūlikā dhammakathikā patirūpaṃ tumhākaṃ ida”nti vadanto saṇhena vadati nāma. Kāraṇanissitaṃ katvā vadanto atthasañhitena vadati nāma. Mettacitto vakkhāmi, no dosantaroti mettacittaṃ upaṭṭhāpetvā vakkhāmi, na duṭṭhacitto hutvā. Sacce ca akuppe cāti vacīsacce ca akuppatāya ca. Cuditakena hi saccañca vattabbaṃ, kopo ca na kātabbo, attanā ca na kucchitabbaṃ, paro ca na ghaṭṭetabboti attho.
Therein, “kāruññatā” means the state of compassion, indicating both compassion and its precursor. “Hitesitā” means seeking welfare. “Anukampatā” means connecting with that welfare. “Āpattivuṭṭhānatā” means rehabilitating from an offense and establishing in purity. Accusing and reminding about a matter, establishing admission, and performing the act according to that admission is called “vinayapurekkhāratā” (prioritizing the Vinaya). Taking both baseless and grounded accusations as “roots,” it says “dve mūlāni” (two roots). In “kālena vakkhāmi” and so forth, one who accuses by choosing a suitable occasion is said to “speak at the right time.” One who accuses in the midst of the Saṅgha, a group, at the ticket-distribution, gruel distribution, discussion hall, almsround, road, or assembly hall, or when surrounded by attendants, is said to “speak at the wrong time.” One who accuses with a true matter “speaks truthfully”; one who accuses with a baseless matter “speaks falsely.” One who says, “Hey, old man, assembly-goer, rag-robe wearer, Dhamma speaker, this suits you,” “speaks harshly.” One who says, “Venerable, for elders, assembly-goers, rag-robe wearers, Dhamma speakers, this suits you,” “speaks gently.” Speaking with reference to a reason “speaks beneficially.” “Mettacitto vakkhāmi, no dosantaro” means I will speak with a mind established in loving-kindness, not with a corrupted mind. “Sacce ca akuppe ca” means in truthfulness of speech and steadfastness. The accused must speak the truth, not become angry, not despise himself, nor harm the other—this is the meaning.
Therein, kāruññatāti means the state of being compassionate. By this, compassion and the preliminary part of compassion are shown. Hitesitāti means the searching for what is beneficial. Anukampatāti means connecting with that benefit. Āpattivuṭṭhānatāti means establishing him in purity after having raised him from the offense. Charging based on the basis, urging, imposing a confession, and performing the act according to the confession is called vinayapurekkhāratā. Saying, “taking even what is baseless and what is based as ‘root’,” he says, “dve mūlānī”ti. In Kālena vakkhāmīti and so on, one who, making each one an opportunity, accuses, is called kālena vadati (speaking at the right time). One who accuses in the midst of the Sangha, in the midst of a group, during the distribution of tickets, gruel, during the walking of the rounds, alms food, in the street, in the hall for seating, and so on, or when surrounded by attendants, is called akālena vadati (speaking at the wrong time). One who accuses based on a factual basis is called bhūtena vadati (speaking based on truth). One who accuses based on a false basis is called abhūtena vadati (speaking based on falsehood). Saying, “Hey, old man, frequenter of the assembly, refuse-rag wearer, Dhamma preacher, this is appropriate for you,” he is called pharusena vadati (speaking harshly). Saying, “Venerable Sir, for old men, frequenters of the assembly, refuse-rag wearers, Dhamma preachers, this is appropriate for you,” he is called saṇhena vadati (speaking gently). Saying with reference to a reason, he is called atthasañhitena vadati (speaking connected with the good). Mettacitto vakkhāmi, no dosantaroti means I will speak having established a mind of loving-kindness, not with a mind of ill will. Sacce ca akuppe cāti means in verbal truth and in imperturbability. For the accused should speak the truth, and should not be angry, and should not be self-deprecating, and should not agitate the other, is the meaning.
There, compassion means the state of being compassionate. This shows both compassion and the preliminary stage of compassion. Wishing for the welfare of others means seeking their benefit. Sympathy means connecting them with that benefit. Skill in settling offenses means freeing them from offenses and establishing them in purity. After accusing and reminding them, establishing the legal act according to their admission is called prioritizing the Vinaya. Those who speak of both rootless and rooted offenses as “roots” are said to have two roots. Speaking at the right time means accusing at an appropriate time. Accusing in the midst of the Sangha, in a group, during the distribution of gruel, during a discussion, in the monastery, on the road, in the dining hall, or when surrounded by attendants is called speaking at the wrong time. Accusing with a true basis is called speaking truthfully. Accusing without a basis is called speaking falsely. Saying, “Hey, old man, wandering monk, rag-robe wearer, Dhamma speaker, this is suitable for you,” is called speaking harshly. Saying, “Venerable, old wandering monks, rag-robe wearers, Dhamma speakers, this is suitable for you,” is called speaking gently. Speaking based on a reason is called speaking meaningfully. With a mind of loving-kindness, I will speak, not with hatred means speaking with a mind of loving-kindness, not with a mind of hatred. In truth and steadfastness means speaking truthfully and with steadfastness. For the accused should speak truthfully, not with anger, and should not belittle himself or provoke others.
ID1490
Imasmiṃ ṭhāne “saṅghena otiṇṇānotiṇṇaṃ jānitabbaṃ – anuvijjakena yena dhammena yena vinayena yena satthusāsanena taṃ adhikaraṇaṃ vūpasammati, tathā taṃ adhikaraṇaṃ vūpasametabba”nti vattabbaṃ. Vuttañhetaṃ codanākaṇḍe (pari. 363) “codakena kathaṃ paṭipajjitabbaṃ? Cuditakena kathaṃ paṭipajjitabbaṃ? Saṅghena kathaṃ paṭipajjitabbaṃ? Anuvijjakena kathaṃ paṭipajjitabbaṃ? Codakena kathaṃ paṭipajjitabbanti? Codakena pañcasu dhammesu patiṭṭhāya paro codetabbo. Kālena vakkhāmi no akālena, bhūtena vakkhāmi no abhūtena, saṇhena vakkhāmi no pharusena, atthasañhitena vakkhāmi no anatthasañhitena, mettacitto vakkhāmi no dosantaroti. Codakena evaṃ paṭipajjitabbaṃ. Cuditakena kathaṃ paṭipajjitabbanti? Cuditakena dvīsu dhammesu patiṭṭhātabbaṃ sacce ca akuppe ca. Cuditakena evaṃ paṭipajjitabbaṃ. Saṅghena kathaṃ paṭipajjitabbanti? Saṅghena otiṇṇānotiṇṇaṃ jānitabbaṃ. Saṅghena evaṃ paṭipajjitabbaṃ. Anuvijjakena kathaṃ paṭipajjitabbanti? Anuvijjakena yena dhammena yena vinayena yena satthusāsanena taṃ adhikaraṇaṃ vūpasammati, tathā taṃ adhikaraṇaṃ vūpasametabbaṃ. Anuvijjakena evaṃ paṭipajjitabba”nti.
In this context, it should be said: “The Saṅgha should know whether it is committed or not—by the investigator, according to the Dhamma, the Vinaya, and the Teacher’s instruction by which that case is settled, so should that case be settled.” It is stated in the section on accusation (pari. 363): “How should the accuser proceed? How should the accused proceed? How should the Saṅgha proceed? How should the investigator proceed? The accuser should proceed thus: Accusing another while established in five qualities—at the right time, not the wrong time; truthfully, not falsely; gently, not harshly; beneficially, not harmfully; with a mind of loving-kindness, not with ill will. The accused should proceed thus: Established in two qualities—truth and steadfastness. The Saṅgha should proceed thus: The Saṅgha should know whether it is committed or not. The investigator should proceed thus: By the Dhamma, the Vinaya, and the Teacher’s instruction by which that case is settled, so should that case be settled.”
In this instance, it should be stated, “The Sangha should know whether [the case] has been reported or not – the investigator should settle the legal case according to that Dhamma, that Vinaya, and that teaching of the Teacher; thus should the legal case be settled.” This has been said in the Codanākaṇḍa (pari. 363): “How should the accuser behave? How should the accused behave? How should the Sangha behave? How should the investigator behave? How should the accuser behave? The accuser should accuse another having established himself in five qualities. I will speak at the right time, not at the wrong time; I will speak what is true, not what is false; I will speak gently, not harshly; I will speak what is connected with the goal, not what is unconnected with the goal; I will speak with a mind of loving-kindness, not with inner hate. Thus should the accuser behave. How should the accused behave? The accused should establish himself in two qualities: in truth and in imperturbability. Thus should the accused behave. How should the Sangha behave? The Sangha should know whether [the case] has been reported or not. Thus should the Sangha behave. How should the investigator behave? The investigator should settle the legal case according to that Dhamma, that Vinaya, and that teaching of the Teacher; thus should the legal case be settled. Thus should the investigator behave.”
In this context, it should be said: “The Sangha should know whether it has been dealt with or not—by the investigator, through which Dhamma, through which Vinaya, through which Teacher’s instruction, that dispute is settled; thus, that dispute should be settled accordingly.” For this is stated in the Codanākaṇḍa (pari. 363): “How should the accuser proceed? How should the accused proceed? How should the Sangha proceed? How should the investigator proceed? How should the accuser proceed? The accuser, having established himself in five qualities, should accuse another: ‘I will speak at the proper time, not at the wrong time; I will speak truthfully, not falsely; I will speak gently, not harshly; I will speak beneficially, not harmfully; I will speak with a mind of loving-kindness, not with inner hatred.’ Thus, the accuser should proceed. How should the accused proceed? The accused should establish himself in two qualities: truth and steadfastness. Thus, the accused should proceed. How should the Sangha proceed? The Sangha should know whether it has been dealt with or not. Thus, the Sangha should proceed. How should the investigator proceed? The investigator should settle the dispute through which Dhamma, through which Vinaya, through which Teacher’s instruction it is settled; thus, the dispute should be settled accordingly. Thus, the investigator should proceed.”
ID1491
Aṭṭhakathāyampi (pari. aṭṭha. 362-363) “codanāya ko ādītiādipucchānaṃ vissajjane sacce akuppe cāti ettha sacce patiṭṭhātabbaṃ akuppe ca, yaṃ kataṃ vā akataṃ vā, tadeva vattabbaṃ, na codake vā anuvijjake vā saṅghe vā kopo uppādetabbo. Otiṇṇānotiṇṇaṃ jānitabbanti otiṇṇañca anotiṇṇañca vacanaṃ jānitabbaṃ. Tatrāyaṃ jānanavidhi – ettakā codakassa pubbakathā, ettakā pacchimakathā, ettakā cuditakassa pubbakathā, ettakā pacchimakathāti jānitabbā. Codakassa pamāṇaṃ gaṇhitabbaṃ, cuditakassa pamāṇaṃ gaṇhitabbaṃ, anuvijjakassa pamāṇaṃ gaṇhitabbaṃ. Anuvijjako appamattakampi ahāpento ’āvuso, samannāharitvā ujuṃ katvā āharā’ti vattabbo, saṅghena evaṃ paṭipajjitabbaṃ. Yena dhammena yena vinayena yena satthusāsanena taṃ adhikaraṇaṃ vūpasammatīti ettha dhammoti bhūtaṃ vatthu. Vinayoti codanā ceva sāraṇā ca. Satthusāsananti ñattisampadā ceva anussāvanasampadā ca. Etena hi dhammena ca vinayena ca satthusāsanena ca adhikaraṇaṃ vūpasammati, tasmā anuvijjakena bhūtena vatthunā codetvā āpattiṃ sāretvā ñattisampadāya ceva anussāvanasampadāya ca taṃ adhikaraṇaṃ vūpasametabbaṃ, anuvijjakena evaṃ paṭipajjitabba”nti āgataṃ, tasmā vattabbamettakaṃ dvayanti.
In the Commentary too (pari. aṭṭha. 362-363), in answering questions like “What is the beginning of accusation?” it says regarding “sacce akuppe ca”: One should be established in truth and steadfastness; what was done or not done should be stated as such, and anger should not be aroused toward the accuser, investigator, or Saṅgha. “Otiṇṇānotiṇṇaṃ jānitabbaṃ” means the statements of committed or not committed should be known. This is the method of knowing: the accuser’s initial and final statements, the accused’s initial and final statements should be understood. The accuser’s measure should be taken, the accused’s measure should be taken, the investigator’s measure should be taken. If the investigator omits even a small detail, he should be told, “Friend, recall it fully and present it straight.” The Saṅgha should proceed thus. “Yena dhammena yena vinayena yena satthusāsanena taṃ adhikaraṇaṃ vūpasammati” means here “dhammo” is the true matter, “vinayo” is the accusation and reminder, “satthusāsana” is the accomplishment of the motion and announcement. By this Dhamma, Vinaya, and Teacher’s instruction the case is settled; thus, the investigator should accuse with a true matter, remind of the offense, and settle that case with the accomplishment of the motion and announcement.
In the commentary (pari. aṭṭha. 362-363) also, in answer to the questions starting with, “What is the beginning of the accusation?”, in the explanation of “in truth and in imperturbability”, one should be established in truth and in imperturbability. Whatever has been done or not done, that only should be stated. No anger should be generated in the accuser, the investigator, or the Sangha. One should know whether [the case] has been reported or not means one should know the reported and the unreported statement. The way of knowing this is – this much is the accuser’s preliminary statement, this much is the subsequent statement, this much is the accused’s preliminary statement, this much is the subsequent statement, this should be known. The extent of the accuser should be grasped, the extent of the accused should be grasped, the extent of the investigator should be grasped. Even without omitting the slightest thing, the investigator should be told, ‘Friend, having collected and straightened, bring it forth’. Thus should the Sangha behave. According to that Dhamma, that Vinaya, and that teaching of the Teacher, that legal case is settled - here Dhamma means the actual facts. Vinaya means the accusation and the reminder. Teaching of the Teacher means the accomplishment of the motion and the accomplishment of the announcement. By this Dhamma, Vinaya, and teaching of the Teacher, a legal case is settled. Therefore, the investigator, having accused based on the actual facts, having reminded of the offense, should settle that legal case by the accomplishment of the motion and the accomplishment of the announcement. Thus should the investigator behave—this is what has been said, therefore this should be said, the pair [of instructions].
In the commentary as well (pari. aṭṭha. 362-363), “Who is the initiator of the accusation?” and so on, in answering these questions, “in truth and steadfastness,” here one should stand firm in truth and steadfastness. What has been done or not done should be stated as it is; anger should not be aroused towards the accuser, the investigator, or the Sangha. “Whether it has been dealt with or not should be known” means that both the dealt-with and the not-dealt-with statements should be known. Here, the method of knowing is as follows: so much of the accuser’s preliminary statement, so much of his concluding statement, so much of the accused’s preliminary statement, so much of his concluding statement should be known. The measure of the accuser should be taken, the measure of the accused should be taken, the measure of the investigator should be taken. The investigator, even if he omits a minor point, should be told, “Friend, having gathered it together, make it straight and bring it forth.” Thus, the Sangha should proceed. “Through which Dhamma, through which Vinaya, through which Teacher’s instruction the dispute is settled”—here, “Dhamma” refers to the true matter. “Vinaya” refers to both the accusation and the reminder. “Teacher’s instruction” refers to the completeness of the motion and the completeness of the announcement. For through this Dhamma, Vinaya, and Teacher’s instruction, the dispute is settled. Therefore, the investigator, having accused based on the true matter and having reminded of the offense, should settle the dispute through the completeness of the motion and the completeness of the announcement. Thus, the investigator should proceed.” This is what has come down, thus this much should be said regarding the twofold.
ID1492
Evaṃ ekadesena codanākaṇḍanayaṃ dassetvā idāni ekadeseneva mahāsaṅgāmanayaṃ dassento “anuvijjakena codako pucchitabbo”tiādimāha. Tattha yaṃ kho tvaṃ, āvuso, imaṃ bhikkhuṃ codesi, kimhi naṃ codesīti codanāsāmaññato vuttaṃ, pāḷiyaṃ (mahāva. 237) pana pavāraṇaṭṭhapanavasena codanaṃ sandhāya “yaṃ kho tvaṃ, āvuso, imassa bhikkhuno pavāraṇaṃ ṭhapesī”ti vuttaṃ. Sesaṃ suviññeyyameva.
Having shown a portion of the method of the accusation section, now showing a portion of the method of the great assembly, it says: “The investigator should question the accuser…” Therein, “Yaṃ kho tvaṃ, āvuso, imaṃ bhikkhuṃ codesi, kimhi naṃ codesi” is stated generally about accusation, but in the text (mahāva. 237), referring to accusation in the context of obstructing the Pavāraṇā, it says: “Yaṃ kho tvaṃ, āvuso, imassa bhikkhuno pavāraṇaṃ ṭhapesi.” The rest is easily understood.
Having thus shown the method of the Codanākaṇḍa in part, now, showing the Mahāsaṅgāma method in part, he says “The investigator should question the accuser” and so on. There, “Friend, this monk whom you are accusing, with regard to what are you accusing him?” is stated in a general way of accusation. But in the Pāḷi (mahāva. 237), with reference to the suspending of the invitation, in relation to suspending the invitation, it is said, “Friend, the invitation of this monk that you are suspending”. The rest is easily understood.
Having thus shown the method of the Codanākaṇḍa in part, now showing the method of the Mahāsaṅgāma in part, he says, “The investigator should question the accuser.” Here, “Friend, on what basis do you accuse this monk?” is stated in general terms regarding the accusation. In the text (mahāva. 237), however, with reference to the postponement of the invitation, it is said, “Friend, on what basis do you postpone the invitation for this monk?” The rest is easily understood.
ID1493
Evaṃ ekadesena mahāsaṅgāmanayaṃ dassetvā idāni ekadeseneva cūḷasaṅgāmanayaṃ dassetuṃ “saṅgāmāvacarena bhikkhunā”tiādimāha. Tattha saṅgāmāvacarena bhikkhunāti saṅgāmo vuccati adhikaraṇavinicchayatthāya saṅghasannipāto. Tatra hi attapaccatthikā ceva sāsanapaccatthikā ca uddhammaṃ ubbinayaṃ satthusāsanaṃ dīpentā samosaranti vesālikā vajjiputtakā viya. Yo bhikkhu tesaṃ paccatthikānaṃ laddhiṃ madditvā sakavādadīpanatthāya tattha avacarati, ajjhogāhetvā vinicchayaṃ pavatteti, so saṅgāmāvacaro nāma yasatthero viya, tena saṅgāmāvacarena bhikkhunā saṅghaṃ upasaṅkamantena nīcacittena saṅgho upasaṅkamitabbo. Nīcacittenāti mānaddhajaṃ nipātetvā nihatamānacittena . Rajoharaṇasamenāti pādapuñchanasamena, yathā rajoharaṇassa saṃkiliṭṭhe vā asaṃkiliṭṭhe vā pāde puñchiyamāne neva rāgo na doso, evaṃ iṭṭhāniṭṭhesu arajjantena adussantenāti attho. Yathāpatirūpe āsaneti yathāpatirūpaṃ āsanaṃ ñatvā attano pāpuṇanaṭṭhāne therānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ piṭṭhiṃ adassetvā nisīditabbaṃ.
Having shown a portion of the method of the great assembly, now to show a portion of the method of the minor assembly, it says: “By a monk skilled in assembly disputes…” Therein, “saṅgāmāvacarena bhikkhunā” means “saṅgāmo” is the gathering of the Saṅgha for settling a case. There, both personal adversaries and adversaries of the dispensation, speaking contrary to Dhamma and Vinaya, displaying the Teacher’s instruction, converge—like the Vesālika Vajjiputtakas. A monk who, crushing the views of those adversaries and acting there to illuminate his own position, delving in and conducting the judgment, is called “saṅgāmāvacaro,” like the Elder Yasa. Such a monk skilled in assembly disputes, approaching the Saṅgha, should approach with a humble mind. “Nīcacittena” means with a mind free of pride, having lowered the banner of conceit. “Rajoharaṇasamena” means like a dust cloth, just as a dust cloth wipes feet whether dirty or clean without attachment or aversion, so too without attachment or aversion to the pleasant or unpleasant—this is the meaning. “Yathāpatirūpe āsane” means knowing a suitable seat and sitting in a place appropriate for oneself without turning one’s back to senior monks.
Having thus shown the Mahāsaṅgāma method in part, now, to show the Cūḷasaṅgāma method in part, he says, “By a monk who frequents the assembly” and so on. There, by a monk who frequents the assembly – assembly means the gathering of the Sangha for settling legal cases. There, those who are hostile to oneself and those who are hostile to the Dispensation assemble, expounding what is not Dhamma, what is not Vinaya, and what is contrary to the Teacher’s Dispensation, like the Vajjiputtakas of Vesāli. The monk who, having crushed the views of those adversaries and for the purpose of expounding his own views, engages there, engages in deliberation, he is called one who frequents the assembly, like the elder Yasa. By that monk, who frequents the assembly, when approaching the Sangha, the Sangha should be approached with a humble mind. With a humble mind means having lowered the banner of pride, with a mind devoid of pride. Like a foot-wiper means similar to a foot-wiper. Just as the foot-wiper, whether the feet being wiped are soiled or unsoiled, feels neither attraction nor aversion, so too, it means not being attached to what is desirable and not being averse to what is undesirable. In a suitable seat means, having known a suitable seat, one’s appropriate place, one should sit without showing one’s back to the elder monks.
Having thus shown the method of the Mahāsaṅgāma in part, now showing the method of the Cūḷasaṅgāma in part, he says, “A monk who is a battlefield-dweller.” Here, “a monk who is a battlefield-dweller”—“battlefield” refers to the gathering of the Sangha for the purpose of settling disputes. There, both personal adversaries and adversaries of the Dispensation, distorting the Dhamma, the Vinaya, and the Teacher’s instruction, assemble like the Vajjiputtakas of Vesālī. The monk who, having crushed the views of those adversaries, moves about there to illuminate his own doctrine, diving into and conducting the settlement, is called a “battlefield-dweller,” like the elder Yasatthera. Such a battlefield-dwelling monk, when approaching the Sangha, should approach the Sangha with a humble mind. “With a humble mind” means having abandoned the banner of pride, with a mind free from pride. “Like a dust-remover” means like a foot-wiper; just as a dust-remover wipes the feet whether they are clean or dirty, without attachment or aversion, so too, one should sit without being attached or averse to what is pleasant or unpleasant. “In a suitable seat” means knowing a suitable seat, one should sit without showing one’s back to the senior monks in a place where one can reach.
ID1494
Anānākathikenāti nānāvidhaṃ taṃ taṃ anatthakathaṃ akathentena. Atiracchānakathikenāti diṭṭhasutamutampi rājakathādikaṃ tiracchānakathaṃ akathentena. Sāmaṃ vā dhammo bhāsitabboti saṅghasannipātaṭṭhāne kappiyākappiyasannissitā vā rūpārūpaparicchedasamathacāravipassanācāraṭṭhānanisajjavattādinissitā vā kathā dhammo nāma. Evarūpo dhammo sayaṃ vā bhāsitabbo, paro vā ajjhesitabbo. Yo bhikkhu tathārūpiṃ kathaṃ kathetuṃ pahoti, so vattabbo “āvuso, saṅghamajjhamhi pañhe uppanne tvaṃ katheyyāsī”ti. Ariyo vā tuṇhībhāvo nātimaññitabboti ariyā tuṇhī nisīdantā na bālaputhujjanā viya nisīdanti, aññataraṃ kammaṭṭhānaṃ gahetvāva nisīdanti. Iti kammaṭṭhānamanasikāravasena tuṇhībhāvo ariyo tuṇhībhāvo nāma, so nātimaññitabbo, “kiṃ kammaṭṭhānānuyogenā”ti nāvajānitabbo, attano patirūpaṃ kammaṭṭhānaṃ gahetvāva nisīditabbanti attho.
“Anānākathikena” means not speaking various unbeneficial talks. “Atiracchānakathikena” means not speaking idle chatter like talk of kings, even if seen, heard, or known. “Sāmaṃ vā dhammo bhāsitabbo” means in the Saṅgha gathering place, talk related to what is proper or improper, or to the analysis of form and formless, calm and insight practices, dwelling postures, and so forth, is called “dhammo.” Such Dhamma should either be spoken by oneself or requested of another. A monk capable of such talk should be told, “Friend, when a question arises in the midst of the Saṅgha, you should speak.” “Ariyo vā tuṇhībhāvo nātimaññitabbo” means noble ones sit silently not like foolish ordinary people, but having taken up a meditation subject. Thus, silence through attention to a meditation subject is noble silence, which should not be disparaged or looked down upon as “What’s the use of meditation?” One should sit having taken up a suitable meditation subject—this is the meaning.
Not speaking various inappropriate talk means not uttering various inappropriate speech. Not engaging in animal talk means not speaking animal talk such as talk of kings and so forth, even if seen, heard, or sensed. Either the Dhamma should be spoken by oneself - in a place where the Sangha has gathered, speech relating to what is allowable or unallowable, concerned with the analysis of form and formlessness, or the practices of tranquility and insight, or the proper conduct of standing, sitting, and reclining, and so on, is called Dhamma. Such Dhamma should either be spoken by oneself, or one should request another. The monk who is capable of speaking such speech, should be told, “Friend, when a question has arisen in the midst of the Sangha, you should speak”. Or noble silence should not be disdained - the noble ones, being silent, do not sit like foolish worldlings, they sit having taken up a particular meditation subject. Thus, silence due to the mental application of a meditation subject is called noble silence. This should not be disdained, it should not be disregarded, thinking, “What is the use of practicing meditation?”, one should sit having taken up a meditation subject suitable for oneself, is the meaning.
“Not engaging in various kinds of talk” means not engaging in various kinds of useless talk. “Not engaging in worldly talk” means not engaging in talk about kings, etc., which is worldly talk based on what is seen, heard, or sensed. “The Dhamma should be spoken by oneself”—in the assembly of the Sangha, talk concerning what is allowable or not, or concerning the practice of serenity and insight meditation, the delineation of form and formless, etc., is called “Dhamma.” Such Dhamma should be spoken by oneself or requested from another. The monk who is capable of speaking such a talk should be told, “Friend, when a question arises in the midst of the Sangha, you should speak.” “The noble silence should not be despised”—the noble ones do not sit in silence like ordinary foolish people; they sit having taken up a meditation subject. Thus, the noble silence, being based on attention to the meditation subject, should not be despised; one should not disregard it, thinking, “What is the use of applying oneself to the meditation subject?” One should sit having taken up a meditation subject suitable for oneself.
ID1495
Na upajjhāyo pucchitabboti “ko nāma tuyhaṃ upajjhāyo”ti na pucchitabbo. Esa nayo sabbattha. Na jātīti “khattiyajātiyo tvaṃ brāhmaṇajātiyo”ti evaṃ jāti na pucchitabbā. Na āgamoti “dīghabhāṇako tvaṃ majjhimabhāṇako”ti evaṃ āgamo na pucchitabbo. Kulapadesopi khattiyakulādivaseneva veditabbo. Atrassa pemaṃ vā doso vāti tatra puggale etesaṃ kāraṇānaṃ aññataravasena pemaṃ vā bhaveyya doso vā.
“Na upajjhāyo pucchitabbo” means one should not ask, “Who is your preceptor?” This applies everywhere. “Na jātī” means one should not ask about caste, like “Are you of the warrior caste or priestly caste?” “Na āgamo” means one should not ask about recitation tradition, like “Are you a reciter of the Long Discourses or Middle Discourses?” “Kulapadeso” too should be understood as referring to family lineage, such as warrior or other families. “Atrassa pemaṃ vā doso vā” means toward that person, affection or aversion might arise due to one of these reasons.
One should not ask about the preceptor - One should not ask, “Who is your preceptor?”. This principle applies everywhere. Not caste - One should not ask, “Are you of the Khattiya caste or the Brahmin caste?”. Not the tradition - One should not ask, “Are you a reciter of the Dīgha Nikāya or the Majjhima Nikāya?”. Family region should also be understood as referring to Khattiya families and so on. In him there might be love or hate – concerning that person, through one of these causes, there might be love or hate.
“One should not ask about one’s preceptor” means one should not ask, “Who is your preceptor?” This is the method in all cases. “Not about one’s birth” means one should not ask, “Are you of the warrior caste or the brahmin caste?” “Not about one’s tradition” means one should not ask, “Are you a long-reciter or a middle-reciter?” “The family background” should also be understood in terms of the warrior family, etc. “Affection or hatred towards him” means that towards that person, affection or hatred may arise due to any of these reasons.
ID1496
No parisakappikenāti parisakappakena parisānuvidhāyakena na bhavitabbaṃ, yaṃ parisāya ruccati, tadeva cetetvā kappetvā na kathetabbanti attho. Na hatthamuddā dassetabbāti kathetabbe ca akathetabbe ca saññājananatthaṃ hatthavikāro na kātabbo.
“No parisakappikena” means one should not be a conformist to the assembly, shaping and speaking only what pleases the assembly—this is the meaning. “Na hatthamuddā dassetabbā” means hand gestures should not be shown to signal what should or should not be said.
No one should be a faction-maker - One should not be one who panders to the faction, catering and contriving to say only what is pleasing to the faction. Hand gestures should not be shown – concerning what should and should not be said, bodily expressions of the hand for conveying meaning should not be made.
“One should not be a schemer for the assembly” means one should not be a manipulator of the assembly, scheming and planning according to what pleases the assembly, and then speaking accordingly. “One should not show hand gestures” means one should not make hand movements to indicate what should or should not be spoken.
ID1497
Atthaṃ anuvidhiyantenāti vinicchayapaṭivedhameva sallakkhentena, “idaṃ suttaṃ upalabbhati, imasmiṃ vinicchaye idaṃ vakkhāmī”ti evaṃ paritulayantena nisīditabbanti attho. Na ca āsanā vuṭṭhātabbanti na āsanā vuṭṭhāya sannipātamaṇḍale vicaritabbaṃ. Vinayadhare hi uṭṭhite sabbā parisā vuṭṭhahanti, tasmā na vuṭṭhātabbaṃ. Na vītihātabbanti na vinicchayo hāpetabbo. Na kummaggo sevitabboti na āpatti dīpetabbā. Asāhasikena bhavitabbanti na sahasā kārinā bhavitabbaṃ, na sahasā duruttavacanaṃ kathetabbanti attho. Vacanakkhamenāti duruttavācaṃ khamanasīlena. Hitaparisakkināti hitesinā hitagavesinā karuṇā ca karuṇāpubbabhāgo ca upaṭṭhāpetabboti ayaṃ padadvayepi adhippāyo. Anasuruttenāti na asuruttena, asuruttaṃ vuccati viggāhikakathāsaṅkhātaṃ asundaravacanaṃ, taṃ na kathetabbanti attho. Attā pariggahetabboti “vinicchinituṃ vūpasametuṃ sakkhissāmi nu kho, no”ti evaṃ attā pariggahetabbo, attano pamāṇaṃ jānitabbanti attho. Paro pariggahetabboti “lajjiyā nu kho ayaṃ parisā sakkā saññāpetuṃ, udāhu no”ti evaṃ paro pariggahetabbo. Codako pariggahetabboti “dhammacodako nu kho, no”ti evaṃ pariggahetabbo. Cuditako pariggahetabboti “dhammacuditako nu kho, no”ti evaṃ pariggahetabbo. Adhammacodako pariggahetabboti tassa pamāṇaṃ jānitabbaṃ. Sesesupi eseva nayo.
“Atthaṃ anuvidhiyantena” means considering only the discernment of the judgment, sitting while reflecting, “This text is available; in this judgment, I will say this,” and weighing it thus—this is the meaning. “Na ca āsanā vuṭṭhātabbaṃ” means one should not rise from the seat and move about in the assembly circle. For when a Vinaya expert rises, the whole assembly rises, so one should not rise. “Na vītihātabbaṃ” means the judgment should not be abandoned. “Na kummaggo sevitabbo” means an offense should not be pointed out. “Asāhasikena bhavitabbaṃ” means one should not act rashly or speak harsh words rashly—this is the meaning. “Vacanakkhamena” means with patience for harsh words. “Hitaparisakkinā” means seeking welfare, intent on welfare, with both compassion and its precursor established—this is the intent of these two terms. “Anasuruttena” means not with unlovely speech; unlovely speech is contentious talk, which should not be spoken—this is the meaning. “Attā pariggahetabbo” means one should assess oneself: “Can I judge and settle this or not?”—knowing one’s own capacity. “Paro pariggahetabbo” means one should assess the other: “Is this assembly virtuous and capable of being convinced, or not?” “Codako pariggahetabbo” means the accuser should be assessed: “Is he accusing according to Dhamma or not?” “Cuditako pariggahetabbo” means the accused should be assessed: “Is he accused according to Dhamma or not?” “Adhammacodako pariggahetabbo” means the measure of an unrighteous accuser should be known. The same method applies to the rest.
Attending to the matter - One should sit contemplating the comprehension of the settlement itself, considering, “This Sutta is available, I will say this in this settlement”. And one should not rise from one’s seat - One should not rise from one’s seat and walk around in the assembly area. When a Vinaya-master rises, the entire assembly rises, therefore, one should not rise. The settlement should not be missed - The deliberation should not be allowed to lapse. A wrong path should not be followed - The offense should not be revealed. One should not be rash - One should not be one who acts hastily, one should not hastily speak harsh words. Patient with speech - One should be of a nature to endure harsh speech. Desiring what is beneficial - Desiring benefit, seeking benefit, compassion and what precedes compassion should be established, is the meaning in both expressions. Not with harsh speech - Not with harsh speech, harsh speech is called unsuitable speech known as contentious talk; that should not be uttered. Oneself should be considered - Oneself should be considered, “Will I be able to settle and pacify [the case] or not?”, one’s own capacity should be known. The other should be considered - The other should be considered, “Is this assembly composed of those who have a sense of shame, can they be persuaded, or not?”. The accuser should be considered - [One] should consider, “Is he an accuser according to Dhamma or not?”. The accused should be considered –[One] should consider, “Is he accused according to Dhamma or not?”. The non-Dhamma accuser should be considered - His capability should be known. In the remaining [cases], the same method applies.
“With attention directed to the meaning” means one should sit reflecting only on the resolution of the dispute, thinking, “This sutta is found, in this dispute I will say this,” thus weighing the matter. “One should not rise from one’s seat” means one should not rise and wander around the assembly circle. For when the Vinaya-holders rise, the entire assembly rises, therefore one should not rise. “One should not abandon the settlement” means one should not abandon the resolution of the dispute. “One should not follow a wrong path” means one should not point out an offense. “One should act without haste” means one should not act rashly, nor speak harsh words in haste. “With patience in speech” means with the ability to endure harsh words. “One should be a well-wisher of the assembly” means one should be one who desires the welfare of the assembly, and one should establish both compassion and the preliminary stage of compassion. “One should not speak improperly” means one should not speak improper words, which are called contentious talk. “One should examine oneself” means one should consider, “Am I capable of resolving and settling this?” thus examining oneself, knowing one’s own measure. “One should examine others” means one should consider, “Can this assembly be persuaded out of shame, or not?” thus examining others. “One should examine the accuser” means one should consider, “Is this a righteous accuser, or not?” thus examining the accuser. “One should examine the accused” means one should consider, “Is this a righteous accused, or not?” thus examining the accused. “One should examine the unrighteous accuser” means one should know his measure. The same method applies to the rest.
ID1498
Vuttaṃ ahāpentenāti codakacuditakehi vuttavacanaṃ ahāpentena. Avuttaṃ apakāsentenāti anosaṭaṃ vatthuṃ apakāsentena. Mando hāsetabboti mando momūḷho paggaṇhitabbo, “nanu tvaṃ kulaputto”ti uttejetvā anuyogavattaṃ kathāpetvā tassa anuyogo gaṇhitabbo. Bhīru assāsetabboti yassa saṅghamajjhaṃ vā gaṇamajjhaṃ vā anosaṭapubbattā sārajjaṃ uppajjati, tādiso “mā bhāyi, vissattho kathayāhi, mayaṃ te upatthambhā bhavissāmā”ti vatvāpi anuyogavattaṃ kathāpetabbo. Caṇḍo nisedhetabboti apasāretabbo tajjetabbo. Asuci vibhāvetabboti alajjiṃ pakāsetvā āpattiṃ desāpetabbo. Ujumaddavenāti yo bhikkhu uju sīlavā kāyavaṅkādirahito, so maddaveneva upacaritabbo. Dhammesu ca puggalesu cāti ettha yo dhammagaruko hoti, na puggalagaruko, ayameva dhammesu ca puggalesu ca majjhattoti veditabbo. Sesaṃ suviññeyyameva.
“Vuttaṃ ahāpentena” means not omitting what was said by the accuser and accused. “Avuttaṃ apakāsentena” means not revealing undisclosed matters. “Mando hāsetabbo” means a dull or confused person should be encouraged, uplifted with, “Are you not a noble son?” and made to explain his position, then his position taken. “Bhīru assāsetabbo” means one timid from never having entered the midst of the Saṅgha or group should be reassured, “Don’t be afraid, speak confidently, we will support you,” and made to explain his position. “Caṇḍo nisedhetabbo” means a fierce one should be restrained or rebuked. “Asuci vibhāvetabbo” means an impure, shameless one should be exposed and made to confess the offense. “Ujumaddavena” means one who is upright, virtuous, and free from bodily crookedness should be approached gently. “Dhammesu ca puggalesu ca” means one who respects Dhamma, not persons, should be understood as impartial in both Dhamma and persons. The rest is easily understood.
Not omitting what has been said – Not omitting the words spoken by the accuser and the accused. Not revealing what has not been said - Not revealing a matter that has not occurred. The foolish should be encouraged - The dull and confused one should be raised up. Saying, “Are you not a son of a good family?”, having incited him, having made him speak about the course of questioning, his questioning should be grasped. The timid should be reassured - One who, because he has not previously entered the midst of the Sangha or the midst of a group, feels shyness; such a one should be told, “Do not fear, speak confidently, we will be your support”, and should be made to speak about the course of questioning. The violent should be restrained - Should be removed, should be rebuked. The impure should be exposed - Having revealed the shameless one, one should make him confess the offense. With gentleness and kindness - The monk who is straightforward, virtuous, devoid of crookedness in body and so on, should be approached with kindness. In Dhammas and in persons – here, he who is respectful of the Dhamma, not respectful of persons, this one should be understood as impartial in Dhammas and in persons. The rest is easily understood.
“One should not persist in what has been said” means one should not persist in the words spoken by the accuser and the accused. “One should not disparage what has not been said” means one should not disparage a matter that has not been raised. “The dull should be encouraged” means the dull and confused should be urged on, saying, “Are you not a clansman?” thus rousing them and taking up their duty of inquiry. “The timid should be reassured” means one who, having never been in the midst of the Sangha or a group before, becomes fearful, should be reassured, saying, “Do not fear, speak confidently, we will support you,” and thus their duty of inquiry should be assigned. “The harsh should be restrained” means they should be pushed back and threatened. “The impure should be exposed” means their shamelessness should be revealed and their offense should be confessed. “With gentleness and humility” means a monk who is upright and virtuous, free from bodily crookedness, etc., should be treated with gentleness. “In matters of Dhamma and persons”—here, one who is devoted to the Dhamma, not to persons, is to be understood as impartial in matters of Dhamma and persons. The rest is easily understood.
ID1499
Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is an exposition of the Vinaya compendium,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary of the Vinayasaṅgaha,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinaya compendium,
ID1500
Codanādivinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma
This is called the Discussion on the Judgment of Accusation and Related Matters,
The chapter named the Ornament of the Explanation of Accusation and other Legal Procedures
the chapter on the ornament of the discussion of the settlement of accusations, etc.,
ID1501
Ekatiṃsatimo paricchedo.
The thirty-first chapter.
The thirty-first chapter.
is the thirty-first chapter.
ID1502
ID1503
ID1504
236. Evaṃ codanādivinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni garukāpattivuṭṭhānavinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ “garukāpattivuṭṭhāna”ntiādimāha. Tattha garu alahukaṃ paṭikaraṇaṃ etissā āpattiyāti garukā, āpajjitabbāti āpatti, garukā ca sā āpatti cāti garukāpatti, vuṭṭhahate vuṭṭhānaṃ, garukāpattiyā vuṭṭhānaṃ garukāpatti vuṭṭhānaṃ. Kiṃ taṃ? Saṅghādisesāpattito parisuddhabhāvo. Tenāha “parivāsamānattādīhi vinayakammehi garukāpattito vuṭṭhāna”nti. Kiñcāpi catubbidho parivāso, appaṭicchannaparivāso pana idha nādhippetoti āha “tividho parivāso”ti. Tathā hi vuttaṃ samantapāsādikāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 75) “tattha catubbidho parivāso – appaṭicchannaparivāso paṭicchannaparivāso suddhantaparivāso samodhānaparivāsoti. Tesu ’yo so, bhikkhave, aññopi aññatitthiyapubbo imasmiṃ dhammavinaye ākaṅkhati pabbajjaṃ, ākaṅkhati upasampadaṃ, tassa cattāro māse parivāso dātabbo’ti evaṃ mahākhandhake (mahāva. 86) vutto titthiyaparivāso appaṭicchannaparivāso nāma. Tattha yaṃ vattabbaṃ, taṃ vuttameva. Ayaṃ pana idha anadhippeto”ti. Ito paraṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttanayeneva suviññeyyoti tasmā dubbiññeyyaṭṭhāneyeva vaṇṇayissāma.
236. Having discussed the judgment of accusation and related matters, now to discuss the judgment of rehabilitation from grave offenses, it begins with “garukāpattivuṭṭhāna…” Therein, “garu” means heavy, “alahukaṃ paṭikaraṇaṃ etissā āpattiyā” means an offense with a heavy remedy, “āpajjitabba” means it can be committed, thus “garukā ca sā āpatti ca” means a grave offense, “vuṭṭhahate vuṭṭhānaṃ” means rehabilitation arises, “garukāpattiyā vuṭṭhānaṃ” means rehabilitation from a grave offense—this is “garukāpatti vuṭṭhānaṃ.” What is it? Purity from a Saṅghādisesa offense. Hence it says: “Parivāsamānattādīhi vinayakammehi garukāpattito vuṭṭhāna” (Rehabilitation from a grave offense through Vinaya acts such as probation and penance). Though probation is fourfold, unconcealed probation is not intended here, so it says “tividho parivāso” (probation is threefold). Indeed, it is stated in the Samantapāsādikā (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 75): “Therein, probation is fourfold: unconcealed probation, concealed probation, purity probation, and combined probation. Among these, ‘Monks, whoever, previously a follower of another sect, desires ordination and higher ordination in this Dhamma and Vinaya, should be given four months of probation,’ as stated in the Mahākhandhaka (mahāva. 86), this probation for sectarians is called ‘appaṭicchannaparivāso.’ What should be said about it has been said. But this is not intended here.” From here on, it is easily understood by the method stated in the Commentary, so we will explain only the difficult points.
236. Having thus explained the settlement of accusation and other [legal procedures], now, in order to explain the settlement of the procedure for rising from a grave offense, he says “rising from a grave offense” and so on. There, heavy and not light is the rectification for this offense, therefore, it is grave; what is to be fallen into is an offense; a grave and that offense is a grave offense. Rising is vuṭṭhānaṃ, rising from a grave offense is rising from a grave offense. What is that? The state of being purified from a Sanghādisesa offense. Therefore, he says “rising from a grave offense by Vinaya acts such as Parivāsa and Mānatta”. Although Parivāsa is of four kinds, here, Appaṭicchannaparivāsa is not intended, therefore he says, “Parivāsa is of three kinds”. Thus, it has been stated in the Samantapāsādikā (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 75), “There, Parivāsa is of four kinds – Appaṭicchannaparivāsa, Paṭicchannaparivāsa, Suddhantaparivāsa, and Samodhānaparivāsa. Among them, the Parivāsa for sectarians stated in the Mahākhandhaka (mahāva. 86) thus, ‘Whoever, monks, formerly belonging to another sect, desires the going forth in this Dhamma and Vinaya, desires the full ordination, for him the Parivāsa should be given for four months’, is called Appaṭicchannaparivāsa. Whatever should be said therein, has already been said. However, this is not intended here”. From here onward, as it is easily understood following the method stated in the commentary, therefore, we will comment only on the difficult-to-understand places.
236. Having thus discussed the settlement of accusations, etc., now to discuss the settlement of grave offenses, he begins with “the settlement of grave offenses.” Here, grave means heavy, and the remedy for this offense is heavy, thus it is called grave. The offense that should be committed is called an offense. Grave and offense together are called a grave offense. Rising from it is called settlement. The rising from a grave offense is called “the settlement of a grave offense.” What is it? It is the state of being purified from a Saṅghādisesa offense. Therefore, it is said, “the rising from a grave offense through Vinaya acts such as probation and penance.” Although probation is of four kinds, the unconcealed probation is not intended here, thus it is said, “probation is of three kinds.” For it is stated in the Samantapāsādikā (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 75): “Here, probation is of four kinds—unconcealed probation, concealed probation, pure probation, and combined probation. Among these, ‘Monks, whoever, even another former follower of another sect, desires to go forth in this Dhamma and Vinaya, desires full ordination, should be given probation for four months,’ thus in the Mahākhandhaka (mahāva. 86), the probation for former sectarians is called “unconcealed probation.” What should be said about that has already been said. This, however, is not intended here.” From here onwards, what is stated in the commentary is easily understood, thus we will explain only what is difficult to understand.
ID1505
237. Evaṃ yo yo āpanno hoti, tassa tassa nāmaṃ gahetvā kammavācā kātabbāti etena pāḷiyaṃ sabbasādhāraṇavasena “suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, ayaṃ itthannāmo bhikkhū”ti ca “yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho itthannāmassa bhikkhuno”ti ca āgatepi kammavācābhaṇanakāle tathā abhaṇitvā “ayaṃ buddharakkhito bhikkhū”ti ca “imassa buddharakkhitassa bhikkhuno”ti ca evaṃ sakasakanāmaṃ uddharitvāva kammavācā kātabbāti dasseti.
237. “Evaṃ yo yo āpanno hoti, tassa tassa nāmaṃ gahetvā kammavācā kātabbā” means that, though in the text it is generally stated as “Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, ayaṃ itthannāmo bhikkhū” and “Yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho itthannāmassa bhikkhuno,” at the time of reciting the formal act, it should not be recited thus but as “Ayaṃ buddharakkhito bhikkhū” and “Imassa buddharakkhitassa bhikkhuno,” specifying each individual name—this is what it indicates.
237. Thus, taking the name of each and every one who has fallen into [the offense], the formal act should be performed - By this, even though in the Pāḷi, in a manner common to all, it is stated “Let the Sangha, venerable sirs, hear me. This monk named so-and-so” and “If it seems fit to the Sangha, the Sangha for the monk named so-and-so”, at the time of reciting the formal act, without reciting thus, one should recite the formal act, extracting each and every one’s own name, “This monk Buddharakkhita” and “for this monk Buddharakkhita”, is what is shown.
237. “Thus, whoever has committed an offense, having taken his name, the motion should be made”—here, in the text, it is stated in a general way, “Venerable sirs, may the Sangha listen to me, this monk so-and-so,” and “If it is agreeable to the Sangha, the Sangha should [do such and such] for the monk so-and-so,” etc. However, at the time of reciting the motion, instead of saying that, one should say, “This monk Buddharakkhita,” and “For this monk Buddharakkhita,” thus taking up each one’s name individually, the motion should be made.
ID1506
Māḷakasīmāyameva vattaṃ samādātabbaṃ, na tato bahi. Kasmā? “Aññattha kammavācā aññattha samādāna”nti vattabbadosappasaṅgato. Asamādinnavattassa ārocanāsambhavato, māḷakasīmāya sannipatitānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ ekassapi anārocane sati ratticchedasambhavato ca. Parivāsaṃ samādiyāmi, vattaṃ samādiyāmīti imesu dvīsu padesu ekekena vā ubhohi padehi vā samādātabbaṃ. Kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce? “Ekapadenapi cettha nikkhitto hoti parivāso, dvīhi pana sunikkhittoyeva, samādānepi eseva nayo”ti vakkhamānattā. Samādiyitvā tattheva saṅghassa ārocetabbaṃ, na tattha anārocetvā aññattha gantabbaṃ. Kasmā? Vuṭṭhitāya parisāya puna sannipātetuṃ dukkarattā, ekassapi bhikkhuno anārocetvā aruṇuṭṭhāpane sati ratticchedakarattā.
“Māḷakasīmāyameva vattaṃ samādātabbaṃ,” not outside of it. Why? To avoid the fault of saying “The formal act is here, the undertaking is elsewhere,” because announcing an unundertaken duty is impossible, and because if even one monk gathered in the māḷaka boundary is not informed, a break in the nights could occur. “Parivāsaṃ samādiyāmi, vattaṃ samādiyāmī” means in these two phrases, it should be undertaken with one or both phrases. How is this known? Because it will say: “Even with one phrase, probation is established here; with two, it is certainly well-established. The same applies to the undertaking.” “Samādiyitvā tattheva saṅghassa ārocetabbaṃ,” it should be announced to the Saṅgha right there, not going elsewhere without announcing it there. Why? Because it is difficult to reassemble the dispersed assembly, and if even one monk is not informed and the dawn arises, it causes a break in the nights.
The observances should be undertaken only within the boundary of the Māḷaka, not outside it. Why? Because of the fault of saying, “The formal act is elsewhere, the undertaking is elsewhere”. Because it is impossible to report to one who has not undertaken [the observances], and because if even one of the monks assembled within the boundary of the Māḷaka is not informed, it is possible that the night will be broken. I undertake the Parivāsa, I undertake the observance - one should undertake with either one or both of these two phrases. How is it known? Because it will be said, “Even with one phrase, the Parivāsa is complete here, but with two, it is surely well-completed; the same method applies in undertaking”. Having undertaken, it should be reported to the Sangha then and there, one should not go elsewhere without reporting there. Why? Because of the difficulty of reassembling the dispersed assembly, and because if dawn rises without informing even a single monk, one will have caused the night to be broken.
“The observance should be undertaken within the Māḷaka boundary,” not outside it. Why? Because “the motion is made in one place, the undertaking in another” is a fault to be avoided. Since it is impossible to inform those who have not undertaken the observance, and if even one monk within the Māḷaka boundary is not informed, the observance may be broken at night. “I undertake probation, I undertake the observance”—in these two phrases, one should undertake using one phrase or both. How is this to be understood? “Here, even with one phrase, probation is established; with two phrases, it is well-established. The same method applies to the undertaking.” “Having undertaken it, one should inform the Sangha right there,” not informing there and then going elsewhere. Why? Because it is difficult to reassemble the assembly once it has dispersed, and if even one monk is not informed, the observance may be broken at dawn.
ID1507
Ārocentena evaṃ ārocetabbanti sambandho. “Ahaṃ bhante…pe… saṅgho dhāretū”ti ettakameva vatvā yācane viya “dutiyampi tatiyampī”ti avuttattā accāyikakaraṇe sati ekavāraṃ ārocitepi upapannamevāti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Vediyāmahaṃ bhante, vediyatīti maṃ saṅgho dhāretūti ettha “vediyāmīti cittena sampaṭicchitvā sukhaṃ anubhavāmi, na tappaccayā ahaṃ dukkhitoti adhippāyo”ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.97) vuttaṃ. Ettha ca “sukhaṃ vedemi vedana”ntiādīsu viya pi-saddo anubhavanattho hoti. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 97) pana “vediyāmīti jānemi, cittena sampaṭicchitvā sukhaṃ anubhavāmi, na tappaccayā ahaṃ dukkhitoti adhippāyoti likhita”nti vuttaṃ. Ettha pana “dīpaṅkaro lokavidū”tiādīsu viya ñāṇattho anubhavanattho ca. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.97) pana “vediyāmahanti jānāpemahaṃ, ārocemīti attho, anubhavāmītipissa atthaṃ vadanti. Purimaṃ pana pasaṃsanti ārocanavacanattā”ti. Ettha tu –
The connection is: “It should be announced thus by the one announcing.” Having said only “Venerable sir, I… let the Saṅgha remember,” just as in a request, since “the second time, the third time” is not stated, it should be understood that even when announced once, it is sufficient if there is an urgent matter to be done. In “Vediyāmahaṃ bhante, vediyatīti maṃ saṅgho dhāretū” (“I feel, Venerable sir, let the Saṅgha remember me as feeling”), it is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.97) that the meaning is: “Having accepted it with my mind, I experience happiness, and I am not afflicted due to that condition.” Here, the particle pi has the sense of experiencing, as in “sukhaṃ vedemi vedana” (“I feel pleasant feeling”). However, in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 97), it is written: “Vediyāmīti means ‘I know’; having accepted it with my mind, I experience happiness, and I am not afflicted due to that condition is the intended meaning.” Here, it has both the sense of knowing and experiencing, as in “Dīpaṅkaro lokavidū” (“Dīpaṅkara, knower of the world”). In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.97), however, it is said: “Vediyāmahaṃ means ‘I cause to know,’ meaning ‘I announce’; some also say it means ‘I experience.’ The former is praised because it is an announcement.” And here –
The connection is that he should inform in this way by the one informing. It should be understood that as if asking, having said only “I, venerable sir… the Sangha should remember,” without saying, “again, for a second time, for a third time,” even if informed once when needing urgently, it is appropriate. In “I feel, venerable sir, the Sangha should remember that I feel it”, the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. Cūḷavagga 3.97) states that the meaning is “I acknowledge ‘I feel’ with my mind, I experience pleasure, I am not suffering because of that.” Here, like in examples such as “I experience pleasant feeling,” the word pi has the meaning of experiencing. But in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. ṭī. Cūḷavagga 97), it is said, “It is written that ‘I feel’ means I know; the meaning is I acknowledge with my mind and experience pleasure, I am not suffering because of that.” But here, like in examples such as “Dīpaṅkara, knower of the world”, it has the meaning of both knowing and experiencing. But in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. ṭī. Cūḷavagga 2.97), it says: “’Vediyāmaha’ means I inform, I announce, that is the meaning; some say it also means ‘I experience’. But the former is praised because it is a statement of informing”. Here, however –
The connection is that it should be informed by one who informs thus. Having said only this much, “Venerable sir, may the Saṅgha remember me,” since it is not stated “a second time, a third time,” it should be understood that even if informed once in an urgent situation, it is still proper. “Venerable sir, I feel, may the Saṅgha remember me as one who feels”—here, “I feel” means “having accepted with the mind, I experience happiness; the intention is not that I am suffering because of that.” This is explained in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 3.97). Here, the word pi has the meaning of experiencing, as in “I experience happiness, I experience feeling,” etc. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 97), however, it is written: “I feel means ‘I know,’ having accepted with the mind, I experience happiness; the intention is not that I am suffering because of that.” Here, however, as in “Dīpaṅkara, the Knower of the World,” etc., it has the meaning of knowledge and experience. In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 2.97), however, “I feel” means “I make known, I inform,” and some say it also means “I experience.” But the former is praised because it is a word of informing. Here, however—
ID1508
“Sampannaṃ sālikedāraṃ, suvā khādanti brāhmaṇa; Paṭivedemi te brahme, na naṃ vāretumussahe”ti. –
“The rice-porridge is perfect, the parrots eat well, brahmin; I make it known to you, O Brahma, I am unable to prevent it” –
“The rice field is ripe, brahmin, the parrots are eating; I inform you, brahmin, I cannot drive them away.” –
“A field of rice is ready, the brahmins eat it well; I inform you, brahmin, I cannot restrain it.”—
ID1509
Ādīsu viya ārocanatthoti daṭṭhabbo.
It should be understood as having the sense of announcing, as in these examples.
Like in these examples, it should be regarded as having the meaning of informing.
It should be understood as having the meaning of informing, as in these examples.
ID1510
Ārocetvā…pe… nikkhipitabbanti dukkaṭaparimocanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Keci pana “tadaheva puna vattaṃ samādiyitvā aruṇaṃ uṭṭhāpetukāmassa ratticchedaparihāratthampī”ti vadanti. Yassa māḷake nārocitaṃ, tassa ārocetvā nikkhipitabbaṃ. Yassa ārocitaṃ, tassa puna ārocanakiccaṃ natthi, kevalaṃ nikkhipitabbameva. “Sabhāgā bhikkhū vasantī”ti vuttattā visabhāgānaṃ vasanaṭṭhāne vattaṃ asamādiyitvā bahi eva kātumpi vaṭṭatīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Dve leḍḍupāte atikkamitvāti idaṃ vihāre bhikkhūnaṃ sajjhāyādisaddasavanūpacāravijahanatthaṃ vuttaṃ, mahāmaggato okkammāti idaṃ maggapaṭipannānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ savanūpacārātikkamanatthaṃ, gumbena vātiādi dassanūpacāravijahanatthaṃ. Sopi kenaci kammena purearuṇe eva gacchatīti iminā ārocanāya katāya sabbesu bhikkhūsu bahivihāraṃ gatesupi ūnegaṇecaraṇadoso vā vippavāsadoso vā na hoti ārocanatthattā sahavāsassāti dasseti. Tenāha “ayañcā”tiādi. Anikkhittavattena antoupacāragatānaṃ sabbesampi ārocetabbā. “Ayaṃ nikkhittavattassa parihāro”ti vuttaṃ, tattha nikkhittavattassāti vattaṃ nikkhipitvā parivasantassāti attho. Ayaṃ panettha therassa adhippāyo – vattaṃ nikkhipitvā parivasantassa upacāragatānaṃ sabbesaṃ ārocanakiccaṃ natthi, diṭṭharūpānaṃ sutasaddānaṃ ārocetabbaṃ, adiṭṭhaasutānampi antodvādasahatthagatānaṃ ārocetabbaṃ. Idaṃ vattaṃ nikkhipitvā parivasantassa lakkhaṇanti. Therassāti mahāpadumattherassa.
Ārocetvā…pe… nikkhipitabbaṃ is said for the purpose of liberation from the offense of wrong-doing. Some, however, say: “Also for the purpose of avoiding the interruption of the night for one who wishes to undertake the observance again that very day and cause the dawn to rise.” For one whose dwelling has not been announced, it should be announced and then set aside. For one to whom it has been announced, there is no need to announce again, only to set it aside. Since it is said, “Fellow monks dwell together,” it should be understood that it is permissible to perform the observance outside without undertaking it in a place where dissimilar persons dwell. Dve leḍḍupāte atikkamitvā (“Having gone beyond two stone-throws”) is said to avoid the disturbance of hearing the sound of monks chanting and so forth in the monastery. Mahāmaggato okkammā (“Having stepped off the main road”) is for the purpose of going beyond the range of hearing of monks traveling on the path. Gumbena vā (“Or by a thicket”) and so forth is to avoid the disturbance of sight. Sopi kenaci kammena purearuṇe eva gacchatī (“He too goes before dawn due to some task”) indicates that even if all the monks have gone outside the monastery after the announcement, there is no fault of being short of the quorum or the fault of separation, because it is for the purpose of announcement and co-residence. Hence it says “ayañcā” and so forth. Those within the boundary who have not set aside the observance must all be informed. “Ayaṃ nikkhittavattassa parihāro” (“This is the exemption for one who has set aside the observance”) is said, where nikkhittavattassa means “for one who has set aside the observance and is dwelling elsewhere.” The elder’s intention here is this: For one who has set aside the observance and is dwelling elsewhere, there is no duty to inform all those within the boundary; what is seen or heard must be announced, and even what is unseen or unheard within twelve hands must be announced. This is the characteristic of one who has set aside the observance and is dwelling elsewhere. Therassa refers to the Elder Mahāpaduma.
Having informed…should be deposited is said for the purpose of escaping the minor offense. Some say, “Even for the purpose of avoiding a break in the night observance, for one desiring to arise at dawn, having undertaken the observance again on that same day.” For the one in whose dwelling it was not informed, one should inform and deposit it. For the one in whose presence it was informed, there is no need to inform again, only depositing is required. Because it is said “monks of the same category reside,” it should be understood that it is also permissible to do it outside without undertaking the observance in the dwelling place of those of a different category. Having passed beyond two stone-throws, this is said for the purpose of avoiding the range where sounds of recitation, etc. of the monks in the monastery can be heard; having gone away from the main road, this is for the purpose of going beyond the range of hearing for monks walking on the road; by a thicket, etc. is for the purpose of avoiding the range of sight. Even he goes with some business before dawn, by this, it is shown that when the informing has been done, even if all the monks have gone outside the monastery, there is no fault of dwelling with an incomplete group or the fault of dwelling apart, because dwelling together exists due to informing. Therefore, he said, “And this”, etc. All those within the immediate vicinity with the observance not deposited should be informed. “This is the avoidance for one who has deposited the observance” it is said; there, for one who has deposited the observance means for one dwelling after depositing the observance. This is the meaning for the elder here: for one dwelling after depositing the observance, there is no need to inform all those within the immediate vicinity; those seen and sounds heard should be informed; even those unseen and unheard within twelve cubits should be informed. This is the characteristic for one dwelling after depositing the observance. Of the elder means of the elder Mahāpaduma.
Having informed…pe… it should be set aside—this is said for the purpose of being freed from the offense of wrong-doing. Some, however, say, “On that very day, having undertaken the observance again, for the purpose of protecting against the breaking of the night, one who desires to make the dawn rise.” For one who has not been informed in his residence, it should be informed and then set aside. For one who has been informed, there is no further duty of informing; it should simply be set aside. Since it is said, “The bhikkhus dwelling together,” it should be understood that for those dwelling in a place not together, the observance should not be undertaken and should be done outside. Having passed two stone-throws—this is said for the purpose of avoiding the disturbance of hearing sounds of recitation, etc., by the bhikkhus in the monastery. Turning aside from the main road—this is said for the purpose of avoiding the disturbance of hearing by bhikkhus who are walking on the path. By a clump of trees, etc.—this is said for the purpose of avoiding the disturbance of seeing. Even if he goes before dawn for some business—by this, it is shown that even if all the bhikkhus have gone outside the monastery after the informing has been done, there is no fault of incomplete action or fault of separation because the purpose of informing is the dwelling together. Therefore, it is said, “And this…” etc. Those who have come within range without having set aside the observance should all be informed. “This is the protection for one who has set aside the observance”—here, “one who has set aside the observance” means one who has set aside the observance and is dwelling around. This, however, is the intention of the elder—for one who has set aside the observance and is dwelling around, there is no duty of informing for those who have come within range; only those who are seen or heard should be informed, and those not seen or heard but who have come within twelve cubits should also be informed. This is the characteristic of one who has set aside the observance and is dwelling around. The elder—this refers to the elder Mahāpaduma.
ID1511
238. Kukkuccavinodanatthāyāti imesu paṭicchannadivasappamāṇena parivasitadivasesu “siyuṃ nu kho tividharatticchedakāraṇayuttāni kānici divasāni, evaṃ sati aparipuṇṇaparivāsadivasattā na mānattāraho bhaveyya, asati ca mānattārahabhāve mānattaṃ dinnampi adinnaṃyeva bhaveyya, evañca sati āpannāpattito vuṭṭhānaṃ na bhaveyyā”ti imassa vinayakukkuccassa vinodanatthāya. Ekena vā dvīhi vā tīhi vā divasehi adhikatarāni divasāni parivasitvā nanu cāyaṃ parivutthaparivāso, tasmānena mānattameva yācitabbaṃ, atha kasmā vattaṃ samādiyitvā mānattaṃ yācitabbanti āhāti codanaṃ manasi karontena vuttaṃ “ayañhi vatte samādinne”tiādi. Hi yasmā ayaṃ bhikkhu vatte samādinne eva mānattāraho hoti, na asamādinne, iti tasmā vattaṃ samādiyitvā mānattaṃ yācitabbanti sambandho. Nanu ca kammavācāyaṃ “so parivutthaparivāso saṅghaṃ mānattaṃ yācati”icceva vuttaṃ, na vuttaṃ “samādinnavatto”ti, atha kasmā “vatte samādinne eva mānattāraho hotī”ti vuttanti codanaṃ sandhāyāha “nikkhittavattena parivutthattā”ti. Yasmā ayaṃ bhikkhu nikkhittavattena hutvā parivuttho hoti, no anikkhittavattena, tasmā nikkhittavattena hutvā parivutthattā ayaṃ bhikkhu vatte samādinne eva mānattāraho hoti, no asamādinneti yojanā. Tathā hi vuttaṃ “anikkhittavattassa pana puna samādānakiccaṃ natthi. So hi paṭicchannadivasātikkameneva mānattāraho hoti, tasmā tassa mānattaṃ dātabbamevā”ti.
238. Kukkuccavinodanatthāya (“For the purpose of dispelling scruple”) refers to dispelling the disciplinary scruple in these cases: During the days of dwelling apart calculated by the number of concealed days, one might think, “Could there be some days connected with the three causes of night-interruption? If so, due to the incomplete days of dwelling apart, I would not be worthy of mānatta (disciplinary probation); and if I am not worthy of mānatta, even if mānatta is given, it would be as if not given; and in that case, there would be no rising from the offense.” It is said, considering the objection: “Having dwelt apart for more days by one, two, or three days, isn’t this a completed dwelling apart? Therefore, he should request only mānatta. Then why is it said that mānatta should be requested after undertaking the observance?” Hence it says “ayañhi vatte samādinne” and so forth. For since this monk becomes worthy of mānatta only when the observance is undertaken, not when it is not undertaken, therefore mānatta should be requested after undertaking the observance—this is the connection. But isn’t it said in the formal act (kammavācā), “He, having completed dwelling apart, requests mānatta from the Saṅgha,” and not “having undertaken the observance”? Then why is it said, “He becomes worthy of mānatta only when the observance is undertaken”? Addressing this objection, it says “nikkhittavattena parivutthattā”. Since this monk has completed dwelling apart having set aside the observance, not without setting it aside, therefore, because he has completed dwelling apart having set aside the observance, this monk becomes worthy of mānatta only when the observance is undertaken, not otherwise—this is the construction. Indeed, it is said: “For one who has not set aside the observance, there is no need to undertake it again. For he becomes worthy of mānatta merely by exceeding the concealed days; therefore, mānatta must indeed be given to him.”
238. For the purpose of dispelling doubt, among these days spent in observance, proportionate to the number of days concealed, “There might be some days with causes for three kinds of breaking the night observance; if so, he would not be eligible for probation because the days of observance are incomplete, and in the absence of eligibility for probation, even if probation is given, it would be as if not given; and if so, there would be no arising from the offense incurred”—for dispelling this doubt regarding the Vinaya. Having spent more days in observance, by one, two, or three days, thinking, “Indeed, this is one who has completed his observance; therefore, only probation should be requested from him. Then why, having undertaken the observance, is he requesting probation?” and bringing to mind this objection, he said, “Because this one has undertaken the observance”, etc. Because this monk is eligible for probation only when he has undertaken the observance, and not when he has not undertaken it, therefore, the connection is that having undertaken the observance, he should request probation. Indeed, in the formal act it is only said “He, having completed his observance, requests probation from the Sangha,” it is not said “having undertaken the observance,” then why is it said, “He is eligible for probation only when he has undertaken the observance?” To address this objection, he said, “Because he has completed the observance with the observance deposited”. Because this monk has completed the observance being one with the observance deposited, not being one with the observance not deposited, therefore, because he has completed the observance being one with the observance deposited, this monk is eligible for probation only when he has undertaken the observance, not when he has not undertaken it. Thus it is said, “But for one who has not deposited the observance, there is no need to undertake it again. Indeed, he becomes eligible for probation simply by exceeding the days concealed; therefore, probation should certainly be given to him”.
238. For the purpose of dispelling doubt—in these cases, having spent the days of concealment for the measure of the concealed period, “Could there be some days that are suitable for the threefold breaking of the night? If so, due to the incompleteness of the days of probation, one would not be worthy of mānatta; if not, even if mānatta were given, it would be as if not given, and thus there would be no emergence from the offense.” For the purpose of dispelling this Vinaya doubt, having spent one, two, or three days more, is this not a completed probation? Therefore, mānatta should be requested. But why, having undertaken the observance, should mānatta be requested? This is said by one who is considering the accusation, “For this one, having undertaken the observance…” etc. Because this bhikkhu, having undertaken the observance, is worthy of mānatta, not without undertaking it, therefore, having undertaken the observance, mānatta should be requested—this is the connection. But in the kammavācā, it is said, “He, having completed probation, requests mānatta from the Saṅgha,” and it is not said, “having undertaken the observance,” so why is it said, “having undertaken the observance, he is worthy of mānatta”? Considering this accusation, it is said, “Because he has completed it by setting aside the observance.” Because this bhikkhu, having set aside the observance, has completed it, not without setting it aside, therefore, having set aside the observance, this bhikkhu, having undertaken the observance, is worthy of mānatta, not without undertaking it—this is the interpretation. For it is said, “For one who has not set aside the observance, there is no further duty of undertaking. He becomes worthy of mānatta simply by the passing of the concealed days, therefore mānatta should be given to him.”
ID1512
Catūhi pañcahi vā bhikkhūhi saddhinti ūnegaṇecaraṇadosā vimuccanatthaṃ. Parikkhittassa vihārassa parikkhepatotiādi kiñcāpi pāḷiyaṃ natthi, atha kho aṭṭhakathācariyānaṃ vacanena tathā eva paṭipajjitabbanti ca vuttaṃ. “Atthibhāvaṃ sallakkhetvāti dvādasahatthe upacāre sallakkhetvā, anikkhittavattānaṃ upacārasīmāya āgatabhāvaṃ sallakkhetvā sahavāsādikaṃ veditabbanti ca vuttaṃ. ’Nikkhipantena ārocetvā nikkhipitabbaṃ payojanaṃ atthī’ti ca vuttaṃ, na pana taṃ payojanaṃ dassita”nti vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 97) vuttaṃ, vattabhedadukkaṭā muccanapayojanaṃ hotīti veditabbaṃ.
Catūhi pañcahi vā bhikkhūhi saddhiṃ (“Together with four or five monks”) is for the purpose of being free from the fault of being short of the quorum. Parikkhittassa vihārassa parikkhepato and so forth, although not in the canonical text, is said to be practiced thus according to the statement of the commentary teachers. “Atthibhāvaṃ sallakkhetvā” (“Having considered their presence”) means having considered their presence within the boundary of twelve hands, and it is said that co-residence and so forth should be understood by considering the presence of those who have not set aside the observance within the boundary. It is also said in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 97): “One who sets it aside must announce it and set it aside, and there is a purpose,” though that purpose is not specified; it should be understood as the purpose of liberation from the offense of breaking the observance.
With four or five monks is for the purpose of avoiding the fault of dwelling with an incomplete group. From the boundary of a surrounded monastery, etc., although it is not in the Pāḷi, it has been said that one should behave in that way, in accordance with the words of the commentary teachers. And it has been said, “Having ascertained the presence”, having ascertained within the immediate vicinity of twelve cubits, and having ascertained the presence of those who have not deposited the observance, one should know about dwelling together, etc. And it is said ‘There is a purpose for depositing after informing by the one depositing’, but that purpose has not been shown”, it is said in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. ṭī. Cūḷavagga 97); it should be understood that the purpose is to be released from the minor offense of violating the observance.
With four or five bhikkhus—for the purpose of being freed from the fault of incomplete action. From the boundary of the enclosed monastery—although this is not found in the Pāli, it is said that it should be practiced thus according to the words of the Aṭṭhakathā teachers. “Having considered the presence”—having considered the presence within twelve cubits, the presence within the range of those who have not set aside the observance should be understood as dwelling together, etc. It is said, “When setting aside, having informed, it should be set aside, there is a purpose,” but that purpose is not shown—this is said in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 97). It should be understood that the purpose is to be freed from the offense of wrong-doing due to the difference in observance.
ID1513
239. Abbhānaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭatīti katampi akatameva hotīti attho. “Tenāpi vattaṃ samādiyitvā ārocetvā abbhānaṃ yācitabba”nti vuttattā abbhānayācanatthaṃ mānattassa samādiyanakālepi ārocetabbameva. Pubbe mānattacāritakāle ārocitamevāti anārocetvā abbhānaṃ na yācitabbanti viññāyati. Evaṃ mānattayācanakālepi parivāsaṃ samādiyitvā ārocetabbamevāti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
239. Abbhānaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭatī (“It is not permissible to perform rehabilitation”) means that even if performed, it is as if not done. Since it is said, “Tenāpi vattaṃ samādiyitvā ārocetvā abbhānaṃ yācitabbaṃ” (“Even he, having undertaken the observance and announced it, must request rehabilitation”), it must indeed be announced even at the time of undertaking the observance for the purpose of requesting rehabilitation. It is understood that rehabilitation should not be requested without announcing it if it was already announced during the period of observing mānatta. Thus, it should be understood that even at the time of requesting mānatta, it must be announced after undertaking the dwelling apart.
239. Rehabilitation should not be performed, meaning that even if performed, it is as if not performed. Because it is said, “Even he should undertake the observance, inform, and request rehabilitation”, informing should also be done at the time of undertaking the probation for the purpose of requesting rehabilitation. It is understood that rehabilitation should not be requested without informing, thinking, “I have already informed during the time of observing the probation.” Thus, even at the time of requesting probation, it should be understood that one should undertake the period of penance and inform.
239. It is not allowable to perform rehabilitation—what is done becomes as if not done—this is the meaning. “Therefore, having undertaken the observance and informed, rehabilitation should be requested”—because of this, even at the time of undertaking mānatta, it should be informed. Previously, during the time of practicing mānatta, it was informed, so it is understood that rehabilitation should not be requested without informing. Thus, even at the time of requesting mānatta, having undertaken probation, it should be informed—this should be understood.
ID1514
240. Ciṇṇamānatto bhikkhu abbhetabboti ciṇṇamānattassa ca abbhānārahassa ca ninnānākaraṇattā vuttaṃ. Aññathā “abbhānāraho abbhetabbo”ti vattabbaṃ siyā. Ukkhepanīyakammakatopi attano laddhiggahaṇavasena sabhāgabhikkhumhi sati tassa anārocāpetuṃ na labhati.
240. Ciṇṇamānatto bhikkhu abbhetabbo (“A monk who has completed mānatta should be rehabilitated”) is said because of the determination of one who has completed mānatta and is worthy of rehabilitation. Otherwise, it would be said, “One worthy of rehabilitation should be rehabilitated.” Even one subjected to a suspension act cannot refrain from announcing it to a fellow monk if present, due to his own inclination.
240. A monk who has completed his probation should be rehabilitated, because one who has completed his probation and one who is eligible for rehabilitation are not the same, it is stated. Otherwise, it would have to be said, “One eligible for rehabilitation should be rehabilitated.” Even one against whom the act of suspension has been performed, due to accepting his own views, is not allowed not to inform a monk of the same category, if one is present.
240. A bhikkhu who has completed mānatta should be rehabilitated—this is said because of the distinction between one who has completed mānatta and one who is worthy of rehabilitation. Otherwise, it might be said, “One who is worthy of rehabilitation should be rehabilitated.” Even one who has been subjected to ukkhepanīyakamma, due to his own grasping of what he has gained, cannot avoid informing in the presence of a fellow bhikkhu.
ID1515
“Anantarāyikassa pana antarāyikasaññāya chādayato acchannāvā”ti pāṭho. Averibhāvena sabhāgo averisabhāgo. “Sabhāgasaṅghādisesaṃ āpannassa pana santike āvi kātuṃ na vaṭṭatī”ti pasaṅgato idheva pakāsitaṃ. Lahukesu paṭikkhepo natthi. Tattha ñattiyā āvi katvā uposathaṃ kātuṃ anuññātattā lahukasabhāgaṃ āvi kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti. Sabhāgasaṅghādisesaṃ pana ñattiyā ārocanaṃ na vaṭṭatīti kira. “Tassa santike taṃ āpattiṃ paṭikarissatīti (mahāva. 171) vuttattā lahukassevāyaṃ samanuññātā. Na hi sakkā suddhassa ekassa santike saṅghādisesassa paṭikaraṇaṃ kātu”nti likhitaṃ. Lahukesupi sabhāgaṃ āvi kātuṃ na vaṭṭatīti. Tasmā eva hi ñattiyā āvikaraṇaṃ anuññātaṃ, itarathā taṃ niratthakaṃ siyā. Aññamaññārocanassa vaṭṭati, tato na vaṭṭatīti dīpanatthameva ñattiyā āvikaraṇamanuññātaṃ , teneva idha “sabhāgasaṅghādisesaṃ āpannassā”tiādi vuttaṃ, ayamattho “ettāvatā te dve nirāpattikā honti, tesaṃ santike sesehi sabhāgāpattiyo desetabbā”ti vacanena kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyampi (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) pakāsitova. Saṅghādisesaṃ pana ñattiyā ārocetvā uposathaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Tassā ñattiyā ayamattho – yadā suddhaṃ bhikkhuṃ passissati, tassa santike aññamaññārocanavasena paṭikarissati, evaṃ paṭikate “na ca, bhikkhave, sāpattikena pātimokkhaṃ sotabbaṃ, yo suṇeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (cūḷava. 386) vuttāpattito mokkho hoti, tasmā “garukaṃ vā hotu lahukaṃ vā, ñattiyā āvi kātuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ. Ubhosu nayesu yuttataraṃ gahetabbaṃ. “Nāmañceva āpatti cāti tena tena vītikkamenāpannāpatti āpatti. Nāmanti tassā āpattiyā nāma”nti likhitaṃ. Ārocetvā nikkhipitabbanti ettha ārocanaṃ vattabhedadukkaṭapariharaṇappayojananti veditabbaṃ.
“When there is no impediment, but with the perception of an impediment, one conceals it, it remains unconcealed.” The reading is: “With the perception of an impediment regarding an impeded [offense], it remains unconcealed.” Averisabhāgo (“A fellow monk without enmity”) means one without enmity. It is explained here incidentally: “Sabhāgasaṅghādisesaṃ āpannassa pana santike āvi kātuṃ na vaṭṭatī” (“It is not permissible to confess openly in the presence of one who has committed a fellow Saṅghādisesa offense”). There is no prohibition regarding minor [offenses]. Since it is permitted to perform the Uposatha after confessing openly by a motion, it is permissible to confess openly to a fellow monk regarding a minor offense. But it is said that confessing a fellow Saṅghādisesa offense by a motion is not permissible. It is written: “Since it is said in (mahāva. 171), ‘He will make amends for that offense in his presence,’ this permission applies only to a minor offense. For it is not possible for a pure monk alone to make amends for a Saṅghādisesa offense in the presence of another.” Even for minor offenses, it is not permissible to confess openly to a fellow monk. Therefore, confessing openly by a motion is permitted; otherwise, it would be meaningless. Mutual announcement is permissible, but beyond that it is not—this is permitted only to clarify by a motion. Hence it says here, “sabhāgasaṅghādisesaṃ āpannassa” and so forth. This meaning is also clarified in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) with the statement: “Thus, those two become free from offense; the remaining fellow offenses should be confessed in their presence.” However, it is permissible to perform the Uposatha after announcing a Saṅghādisesa offense by a motion. The purpose of that motion is this: When he sees a pure monk, he will make amends in his presence by mutual announcement; once amends are made, he is freed from the offense stated in (cūḷava. 386): “Monks, one with an offense should not listen to the Pātimokkha; if he listens, it is an offense of wrong-doing.” Hence it is said: “Whether it is a grave or minor offense, it is permissible to confess openly by a motion.” The more reasonable of the two methods should be adopted. “Nāmañceva āpatti cā” (“Both the name and the offense”) refers to the offense committed by that transgression—āpatti. Nāma refers to the name of that offense. It is written: “Ārocetvā nikkhipitabbaṃ” (“Having announced, it should be set aside”); here, the announcement should be understood as having the purpose of avoiding the offense of breaking the observance.
The reading is, “But for one who is subject to an impediment, if he conceals, thinking ‘I am subject to an impediment,’ it is not concealed.” One of the same category who is without enmity is a non-enmity same-category. “But for one who has incurred a same-category Sanghādisesa, it is not permissible to reveal it in his presence,” has been explained here incidentally. There is no prohibition in the case of minor offenses. Because it is permitted to perform the Uposatha after revealing a minor same-category offense with a motion, it is permissible to reveal a minor same-category offense. But, it is said that it is not permissible to inform about a same-category Sanghādisesa with a motion. “In his presence, he will deal with that offense (Mahāva. 171),” because it is said, this is only permitted for minor offenses. Indeed, it is not possible to deal with a Sanghādisesa offense in the presence of one pure person alone, “it is written. It is not permissible to reveal even minor same-category offenses. That’s why, indeed, revealing with a motion is permitted, otherwise, it would be pointless. Revealing by informing each other is permissible; therefore it is not permissible”, to show this, revealing by a motion has been permitted. Therefore, here, it is said “One who has incurred a same-category Sanghādisesa”, etc. This meaning is also clarified in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Nidānavaṇṇanā) by the statement, “Thus, those two become without offense; in their presence, the remaining same-category offenses should be confessed.” But it is permissible to perform the Uposatha after informing about a Sanghādisesa with a motion. The meaning of that motion is: when he sees a pure monk, he will deal with it in his presence by informing each other; when dealt with in this way, he is released from the offense mentioned in, “And, monks, the Pātimokkha should not be heard by one with an offense; whoever should hear it, incurs a minor offense” (Cūḷava. 386), therefore, it is said, “Whether it is a grave or a minor offense, it is permissible to reveal it with a motion.” The more appropriate of the two methods should be accepted. “Both the name and the offense,” the offense incurred through such and such transgression is offense. The name is the name of that offense,” it is written. Informing, it should be deposited, here, informing is understood to be for the purpose of avoiding the minor offense of violating the observance.
“For one who is free from obstacles, but conceals with the perception of obstacles, it is concealed.” The text reads thus. Being free from enmity, a fellow free from enmity. “For one who has committed a Saṅghādisesa together with others, it is not allowable to make it known in his presence”—this is shown here. There is no rejection in light matters. There, having made it known by motion, it is allowable to perform the Uposatha, so it is allowable to make light matters known by motion. But for a Saṅghādisesa together with others, it is not allowable to inform by motion, it is said. “He will make amends for that offense in his presence” (Mahāva. 171)—because of this, this is allowed only for light matters. For it is not possible for a pure individual to make amends for a Saṅghādisesa in the presence of one person.” This is written. Even in light matters, it is not allowable to make it known together with others. Therefore, indeed, making it known by motion is allowed, otherwise it would be meaningless. It is allowable to inform each other, but not otherwise—this is shown for the purpose of explanation by motion, therefore here “for one who has committed a Saṅghādisesa together with others” etc. is said. This is the meaning: “To this extent, those two are free from offense; in their presence, the remaining offenses together with others should be confessed.” This is also shown in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Nidānavaṇṇanā). For a Saṅghādisesa, however, it is allowable to inform by motion and perform the Uposatha. The meaning of that motion is this: when he sees a pure bhikkhu, he will make amends in his presence by informing each other. Having made amends thus, “But, bhikkhus, one who has offenses should not listen to the Pātimokkha; if one listens, there is an offense of wrong-doing” (Cūḷava. 386)—from this offense, there is release, therefore “whether it is grave or light, it is allowable to make it known by motion.” In both methods, the more appropriate one should be taken. “Both the name and the offense”—the offense committed by such and such transgression is the offense. The name is the name of that offense.” This is written. Having informed, it should be set aside—here, informing is for the purpose of avoiding the offense of wrong-doing due to the difference in observance.
ID1516
“Satiyeva antarāye antarāyikasaññī chādeti, acchannā hoti. Antarāyikassa pana antarāyikasaññāya vā anantarāyikasaññāya vā chādayato acchannāvā”tipi pāṭho. Averīti hitakāmo. Uddhaste aruṇeti uṭṭhite aruṇe. Suddhassa santiketi sabhāgasaṅghādisesaṃ anāpannassa santike. Vatthunti asucimocanādivītikkamaṃ. Sukkavissaṭṭhīti vatthu ceva gottañcāti “sukkavissaṭṭhī”ti idaṃ asucimocanalakkhaṇassa vītikkamassa pakāsanato vatthu ceva hoti, sajātiyasādhāraṇavijātiyavinivattasabhāvāya sukkavissaṭṭhiyā eva pakāsanato gottañca hotīti attho. Gaṃ tāyatīti hi gottaṃ. Saṅghādisesoti nāmañceva āpatti cāti saṅghādisesoti tena tena vītikkamena āpannassa āpattinikāyassa nāmapakāsanato nāmañceva hoti, āpattisabhāvato āpatti ca.
“If there is an impediment, one who conceals it with the perception of an impediment remains unconcealed. But regarding an impeded [offense], whether with the perception of an impediment or without, it remains unconcealed”—this is also a reading. Averī (“Without enmity”) means one who desires benefit. Uddhaste aruṇe (“When the dawn has risen”) means when the dawn has arisen. Suddhassa santike (“In the presence of a pure one”) means in the presence of one who has not committed a fellow Saṅghādisesa offense. Vatthu (“Basis”) refers to a transgression such as releasing impurity. Sukkavissaṭṭhīti vatthu ceva gottañca (“Sukkavissaṭṭhi is both the basis and the class”) means that “sukkavissaṭṭhi” is the basis because it reveals the characteristic of the transgression of releasing impurity, and it is the class because it reveals only sukkavissaṭṭhi, which is common to the same kind and excludes other kinds. “Class” (gotta) means what is understood. Saṅghādisesoti nāmañceva āpatti cā (“Saṅghādisesa is both the name and the offense”) means that “Saṅghādisesa” is the name because it reveals the category of offenses committed by that transgression, and it is the offense because of its nature as an offense.
“If there is actually an impediment and he conceals thinking ‘There is an impediment’, it is not concealed. But for one who is subject to an impediment, if he conceals, whether thinking ‘I am subject to an impediment’ or ‘I am not subject to an impediment’, it is indeed not concealed,” is also a reading. Without enmity means wishing for welfare. When the dawn has risen above means when the dawn has arisen. In the presence of one who is pure means in the presence of one who has not incurred a same-category Sanghādisesa. The basis means the transgression, such as emitting semen. Ejaculation of semen is both the basis and the lineage, “Ejaculation of semen,” this, because it reveals the transgression characterized by the emission of semen, is both the basis, and because it reveals the very nature of the ejaculation of semen, which is common to its class and excludes other classes, it is also the lineage. Indeed, that which protects the lineage is called lineage. Sanghādisesa is both the name and the offense, Sanghādisesa, because it reveals the name of the class of offenses incurred by such and such transgression, is both the name, and because of being the nature of an offense, it is also the offense.
“Even when there is an obstacle, one who conceals with the perception of an obstacle is concealed. For one who has an obstacle, whether with the perception of an obstacle or without the perception of an obstacle, concealing it, it is concealed.” This is the text. Free from enmity means well-wishing. After the dawn has risen means after the dawn has risen. In the presence of a pure one means in the presence of one who has not committed a Saṅghādisesa together with others. The object means the transgression such as the emission of semen. The emission of semen is both the object and the class—“the emission of semen” is the object because it reveals the characteristic of the transgression of emitting semen, and it is the class because it reveals the nature of the emission of semen, which is common to its kind and distinct from other kinds. For class is that which extends to a kind. Saṅghādisesa is both the name and the offense—Saṅghādisesa is the name because it reveals the name of the category of offense committed by such and such transgression, and it is the offense because of the nature of the offense.
ID1517
Suddhassāti sabhāgasaṅghādisesaṃ anāpannassa, tato vuṭṭhitassa vā. Aññasminti suddhantaparivāsavasena āpattivuṭṭhānato aññasmiṃ āpattivuṭṭhāne. Paṭicchādiyitthāti paṭicchannā. Kā sā? Āpatti. Divasādīhi paricchinditvā vasanaṃ parivāso. Ko so? Vinayakammakaraṇaṃ. Paṭicchannāya āpattiyā parivāso paṭicchannaparivāso.
Suddhassa (“Of a pure one”) refers to one who has not committed a fellow Saṅghādisesa offense or has risen from it. Aññasmiṃ (“In another”) refers to another means of rising from an offense apart from dwelling apart with purity. “It was concealed” means concealed. What is it? The offense. Dwelling determined by days and so forth is dwelling apart. What is that? The disciplinary action. The dwelling apart for a concealed offense is paṭicchannaparivāso (“concealed dwelling apart”).
Of a pure one means of one who has not incurred a same-category Sanghādisesa, or of one who has arisen from it. In another means in another arising from offense, on account of the Suddhanta period of penance. Concealed by her is Paṭicchannā. Which is that? The offense. Dwelling confined by days, etc., is Parivāsa. Which is that? The performance of the Vinaya act. The Parivāsa for a concealed offense is Paṭicchannaparivāsa.
Of a pure one means of one who has not committed a Saṅghādisesa together with others, or of one who has emerged from it. In another means in another emergence from an offense due to the completion of probation. It was concealed—what was concealed? The offense. The dwelling for a measure of days, etc., is probation. What is that? The performance of Vinaya action. The probation for a concealed offense is concealed probation.
ID1518
Paṭicchannaparivāsakathā niṭṭhitā.
The discussion on concealed dwelling apart is concluded.
The discussion on Paṭicchannaparivāsa is concluded.
The discussion on concealed probation is concluded.
ID1519
ID1520
242. Sujjhanaṃ suddho, ko so? Āpattivigamo. Amati osānabhāvaṃ gacchatīti anto, suddho anto yassa parivāsassāti suddhanto, suddhanto ca so parivāso cāti suddhantaparivāso, suddhakālaṃ pariyantaṃ katvā asuddhakālappamāṇena paricchinditvā kataparivāso.
242. Purification is purity; what is that? The removal of an offense. It reaches the state of conclusion—thus “end” (anto); that dwelling apart which has purity as its end is suddhanto (“having a pure end”), and it is both purity and dwelling apart—thus suddhantaparivāso (“dwelling apart with purity”), a dwelling apart determined by the measure of impure time, with the pure time as its limit.
242. Purification is Suddha; which is that? The cessation of offense. Anta (end) means going to the state of cessation. Suddhanta is the Parivāsa which has a pure end; Suddhanta and that Parivāsa is Suddhantaparivāsa, the Parivāsa performed having made the pure time the limit, having confined it by the measure of the impure time.
242. Purification is pure—what is that? The removal of an offense. The end is that which goes to the state of cessation—pure is the end of whose probation is pure probation, pure probation is that which is determined by the measure of the impure time after making the pure time the limit.
ID1521
Suddhantaparivāsakathā niṭṭhitā.
The discussion on dwelling apart with purity is concluded.
The discussion on Suddhantaparivāsa is concluded.
The discussion on pure probation is concluded.
ID1522
ID1523
243. Samodhīyate samodhānaṃ, nānākālikā nānāvatthukā āpattiyo agghādivasena samodhānaṃ ekīkaraṇaṃ , samodhānetvā kato parivāso samodhānaparivāsoti viggaho. Kammavācāyaṃ “paṭikassito saṅghena itthannāmo bhikkhu antarā sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ appaṭicchannānaṃ mūlāyapaṭikassanā, khamati saṅghassa, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmī”ti ettha gatyatthadhātuyā kammani ca nayanatthadhātuyā kammani ca tadatthasampadāne ca vibhattipariṇāme cāti imesu catūsu ṭhānesu āyādesassa vuttattā, paṭipubbakasadhātuyā ca nayanatthattā “mūlāyā”ti idaṃ “paṭikassito”ti ettha kammaṃ, tasmā “paṭikassito…pe… mūlāya” iti ettakameva bhavitabbaṃ, na “mūlāyapaṭikassanā”ti evaṃ maññamānā saddaviduno “paṭikassanā”ti idaṃ adhikanti vā vadeyyuṃ makkheyyuṃ vā, na panetaṃ vattabbaṃ. Navapāṭhesuyeva ayaṃ pāṭho saddalakkhaṇayutto vā ayutto vāti cintetabbo, na pana pāḷiyaṭṭhakathādito āgatesu porāṇapāṭhesu. Tesu pana kathaṃ yojiyamāno ayaṃ pāṭho saddayuttiyā ca atthayuttiyā ca samannāgato bhaveyyāti yojanākāroyeva cintetabbo. Ayañca pāṭho porāṇapāḷipāṭhova, tasmā “mūlāyapaṭikassanā”ti idaṃ karaṇavasena vipariṇāmetvā “mūlāyapaṭikassanāya paṭikassito”ti yojetabbaṃ.
243. It is combined—combination; the unification of various offenses from different times and bases by means of their value is samodhānaṃ (“combination”); the dwelling apart performed after combining is samodhānaparivāso (“combined dwelling apart”)—this is the analysis. In the formal act (kammavācā), it is said: “The Saṅgha has withdrawn the monk named so-and-so from the root for several unconcealed offenses in between; it is agreeable to the Saṅgha, therefore silent; thus I hold it.” Here, due to the substitution of case endings in four instances—action implying motion, object of an action verb, object of a verb implying leading, and accomplishment of that meaning—and because of the verb implying precedence, “mūlāya” is the object of “paṭikassito” (“withdrawn”). Therefore, only “paṭikassito…pe… mūlāya” should be taken, and not “mūlāyapaṭikassanā” (“withdrawal from the root”). Scholars of grammar might say or object that “paṭikassanā” is additional, but this should not be said. Whether this reading in the new text is grammatically correct or incorrect should be considered, not in the ancient readings received from the canonical text, commentaries, and so forth. How this reading, when construed, would be consistent with both grammar and meaning in those texts should be the only consideration. This reading is indeed an ancient canonical reading; therefore, “mūlāyapaṭikassanā” should be construed as “withdrawn for the purpose of withdrawal from the root” by transforming it into the instrumental case.
243. Samodhāna (combining) is what is combined; combining means the unification, as with value, etc., of offenses of different times and different bases; the Parivāsa performed after combining is Samodhānaparivāsa, this is the analysis. In the formal act, “Driven back by the Sangha, this monk named so-and-so, for being driven back to the beginning for many unconfessed offenses in between, it is pleasing to the Sangha, therefore it is silent; thus I understand this”, here, because the suffix ‘āya’ is stated in four places: in the case of a root with the meaning of going, in the case of a root with the meaning of bringing, in the objective case, and in the dative case when the meaning is achieved; and because the root ‘kas’, preceded by ‘paṭi’, has the meaning of bringing, ‘Mūlāya’ (to the beginning) here is the object of ‘Paṭikassito’ (driven back); therefore, it should only be, “Driven back… to the beginning,” not, “For being driven back to the beginning”, thus, those skilled in grammar, thinking this, might say or become angry that “Paṭikassanā” (for being driven back) is excessive, but this should not be said. This reading in the new texts should only be considered as whether it is in accordance with the grammatical rules or not, but not in the ancient readings coming from the Pāḷi, commentary, etc. But in those, considering how this reading can be connected to be consistent with the grammatical rule and the meaning, only the way of connecting should be considered. And this reading is indeed the ancient Pāḷi reading, therefore, transforming ‘Mūlāyapaṭikassanā’ (for being driven back to the beginning) into the instrumental case, it should be connected as ‘Paṭikassito mūlāyapaṭikassanāya’ (driven back by being driven back to the beginning).
243. Combined is the combining—the combining of offenses of different times and different objects into one by the measure of days, etc., is combined probation—this is the analysis. In the kammavācā, “The bhikkhu named so-and-so has been recalled by the Saṅgha among many unconcealed offenses for the purpose of root recall, does the Saṅgha consent? Therefore, remain silent, thus I hold it.” Here, because of the statement in the four places of the meaning of the going, the meaning of the leading, the meaning of the attainment, and the inflectional change, and because of the meaning of leading in the prior root, “root” is the action here, therefore “recalled…pe… root” should be thus, not “root recall”—thus those who are skilled in language might say or suspect, but this should not be said. Even in new readings, this reading should be considered as either conforming or not conforming to the characteristics of language, but not in the ancient readings that have come down from the Pāli and Aṭṭhakathā. In those, however, how should this reading be interpreted so that it may be endowed with both linguistic conformity and meaning conformity? This is the way of interpretation to be considered. And this reading is indeed an ancient Pāli reading, therefore “root recall” should be interpreted by changing the construction to “recalled for the purpose of root recall.”
ID1524
Kathaṃ panetassa porāṇapāṭhabhāvo jānitabboti? Pakaraṇe āgatattā. Vuttañhi vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.102) “pāḷiyaṃ paṭikassito saṅghena udāyi bhikkhu antarā ekissā āpattiyā…pe… mūlāyapaṭikassanāti idaṃ karaṇavasena vipariṇāmetvā mūlāyapaṭikassanāya paṭikassitoti yojetabba”nti. Atha vā “mūlāya paṭikassanā mūlāyapaṭikassanā”ti aluttasamāsavasena uttarapadena samāsaṃ katvā saṅghena itthannāmo bhikkhu antarā sambahulānaṃ āpattīnaṃ appaṭicchannānaṃ hetu paṭikassito. Sā mūlāyapaṭikassanā khamati saṅghassāti yojetabbaṃ. Tathā hi vuttaṃ tattheva (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.102) “atha vā mūlāyapaṭikassanā khamati saṅghassāti uttarapadena saha paccattavaseneva yojetumpi vaṭṭatī”ti.
How then is its status as an ancient reading to be known? Because it is found in the treatise. It is said in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.102): “In the canonical text, ‘The Saṅgha has withdrawn the monk Udāyī from the root for one offense in between…pe… mūlāyapaṭikassanā’ should be construed as ‘withdrawn for the purpose of withdrawal from the root’ by transforming it into the instrumental case.” Alternatively, by forming a compound with the latter term without elision, as “mūlāya paṭikassanā mūlāyapaṭikassanā,” it should be construed as: “The Saṅgha has withdrawn the monk named so-and-so for the reason of several unconcealed offenses in between. That withdrawal from the root is agreeable to the Saṅgha.” Indeed, it is said there (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.102): “Alternatively, it is permissible to construe it with the latter term in the nominative case as ‘withdrawal from the root is agreeable to the Saṅgha.’”
But how can it be known that this is the ancient reading? Because it appears in the Pakaraṇa. It is said in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.102), “In the Pāli, ‘the monk Udāyī was previously demoted by the Saṅgha on account of one offense…etc… mūlāyapaṭikassana,’ this should be rearranged due to the context and connected as ‘he was demoted to mūlāyapaṭikassanā’.” Or, “the demotion to the beginning, mūlāyapaṭikassanā,” taking this as an aluttasamāsa (a compound where the first member retains its case ending), forming a compound with the latter word, it should be construed as: “a monk named so-and-so was previously demoted by the Saṅgha due to many unconfessed offenses. That mūlāyapaṭikassanā is agreeable to the Saṅgha.” Thus it is said there (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.102), “Or, it can also be construed, taking it as pertaining to the individual, with the latter word as: ‘The mūlāyapaṭikassanā is agreeable to the Saṅgha’.”
How, then, is the ancient reading of this to be known? By its occurrence in the treatise. For it is said in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 2.102): “The monk Udāyi, having been sent back by the Saṅgha for an intermediate offense… up to… this is to be interpreted as having been sent back by the Saṅgha for a root offense, having reversed it due to the act of sending back.” Alternatively, “mūlāya paṭikassanā, mūlāyapaṭikassanā” is to be interpreted as a compound with the latter term, meaning that the monk named so-and-so was sent back by the Saṅgha for the cause of several unconcealed offenses. That sending back for a root offense is acceptable to the Saṅgha. For it is said in the same place (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 2.102): “Alternatively, ‘mūlāyapaṭikassanā is acceptable to the Saṅgha’ can also be interpreted as a compound with the latter term.”
ID1525
Taṃ dentena paṭhamaṃ mūlāya paṭikassitvā pacchāparivāso dātabboti ettha taṃ odhānasamodhānaparivāsaṃ dentena paṭhamaṃ taṃ bhikkhuṃ mūlāya paṭikassitvā mūladivase ākaḍḍhitvā tassa antarāpattiyā samodhānaparivāso dātabboti attho. Yathā kiṃ vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.102) “udāyiṃ bhikkhuṃ antarā ekissā āpattiyā…pe… mūlāya paṭikassitvāti ettha antarā ekissā āpattiyā hetubhūtāya udāyiṃ bhikkhuṃ mūlāya paṭikassitvā mūladivase ākaḍḍhitvā tassā antarāpattiyā samodhānaparivāsaṃ detūti yojanā”ti vuttaṃ. Mahāsumattheravāde āvikārāpetvā vissajjetabboti tassa atekicchabhāvaṃ teneva saṅghassa pākaṭaṃ kāretvā lajjīgaṇato viyojanavasena vissajjetabboti attho.
Taṃ dentena paṭhamaṃ mūlāya paṭikassitvā pacchāparivāso dātabbo (“In giving it, first having withdrawn him from the root, afterward dwelling apart should be given”) means that in giving that combined dwelling apart, first having withdrawn that monk from the root and pulled back to the root day, the combined dwelling apart for that intermediate offense should be given. How so? It is said in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.102): “Having withdrawn the monk Udāyī from the root for one offense in between…pe… having withdrawn from the root, it should be construed as ‘having withdrawn the monk Udāyī from the root for the reason of one offense in between, pulling back to the root day, give him the combined dwelling apart for that intermediate offense.’” In the teaching of the Elder Mahāsuma, āvikārāpetvā vissajjetabbo (“Having made it known, he should be dismissed”) means that his incurable state should be made evident to the Saṅgha by that very act and he should be dismissed as if separated from the group of those with shame.
One who gives it should first demote him to the beginning (mūlāya paṭikassitvā) and afterwards grant probation (parivāsa) - here, the meaning is that one giving that odhāna-merging probation should first demote that monk to the beginning, drawing him back to the original day, and should grant the samodhāna-probation for his intervening offense. Just as what has been said in Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.102) “Having demoted the monk Udāyi to the root (mūlāya paṭikassitvā)…etc…because of one offense…etc.” Here, the monk Udāyī because of which one root offense, should be pulled back to the original day, the samodhāna probation of that intervening offense, should give. This construction is said. In the tradition of Mahāsummatthera, having made it manifest, he should be dismissed - the meaning is that, having made his incurable state evident to the Saṅgha itself, he should be dismissed by way of separation from the group of those with shame.
When giving that, first send back to the root and then give probation—here, when giving the probation with the inclusion of the covering, the meaning is that first the monk should be sent back to the root, and on the root day, having drawn him back, probation with inclusion should be given for the intermediate offense. As stated in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 2.102): “Having sent back the monk Udāyi for the cause of one intermediate offense… up to… having sent him back to the root, on the root day, draw him back and give probation with inclusion for that intermediate offense.” In the Mahāsumattheravāda, having made it known, he should be dismissed—the meaning is that his inability to fulfill the requirement should be made known to the Saṅgha, and he should be dismissed by separating him from the group of the ashamed.
ID1526
Odhānasamodhānaparivāsakathā niṭṭhitā.
The discussion on combined and aggregated dwelling apart is concluded.
The discussion of odhāna-merging probation is concluded.
The discussion on probation with the inclusion of the covering is concluded.
ID1527
ID1528
244. Agghena agghavasena arahavasena samodhānaṃ agghasamodhānaṃ, āpannāsu sambahulāsu āpattīsu yā āpattiyo ciratarappaṭicchannāyo, tāsaṃ agghena samodhāya tāsaṃ rattiparicchedavasena avasesānaṃ ūnatarappaṭicchannānaṃ āpattīnaṃ parivāso dīyati, ayaṃ vuccati agghasamodhāno . Sataṃ āpattiyoti kāyasaṃsaggādivasena ekadivase āpannā sataṃ āpattiyo. Dasasatanti sahassaāpattiyo. Rattisataṃ chādayitvānāti yojetabbaṃ. “Agghasamodhāno nāma sabhāgavatthukāyo sambahulā āpattiyo āpannassa bahurattiṃ paṭicchāditāpattiyaṃ nikkhipitvā dātabbo, itaro nānāvatthukānaṃ vasenāti ayametesaṃ viseso”ti vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 102) vuttaṃ.
244. Aggregation by value, by worth—agghasamodhānaṃ (“aggregation by value”); among the many offenses committed, for those offenses concealed for a longer time, dwelling apart is given by aggregating them by their value and determining the nights for the remaining offenses concealed for a shorter time—this is called agghasamodhāno (“aggregated by value”). Sataṃ āpattiyo (“A hundred offenses”) refers to a hundred offenses committed in one day due to bodily contact and so forth. Dasasataṃ (“Ten hundred”) means a thousand offenses. It should be construed as “having concealed for a hundred nights.” It is said in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 102): “The so-called agghasamodhāno is to be given to one who has committed many offenses with a common basis, placing them in the offense concealed for many nights; the other is by reason of different bases—this is their distinction.”
244. Agghena means by the chief part, by the most worthy part; merging (samodhāna) by means of the chief part is agghasamodhāna. Among many accumulated offenses, for those offenses that have been concealed for a longer time, by means of merging (samodhāna) with the chief part of those, according to the division of nights of those, probation (parivāsa) is given for the remaining offenses that have been concealed for a lesser time; this is called agghasamodhāna. A hundred offenses - a hundred offenses committed in one day through bodily contact, etc. Ten hundred - means a thousand offenses. It should be connected as “having concealed for a hundred nights.” It is said in the Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 102), “Agghasamodhāna should be given to one who has committed many offenses of the same category, having discarded the offense concealed for the longest time; the other (type of probation) is according to (offenses of) various categories’ - this is the difference between them.”
244. Inclusion by value, by worth, by deserving—this is called probation with inclusion by value. When several offenses have been committed, among them, those offenses that have been concealed for a longer time are included by value, and probation is given for the remaining offenses, which have been concealed for a shorter time, by dividing the nights. This is called probation with inclusion by value. A hundred offenses—offenses committed in one day through bodily contact, etc. Ten hundred—a thousand offenses. It should be interpreted as “having concealed a hundred nights.” **“Probation with inclusion by value** is to be given by setting aside offenses of the same class that have been concealed for many nights, while the others are of different classes,” as stated in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 102).
ID1529
Agghasamodhānaparivāsakathā niṭṭhitā.
The discussion on aggregated dwelling apart by value is concluded.
The discussion of agghasamodhāna-probation is concluded.
The discussion on probation with inclusion by value is concluded.
ID1530
246. Liṅgaparivattanakakathāyaṃ yadi kassaci bhikkhuno itthiliṅgaṃ pātu bhaveyya, kiṃ tena puna upajjhā gahetabbā, puna upasampadā kātabbā, kiṃ bhikkhūpasampadāto paṭṭhāya vassagaṇanā kātabbā, udāhu ito paṭṭhāyāti pucchāya sati taṃ pariharitumāha “sace”tiādi. Evaṃ sante sā bhikkhunī bhikkhūnaṃ majjheyeva vasitabbaṃ bhaveyyāti codanaṃ sandhāyāha “appatirūpa”ntiādi. Evaṃ sante bhikkhubhūtakāle āpajjitāpattiyo kathaṃ kātabbāti codanaṃ manasi katvā āha “yā desanāgāminiyo vā”tiādi. Tattha bhikkhūnaṃ bhikkhunīhi sādhāraṇāti sañcarittādayo. Asādhāraṇāti sukkavissaṭṭhiādayo. Hotu bhagavato anuññātavasena liṅge parivatte asādhāraṇāpattīhi vuṭṭhitabhāvo, puna pakatiliṅge uppanne puna āpatti siyāti āsaṅkaṃ pariharituṃ “puna pakatiliṅge”tiādi vuttaṃ. Idāni tamatthaṃ pāḷiyā sādhetuṃ “vuttañceta”ntiādimāha. Tassattho paṭhamapārājikavaṇṇanāya ṭīkāsu (sārattha. ṭī. 2.69; vajira. ṭī. pārājika 69) vuttanayeneva daṭṭhabbo, idha pana garukāpattivuṭṭhānakathābhūtattā sāyeva kathā vuccate.
246. In the discussion on the change of gender, if the female gender were to appear for some monk, the question arises: Must he take a preceptor again? Must he undergo higher ordination again? Should the counting of years be done from the monks’ ordination, or from now? To address this, it says “sace” (“if”) and so forth. Addressing the objection, “If so, that nun would have to dwell only among monks,” it says “appatirūpa” (“inappropriate”) and so forth. Considering the objection, “If so, what should be done about the offenses committed while a monk?” it says “yā desanāgāminiyo vā” (“those that lead to confession”) and so forth. There, bhikkhūnaṃ bhikkhunīhi sādhāraṇā (“common to monks and nuns”) refers to offenses like acting as a go-between. Asādhāraṇā (“not common”) refers to offenses like releasing impurity. Even if, by the Buddha’s permission, one has risen from uncommon offenses when the gender changes, there might be a doubt that an offense could arise again when the original gender returns; to dispel this, it says “puna pakatiliṅge” (“when the original gender returns”) and so forth. Now, to establish this meaning with the canonical text, it says “vuttañceta” (“and this is said”) and so forth. Its meaning should be understood as stated in the sub-commentaries on the first pārājika (sārattha. ṭī. 2.69; vajira. ṭī. pārājika 69), but here only that discussion is mentioned since it pertains to rising from grave offenses.
246. In the discussion of changing of sex characteristics, if the female sex characteristics were to appear in any monk, should he take a preceptor again, should he be ordained again, should the counting of years be made from the time of his bhikkhu ordination, or from this time? To resolve this question, he says “if”, etc. That being the case, that bhikkhuni should stay in the midst of bhikkhus – thinking in that way, he says “unsuitable”, etc. If that so, how the offenses committed during being bhikkhu, need to be done. Having kept this question in mind, he says “those that are to be confessed”, etc. There, common to bhikkhus and bhikkhunīs - means sañcaritta (acting as a go-between), etc. Not common - means emission of semen, etc. Granted, due to the Blessed One’s permission, there is the state of having overcome offenses not common (to both) upon the changing of sex, but upon the reappearance of the original sex, might there be a renewed offense? To dispel this doubt, he says “upon the original sex”, etc. Now, to establish this point with the Pāli, he says “and this has been said”, etc. Its meaning should be understood in the way stated in the ṭīkās to the explanation of the first pārājika (sārattha. ṭī. 2.69; vajira. ṭī. pārājika 69); but here, since it is a discussion of overcoming serious offenses, that very discussion is presented.
246. In the discussion on the change of gender, if a monk were to manifest female characteristics, what should be done? Should he take a preceptor again? Should he undergo ordination again? Should the counting of years begin from the time of his ordination as a monk, or from this point? When such a question arises, it is said: “If” and so on. In this case, that nun should live among the monks. Reflecting on the accusation, it is said: “Unfitting” and so on. Reflecting on how to deal with the offenses committed during the time as a monk, it is said: “Those that require confession” and so on. Here, common to monks and nuns—such as sexual intercourse, etc. Not common—such as emission of semen, etc. Even if, by the Buddha’s permission, the gender changes and one is cleared of offenses not common to both, if the original gender reoccurs, there is a possibility of committing offenses again, as stated: “If the original gender reoccurs” and so on. Now, to establish this meaning in the Pāli, it is said: “It is said” and so on. The meaning should be understood as explained in the commentaries on the first Pārājika (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.69; Vajira. Ṭī. Pārājika 69). Here, however, since it is a discussion on the clearing of grave offenses, the same discussion is repeated.
ID1531
247. Tattha bhikkhunīhi sādhāraṇāya paṭicchannāya āpattiyāti sañcarittādiāpattiyā, hetvatthe cetaṃ karaṇavacanaṃ. Parivasantassāti anādare sāmivacanaṃ. Pakkhamānattameva dātabbaṃ, na puna parivāso dātabbo bhikkhunibhāve aparivāsārahattāti adhippāyo. Mānattaṃ carantassāti anādareyeva sāmivacanaṃ, chārattamānatte āciṇṇeyeva parivattati, puna pakkhamānattameva dātabbanti. Tena vakkhati “sace ciṇṇamānattassā”tiādi. Akusalavipāke parikkhīṇeti purisindriyassa antaradhānaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Itthindriyapatiṭṭhānaṃ pana kusalavipākameva. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ “ubhayampi akusalena antaradhāyati, kusalena paṭilabbhatī”ti. Chārattaṃ mānattameva dātabbaṃ, na parivāso dātabbo, na vā pakkhamānattaṃ dātabbaṃ.
247. There, bhikkhunīhi sādhāraṇāya paṭicchannāya āpattiyā (“for an offense concealed, common to nuns”) refers to an offense like acting as a go-between; this instrumental case denotes the cause. Parivasantassa (“for one dwelling apart”) is a dative of indifference. Pakkhamānattameva dātabbaṃ (“Only a half-month mānatta should be given”)—not dwelling apart again, since she is not worthy of dwelling apart in her state as a nun—this is the intended meaning. Mānattaṃ carantassa (“for one observing mānatta”) is also a dative of indifference; when the six-night mānatta is completed, it shifts, and only a half-month mānatta should be given again. Hence it will say, “sace ciṇṇamānattassa” (“if she has completed mānatta”) and so forth. Akusalavipāke parikkhīṇe (“When the unwholesome result is exhausted”) is said with reference to the disappearance of the male faculty. The establishment of the female faculty, however, is a wholesome result. It is said in the commentary: “Both disappear due to the unwholesome, and are regained due to the wholesome.” Chārattaṃ mānattameva dātabbaṃ (“Only a six-night mānatta should be given”)—neither dwelling apart nor a half-month mānatta should be given.
247. There, for a concealed offense common to bhikkhunīs, this instrumental case indicates cause through sañcaritta (acting as a go-between) offense etc. For one undergoing probation (parivasantassā)- this is a genitive of disregard. Only the pakkhamānatta should be given, the probation should not be given again, the intention is, in the state of bhikkhuni, probation is not suitable. For one practicing mānatta - this is also a genitive of disregard, When the six nights mānatta is practiced, it turns (the gender) , only pakkhamānatta should be given again. Therefore, he will say, “if for one who has practiced mānatta”, etc. When unwholesome results are exhausted - this is said with reference to the disappearance of the male faculty. The establishment of the female faculty, however, is indeed a wholesome result. It is said in the Aṭṭhakathā, “Both disappear due to unwholesome (action), and are obtained due to wholesome (action).” Only six nights of mānatta should be given, neither probation (parivāsa) nor pakkhamānatta should be given.
247. Here, for an offense concealed in common with nuns—such as sexual intercourse, etc., this is a term of action for the sake of cause. For one undergoing probation—this is a term of respect. Only the preliminary penance should be given, not probation again, as it is not fitting for one in the state of a nun. For one undergoing penance—this is a term of respect. When the six-night penance has been completed, it changes, and only the preliminary penance should be given again. Hence, it is said: “If the penance has been completed” and so on. When the unwholesome result has ceased—this refers to the disappearance of the male faculty. The establishment of the female faculty, however, is solely a wholesome result. For it is said in the commentary: “Both disappear due to the unwholesome and are regained due to the wholesome.” Only the six-night penance should be given, not probation, nor the preliminary penance.
ID1532
“Ayaṃ pana viseso”ti vatvā taṃ visesaṃ dassetumāha “sace”tiādi. Parivāsadānaṃ natthi, chārattaṃ mānattameva dātabbaṃ. Kasmā? Bhikkhunikāle paṭicchannattā. Bhikkhukāle channāyeva hi āpatti parivāsārahā hoti, no bhikkhunikāleti ayametāsaṃ viseso. Pakkhamānattaṃ carantiyāti anādare sāmivacanaṃ, pakkhamānatte āciṇṇeyevāti attho. Tathā hi vakkhati “ciṇṇamānattāyā”tiādi. Chārattaṃ mānattaṃ carantassātiādi vuttanayameva.
“This, however, is the distinction,” it says, and to show that distinction, it says “sace” (“if”) and so forth. Parivāsadānaṃ natthi, chārattaṃ mānattameva dātabbaṃ (“There is no giving of dwelling apart, only a six-night mānatta should be given”). Why? Because it was concealed during her time as a nun. An offense concealed during her time as a monk is worthy of dwelling apart, but not during her time as a nun—this is their distinction. Pakkhamānattaṃ carantiyā (“For her observing a half-month mānatta”) is a dative of indifference; it means when the half-month mānatta is completed. Hence it will say, “ciṇṇamānattāya” (“for her who has completed mānatta”) and so forth. Chārattaṃ mānattaṃ carantassa (“For her observing a six-night mānatta”) and so forth is as explained above.
Having said, “But this is the difference,” to show that difference, he says “if”, etc. There is no giving of probation, only six nights of mānatta should be given. Why? Because it was concealed during the time of being a bhikkhuni. Indeed, only an offense concealed during the time of being a bhikkhu is suitable for probation, not (when concealed during the time of being) a bhikkhuni - this is the difference between them. For one practicing pakkhamānatta - This is an genitive of disregard - meaning one while practicing six nights of mānatta. Thus he will say, “For one who have practiced mānatta,” etc. For one practicing six nights of mānatta, etc. - is the same as stated before.
Having said, “This is the distinction,” the distinction is shown: “If” and so on. Probation is not to be given; only the six-night penance should be given. Why? Because it was concealed during the time as a nun. For an offense concealed during the time as a monk is worthy of probation, but not during the time as a nun—this is the distinction. For one undergoing preliminary penance—this is a term of respect, meaning that the preliminary penance has been completed. Hence, it is said: “For one who has completed the penance” and so on. For one undergoing the six-night penance—the same method as above is stated.
ID1533
ID1534
Idāni saṅghādisesāpatti yasmā sāvasesagarukāpatti hoti satekicchā, tasmā yathā nāma rogāturo puggalo kiñci attano hitasukhakāraṇaṃ kātuṃ na sakkoti, tamenaṃ kāruṇiko tikicchako karuṇāsañcodito tikicchaṃ katvā gelaññato vuṭṭhāpetvā hitasukhaṃ janeti, evaṃ saṅghādisesāpattisamaṅgī puggalo āṇāvītikkamantarāyikabhāvato saggamokkhamaggaṃ sodhetuṃ na sakkoti, tamenaṃ mahākāruṇiko bhagavā mahākaruṇāya sañcoditamānaso anekehi nayehi āpattito vuṭṭhānaṃ katvā saggamokkhasukhe patiṭṭhapeti, bhagavato adhippāyaññuno aṭṭhakathācariyāpi anekehi kāraṇehi bhagavato vacanassa atthaṃ pakāsetvā visuddhakāmānaṃ nayaṃ denti, tathā ṭīkācariyādayopi. Evaṃ dinne pana naye yoniso manasi kātuṃ sakkontā paṇḍitā yathānusiṭṭhaṃ paṭipajjanti, asakkontā aññathā atthaṃ gahetvā na yathānusiṭṭhaṃ paṭipajjanti, tesaṃ diṭṭhānugatiṃ anugacchantā sissādayopi tatheva karonti, tasmā bhagavato vacanañca pubbenāparaṃ saṃsanditvā aṭṭhakathāṭīkādivacanañca sammā tulayitvā tathato bhagavato adhippāyaṃ ñatvā yathānusiṭṭhaṃ paṭipajjantehi garukāpattito vuṭṭhahanatthaṃ yogo karaṇīyo.
Now, since a Saṅghādisesa offense is a grave offense with residue and can be remedied, just as a sick person cannot do anything for his own benefit and happiness, and a compassionate healer, moved by compassion, treats him and raises him from illness to produce benefit and happiness, so too a person afflicted with a Saṅghādisesa offense cannot purify the path to heaven and liberation due to the danger of transgressing the command; the greatly compassionate Blessed One, with a mind moved by great compassion, causes him to rise from the offense by many methods and establishes him in the happiness of heaven and liberation. The commentary teachers, who understand the Blessed One’s intention, also explain the meaning of the Blessed One’s words by many reasons and provide a method for those desiring purity; sub-commentary teachers and others do likewise. When the method is given in this way, wise ones who can reflect properly practice as instructed, while those who cannot, taking the meaning otherwise, do not practice as instructed; their followers, imitating their views, do the same. Therefore, by properly correlating the Blessed One’s words from beginning to end, and carefully weighing the statements of the commentaries and sub-commentaries, understanding the Blessed One’s true intention, effort should be made to rise from grave offenses by practicing as instructed.
Now, since a saṅghādisesa offense is a serious offense with a remainder, and requiring treatment, just as a sick person is unable to do anything for his own welfare and happiness, and a compassionate physician, moved by compassion, treats him, raising him up from his illness and generating welfare and happiness, so too, a person who has committed a saṅghādisesa offense is unable to clear the path to heaven and liberation due to the obstruction of transgressing the command. The Greatly Compassionate One, the Blessed One, his mind moved by great compassion, establishes him in the happiness of heaven and liberation by establishing the overcoming of the offense through various methods. The commentators, knowers of the Blessed One’s intention, also clarify the meaning of the Blessed One’s words through various reasons, giving the method to those who desire purification, as do the authors of the ṭīkās, etc. Thus, when the method is given in this way, the wise, who are able to consider it properly, practice as instructed; those who are unable, grasping the meaning otherwise, do not practice as instructed, and their disciples, etc., following their view, do likewise. Therefore, examining the words of the Blessed One, connecting the former and the latter, carefully weighing the words of the Aṭṭhakathā and ṭīkā, etc., and knowing the Blessed One’s intention correctly, one should make an effort to overcome serious offenses by practicing as instructed.
Now, since the Saṅghādisesa offense is a grave offense with remainder and requires acknowledgment, just as a person afflicted by illness cannot do anything for their own welfare and happiness, a compassionate physician, moved by compassion, treats them and restores them to health, bringing them welfare and happiness, so too a person afflicted by a Saṅghādisesa offense, due to the obstacle of violating the training rules, cannot purify the path to heaven and liberation. The greatly compassionate Buddha, moved by great compassion, clears them from the offense through various methods and establishes them in the happiness of heaven and liberation. The commentators, understanding the Buddha’s intention, explain the meaning of the Buddha’s words through various reasons and give the method for those with purified desires. So too do the subcommentators. When such methods are given, the wise, reflecting wisely, practice accordingly, while those who cannot, misunderstanding, do not practice accordingly. Their disciples, following their view, do likewise. Therefore, having connected the Buddha’s words from beginning to end and having rightly weighed the words of the commentaries and subcommentaries, one should understand the Buddha’s intention and practice accordingly. Effort should be made to clear oneself from grave offenses.
ID1535
Tasmā yadā bhikkhū āgacchanti vinayadharassa santikaṃ “garukāpattivuṭṭhānaṃ karissāmā”ti, tadā vinayadharena “tvaṃ katarāpattiṃ āpanno”ti pucchitabbo. “Saṅghādisesaṃ āpanno”ti vutte “katarasaṅghādisesa”nti pucchitvā “imaṃ nāmā”ti vutte sukkavissaṭṭhiyaṃ mocetukāmacetanā, upakkamo, muccananti tīṇi aṅgāni. Kāyasaṃsagge manussitthī, itthisaññitā, kāyasaṃsaggarāgo, tena rāgena vāyāmo, hatthaggāhādisamāpajjananti pañca aṅgāni. Duṭṭhullavācāyaṃ manussitthī, itthisaññitā, duṭṭhullavācassādarāgo, tena rāgena obhāsanaṃ, taṅkhaṇavijānananti pañca aṅgāni. Attakāme manussitthī, itthisaññitā, attakāmapāricariyāya rāgo, tena rāgena vaṇṇabhaṇanaṃ, taṅkhaṇavijānananti pañca aṅgāni. Sañcaritte yesu sañcarittaṃ samāpajjati, tesaṃ manussajātikatā , nālaṃvacanīyatā, paṭiggaṇhanavīmaṃsanapaccāharaṇānīti pañca aṅgāni. Kuṭikāre ullittādīnaṃ aññataratā, heṭṭhimapamāṇasambhavo, adesitavatthukatā, pamāṇātikkantatā, attuddesikatā, vāsāgāratā, lepaghaṭanāti satta pamāṇayuttādīsu chadhā aṅgāni. Vihārakāre tāniyeva cha aṅgāni. Duṭṭhadose yaṃ codeti, tassa upasampannoti saṅkhyupagamanaṃ, tasmiṃ suddhasaññitā, yena pārājikena codeti , tassa diṭṭhādivasena amūlakatā, cāvanādhippāyena sammukhācodanā, tassa taṅkhaṇavijānananti pañca aṅgāni. Aññabhāgiye aññabhāgiyassa adhikaraṇassa kañcidesaṃ lesamattaṃ upādiyanatā, purimāni pañcāti cha aṅgāni. Saṅghabhede bhedāya parakkamanaṃ, dhammakammena samanubhāsanaṃ, kammavācāpariyosānaṃ, appaṭinissajjananti cattāri aṅgāni. Bhedānuvattake aṅgesu yathā tattha parakkamanaṃ, evaṃ idha anuvattananti cattāri aṅgāni. Dubbace aṅgesu yathā tattha parakkamanaṃ, evaṃ idha avacanīyakaraṇatāti cattāri aṅgāni. Kuladūsake aṅgesu yathā tattha parakkamanaṃ, evaṃ idha chandādīhi pāpananti cattāri aṅgāni. Iti imāni aṅgāni sodhetvā sace aṅgapāripūrī hoti, “saṅghādiseso”ti vattabbo. No ce, “nāyaṃ saṅghādiseso, thullaccayādīsu aññatarāpattī”ti vatvā “nāyaṃ vuṭṭhānagāminī, desanāgāminī ayaṃ āpatti, tasmā patirūpassa bhikkhussa santike desehī”ti vatvā desāpetabbo.
Therefore, when monks come to a disciplinary expert saying, “We will rise from a grave offense,” the disciplinary expert should ask, “Which offense have you committed?” When they say, “I have committed a Saṅghādisesa offense,” he should ask, “Which Saṅghādisesa?” and when they say, “This one,” [he should examine]: For sukkavissaṭṭhi (release of impurity)—intention to release, effort, and release—three factors. For kāyasaṃsagga (bodily contact)—a human woman, perception of her as a woman, lust for bodily contact, effort due to that lust, and engaging in holding hands and so forth—five factors. For duṭṭhullavācā (lewd speech)—a human woman, perception of her as a woman, lust for lewd speech, speaking due to that lust, and her understanding at that moment—five factors. For attakāmapāricariyā (self-indulgent lust)—a human woman, perception of her as a woman, lust for self-indulgent service, praising due to that lust, and her understanding at that moment—five factors. For sañcaritta (acting as a go-between)—those between whom he acts as a go-between are human, not suitable for speech, and accepting, examining, or delivering—five factors. For kuṭikāra (building a hut)—one of plastered and so forth, meeting the minimum size, unapproved basis, exceeding the measure, self-designation, residence, and plastering—seven factors in six ways for those with measures. For vihārakāra (building a monastery)—the same six factors. For duṭṭhadosa (malicious accusation)—the one accused is reckoned as ordained, perception of him as pure, the pārājika with which he is accused is baseless by sight and so forth, accusation in his presence with intent to expel, and his understanding at that moment—five factors. For aññabhāgiya (partisan issue)—taking up some minor point of a partisan issue, the previous five—six factors. For saṅghabheda (schism)—effort to cause a schism, exhortation by a lawful act, completion of the formal act, and not retracting—four factors. For bhedānuvattaka (following a schism)—following as in the effort there—four factors. For dubbaca (insubordination)—as in the effort there, making him unadvisable—four factors. For kuladūsaka (corrupting families)—as in the effort there, leading them astray by desire and so forth—four factors. Having examined these factors, if the factors are complete, he should say, “It is a Saṅghādisesa.” If not, he should say, “This is not a Saṅghādisesa, but one of the thullaccaya (grave) or other offenses,” and say, “This offense does not lead to rising; it leads to confession. Therefore, confess it in the presence of a suitable monk,” and have him confess.
Therefore, when monks come to a Vinaya expert saying, “We will undertake the overcoming of a serious offense,” then the Vinaya expert should ask, “Which offense have you committed?” If they say, “I have committed a saṅghādisesa,” he should ask, “Which saṅghādisesa?” If they say, “This one,” in the case of emission of semen, there are three factors: the intention to emit, the effort, and the emission. In the case of bodily contact, there are five factors: a human female, the perception of her as a female, lust for bodily contact, effort due to that lust, and the commission of touching the hand, etc. In the case of offensive speech, there are five factors: a human female, the perception of her as a female, lustful desire for speaking obscenities, speaking obscenities due to that lust, and understanding at that moment. In the case of praising self-service (to a woman), there are five factors: a human female, the perception of her as a female, lust for offering service to satisfy one’s own desires, speaking praise due to that lust, and understanding at that moment. In the case of acting as a go-between, there are five factors: for those for whom he arranges a meeting, their being of human birth, being such that speech is not useless, grasping and examining the acceptance, and conveying the reply. In the case of building a hut, there are seven factors in terms of being smeared, etc.: one or another of being smeared, etc., the possibility of the minimum dimensions, the site not having been shown, exceeding the dimensions, requesting for oneself, being a dwelling place, and the application of plaster. In the case of building a vihāra, those same six factors. In the case of groundless accusation with malice, there are five factors: the accused being considered to have attained ordination, the perception of him as blameless, the accuser using a pārājika offense he knows has not been committed, face-to-face accusation with the intention of causing his downfall, and the accused understanding it at that moment. In the case of partial agreement, the taking up of some trifle part of an issue of partial agreement, and the five (factors mentioned) previously, making six. In the case of dividing the Saṅgha, there are four factors: striving to divide, being admonished according to Dhamma procedure, the completion of the formal act (kammavācā), and not relinquishing it. In the case of a follower of one who divides (the Saṅgha), the factors are four, just as striving there (to divide the Saṅgha), so too is the following here. In the case of one difficult to speak to, the factors are four, just as striving there (to divide the Saṅgha), so too is the rendering oneself unadvisable here. In the case of one who corrupts families, the factors are four, just as striving there (to divide the Saṅgha), so too is acting improperly due to desire, etc., here. Thus, having clarified these factors, if there is a completion of the factors, it should be said, “It is a saṅghādisesa.” If not, having said, “This is not a saṅghādisesa, it is one of the offenses such as thullaccaya, etc.,” he should say, “This offense does not lead to overcoming (by undergoing formal procedures), this offense leads to confession; therefore, confess it in the presence of a suitable bhikkhu,” and he should have him confess.
Therefore, when monks come to a Vinaya expert saying, “We will clear ourselves from grave offenses,” the Vinaya expert should ask, “What offense have you committed?” If they say, “I have committed a Saṅghādisesa,” he should ask, “Which Saṅghādisesa?” When they say, “This one,” he should consider three factors in the case of emission of semen: the intention to emit, the effort, and the emission. In the case of bodily contact with a human female, five factors: the human female, the perception of her as a female, lust for bodily contact, the effort due to that lust, and the act of grasping her hand, etc. In the case of lewd speech, five factors: the human female, the perception of her as a female, lust for lewd speech, the effort due to that lust, and the understanding at that moment. In the case of self-indulgence, five factors: the human female, the perception of her as a female, lust for self-indulgence, the effort due to that lust, and the understanding at that moment. In the case of sexual intercourse, five factors: those with whom intercourse is committed, their human birth, their suitability for intercourse, the act of receiving, examining, and returning. In the case of building a hut, seven factors: the act of plastering, etc., the availability of the lower limit, the lack of instruction, exceeding the limit, the act of building for oneself, the act of building a dwelling, and the act of plastering. In the case of building a monastery, the same six factors. In the case of groundless accusation, five factors: the one who accuses, their ordination, the perception of their purity, the groundlessness of the accusation due to seeing, etc., the intention to expel, the accusation in person, and the understanding at that moment. In the case of partiality, six factors: the act of taking up even a slight trace of a previous partiality. In the case of schism in the Saṅgha, four factors: the effort to cause schism, the act of pressing with a legal procedure, the completion of the legal procedure, and the refusal to relent. In the case of following a schismatic, four factors: the effort to follow as in the previous case. In the case of being difficult to speak to, four factors: the act of making oneself difficult to speak to as in the previous case. In the case of corrupting families, four factors: the act of corrupting through favor, etc. Having purified these factors, if the factors are complete, it should be said, “This is a Saṅghādisesa.” If not, it should be said, “This is not a Saṅghādisesa, but one of the grave offenses,” and then, “This offense does not require clearing, but requires confession. Therefore, confess it in the presence of a suitable monk.”
ID1536
Atha pana anāpatticchāyā paññāyati, “anāpattī”ti vatvā uyyojetabbā. Sace pana saṅghādisesacchāyā paññāyati, “tvaṃ imaṃ āpattiṃ āpajjitvā chādesi, na chādesī”ti pucchitvā “na chādemī”ti vutte “tena hi tvaṃ na parivāsāraho, mānattārahova hotī”ti vattabbo. “Chādemī”ti pana vutte “dasasu ākāresu aññatarakāraṇena chādesi, udāhu aññakāraṇenā”ti pucchitvā “dasasu aññatarakāraṇenā”ti vutte “evampi mānattāraho hoti, na parivāsāraho”ti vattabbo. Atha “aññakāraṇenā”ti vadati, evaṃ santepi “tvaṃ āpattiāpannabhāvaṃ jānanto paṭicchādesi, udāhu ajānanto”ti pucchitvā “ajānanto paṭicchādemī”ti vutte ca “āpattiāpannabhāvaṃ saranto paṭicchādesi, udāhu visaritvā paṭicchādesī”ti pucchitvā “visaritvā paṭicchādemī”ti vutte ca “āpattiāpannabhāve vematiko hutvā paṭicchādesi, udāhu nibbematiko hutvā”ti pucchitvā “vematiko hutvā”ti vutte ca “na tvaṃ parivāsāraho, mānattārahova hotī”ti vattabbo.
If, however, there appears to be no shadow of an offense, he should say, “There is no offense,” and dismiss him. But if there appears to be a shadow of a Saṅghādisesa offense, he should ask, “Having committed this offense, did you conceal it or not?” If he says, “I did not conceal it,” he should say, “Then you are not worthy of dwelling apart, only of mānatta.” But if he says, “I concealed it,” he should ask, “Did you conceal it by one of the ten reasons, or by another reason?” If he says, “By one of the ten reasons,” he should say, “Even so, you are worthy of mānatta, not of dwelling apart.” If he says, “By another reason,” even then he should ask, “Did you conceal it knowing you had committed an offense, or not knowing?” If he says, “I concealed it not knowing,” he should ask, “Did you conceal it remembering you had committed an offense, or forgetting?” If he says, “I concealed it forgetting,” he should ask, “Did you conceal it being uncertain about having committed an offense, or without uncertainty?” If he says, “Being uncertain,” he should say, “You are not worthy of dwelling apart, only of mānatta.”
But if it appears that there is no desire to (conceal the) offense, he should say, “It is a non-offense,” and dismiss him. But if it appears that there is a desire to conceal a saṅghādisesa, he should ask, “Having committed this offense, did you conceal it or not conceal it?” If he says, “I did not conceal it,” he should say, “Then you are not eligible for probation; you are only eligible for mānatta.” But if he says, “I concealed it,” he should ask, “Did you conceal it due to one of the ten causes, or due to another cause?” If he says, “Due to one of the ten causes,” he should say, “Even so, you are eligible for mānatta, not for probation.” But if he says, “Due to another cause,” even in this case, he should ask, “Knowing that you had committed an offense, did you conceal it, or not knowing?” If he says, “Not knowing, I concealed it,” and he should ask, “Remembering that you had committed an offense, did you conceal it, or having forgotten, did you conceal it?” If he says, “Having forgotten, I concealed it,” and he should ask, “Being doubtful about having committed an offense, did you conceal it, or being without doubt?” If he says, “Being doubtful,” and he should say, “You are not eligible for probation; you are only eligible for mānatta.”
If, however, the shadow of non-offense is seen, it should be said, “There is no offense,” and he should be dismissed. If the shadow of a Saṅghādisesa is seen, he should be asked, “Having committed this offense, did you conceal it or not?” If he says, “I did not conceal it,” it should be said, “Then you are not worthy of probation, but only of penance.” If he says, “I concealed it,” he should be asked, “Did you conceal it for one of the ten reasons or for another reason?” If he says, “For one of the ten reasons,” it should be said, “Even so, you are worthy of penance, not probation.” If he says, “For another reason,” even then he should be asked, “Did you conceal it knowing you had committed an offense, or not knowing?” If he says, “Not knowing, I concealed it,” he should be asked, “Did you conceal it remembering that you had committed an offense, or forgetting?” If he says, “Forgetting, I concealed it,” he should be asked, “Did you conceal it being doubtful about having committed an offense, or being certain?” If he says, “Being doubtful,” it should be said, “You are not worthy of probation, but only of penance.”
ID1537
Atha “jānanto paṭicchādemī”ti vutte ca “saranto paṭicchādemī”ti vutte ca “nibbematiko hutvā paṭicchādemī”ti vutte ca “tvaṃ parivāsāraho”ti vattabbo. Vuttañhetaṃ samuccayakkhandhake (cūḷava. 144) “so evaṃ vadati ’yāyaṃ, āvuso, āpatti jānapaṭicchannā, dhammikaṃ tassā āpattiyā parivāsadānaṃ, dhammattā ruhati. Yā ca khvāyaṃ, āvuso, āpatti ajānappaṭicchannā, adhammikaṃ tassā āpattiyā parivāsadānaṃ, adhammattā na ruhati. Ekissā, āvuso, āpattiyā bhikkhu mānattāraho”’ti ca, “so evaṃ vadati ’yāyaṃ āpatti saramānapaṭicchannā, dhammikaṃ tassā āpattiyā parivāsadānaṃ, dhammattā ruhati. Yā ca khvāyaṃ āpatti asaramānapaṭicchannā, adhammikaṃ tassā āpattiyā parivāsadānaṃ, adhammattā na ruhati. Ekissā, āvuso, āpattiyā bhikkhu mānattāraho”’ti ca, “so evaṃ vadati ’yāyaṃ, āvuso, āpatti nibbematikapaṭicchannā, dhammikaṃ tassā āpattiyā parivāsadānaṃ, dhammattā ruhati. Yā ca khvāyaṃ, āvuso, āpatti vematikapaṭicchannā, adhammikaṃ tassā āpattiyā parivāsadānaṃ, adhammattā na ruhati. Ekissā, āvuso, āpattiyā bhikkhumānattāraho”’ti ca.
But if he says, “I concealed it knowing,” and “I concealed it remembering,” and “I concealed it without uncertainty,” he should say, “You are worthy of dwelling apart.” It is said in the Samuccayakkhandhaka (cūḷava. 144): “He says thus: ‘Friends, an offense concealed knowingly—giving dwelling apart for that offense is lawful and valid by its lawfulness. But an offense concealed unknowingly—giving dwelling apart for that offense is unlawful and invalid by its unlawfulness. For one offense, friends, a monk is worthy of mānatta.’” And: “He says thus: ‘An offense concealed while remembering—giving dwelling apart for that offense is lawful and valid by its lawfulness. But an offense concealed without remembering—giving dwelling apart for that offense is unlawful and invalid by its unlawfulness. For one offense, friends, a monk is worthy of mānatta.’” And: “He says thus: ‘Friends, an offense concealed without uncertainty—giving dwelling apart for that offense is lawful and valid by its lawfulness. But an offense concealed with uncertainty—giving dwelling apart for that offense is unlawful and invalid by its unlawfulness. For one offense, friends, a monk is worthy of mānatta.’”
But if he says, “Knowing, I concealed it,” and if he says, “Remembering, I concealed it,” and if he says, “Being without doubt, I concealed it,” and he should say, “You are eligible for probation.” This is said in the Samuccayakkhandhaka (cūḷava. 144): “He speaks thus: ‘That offense, friend, which is knowingly concealed, the giving of probation for that offense is lawful; it arises from what is lawful. And that offense, friend, which is unknowingly concealed, the giving of probation for that offense is unlawful; it does not arise from what is lawful. For one offense, friend, a monk is eligible for mānatta,’” and, “He speaks thus: ‘That offense, friend, which is concealed while remembering, the giving of probation for that offense is lawful; it arises from what is lawful. And that offense, friend, which is concealed while not remembering, the giving of probation for that offense is unlawful; it does not arise from what is lawful. For one offense, friend, a monk is eligible for mānatta,’” and, “He speaks thus: ‘That offense, friend, which is concealed without doubt, the giving of probation for that offense is lawful; it arises from what is lawful. And that offense, friend, which is concealed with doubt, the giving of probation for that offense is unlawful; it does not arise from what is lawful. For one offense, friend, a monk is eligible for mānatta.’”
If he says, “Knowing, I concealed it,” or “Remembering, I concealed it,” or “Being certain, I concealed it,” it should be said, “You are worthy of probation.” For it is said in the Samuccayakkhandhaka (Cūḷava. 144): “He says, ‘This offense, friends, is knowingly concealed; it is lawful to give probation for this offense; it is lawful. But this offense, friends, is unknowingly concealed; it is unlawful to give probation for this offense; it is unlawful. For one offense, friends, a monk is worthy of penance.’” And, “He says, ‘This offense, friends, is remembered as concealed; it is lawful to give probation for this offense; it is lawful. But this offense, friends, is not remembered as concealed; it is unlawful to give probation for this offense; it is unlawful. For one offense, friends, a monk is worthy of penance.’” And, “He says, ‘This offense, friends, is concealed with certainty; it is lawful to give probation for this offense; it is lawful. But this offense, friends, is concealed with doubt; it is unlawful to give probation for this offense; it is unlawful. For one offense, friends, a monk is worthy of penance.’”
ID1538
Evaṃ parivāsārahabhāvaṃ pakāsetvā “ayaṃ bhikkhu parivāsāraho, tīsu parivāsesu kataraparivāsāraho”ti cintetvā “bhikkhu tvaṃ kati āpattiyo chādesī”ti pucchitvā “ekaṃ āpatti”nti vā “dve tīṇi tatuttari vā āpattiyo chādemī”ti vā vutte “katīhaṃ tvaṃ āpattiṃ paṭicchādesī”ti pucchitvā “ekāhamevāhaṃ paṭicchādemī”ti vā “dvīhaṃ tīhaṃ tatuttari vā paṭicchādemī”ti vā vutte “yāvatīhaṃ paṭicchādesi, tāvatīhaṃ tvaṃ paṭivasissasī”ti vattabbo. Vuttañhetaṃ bhagavatā “yāvatīhaṃ jānaṃ paṭicchādeti, tāvatīhaṃ tena bhikkhunā akāmā parivatthabba”nti. Tato “ayaṃ bhikkhu āpattipariyantaṃ jānāti, tasmā paṭicchannaparivāsāraho”ti (pārā. 442) ñatvā tadanurūpā kammavācā kātabbā.
Having thus explained the condition of deserving parivāsa, one should reflect, “This monk deserves parivāsa; among the three types of parivāsa, which one does he deserve?” and ask, “Monk, how many offenses did you conceal?” If he says, “I concealed one offense,” or “I concealed two, three, or more offenses,” then ask, “How many days did you conceal the offense?” If he says, “I concealed it for only one day,” or “I concealed it for two, three, or more days,” he should be told, “For as many days as you concealed it, for that many days you must undergo parivāsa.” For it was said by the Blessed One, “For as many days he knowingly conceals it, for that many days that monk must undergo parivāsa against his will.” Then, knowing (pārā. 442), “This monk knows the extent of his offense, therefore he deserves paṭicchanna-parivāsa,” the appropriate kammavācā should be performed.
Having thus explained the state of being suitable for probation, pondering, “This bhikkhu is suitable for probation, but among the three probations, for which one is he suitable?”, and having asked, “Bhikkhu, how many offenses did you conceal?”, and on being told, “I concealed one offense,” or “I concealed two, three, or more offenses,” having asked, “For how many days did you conceal the offense?”, and on being told “I concealed it for only one day,” or “I concealed it for two days, three days, or more,” one should say, “For as many days as you concealed it, for so many days you shall undergo probation.” This was said by the Blessed One: “For as many days as he knowingly conceals it, for so many days that bhikkhu must unwillingly undergo probation.” Then, having known (pārā. 442), “This bhikkhu knows the extent of the offenses, therefore he is suitable for concealed-offense probation,” a formal act (kammavācā) suitable for that should be performed.
Having thus explained the eligibility for probation, one should consider, “This bhikkhu is eligible for probation. Among the three types of probation, which probation is he eligible for?” Then, having asked, “Bhikkhu, how many offenses have you concealed?” and if he replies, “I have concealed one offense,” or “I have concealed two, three, or more offenses,” one should then ask, “For how many days did you conceal the offense?” If he replies, “I concealed it for one day,” or “I concealed it for two, three, or more days,” one should tell him, “You must undergo probation for as many days as you concealed the offense.” For this has been said by the Blessed One: “For as many days as he knowingly conceals, for that many days the bhikkhu must undergo probation unwillingly.” Then, knowing that “This bhikkhu knows the extent of his offenses, therefore he is eligible for concealed probation” (pārā. 442), one should recite the appropriate kammavācā.
ID1539
Ettha ca āpattipariyantapucchanaṃ kammavācākaraṇatthameva hoti, rattipariyantapucchanaṃ pana tadatthañceva suddhantaparivāsassa ananurūpabhāvadassanatthañca hoti. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (cuḷava. aṭṭha. 102) “so duvidho cūḷasuddhanto mahāsuddhantoti, duvidhopi cesa rattiparicchedaṃ sakalaṃ vā ekaccaṃ vā ajānantassa ca asarantassa ca tattha vematikassa ca dātabbo. Āpattipariyantaṃ pana ’ahaṃ ettakā āpattiyo āpanno’ti jānātu vā, mā vā, akāraṇameta”nti. Tato tassa bhikkhuno nisīdanaṭṭhānaṃ jānitabbaṃ. Duvidhañhi nisīdanaṭṭhānaṃ anikkhittavattena nisīditabbaṭṭhānaṃ, nikkhittavattena nisīditabbaṭṭhānanti.
Here, the questioning about the extent of the offense is solely for the purpose of performing the kammavācā, while the questioning about the extent of nights is both for that purpose and to show the unsuitability of suddhanta-parivāsa. For it is said in the commentary (cuḷava. aṭṭha. 102), “This suddhanta is of two kinds: cūḷasuddhanta and mahāsuddhanta. Both kinds should be given to one who does not know or remember the entire or partial extent of nights, or who is uncertain about it. But the extent of the offense—whether he knows, ‘I committed this many offenses,’ or not—is irrelevant.” Then, the monk’s sitting place should be determined. There are two types of sitting places: the place where one should sit without relinquishing duties and the place where one should sit after relinquishing duties.
Here, the questioning about the extent of the offenses is only for the purpose of performing the formal act (kammavācā), whereas the questioning about the extent of the nights is both for that purpose and to show its unsuitability for suddhanta probation. For it is said in the commentary (cuḷava. aṭṭha. 102), “It is of two kinds: minor suddhanta and major suddhanta. And both of these should be given to one who does not know, either completely or partially, the extent of the nights, or to one who does not remember it, or to one who is doubtful about it. But as for the extent of offenses, whether he knows, ‘I have committed this many offenses,’ or not, this is irrelevant.” Then, the place for that bhikkhu to sit should be known. There are two kinds of sitting places: the place to sit without setting aside the duties, and the place to sit having set aside the duties.
Here, the questioning about the extent of the offenses is solely for the purpose of performing the kammavācā, whereas the questioning about the extent of the night is for that purpose as well as to show the inappropriateness of a pure probation. For it is said in the commentary (cuḷava. aṭṭha. 102): “This is of two kinds: minor pure probation and major pure probation. Both are to be given to one who does not know or remember the full or partial extent of the night, or who is doubtful about it. However, regarding the extent of the offenses, whether he knows, ‘I have committed this many offenses,’ or not, it is of no consequence.” Then, the sitting place for that bhikkhu should be determined. For there are two kinds of sitting places: a place where one should sit without having laid down the duties, and a place where one should sit having laid down the duties.
ID1540
Tattha appabhikkhuke vihāre sabhāgabhikkhūnaṃ vasanaṭṭhāne upacārasīmāparicchinno antovihāro anikkhittavattena nisīditabbaṭṭhānaṃ hoti. Upacārasīmaṃ atikkamma mahāmaggato okkamma gumbavatipaṭicchannaṭṭhānaṃ nikkhittavattena nisīditabbaṭṭhānaṃ hoti. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102) “sace appabhikkhuko vihāro hoti, sabhāgā bhikkhū vasanti, vattaṃ anikkhipitvā vihāreyeva rattipariggaho kātabbo. Atha na sakkā sodhetuṃ, vuttanayeneva vattaṃ nikkhipitvā paccūsasamaye ekena bhikkhunā saddhiṃ mānattavaṇṇanāyaṃ vuttanayeneva upacārasīmaṃ atikkamitvā mahāmaggā okkamma paṭicchannaṭṭhāne nisīditvā antoaruṇeyeva vuttanayeneva vattaṃ samādiyitvā tassa bhikkhuno parivāso ārocetabbo”ti. “Mānattavaṇṇanāyaṃ vuttanayenevā”ti ca “sace appabhikkhuko vihāro hoti, sabhāgā bhikkhū vasanti, vattaṃ anikkhipitvā antovihāreyeva rattiyo gaṇetabbā. Atha na sakkā sodhetuṃ, vuttanayeneva vattaṃ nikkhipitvā paccūsasamaye catūhi pañcahi vā bhikkhūhi saddhiṃ parikkhittassa vihārassa parikkhepato, aparikkhittassa parikkhepārahaṭṭhānato dve leḍḍupāte atikkamitvā mahāmaggato okkamma gumbena vā vatiyā vā paṭicchannaṭṭhāne nisīditabba”nti (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 238) idaṃ vacanaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ.
In a monastery with few monks, the area within the vihāra, delineated by the upacārasīmā where compatible monks reside, is the place where one should sit without relinquishing duties. Beyond the upacārasīmā, a secluded spot off the main road, concealed by bushes or a fence, is the place where one should sit after relinquishing duties. For it is said in the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102), “If the monastery has few monks and compatible monks reside there, the counting of nights should be done within the vihāra itself without relinquishing duties. If it cannot be purified, then, as stated, after relinquishing duties in the manner described, at dawn, together with one monk, in the manner stated in the mānatta exposition, one should go beyond the upacārasīmā, step off the main road into a secluded spot, and before sunrise, undertake the duties again in the stated manner and inform that monk of the parivāsa.” And “in the manner stated in the mānatta exposition” refers to the statement (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 238), “If the monastery has few monks and compatible monks reside there, the nights should be counted within the vihāra itself without relinquishing duties. If it cannot be purified, then, as stated, after relinquishing duties, at dawn, together with four or five monks, beyond the boundary of an enclosed vihāra or the boundary-worthy area of an unenclosed one, stepping two leḍḍupātas off the main road into a place concealed by bushes or a fence, one should sit.”
There, in a monastery with few bhikkhus, the inner part of the monastery, demarcated by the boundary of the communal area (upacārasīmā), where compatible bhikkhus reside, is the place to sit without setting aside the duties. Going beyond the boundary of the communal area (upacārasīmā), stepping off the main road, a place concealed by a thicket or hedge is the place to sit having set aside the duties. For it is said in the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102), “If it is a monastery with few bhikkhus, and compatible bhikkhus are residing, the determination of nights should be done within the monastery itself, without setting aside the duties. But if it is not possible to clarify, having set aside the duties in the aforementioned manner, at dawn, with one bhikkhu, as described in the explanation of manatta, going beyond the boundary of the communal area, stepping off the main road, having sat in a concealed place, and having undertaken the duties in the aforementioned manner before sunrise, the probation of that bhikkhu should be announced.” And “as described in the explanation of mānatta” refers to this statement (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 238): “If it is a monastery with few bhikkhus, and compatible bhikkhus are residing, the nights should be counted within the monastery itself, without setting aside the duties. But if it is not possible to clarify, having set aside the duties in the aforementioned manner, at dawn, with four or five bhikkhus, going beyond two stone-throws from the perimeter of the enclosed monastery, or from the place suitable for enclosure of the unenclosed monastery, stepping off the main road, one should sit in a place concealed by a thicket or a hedge.”
In this regard, in a monastery with few bhikkhus, the area within the monastery where the bhikkhus of the same affiliation reside, bounded by the proximity boundary, is the place where one should sit without having laid down the duties. Beyond the proximity boundary, off the main road, in a place concealed by bushes or a wall, is the place where one should sit having laid down the duties. For it is said in the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102): “If the monastery has few bhikkhus and bhikkhus of the same affiliation reside there, the night should be spent within the monastery without laying down the duties. If it is not possible to purify, then after laying down the duties in the prescribed manner, at dawn, together with one bhikkhu, one should go beyond the proximity boundary, step off the main road, sit in a concealed place, and undertake the duties in the prescribed manner just before sunrise, and then announce the probation for that bhikkhu.” And it is said in the mānattavaṇṇanā: “If the monastery has few bhikkhus and bhikkhus of the same affiliation reside there, the nights should be counted within the monastery without laying down the duties. If it is not possible to purify, then after laying down the duties in the prescribed manner, at dawn, together with four or five bhikkhus, one should go beyond the boundary of an enclosed monastery or the appropriate boundary of an unenclosed monastery, step beyond two stone-throws, step off the main road, and sit in a place concealed by bushes or a wall” (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 238). This statement is made with reference to this.
ID1541
Tattha appabhikkhuko vihāro hotīti idaṃ bahubhikkhuke vihāre aññe bhikkhū gacchanti, aññe bhikkhū āgacchanti, tasmā ratticchedavattabhedakāraṇāni sodhetuṃ dukkarattā vuttaṃ. Vakkhati hi “atha na sakkā sodhetu”nti. Sabhāgā bhikkhū vasantīti idaṃ visabhāgānaṃ verībhikkhūnaṃ santike vattaṃ ārocento pakāsetukāmo hoti , tasmā vuttaṃ. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102; vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 236) “tasmā averisabhāgassa santike ārocetabbā. Yo pana visabhāgo hoti sutvā pakāsetukāmo, evarūpassa upajjhāyassapi santike nārocetabbā”ti, tasmā visabhāgānaṃ vasanaṭṭhāne vattaṃ asamādiyitvā bahiyeva kātumpi vaṭṭatīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Vihāreyevāti antoupacārasīmāyameva. Vakkhati hi “atha na sakkā…pe… upacārasīmaṃ atikkamitvā”ti. Rattipariggaho kātabboti rattigaṇanā kātabbā. Vuttañhi mānattavaṇṇanāyaṃ “rattiyo gaṇetabbā”ti. Atha na sakkā sodhetunti bahubhikkhukattā vā vihārassa visabhāgānaṃ vasanaṭṭhānattā vā ratticchedavattābhedakāraṇānipi sodhetuṃ na sakkā. Vattaṃ nikkhipitvāti parivāsavattaṃ nikkhipitvā. Paccūsasamayeti pacchimayāmakāle aruṇodayato puretarameva. Tathā hi vakkhati “antoaruṇeyeva vuttanayena vattaṃ samādiyitvā tassa bhikkhuno parivāso ārocetabbo”ti. Ekena bhikkhunā saddhinti vippavāsaratticchedavimuccanatthaṃ vinā pakatattena sabhikkhukaāvāsaabhikkhukaanāvāsagamanasaṅkhātavattabhedavimuccanatthañca vuttaṃ. Tathā hi vuttaṃ “na, bhikkhave, pārivāsikena bhikkhunā sabhikkhukā āvāsā abhikkhuko anāvāso gantabbo aññatra pakatattena aññatra antarāyā”ti (cūḷava. 76).
Here, “the monastery has few monks” is said because, in a monastery with many monks, some monks come and others go, making it difficult to purify the causes of interruption of nights or breaking of duties. Hence it will say, “If it cannot be purified.” “Compatible monks reside there” is said because one might wish to declare duties in the presence of incompatible monks who are enemies, hence it is stated. For it is said in the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102; vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 236), “Therefore, it should be declared in the presence of a compatible monk without enmity. But one who is incompatible and wishes to expose it after hearing should not declare it even in the presence of such a preceptor,” so it should be understood that in a place where incompatible monks reside, it is permissible to perform it outside without undertaking duties. “Within the vihāra itself” means within the upacārasīmā. For it will say, “If it cannot be purified… beyond the upacārasīmā.” “The counting of nights should be done” means the nights should be calculated. For it is said in the mānatta exposition, “The nights should be counted.” “If it cannot be purified” means it cannot be purified due to the presence of many monks or because it is a place where incompatible monks reside, or due to causes of interruption of nights or breaking of duties. “After relinquishing duties” means after relinquishing the parivāsa duties. “At dawn” means before sunrise in the last watch of the night. For it will say, “Before sunrise, in the stated manner, having undertaken the duties, that monk’s parivāsa should be declared.” “Together with one monk” is said to avoid the interruption of nights due to separation and to avoid the breaking of duties, such as going from a residence with monks to one without monks without a normal monk. For it is said, “Monks, a monk undergoing parivāsa should not go from a residence with monks to one without monks, except with a normal monk or in case of danger” (cūḷava. 76).
Here, the statement, “If it is a monastery with few bhikkhus,” is said because in a monastery with many bhikkhus, some bhikkhus are leaving and some bhikkhus are arriving, therefore it is difficult to clarify the reasons for breaking the night-count and interrupting the duties. Indeed, he will say, “But if it is not possible to clarify.” The statement, “and compatible bhikkhus are residing,” is said because if one announces his duties in the presence of incompatible, hostile bhikkhus, he tends to reveal it. For it is said in the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102; vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 236), “Therefore, it should be announced in the presence of a non-hostile, compatible bhikkhu. But if there is someone incompatible who, upon hearing, wishes to reveal it, it should not be announced even in the presence of such a preceptor.” Therefore, it should be understood that it is permissible even to perform the duties outside, without undertaking them, in a place where incompatible bhikkhus reside. “Within the monastery itself” means only within the boundary of the inner communal area. Indeed, he will say, “But if it is not possible… going beyond the boundary of the communal area.” “The determination of nights should be done” means the counting of the nights should be done. For it is said in the explanation of mānatta, “The nights should be counted.” “But if it is not possible to clarify” means if it is not possible to clarify even the reasons for breaking the night-count and interrupting the duties, either because of the monastery having many bhikkhus, or because it is a place where incompatible bhikkhus reside. “Having set aside the duties” means having set aside the duties of probation. “At dawn” means during the last watch of the night, just before sunrise. Thus, he will say, “And having undertaken the duties in the aforementioned manner before sunrise, the probation of that bhikkhu should be announced.” “With one bhikkhu” is said for the purpose of being free from dwelling apart, breaking the night-count, and for the purpose of being free from interrupting the duties, namely, going from a dwelling with bhikkhus to a dwelling without bhikkhus without being a fully-qualified bhikkhu. Thus it has been said, “Monks, a bhikkhu on probation should not go from a dwelling with bhikkhus to an empty dwelling without bhikkhus except with a fully qualified [bhikkhu], except when there is an obstacle” (cūḷava. 76).
Here, “the monastery has few bhikkhus” means that in a monastery with many bhikkhus, some bhikkhus go out and others come in, making it difficult to purify the causes for the breaking of the night duties, hence this is said. For it is stated, “If it is not possible to purify.” “Bhikkhus of the same affiliation reside” means that one wishes to announce the duties in the presence of hostile bhikkhus of a different affiliation, hence this is said. For it is said in the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102; vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 236): “Therefore, it should be announced in the presence of a non-hostile bhikkhu of the same affiliation. However, if one is of a different affiliation and wishes to announce after hearing, it should not be announced even in the presence of one’s preceptor.” Therefore, it should be understood that the duties should not be undertaken in the residence of those of a different affiliation but should be done outside. “Within the monastery” means within the proximity boundary. For it is stated, “If it is not possible… beyond the proximity boundary.” “The night should be spent” means the night should be counted. For it is said in the mānattavaṇṇanā, “The nights should be counted.” “If it is not possible to purify” means that due to the large number of bhikkhus or the residence of those of a different affiliation, it is not possible to purify the causes for the breaking of the night duties. “Having laid down the duties” means having laid down the probation duties. “At dawn” means in the last watch of the night, just before sunrise. For it is stated, “Having undertaken the duties in the prescribed manner just before sunrise, the probation for that bhikkhu should be announced.” “Together with one bhikkhu” means for the purpose of being free from the breaking of the night duties due to separation, and for the purpose of being free from the breaking of the duties due to going to a residence with bhikkhus or a non-residence without bhikkhus, as stated. For it is said, “Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu on probation should not go from a residence with bhikkhus to a non-residence without bhikkhus except with a regular bhikkhu and without obstruction” (cūḷava. 76).
ID1542
Mānattavaṇṇanāyaṃ vuttanayenāti “parikkhittassa vihārassa parikkhepato, aparikkhittassa parikkhepārahaṭṭhānato dve leḍḍupāte atikkamitvā”ti vuttanayena. Yadi evaṃ visamamidaṃ nayadassanaṃ, parikkhepaparikkhepārahaṭṭhāne eva hi upacārasīmā hoti, kasmā tattha upacārasīmato dveleḍḍupātātikkamo vutto, idha pana upacārasīmātikkamo evāti ? Saccaṃ, tathāpi vihāre bhikkhūnaṃ sajjhāyādisaddasavanasabbhāvato suvidūrātikkamo vutto, idha pana upacārasīmato atikkamamattopi atikkamoyevāti katvā vutto. Buddhamataññuno hi aṭṭhakathācariyā. Tathā hi vuttaṃ vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 97) “parikkhittassa vihārassa parikkhepatotiādi kiñcāpi pāḷiyaṃ natthi, atha kho aṭṭhakathācariyānaṃ vacanena tathā eva paṭipajjitabbanti ca vutta”nti.
“In the manner stated in the mānatta exposition” refers to “beyond the boundary of an enclosed vihāra or the boundary-worthy area of an unenclosed one, stepping two leḍḍupātas.” If so, this method seems inconsistent, for the boundary or boundary-worthy area is indeed the upacārasīmā; why then is it said there to step two leḍḍupātas beyond the upacārasīmā, while here it is only beyond the upacārasīmā? True, yet it is said there to go far beyond due to the possibility of hearing the sound of monks reciting in the vihāra, while here it is stated as merely going beyond the upacārasīmā, considering it sufficient as an act of going beyond. For the commentary teachers, who know the Buddha’s intent, say so. Indeed, it is said in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 97), “Although ‘beyond the boundary of an enclosed vihāra’ and so forth is not in the text, it should be practiced as such according to the words of the commentary teachers.”
“As described in the explanation of mānatta” means by the method described as “going beyond two stone-throws from the perimeter of the enclosed monastery, or from the place suitable for enclosure of the unenclosed monastery.” If so, this is a contradictory presentation of the method. The boundary of the communal area (upacārasīmā) is indeed at the perimeter or the place suitable for enclosure. Why is it stated there that it is going beyond two stone-throws from the boundary of the communal area, while here it is only going beyond the boundary of the communal area? It is true, yet because there is the possibility of hearing the sounds of recitation, etc. of the bhikkhus in the monastery, going a very long distance is stated. But here, because even going just beyond the boundary of the communal area is going beyond, it is stated. For the commentators are knowers of the Buddha’s intention. Thus it is said in the Vajirabuddhi subcommentary (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 97), “Although ‘from the perimeter of the enclosed monastery, etc.’ is not in the Pali, yet one should practice accordingly because of the statement of the commentators, it is said.”
“In the manner stated in the mānattavaṇṇanā” means “beyond the boundary of an enclosed monastery or the appropriate boundary of an unenclosed monastery, stepping beyond two stone-throws.” If this seems irregular, since the proximity boundary is at the boundary or the appropriate boundary, why is it said to step beyond two stone-throws from the proximity boundary here? Indeed, it is because in the monastery, due to the nature of the bhikkhus’ recitation and other sounds, a considerable distance is mentioned, whereas here, even stepping beyond the proximity boundary is considered sufficient. The commentary teachers are knowledgeable in the Buddha’s intention. For it is said in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 97): “Although it is not in the Pāli, the commentary teachers’ statement should be followed accordingly.”
ID1543
Mānattavaṇṇanāyaṃ catūhi pañcahi vā bhikkhūhi saddhinti idaṃ pana ūnegaṇecaraṇaratticchedavimuccanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Dve leḍḍupāte atikkamitvātiādi aññesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ savanūpacāradassanūpacāravijahanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Tenevāha ṭīkācariyo “dve leḍḍupāte atikkamitvāti idaṃ vihāre bhikkhūnaṃ sajjhāyādisaddasavanūpacāravijahanatthaṃ vuttaṃ, ’mahāmaggato okkammāti idaṃ maggapaṭipannānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ savanūpacāravijahanatthaṃ, gumbena vātiādi dassanūpacāravijahanattha”nti. Tasmā yathāvuttaṃ duvidhaṃ ṭhānaṃ parivasantamānattacārikabhikkhūhi nisīditabbaṭṭhānaṃ hoti. Tesu ca yadi antovihāreyeva nisīditvā parivasati, upacārasīmagatānaṃ sabbesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ ārocetabbaṃ hoti. Atha bahiupacārasīmāyaṃ, diṭṭharūpānaṃ sutasaddānaṃ ārocetabbaṃ. Adiṭṭhaasutānampi antodvādasahatthagatānaṃ ārocetabbameva. Vuttañhi vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ “vattaṃ nikkhipitvā vasantassa upacārasīmagatānaṃ sabbesaṃ ārocanakiccaṃ natthi, diṭṭharūpānaṃ sutasaddānaṃ ārocetabbaṃ. Adiṭṭhaassutānampi antodvādasahatthagatānaṃ ārocetabbaṃ. Idaṃ vattaṃ nikkhipitvā vasantassa lakkhaṇanti vutta”nti. Idañca vattaṃ anikkhipitvā vasantassa antovihāreyeva rattipariggahassa ca nikkhipitvā vasantassa upacārasīmaṃ atikkamitvā vattasamādānassa ca aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttattā vuttaṃ. Upacāro pana antosīmāya ṭhitānaṃ sakalaupacārasīmā hoti, bahiupacārasīmāya ṭhitānaṃ dvādasahatthamattaṃ. Teneva hi uddesabhattādisaṅghalābho yadi antosīmāya uppajjati, sīmaṭṭhakasaṅghassa hoti. Yadi bahisīmāyaṃ, dvādasahatthabbhantare pattabhikkhūnaṃ, tasmā upacāravasenapi esa attho viññāyati. Tathā hi vuttaṃ vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 97) “atthibhāvaṃ sallakkhetvāti dvādasahatthe upacāre sallakkhetvā anikkhittavattānaṃ upacārasīmāya āgatabhāvaṃ sallakkhetvā sahavāsādikaṃ veditabbanti ca vutta”nti.
In the mānatta exposition, “together with four or five monks” is said to avoid the fault of interruption of nights due to lacking a group. “Stepping two leḍḍupātas” and so forth is said to avoid the proximity of hearing or seeing other monks. Hence the sub-commentary teacher says, “‘Stepping two leḍḍupātas’ is stated to avoid the proximity of hearing the sound of monks reciting in the vihāra; ‘stepping off the main road’ is to avoid the proximity of hearing monks traveling on the road; ‘with bushes or’ and so forth is to avoid the proximity of sight.” Therefore, these two types of places are where monks undergoing parivāsa or mānatta should sit. If he sits within the vihāra itself and undergoes parivāsa, it must be declared to all monks within the upacārasīmā. If outside the upacārasīmā, it must be declared to those whose forms are seen or whose sounds are heard. Even those unseen and unheard within twelve hands’ distance must be informed. For it is said in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā, “For one living after relinquishing duties, there is no duty to inform all within the upacārasīmā; it must be declared to those whose forms are seen or whose sounds are heard. Even those unseen and unheard within twelve hands’ distance must be informed. This is the characteristic of one living after relinquishing duties.” This is said because it is stated in the commentary for one living within the vihāra without relinquishing duties for the counting of nights and for one living outside the upacārasīmā after relinquishing and undertaking duties. The proximity for those within the boundary is the entire upacārasīmā, while for those outside the upacārasīmā, it is about twelve hands. Hence, if a communal gain like recitation food arises within the boundary, it belongs to the saṅgha within the boundary; if outside the boundary, it belongs to the monks within twelve hands’ distance. Thus, this meaning is understood by proximity. Indeed, it is said in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 97), “‘Considering their presence’ means considering the proximity within twelve hands, and considering the arrival of those with unrelinquished duties within the upacārasīmā, co-residence and so forth should be understood.”
In the explanation of mānatta, “with four or five bhikkhus” is said for the purpose of avoiding breaking the night-count by moving with an incomplete group. “Going beyond two stone-throws, etc.” is said for the purpose of removing the proximity of hearing and seeing of other bhikkhus. Therefore, the subcommentary author says, “Going beyond two stone-throws” is said for the purpose of removing the proximity of hearing the sounds of recitation, etc. of the bhikkhus in the monastery, “stepping off the main road” is said for the purpose of removing the proximity of hearing of the bhikkhus walking on the road, and “by a thicket, etc.” is said for the purpose of removing the proximity of seeing.” Therefore, the two kinds of places mentioned are the places where the bhikkhus undergoing probation and observing mānatta should sit. And among them, if he is undergoing probation sitting within the monastery itself, it should be announced to all the bhikkhus within the boundary of the communal area. But if it is outside the boundary of the communal area, it should be announced to those who are seen and whose sounds are heard. Even to those who are not seen or heard, if they are within twelve hands, it should be announced. For it is said in the Vajirabuddhi subcommentary, “For one residing having set aside the duties, there is no duty to announce to all those within the boundary of the communal area; it should be announced to those who are seen and whose sounds are heard. Even to those who are not seen or heard, if they are within twelve hands, it should be announced. This is said to be the characteristic of one residing having set aside the duties.” And this is said because it is stated in the commentary that for one residing without setting aside the duties, the determination of nights is within the monastery itself, and for one residing having set aside the duties, it is undertaking the duties having gone beyond the boundary of the communal area. The communal area (upacāra), however, is the entire boundary of the communal area for those situated within the boundary (sīmā), and for those situated outside the boundary of the communal area, it is the area of twelve hands. Therefore, if a collective gain such as a designated meal arises within the boundary, it belongs to the Sangha situated within the boundary. If it arises outside the boundary, it belongs to the bhikkhus who have reached within twelve hands, therefore, this meaning is also understood in terms of the communal area. Thus it is said in the Vajirabuddhi subcommentary (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 97), “Having ascertained their presence” means having ascertained their presence within the twelve-hand communal area, having ascertained the state of having come to the boundary of the communal area for those who have not set aside the duties, co-residence, etc. should be understood, it is said.”
In the mānattavaṇṇanā, “together with four or five bhikkhus” is said for the purpose of being free from the breaking of the night duties due to an incomplete group. “Stepping beyond two stone-throws” and so on is said for the purpose of avoiding the hearing and seeing of other bhikkhus. Therefore, the commentary teacher says, “Stepping beyond two stone-throws” is said for the purpose of avoiding the hearing of the bhikkhus’ recitation and other sounds in the monastery, “stepping off the main road” is said for the purpose of avoiding the hearing of the bhikkhus on the road, “by bushes or a wall” and so on is said for the purpose of avoiding being seen. Therefore, as stated, there are two kinds of places where bhikkhus on probation and mānatta should sit. If one sits within the monastery and undergoes probation, it should be announced to all the bhikkhus within the proximity boundary. If outside the proximity boundary, it should be announced to those who have seen or heard. Even those who have not seen or heard but are within twelve hands’ distance should be announced. For it is said in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā, “For one who has laid down the duties and is residing, there is no duty to announce to all within the proximity boundary. It should be announced to those who have seen or heard. Even those who have not seen or heard but are within twelve hands’ distance should be announced. This is the characteristic of one who has laid down the duties and is residing.” And this duty, for one who has not laid down the duties and is residing within the monastery, is to count the night, and for one who has laid down the duties and is residing beyond the proximity boundary, is to undertake the duties, as stated in the commentary. The proximity boundary for those within the boundary is the entire proximity boundary, while for those outside the proximity boundary, it is twelve hands’ distance. Therefore, even the gain of the Sangha such as the uddesabhatta, if it arises within the boundary, belongs to the Sangha within the boundary. If it arises outside the boundary, it belongs to the bhikkhus within twelve hands’ distance. Therefore, even by the proximity boundary, this meaning is understood. For it is said in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 97), “Having discerned the existence” means having discerned the twelve hands’ proximity, having discerned the arrival within the proximity boundary for those who have not laid down the duties, the co-residence and so on should be understood.
ID1544
Evaṃ anikkhittavattānaṃ hutvā parivasantānaṃ antovihāreyeva vasanassa, nikkhittavattānaṃ hutvā parivasantānaṃ vihārato bahi dve leḍḍupāte atikkamitvā vasanassa ca aṭṭhakathādīsu pakaraṇesu āgatattā tathāgatanayo pakaraṇāgatanayo hoti. Idāni pana ācariyā anikkhittavattassa ca ratticchedavattabhedadose pariharituṃ atidukkarattā, nikkhittavattassa ca devasikaṃ paccūsasamaye bahisīmagamanassa dukkhattā, vāḷasarīsapādiparisayassa ca āsaṅkitabbabhāvato ratticchedavattabhedapariharaṇavasena lakkhaṇapāripūrimeva manasi karontā nikkhittavattāpi samānā antovihāreyeva parivāsavasanañca mānattacaraṇañca karonti.
Thus, for those with unrelinquished duties undergoing parivāsa, living within the vihāra itself, and for those with relinquished duties undergoing parivāsa, living outside the vihāra beyond two leḍḍupātas, as found in the commentaries and treatises, this is the method taught by the Tathāgata and the method found in the treatises. But now, teachers, considering it too difficult to avoid the faults of interruption of nights and breaking of duties for those with unrelinquished duties, and considering the hardship of going outside the boundary daily at dawn for those with relinquished duties, as well as the potential danger from wild animals, snakes, and so forth, focus solely on fulfilling the characteristics to avoid interruption of nights and breaking of duties. Even with relinquished duties, they undergo parivāsa and perform mānatta within the vihāra itself.
Thus, for those undergoing probation without having set aside the duties, residing within the monastery itself, and for those undergoing probation having set aside the duties, residing outside the monastery, beyond two stone-throws, is what is presented in the commentaries and other texts; therefore, the method that follows that is the method that comes from the texts. Nowadays, however, the teachers, because it is very difficult to avoid the faults of breaking the night-count and interrupting the duties for one who has not set aside the duties, and because it is difficult for one who has set aside the duties to go outside the boundary every day at dawn, and because of the possibility of danger from wild animals, serpents, etc., keeping in mind only the fulfillment of the characteristics in terms of avoiding breaking the night-count and interrupting the duties, even though they have set aside the duties, perform both the residence of probation and the observance of mānatta within the monastery itself.
Thus, for those who have not laid down the duties and are undergoing probation, residing within the monastery, and for those who have laid down the duties and are undergoing probation, residing beyond two stone-throws from the monastery, as found in the commentaries and other texts, this is the Tathāgata’s method, the method found in the texts. Now, however, the teachers, because it is extremely difficult to avoid the faults of breaking the night duties for those who have not laid down the duties, and because it is difficult for those who have laid down the duties to go outside the boundary every day at dawn, and because of the danger from wild animals, snakes, and so on, considering the completion of the characteristics by avoiding the breaking of the night duties, even those who have laid down the duties reside within the monastery and undergo probation and perform mānatta.
ID1545
Ekacce ācariyā bahiupacārasīmāyaṃ patirūpaṭṭhāne pakatattānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ vasanasālaṃ kārāpetvā pārivāsikabhikkhūnaṃ nipajjanamañcaṃ sabbato channaparicchinnaṃ sadvārabandhanaṃ suguttaṃ kārāpetvā taṃ padesaṃ vatiyā parikkhipāpetvā sāyanhasamaye tattha gantvā upaṭṭhākasāmaṇerādayo nivattāpetvā purimayāme vā majjhimayāme vā samantato saddachijjanakāle pakatattabhikkhū sālāyaṃ nipajjāpetvā pārivāsikabhikkhū vattaṃ samādāpetvā ārocāpetvā attano attano mañcakesu nipajjāpetvā pacchimayāmakāle uṭṭhāpetvā aruṇe uṭṭhite ārocāpetvā vattaṃ nikkhipāpenti. Esa nayo pakaraṇesu anāgatattā ācariyānaṃ matena katattā ācariyanayo nāma. Esa nayopi yathārutato pakaraṇesu anāgatopi pakaraṇānulomavasena ratticchedavattabhedadose pariharitvā lajjipesalehi bahussutehi sikkhākāmehi vinaye pakataññūhi vicārito samāno sundaro pasatthova hoti, tasmā “anulomanayo”tipi vattuṃ vaṭṭati.
Some teachers, in a suitable place outside the upacārasīmā, have a dwelling built for normal monks and a bed for monks undergoing parivāsa, fully enclosed with a door that locks securely. They fence the area, go there in the evening, dismiss attendants and novices, and in the first or middle watch of the night when sounds around subside, have normal monks lie in the dwelling, have the monks undergoing parivāsa undertake and declare duties, lie on their respective beds, rise in the last watch, and declare and relinquish duties at sunrise. This method, not found in the treatises but practiced according to the teachers’ opinion, is called the ācariyanaya. Though not found in the treatises as stated, this method, when considered and practiced by conscientious, learned monks who are skilled in the Vinaya and desire training, avoiding the faults of interruption of nights and breaking of duties in accordance with the treatises, is beautiful and praiseworthy. Thus, it may also be called the “conforming method.”
Some teachers, having built a residence for fully-qualified bhikkhus in a suitable place outside the boundary of the communal area, having made a sleeping bench for the bhikkhus undergoing probation, completely covered and enclosed, with a door that can be locked, and well-guarded, having enclosed that area with a fence, going there in the evening, having sent back the attending novices and others, during the first watch or the middle watch, when sounds are completely silenced all around, having made the fully-qualified bhikkhus lie down in the residence, having made the bhikkhus undergoing probation undertake the duties and announce them, having made them lie down on their own benches, having woken them up in the last watch, and having made them announce and set aside the duties when the dawn has arisen. This method, because it is not presented in the texts, and is done according to the opinion of the teachers, is called the method of the teachers (ācariyanaya). This method, too, although not exactly as it is found in the texts, is beautiful and praiseworthy when examined by those who are modest, scrupulous, learned, desirous of training, and knowledgeable in the Vinaya, in accordance with the texts, in terms of avoiding the faults of breaking the night-count and interrupting the duties; therefore, it is permissible to call it “the method of accordance (anulomanayo).”
Some teachers, having built a suitable residence for regular bhikkhus outside the proximity boundary, prepare a sleeping place for the bhikkhus on probation, completely enclosed on all sides with secure doors, and having enclosed that area with a wall, go there in the evening, dismiss the attendants, novice monks, and so on, and in the first or middle watch of the night, at the time of complete silence, have the regular bhikkhus lie down in the hall, make the bhikkhus on probation undertake the duties, announce to them, have them lie down on their respective beds, and at the end of the night, rise at dawn, announce to them, and have them lay down the duties. This method, not found in the texts, is done according to the teachers’ opinion and is called the “teachers’ method.” This method, though not found in the texts, is in accordance with the texts in avoiding the faults of breaking the night duties, and being considered by the modest, learned, and desirous of training, those knowledgeable in the Vinaya, is beautiful and praiseworthy, hence it may be called the **“appropriate method.”
ID1546
Nanu ca anikkhittavattānaṃyeva antovihāre vasanaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ, atha kasmā nikkhittavattāpi samānā vasantīti? Saccaṃ, tattha pana appabhikkhukattā sabhāgabhikkhūnaṃ vasanaṭṭhānattā ca ratticchedavattabhedadose ca pariharituṃ sakkuṇeyyabhāvato sakalarattindivampi vattaṃ anikkhipitvā vasanaṃ vuttaṃ, idha pana tathā asakkuṇeyyabhāvato divā vattaṃ nikkhipitvā rattiyaṃ samādiyanto āgantukānaṃ anāgamanakālabhāvato, saddachijjanakālabhāvato ca ratticchedādidose pariharituṃ sakkuṇeyyattā tadanulomoyeva hotīti mantvā ācariyā evaṃ karontīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
But isn’t it said in the commentary that only those with unrelinquished duties live within the vihāra? Why then do those with relinquished duties also live there? True, there it is said that because of few monks and the presence of compatible monks, it is possible to live all day and night without relinquishing duties to avoid the faults of interruption of nights and breaking of duties. But here, since that is not possible, by relinquishing duties during the day and undertaking them at night when visitors do not come and sounds subside, it is possible to avoid faults like interruption of nights. Thus, considering it in accordance with this, the teachers practice it this way.
But is it not that it is stated in the commentary that only those who have not set aside the duties reside within the monastery? Then why do they reside even though they have set aside the duties? It is true, but there, because of the fewness of bhikkhus and because it is the place of residence of compatible bhikkhus, and because it is possible to avoid the faults of breaking the night-count and interrupting the duties, residing without setting aside the duties for the entire day and night is stated. But here, because it is not possible to do so, by setting aside the duties during the day and undertaking them at night, because it is the time when visiting bhikkhus do not arrive, and because it is the time when sounds are silenced, it is possible to avoid the faults of breaking the night-count, etc., therefore, considering it to be in accordance with that, the teachers do so, it should be understood.
But is it not said in the commentary that only those who have not laid down the duties should reside within the monastery? Why then do those who have laid down the duties also reside there? Indeed, in that case, due to the few bhikkhus and the residence of bhikkhus of the same affiliation, and because it is possible to avoid the faults of breaking the night duties, it is said to reside without laying down the duties for the entire night and day. Here, however, because it is not possible in that way, laying down the duties during the day and undertaking them at night, due to the absence of visitors and the time of complete silence, it is possible to avoid the faults of breaking the night duties and so on, hence it is in accordance with that. Therefore, it should be understood that the teachers do so accordingly.
ID1547
Evaṃ hotu, bahiupacārasīmāya vasantānaṃ paṭicchannaṭṭhāne nisīdanameva aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ, na pakatattasālākaraṇamañcakaraṇādīni, atha kasmā etāni karontīti? Saccaṃ, tathāpi pakatattasālākaraṇaṃ pārivāsikānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ pakatattehi bhikkhūhi vippavāsaratticchedavattabhedadosapariharaṇatthaṃ, taṃ “tayo kho, upāli, pārivāsikassa bhikkhuno ratticchedā sahavāso, vippavāso, anārocanā”ti vuttapāṭhaṃ (cūḷava. 83) anulometi. Mañcakaraṇaṃ sahavāsaratticchedavattabhedadosapariharaṇatthaṃ, taṃ “na, bhikkhave, pārivāsikena bhikkhunā pakatattena bhikkhunā saddhiṃ ekacchanne āvāse vatthabbaṃ, na ekacchanne anāvāse vatthabbaṃ, na ekacchanne āvāse vā anāvāse vā vatthabba”nti vuttapāṭhañca (cūḷava. 81) yathāvuttapāṭhañca anulometi. Ādi-saddena sāyanhasamaye gamanādīni saṅgaṇhāti. Tesu aṭṭhakathāyaṃ paccūsasamaye gamane eva vuttepi sāyanhasamaye gamanaṃ rattigamanassa bahuparissayattā parissayavinodanatthaṃ, taṃ “antarāyato parimuccanatthāya gantabbamevā”ti vuttaṃ aṭṭhakathāpāṭhaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 76) anulometi. Upaṭṭhākasāmaṇerādīnaṃ nivattāpanaṃ anupasampannena sahaseyyasaṅkānivattanatthaṃ, taṃ “yo pana bhikkhu anupasampannena sahaseyyaṃ kappeyya, pācittiya”nti vuttaṃ mātikāpāṭhaṃ (pāci. 49) anulometi. Purimayāme vā majjhimayāme vā samantato saddachijjanakāle pakatattabhikkhū sālāyaṃ nipajjāpetvā pārivāsikabhikkhūnaṃ vattasamādāpanaṃ aññabhikkhūnaṃ saddasavanavivajjanatthaṃ, taṃ anārocanaratticchedadosapariharaṇatthaṃ, taṃ yathāvuttaratticchedapāṭhaṃ anulometi.
So be it. For those living outside the upacārasīmā, the commentary only mentions sitting in a secluded spot, not building a dwelling for normal monks or beds. Why then do they do this? True, yet building a dwelling for normal monks is to avoid the faults of interruption of nights and breaking of duties due to separation from normal monks, which conforms to the text, “There are three causes of interruption of nights for a monk undergoing parivāsa, Upāli: co-residence, separation, and non-declaration” (cūḷava. 83). Making beds is to avoid the faults of co-residence, interruption of nights, and breaking of duties, which conforms to the text, “Monks, a monk undergoing parivāsa should not reside under the same roof with a normal monk, nor in an unenclosed place under the same roof, nor in either an enclosed or unenclosed place under the same roof” (cūḷava. 81), and the aforementioned text. The term “and so forth” includes going in the evening and so on. Though the commentary mentions going at dawn, going in the evening is to avoid the many dangers of traveling at night and to dispel danger, which conforms to the commentary text, “It should indeed be gone to for the sake of freedom from danger” (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 76). Dismissing attendants and novices is to avoid the suspicion of sleeping with unordained persons, which conforms to the disciplinary text, “If a monk sleeps with an unordained person, it is a pācittiya” (pāci. 49). Having normal monks lie in the dwelling and the monks undergoing parivāsa undertake duties in the first or middle watch when sounds around subside is to avoid others hearing their sounds, which avoids the fault of interruption of nights due to non-declaration, conforming to the aforementioned text on interruption of nights.
Let it be so, but it is stated in the commentary that only those residing outside the boundary of the communal area sit in a concealed place, and not the making of a residence for fully-qualified bhikkhus, the making of benches, etc. Then why do they do these? It is true, yet the making of a residence for fully-qualified bhikkhus is for the purpose of avoiding the faults of dwelling apart, breaking the night-count, and interrupting the duties for the bhikkhus undergoing probation with fully-qualified bhikkhus; it accords with the Pali passage (cūḷava. 83) that says, “There are, Upāli, three ways of breaking the night-count for a bhikkhu undergoing probation: co-residence, dwelling apart, and not announcing.” The making of benches is for the purpose of avoiding the faults of co-residence, breaking the night-count, and interrupting the duties; it accords with the Pali passage (cūḷava. 81) that says, “Monks, a bhikkhu undergoing probation should not reside with a fully-qualified bhikkhu in a dwelling with one roof, he should not reside in a dwelling without one roof, he should not reside in a dwelling either with one roof or without one roof,” and with the aforementioned Pali passage. The word “etc.” includes going in the evening, etc. Among them, although only going at dawn is stated in the commentary, going in the evening is for the purpose of dispelling dangers, because going at night is full of many dangers; it accords with the commentary passage (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 76) that says, “One should go in order to be free from danger.” Sending back the attending novices and others is for the purpose of preventing suspicion of co-residence with an unordained person; it accords with the precept passage (pāci. 49) in the matrix that says, “If a bhikkhu sleeps together with an unordained person, it is a pācittiya.” Having made the fully-qualified bhikkhus lie down in the residence during the first watch or the middle watch, when sounds are completely silenced all around, and having the bhikkhus undergoing probation undertake the duties is for the purpose of avoiding other bhikkhus hearing the sounds; it is for the purpose of avoiding the fault of breaking the night-count by not announcing; it accords with the aforementioned Pali passage about breaking the night-count.
So be it, for those residing outside the proximity boundary, sitting in a concealed place is said in the commentary, not building a residence for regular bhikkhus or preparing beds and so on. Why then do they do these things? Indeed, building a residence for regular bhikkhus is for the purpose of avoiding the faults of breaking the night duties due to separation for the bhikkhus on probation, in accordance with the passage, “Upāli, there are three causes for the breaking of the night for a bhikkhu on probation: co-residence, separation, and non-announcement” (cūḷava. 83). Preparing beds is for the purpose of avoiding the faults of breaking the night duties due to co-residence, in accordance with the passage, “Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu on probation should not stay in the same roofed residence with a regular bhikkhu, nor in the same roofed non-residence, nor in the same roofed residence or non-residence” (cūḷava. 81) and the passage as stated. The word “etc.” includes going in the evening and so on. Although the commentary mentions going at dawn, going in the evening is for the purpose of avoiding the many dangers of traveling at night, in accordance with the commentary passage, “One should go to be free from obstruction” (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 76). Dismissing the attendants, novice monks, and so on is for the purpose of avoiding the fault of sharing a sleeping place with the unordained, in accordance with the mātikā passage, “If a bhikkhu shares a sleeping place with an unordained person, it is a pācittiya offense” (pāci. 49). Having the regular bhikkhus lie down in the hall in the first or middle watch of the night at the time of complete silence and making the bhikkhus on probation undertake the duties is for the purpose of avoiding the hearing of other bhikkhus, for the purpose of avoiding the faults of breaking the night due to non-announcement, in accordance with the passage on breaking the night as stated.
ID1548
Nanu ca aṭṭhakathāyaṃ antoaruṇeyeva vattasamādāpanaṃ vuttaṃ, atha kasmā “purimayāmamajjhimayāmesū”ti vuttanti? Nāyaṃ doso, hiyyoaruṇuggamanato paṭṭhāya hi yāva ajjaaruṇuggamanā eko rattindivo ajjaaruṇassa anto nāma, ajjaaruṇato paṭṭhāya pacchākālo aruṇassa bahi nāma, tasmā purimamajjhimayāmesu katavattasamādānampi aruṇodayato pure katattā antoaruṇe kataṃyeva hoti. Vattaṃ asamādiyitvā nipajjane ca sati niddāvasena aruṇuggamanakālaṃ ajānitvā vattasamādānaṃ atikkantaṃ bhaveyya, tasmā puretarameva samādānaṃ katvā nipajjanaṃ ñāyāgataṃ hoti, “antoaruṇeyeva vuttanayeneva vattaṃ samādiyitvā”ti vuttaaṭṭhakathāpāṭhañca (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102) anulometi.
But isn’t it said in the commentary that duties should be undertaken only before sunrise? Why then is it said “in the first or middle watch”? This is not a fault. From yesterday’s sunrise until today’s sunrise is one day and night, called “within today’s sunrise.” After today’s sunrise is “outside the sunrise.” Thus, even if duties are undertaken in the first or middle watch, since it is before sunrise, it is still considered done “before sunrise.” If one lies down without undertaking duties, one might not know the time of sunrise due to sleep, and the undertaking of duties might be missed. Therefore, undertaking duties earlier and then lying down is in accordance with the method, and it conforms to the commentary text, “Before sunrise, in the stated manner, having undertaken duties” (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102).
Now, it is said in the commentary that the undertaking of duties is within the dawn, so why is it said, “in the first watch or the middle watch”? This is not a fault. Because from the rising of the dawn yesterday until the rising of the dawn today is one day and night, that which is within the rising of the dawn today, and from the rising of the dawn today, the later time is outside of the dawn. Therefore, even undertaking the duties performed in the first watch or the middle watch, since it is done before the rising of the dawn, is considered to be done within the dawn. And if, without undertaking the duty, one goes to sleep, due to sleep, not knowing the time of the dawn’s rising, the undertaking of the duty might be transgressed. Therefore, having undertaken the duty earlier and then going to sleep is considered reasonable, and it accords with the commentary passage (Cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102) which says, “having undertaken the duty according to the method stated within the dawn itself.”
But isn’t it said in the commentary that the undertaking of the observance is to be done only within the dawn? Why then is it said, “in the first and middle watches of the night”? This is not a fault. For from yesterday’s dawn until today’s dawn, one full day and night is counted, and the time before today’s dawn is called “within the dawn,” while the time after today’s dawn is called “outside the dawn.” Therefore, even if the observance is undertaken during the first or middle watch of the night, since it is done before the sunrise, it is still considered as done within the dawn. If one lies down without undertaking the observance and, due to sleep, is unaware of the time of dawn, the opportunity to undertake the observance would be missed. Therefore, it is proper to undertake it earlier and then lie down. The commentary passage, “the observance should be undertaken only within the dawn,” (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 102) is thus in harmony with this.
ID1549
Evaṃ hotu, evaṃ santepi kasmā “ārocāpetvā”ti vuttaṃ, nanu māḷakasīmāyaṃ samādinnakāleyeva vattamārocitanti? Saccaṃ ārocitaṃ, ayaṃ pana bhikkhu divā vattaṃ nikkhipitvā nisinno, idāni samādinno, tasmā māḷakasīmāya ārocitampi puna ārocetabbaṃ hoti. Idampi “antoaruṇeyeva vuttanayeneva vattaṃ samādiyitvā tassa bhikkhuno parivāso ārocetabbo”ti pāṭhaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102) anulometi. Atha “attano attano mañcakesu nipajjāpetvā”ti kasmā vuttaṃ, nanu aññamaññassa mañcesu nipajjamānāpi pakatattasālato nibbodakapatanaṭṭhānato bahi nipajjamānā sahavāsaratticchedadosato muttāyevāti? Na panevaṃ daṭṭhabbaṃ. Na hi pārivāsiko pakatattabhikkhūheva ekacchanne nipanno sahavāsaratticchedappatto hoti, atha kho aññamaññampi hotiyeva. Vuttañcetaṃ samantapāsādikāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 81) “sace hi dve pārivāsikā ekato vaseyyuṃ, te aññamaññassa ajjhācāraṃ ñatvā agāravā vā vippaṭisārino vā hutvā pāpiṭṭhataraṃ vā āpattiṃ āpajjeyyuṃ vibbhameyyuṃ vā, tasmā nesaṃ sahaseyyā sabbappakārena paṭikkhittā”ti. “Pacchimayāmakāle uṭṭhāpetvā aruṇe uṭṭhite ārocāpetvā vattaṃ nikkhipāpentī”ti ettha aruṇe anuṭṭhiteyeva vattanikkhipane kariyamāne ratticchedo hoti, sā ratti gaṇanūpagā na hoti, tasmā paṭhamaparicchede vuttaṃ aruṇakathāvinicchayaṃ oloketvā aruṇuggamanabhāvo suṭṭhu jānitabbo.
So be it. Even so, why is it said “having declared”? Isn’t it declared at the time of undertaking in the māḷakasīmā? True, it is declared, but this monk relinquished duties during the day and sat; now he has undertaken them. Thus, even if declared in the māḷakasīmā, it must be declared again. This also conforms to the text, “Before sunrise, in the stated manner, having undertaken duties, that monk’s parivāsa should be declared” (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102). Then why is it said, “having them lie on their respective beds”? Don’t those lying on each other’s beds, even outside the normal monks’ dwelling or beyond the separation point, avoid the fault of co-residence and interruption of nights? It should not be seen this way. A monk undergoing parivāsa does not incur co-residence and interruption of nights only when lying under the same roof with normal monks; it also applies to each other. For it is said in the Samantapāsādikā (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 81), “If two monks undergoing parivāsa live together, knowing each other’s misconduct, they might become disrespectful or remorseful, commit a worse offense, or disrobe. Thus, their co-sleeping is entirely prohibited.” “Rising in the last watch, declaring at sunrise, and having them relinquish duties” means that if duties are relinquished before sunrise, there is an interruption of nights, and that night is not countable. Thus, the determination of sunrise in the first section should be carefully examined to know the state of sunrise well.
Let it be so. Even so, why is it said, “having informed”? Is it not that the duty is informed at the very time of undertaking it within the boundary of the māḷaka? It is true that it is informed. But this monk, having laid aside the duty during the day, sat down; now he has undertaken it. Therefore, even though informed within the boundary of the māḷaka, it should be informed again. And this also accords with the passage (Cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102) that says, “having undertaken the duty according to the method stated within the dawn itself, the parivāsa of that monk should be informed.” Now, why is it said, “having caused them to lie down on their own beds”? Surely, even if they lie down on each other’s beds, lying down outside the place where the instigator falls from the hall of pakatatta monks, are they not free from the fault of co-residence’s breach of the night? It should not be regarded thus. For a pārivāsika monk who lies down in the same sheltered place with pakatatta monks does not incur the breach of the night of co-residence; rather, it also happens with each other. And this has been said in the Samantapāsādikā (Cūḷava. aṭṭha. 81): “For if two pārivāsika monks were to dwell together, they, knowing each other’s conduct, becoming disrespectful or remorseful, might commit an even more evil offense or become discouraged. Therefore, co-residence is forbidden to them in every way.” Where it says, “having caused them to rise in the last watch of the night, and when the dawn has risen, having informed them, he should have them lay aside the duty,” if the laying aside of the duty is done before the dawn has risen, there is a breach of the night; that night is not counted. Therefore, having looked at the discussion of the dawn stated in the first section, the state of the dawn’s rising should be well understood.
So be it. Even so, why is it said, “having announced”? Isn’t the observance announced at the time of entering the boundary? It is true that it is announced, but this monk, having set aside the observance during the day and sat down, now enters the boundary. Therefore, even if it was announced within the boundary, it must be announced again. This also accords with the passage, “having undertaken the observance within the dawn as explained, the probation of that monk should be announced” (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 102). Then why is it said, “having made them lie down on their own beds”? Isn’t it the case that even if they lie down on each other’s beds, since they are outside the ordinary monks’ dwelling, they are free from the fault of breaking communal living? This should not be seen in that way. For a probationer lying under the same roof as ordinary monks does not incur the fault of breaking communal living, but rather, it is mutual. This is stated in the Samantapāsādikā (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 81): “If two probationers were to live together, knowing each other’s misconduct, they might become disrespectful or remorseful, or commit a more serious offense, or even separate. Therefore, their sharing a bed in any way is entirely prohibited.” “Having made them rise at the last watch of the night and announced after the dawn has risen, the observance is to be set aside.” Here, if the observance is set aside before the dawn has risen, the night is broken, and that night is not counted. Therefore, the discussion on dawn in the first section should be examined, and the time of dawn should be well understood.
ID1550
“Ārocāpetvā vattaṃ nikkhipāpetabba”nti vuttaṃ. Kasmā ārocāpeti, nanu samādinnakāleyeva ārocitanti? Saccaṃ, tathāpi pārivāsikavattasamādānakāle ārocitesu bhikkhūsu ekacce nikkhipanakāle gacchanti, aññe āgacchanti, evaṃ parisasaṅkamanampi siyā, tathā ca sati abhinavāgatānaṃ sabbhāvā ārocetabbaṃ hoti, asati pana abhinavāgatabhikkhumhi ārocanakiccaṃ natthi. Evaṃ santepi ārocane dosābhāvato puna ārocanaṃ ñāyāgataṃ hoti, mānattacaraṇakāle pana samādāne ārocitepi nikkhipane avassaṃ ārocetabbameva . Kasmā? Divasantarabhāvato. “Devasikaṃ ārocetabba”nti (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 90) hi vuttaṃ. Evaṃ santepi sāyaṃ samādānakāle ārocessati, tasmā nikkhipane ārocanakiccaṃ natthīti ce? Na, sāyaṃ samādānakāle ete bhikkhū āgacchissantipi, na āgacchissantipi, anāgatānaṃ kathaṃ ārocetuṃ labhissati, anārocane ca sati ratticchedo siyā, tasmā tasmiṃ divase aruṇe uṭṭhite vattanikkhipanato pureyeva ārocetabbanti no mati, suṭṭhutaraṃ upadhāretvā gahetabbaṃ. Evaṃ pakaraṇāgatanayena vā pakaraṇānulomaācariyanayena vā sammāsambuddhassa āṇaṃ patiṭṭhāpentena vinayakovidena bahussutena lajjīpesalabhūtena vinayadharena visuddhikāmānaṃ pesalānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ sīlavisuddhatthāya suṭṭhu vicāretvā parivāsavattāmānattacaraṇavattāni ācikkhitabbānīti.
“Having declared, they should be made to relinquish duties” is said. Why declare? Isn’t it declared at the time of undertaking? True, yet at the time of undertaking the parivāsa duties, some monks declared to might leave at the time of relinquishing, and others might arrive, possibly causing movement in the assembly. In such a case, it must be declared to all newly arrived monks; if no new monks arrive, there is no need to declare. Even so, since there is no fault in declaring again, doing so is in accordance with the method. But in the case of performing mānatta, even if declared at the time of undertaking, it must absolutely be declared at relinquishing. Why? Because of the difference in days. For it is said, “It should be declared daily” (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 90). Even so, if one says there is no need to declare at relinquishing since it will be declared at undertaking in the evening? No, at the time of undertaking in the evening, these monks might or might not come. How can it be declared to those who do not come? If not declared, there might be an interruption of nights. Thus, it is not our view that it should be declared before relinquishing duties at sunrise on that day; it should be carefully considered and understood better. Thus, whether by the method found in the treatises or the teachers’ method conforming to the treatises, a Vinaya expert, learned, conscientious, and virtuous monk, establishing the command of the Perfectly Enlightened One, should thoroughly explain the duties of parivāsa and mānatta to virtuous monks desiring purity for the sake of purifying their virtue.
It is said, “having informed, the duty should be laid aside.” Why does he inform? Was it not informed at the very time of undertaking? It is true. Even so, among the monks informed at the time of undertaking the pārivāsika duty, some go at the time of laying aside, others come; thus, there might be a change of assembly. And if that is the case, the presence of the newly arrived ones should be informed; but if there is no newly arrived monk, there is no need for informing. Even so, since there is no fault in informing, informing again is considered reasonable. But at the time of practicing mānatta, even if informed at the undertaking, it is definitely necessary to inform at the laying aside. Why? Because of the intervening day. For it is said (Cūḷava. aṭṭha. 90), “It should be informed daily.” Even so, it will be informed in the evening at the time of undertaking; therefore, is there not no need for informing at the laying aside? No. At the time of undertaking in the evening, these monks might come or they might not come; how can it be possible to inform those who have not come? And if it is not informed, there might be a breach of the night. Therefore, our opinion is that on that day, when the dawn has risen, before the laying aside of the duty, it should be informed; it should be grasped after considering it very well. Thus, according to the method derived from the pakaraṇa or according to the method of the teachers conforming to the pakaraṇa, the command of the Perfectly Enlightened One should be established by an expert in the discipline, one who is learned, virtuous, and gentle; a discipline-bearer, desiring purity, should carefully investigate and explain the parivāsa duties and the mānatta practice duties for the sake of the purity of the virtuous monks who desire purification.
“Having announced, the observance should be set aside.” Why is it announced? Isn’t it announced at the time of undertaking? True, but at the time of the probationer’s undertaking of the observance, while some monks leave at the time of setting it aside, others arrive. Thus, there may be a movement of the assembly. In such a case, the nature of the newly arrived monks must be announced. If there are no newly arrived monks, there is no need for announcement. Even so, since there is no fault in announcing, it is proper to announce again. However, during the period of mānatta, even if it was announced at the time of undertaking, it must certainly be announced at the time of setting it aside. Why? Because of the intervening day. For it is said, “It should be announced daily” (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 90). Even so, if it is announced in the evening at the time of undertaking, is there no need to announce at the time of setting it aside? No, for in the evening at the time of undertaking, these monks may or may not arrive. How can one announce to those who have not yet arrived? If there is no announcement, the night may be broken. Therefore, on that day, the observance should be announced before setting it aside after the dawn has risen. This should be well considered and understood. Thus, according to the method of the text or in accordance with the tradition of the teachers who establish the Buddha’s discipline, the Vinaya experts, learned, conscientious, and virtuous monks, desiring purity, should carefully consider and explain the observances of probation and mānatta for the sake of the purity of virtuous monks.
ID1551
Imasmiṃ ṭhāne lajjībhikkhūnaṃ parivāsādikathāya kusalatthaṃ nānāvādanayo vuccate – keci bhikkhū “pakatattasālaṃ kurumānena tassā sālāya majjhe thambhaṃ nimittaṃ katvā tato dvādasahatthamattaṃ padesaṃ sallakkhetvā yathā paññatte pārivāsikānaṃ mañce nipannassa bhikkhussa gīvā tassa padesassa upari hoti, tathā paññāpetabbo. Evaṃ kate sukataṃ hotī”ti vadanti karonti ca. Ekacce “mañce nipannassa bhikkhussa kaṭi tassa padesassa upari hoti, yathā paññāpetabbo, evaṃ kate sukataṃ hotī”ti vadanti karonti ca, taṃ vacanaṃ neva pāḷiyaṃ, na aṭṭhakathāṭīkādīsu vijjati, kevalaṃ tesaṃ parikappameva. Ayaṃ pana nesaṃ adhippāyo siyā – “dvādasahatthaṃ pana upacāraṃ muñcitvā nisīdituṃ vaṭṭatī”ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttavacanañca “atha dvādasahatthaṃ upacāraṃ okkamitvā ajānantasseva gacchati, ratticchedo hoti eva, vattabhedo pana natthī”ti aṭṭhakathāvacanañca (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 97) “adiṭṭhaassutānampi antodvādasahatthagatānaṃ ārocetabba”nti vuttaṭīkāvacanañca (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.97) “adiṭṭhaassutānampi antodvādasahatthagatānaṃ ārocetabbaṃ, ’idaṃ vattaṃ nikkhipitvā vasantassa lakkhaṇa’nti vutta”nti vuttavajirabuddhiṭīkāvacanañca (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 97) “atthibhāvaṃ sallakkhetvāti dvādasahatthe upacāre sallakkhetvā, anikkhittavattānaṃ upacārasīmāya āgatabhāvaṃ sallakkhetvā sahavāsādikaṃ veditabba”nti vuttaṃ vajirabuddhiṭīkāvacanañca passitvā ayoniso atthaṃ gahetvā sabbattha dvādasahatthameva pamāṇaṃ, tato ūnampi adhikampi na vaṭṭati, tasmā yathāvuttanayena majjhe thambhato dvādasahatthamatte padese nipannassa bhikkhussa gīvā vā kaṭi vā hotu, evaṃ sante dvādasahatthappadese pārivāsikabhikkhu hoti, tato sahavāsato vā vippavāsato vā ratticchedavattabhedadosā na hontīti.
At this point, various opinions are stated for the benefit of conscientious monks skilled in the discussion of parivāsa and related matters. Some monks say and practice, “When building a dwelling for normal monks, a pillar should be set as a marker in the middle of the dwelling, and a space of about twelve hands should be measured from it, so that when a monk undergoing parivāsa lies on the designated bed, his neck is above that space. If done this way, it is well done.” Others say and practice, “When a monk lies on the bed, his waist should be above that space; if done this way, it is well done.” This statement is found neither in the texts, commentaries, nor sub-commentaries; it is merely their conjecture. Their intent might be this: Seeing the commentary statement, “Having gone beyond the twelve-hand proximity, one may sit” (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 97), and “If another monk unknowingly enters the twelve-hand proximity and leaves, there is an interruption of nights, but no breaking of duties,” and the sub-commentary statement, “Even those unseen and unheard within twelve hands must be informed” (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.97), and the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā statement, “Even those unseen and unheard within twelve hands must be informed; this is the characteristic of one living after relinquishing duties” (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 97), and “Considering their presence means considering the proximity within twelve hands, and considering the arrival of those with unrelinquished duties within the upacārasīmā, co-residence and so forth should be understood,” they misinterpret the meaning and assume that everywhere twelve hands is the exact measure, neither less nor more. Thus, as stated, whether the neck or waist of a monk lying in a twelve-hand space measured from the central pillar is above it, the monk undergoing parivāsa remains within that twelve-hand space, avoiding the faults of co-residence, separation, interruption of nights, or breaking of duties.
In this place, for the benefit of understanding by virtuous monks concerning the parivāsa etc., a discussion of various views is presented: Some monks say and do as follows: “When constructing a hall for pakatatta monks, having made a pillar in the middle of that hall a marker, having marked out an area of twelve cubits from there, the pārivāsika monk’s bed should be arranged so that the neck of the monk lying on the bed is above that area. When done thus, it is well done.” Some say and do as follows: “The waist of the monk lying on the bed should be above that area, so should it be arranged; when done thus, it is well done.” That statement is not found in the Pāḷi, nor in the commentaries, sub-commentaries, etc.; it is merely their own speculation. But this might be their intention: Having seen the commentary statement (Cūḷava. aṭṭha. 81), “but it is proper to sit after leaving a vicinity of twelve cubits,” and the commentary statement (Cūḷava. aṭṭha. 97), “then, having encroached upon the vicinity of twelve cubits, if he goes without his knowledge, there is indeed a breach of the night, but there is no breach of the duty,” and the sub-commentary statement (Sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.97) saying, “even for those unseen and unheard, being within the twelve cubits, it should be informed,” and the Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā statement (Vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 97) saying, “even for those unseen and unheard, being within the twelve cubits, it should be informed, ‘this is the characteristic of one dwelling having laid aside the duty,’ it is said,” and the Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā statement, “Having noted their presence” means having noted in the vicinity of the twelve cubits; having noted the arrival of those who have not laid aside the duty at the boundary of the vicinity, co-residence, etc. should be understood, they, misunderstanding the meaning unmindfully, think that twelve cubits is the measure everywhere; less than that or more than that is not proper. Therefore, according to the method stated above, whether it is the neck or the waist of the monk lying in the area of twelve cubits from the pillar in the middle, when it is so, the pārivāsika monk is in the area of twelve cubits; from that, the faults of breach of the night and breach of the duty do not arise from co-residence or dwelling apart.”
In this context, various methods are taught for the benefit of conscientious monks regarding probation, etc. Some monks say and do thus: “Having prepared an ordinary dwelling, a pillar should be marked in the middle of that dwelling, and a space of twelve hands should be observed from there. The bed of a probationer monk lying down should be arranged so that his neck lies above that space. This is well done.” Others say and do thus: “The bed of a lying monk should be arranged so that his waist lies above that space. This is well done.” This statement is not found in the Pāli or in the commentaries and sub-commentaries. It is merely their own conjecture. Their intention might be this: “It is permissible to sit after relinquishing a space of twelve hands,” as stated in the commentary. Also, the commentary states, “If one enters a space of twelve hands and leaves without the other’s knowledge, the night is broken, but there is no breach of the observance” (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 97). The sub-commentary states, “Even those not seen or heard, if they come within twelve hands, should be announced” (Sārattha. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 3.97). The Vajirabuddhiṭīkā states, “Even those not seen or heard, if they come within twelve hands, should be announced. This is the characteristic of one who sets aside the observance and dwells” (Vajira. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 97). “Having observed the presence” means observing within twelve hands, and knowing the presence of those who have not set aside the observance within the boundary, one should understand communal living, etc. Seeing this, they take the meaning incorrectly and consider twelve hands as the measure everywhere, neither less nor more. Therefore, according to the method stated, whether the neck or waist of the lying monk is within the space of twelve hands from the central pillar, the probationer monk is within the twelve-hand space. Thus, there is no fault of breaking the night or the observance due to communal living or separation.
ID1552
Tatrevaṃ yuttāyuttavicāraṇā kātabbā. Yathāvuttapāṭhesu paṭhamapāṭhassa ayamadhippāyo – pakatattabhikkhumhi chamāya nisinne yadi pārivāsikabhikkhu āsane nisīditukāmo, pakatattassa bhikkhuno nisinnaṭṭhānato dvādasahatthaṃ upacāraṃ muñcitvāva nisīdituṃ vaṭṭati, na dvādasahatthabbhantareti. Etena dvīsupi chamāya nisinnesu dvādasahatthabbhantarepi vaṭṭati, dvādasahatthappadesato bahi nisīdanto āsanepi nisīdituṃ vaṭṭatīti dasseti. Tenāha “na chamāya nisinneti pakatatte bhūmiyaṃ nisinne itarena antamaso tiṇasantharepi uccatare vālikatalepi vā na nisīditabbaṃ, dvādasahatthaṃ pana upacāraṃ muñcitvā nisīdituṃ vaṭṭatī”ti (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 81). Iti pakatatte chamāya nisinne pārivāsikena nisīditabbaṭṭhānadīpako ayaṃ pāṭho, na mañcapaññāpanaṭṭhānasayanaṭṭhānadīpako, taṃ pubbāparaparipuṇṇaṃ sakalaṃ pāṭhaṃ anoloketvā ekadesamattameva passitvā parikappavasena ayoniso adhippāyaṃ gaṇhanti.
Here, the appropriateness or inappropriateness should be examined. The intent of the first text is this: If a normal monk is sitting on the ground, a monk undergoing parivāsa wishing to sit on a seat must sit only after going beyond the twelve-hand proximity from where the normal monk is sitting, not within twelve hands. This shows that if both are sitting on the ground, it is permissible even within twelve hands, and sitting beyond the twelve-hand space on a seat is also permissible. Hence it says, “Not when a normal monk is sitting on the ground; even on a straw mat or a slightly raised sand surface, the other should not sit. But having gone beyond the twelve-hand proximity, one may sit” (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 81). Thus, this text indicates the place where a monk undergoing parivāsa should sit when a normal monk is sitting on the ground, not the place for arranging or lying on a bed. Without examining the entire context of the text, they take only a part and misinterpret it conjecturally.
In that regard, the following investigation of what is appropriate and inappropriate should be done. The meaning of the first passage among the passages stated above is this: If, when a pakatatta monk is sitting on the ground, a pārivāsika monk desires to sit on a seat, it is proper to sit only after leaving a vicinity of twelve cubits from the place where the pakatatta monk is sitting, not within the twelve cubits. By this, it is shown that even when both are sitting on the ground, it is also proper within the twelve cubits; one sitting outside the area of twelve cubits is also proper to sit on a seat. Therefore, it says: “Not when sitting on the ground” means when a pakatatta monk sits on the ground, the other should not sit even on a spread of grass or even on a higher sand surface; but it is proper to sit after leaving a vicinity of twelve cubits” (Cūḷava. aṭṭha. 81). So this passage explains the place where a pārivāsika monk should sit when a pakatatta monk sits on the ground; it does not explain the place of arranging the bed or the place of lying down. Without looking at the whole passage, which is complete in its earlier and later parts, seeing only a part, they grasp the meaning unmindfully, according to their own speculation.
Here, the appropriateness should be considered. The intention of the first passage is this: If a probationer monk wishes to sit on a seat while an ordinary monk is sitting on the ground, he may sit after relinquishing a space of twelve hands from where the ordinary monk is sitting, but not within twelve hands. This shows that even if both are sitting on the ground, sitting within twelve hands is permissible, and sitting outside the twelve-hand space on a seat is also permissible. Therefore, it is said, “Not on the ground while sitting”—that is, while an ordinary monk is sitting on the ground, the other should not sit even on a grass mat or a higher sand surface, but he may sit after relinquishing a space of twelve hands (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 81). Thus, this passage clarifies the sitting place for a probationer when an ordinary monk is sitting on the ground, not the arrangement of beds or sleeping places. Without examining the entire passage from beginning to end, they see only a part and, based on conjecture, take the meaning incorrectly.
ID1553
Dutiyapāṭhassa pana ayamadhippāyo – bahi upacārasīmāya paṭicchannaṭṭhāne vattaṃ samādiyitvā nisinne bhikkhusmiṃ tassa nisinnaṭṭhānato dvādasahatthaṃ upacāraṃ okkamitvā tassa ajānantasseva añño bhikkhu gacchati, tassa pārivāsikassa bhikkhuno ratticchedo hoti, vattabhedo pana natthi. Kasmā ratticchedo hoti? Upacāraṃ okkamitattā. Kasmā na vattabhedo? Ajānantattāti. Etena bahiupacārasīmāya upacāro dvādasahatthappamāṇo hoti ārocanakkhettabhūtoti dasseti. Tenāha “gumbena vā vatiyā vā paṭicchannaṭṭhāne nisīditabbaṃ, antoaruṇeyeva vuttanayena vattaṃ samādiyitvā ārocetabbaṃ. Sace añño koci bhikkhu kenacideva karaṇīyena taṃ ṭhānaṃ āgacchati, sace esa taṃ passati, saddaṃ vāssa suṇāti, ārocetabbaṃ. Anārocentassa ratticchedo ceva vattabhedo ca. Atha dvādasahatthaṃ upacāraṃ okkamitvā ajānantasseva gacchati, ratticchedo hoti eva, vattabhedo pana natthī”ti (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 97). Iti ayampi pāṭho ārocanakkhettadīpako hoti, na mañcapaññāpanādidīpakoti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
The intent of the second text is this: If a monk, having undertaken duties and sitting in a secluded spot outside the upacārasīmā, and another monk unknowingly enters the twelve-hand proximity from where he is sitting and leaves, the monk undergoing parivāsa incurs an interruption of nights, but no breaking of duties. Why an interruption of nights? Because the proximity was entered. Why no breaking of duties? Because he did not know. This shows that outside the upacārasīmā, the proximity is measured as twelve hands, the area for declaration. Hence it says, “One should sit in a place concealed by bushes or a fence, undertake duties before sunrise in the stated manner, and declare it. If another monk comes to that place for some reason, if he sees him or hears his sound, it must be declared. If not declared, there is both an interruption of nights and a breaking of duties. If he unknowingly enters the twelve-hand proximity and leaves, there is an interruption of nights, but no breaking of duties” (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 97). Thus, this text too indicates the area for declaration, not the arrangement of beds or similar matters.
But the meaning of the second passage is this: A monk, having undertaken the duty in a secluded place outside the boundary of the vicinity, is sitting; from the place where he is sitting, having encroached upon the vicinity of twelve cubits, if another monk goes without his knowledge, there is a breach of the night for that pārivāsika monk, but there is no breach of the duty. Why is there a breach of the night? Because he has encroached upon the vicinity. Why is there no breach of the duty? Because of his unknowing. By this, it shows that the vicinity outside the boundary of the vicinity is of the measure of twelve cubits, being the area of informing. Therefore, it says, “It should be sat in a place secluded by a thicket or a fence; having undertaken the duty according to the method stated within the dawn itself, it should be informed. If any other monk comes to that place for some reason, if he sees him or hears his sound, it should be informed. For one not informing, there is both a breach of the night and a breach of the duty. Then, having encroached upon the vicinity of twelve cubits, if he goes without his knowledge, there is indeed a breach of the night, but there is no breach of the duty” (Cūḷava. aṭṭha. 97). Thus, this passage also explains the area of informing; it should be regarded as not explaining the arranging of the bed, etc.
The intention of the second passage is this: If a monk, having undertaken the observance outside the boundary in a concealed place, sits there, and another monk enters a space of twelve hands from where he is sitting and leaves without his knowledge, the probationer monk’s night is broken, but there is no breach of the observance. Why is the night broken? Because the boundary is entered. Why is there no breach of the observance? Because it is done unknowingly. This shows that outside the boundary, the boundary is twelve hands, which is the area for announcement. Therefore, it is said, “One should sit in a concealed place, such as under a tree or a canopy, undertake the observance within the dawn as explained, and announce it. If another monk comes to that place for some business, if he sees him or hears his sound, he should be announced. If not announced, the night is broken and the observance is breached. But if one enters a space of twelve hands and leaves without the other’s knowledge, the night is broken, but there is no breach of the observance” (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 97). Thus, this passage also clarifies the area for announcement, not the arrangement of beds, etc.
ID1554
Tatiyapāṭhassa pana ayamadhippāyo – kiṃ bahiupacārasīmāya vattasamādānaṭṭhānaṃ āgatabhikkhūnaṃ diṭṭharūpānaṃ sutasaddānaṃyeva ārocetabbanti pucchāya sati adiṭṭhaassutānampi antodvādasahatthagatānaṃ ārocetabbanti vissajjetabbanti. Etena adiṭṭhaassutānaṃ pana antodvādasahatthagatānaṃyeva ārocetabbaṃ, na bahidvādasahatthagatānaṃ, diṭṭhasutānaṃ pana antodvādasahatthagatānampi bahidvādasahatthagatānampi ākāsādigatānampi ārocetabbamevāti dasseti. Tenāha “ayaṃ panettha therassa adhippāyo – vattaṃ nikkhipitvā parivasantassa upacāragatānaṃ sabbesaṃ ārocanakiccaṃ natthi, diṭṭharūpānaṃ sutasaddānaṃ ārocetabbaṃ, adiṭṭhaassutānampi antodvādasahatthagatānaṃ ārocetabbaṃ. Idaṃ vattaṃ nikkhipitvā parivasantassa lakkhaṇa”nti (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.97). Iti ayampi pāṭho ārocetabbalakkhaṇadīpako hoti, na mañcapaññāpanādidīpakoti. Catutthapāṭhassa adhippāyopi tatiyapāṭhassa adhippāyasadisova.
The intent of the third text is this: In response to the question, “Should only those whose forms are seen or whose sounds are heard be informed when monks come to the place of undertaking duties outside the upacārasīmā?” it should be answered, “Even those unseen and unheard within twelve hands must be informed.” This shows that for those unseen and unheard, only those within twelve hands must be informed, not those beyond twelve hands; but for those seen or heard, whether within or beyond twelve hands, even in the sky or elsewhere, they must be informed. Hence it says, “The elder’s intent here is this: For one living after relinquishing duties, there is no duty to inform all within the proximity; those whose forms are seen or whose sounds are heard must be informed, and even those unseen and unheard within twelve hands must be informed. This is the characteristic of one living after relinquishing duties” (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.97). Thus, this text too indicates the characteristic of those to be informed, not the arrangement of beds or similar matters. The intent of the fourth text is similar to that of the third.
But the meaning of the third passage is this: In response to the question, “Is it that it should be informed only to the monks who have come to the place of undertaking the duty outside the boundary of the vicinity, those who are seen and whose sounds are heard?”, it is answered that it should be informed even to those unseen and unheard, being within the twelve cubits. By this, it shows that it should be informed only to those unseen and unheard being within the twelve cubits, not to those outside the twelve cubits; but to those seen and heard, it should be informed even to those within the twelve cubits, even to those outside the twelve cubits, even to those in the sky, etc. Therefore, it says, “The intention of the elder here is this: For one dwelling having laid aside the duty, there is no need for informing all those who have come to the vicinity; it should be informed to those who are seen and whose sounds are heard; even to those unseen and unheard, being within the twelve cubits, it should be informed. This is the characteristic of one dwelling having laid aside the duty” (Sārattha. ṭī. Cūḷavagga 3.97). Thus, this passage also explains the characteristic of what should be informed; it is not explaining the arranging of the bed, etc. The meaning of the fourth passage is also similar to the meaning of the third passage.
The intention of the third passage is this: Should the place for undertaking the observance outside the boundary be announced only to those monks who are seen or heard? In response to this question, it is answered that even those not seen or heard, if they come within twelve hands, should be announced. This shows that those not seen or heard should be announced only if they come within twelve hands, not if they are outside twelve hands. But those seen or heard, whether within or outside twelve hands, or even in the sky, etc., should certainly be announced. Therefore, it is said, “This is the Elder’s intention: For one who sets aside the observance and dwells, there is no need to announce to all who come within the boundary. Those seen or heard should be announced. Even those not seen or heard, if they come within twelve hands, should be announced. This is the characteristic of one who sets aside the observance and dwells” (Sārattha. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 3.97). Thus, this passage also clarifies the characteristic of what should be announced, not the arrangement of beds, etc. The intention of the fourth passage is similar to that of the third.
ID1555
Pañcamapāṭhassa pana ayamadhippāyo – atthibhāvaṃ sallakkhetvāti ettha etasmiṃ aṭṭhakathāvacane nikkhittavattānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ attano nisinnaṭṭhānato dvādasahatthe upacāre aññesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ atthibhāvaṃ sallakkhetvā anikkhittavattānaṃ upacārasīmāya aññesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ āgatabhāvaṃ sallakkhetvā sahavāsādikaṃ veditabbaṃ. Ādi-saddena vippavāsaanārocanaūnegaṇecaraṇāni saṅgaṇhāti. Ayañca yasmā gaṇassa ārocetvā bhikkhūnañca atthibhāvaṃ sallakkhetvā vasi , tasmā nikkhittavattānaṃ bahiupacārasīmāya samādinnattā attano nisinnaṭṭhānato dvādasahatthe upacāre aññesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ atthibhāvaṃ sallakkhetvā anikkhittavattānaṃ antovihāre samādinnattā upacārasīmāya aññesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ āgatabhāvaṃ sallakkhetvā sahavāsavippavāsaanārocanaūnegaṇecaraṇasaṅkhātāni vattacchedakāraṇāni veditabbānīti. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 97) “ayañca yasmā gaṇassa ārocetvā bhikkhūnañca atthibhāvaṃ sallakkhetvāva vasi, tenassa ūnegaṇecaraṇadoso vā vippavāso vā na hotī”ti. Iti ayañca pāṭho pakatattabhikkhūsu gatesupi vattaṃ ārocetvā bhikkhūnaṃ atthibhāvaṃ sallakkhetvā vasitattā dosābhāvameva dīpeti, na mañcapaññāpanādīni. Iti imesaṃ pāṭhānaṃ ayoniso adhippāyaṃ gahetvā “sabbattha dvādasahatthameva pamāṇa”nti maññamānā vicāriṃsu, tesaṃ diṭṭhānugatiṃ āpajjamānā sissānusissādayopi tatheva karonti, tadetaṃ appamāṇaṃ.
The intent of the fifth text is this: “Considering their presence” in this commentary statement means that for monks with relinquished duties, they should consider the presence of other monks within the twelve-hand proximity from where they are sitting; for those with unrelinquished duties, they should consider the arrival of other monks within the upacārasīmā, and understand co-residence and so forth. The term “and so forth” includes separation, non-declaration, and lacking a group. Since he lives after declaring to the group and considering the presence of monks, for those with relinquished duties outside the upacārasīmā, having undertaken duties, he should consider the presence of other monks within the twelve-hand proximity from where he sits; for those with unrelinquished duties within the vihāra, having undertaken duties, he should consider the arrival of other monks within the upacārasīmā, and understand the causes of breaking duties, such as co-residence, separation, non-declaration, and lacking a group. For it is said in the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 97), “Since he lives after declaring to the group and considering the presence of monks, he incurs neither the fault of lacking a group nor separation.” Thus, this text too indicates the absence of fault by declaring to normal monks who have gone and considering the presence of monks while living, not the arrangement of beds or similar matters. Thus, misinterpreting these texts and assuming “everywhere twelve hands is the exact measure,” they reasoned so, and their disciples and followers, following their view, do the same. But this is without measure.
But the meaning of the fifth passage is this: Having noted their presence: In this commentary statement, having noted the presence of other monks in the vicinity of twelve cubits from the place where the monks who have laid aside the duty are sitting, having noted the arrival of other monks at the boundary of the vicinity of those who have not laid aside the duty, co-residence, etc., should be understood. By the word etc., dwelling apart, not informing, practicing with a deficient group are included. And since he dwells having informed the group and having noted the presence of the monks, therefore, for those who have laid aside the duty, because of having undertaken outside the boundary of the vicinity, having noted the presence of other monks in the vicinity of twelve cubits from the place where he is sitting, for those who have not laid aside the duty, because of having undertaken within the dwelling, having noted the arrival of other monks at the boundary of the vicinity, the causes of breaking the duty, namely, co-residence, dwelling apart, not informing, and practicing with a deficient group, should be understood. For it is said in the commentary (Cūḷava. aṭṭha. 97), “And since he dwells having informed the group and having noted the presence of the monks, therefore, there is no fault of practicing with a deficient group or dwelling apart for him.” Thus, this passage also explains only the absence of fault because of dwelling having informed the duty and having noted the presence of the monks, even if pakatatta monks have gone; it does not explain the arranging of the bed, etc. Thus, misunderstanding the meaning of these passages unmindfully, thinking, “Twelve cubits is the measure everywhere,” they investigated; following their view, their disciples and subsequent disciples also do the same; this is not authoritative.
The intention of the fifth passage is this: “Having observed the presence”—in this commentary passage, for monks who have set aside the observance, after observing the presence of other monks within a space of twelve hands from where they are sitting, and for those who have not set aside the observance, after observing the presence of other monks within the boundary, communal living, etc., should be understood. The word “etc.” includes separation, non-announcement, incomplete group, etc. And because one dwells after announcing to the group and observing the presence of the monks, there is no fault of incomplete group or separation. Therefore, for those who have set aside the observance outside the boundary, after observing the presence of other monks within twelve hands from where they are sitting, and for those who have not set aside the observance within the monastery, after observing the presence of other monks within the boundary, the causes for breaking the observance, such as communal living, separation, non-announcement, incomplete group, etc., should be understood. For it is said in the commentary (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 97): “And because he dwells after announcing to the group and observing the presence of the monks, there is no fault of incomplete group or separation.” Thus, this passage also shows the absence of fault because one dwells after announcing the observance and observing the presence of the monks, not the arrangement of beds, etc. Thus, taking the meaning of these passages incorrectly, they consider twelve hands as the measure everywhere, and following their view, disciples and others do the same. This is improper.
ID1556
Kathaṃ? Yaṃ tattha pakatattasālāya majjhe thambhaṃ nimittaṃ katvā dvādasahatthaṃ miniṃsu, tadappamāṇaṃ . Na hi thambhena vā sālāya vā sahavāso vā vippavāso vā vutto, atha kho pakatattabhikkhunāva. Vuttañhi samantapāsādikāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 83) “tattha sahavāsoti yvāyaṃ pakatattena bhikkhunā saddhiṃ ekacchannetiādinā nayena vutto ekato vāso. Vippavāsoti ekakasseva vāso”ti. Yañhi tato dvādasahatthamattaṭṭhāne bhikkhussa gīvāṭṭhapanaṃ vā kaṭiṭṭhapanaṃ vā vadanti, tadapi appamāṇaṃ. Bahiupacārasīmāya hi parivasantassa bhikkhussa sakalasarīraṃ pakatattabhikkhūnaṃ antodvādasahatthe upacāre ṭhapetabbaṃ hoti, na ekadesamattaṃ.
How so? Measuring twelve hands from a pillar set as a marker in the middle of the dwelling for normal monks is without measure. For neither the pillar nor the dwelling determines co-residence or separation; it is determined by the normal monk. For it is said in the Samantapāsādikā (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 83), “Here, ‘co-residence’ refers to living together with a normal monk as stated in the method, ‘under the same roof’ and so forth. ‘Separation’ refers to living alone.” And saying that the neck or waist of a monk should be placed in a space of about twelve hands from there is also without measure. For a monk undergoing parivāsa outside the upacārasīmā must place his entire body beyond the twelve-hand proximity of normal monks, not just a part.
How so? That which they measured as twelve cubits, having made a pillar in the middle of the hall for pakatatta monks a marker, is not authoritative. For co-residence or dwelling apart is not stated with a pillar or a hall, but with a pakatatta monk. For it is said in the Samantapāsādikā (Cūḷava. aṭṭha. 83), “There, co-residence is dwelling together, which is stated by the method beginning with ‘in the same sheltered place with a pakatatta monk.’ Dwelling apart is dwelling alone.” And what they say about placing the neck or placing the waist of the monk at the place of twelve cubits from there is also not authoritative. For the entire body of the monk dwelling parivāsa outside the boundary of the vicinity should be placed within the twelve cubits of the vicinity of the pakatatta monks, not just a part.
How so? What they measured as twelve hands from the central pillar in the ordinary dwelling is improper. For neither the pillar nor the dwelling is mentioned in relation to communal living or separation, but only the ordinary monk. For it is said in the Samantapāsādikā (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 83): “Here, communal living refers to living together with an ordinary monk under one roof, etc. Separation refers to living alone.” What they say about placing the neck or waist of the monk within twelve hands from there is also improper. For a monk dwelling outside the boundary must place his entire body within twelve hands of the ordinary monks, not just a part.
ID1557
Tesaṃ pana ayamadhippāyo siyā – dvādasahatthappadesato sakalasarīrassa antokaraṇe sati sahavāso bhaveyya, bahikaraṇe sati vippavāso, tena upaḍḍhaṃ anto upaḍḍhaṃ bahi hotūti, taṃ micchāñāṇavasena hoti. Na hi sahavāsadoso dvādasahatthena kathito, atha kho ekacchanne sayanena. Vuttañhetaṃ bhagavatā pārivāsikakkhandhake (cūḷava. 81) “na, bhikkhave, pārivāsikena bhikkhunā pakatattena bhikkhunā saddhiṃ ekacchanne āvāse vatthabbaṃ, na ekacchanne anāvāse vatthabbaṃ, na ekacchanne āvāse vā anāvāse vā vatthabba”nti. Aṭṭhakathāyampi (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 81) vuttaṃ “ekacchanne āvāse”tiādīsu āvāso nāma vasanatthāya katasenāsanaṃ. Anāvāso nāma cetiyagharaṃ bodhigharaṃ sammuñjaniaṭṭako dāruaṭṭako pānīyamāḷo vaccakuṭi dvārakoṭṭhakoti evamādi. Tatiyapadena tadubhayampi gahitaṃ, ’etesu yattha katthaci ekacchanne chadanato udakapatanaṭṭhānaparicchinne okāse ukkhittako vasituṃ na labhati, pārivāsiko pana antoāvāseyeva na labhatī’ti mahāpaccariyaṃ vuttaṃ. Mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana ’avisesena udakapātena vārita’nti vuttaṃ. Kurundiyaṃ ’etesu ettakesu pañcavaṇṇachadanabaddhaṭṭhānesu pārivāsikassa ca ukkhittakassa ca pakatattena saddhiṃ udakapātena vārita’nti vuttaṃ, tasmā nānūpacārepi ekacchanne na vaṭṭati. Sace panettha tadahupasampannepi pakatatte paṭhamaṃ pavisitvā nipanne saṭṭhivassopi pārivāsiko pacchā pavisitvā jānanto nipajjati, ratticchedo ceva vattabhedadukkaṭañca, ajānantassa ratticchedova, na vattabhedadukkaṭaṃ. Sace pana tasmiṃ paṭhamaṃ nipanne pacchā pakatatto pavisitvā nipajjati, pārivāsiko ca jānāti, ratticchedo ceva vattabhedadukkaṭañca. No ce jānāti , ratticchedova, na vattabhedadukkaṭanti, tasmā sālāyapi vihārepi chadanato udakapatanaṭṭhānato muttamatteyeva sahavāsadoso na vijjatīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
However, their intention might be this: if the entire body is within a space of twelve handspans, there would be co-residence; if outside, there would be separation. Thus, half should be inside and half outside. But this arises from wrong understanding. For the fault of co-residence is not defined by twelve handspans, but rather by sleeping under one roof. This was stated by the Blessed One in the Pārivāsikakkhandhaka (cūḷava. 81): “Monks, a monk under probation must not dwell with a regular monk under one roof in a residence, nor under one roof in a non-residence, nor under one roof in either a residence or a non-residence.” It is also said in the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 81) regarding “under one roof in a residence” and so forth: āvāsa refers to a dwelling made for habitation; anāvāsa refers to a shrine room, a bodhi-tree enclosure, a sweeping place, a wood store, a water hall, a latrine, or a gatehouse, and similar places. The third phrase encompasses both. It is said in the Mahāpaccarī that “in any of these places, under one roof defined by the falling of water, a suspended monk cannot reside; a monk under probation, however, cannot reside even within a residence.” In the Great Commentary, it is said, “it is prohibited generally by the falling of water.” In the Kurundī, it is said, “in these places, in areas bound by a roof of five colors, both a monk under probation and a suspended monk are prohibited from dwelling with a regular monk by the falling of water.” Thus, even in different vicinities, it is not permissible under one roof. If, however, a monk under probation—even one ordained that very day—enters and lies down knowingly after a regular monk of sixty years has lain down first, there is both a break in the nights and a dukkaṭa offense for violating the duty. If he does not know, there is only a break in the nights, not a dukkaṭa for violating the duty. If, on the other hand, a regular monk enters and lies down after the monk under probation has lain down first, and the latter knows, there is both a break in the nights and a dukkaṭa offense. If he does not know, there is only a break in the nights, not a dukkaṭa. Therefore, it should be understood that the fault of co-residence does not exist even in a hall or monastery beyond the mere limit of the falling of water from the roof.
But their intention might be this: co-residence would occur when the entire body is within an area of twelve hands-breadths; non-residence would be when it is outside. So half might be inside and half outside; this occurs due to wrong understanding. The fault of co-residence is not defined by twelve hands-breadths, but rather by sleeping under one roof. This was stated by the Blessed One in the Pārivāsika-khandhaka (Cūḷava. 81): “Monks, a probationer monk should not reside with a regular monk in a dwelling under one roof, nor in a non-dwelling under one roof, nor in a dwelling or non-dwelling under one roof.” In the commentary (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 81), it is also stated, concerning ‘in a dwelling under one roof’ and so forth: dwelling refers to a residence made for dwelling. Non-dwelling refers to a shrine room, Bodhi tree house, a broom closet, a wood closet, a water pavilion, a toilet, a gatehouse, and so on. The third term includes both of these. ‘In any of these places under one roof, the area is defined as the place where the water falls from the roof, and an expelled monk is not allowed to reside there, a probationer only within inside the dwelling itself not allowed’ it says in the Mahāpaccari. However, in the Mahā-Aṭṭhakathā, it is said, ‘Generally, it is prohibited by the water falling.’ In the Kurundi, it is said, ‘In these five kinds of places enclosed by a roof, it is prohibited for both a probationer and an expelled monk to be with a regular monk where water falls,’ therefore, it is not allowed under one roof, even in the extended area. If, even if newly ordained, a regular monk enters first and lies down, even a probationer of sixty years entering afterward and knowingly lying down incurs a breach of the night and an offense of breaking the practice; for one who is unaware, only a breach of the night, not an offense of breaking the practice. However, if the probationer lies down first, and afterwards a regular monk enters and lies down, and the probationer knows, there is a breach of the night and an offense of breaking the practice. If he does not know, there is only a breach of the night, not an offense of breaking the practice. Therefore, it should be understood that even in a hall or monastery, the fault of co-residence does not exist only in the area free from water falling from the roof.
The intention here may be as follows: when the entire body is within the twelve-handsbreadth area, there is co-residence; when it is outside, there is separation. Thus, half inside and half outside would be considered, but this is based on wrong knowledge. For the fault of co-residence is not explained in terms of twelve handsbreadths, but rather in terms of sharing a single roof. As the Blessed One said in the Pārivāsika Khandhaka (Cūḷavagga 81): “A monk under probation should not dwell under the same roof as a regular monk, whether in a residence or a non-residence.” In the commentary (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 81), it is explained that “under the same roof” refers to a dwelling place constructed for living. A non-residence includes structures like a shrine house, a Bodhi tree house, a storage shed, a wooden shed, a water hall, or a restroom. The third category includes both, meaning that in any of these places, if the area under a single roof is defined by the place where water falls, a monk under probation cannot stay there. However, the Mahāpaccariya states that even if the area is not fully enclosed, a monk under probation cannot stay inside. The Mahāaṭṭhakathā further states that it is prohibited even if there is a water channel. The Kurundiya explains that in places with roofs of five types, both a monk under probation and a regular monk are prohibited from staying together under the same roof due to the water channel. Therefore, even if there is no direct contact, it is not permissible under a single roof. If, however, a regular monk enters first and lies down, even a monk under probation who enters later and lies down knowingly incurs the offense of breaking the night and a dukkaṭa. If he does not know, only the offense of breaking the night applies. If the regular monk lies down first and the monk under probation enters later and lies down knowingly, both offenses apply. If he does not know, only the offense of breaking the night applies. Therefore, even in a hall or a monastery, if the area is free from the point where water falls, there is no fault of co-residence.
ID1558
Ekacce pana majjhimatthambhato dvādasahatthāyāmena daṇḍakena cakkaṃ bhamitvā samantato bāhire lekhaṃ karonti, evaṃ kate sā bāhiralekhā āvaṭṭato dvāsattatihatthamattā hoti, tato taṃ padesaṃ dvādasahatthena daṇḍakena minitvā bhājiyamānaṃ chabhāgameva hoti, tato tesaṃ chabhāgānaṃ sīmāya ekekasmiṃ mañce paññapiyamāne chaḷeva mañcaṭṭhānāni honti, tasmā ekasmiṃ vaṭṭamaṇḍale cha bhikkhūyeva apubbaṃ acarimaṃ vasituṃ labhanti, na tato uddhanti vadanti. Kasmā pana evaṃ karontīti? Pubbe vuttanayena “sabbattha dvādasahatthamattameva pamāṇa”nti gahitattā. Evaṃ kira nesamadhippāyo – pārivāsiko pakatattassa bhikkhuno dvādasahatthabbhantare sayamāno sahavāso siyā, bāhire sayamāno vippavāso, tathā aññamaññassapīti. Evaṃ karontānaṃ pana nesaṃ sakaadhippāyopi na sijjhati, kuto bhagavato adhippāyo.
Some, however, draw a circle with a twelve-handspan stick rotated around a central pillar, marking a line on the outer perimeter. When done this way, the outer line extends to about seventy-two handspans from the circle’s center. Dividing that area with a twelve-handspan stick results in exactly six sections. Then, placing a bed in each of those six sections’ boundaries allows only six bed-spaces. Thus, they say that in one circular area, only six monks can dwell simultaneously, not more. Why do they do this? Because, as previously stated, they assume “everywhere the measure is only twelve handspans.” Their intention seems to be this: a monk under probation lying within twelve handspans of a regular monk would constitute co-residence; lying outside it would be separation, and likewise for mutual relations. However, even their own intention does not succeed, let alone the intention of the Blessed One.
Some, however, draw a circle with a rod twelve hands-breadths long from the central pillar, making a line around the outside. When this is done, that outer line is seventy-two hands-breadths in circumference. Then, when that area is measured with a twelve hands-breadth rod and divided, it is only six parts. Then, when mats are placed on each of those six parts of the boundary, there are only six mat-places. Therefore, they say that only six monks can dwell in one circle, without priority or posteriority, and not more than that. Why do they do this? Because they have accepted, as stated before, that “everywhere the measurement is only twelve hands-breadths”. Their intention is, it seems: Co-residence would occur when the probationer is sleeping within twelve hands-breadths of a regular monk, and non-residence when sleeping outside, and so too mututally. But for those who do this, not even their own intention is accomplished, let alone the Blessed One’s intention.
Some, however, draw a circle around a central post with a stick twelve handsbreadths long, marking an outer line. When this is done, the outer line measures seventy-two handsbreadths in circumference. Dividing this area with a stick twelve handsbreadths long results in six equal parts. When a seat is assigned to each of these six parts, there are six seating areas. Thus, in one circular area, only six monks can reside without exceeding the limit. Why do they do this? Because it is understood that the measure of twelve handsbreadths applies everywhere. Their intention is that a monk under probation staying within twelve handsbreadths of a regular monk would be in co-residence, while staying outside would be separation. However, even in doing so, their own intention is not fulfilled, let alone the intention of the Blessed One.
ID1559
Kathaṃ? Pārivāsiko bhikkhu pakatattabhikkhūnañca aññamaññassa ca dvādasahatthamatte padese hotūti nesamadhippāyo. Atha pana majjhimatthambhaṃ nimittaṃ katvā miniyamānā samantato bāhiralekhā thambhatoyeva dvādasahatthamattā hoti, na pakatattabhikkhūhi. Te hi thambhato bahi ekaratanadvitiratanādiṭṭhāne ṭhitā, bāhiratopi lekhāyeva thambhato dvādasahatthamattā hoti, na tassūpari nipannabhikkhu. So hi dviratanamattenapi tiratanamattenapi lekhāya antopi hoti bahipi. Aññamaññassapi chabhāgasīmāyeva aññamaññassa dvādasahatthamattā hoti , na tassūpari paññattamañco vā tattha nipannabhikkhu vā. Mañco hi ekaratanamattena vā dviratanamattena vā sīmaṃ atikkamitvā ṭhito, bhikkhūpi sayamānā na sīmāya upariyeva sayanti, vidatthimattena vā ratanamattena vā sīmaṃ atikkamitvā vā appatvā vā sayanti, tasmā te pārivāsikā bhikkhū pakatattabhikkhūnampi aññamaññassapi dvādasahatthamattaṭṭhāyino na honti, tato ūnāva honti, tasmā sakaadhippāyopi na sijjhati.
How so? Their intention is that a monk under probation should be within twelve handspans of regular monks and of each other. But when measured with the central pillar as the marker, the outer line is only twelve handspans from the pillar, not from the regular monks. Those monks stand outside the pillar at a distance of one cubit, two cubits, or more. The outer line is also twelve handspans from the pillar, not from the monk lying above it. That monk might be within the line by two or three cubits, or even outside it. Likewise, regarding mutual relations, the six-section boundary is twelve handspans from each other, but not from the bed placed there or the monk lying on it. The bed might exceed the boundary by one or two cubits, and the monks lying down do not lie exactly on the boundary—they might exceed or fall short of it by a span or a cubit. Thus, monks under probation are not precisely at twelve handspans from regular monks or each other; they fall short of it. Hence, even their own intention does not succeed.
How so? Their intention is that the probationer monk should be in an area of twelve hands-breadths of the regular monks and of each other. But when measured, taking the central pillar as a marker, the outer line around is only twelve hands-breadths from the pillar itself, not from the regular monks. They are situated one, two, or three cubits, etc., outside of the pillar, and the outer line is only twelve hands-breadths from the pillar, not from the monk lying on it. He may be within or outside of the line by two or three cubits. And for each other, only the boundary of the six parts is twelve hands-breadths from each other, not the mat placed on it or the monk lying there. The mat is placed exceeding the boundary by one or two cubits, and the monks, while sleeping, do not sleep only on the boundary, but exceed or fall short of the boundary by a span or a cubit. Therefore, those probationer monks are not within twelve hands-breadths of the regular monks or of each other; they are less than that. Therefore, even their own intention is not accomplished.
How so? Their intention is that a monk under probation and regular monks should be within twelve handsbreadths of each other. However, when measuring from the central post, the outer line is only twelve handsbreadths from the post, not from the regular monks. For the regular monks stand outside the post at a distance of one or two ratanas, etc., and the outer line is only twelve handsbreadths from the post, not from the monk lying above it. That monk may be inside or outside the line by two or three ratanas. Similarly, the six-part boundary is only twelve handsbreadths from each other, not from the assigned seat or the monk lying there. The seat may be one or two ratanas beyond the boundary, and the monks lying down do not lie directly on the boundary but may be a little inside or outside it. Therefore, the monks under probation are not within twelve handsbreadths of the regular monks or each other but are actually less than that. Thus, even their own intention is not fulfilled.
ID1560
Bhagavato pana adhippāyo – yadi appabhikkhukādiaṅgasampannattā vihārassa vattaṃ anikkhipitvā antovihāreyeva parivasati, evaṃ sati pakatattena bhikkhunā na ekacchanne āvāse vasitabbaṃ. Yadi tādisaāvāse vā anāvāse vā chadanato udakapatanaṭṭhānassa anto sayeyya, sahavāso nāma, ratticchedo hotīti ayamattho yathāvutta-pāḷiyā ca aṭṭhakathāya ca pakāsetabbo. Na ekacchanne āvāse dvīhi vatthabbaṃ. Yadi vaseyya, vuḍḍhassa ratticchedoyeva, navakassa ratticchedo ceva vattabhedadukkaṭañca hoti. Samavassā ce, ajānantassa ratticchedoyeva , jānantassa ubhayampīti ayamattho “tayo kho, upāli, pārivāsikassa bhikkhuno ratticchedā sahavāso vippavāso anārocanā”ti ca “na, bhikkhave, pārivāsikena bhikkhunā pārivāsikena vuḍḍhatarena saddhiṃ na ekacchanne āvāse vatthabba”nti (cūḷava. 82) ca “vuḍḍhatarenāti ettha…pe… sace hi dve pārivāsikā ekato vaseyyuṃ, te aññamaññassa ajjhācāraṃ ñatvā agāravā vā vippaṭisārino vā hutvā pāpiṭṭhataraṃ vā āpattiṃ āpajjeyyuṃ vibbhameyyuṃ vā, tasmā nesaṃ sahaseyyā sabbappakārena paṭikkhittā”ti (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 81) ca imehi pāḷiaṭṭhakathāpāṭhehi pakāsetabbo. Vippavāsepi pārivāsikena abhikkhuke āvāse na vatthabbaṃ, pakatattena vinā abhikkhuko āvāso na gantabbo, bahisīmāyaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ vasanaṭṭhānato dvādasahatthappamāṇassa upacārassa anto nisīditabbanti bhagavato adhippāyo.
The intention of the Blessed One, however, is this: if a monk, due to the fulfillment of factors such as few monks, resides within the monastery without abandoning his duty, he must not dwell with a regular monk under one roof in a residence. If he were to lie within a residence or non-residence under a roof up to where water falls, it would be co-residence, and a break in the nights occurs. This meaning is to be clarified by the aforementioned text and commentary. Two must not dwell under one roof in a residence. If they do, for the senior there is only a break in the nights; for the junior, there is both a break in the nights and a dukkaṭa for violating the duty. If they are of equal standing, for one who does not know there is only a break in the nights; for one who knows, both apply. This meaning is to be clarified by these texts and commentaries: “There are three, Upāli, causes of a break in the nights for a monk under probation: co-residence, separation, and non-announcement” and “Monks, a monk under probation must not dwell with a senior monk under probation under one roof in a residence” (cūḷava. 82), and regarding “with a senior”… etc. For if two monks under probation dwelt together, knowing each other’s misconduct, they might become disrespectful or remorseful, commit a worse offense, or disrobe. Thus, their co-sleeping is entirely prohibited (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 81). In separation, a monk under probation must not dwell in a residence without monks; a residence without monks must not be approached without a regular monk; he must sit within the twelve-handspan vicinity of the monks’ dwelling place outside the boundary—this is the Blessed One’s intention.
The Blessed One’s intention, however, is this: if, due to the monastery having few monks and fulfilling other conditions, without setting aside the practice, he undergoes probation within the monastery itself, in this case, he should not reside with a regular monk in a dwelling under one roof. If he should sleep in such a dwelling or non-dwelling within the area where water falls from the roof, it is called co-residence, and a breach of the night occurs. This meaning should be clarified by the aforementioned Pali and commentary. Two should not reside in a dwelling under one roof. If they reside, for the senior, there is only a breach of the night; for the junior, there is a breach of the night and an offense of breaking the practice. If they are of equal standing, for one who is unaware, there is only a breach of the night; for one who is aware, both. This meaning should be clarified by these Pali and commentary passages: ‘There are three, Upāli, breaches of the night for a probationer monk: co-residence, non-residence, and non-reporting,’ and, ‘Monks, a probationer monk should not reside with a senior probationer monk in a dwelling under one roof,’ (Cūḷava. 82) and concerning “with a senior,” … if two probationers were to dwell together, knowing each other’s transgressions and becoming disrespectful or remorseful, they might fall into a more serious offense or commit apostasy. Therefore, sleeping together is prohibited for them in every way.’ (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 81). Regarding non-residence, a probationer monk should not dwell in a dwelling without monks; a dwelling without monks should not be entered without a regular monk; within the boundary outside, within a twelve hands-breadths area from where monks dwell, is the Blessed one’s intention, to sit within the proximate area.
The intention of the Blessed One, however, is that if a monk under probation fulfills the factors of having few monks, etc., and does not abandon the duties of the monastery, he should reside within the monastery. In such a case, he should not dwell under the same roof as a regular monk. If he lies down in such a residence or non-residence within the area defined by the roof and the place where water falls, it is called co-residence, and the offense of breaking the night occurs. This is the meaning as explained in the Pāli and the commentary. One should not dwell under the same roof with two. If he does, an elder incurs only the offense of breaking the night, while a junior incurs both the offense of breaking the night and a dukkaṭa. If they are of equal seniority, the one who does not know incurs only the offense of breaking the night, while the one who knows incurs both. This is the meaning of the passage, “Upāli, there are three ways a monk under probation breaks the night: co-residence, separation, and not informing.” And, “Monks, a monk under probation should not dwell under the same roof as a senior monk under probation” (Cūḷavagga 82). In the commentary (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 81), it is explained, “If two monks under probation were to dwell together, knowing each other’s misconduct, they might become disrespectful, remorseful, or commit a more serious offense or even split the Saṅgha. Therefore, their co-residence is entirely prohibited.” These passages from the Pāli and commentary should be explained accordingly. Even in separation, a monk under probation should not dwell in a residence without monks. He should not go to a residence without monks unless accompanied by a regular monk. The intention of the Blessed One is that within the boundary of the monks’ dwelling area, one should sit within twelve handsbreadths of the proximity.
ID1561
Ayamattho “na, bhikkhave, pārivāsikena bhikkhunā sabhikkhukā āvāsā abhikkhuko āvāso gantabbo aññatra pakatattena aññatra antarāyā”tiādi (cūḷava. 76) ca “tayo kho, upāli…pe… anārocanā”ti ca “cattāro kho, upāli, mānattacārikassa bhikkhuno ratticchedā sahavāso, vippavāso, anārocanā, ūnegaṇecaraṇa”nti (cūḷava. 92) ca “vippavāsoti ekakasseva vāso”ti ca “ayañca yasmā gaṇassa ārocetvā bhikkhūnañca atthibhāvaṃ sallakkhetvāva vasi, tenassa ūnegaṇecaraṇadoso vā vippavāso vā na hotī”ti ca “atthibhāvaṃ sallakkhetvāti dvādasahatthe upacāre sallakkhetvā, anikkhittavattānaṃ upacārasīmāya āgatabhāvaṃ sallakkhetvā sahavāsādikaṃ veditabba”nti ca āgatehi pāḷiyaṭṭhakathā-vajirabuddhiṭīkāpāṭhehi pakāsetabbo, tasmā vihāre parivasantassa upacārasīmāya abbhantare yattha katthaci vasantassa natthi vippavāso, bahiupacārasīmāyaṃ parivasantassa bhikkhūnaṃ nisinnapariyantato dvādasahatthabbhantare vasantassa ca natthi vippavāsoti, tañca parivāsakāle “ekena bhikkhunā saddhi”nti vacanato ekassapi bhikkhuno, mānattacaraṇakāle “catūhi pañcahi vā bhikkhūhi saddhi”nti (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102) vacanato ca catunnaṃ pañcannampi bhikkhūnaṃ hatthapāsabhūte dvādasahatthabbhantarepi vasituṃ labhati, natthi vippavāsoti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
This meaning is to be clarified by these texts and commentaries, including the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā: “Monks, a monk under probation must not go from a residence with monks to one without monks, except with a regular monk or in case of danger” (cūḷava. 76), and “There are three, Upāli… non-announcement,” and “There are four, Upāli, causes of a break in the nights for a monk observing mānatta: co-residence, separation, non-announcement, and going with less than a group” (cūḷava. 92), and “separation** means dwelling alone,” and “Since he dwells having informed the group and confirmed the presence of monks, he incurs neither the fault of going with less than a group nor separation,” and ”confirming the presence”** means confirming within the twelve-handspan vicinity, noting the arrival of monks with unabandoned duties within the vicinity boundary, and understanding co-residence and so forth. Thus, for one residing in a monastery, there is no separation when dwelling anywhere within the vicinity boundary; for one residing outside the vicinity boundary, there is no separation when dwelling within twelve handspans of where monks are seated. This applies during probation with “one monk” as stated, and during mānatta with “four or five monks” (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102), allowing residence within twelve handspans of even four or five monks’ reach without separation.
This meaning should be clarified by these Pali, commentary, and Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā passages: ‘Monks, a probationer monk should not go from a dwelling with monks to a dwelling without monks except with a regular monk, except in case of danger’ and so on (Cūḷava. 76), and ‘There are three, Upāli… non-reporting,’ and ‘There are four, Upāli, breaches of the night for a monk undergoing mānatta: co-residence, non-residence, non-reporting, and practicing with an incomplete group’ (Cūḷava. 92), and “non-residence” means residing alone, and ‘Since this one resided after informing the group and taking note of the presence of monks, therefore there is no fault of practicing with an incomplete group or non-residence for him,’ and “taking note of the presence” means, taking note within a proximate area of twelve handspans, having noted that those who have not set down practice are within area of upacārasīmā, co-residence, and so on, should be understood. Therefore, for one undergoing probation in a monastery, there is no non-residence when residing anywhere within the upacārasīmā; for one undergoing probation outside the upacārasīmā, and residing within twelve hands-breadths from the edge where the monks are seated, there is also no non-residence. And because it says, ‘with one monk’ during the probation period, even one monk is allowed; because it says ‘with four or five monks’ (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 102) during the mānatta period, it should be understood that it is allowed to reside within a hatthapāsa of twelve hands-breadths, of even four or five monks, and there is no non-residence.
This is the meaning of the passage, “Monks, a monk under probation should not go from a residence with monks to a residence without monks, except when accompanied by a regular monk or unless there is an obstacle” (Cūḷavagga 76), and “Upāli, there are three ways a monk under probation breaks the night: co-residence, separation, and not informing” (Cūḷavagga 92). “Separation means dwelling alone.” “And because he dwells after informing the group and ascertaining the presence of monks, there is no fault of insufficient group or separation.” “Ascertaining the presence means determining the proximity within twelve handsbreadths and recognizing the presence of those who have not abandoned their duties within the boundary of proximity.” These passages from the Pāli, commentary, and Vajirabuddhiṭīkā should be explained accordingly. Therefore, for one dwelling in a monastery, there is no separation if he dwells anywhere within the boundary of proximity. For one dwelling outside the boundary of proximity, there is no separation if he dwells within twelve handsbreadths of the seated boundary of the monks. During the probation period, the phrase “with one monk” allows even a single monk to dwell within twelve handsbreadths, and during the penance period, the phrase “with four or five monks” allows four or five monks to dwell within twelve handsbreadths, so there is no separation. This should be understood.
ID1562
Vattaṃ samādiyitvā tesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ ārocitakālato pana paṭṭhāya kenaci karaṇīyena tesu bhikkhūsu gatesupi yathāvuttaaṭṭhakathāpāṭhanayena vippavāso na hoti. Tathā hi vuttaṃ vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.97) “sopi kenaci kammena purearuṇe eva gacchatīti iminā ārocanāya katāya sabbesupi bhikkhūsu bahivihāraṃ gatesu ūnegaṇecaraṇadoso vā vippavāsadoso vā na hoti ārocitattā sahavāsassāti dasseti. Tenāha ‘ayañcā’tiādī”ti. Apare pana ācariyā “bahisīmāya vattasamādānaṭṭhāne vatiparikkhepopi pakatattabhikkhūheva kātabbo, na kammārahabhikkhūhi. Yathā loke bandhanāgārādi daṇḍakārakehi eva kattabbaṃ, na daṇḍārahehi, evamidhāpī”ti vadanti, tampi aṭṭhakathādīsu na dissati. Na hi vatiparikkhepo daṇḍakammatthāya kārito, atha kho dassanūpacāravijahanatthameva. Tathā hi vuttaṃ sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.97) “gumbena vā vatiyā vā paṭicchannaṭṭhāneti dassanūpacāravijahanattha”nti. Tathā vimativinodaniyampi (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.97) “gumbena vātiādi dassanūpacāravijahanattha”nti. Ito paraṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttanayeneva parivāsadānañca mānattadānañca veditabbaṃ. Yattha pana saṃsayitabbaṃ atthi, tattha saṃsayavinodanatthāya kathetabbaṃ kathayāma.
After undertaking the duty and informing the monks, even if those monks leave for some task, there is no separation according to the method stated in the commentary. As it is said in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.97), “Even he goes for some task before dawn” indicates that when the announcement is made, even if all monks go outside the monastery, there is neither the fault of going with less than a group nor separation due to the announcement of co-residence. Hence it says, “And this…” etc. Some teachers, however, say, “The enclosure of the duty area outside the boundary should be made only by regular monks, not by monks liable to the task, just as in the world a prison is built by executioners, not by those liable to punishment.” But this is not found in the commentaries. The enclosure is not made for punishment but to avoid visibility and vicinity. As it is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.97), “With a bush or fence in a concealed place” is for avoiding visibility and vicinity. Likewise in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.97), “With a bush…” etc. is for avoiding visibility and vicinity. Beyond this, the giving of probation and mānatta should be understood as stated in the commentary. Where there is doubt, it should be explained to resolve the doubt.
However, from the time of informing the monks after undertaking the practice, even if those monks have gone for some duty, there is no non-residence according to the aforementioned commentary passage. Thus it is said in the Vimativinodani (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 2.97): ‘Even if he goes for some task before dawn’ by this, it shows that when the report has been made, even if all the monks have gone outside the monastery, there is no fault of practicing with an incomplete group or the fault of non-residence, because it has been reported, co-residence. Therefore he said, ‘And this one,’ and so on’. Other teachers, however, say, “Even the fencing of the practice at the place of undertaking the practice outside the boundary should be done by regular monks, not by monks eligible for the ceremony. Just as in the world, prisons and so on should be made by the officers of punishment, not by those subject to punishment, so too here.” But that is not found in the commentaries and so on. The fencing of the practice is not made for the purpose of punishment, but rather only for the purpose of avoiding seeing what’s proximate. Thus it is said in the Sāratthadīpani (Sārattha. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 3.97), “at a place concealed by a thicket or a fence” meaning avoiding seeing what’s proximate. Similarly, in the Vimativinodani (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 2.97), “by a thicket” and so on means avoiding seeing what’s proximate. Beyond this, the giving of probation and the giving of mānatta should be understood in the manner stated in the commentary. Where there is something to be doubted, it should be discussed for the purpose of dispelling doubt. We shall discuss it.
Once the duties have been undertaken, from the time of informing those monks, even if they go away for some reason, there is no separation according to the method explained in the commentary. As stated in the Vimativinodanī (Cūḷavagga 2.97), “Even if he goes early in the morning for some duty, once the informing has been done, there is no fault of insufficient group or separation, because the co-residence has been informed.” Therefore, it is said, “And this…” etc. Some teachers say, “At the place of undertaking the duties outside the boundary, the marking of the boundary should be done only by regular monks, not by monks deserving disciplinary action. Just as in the world, prisons, etc., are constructed by those who enforce punishment, not by those deserving punishment, so here too.” However, this is not seen in the commentaries. For the marking of the boundary is not done for the purpose of punishment but rather to prevent seeing and approaching. As stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Cūḷavagga 3.97), “Covered with a bush or a fence means to prevent seeing and approaching.” Similarly, in the Vimativinodanī (Cūḷavagga 2.97), “Covered with a bush, etc., means to prevent seeing and approaching.” Beyond this, the granting of probation and penance should be understood according to the method explained in the commentary. Where there is doubt, it should be resolved through discussion.
ID1563
Ekacce bhikkhū evaṃ vadanti – pārivāsiko bhikkhu vuḍḍhataropi samāno vatte samādinne navakaṭṭhāne ṭhito. Tathā hi vuttaṃ “yattha pana nisīdāpetvā parivisanti, tattha sāmaṇerānaṃ jeṭṭhakena, bhikkhūnaṃ saṅghanavakena hutvā nisīditabba”nti (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 75) tasmā ārocitakālādīsu “ahaṃ bhante”icceva vattabbaṃ, na “ahaṃ āvuso”ti. Tatrevaṃ vicāraṇā kātabbā – pārivāsikādayo bhikkhū seyyāpariyantaāsanapariyantabhāgitāya navakaṭṭhāne ṭhitā, na ekantena navakabhūtattā. Tathā hi vuttaṃ bhagavatā “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, pārivāsikānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ pañca yathāvuḍḍhaṃ uposathaṃ pavāraṇaṃ vassikasāṭikaṃ oṇojanaṃ bhatta”nti (cūḷava. 75). Aṭṭhakathāyañca (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 81) “pakatattaṃ bhikkhuṃ disvā āsanā vuṭṭhātabbaṃ, pakatatto bhikkhu āsanena nimantetabbo”ti etissā pāḷiyā saṃvaṇṇanāya “vuṭṭhātabbaṃ, nimantetabboti tadahupasampannampi disvā vuṭṭhātabbameva, vuṭṭhāya ca ’ahaṃ iminā sukhanisinno vuṭṭhāpito’ti parammukhena na gantabbaṃ, ’idaṃ ācariya āsanaṃ, ettha nisīdathā’ti evaṃ nimantetabboyevā”ti ettheva “ācariyā”ti ālapanaviseso vutto, na aññattha. Yadi vuḍḍhatarenapi “bhante”icceva vattabbo siyā, idhāpi “idaṃ, bhante, āsana”nti vattabbaṃ bhaveyya, na pana vuttaṃ, tasmā na tesaṃ taṃ vacanaṃ sārato paccetabbaṃ. Imasmiṃ pana vinayasaṅgahappakaraṇe (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 237) “ārocentena sace navakataro hoti, ’āvuso’ti vattabbaṃ. Sace vuḍḍhataro, ’bhante’ti vattabba”nti vuttaṃ, idañca “ekena bhikkhunā saddhi”nti heṭṭhā vuttattā taṃ paṭiggāhakabhūtaṃ pakatattaṃ bhikkhuṃ sandhāya vuttanti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
Some monks say: even a senior monk under probation stands in the position of a novice after undertaking the duty. As it is said, “Where they sit and serve, there the senior among novices and the community’s junior monk must sit” (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 75). Thus, in announcements and so forth, he should say only “I, venerable sir,” not “I, friend.” This should be considered: monks under probation and similar are in a novice’s position due to limitation regarding beds and seats, not absolutely due to being novices. As the Blessed One said, “I allow, monks, monks under probation five things according to seniority: Uposatha, Pavāraṇā, rainy-season cloth, washing, and meals” (cūḷava. 75). In the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 81), regarding “He should rise from his seat upon seeing a regular monk and invite the regular monk to sit,” it explains, “rise… invite” means even one ordained that day must rise upon seeing him, and having risen, he should not turn away thinking “I was comfortably seated and displaced,” but should say, “This is the teacher’s seat, sit here,” and invite him thus. Here, the specific address “teacher” is used, not elsewhere. If even a senior were to say only “venerable sir,” it would be said here as “This, venerable sir, is the seat,” but it is not. Thus, their statement should not be accepted as substantial. However, in this Vinaya compendium (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 237), it is said, “When announcing, if he is junior, he should say ‘friend’; if senior, ‘venerable sir.’” This is to be understood as referring to the regular monk receiving it, as stated earlier with “with one monk.”
Some monks say this: A probationer monk, even though he is senior, stands in the position of a junior when he has undertaken the practice. Thus it is said, “Where they make them sit and serve, there one should sit as the eldest of the novices and the newest of the monks” (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 75). Therefore, in matters such as reporting, one should say only, “I, venerable sir,” not “I, friend.” Here, the following analysis should be made: Probationer monks and others stand in the position of juniors due to sharing in the last of the seating and the last of the sitting, not because they have entirely become juniors. Thus it is said by the Blessed One, “I allow, monks, for probationer monks, five things according to seniority: the Uposatha, the Pavāraṇā, the rains cloth, prostration, and the meal” (Cūḷava. 75). And in the commentary (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 81), concerning the explanation of the passage, “One should rise from one’s seat for a regular monk; a regular monk should be invited with a seat,” it says, “One should rise, one should invite” means, even seeing a newly ordained monk, one should indeed rise; and after rising, one should not go away with one’s back turned, thinking, ‘I was made to get up by this one who was sitting comfortably,’ but rather one should indeed invite him, saying, ‘This is the teacher’s seat, sit here.’” Here, the special address “teachers” is stated, but not elsewhere. If even a senior should say only “venerable sir,” here too it should have been said, “This, venerable sir, is the seat,” but it was not said. Therefore, their statement should not be accepted as essential. But in this Vinayasaṅgaha-ppakaraṇa (Vi. Saṅga. Aṭṭha. 237), it is said, “The one reporting, if he is junior, should say, ‘friend.’ If he is senior, he should say, ‘venerable sir.’” And this should be understood as referring to the regular monk who is the recipient, because it was said earlier, “with one monk.”
Some monks say this: A monk under probation, even if senior, stands in the junior position when the duties have been undertaken. As stated, “Where they are seated and served, there the senior novice should sit, and the monks should sit in the order of the Saṅgha” (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 75). Therefore, at the time of informing, etc., one should say, “Venerable sir,” not “Friend.” In this regard, the following should be considered: Monks under probation, etc., stand in the junior position due to their share of the seat up to the bed, not because they are entirely junior. As the Blessed One said, “I allow monks under probation five things according to seniority: the Uposatha, the Pavāraṇā, the rainy-season robe, the offering, and the meal” (Cūḷavagga 75). The commentary (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 81) states, “Seeing a regular monk, one should rise from the seat, and the regular monk should be invited to the seat.” In explaining this Pāli, it is said, “One should rise even upon seeing one ordained that day, and after rising, one should not go away thinking, ‘I have been made to rise by this one who is comfortably seated.’ Rather, one should invite him, saying, ‘This is the teacher’s seat; sit here.’” Here, the address “teacher” is specified, not elsewhere. If even a senior should say, “Venerable sir,” here too one should say, “This seat, venerable sir,” but this is not stated. Therefore, their statement should not be accepted as correct. In this Vinaya Saṅgaha text (Vinaya Saṅgaha Aṭṭhakathā 237), it is said, “When informing, if the informer is junior, he should say, ‘Friend.’ If senior, he should say, ‘Venerable sir.’” This is said with reference to the regular monk who is the recipient, as mentioned earlier in the phrase “with one monk.”
ID1564
Bahavo pana bhikkhū pārivāsikaṃ bhikkhuṃ saṅghamajjhe nisīdāpetvā vattaṃ yācāpetvā kammavācāpariyosāne samādāpetvā ārocanamakāretvā saṅghamajjhato nikkhamāpetvā parisapariyante nisīdāpetvā tattha nisinnena ārocāpetvā vattaṃ nikkhipāpenti, evaṃ karontānañca nesaṃ ayamadhippāyo – ayaṃ bhikkhu vatte asamādinne vuḍḍhaṭṭhāniyopi hoti, tasmā yācanakāle ca kammavācāsavanakāle ca vattasamādānakāle ca saṅghamajjhe nisīdanāraho hoti, vatte pana samādinne navakaṭṭhāniyo, tasmā na saṅghamajjhe nisīdanāraho, āsanapariyantabhāgitāya parisapariyanteyeva nisīdanārahoti, tadetaṃ evaṃ vicāretabbaṃ – ayaṃ bhikkhu saṅghamajjhe nisīdamāno āsanaṃ gahetvā yathāvuḍḍhaṃ nisinno na hoti, atha kho kammārahabhāvena āsanaṃ aggahetvā añjaliṃ paggahetvā ukkuṭikameva nisinno hoti, kammāraho ca nāma saṅghamajjheyeva ṭhapetabbo hoti, no bahi, tasmā “saṅghamajjhe nisīdanāraho na hotī”ti na sakkā vattuṃ tasmiṃ kāle, nikkhamāpite ca vattārocanavattanikkhipanānaṃ aniṭṭhitattā aññamaññaṃ āhacca suṭṭhu nisinnaṃ bhikkhusaṅghaṃ pariharitumasakkuṇeyyattā, cīvarakaṇṇapādapiṭṭhiādīhi bādhitattā agāravakiriyā viya dissati, ārocanakiriyañca vattanikkhipanañca saṅghamajjheyeva kattabbaṃ pariyante nisīditvā karonto aṭṭhakathāvirodho hoti. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 97) “vattaṃ samādiyitvā tattheva saṅghassa ārocetabbaṃ…pe… ārocetvā sace nikkhipitukāmo, vuttanayeneva saṅghamajjhe nikkhipitabba”nti. Kasmā? Samādānaṭṭhāneyeva ārocāpetvā tattheva nikkhipāpetvā niṭṭhitasabbakiccameva nikkhamāpetvā attano āsane nisīdāpento ñāyāgatoti amhākaṃ khanti.
Many monks seat a monk under probation in the midst of the community, have him request the duty, make him undertake it at the end of the formal act, and without having him announce it, remove him from the community’s midst, seat him at the edge of the assembly, have him announce it while seated there, and abandon the duty. Their intention might be this: this monk, before undertaking the duty, is eligible even for a senior’s position; thus, at the time of requesting, hearing the formal act, and undertaking the duty, he is worthy of sitting in the community’s midst. But after undertaking the duty, he is in a junior’s position, so he is not worthy of sitting in the community’s midst but only at the edge due to seat limitation. This should be considered: this monk, sitting in the community’s midst, does not take a seat and sit according to seniority; rather, he sits squatting with hands raised in respect due to his liability to the task. One liable to the task must be placed in the community’s midst, not outside. Thus, it cannot be said he is unworthy of sitting there at that time. When removed, since the announcement and abandonment of the duty are incomplete, he cannot properly attend to the well-seated community, and due to disturbance from robe corners, feet, backs, and so forth, it appears like a layperson’s act. The announcement and abandonment should be done in the community’s midst; doing it seated at the edge contradicts the commentary. As it is said in the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 97), “Having undertaken the duty, he should announce it to the community right there… if he wishes to abandon it, it should be abandoned in the community’s midst as stated.” Why? Undertaking it there, announcing it there, and abandoning it there, completing all tasks before leaving and seating him in his own seat is the proper way, in our view.
Many monks, however, make the probationer monk sit in the midst of the Saṅgha, make him request the practice, make him undertake it at the end of the formal declaration, make him not make the report, lead him out of the midst of the Saṅgha, make him sit at the edge of the assembly, and make him, seated there, make the report and set down the practice. The intention of those who do this is this: This monk, when he has not undertaken the practice, is in a position of seniority. Therefore, he is fit to sit in the midst of the Saṅgha during the requesting, the hearing of the formal declaration, and the undertaking of the practice. But when he has undertaken the practice, he is in the position of a junior. Therefore, he is not fit to sit in the midst of the Saṅgha; due to sharing in the last of the seating, he is only fit to sit at the edge of the assembly. This should be analyzed thus: This monk, sitting in the midst of the Saṅgha, does not sit having taken a seat according to seniority. Rather, being eligible for the ceremony, he sits ukkuṭika (kneeling with heels raised) with his hands in añjali, without having taken a seat. And one who is eligible for the ceremony should indeed be placed in the midst of the Saṅgha, not outside. Therefore, it cannot be said that he is not fit to sit in the midst of the Saṅgha at that time. And when he is led out, because the reporting of the practice and the setting down of the practice are not completed, and it appears like a disrespectful action, due to the inability to attend to the well-seated Saṅgha, and being pressed by the edge of the robe, the soles of the feet, back, etc, there’s also the transgression of Aṭṭhakathā because the one reporting the vatta and setting the vatta down is sitting in the edge instead of the middle. For it is said in the commentary (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 97), “Having undertaken the practice, the Saṅgha should be informed in that very place… if he wishes to set it down, it should be set down in the midst of the Saṅgha in the manner stated.” Why? Our preference is that, having made him report at the very place of undertaking, and having made him set it down in that very place, and having completed all the duties, he should be led out and made to sit in his own seat. This accords with reason.
Many monks, however, seat a monk under probation in the middle of the Saṅgha, request him to undertake the duties, complete the formal act, make the announcement, and then have him leave the middle of the Saṅgha and sit at the edge of the assembly. There, seated, he is informed and the duties are relinquished. Those who do this have the following intention: This monk, though senior in position, is not one who has undertaken the duties, and thus is worthy of sitting in the middle of the Saṅgha at the time of requesting, hearing the formal act, and undertaking the duties. However, once the duties have been undertaken, he is in the junior position and thus not worthy of sitting in the middle of the Saṅgha but should sit at the edge due to his share of the seat. This should be considered as follows: This monk, sitting in the middle of the Saṅgha, does not sit in the senior position but, due to being deserving of the formal act, sits with hands raised in the kneeling position. One deserving of a formal act should be placed in the middle of the Saṅgha, not outside. Therefore, it cannot be said that he is not worthy of sitting in the middle of the Saṅgha at that time. After being made to leave, since the announcement and relinquishing of the duties are not completed, the Saṅgha may not be able to handle the situation well, and due to being hindered by the robe, ear, foot, etc., it may appear disrespectful. The announcement and relinquishing of the duties should be done in the middle of the Saṅgha; doing so while seated at the edge contradicts the commentary. As stated in the commentary (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 97), “Having undertaken the duties, one should inform the Saṅgha right there… and if one wishes to relinquish them, one should do so in the middle of the Saṅgha according to the method explained.” Why? Because it is proper to have the announcement made at the place of undertaking and to have the relinquishing done there, completing all duties, and then to have him leave and sit in his own seat. This is our understanding.
ID1565
Tathā sāyaṃ vattārocanakāle bahūsu pārivāsikesu vuḍḍhataraṃ paṭhamaṃ samādāpetvā ārocāpetvā anukkamena sabbapacchā navakataraṃ samādāpenti ārocāpenti, pāto nikkhipanakāle pana navakataraṃ paṭhamaṃ ārocāpetvā nikkhipāpenti, tato anukkamena vuḍḍhataraṃ sabbapacchā ārocāpetvā nikkhipāpenti. Tesaṃ ayamadhippāyo siyā – yadā dasa bhikkhū pakatattā dasa bhikkhū pārivāsikā honti, tadā vuḍḍhatarena paṭhamaṃ samādiyitvā ārocite tassa ārocanaṃ avasesā ekūnavīsati bhikkhū suṇanti, dutiyassa aṭṭhārasa, tatiyassa sattarasāti anukkamena hāyitvā sabbanavakassa ārocanaṃ dasa pakatattā suṇanti sesānaṃ apakatattabhāvato. Tato nikkhipanakāle sabbanavako pubbe attanā ārocitānaṃ dasannaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ ārocetvā nikkhipati, tato paṭilomena dutiyo ekādasannaṃ, tatiyo dvādasannanti anukkamena vaḍḍhitvā sabbajeṭṭhako attanā pubbe ārocitānaṃ ekūnavīsatibhikkhūnaṃ ārocetvā nikkhipati, evaṃ yathānukkamena nikkhipanaṃ hoti. Sabbajeṭṭhake pana paṭhamaṃ nikkhitte sati pubbe attanā ārocitānaṃ navannaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ tadā apakatattabhāvato ārocitānaṃ santike nikkhipanaṃ na hoti, tathā sesānaṃ. Tesaṃ pana ekaccānaṃ ūnaṃ hoti, ekaccānaṃ adhikaṃ, tasmā yathāvuttanayena sabbanavakato paṭṭhāya anukkamena nikkhipitabbanti.
Similarly, in the evening when announcing the duty, with many monks under probation, they first have the most senior undertake and announce it, then gradually down to the most junior last. But in the morning when abandoning it, they have the most junior announce and abandon it first, then gradually up to the most senior last. Their intention might be this: when there are ten regular monks and ten monks under probation, the most senior undertakes and announces first, and nineteen monks hear his announcement; the second, eighteen; the third, seventeen, decreasing progressively, so the most junior’s announcement is heard by ten regular monks due to the others’ non-regular status. Then, when abandoning, the most junior announces and abandons to the ten he previously informed, the second to eleven, the third to twelve, increasing progressively, and the most senior announces and abandons to the nineteen he previously informed, thus abandoning in order. But if the most senior abandons first, since the nine he previously informed are no longer regular then, it is not abandoning in their presence, and likewise for the rest. For some it is less, for some more, so it should be abandoned progressively from the most junior as stated.
Similarly, in the evening, at the time for announcing the duties, after having the most senior pārivāsika monks undertake and announce first, they then gradually have the most junior undertake and announce last. In the morning, at the time for setting aside (the duties), however, they have the most junior announce and set aside first, then gradually the most senior announce and set aside last. Their intention might be this: when there are ten pakatatta (fully reinstated) monks and ten pārivāsika monks, when the most senior has undertaken and announced first, nineteen remaining monks hear his announcement; for the second, eighteen; for the third, seventeen; gradually decreasing thus, the ten pakatatta monks hear the announcement of the most junior, because the others are not pakatatta. Then, at the time of setting aside, the most junior first announces and sets aside to the ten monks to whom he announced earlier. Then, in reverse order, the second to eleven, the third to twelve, increasing gradually thus, the most senior announces and sets aside to the nineteen monks to whom he announced earlier; thus the setting aside is done in due order. If the most senior were to set aside first, it would not be a setting aside in the presence of those to whom he had announced earlier, since they were not pakatatta at that time; similarly for the others. For some of them, it would be deficient, for some excessive. Therefore, as stated, beginning with the most junior, setting aside should be done in due order.
Similarly, during the evening announcement time, when there are many pārivāsika monks, the elder is first invited to undertake and announce, and then in sequence, the younger ones are invited to undertake and announce. However, in the morning, when placing down the observance, the younger ones are first invited to announce and place down, and then in sequence, the elder ones are invited to announce and place down. The intention here may be as follows: When there are ten regular monks and ten pārivāsika monks, after the elder has first undertaken and announced, nineteen monks hear his announcement. For the second, eighteen monks hear; for the third, seventeen monks hear, and so on, decreasing until the announcement of the youngest is heard by ten regular monks, as the others are not regular monks. Then, during the time of placing down the observance, the youngest first announces to the ten monks who had previously announced to him and places down. Then, in reverse order, the second announces to eleven monks, the third to twelve monks, and so on, increasing until the eldest announces to the nineteen monks who had previously announced to him and places down. Thus, the placing down is done in sequence. However, if the eldest places down first, since the nine monks who had previously announced to him are not regular monks at that time, the placing down near those who had been announced to does not occur, and similarly for the rest. Some may have fewer, and some may have more. Therefore, starting from the youngest, the placing down should be done in sequence as described.
ID1566
Evaṃvādīnaṃ pana tesamāyasmantānaṃ vāde pakatattāyeva bhikkhū ārocetabbā honti, no apakatattā. Pubbe ārocitānaṃyeva santike vattaṃ nikkhipitabbaṃ hoti, no anārocitānaṃ. Evaṃ pana pakatattāyeva bhikkhū ārocetabbā na honti, atha kho apakatattāpi “sace dve pārivāsikā gataṭṭhāne aññamaññaṃ passanti, ubhohi aññamaññassa ārocetabba”nti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttattā. Pubbe ārocitānampi anārocitānampi santike ārocetvā nikkhipitabbameva “sace so bhikkhu kenacideva karaṇīyena pakkanto hoti, yaṃ aññaṃ sabbapaṭhamaṃ passati, tassa ārocetvā nikkhipitabba”nti (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102) vuttattā, tasmā tathā akarontepi sabbesaṃ ārocitattā natthi doso. Appekacce bhikkhū “pakatattassevāyaṃ ārocanā”ti maññamānā sāyaṃ vuḍḍhapaṭipāṭiyā vattaṃ samādiyitvā ārocetvā attano sayanaṃ pavisitvā dvārajagganasayanasodhanādīni karontā aññesaṃ ārocitaṃ na suṇanti. Appekacce pāto sayaṃ ārocetvā nikkhipitvā aññesaṃ ārocanaṃ vā nikkhipanaṃ vā anāgametvā bhikkhācārādīnaṃ atthāya gacchanti, evaṃ karontānaṃ tesaṃ ārocanaṃ ekaccānaṃ asutabhāvasambhavato sāsaṅko hoti pārivāsikānaṃ aññamaññārocanassa pakaraṇesu āgatattā. Na kevalaṃ sāratthadīpaniyaṃyeva, atha kho vajirabuddhiṭīkāyampi (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 76) “sace dve pārivāsikā gataṭṭhāne aññamaññaṃ passanti, ubhohipi aññamaññassa ārocetabbaṃ avisesena ’āgantukena ārocetabbaṃ, āgantukassa ārocetabba’nti vuttattā”ti vuttaṃ.
However, in the view of those venerables, only regular monks should be informed, not non-regular ones; the duty should be abandoned only in the presence of those previously informed, not the uninformed. But it is not so that only regular monks should be informed; non-regular ones too, as it is said in the commentary, “If two monks under probation see each other where they have gone, both must inform each other” (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102). It must be announced and abandoned in the presence of both those previously informed and uninformed, as it is said, “If that monk has departed for some task, he should announce and abandon it to the first one he sees” (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102). Thus, even if not done so, there is no fault since all were informed. Some monks, thinking “this announcement is only for a regular monk,” undertake and announce it in seniority order in the evening, enter their sleeping place, and do not hear others’ announcements while tending to doors, beds, and so forth. Some, in the morning, announce and abandon it themselves and leave for alms or other tasks without waiting for others’ announcements or abandonments. Their announcements are suspect due to some not hearing, as mutual announcement among monks under probation is stated in the texts. Not only in the Sāratthadīpanī but also in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 76), it is said, “If two monks under probation see each other where they have gone, both must inform each other without distinction, as it is said, ‘A visitor must announce, and it must be announced to a visitor.’”
However, in the opinion of those venerable ones who argue thus, pakatatta monks alone should be announced to, not those who are not pakatatta. The duties should be set aside only in the presence of those to whom they were previously announced, not to those to whom they were not announced. However, it is not that only pakatatta monks should be announced to, but also those who are not pakatatta, because in the commentary it is said, “If two pārivāsika monks see each other in a place they have gone to, both should announce to each other.” It should be announced and set aside both in the presence of those previously announced to and those not previously announced to, because it is said (Cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102), “If that monk has departed due to some duty, he should announce and set aside to whomever he sees first.” Therefore, even if one does not do so, there is no fault since it has been announced to all. Some monks, thinking, “This announcement is only for pakatatta (monks)”, undertaking and announcing the duties in the evening according to seniority, entering their own lodgings and performing tasks such as securing the door, cleaning the lodging, etc., do not hear the announcement of the others. Some, in the morning, after announcing and setting aside for themselves, go for alms rounds etc. without waiting for the announcement or setting aside of the others. For those who act thus, the announcement is doubtful because of the possibility of some not having heard it, since in the sections on mutual announcement of pārivāsika monks it has come. Not only in the Sāratthadīpanī, but also in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. ṭī. Cūḷavagga 76) it is said, “If two pārivāsika monks see each other in a place they have gone to, both should announce to each other, without distinction, because it is said, ‘An incoming monk should announce, and it should be announced to an incoming monk.’”
According to the view of these venerables, only regular monks should be announced to, not non-regular monks. The observance should be placed down near those who had been previously announced to, not near those who had not been announced to. However, it is not that only regular monks should be announced to; rather, non-regular monks should also be announced to, as stated in the commentary: “If two pārivāsika monks meet at a place, they should announce to each other.” Moreover, the observance should be placed down near both those who had been previously announced to and those who had not, as stated: “If a monk has departed for some duty and meets another monk first, he should announce to him and place down.” Therefore, even if one does not act in this way, there is no fault, as all have been announced to. Some monks, thinking that only regular monks should be announced to, undertake the observance in the evening according to the order of seniority, announce, and then enter their sleeping quarters, cleaning the door, threshold, and sleeping area, and do not listen to the announcements of others. Some, after announcing and placing down the observance in the morning, go out for almsround or other duties without waiting for the announcements or placing down of others. When acting in this way, there is a risk that some may not hear the announcements due to the possibility of mutual announcements among pārivāsika monks. This is not only mentioned in the Sāratthadīpanī but also in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā: “If two pārivāsika monks meet at a place, they should announce to each other without distinction, as it is said, ‘A newcomer should be announced to, and a newcomer should announce.’”
ID1567
Tathā appekacce pakatattā bhikkhū pārivāsikesu bhikkhūsu sāyaṃ vattasamādānatthaṃ pakatattasālato nikkhamitvā attano attano sayanasamīpaṃ gatesu attano sayanapaññāpanapaakkhāraṭhapanaaññamaññaālāpasallāpakaraṇādivasena āḷolentā pārivāsikānaṃ vattārocanaṃ na suṇanti, na manasi karonti. Appekacce pāto vattanikkhipanakāle pārivāsikabhikkhūsu vattārocanavattanikkhipanāni karontesupi niddāpasutā hutvā na suṇanti. Evaṃ karontānampi tesaṃ ekaccānaṃ assutasambhavato vattārocanaṃ sāsaṅkaṃ hotīti. Hotu sāsaṅkaṃ, suṇantānaṃ assutasambhavepi ārocakānaṃ sammāārocanena vattassa paripuṇṇattā ko dosoti ce? Ārocakānaṃ sammā ārocitattā vatte paripuṇṇepi vattabhedadukkaṭatova vimutto siyā, na ratticchedato. Vuttañhi samantapāsādikāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 76) “sace vāyamantopi sampāpuṇituṃ vā sāvetuṃ vā na sakkoti, ratticchedova hoti, na vattabhedadukkaṭa”nti.
Likewise, some regular monks, when monks under probation leave the regular monks’ hall in the evening to undertake the duty and go near their sleeping places, do not hear or pay attention to their announcements while arranging beds, gear, conversing, or chatting. Some, in the morning when abandoning the duty, while monks under probation announce and abandon it, do not hear due to being asleep. Their announcements are suspect due to some not hearing. Even if suspect, what fault is there if some do not hear, as long as the announcers properly announce and the duty is fulfilled? Even if the duty is fulfilled by proper announcement, one might be free from a dukkaṭa for violating the duty, but not from a break in the nights. As it is said in the Samantapāsādikā (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 76), “If he cannot reach or make it heard despite effort, there is only a break in the nights, not a dukkaṭa for violating the duty.”
Likewise, some pakatatta monks, when the pārivāsika monks have left the pakatatta hall in the evening for undertaking the duties and have gone to the vicinity of their own lodgings, become occupied with preparing their own lodgings, storing requisites, engaging in conversation with each other, etc., and do not hear the announcement of the duties of the pārivāsika monks, nor do they pay attention to it. Some, in the morning, at the time of setting aside the duties, even while the pārivāsika monks are announcing and setting aside the duties, being overcome by sleep, do not hear. For those who act thus, even for some of them, the announcement of the duties is doubtful because of the possibility of not having heard. Let it be doubtful; even if there is the possibility of those who are listening not having heard, what fault is there, since the duties are fulfilled by the proper announcement of those announcing? Because of the proper announcement of those announcing, even though the duties are fulfilled, one might be freed from the minor offense of breaking the duties, but not from the break of the night. For it is said in the Samantapāsādikā (Cūḷava. aṭṭha. 76), “If even while striving, he is unable to reach or to make it heard, there is only a break of the night, not the minor offense of breaking the duties.”
Similarly, some regular monks, when pārivāsika monks come out of the regular monks’ hall in the evening to undertake the observance, go near their own sleeping quarters and, while engaging in arranging their beds, sweeping, chatting, and other activities, do not listen to or pay attention to the announcements of the pārivāsika monks. Some, during the morning time of placing down the observance, even when the pārivāsika monks are making announcements or placing down the observance, fall asleep and do not listen. When acting in this way, there is a risk that some may not hear the announcements. Even if there is a risk, what fault is there for those who announce correctly, since the observance is fully completed? Even if the observance is fully completed due to the correct announcement by the announcers, one may be free from the fault of breaking the observance but not from the fault of cutting the night. As stated in the Samantapāsādikā: “Even if one strives to reach or inform but is unable to do so, it is only a cutting of the night, not a fault of breaking the observance.”
ID1568
Athaññe bhikkhū vattaṃ samādiyitvā rattiṃ nipannā niddābhāvena manussasaddampi suṇanti, bheriādisaddampi suṇanti, sakaṭanāvādiyānasaddampi suṇanti, te tena saddena āsaṅkanti “bhikkhūnaṃ nu kho aya”nti, te tena kāraṇena ratticchedaṃ maññanti. Kasmā? “Ayañca nesaṃ chattasaddaṃ vā ukkāsitasaddaṃ vā khipitasaddaṃ vā sutvā āgantukabhāvaṃ jānāti, gantvā ārocetabbaṃ. Gatakāle jānantenapi anubandhitvā ārocetabbameva. Sampāpuṇituṃ asakkontassa ratticchedova hoti, na vattabhedadukkaṭa”nti (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 76) vuttattāti. Te evaṃ saññāpetabbā – māyasmanto evaṃ maññittha, nāyaṃ pāṭho bahisīmaṭṭhavasena vutto, atha kho upacārasīmaṭṭhavasena vutto. Vuttañhi tattheva “yepi antovihāraṃ appavisitvā upacārasīmaṃ okkamitvā gacchantī”ti. Tatthapi āgantukabhāvassa jānitattā ratticchedo hoti, tasmā dūresaddasavanamattena ratticchedo natthi, “ayaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ saddo, ayaṃ bhikkhūhi vāditabherighaṇṭādisaddo, ayaṃ bhikkhūhi pājitasakaṭanāvādisaddo”ti nisinnaṭṭhānato jānantoyeva ratticchedakaro hoti. Tenāha “āyasmā karavīkatissatthero ’samaṇo aya’nti vavatthānameva pamāṇa”nti.
Then, other monks who undertake the duty and lie down at night, not overcome by sleep, hear human sounds, drum sounds, cart or boat sounds, and suspect, “Is this the monks?” They consider it a break in the nights for this reason. Why? As it is said, “Hearing the sound of an umbrella, a cough, or a sneeze, he knows it is a visitor and must go and announce it. Even if known later, he must follow and announce it. If he cannot reach, there is only a break in the nights, not a dukkaṭa” (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 76). They should be convinced thus: Do not think so, venerables; this text is not stated regarding outside the boundary but within the vicinity boundary. As it is said there, “Those who enter the vicinity boundary without entering the monastery…” There too, a break in the nights occurs due to knowing a visitor, so there is no break merely from hearing a distant sound. Only knowing from one’s seated place, “This is the monks’ sound, this is the sound of drums or bells played by monks, this is the sound of carts or boats driven by monks,” causes a break in the nights. Hence it says, “The venerable Karavīka-Tissa considered ‘This is a monk’ as the criterion.”
Now, other monks, having undertaken the duties, lie down at night and due to sleepiness hear even the sound of humans, even the sound of drums etc., even the sound of carts, boats, and vehicles. They become anxious due to that sound, thinking, “Is this surely the sound of monks?” Because of that reason, they consider it a break of the night. Why? “And this one, having heard even the sound of an umbrella, or the sound of coughing, or the sound of sneezing, knows that it is an incoming monk; he should go and announce. Even if he knows when (the other monk) has arrived, he must still follow and announce. For one who is unable to reach (the other monk), there is only a break of the night, not the minor offense of breaking the duties” (Cūḷava. aṭṭha. 76), it is said. They should be informed thus: Do not, venerable sirs, think thus. This passage is not spoken with reference to those residing outside the boundary, but with reference to those residing within the boundary of the dwelling. For it is said there, “Even those who, without entering the inner monastery, have stepped onto the dwelling’s boundary and are going.” There also, since the state of being an incoming monk is known, there is a break of the night. Therefore, by merely hearing a sound from afar, there is no break of the night. “This is the sound of monks; this is the sound of drums, bells, etc., played by monks; this is the sound of carts, boats, etc., venerated by monks” – only by knowing from the place where one is sitting is there a cause for the break of the night. Therefore, he said, “The Venerable Karavīkatissatthera said, ‘The determination “this is a recluse” is the measure.’”
Furthermore, some monks, after undertaking the observance and lying down at night, hear human sounds, sounds of drums, or sounds of carts, boats, and vehicles due to their wakefulness. They suspect, “Is this the sound of monks?” and because of this, they think that the night has been cut. Why? Because there is no determination that it is the sound of monks. As stated in the commentary: “Even if one sees a monk crossing a river by boat, standing on the opposite shore, or traveling in the sky, or sees a monk standing far away on a mountain, plain, or forest, if there is a determination that it is a monk, one should go by boat or follow quickly with a loud sound and announce.” Thus, even if one sees a monk, the determination that it is a monk is the measure. However, if one determines a non-monk to be a monk, whether it is correct or not, what can be said? Many monks, suspecting this sight and sound, think, “At dawn, these two may occur, so the observance should be placed down before the time of people’s movement and sound-making,” and thus place down the observance even before the dawn has fully broken. This is inappropriate because it cuts the night.
ID1569
Divā dūre gacchantaṃ janakāyaṃ disvāpi “ime bhikkhū nu kho”ti parikappentā ratticchedaṃ maññanti, tampi akāraṇaṃ. Kasmā? “Bhikkhū”ti vavatthānassa abhāvā. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ “nadīādīsu nāvāya gacchantampi paratīre ṭhitampi ākāse gacchantampi pabbatathalaaraññādīsu dūre ṭhitampi bhikkhuṃ disvā sace ’bhikkhū’ti vavatthānaṃ atthi, nāvādīhi vā gantvā mahāsaddaṃ katvā vā vegena anubandhitvā vā ārocetabba”nti. Iti bhikkhuṃ disvāpi “bhikkhū”ti vavatthānameva pamāṇaṃ. Abhikkhuṃ pana “bhikkhū”ti vavatthāne santepi vā asantepi vā kiṃ vattabbaṃ atthi, bahavo pana bhikkhū idaṃ rūpadassanaṃ saddasavanañca āsaṅkantā “pabhāte sati taṃ dvayaṃ bhaveyya, tasmā manussānaṃ gamanakālasaddakaraṇakālato pubbeyeva vattaṃ nikkhipitabba”nti maññamānā anuggateyeva aruṇe vattaṃ nikkhipanti, tadayuttaṃ ratticchedattāti.
Seeing a crowd going far in the daytime and wondering, “Are these monks?” they also consider it a break in the nights, but this is baseless. Why? Due to the absence of determining “monks.” As it is said in the commentary, “Seeing a monk going by boat on a river, standing on the far shore, going in the sky, or standing far off in mountains, plains, or forests, if there is determination ‘monks,’ he must go by boat, make a loud noise, or quickly follow and announce” (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 76). Thus, even seeing a monk, determination “monks” is the criterion. What need be said of determining a non-monk as “monks” or not? Many monks, anxious about seeing forms or hearing sounds, think, “At dawn these might occur, so the duty should be abandoned before the time of human movement or sound-making,” and abandon it before dawn rises, which is improper due to a break in the nights.
Even seeing a group of people going far away during the day, they conjecture, “Are these surely monks?” and consider it a break of the night. That too is without reason. Why? Because there is no determination “Monks.” For it is said in the commentary, “Even seeing a monk going in a boat on a river etc., or standing on the opposite bank, or going in the sky, or standing far away on a mountain, a plateau, in a forest, etc., if there is the determination ‘Monks’, one should go by boat etc., or make a loud noise, or follow quickly and announce.” Thus, even seeing a monk, the determination “Monks” is the measure. But as for a non-monk, what is there to say whether there is or is not the determination “Monks”? However, many monks, becoming anxious about this seeing of forms and hearing of sounds, thinking, “When dawn comes, those two might occur. Therefore, the duties should be set aside before the time of humans’ going and making sounds,” set aside the duties even as the dawn is just breaking; that is inappropriate, (as it leads to) a break of the night.
During the day, even if one sees a group of people going far away and thinks, “Are these monks?” and considers the night cut, this is also without reason. Why? Because there is no determination that they are monks. As stated in the commentary: “Even if one sees a monk traveling by boat on a river, standing on the opposite shore, or traveling in the sky, or sees a monk standing far away on a mountain, plain, or forest, if there is a determination that it is a monk, one should go by boat or follow quickly with a loud sound and announce.” Thus, even if one sees a monk, the determination that it is a monk is the measure. However, if one determines a non-monk to be a monk, whether it is correct or not, what can be said? Many monks, suspecting this sight and sound, think, “At dawn, these two may occur, so the observance should be placed down before the time of people’s movement and sound-making,” and thus place down the observance even before the dawn has fully broken. This is inappropriate because it cuts the night.
ID1570
Atha pana vinayadharena “kittakā te āpattiyo, chādesi, kīvatīhaṃ paṭicchādesī”ti puṭṭho samāno “ahaṃ, bhante, āpattipariyantaṃ na jānāmi, rattipariyantaṃ na jānāmi, āpattipariyantaṃ nassarāmi, rattipariyantaṃ nassarāmi, āpattipariyante vematiko, rattipariyante vematiko”ti vutte “ayaṃ bhikkhu suddhantaparivāsāraho”ti ñatvā tassapi duvidhattā cūḷasuddhantamahāsuddhantavasena “tesu ayaṃ bhikkhu imassa araho”ti ñāpanatthaṃ upasampadato paṭṭhāya anulomakkamena vā ārocitadivasato paṭṭhāya paṭilomakkamena vā “kittakaṃ kālaṃ tvaṃ ārocanaāvikaraṇādivasena suddho”ti pucchitvā “āma bhante, ettakaṃ kālaṃ ahaṃ suddhomhī”ti vutte “ayaṃ bhikkhu ekaccaṃ rattipariyantaṃ jānāti, tasmā cūḷasuddhantāraho”ti ñatvā tassa suddhakālaṃ apanetvā asuddhakālavasena pariyantaṃ katvā cūḷasuddhantaparivāso dātabbo. Ayaṃ uddhampi ārohati, adhopi orohati. Yo pana anulomavasena vā paṭilomavasena vā pucchiyamāno “sakalampi rattipariyantaṃ ahaṃ na jānāmi nassarāmi, vematiko homī”ti vutte “ayaṃ bhikkhu sakalampi rattipariyantaṃ na jānāti, tasmā mahāsuddhantāraho”ti ñatvā tassa upasampadato paṭṭhāya yāva vattasamādānā ettakaṃ kālaṃ pariyantaṃ katvā mahāsuddhantaparivāso dātabbo. Uddhaṃārohanaadhoorohanabhāvo panesaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102) vuttoyeva. Ito parampi vidhānaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ āgatanayeneva daṭṭhabbaṃ.
Then, when asked by a Vinaya expert, “How many offenses? Did you conceal them? How long did you conceal them?” he says, “Venerable sir, I do not know the extent of the offenses or nights, I do not recall the extent of the offenses or nights, I am uncertain about the extent of the offenses or nights.” Knowing “This monk is eligible for a suddhanta probation,” and since it is twofold—minor suddhanta and major suddhanta—to determine “This monk is eligible for this,” he asks in forward order from ordination or reverse order from the announcement day, “How long were you pure by announcement or disclosure?” If he says, “Yes, venerable sir, I was pure for this long,” knowing “This monk knows some extent of nights, so he is eligible for minor suddhanta,” subtracting the pure time and fixing the extent by the impure time, a minor suddhanta probation is given. This extends upward and downward. But if asked forward or reverse and he says, “I do not know or recall the entire extent of nights, I am uncertain,” knowing “This monk does not know the entire extent of nights, so he is eligible for major suddhanta,” fixing the extent from ordination to undertaking the duty, a major suddhanta probation is given. Its upward extension and downward descent are stated in the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102). Beyond this, the procedure should be understood as stated in the commentary.
Now, when asked by the vinayadhara, “How many are your offenses? Have you concealed them? For how long have you concealed them?”, if he says, “Venerable sir, I do not know the extent of the offenses; I do not know the extent of the nights; I do not remember the extent of the offenses; I do not remember the extent of the nights; I am uncertain about the extent of the offenses; I am uncertain about the extent of the nights,” it is understood that “This monk is eligible for suddhantaparivāsa.” And since that too is of two kinds, cūḷasuddhanta and mahāsuddhanta, in order to indicate “This monk is eligible for this one of these,” he should be asked, either in forward order from the time of ordination or in reverse order from the day of announcement, “For how long a time were you pure through announcement, making known, etc.?” If he says, “Yes, venerable sir, for such a long time I was pure,” it is understood that “This monk knows the extent of the nights to some degree; therefore, he is eligible for cūḷasuddhantaparivāsa.” Excluding his pure time and determining the extent based on the impure time, cūḷasuddhantaparivāsa should be given. This ascends upwards and descends downwards. But when one who, being questioned in forward or reverse order, says, “I do not know, nor do I remember, the entire extent of the nights; I am uncertain,” it is understood that “This monk does not know the entire extent of the nights; therefore, he is eligible for mahāsuddhantaparivāsa.” Determining the extent from the time of his ordination up to undertaking the duties as such a long time, mahāsuddhantaparivāsa should be given. The nature of ascending upwards and descending downwards of these is stated in the commentary (Cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102). Further details beyond this should be understood as stated in the commentary.
Then, when a Vinaya expert is asked, “How many offenses have you concealed? For how many nights have you concealed them?” and he replies, “Venerable, I do not know the extent of the offenses, I do not know the extent of the nights, I do not remember the extent of the offenses, I do not remember the extent of the nights, I am uncertain about the extent of the offenses, I am uncertain about the extent of the nights,” knowing that “This monk is worthy of pure probation,” and due to his twofold nature, whether as minor pure probation or major pure probation, “This monk is worthy of this,” to indicate this, starting from the ordination or from the day of announcement, in forward or reverse order, he asks, “For how long have you been pure through announcement and disclosure?” and when the monk replies, “Yes, venerable, I have been pure for that long,” knowing that “This monk knows the extent of some nights, therefore he is worthy of minor pure probation,” he deducts the time of purity and sets the remainder as the period of impurity, and gives minor pure probation. This one ascends and descends. However, when asked in forward or reverse order, if the monk replies, “I do not know or remember the entire extent of the nights, I am uncertain,” knowing that “This monk does not know the entire extent of the nights, therefore he is worthy of major pure probation,” he sets the period from the ordination up to the undertaking of the observance as the limit and gives major pure probation. The nature of ascending and descending is as stated in the commentary (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 102). Beyond this, the procedure should be understood according to the method given in the commentary.
ID1571
Idāni pana bahavo bhikkhū “ayaṃ cūḷasuddhantāraho, ayaṃ mahāsuddhantāraho”ti avicinantā antokammavācāyaṃ “āpattipariyantaṃ na jānāti, rattipariyantaṃ na jānāti, āpattipariyantaṃ nassarati, rattipariyantaṃ nassarati, āpattipariyante vematiko, rattipariyante vematiko”ti avisesavacanameva manasi karontā “imāya kammavācāya dinnaṃ suddhantaparivāsaṃ gahetvā pañcāhamattaṃ vā dasāhamattaṃ vā parivasitvā apariyantarattipaṭicchāditāhi apariyantāhi āpattīhi mokkho hotī”ti maññantā pañcāhamattaṃ vā dasāhamattaṃ vā parivasitvā mānattaṃ yācanti, evaṃ karontā te bhikkhū sahassakkhattuṃ parivasantāpi āpattito na mucceyyuṃ. Kasmāti ce? Pāḷiyā ca aṭṭhakathāya ca virujjhanato. Vuttañhi pāḷiyaṃ (pārā. 442) “yāvatīhaṃ jānaṃ paṭicchādeti, tāvatīhaṃ tena bhikkhunā akāmā parivatthabbaṃ. Parivutthaparivāsena bhikkhunā uttari chārattaṃ bhikkhumānattāya paṭipajjitabbaṃ. Ciṇṇamānatto bhikkhu yattha siyā vīsatigaṇo bhikkhusaṅgho, tattha so bhikkhu abbhetabbo”ti, tasmā paṭicchannadivasamattaṃ aparivasitvā mānattāraho nāma na hoti, amānattārahassa mānattadānaṃ na ruhati, aciṇṇamānatto abbhānāraho na hoti, anabbhānārahassa abbhānaṃ na ruhati, anabbhito bhikkhu āpattimutto pakatatto na hotīti ayamettha bhagavato adhippāyo.
Nowadays, many monks, without discerning “This is eligible for minor suddhanta, this for major suddhanta,” focus only on the formal act’s general statement, “He does not know the extent of offenses or nights, does not recall them, is uncertain about them,” thinking, “Taking the suddhanta probation given by this formal act, dwelling for five or ten days frees one from boundless concealed offenses of boundless nights.” Dwelling for five or ten days, they request mānatta. Even dwelling a thousand times, they would not be freed from offenses. Why? Due to contradicting the text and commentary. As it is said in the text (pārā. 442), “For as many days he knowingly conceals, for that many days that monk must unwillingly undergo probation. After completing probation, he must observe mānatta for six more nights. A monk who has completed mānatta must be rehabilitated where there is a community of twenty monks.” Thus, without dwelling the number of concealed days, one is not eligible for mānatta; giving mānatta to one ineligible does not hold; one who has not completed mānatta is not eligible for rehabilitation; rehabilitation of one ineligible does not hold; an unrehabilitated monk is not freed from offenses and restored—this is the Blessed One’s intention here.
Now, however, many monks, without discerning, “This one is eligible for cūḷasuddhantaparivāsa; this one is eligible for mahāsuddhantaparivāsa,” focusing only on the undifferentiated statement in the inner kammavācā, “He does not know the extent of the offenses; he does not know the extent of the nights; he does not remember the extent of the offenses; he does not remember the extent of the nights; he is uncertain about the extent of the offenses; he is uncertain about the extent of the nights,” thinking, “Having taken the suddhantaparivāsa given by this kammavācā, after undergoing parivāsa for about five days or ten days, release from immeasurable offenses concealed for an immeasurable number of nights occurs,” undergo parivāsa for about five days or ten days and then request mānatta. Those monks, acting thus, even undergoing parivāsa a thousand times, would not be released from the offense. If asked why, it is because it contradicts both the Pāḷi and the commentary. For it is said in the Pāḷi (Pārā. 442), “For as many days as he knowingly conceals, for so many days that monk must unwillingly undergo parivāsa. The monk who has completed the parivāsa must further undertake the six-day mānatta for the monks. Where there is a saṅgha of twenty monks, there that monk should be rehabilitated.” Therefore, one does not become eligible for mānatta without undergoing parivāsa for the number of days concealed. The giving of mānatta does not apply to one who is ineligible for mānatta. One who has not completed mānatta is not eligible for rehabilitation. Rehabilitation does not apply to one who is ineligible for rehabilitation. A monk who is not rehabilitated is not a pakatatta monk, released from the offense. This is the intention of the Blessed One here.
Now, many monks, without discerning, “This one is worthy of minor pure probation, this one is worthy of major pure probation,” during the legal procedure, pay attention only to the general statement, “He does not know the extent of the offenses, he does not know the extent of the nights, he does not remember the extent of the offenses, he does not remember the extent of the nights, he is uncertain about the extent of the offenses, he is uncertain about the extent of the nights,” and think, “Having received the pure probation given by this legal procedure, after observing probation for five days or ten days, one is freed from offenses with unlimited nights and unlimited concealment,” and after observing probation for five days or ten days, they request the mānatta. Acting in this way, even if these monks observe probation a thousand times, they will not be freed from the offenses. Why? Because it contradicts the Pāli and the commentary. As stated in the Pāli (Pārājika 442): “For as long as he knowingly conceals, for that long the monk must unwillingly undergo probation. Having undergone probation, the monk must practice mānatta for a further six days. Having completed the mānatta, the monk must be rehabilitated wherever there is a group of twenty monks.” Therefore, one who has not observed probation for the duration of the concealed days is not worthy of mānatta. Giving mānatta to one who is not worthy of mānatta is not valid. One who has not completed the mānatta is not worthy of rehabilitation. Giving rehabilitation to one who is not worthy of rehabilitation is not valid. A monk who has not been rehabilitated is not freed from the offense and is not a regular monk. This is the intention of the Blessed One here.
ID1572
Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102) pana cūḷasuddhante “taṃ gahetvā parivasantena yattakaṃ kālaṃ attano suddhiṃ jānāti, tattakaṃ apanetvā avasesaṃ māsaṃ vā dvimāsaṃ vā parivasitabba”nti, mahāsuddhante “taṃ gahetvā gahitadivasato yāva upasampadadivaso, tāva rattiyo gaṇetvā parivasitabba”nti vuttaṃ, tasmā paṭicchannarattippamāṇaṃ parivasantoyeva mānattāraho hoti, na pañcāhadasāharattippamāṇamattaṃ parivasantoti ayaṃ aṭṭhakathācariyānaṃ adhippāyo. Teneva ca kāraṇena desanāārocanādīhi sabbakālaṃ āpattiṃ sodhetvā vasantānaṃ lajjīpesalānaṃ sikkhākāmānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ suddhantaparivāsaṃ dātuṃ ayuttarūpo, desanāārocanādīhi āpattiṃ asodhetvā pamādavasena cirakālaṃ vasantānaṃ janapadavāsikādīnaṃ dātuṃ yuttarūpoti veditabbaṃ. Etthāpi avasesavinicchayo aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttanayeneva veditabbo.
In the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102), for minor suddhanta, “Taking it and dwelling, subtract the time he knows he was pure and dwell the remainder—a month or two.” For major suddhanta, “Taking it, count the nights from the day it was taken back to ordination and dwell that long.” Thus, only dwelling the extent of concealed nights makes one eligible for mānatta, not merely five or ten nights—this is the intention of the commentary teachers. For this reason, giving suddhanta probation to conscientious, virtuous monks eager for training who purify offenses by confession or announcement all the time is inappropriate; it is appropriate for those in rural areas who, due to negligence, dwell long without purifying offenses by confession or announcement.
However, in the commentary (Cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102), in the case of cūḷasuddhanta, it is said, “Taking that, while undergoing parivāsa, whatever time he knows his purity, excluding that, he should undergo parivāsa for the remaining month or two months.” In the case of mahāsuddhanta, it is said, “Taking that, counting the nights from the day of taking it up to the day of ordination, he should undergo parivāsa.” Therefore, only one undergoing parivāsa for the extent of the concealed nights is eligible for mānatta, not one undergoing parivāsa for merely five, ten, or fifteen days. This is the intention of the commentary teachers. And for that very reason, giving suddhantaparivāsa is inappropriate for monks who are scrupulous, conscientious, and desirous of training, who always purify their offenses through confession, announcement, etc. It should be understood that it is appropriate to give it to village-dwelling monks etc., who, through negligence, do not purify their offenses through confession, announcement, etc., and dwell for a long time. Here too, the remaining determination should be understood as stated in the commentary.
In the commentary (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 102), regarding minor pure probation, it is said: “Having taken it, one should observe probation for the remaining month or two months after deducting the time one knows oneself to be pure.” Regarding major pure probation, it is said: “Having taken it, one should observe probation by counting the nights from the day it was taken up to the day of ordination.” Therefore, one who observes probation for the duration of the concealed nights is worthy of mānatta, not one who observes probation for only five or ten days. This is the intention of the commentary teachers. For this reason, it is not appropriate to give pure probation to monks who are conscientious, desirous of training, and who purify their offenses through confession and announcement at all times. It is appropriate to give it to village-dwelling monks who, due to negligence, have lived for a long time without purifying their offenses through confession and announcement. Here too, the remaining decisions should be understood according to the method given in the commentary.
ID1573
Atha pana vinayadharena “tvaṃ, āvuso, kataraāpattiṃ āpanno, kati rattiyo te chāditā”ti puṭṭho “ahaṃ, bhante, saṅghādisesaṃ āpattiṃ āpajjitvā pakkhamattaṃ paṭicchāditā, tenāhaṃ saṅghaṃ pakkhaparivāsaṃ yācitvā saṅghena dinne pakkhaparivāse parivasitvā anikkhittavattova hutvā antarā saṅghādisesāpattiṃ āpajjitvā pañcāhamattaṃ chāditā”ti vutte “ayaṃ bhikkhu samodhānaparivāsāraho, tīsu ca samodhānaparivāsesu odhānasamodhānāraho”ti ñatvā “tena hi bhikkhu tvaṃ mūlāyapaṭikassanāraho”ti vatvā taṃ mūlāya paṭikassitvā parivutthadivase adivase katvā antarā paṭicchanne pañca divase mūlāpattiyā paṭicchannesu divasesu samodhānetvā odhānasamodhāno dātabbo. Ito parāni odhānasamodhāne vattabbavacanāni pāḷiyaṃ aṭṭhakathāyañca vuttanayeneva veditabbāni.
Then, when asked by a Vinaya expert, “Friend, which offense did you commit? How many nights did you conceal?” he says, “Venerable sir, I committed a saṅghādisesa offense and concealed it for half a month. Thus, I requested a half-month probation from the community, dwelt it as given, but without abandoning the duty, I committed another saṅghādisesa offense midway and concealed it for five days.” Knowing “This monk is eligible for a combined probation, and among the three combined probations, he is eligible for a simple combined one,” saying, “Then, monk, you are eligible for restoration to the root,” he restores him to the root. Counting the days dwelt and the five concealed days midway, combining them with the days concealed by the root offense, a simple combined probation is given. Beyond this, the statements for a simple combined probation should be understood as stated in the text and commentary.
Now, when asked by the vinayadhara, “Friend, what offense have you committed? How many nights have you concealed it?”, if he says, “Venerable sir, having committed a saṅghādisesa offense, I concealed it for half a month. Therefore, having requested pakkaparivāsa (half-month parivāsa) from the saṅgha, and having undergone the pakkaparivāsa given by the saṅgha, without having set aside the duties, I committed another saṅghādisesa offense and concealed it for about five days,” it is understood that, “This monk is eligible for samodhānaparivāsa, and among the three samodhānaparivāsas, he is eligible for odhānasamodhāna”. Therefore, saying, “Then, monk, you are eligible for mūlāyapaṭikassanā”, having him revert to the beginning, making the days of the completed parivāsa non-days, combining the five days concealed in between with the days concealed for the original offense, odhānasamodhāna should be given. The words to be spoken in odhānasamodhāna beyond this should be understood as stated in the Pāḷi and the commentary.
Then, when a Vinaya expert is asked, “Friend, what offense have you committed? For how many nights have you concealed it?” and he replies, “Venerable, I committed a saṅghādisesa offense and concealed it for about a fortnight. Therefore, I requested the Saṅha for a fortnight’s probation, and having been given the fortnight’s probation by the Saṅha, I observed it without placing down the observance, and in the meantime, I committed another saṅghādisesa offense and concealed it for about five days,” knowing that “This monk is worthy of combined probation, and among the three types of combined probation, he is worthy of concealment-combined probation,” he says, “Therefore, monk, you are worthy of being sent back to the beginning,” and sends him back to the beginning. On the day after completing the probation, he combines the five concealed days in the middle with the concealed days of the original offense and gives concealment-combined probation. Beyond this, what should be said regarding concealment-combined probation should be understood according to the method given in the Pāli and the commentary.
ID1574
Atha pana vinayadharena puṭṭho “ahaṃ, bhante, sambahulā saṅghādisesā āpattiyo āpajjiṃ, sambahulā āpattiyo ekāhappaṭicchannāyo…pe… sambahulā āpattiyo dasāhappaṭicchannāyo”ti vutte “ayaṃ bhikkhu agghasamodhānāraho”ti ñatvā tāsaṃ āpattīnaṃ yā āpattiyo ciratarappaṭicchannāyo, tāsaṃ agghena samodhānaparivāso dātabbo. Tatrevaṃ vadanti – “yā āpattiyo ciratarappaṭicchannāyo, tāsaṃ agghena samodhānaparivāso dātabbo”ti vutto, evaṃ sante pakkhappaṭicchannamāsappaṭicchannādīsu kathanti? Tesupi “yā āpattiyo pakkhappaṭicchannāyo, yā āpattiyo māsappaṭicchannāyo”ti vattabboti. Yadi evaṃ pāḷivirodho āpajjati. Pāḷiyañhi dasāhappaṭicchannapariyosānā eva āpatti dassitā, na pakkhappaṭicchannamāsappaṭicchannādayoti? Saccaṃ, pāḷiyaṃ tathādassanaṃ pana nayadassanamattaṃ. Tathā hi vuttaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102) “pañcadasa divasāni paṭicchannāya ’pakkhappaṭicchanna’nti vatvā yojanā kātabbā…pe… evaṃ yāva saṭṭhisaṃvaccharaṃ, atirekasaṭṭhisaṃvaccharappaṭicchannanti vā tato vā bhiyyopi vatvā yojanā kātabbā”ti. Mahāpadumattherenapi vuttaṃ “ayaṃ samuccayakkhandhako nāma buddhānaṃ ṭhitakālasadiso, āpatti nāma paṭicchannā vā hotu appaṭicchannā vā samakaūnataraatirekappaṭicchannā vā, vinayadharassa kammavācaṃ yojetuṃ samatthabhāvoyevettha pamāṇa”nti, tasmā pakkhappaṭicchannādīnaṃ kammavācākaraṇe kukkuccaṃ na kātabbanti.
Then, when a monk learned in the Vinaya is asked, “Venerable sir, I have committed several Saṅghādisesa offenses: several offenses concealed for one day… up to… several offenses concealed for ten days,” and he says, “This monk is worthy of penance based on the aggregate value,” knowing this, a penance of combined duration should be given based on the value of those offenses that were concealed for the longest time. They say there, “A penance of combined duration should be given based on the value of those offenses concealed for the longest time.” If so, how should it be explained regarding offenses concealed for a fortnight, a month, etc.? It should be said of them too, “Those offenses concealed for a fortnight, those offenses concealed for a month.” If that is the case, doesn’t it contradict the Pāli text? For in the Pāli, only offenses ending with those concealed for ten days are shown, not those concealed for a fortnight or a month, etc. True, but the showing in the Pāli text is merely a matter of method. Indeed, it is said in the commentary (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 102), “Having said ‘concealed for fifteen days’ as ‘pakkhappaṭicchanna,’ it should be applied… up to sixty years, or even more than sixty years of concealment, and it should be applied accordingly.” The Elder Mahāpaduma also said, “This aggregate section is like the duration of the Buddhas’ existence; whether an offense is concealed or unconcealed, or concealed for an equal, lesser, or greater time, the measure here is simply the ability of the Vinaya expert to formulate the formal act.” Therefore, one should not have any scruple about performing the formal act for offenses concealed for a fortnight, etc.
Then, if questioned by a Vinaya expert, and he says, “Venerable sir, I have committed several saṅghādisesa offenses, some concealed for one day… up to… some offenses concealed for ten days,” knowing that “this bhikkhu is worthy of a consolidated penalty based on the longest duration,” the consolidated parivāsa penalty should be given based on the aggha (greatest duration) of those offenses which have been concealed for the longest time. Regarding this, they say – “It has been said that the consolidated parivāsa penalty should be given based on the aggha of those offenses concealed for the longest time.” If this is so, what about cases of offenses concealed for half a month, a month, and so on? Even in those cases, it should be stated, “Those offenses concealed for half a month, those offenses concealed for a month.” If this is the case, wouldn’t it be contradictory with the Pāḷi? Because in the Pāḷi, only offenses up to those concealed for ten days are shown, not those concealed for half a month, a month, and so on? It is true, but that demonstration in the Pāḷi is just a demonstration of method. For example, it’s said in the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102): “For an offense concealed for fifteen days, one should employ ‘concealed for half a month’ … up to… thus up to sixty years, or an excess of sixty years concealed, or even beyond that, the application should be made.” The elder Mahāpaduma also said, “This samuccayakkhandhaka is like the lifespan of the Buddhas. Whether an offense is concealed or unconcealed, equally, less, or excessively concealed, the competence of the Vinaya expert to determine the formal act (kammavāca) is the standard in this case,” therefore, one should not doubt performing the formal act (kammavāca) for offenses concealed for half a month, and so on.
Then, when questioned by a Vinaya expert, if a monk says, “Venerable, I have committed several Saṅghādisesa offenses, some concealed for a day… some concealed for ten days,” knowing that “this monk deserves a combined probation based on the most severe offense,” probation should be given according to the severity of the offenses that were concealed for the longest period. Here, it is said, “For offenses concealed for the longest period, probation should be given based on the severity.” If this is so, how should one proceed in cases of offenses concealed for a fortnight or a month? In such cases, it should be stated, “For offenses concealed for a fortnight, for offenses concealed for a month.” If this is done, would it not contradict the Pāli? For in the Pāli, offenses are only mentioned up to those concealed for ten days, not those concealed for a fortnight or a month. True, the Pāli does not explicitly mention them, but this is only a matter of interpretation. As stated in the commentary (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 102), “For offenses concealed for fifteen days, they should be termed ‘concealed for a fortnight’ and dealt with accordingly… up to sixty years, or even beyond sixty years, they should be termed ‘concealed for over sixty years’ and dealt with accordingly.” The Elder Mahāpaduma also said, “This chapter on combined offenses is like the time of the Buddha’s presence. Whether an offense is concealed or unconcealed, or concealed for a shorter or longer period, the Vinaya expert is capable of applying the appropriate legal procedure.” Therefore, there should be no hesitation in applying the legal procedure for offenses concealed for a fortnight or longer.
ID1575
Hotu, evampi pakkhappaṭicchannaṃ pariyantaṃ katvā katāya kammavācāya tato uddhaṃ āpatti natthīti kathaṃ jāneyyāti? Idāni sikkhākāmā bhikkhū devasikampi desanārocanāvikaraṇāni karonti ekāhikadvīhikādivasenapi, kiccapasutā hutvā tathā asakkontāpi uposathadivasaṃ nātikkamanti, gilānādivasena tadatikkantāpi atikkantabhāvaṃ jānanti, tasmā tadatikkantabhāve sati atirekapakkhappaṭicchannamāsappaṭicchannādivasena vaḍḍhetvā kammavācaṃ kareyya, tadatikkantabhāve pana asati pakkhappaṭicchannapariyantā hoti, tasmā pakkhapariyantakammavācākaraṇaṃ ñāyāgataṃ hotīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
Granted, but even so, having set a limit at offenses concealed for a fortnight and performed the formal act, how would one know that there are no offenses beyond that? Nowadays, monks desiring training confess and declare even daily, or for one day, two days, etc., and even if they cannot do so due to being busy with Duties, they do not exceed the Uposatha day. Even if they exceed it due to illness or other reasons, they know they have exceeded it. Therefore, if they have exceeded it, they should perform the formal act by increasing it according to a fortnight, month, etc., of additional concealment. But if they have not exceeded it, it remains limited to concealment for a fortnight. Thus, performing the formal act limited to a fortnight should be seen as consistent with the method.
Be it so, even then, how to know that by conducting formal act (kammavāca) limiting it to the concealment for half a month, there are no further offenses? Currently, diligent bhikkhus declare and review (offenses) daily and perform (confession) every one or two days. Even when unable due to being occupied with duties, they do not go beyond the Uposatha day. Even when the day is exceeded because of illness, they know the exceeding, therefore, when it is exceeded, the formal act should be done by extending to exceed half a month, a month, and so on. If there is no such excess, then it is limited to half a month’s concealment. Therefore, conducting formal act (kammavāca) limited to half a month is considered appropriate.
Granted, but if probation is given based on offenses concealed for a fortnight, how can one know that no further offenses have been committed beyond that period? Nowadays, monks who are eager to train perform confession and disclosure daily, even on busy days when they are unable to do so, they do not miss the Uposatha day. If they miss it due to illness or other reasons, they are aware of having missed it. Therefore, if the period has been exceeded, probation should be extended by adding the extra days of concealment beyond a fortnight or a month. If the period has not been exceeded, probation should be limited to the fortnight. Thus, it is proper to give probation limited to a fortnight.
ID1576
Evaṃ hotu, tathāpi yadetaṃ “sambahulā āpattiyo ekāhappaṭicchannāyo…pe… sambahulā āpattiyo pakkhappaṭicchannāyo”ti vuttaṃ, tattha imināyeva anukkamena mayā paṭicchāditā āpattiyo hontīti kathaṃ jāneyya, ajānane ca sati “yā ca khvāyaṃ, āvuso, āpatti ajānappaṭicchannā, adhammikaṃ tassā āpattiyā parivāsadānaṃ, adhammattā na ruhatī”ti idaṃ āpajjatīti? Nāpajjati. Tattha hi āpattiyā āpannabhāvaṃ ajānanto hutvā paṭicchādeti, tasmā “āpatti ca hoti āpattisaññī cā”ti vuttaāpattisaññitābhāvā appaṭicchannameva hoti, tasmā appaṭicchannāya āpattiyā parivāsadānaṃ adhammikaṃ hoti. Idha pana “ettakā rattiyo mayā chāditā”ti channakālameva na jānāti, tadajānabhāve satipi parivāsadānaṃ ruhati. Teneva ca kāraṇena suddhantaparivāse (cūḷava. 156-157) “āpattipariyantaṃ na jānāti, rattipariyantaṃ na jānāti, āpattipariyantaṃ nassarati, rattipariyantaṃ nassarati, āpattipariyante vematiko, rattipariyante vematiko”ti rattipariyantassa ajānanaasaraṇavematikabhāve satipi parivāsadānaṃ vuttaṃ, tasmā chāditakālaṃ tathato ajānantopi “sambahulā āpattiyo ekāhappaṭicchannāyo…pe… sambahulā āpattiyo pakkhappaṭicchannāyo”ti ettha appaviṭṭhassa abhāvā sampajjatiyevāti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
Even so, regarding what was said, “several offenses concealed for one day… up to… several offenses concealed for a fortnight,” how would one know that these are the offenses concealed by me in this very sequence? And if one does not know, doesn’t it lead to this: “Friend, for an offense concealed unknowingly, giving penance for that offense is unrighteous, and because it is unrighteous, it does not hold”? It does not lead to that. For there, one conceals an offense without knowing its committed state, so due to the absence of the perception of an offense as stated, “There is an offense and he perceives it as an offense,” it is not concealed at all. Thus, giving penance for an unconcealed offense is unrighteous. Here, however, one does not know only the duration of concealment, saying, “I concealed it for this many nights,” yet even in that state of ignorance, giving penance holds. For that very reason, in the case of pure penance (Cūḷavagga 156-157), it is said, “He does not know the extent of the offense, he does not know the extent of the nights, he does not recall the extent of the offense, he does not recall the extent of the nights, he is doubtful about the extent of the offense, he is doubtful about the extent of the nights,” and even in the state of ignorance, non-recollection, or doubt about the extent of the nights, giving penance is stated. Therefore, even if one does not truly know the duration of concealment, regarding “several offenses concealed for one day… up to… several offenses concealed for a fortnight,” it should be seen as succeeding due to the absence of anything not included.
Be it so, yet, regarding that which has been stated, “several offenses concealed for one day… up to… several offenses concealed for half a month”, how can he know if the offenses were concealed by himself in this very order? And if he does not know, this will happen: “And regarding that offense, friend, which is unknowingly concealed, the giving of parivāsa for that offense is unlawful and, because it’s unlawful, does not stand.” That does not happen. Because here he conceals without knowing of having committed that offense, therefore because there is no consciousness of the offense, as described in the text, “there is the offense and consciousness of the offense”, it is unconcealed. Thus, giving parivāsa for an unconcealed offense is unlawful. But here, he doesn’t know the concealed period, as in “I have concealed for so many nights.” Even though he doesn’t know, the granting of parivāsa is valid. And for the same reason, concerning complete parivāsa (cūḷava. 156-157), it is said “he does not know the extent of the offense, he does not know the extent of the nights, he does not remember the extent of the offense, he does not remember the extent of the nights, he is uncertain about the extent of the offense, he is uncertain about the extent of the nights”, even though he doesn’t know, doesn’t remember and is uncertain of the extent of the nights, granting parivāsa is stated. Therefore, even not knowing exactly the period of concealment, it should be understood that there is no inclusion within the statement “several offenses concealed for one day… up to… several offenses concealed for half a month” and (the practice) therefore works.
So be it, but when it is said, “Several offenses concealed for a day… several offenses concealed for a fortnight,” how can one know that the offenses were concealed in this sequence? If one does not know, would it not lead to the conclusion, “Friend, this offense was concealed unknowingly, and giving probation for such an offense is improper and invalid”? It would not. For here, one conceals the offense without knowing that it has been committed. Therefore, it is said, “The offense exists, and one is aware of it.” If there is no awareness of the offense, it is simply unconcealed. Thus, giving probation for an unconcealed offense is improper. Here, however, even if one does not know the exact period of concealment, probation is still valid. For this reason, in the case of pure probation (Cūḷava. 156-157), it is said, “If one does not know the extent of the offense, does not remember the extent of the offense, is doubtful about the extent of the offense, or is doubtful about the extent of the days, probation is still given.” Therefore, even if one does not know the exact period of concealment, it is still valid to say, “Several offenses concealed for a day… several offenses concealed for a fortnight,” as there is no contradiction.
ID1577
Athāpi evaṃ vadeyyuṃ – “sambahulā āpattiyo ekāhappaṭicchannāyo…pe… sambahulā āpattiyo pakkhappaṭicchannāyo”ti vutte tesu divasesu āpattiyo atthi paṭicchannāyopi, atthi appaṭicchannāyopi, atthi cirappaṭicchannāyopi, atthi acirappaṭicchannāyopi, atthi ekāpi, atthi sambahulāpi, sabbā tā āpattiyo eteneva padena saṅgahitā siyunti? Saṅgahitā eva. Na hettha saṃsayo kātabbo. Vuttañhetaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102) “aññasmiṃ pana āpattivuṭṭhāne idaṃ lakkhaṇaṃ – yo appaṭicchannaṃ āpattiṃ ’paṭicchannā’ti vinayakammaṃ karoti, tassa āpatti vuṭṭhāti. Yo paṭicchannaṃ ’appaṭicchannā’ti vinayakammaṃ karoti, tassa na vuṭṭhāti. Acirappaṭicchannaṃ ’cirappaṭicchannā’ti karontassapi vuṭṭhāti, cirappaṭicchannaṃ ’acirappaṭicchannā’ti karontassa na vuṭṭhāti. Ekaṃ āpattiṃ āpajjitvā ’sambahulā’ti karontassapi vuṭṭhāti ekaṃ vinā sambahulānaṃ abhāvato. Sambahulā pana āpajjitvā ’ekaṃ āpajji’nti karontassa na vuṭṭhātī”ti, tasmā etehi padehi sabbāsaṃ paṭicchannāpattīnaṃ saṅgahitattā tāhi āpattīhi vuṭṭhānaṃ sambhavatīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
Now, some might say, “When it is said, ‘several offenses concealed for one day… up to… several offenses concealed for a fortnight,’ among those days there are offenses that are concealed, some that are unconcealed, some concealed for a long time, some concealed for a short time, some single, and some multiple—would all those offenses be included by this very phrase?” They are indeed included. No doubt should be raised here. It is said in the commentary (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 102), “But in another case of emerging from an offense, this is the characteristic: For one who performs a disciplinary act saying an unconcealed offense is ‘concealed,’ the offense is cleared. For one who performs a disciplinary act saying a concealed offense is ‘unconcealed,’ it is not cleared. For one who performs it saying a shortly concealed offense is ‘long concealed,’ it is cleared; for one who performs it saying a long-concealed offense is ‘shortly concealed,’ it is not cleared. For one who, having committed a single offense, performs it saying ‘several,’ it is cleared due to the absence of several apart from one. But for one who, having committed several, performs it saying ‘one,’ it is not cleared.” Therefore, since all concealed offenses are included by these phrases, it should be seen that emerging from those offenses is possible.
Or else, they might say this – “When it is said, ‘several offenses concealed for one day… up to… several offenses concealed for half a month’, on those days there are offenses that are concealed, and there are also those that are unconcealed; there are those that are concealed for a long time, and there are also those that are concealed for a short time; there may be only one, and there may be many; all those offenses might be included in this very phrase?” They are indeed included. No doubt should be made here. This has been stated in the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102): “On the other hand, at the arising of an offense, this is the characteristic – one who performs a Vinaya procedure for an unconcealed offense, thinking ‘it is concealed’, has arisen from that offense. One who performs a Vinaya procedure for a concealed offense, thinking ‘it is unconcealed’, has not arisen. One who performs a procedure for a shortly concealed offense, thinking ‘it is long concealed’, has also arisen. One who performs a procedure for a long concealed offense, thinking ‘it is shortly concealed’, has not arisen. One who commits one offense, thinking ‘they are many’, has also arisen, because without one, many cannot exist. One who commits many offenses, thinking ‘I committed one’, has not arisen.” Therefore, it should be understood that, because all the concealed offenses are included by these phrases, arising from those offenses is possible.
Furthermore, one might say, “When it is said, ‘Several offenses concealed for a day… several offenses concealed for a fortnight,’ among those days, some offenses may be concealed, some unconcealed, some concealed for a long time, some for a short time, some single, some multiple. Are all these offenses included under this term?” They are indeed included. There should be no doubt about this. As stated in the commentary (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 102), “In other cases of offense resolution, this is the characteristic: if one performs a Vinaya procedure for an unconcealed offense, thinking it is concealed, the offense is resolved. If one performs a Vinaya procedure for a concealed offense, thinking it is unconcealed, it is not resolved. If one treats an offense concealed for a short time as if it were concealed for a long time, it is resolved. If one treats an offense concealed for a long time as if it were concealed for a short time, it is not resolved. If one commits a single offense but treats it as multiple, it is resolved, as there is no multiplicity in a single offense. If one commits multiple offenses but treats them as a single offense, it is not resolved.” Therefore, since all concealed offenses are included under these terms, it is understood that resolution is possible for all such offenses.
ID1578
Atha pana vinayadharena puṭṭho “ahaṃ, bhante, sambahulā saṅghādisesā āpattiyo āpajjiṃ ekaṃ sukkavissaṭṭhiṃ, ekaṃ kāyasaṃsaggaṃ, ekaṃ duṭṭhullavācaṃ, ekaṃ attakāmaṃ, ekaṃ sañcarittaṃ, ekaṃ kuṭikāraṃ, ekaṃ vihārakāraṃ, ekaṃ duṭṭhadosaṃ, ekaṃ aññabhāgiyaṃ, ekaṃ saṅghabhedaṃ, ekaṃ bhedānuvattakaṃ, ekaṃ dubbacaṃ, ekaṃ kuladūsaka”nti vutte “ayaṃ bhikkhu missakasamodhānaparivāsāraho”ti ñatvā aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102) āgatanayena parivāso dātabbo. Etthāha – agghasamodhānamissakasamodhānānaṃ ko viseso, kiṃ nānākaraṇanti? Vuccate – agghasamodhānaparivāso acirappaṭicchannā āpattiyo cirappaṭicchannāyaṃ āpattiyaṃ samodhānetvā tassā cirappaṭicchannāya āpattiyā agghavasena dīyati, missakasamodhānaparivāso nānāvatthukā āpattiyo samodhānetvā tāsaṃ missakavasena dīyati, ayametesaṃ viseso. Atha vā agghasamodhāno sabhāgavatthūnaṃ āpattīnaṃ samodhānavasena hoti, itaro visabhāgavatthūnanti ācariyā. Tenevāha ācariyavajirabuddhitthero (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 102) “agghasamodhāno nāma sabhāgavatthukāyo sambahulā āpattiyo āpannassa bahurattiṃ paṭicchāditāpattiyaṃ nikkhipitvā dātabbo, itaro nānāvatthukānaṃ vasenāti ayametesaṃ viseso”ti.
Then, when a monk learned in the Vinaya is asked, “Venerable sir, I have committed several Saṅghādisesa offenses: one of seminal emission, one of physical contact, one of lewd speech, one of self-desire, one of matchmaking, one of hut-building, one of monastery-building, one of malicious intent, one of factionalism, one of schism, one of supporting schism, one of obstinacy, one of corrupting families,” and he says, “This monk is worthy of a mixed penance,” knowing this, penance should be given according to the method stated in the commentary (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 102). Here it is asked: What is the difference between penance based on aggregate value and mixed penance, and what distinguishes them? It is said: Penance based on aggregate value is given by combining shortly concealed offenses with a long-concealed offense, based on the value of that long-concealed offense. Mixed penance is given by combining offenses of different bases, based on their mixed nature—this is their difference. Alternatively, teachers say that penance based on aggregate value pertains to combining offenses of similar bases, while the other pertains to dissimilar bases. Hence, the Elder Vajirabuddhi says (Vajiraṭīkā Cūḷavagga 102), “‘Agghasamodhāno’ means it should be given to one who has committed several offenses of similar bases, placing them in an offense concealed for many nights, while the other is based on dissimilar bases—this is their difference.”
And if, questioned by a Vinaya expert, he says, “Venerable sir, I have committed several saṅghādisesa offenses: one emission of semen, one physical contact, one offensive speech, one praise of one’s own services, one acting as a go-between, one construction of a hut, one construction of a dwelling, one making a malicious accusation, one misinterpreting a legal issue, one causing a schism in the Sangha, one supporting a schismatic, one being difficult to speak to, one corrupting families,” knowing that “this bhikkhu is worthy of a mixed consolidated parivāsa,” the parivāsa should be given according to the method presented in the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102). Here, he asks – what is the difference, what is the distinction, between the aggha (greatest duration) consolidated parivāsa and the mixed consolidated parivāsa? It is said – the aggha consolidated parivāsa is given by merging shortly concealed offenses into the offense concealed for the longest time, based on the aggha (greatest duration) of that offense concealed for the longest time. The mixed consolidated parivāsa is given by merging offenses of different bases, based on their being mixed. This is their difference. Or else, the aggha consolidation is for offenses of the same base, the other is for those of different bases, according to the teachers. Therefore, the teacher Venerable Vajirabuddhi said (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 102): “agghasamodhāna (aggha consolidation) means, for one who has committed many offenses of the same base, that it should be given by laying (the shorter concealments) into the offense concealed for many nights; the other is based on different bases, that is their difference.”
Then, when questioned by a Vinaya expert, if a monk says, “Venerable, I have committed several Saṅghādisesa offenses: one of emitting semen, one of physical contact, one of lewd speech, one of self-pleasure, one of acting as a go-between, one of building a hut, one of building a monastery, one of malice, one of belonging to another group, one of causing schism in the Saṅgha, one of following a schismatic, one of being difficult to correct, one of corrupting families,” knowing that “this monk deserves combined probation,” probation should be given according to the method described in the commentary (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 102). Here, one might ask, “What is the difference between probation based on severity and combined probation? What is the distinction?” It is said: Probation based on severity is given by combining offenses concealed for a short time with those concealed for a long time, giving probation according to the severity of the offense concealed for the longest period. Combined probation is given by combining offenses of different natures, giving probation according to their combined nature. This is the difference. Alternatively, probation based on severity is for offenses of the same nature, while combined probation is for offenses of different natures, as stated by the teachers. Therefore, the Elder Ācariya Vajirabuddhi (Vajira. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 102) said, “Probation based on severity is given by setting aside offenses concealed for many nights and giving probation for the most severe offense. Combined probation is given for offenses of different natures. This is the difference between them.”
ID1579
Atha siyā “evaṃ cirappaṭicchannāyo ca acirappaṭicchannāyo ca nānāvatthukāyo āpattiyo āpajjantassa ko parivāso dātabbo agghasamodhāno vā missakasamodhāno vā, atha tadubhayā vā”ti. Kiñcettha – yadi agghasamodhānaṃ dadeyya, cirappaṭicchannāhi ca acirappaṭicchannāhi ca sabhāgavatthukāhi āpattīhi vuṭṭhito bhaveyya, cirappaṭicchannāhi ca acirappaṭicchannāhi ca no visabhāgavatthukāhi. Yadi ca missakasamodhānaṃ dadeyya, samānakālappaṭicchannāhi visabhāgavatthūhi āpattīhi vuṭṭhito bhaveyya, no asamānakaālappaṭicchannāhi sabhāgavatthukāhi ca, atha tadubhayampi dadeyya, “ekasmiṃ kamme dve parivāsā dātabbā”ti neva pāḷiyaṃ, na aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttanti? Vuccate – idañhi sabbampi parivāsādikaṃ vinayakammaṃ vatthuvasena vā gottavasena vā nāmavasena vā āpattivasena vā kātuṃ vaṭṭatiyeva.
Now, it might be asked, “For one who commits both long-concealed and shortly concealed offenses of dissimilar bases, which penance should be given: one based on aggregate value, mixed penance, or both?” What of this? If penance based on aggregate value is given, he would emerge from offenses of similar bases, both long-concealed and shortly concealed, but not from those of dissimilar bases, whether long-concealed or shortly concealed. If mixed penance is given, he would emerge from offenses of dissimilar bases concealed for the same duration, but not from those of similar bases concealed for different durations. If both are given, it is not stated in either the Pāli or the commentary that “two penances should be given for a single act.” It is said: All this disciplinary action involving penance can indeed be performed based on the object, the group, the name, or the offense.
Now, there might be a question, “For one who has committed both long-concealed and short-concealed offenses of different bases, which parivāsa should be given: aggha consolidated, mixed consolidated, or both?” What of this? – If he were to give the aggha consolidated parivāsa, he would have arisen from long-concealed and short-concealed offenses of the same base, but not from long-concealed and short-concealed offenses of different bases. And if he were to give the mixed consolidated parivāsa, he would have arisen from offenses of different bases concealed for the same period of time, but not from offenses of the same base concealed for different periods of time. Or, if he were to give both, it is not stated in either the Pāḷi or the commentary that “two parivāsas should be given in one procedure”? It is explained – indeed, all this parivāsa and other Vinaya procedures should be performed based on the base, class, name, or the offense itself.
Now, one might ask, “If a monk commits offenses concealed for a long time, offenses concealed for a short time, and offenses of different natures, what probation should be given: probation based on severity, combined probation, or both?” In this case, if probation based on severity is given, the monk would be cleared of offenses concealed for a long time and a short time, provided they are of the same nature, but not if they are of different natures. If combined probation is given, the monk would be cleared of offenses of different natures concealed for the same period, but not of offenses of the same nature concealed for different periods. If both are given, it would mean giving two probations in one legal procedure, which is not mentioned in the Pāli or the commentary. It is said: All probation procedures can be performed based on the nature of the offense, the category, the name, or the type of offense.
ID1580
Tattha sukkavissaṭṭhīti vatthu ceva gottañca. Saṅghādisesoti nāmañceva āpatti ca. Tattha “sukkavissaṭṭhiṃ kāyasaṃsagga”ntiādivacanenāpi “nānāvatthukāyo”ti vacanenapi vatthu ceva gottañca gahitaṃ hoti, “saṅghādiseso”ti vacanenapi “āpattiyo”ti vacanenapi nāmañceva āpatti ca gahitā hoti, tasmā agghasamodhānavasena parivāse dinne “ahaṃ, bhante, sambahulā saṅghādisesā āpattiyo āpajji”ntiādivacaneneva vatthussa ca gottassa ca nāmassa ca āpattiyā ca gahitattā cirappaṭicchannāhi acirappaṭicchannāhi ca sabhāgavatthukāhi ca visabhāgavatthukāhi ca sabbāhi āpattīhi vuṭṭhātīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Vuttañhetaṃ samantapāsādikāyaṃ “ettha ca ’saṅghādisesā āpattiyo āpajjiṃ nānāvatthukāyo’tipi ’saṅghādisesā āpattiyo āpajji’ntipi evaṃ pubbe vuttanayena vatthuvasenapi gottavasenapi nāmavasenapi āpattivasenapi yojetvā kammavācaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatiyevāti ayaṃ missakasamodhāno”ti, imasmiñca vinayasaṅgahappakaraṇe (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 245) tatheva vatvā “tasmā na idha visuṃ kammavācaṃ yojetvā dassayissāma, pubbe sabbāpattisādhāraṇaṃ katvā yojetvā dassitāya eva kammavācāya nānāvatthukāhipi āpattīhi vuṭṭhānasambhavato sāyevettha kammavācā ala”nti.
Therein, “sukkavissaṭṭhi” is both an object and a group. “Saṅghādisesa” is both a name and an offense. By saying “sukkavissaṭṭhi, kāyasaṃsagga,” etc., or “of dissimilar bases,” the object and group are included. By saying “Saṅghādisesa” or “offenses,” the name and offense are included. Therefore, when penance is given based on aggregate value, by the very statement, “Venerable sir, I have committed several Saṅghādisesa offenses,” etc., the object, group, name, and offense are included, so it should be seen that he emerges from all offenses—both long-concealed and shortly concealed, of similar and dissimilar bases. It is said in the Samantapāsādikā, “Here, whether it is said, ‘I have committed Saṅghādisesa offenses of dissimilar bases’ or simply ‘I have committed Saṅghādisesa offenses,’ it is permissible to formulate the formal act based on the object, group, name, or offense, as previously explained—this is mixed penance.” And in this Vinaya compendium (Vinaya Saṅgaha Aṭṭhakathā 245), it is similarly stated, “Therefore, we will not separately show the formal act here; since emerging from offenses of dissimilar bases is possible with the formal act already shown as common to all offenses, that formal act alone suffices here.”
Herein, “emission of semen” is both the base and the class. Saṅghādisesa is both the name and the offense. Here, by the statement “emission of semen, physical contact”, and also by the statement “of different bases”, both the base and the class are grasped. By the statement “saṅghādisesa”, and also by the statement “offenses”, both the name and the offense are grasped. Therefore, when parivāsa is given based on aggha consolidation, it should be understood that, simply by the statement “Venerable sir, I have committed several saṅghādisesa offenses”, and so on, since the base, class, name, and offense have been grasped, one has arisen from all offenses, whether long-concealed or short-concealed, of the same base or of different bases. It is said in the Samantapāsādikā: “And here, whether it is said ‘I have committed saṅghādisesa offenses of different bases’ or ‘I have committed saṅghādisesa offenses,’ in the way previously stated, it is indeed appropriate to perform the formal act, applying it based on the base, class, name, or offense; this is the mixed consolidated parivāsa”. And in this compendium of Vinaya (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 245), having said the same, it is stated “Therefore, we will not show the formal act separately here, because arising from even offenses of different bases is possible with the formal act that has been shown before as applying to all offenses, that very formal act is sufficient here.”
Here, “emitting semen” refers to both the nature and the category. “Saṅghādisesa” refers to both the name and the offense. In the statement, “emitting semen, physical contact,” etc., as well as in the phrase “offenses of different natures,” both the nature and the category are included. In the phrase “Saṅghādisesa offenses,” both the name and the offense are included. Therefore, when probation based on severity is given, the statement, “Venerable, I have committed several Saṅghādisesa offenses,” includes the nature, category, name, and offense. Thus, it is understood that the monk is cleared of all offenses, whether concealed for a long time or a short time, and whether of the same or different natures. As stated in the Samantapāsādikā, “Here, ‘I have committed several Saṅghādisesa offenses of different natures’ or ‘I have committed several Saṅghādisesa offenses’—in this way, the legal procedure can be performed based on the nature, category, name, or type of offense. This is combined probation.” In this Vinaya compilation (Vi. Saṅga. Aṭṭha. 245), it is similarly stated, “Therefore, we will not separately explain the legal procedure here. Since the previous legal procedure was applied to all offenses collectively, it is sufficient here, as resolution is possible even for offenses of different natures.”
ID1581
Yadi evaṃ ācariyavajirabuddhittherena dvinnaṃ viseso na vattabbo, atha kasmā vuttoti? Tīsu samodhānaparivāsesu odhānasamodhāno mūlāyapaṭikassanāya odhūnitakāleyeva dātabbo, agghasamodhānamissakasamodhānaparivāsā pana visuṃyeva dātabbā. “Evaṃ dinne etesaṃ ko viseso”ti cintāyaṃ visesasambhavamattadassanatthaṃ vutto. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana parivāsādikammassa lakkhaṇaṃ dassetuṃ “vatthuvasena vā”tiādimāha, tasmā lakkhaṇavaseneva sabhāgavatthukāhipi āpattīhi vuṭṭhānaṃ sambhavati. Teneva ca kāraṇena sāratthadīpanināmikāyaṃ vinayaṭīkāyañca vimativinodanināmikāyaṃ vinayaṭīkāyañca na koci viseso vuttoti daṭṭhabbo.
If so, the Elder Vajirabuddhi should not have mentioned a difference between the two, so why did he? Among the three types of combined penance, restricted penance is given only at the time of restriction by being withdrawn to the root, while penance based on aggregate value and mixed penance are to be given separately. To consider “What is their difference when given thus?” it was stated to show merely the existence of a difference. In the commentary, to show the characteristic of disciplinary action involving penance, it says, “based on the object, etc.,” so emerging from offenses of similar bases is possible by that characteristic alone. For that very reason, no difference is mentioned in the Vinaya commentary named Sāratthadīpanī or the Vinaya commentary named Vimativinodanī.
If this is so, the difference between the two should not have been stated by the teacher Venerable Vajirabuddhi. Then why was it stated? Of the three consolidated parivāsas, the odhāna consolidated parivāsa should be given only at the time of washing away for reverting to the root (of the training). The aggha consolidated and mixed consolidated parivāsas, however, should be given separately. “When given thus, what is the difference between them?” It was stated to show just the possibility of a difference in that thought. But in the commentary, to show the characteristics of the procedure of parivāsa and so on, it states “based on the base,” and so on. Therefore, arising from even offenses of the same base is possible based solely on the characteristics. And for that very reason, it should be understood that no distinction has been mentioned in the Vinaya commentary named Sāratthadīpanī and in the Vinaya commentary named Vimativinodanī.
If this is so, why did the Elder Ācariya Vajirabuddhi not mention the difference between the two? Among the three types of combined probation, probation based on concealment should be given at the time of sending back to the beginning. Probation based on severity and combined probation, however, should be given separately. “When given in this way, what is the difference between them?” To show the possibility of distinction, it was mentioned. In the commentary, to explain the characteristics of probation procedures, it is said, “Based on the nature, etc.” Therefore, resolution is possible even for offenses of the same nature. For this reason, no distinction is mentioned in the Sāratthadīpanī Vinayaṭīkā or the Vimativinodanī Vinayaṭīkā.
ID1582
Yadi evaṃ missakasamodhānakammavācāyapi cirappaṭicchannāhi acirappaṭicchannāhipi āpattīhi vuṭṭhānaṃ sambhaveyya. Tatthapi hi “ahaṃ, bhante, sambahulā saṅghādisesā āpattiyo āpajjiṃ nānāvatthukāyo”tipi “ekā sukkavissaṭṭhi…pe… ekā kuladūsakā”tipi vattabbaṃ. Evaṃ sati “sambahulā”tipi “saṅghādisesā āpattiyo”tipi vatthugottanāmāpattīhi kittanasambhavato cirappaṭicchannāhipi acirappaṭicchannāhipi āpattīhi vuṭṭhānaṃ sambhaveyyāti? Na panevaṃ daṭṭhabbaṃ. Vatthādikittanañhi sabbāpattīnaṃ gaṇhanatthaṃ hoti. Evaṃ gaṇhantepi paṭicchannakālassa akathitattā “ettakaṃ nāma kālaṃ parivasitabba”nti na paññāyati, tasmiṃ apaññāyamāne tena pamāṇena parivāso na hoti, tasmiṃ asati āpattito vuṭṭhānaṃ na sambhavati, tasmā missakasamodhānakammavācāya cirappaṭicchannāhipi acirappaṭicchannāhipi āpattīhi vuṭṭhānaṃ na sambhavatīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
If so, with the formal act of mixed penance too, emerging from both long-concealed and shortly concealed offenses could be possible. For there too, it could be said, “Venerable sir, I have committed several Saṅghādisesa offenses of dissimilar bases,” or “one of seminal emission… up to… one of corrupting families.” In that case, since designation by object, group, name, and offense is possible with “several” and “Saṅghādisesa offenses,” emerging from both long-concealed and shortly concealed offenses could occur. But it should not be seen thus. Designation by object, etc., is for including all offenses. Even when including them thus, since the duration of concealment is not stated, it is not evident that “this much time must be spent in penance.” When that is not evident, penance does not occur by that measure, and without it, emerging from the offense is not possible. Therefore, it should be seen that emerging from both long-concealed and shortly concealed offenses is not possible with the formal act of mixed penance.
If so, arising from both long-concealed and short-concealed offenses would also be possible through the formal act (kammavāca) of the mixed consolidated parivāsa. For even there, it should be said, either “Venerable sir, I have committed several saṅghādisesa offenses of different bases”, or “One emission of semen… up to… one corrupting families”. If so, arising from both long-concealed and short-concealed offenses would be possible due to the mentioning of base, class, name, and offense in “several” and also in “saṅghādisesa offenses”? But it should not be understood in this way. Indeed, the mention of base and so on is to include all offenses. Even though included in this way, because the period of concealment is not stated, it is not known “for how long a period one should observe parivāsa”. When that is not known, parivāsa does not exist in that measure. When that is not present, arising from the offense is not possible. Therefore, it should be understood that arising from both long-concealed and short-concealed offenses through the formal act of the mixed consolidated parivāsa is not possible.
If this is so, resolution should also be possible for offenses concealed for a long time and a short time in the case of combined probation. Here, one should say, “Venerable, I have committed several Saṅghādisesa offenses of different natures,” or “One of emitting semen… one of corrupting families.” In this case, since the nature, category, name, and offense are all mentioned, resolution should be possible for offenses concealed for a long time or a short time. However, this should not be understood in this way. The mention of the nature, etc., is for the purpose of including all offenses. Even if this is done, since the period of concealment is not stated, it is not clear how long probation should be given. Without this clarity, probation cannot be given, and without probation, resolution is not possible. Therefore, in the case of combined probation, resolution is not possible for offenses concealed for a long time or a short time.
ID1583
Parivāsavinicchayakathā niṭṭhitā.
The discussion on determining penance is concluded.
The discussion on determining parivāsa is concluded.
The discussion on probation is concluded.
ID1584
ID1585
Mānattakathāyampi mānattaṃ nāma appaṭicchannamānattaṃ paṭicchannamānattaṃ pakkhamānattaṃ samodhānamānattanti catubbidhaṃ hoti. Tattha yo bhikkhu saṅghādisesaṃ āpattiṃ āpajjitvā taṃ divasameva āroceti, ekarattimattampi na paṭicchādeti, tassa parivāsaṃ adatvāva dinnaṃ mānattaṃ appaṭicchannamānattaṃ nāma. Yo āpajjitvā dasahi ākārehi vinā taṃ divasaṃ nāroceti, ekarattādivasena paṭicchādeti, tattha yathāpaṭicchannadivasaṃ parivāsaṃ datvā parivutthaparivāsassa dinnaṃ mānattaṃ paṭicchannamānattaṃ nāma. Āpattiṃ āpajjitvā paṭicchannāya vā appaṭicchannāya vā bhikkhuniyā pakkhamattameva dinnaṃ mānattaṃ pakkhamānattaṃ nāma. Bhikkhu pana paṭicchannāya āpattiyā parivasitvā anikkhittavattakāleyeva puna āpajjitvā na paṭicchādeti, tassa mūlāya paṭikassitvā parivutthadivase adivase katvā appaṭicchāditattā samodhānaparivāsaṃ adatvā dinnaṃ mānattaṃ samodhānamānattaṃ nāma. Mānattārahakālepi mānattacaraṇakālepi abbhānārahakālepi eseva nayo. Tesu tīṇi mānattāni aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttanayena suviññeyyattā na vuttāni. Pakkhamānattaṃ pacchā āgamissati.
In the discussion on probation, probation is fourfold: unconcealed probation, concealed probation, fortnight probation, and combined probation. Therein, for a monk who commits a Saṅghādisesa offense and confesses it on the same day, not concealing it even for a single night, the probation given without imposing penance is called appaṭicchannamānattaṃ. For one who commits it and does not confess it on that day apart from the ten conditions, concealing it for one night, etc., the probation given to one who has completed penance according to the days concealed is called paṭicchannamānattaṃ. The probation given for exactly a fortnight to a nun, whether the offense is concealed or unconcealed, is called pakkhamānattaṃ. But for a monk who, after completing penance for a concealed offense and before fulfilling the duties, commits another offense and does not conceal it, the probation given without imposing combined penance, having withdrawn to the root and counting the days completed, is called samodhānamānattaṃ. This method applies also at the time of eligibility for probation, during the observance of probation, and at the time of eligibility for rehabilitation. Three of these probations are not explained here due to their clarity as stated in the commentary. Fortnight probation will come later.
Even in the discussion on mānatta, mānatta is of four kinds: mānatta for an unconcealed (offense), mānatta for a concealed (offense), mānatta for half a month, and consolidated mānatta. Of these, when a bhikkhu, having committed a saṅghādisesa offense, reports it on that very day, and does not conceal it even for a single night, the mānatta given without giving parivāsa is called mānatta for an unconcealed (offense). When he has committed (an offense) and, without using the ten methods, does not report it on that very day, and conceals it for one or more nights, then, having given parivāsa for the number of days concealed, the mānatta given to one who has completed parivāsa is called mānatta for a concealed (offense). The mānatta given to a bhikkhuni for only half a month, whether for a concealed or an unconcealed (offense), is called mānatta for half a month. But, when a bhikkhu, having observed parivāsa for a concealed offense, commits (another offense) during the period when the training has not yet been set aside, and does not conceal it, after reverting him to the root (of training) and counting the days completed (of parivāsa) as not having been completed, the mānatta given without giving consolidated parivāsa due to its being unconcealed is called consolidated mānatta. The same method applies to the time when he is worthy of mānatta, the time of observing mānatta, and the time when he is worthy of being reinstated. Among these, three mānattas were not stated because they are easily understood based on the method stated in the commentary. Mānatta for half a month will come later.
In the discussion on mānatta, mānatta is of four kinds: unconcealed mānatta, concealed mānatta, fortnightly mānatta, and combined mānatta. Here, a monk who commits a Saṅghādisesa offense and reports it on the same day, without concealing it even for a single night, is given mānatta without probation. This is called unconcealed mānatta. One who commits an offense and does not report it on the same day, concealing it for a night or more, is given probation according to the period of concealment, and after completing probation, is given mānatta. This is called concealed mānatta. A monk who commits an offense, whether concealed or unconcealed, and is given mānatta for a fortnight, is said to have fortnightly mānatta. A monk who, after completing probation for a concealed offense, commits another offense without concealing it, is sent back to the beginning and given mānatta without probation. This is called combined mānatta. The same applies at the time of being deserving of mānatta, performing mānatta, and being deserving of rehabilitation. Among these, three types of mānatta are not mentioned in the commentary because they are easily understood. Fortnightly mānatta will be discussed later.
ID1586
Yāni pana parivāsamānattāni anavaṭṭhitattā puthujjanassa gihiādivasena parivattane sati puna dātabbādātabbabhāve saṅkitabbāni, tāni dassetuṃ pāḷiyaṃ anekehi pakārehi vitthārato vuttāni. Tesu bhikkhūnaṃ saṃsayavinodanatthāya ekadesaṃ dassetuṃ “sace kocī”tiādimāha. Tattha vibbhamatīti virūpo hutvā bhamati, hīnāyāvattati gihī hotīti attho. Sāmaṇero hotīti upasampannabhāvaṃ jahitvā sāmaṇerabhāvaṃ upagacchati. Tattha pārājikappattabhāvena vā “gihīti maṃ dhārethā”tiādinā sikkhāpaccakkhānena vā gihī hoti . Tesu paṭhamena puna upasampadāya abhabbattā puna parivāso na ruhatiyeva, dutiyena pana puna upasampadāya bhabbattā “so ce puna upasampajjatī”ti vuttaṃ. Itaro pana pārājikappattabhāvena sāmaṇero na hoti. Kasmā? Saraṇagamanādīnaṃ vinassanato. Vuttañhi vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.108) “upasampannānampi pārājikasamaāpattiyā saraṇagamanādisāmaṇerabhāvassapi vinassanato senāsanaggāho ca paṭippassambhati, saṅghalābhampi tena labhantīti veditabba”nti, gihī pana hutvā puna sāmaṇerabhāvamattaṃ laddhabbaṃ hoti. “Sāmaṇeroti maṃ dhārethā”tiādinā pana sikkhāpaccakkhāne kate siyā sāmaṇerabhāvo, tatopi puna upasampajjitukāmatāya sati siyā upasampannabhāvo. “Gihīti maṃ dhārethā”tiādinā sikkhāpaccakkhānaṃ katvā gihibhāvaṃ upagatepi puna sāmaṇerapabbajjaṃ pabbajitvā sāmaṇero hoti. Tato puna upasampajjituṃ laddhabbattā “puna upasampajjatī”ti vutto. Tesaṃ bhikkhubhāve parivāse aniṭṭhitepi gihisāmaṇerabhāvaṃ pattattā parivāso na ruhati upasampannānameva parivāsassa bhagavatā paññattattāti attho.
Now, to show those instances of penance and probation that, due to being unsettled, are subject to doubt regarding whether they must be repeated when an ordinary person transitions to a layperson, etc., they are extensively explained in the Pāli text in various ways. To dispel the doubts of monks, a portion is shown beginning with “sace kocī.” Therein, vibbhamati means he wanders astray, becoming deformed, returning to a lower state, becoming a layperson—this is the meaning. Sāmaṇero hoti means he abandons the state of a fully ordained monk and takes on the state of a novice. Therein, he becomes a layperson either by committing a pārājika offense or by renouncing training with words like “Consider me a layperson.” Of these, with the first, since he cannot be re-ordained, penance does not hold again. But with the second, since he can be re-ordained, it is said, “If he is re-ordained.” The other, however, does not become a novice by committing a pārājika offense. Why? Because the going for refuge, etc., is destroyed. It is said in the Vimativinodanī (Vinaya Vimativinodanī Mahāvagga 2.108), “For the fully ordained, too, with the commission of a pārājika offense, even the novice state, including going for refuge, is destroyed, and the claim to a lodging is relinquished, and gains from the Saṅgha are understood to be received by him.” But having become a layperson, only the novice state can be attained again. If he renounces training with words like “Consider me a novice,” there may be a novice state, and if he desires re-ordination from there, there may be a fully ordained state. Having renounced training with words like “Consider me a layperson” and entered lay life, he becomes a novice again by taking novice ordination. Since he can then be re-ordained, it is said, “He is re-ordained.” For them, even if penance is not completed in their monkhood, since they have reached the state of a layperson or novice, penance does not hold, as it is prescribed by the Blessed One only for the fully ordained—this is the meaning.
Now, concerning the parivāsa and mānatta periods, those which are uncertain in their re-granting or non-re-granting when a common person reverts, due to instability, to the state of a householder and the like, are extensively described in the Pāḷi in various ways. Of these, the passage beginning “sace kocī” is stated to show a portion for the purpose of dispelling doubt for monks. Here, vibbhamatīti means he wanders having become different, he reverts to the lower life, he becomes a householder. Sāmaṇero hotīti means he abandons the state of an ordained monk and attains the state of a novice. In this context, he becomes a householder either by having committed a pārājika offense or by renouncing the training with the words, “Consider me a householder,” and so forth. Of these, by the former, because he is not fit for re-ordination, parivāsa does not apply again; however, by the latter, because he is fit for re-ordination, it is said, “so ce puna upasampajjatī”. The other, however, does not become a novice due to having committed a pārājika offense. Why? Because of the destruction of taking refuge and so forth. It is indeed said in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.108), “Even for the ordained, by the commission of a pārājika, the state of a novice, including taking refuge and so on, is destroyed, and the allocation of lodging is suspended, and it should be understood that they do not receive the Sangha’s benefits with it,” however, having become a householder, only the state of novice should be obtained again. However, if he renounces the training with the words, “Consider me a novice,” and so forth, there could be the state of a novice, and from that, if there is a desire to be re-ordained, there could be the state of an ordained monk. Even when he has renounced the training with the words, “Consider me a householder,” and so forth, and entered the state of a householder, having taken the novice ordination again, he becomes a novice. Then, because he can be re-ordained, it is said, “if he is re-ordained.” Although parivāsa is not completed in their state of being a monk, because they have attained the state of a householder and a novice, parivāsa does not apply, meaning that parivāsa was prescribed by the Blessed One only for ordained monks.
Regarding the probation and penance that are unstable due to the instability of a worldling who changes status to a layperson or other, and which must be given or taken again, these are explained in detail in the Pāli texts in various ways. To dispel the doubts of the monks, a portion is explained here beginning with “if someone”. Herein, “vibbhamatī” means he strays, becoming deformed; he reverts to a layperson, that is the meaning. “He becomes a sāmaṇera” means he abandons the status of being fully ordained and attains the state of a sāmaṇera. Herein, he becomes a layperson either by committing an offense entailing expulsion or by renouncing the training with the words, “Consider me a layperson,” etc. In the first case, since he is unable to be reordained, probation does not apply again. In the second case, since he is capable of being reordained, it is said, “if he is reordained”. However, in the case of committing an offense entailing expulsion, he does not become a sāmaṇera. Why? Because the taking of refuge, etc., is destroyed. As stated in the Vimativinodanī (Vin. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.108): “Even for those who are fully ordained, when they commit an offense equivalent to an offense entailing expulsion, the sāmaṇera status, including the taking of refuge, etc., is destroyed, and the right to occupy a dwelling is also relinquished. However, they still receive the benefits of the Saṅgha. It should be understood thus.” But if he becomes a layperson and then attains the status of a sāmaṇera again, he must do so. If he renounces the training with the words, “Consider me a sāmaṇera,” etc., he may attain the status of a sāmaṇera. If he then desires to be reordained, he may attain the status of being fully ordained. If he renounces the training with the words, “Consider me a layperson,” etc., and attains the status of a layperson, he may again go forth as a sāmaṇera and become a sāmaṇera. Since he is then capable of being reordained, it is said, “if he is reordained”. Even if the probation was not completed while they were monks, since they have attained the status of a layperson or sāmaṇera, probation does not apply, as probation was prescribed by the Blessed One only for those who are fully ordained. That is the meaning.
ID1587
Evaṃ sante puna upasampajjantassa kiṃ parivāso puna dātabboti āha “so ce puna upasampajjatī”tiādi. Tassattho – so vibbhantako so vā sāmaṇero puna upasampannabhāvaṃ upagacchati, purimaṃ pubbe bhikkhubhūtakāle dinnaṃ parivāsadānaṃ eva idāni parivāsadānaṃ hoti. Yo parivāso pubbe bhikkhubhūtakāle dinno, so parivāso sudinno, dudinno na hoti. Yo yattako kālo parivuttho, so tattako kālo suparivutthoyeva hoti, na duparivuttho, tasmā avaseso kālo parivasitabboti. Idaṃ vuttaṃ hoti – pubbe bhikkhukāle pakkhappaṭicchannāya āpattiyā parivāsaṃ gahetvā dasadivasamattaṃ parivasitvā aniṭṭhiteyeva parivāse vibbhamitvā sāmaṇero vā hutvā puna upasampannena avasesapañcadivase parivasitvā parivāso niṭṭhāpetabboti. Mānattārahādīsupi eseva nayo. Ummattakādīsupi tasmiṃ kāle ajānantattā “parivāso na ruhatī”ti vuttaṃ. Tiṇṇampi ukkhittakānaṃ kammanānāsaṃvāsakattā tehi sahasaṃvāsoyeva natthīti ukkhittakānaṃ parivāso na ruhatīti vuttaṃ.
If so, should penance be given again to one who is re-ordained? It says, “If he is re-ordained,” etc. Its meaning is: That one who wandered astray or that novice attains the state of full ordination again; the giving of penance previously given when he was a monk now becomes the giving of penance. The penance given when he was a monk is well-given, not ill-given. Whatever time was spent in penance is well-spent, not ill-spent, so the remaining time must be spent in penance. This is what is meant: Previously, as a monk, having taken penance for an offense concealed for a fortnight and spent ten days in penance, if he wanders astray or becomes a novice before completing it, upon re-ordination, he must complete the remaining five days to finish the penance. The same method applies to eligibility for probation, etc. For the deranged, etc., it is said, “Penance does not hold” because they do not know at that time. For all three types of suspended monks, due to the lack of common residence because of the act, there is simply no co-residence with them, so it is said that penance does not hold for the suspended.
In this case, as for the one who is being re-ordained, should parivāsa be given again, he says, “so ce puna upasampajjatī” and so forth. The meaning of that is – that reverted one or that novice attains the state of being re-ordained, the previous granting of parivāsa, given earlier when he was a monk, is now the granting of parivāsa. The parivāsa that was given previously when he was a monk, that parivāsa is well-given, it is not ill-given. Whatever period of time has been served, that period of time has been well-served, it is not ill-served, therefore the remaining period should be served. This is what is said – previously, in the time of being a monk, having taken parivāsa for an offense concealed for half a month, having served only ten days, while the parivāsa was not yet completed, having reverted or become a novice, by the one re-ordained, having served the remaining five days, the parivāsa should be completed. The same method applies to eligibility for mānatta and so forth. In the case of one who is insane and so forth, because at that time he is unaware, it is said that “parivāsa does not apply.” Because the three types of suspended persons have different communal acts, there is no association with them; therefore, it is said that parivāsa does not apply to suspended persons.
Thus, if one is reordained, should probation be given again? It is said, “if he is reordained”, etc. The meaning is: that one who strayed or that sāmaṇera attains the status of being fully ordained again. The probation given previously while he was a monk is now the probation given. The probation given previously while he was a monk is fully given; it is not given again. The time already spent on probation is fully spent; it is not spent again. Therefore, the remaining time must be spent on probation. This means: if a monk, having taken probation for a half-concealed offense, spends ten days on probation and then, before completing the probation, strays and becomes a sāmaṇera, he must, after being reordained, spend the remaining five days on probation to complete the probation. The same applies to those deserving penance, etc. For the insane, etc., since they are unaware at that time, it is said, “probation does not apply.” For those who are suspended, since they are not in communion with the three groups due to their differing legal procedures, they have no association with them. Thus, it is said that probation does not apply to those who are suspended.
ID1588
Sace puna osārīyatīti ukkhepanīyakammaṃ paṭippassambhanavasena samānasaṃvāsakabhāvaṃ pavesīyati. “Sace kassaci bhikkhuno itthiliṅgaṃ pātubhavatī”tiādīsu aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttanayeneva attho suviññeyyo hoti. Yaṃ pana vuttaṃ “pakkhamānattaṃ pacchā āgamissatī”ti, tatrevaṃ jānitabbaṃ – pakkhamānattanti bhikkhuniyā dātabbamānattaṃ. Taṃ pana paṭicchannāyapi appaṭicchannāyapi āpattiyā aḍḍhamāsamattameva dātabbaṃ. Vuttañhetaṃ “garudhammaṃ ajjhāpannāya bhikkhuniyā ubhatosaṅghe pakkhamānattaṃ caritabba”nti (pāci. 149; cūḷava. 403; a. ni. 8.51). Taṃ pana bhikkhunīhi attano sīmaṃ sodhetvā vihārasīmāya vā vihārasīmaṃ sodhetuṃ asakkontīhi khaṇḍasīmāya vā sabbantimena paricchedena catuvaggagaṇaṃ sannipātāpetvā dātabbaṃ. Sace ekā āpatti hoti, ekissā vasena, sace dve vā tisso vā sambahulā vā ekavatthukā vā nānāvatthukā vā, tāsaṃ tāsaṃ vasena vatthugottanāmaāpattīsu yaṃ yaṃ icchati, taṃ taṃ ādāya yojanā kātabbā.
Sace puna osārīyati means if the act of suspension is revoked, he is reinstated into common residence. In cases like “If a monk manifests the female gender,” etc., the meaning is easily understood as stated in the commentary. As for what was said, “Fortnight probation will come later,” it should be understood thus: Pakkhamānattaṃ is the probation to be given to a nun. It should be given for exactly half a month, whether the offense is concealed or unconcealed. It is said, “For a nun who has committed a grave offense, fortnight probation must be observed in both Saṅghas” (Pāci. 149; Cūḷavagga 403; Aṅguttara Nikāya 8.51). The nuns must purify their own boundary, or if unable to purify the monastery boundary, it should be given by assembling a group of at least four in a partial boundary with the minimal limit. If there is one offense, it is according to that one; if there are two, three, or several, whether of the same or different bases, it should be applied according to each, taking whatever is desired from the object, group, name, or offense.
Sace puna osārīyatīti means he is brought into the state of having communal acts, by way of the act of suspension being suspended. “If a female sex organ appears in a certain monk” and so forth – the meaning is easily understood by the method stated in the commentary. But what was said, “the pakkhamānatta will come later,” should be understood thus: pakkhamānattanti is the mānatta to be given to a bhikkhuni. That, however, whether the offense is concealed or unconcealed, should only be given for half a month. This has been stated: “A bhikkhuni who has committed a serious offense should observe pakkhamānatta in both Sanghas” (pāci. 149; cūḷava. 403; a. ni. 8.51). That, however, should be given by the bhikkhunis after purifying their own boundary, or being unable to purify the monastery boundary, within the monastery boundary, or within a limited boundary, at the very least by gathering a group of four. If there is one offense, on account of the one; if there are two, or three, or many, either of the same category or of different categories, taking whichever of those, of the categories of offense according to base, lineage, name, that one desires, the combination should be made.
“If he is reinstated” means he is brought back into the same communion by the lifting of the suspension. In the cases such as, “if the female characteristics appear in a monk,” etc., the meaning is easily understood according to the explanation given in the commentary. As for what is said, “the half-month penance will come later,” it should be understood thus: “half-month penance” refers to the penance to be given to a bhikkhunī. This is to be given for half a month, whether the offense is concealed or unconcealed. As it is said, “A bhikkhunī who has committed a grave offense must undergo half-month penance in both Saṅghas” (Pāc. 149; Cūḷava. 403; A. Ni. 8.51). This should be given after the bhikkhunīs have purified their own boundary or, if they are unable to purify the monastery boundary, after assembling a group of four in a fragmented boundary or at the outermost limit. If there is one offense, it is for one; if there are two, three, or many offenses, whether of the same basis or different bases, the offenses should be taken up as desired and the procedure should be applied accordingly.
ID1589
Tatridaṃ ekāpattivasena mukhamattanidassanaṃ – tāya āpannāya bhikkhuniyā bhikkhunisaṅghaṃ upasaṅkamitvā ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvā vuḍḍhānaṃ bhikkhunīnaṃ pāde vanditvā ukkuṭikaṃ nisīditvā añjaliṃ paggahetvā evamassa vacanīyo “ahaṃ , ayye, ekaṃ āpattiṃ āpajjiṃ gāmantaraṃ, sāhaṃ, ayya,e ekissā āpattiyā gāmantarāya pakkhamānattaṃ yācāmī”ti. Evaṃ tikkhattuṃ yācāpetvā byattāya bhikkhuniyā paṭibalāya saṅgho ñāpetabbo “suṇātu me, ayye, saṅgho, ayaṃ itthannāmā bhikkhunī ekaṃ āpattiṃ āpajji gāmantaraṃ, sā saṅghaṃ ekissā āpattiyā gāmantarāya pakkhamānattaṃ yācati. Yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho itthannāmāya bhikkhuniyā ekissā āpattiyā gāmantarāya pakkhamānattaṃ dadeyya, esā ñatti. Suṇātu me, ayye, saṅgho…pe… dutiyampi. Tatiyampi etamatthaṃ vadāmi. Suṇātu me, ayye, saṅgho…pe… bhāseyya. Dinnaṃ saṅghena itthannāmāya bhikkhuniyā ekissā āpattiyā gāmantarāya pakkhamānattaṃ, khamati saṅghassa, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmī”ti.
Here is a brief example for a single offense: The nun who committed it should approach the nuns’ Saṅgha, arrange her upper robe over one shoulder, pay homage at the feet of the senior nuns, sit in a squatting position, raise her hands in añjali, and say, “Venerable ladies, I have committed one offense of going between villages, and I, venerable ladies, request fortnight probation for that one offense of going between villages.” After requesting three times, a competent nun should inform the Saṅgha, “Listen to me, venerable ladies, this Saṅgha: This nun named so-and-so has committed one offense of going between villages and requests fortnight probation from the Saṅgha for that one offense of going between villages. If it is suitable for the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha should give fortnight probation to the nun named so-and-so for that one offense of going between villages—this is the motion. Listen to me, venerable ladies, this Saṅgha… a second time. I say this matter a third time. Listen to me, venerable ladies, this Saṅgha… let her speak. The Saṅgha has given fortnight probation to the nun named so-and-so for that one offense of going between villages; it is agreeable to the Saṅgha, therefore silent, thus I hold it.”
Here is an example showing only the beginning on account of one offense: That bhikkhuni who has committed the offense, having approached the bhikkhuni Sangha, having arranged her upper robe over one shoulder, having paid homage to the feet of the senior bhikkhunis, having sat down on her heels, having raised her joined hands, should be addressed thus: “I, venerable lady, have committed one offense, going to another village; I, venerable lady, request pakkhamānatta from the Sangha for one offense, going to another village.” Having caused her to request thus three times, the Sangha should be informed by a competent and capable bhikkhuni: “Let the Sangha, venerable lady, listen to me. This bhikkhuni named so-and-so has committed one offense, going to another village; she requests pakkhamānatta from the Sangha for one offense, going to another village. If it is agreeable to the Sangha, the Sangha may grant pakkhamānatta to the bhikkhuni named so-and-so for one offense, going to another village. This is the motion. Let the Sangha, venerable lady, listen to me… (pe)… A second time. A third time I speak this matter. Let the Sangha, venerable lady, listen to me… (pe)… she should speak. Pakkhamānatta has been granted by the Sangha to the bhikkhuni named so-and-so for one offense, going to another village; it is agreeable to the Sangha, therefore it is silent; thus I hold this.”
Here is an example of the preliminary declaration for one offense: The bhikkhunī who has committed the offense should approach the bhikkhunī Saṅgha, arrange her upper robe over one shoulder, pay respect to the feet of the senior bhikkhunīs, sit in a kneeling position, raise her hands in añjali, and say, “Venerables, I have committed one offense of crossing a village boundary. I request the Saṅgha for half-month penance for one offense of crossing a village boundary.” After requesting this three times, a competent and capable bhikkhunī should inform the Saṅgha: “Venerables, may the Saṅgha listen. This bhikkhunī named so-and-so has committed one offense of crossing a village boundary. She requests the Saṅgha for half-month penance for one offense of crossing a village boundary. If it seems appropriate to the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha may give half-month penance to the bhikkhunī named so-and-so for one offense of crossing a village boundary. This is the motion. Venerables, may the Saṅgha listen… for the second time… for the third time. I speak on this matter. Venerables, may the Saṅgha listen… speak. The Saṅgha has given half-month penance to the bhikkhunī named so-and-so for one offense of crossing a village boundary. It is acceptable to the Saṅgha, therefore they are silent. Thus I hold it.”
ID1590
Kammavācāpariyosāne vattaṃ samādiyitvā bhikkhumānattakathāyaṃ vuttanayeneva saṅghassa ārocetvā nikkhittavattaṃ vasitukāmāya tatheva saṅghassa majjhe vā pakkantāsu bhikkhunīsu ekabhikkhuniyā vā dutiyikāya vā santike vuttanayeneva nikkhipitabbaṃ. Aññissā pana āgantukāya santike ārocetvā nikkhipitabbaṃ, nikkhittakālato paṭṭhāya pakatattaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhati.
At the conclusion of the formal act, having undertaken the duties and informed the Saṅgha as explained in the discussion on monks’ probation, if she wishes to reside having relinquished the duties, it should be relinquished in the same way in the midst of the Saṅgha, or if the nuns have departed, in the presence of one nun or a second companion as stated. It should be relinquished after informing another visitor nun, and from the time of relinquishment, she stands in the state of a regular nun.
At the conclusion of the formal act, having undertaken the practice, having informed the Sangha in the same way as stated in the explanation of the mānatta for monks, wishing to dwell with her practice suspended, either in the midst of the Sangha, or, when the bhikkhunis have departed, in the presence of one or two bhikkhunis, it should be suspended in the same way as stated. However, it should be informed and suspended in the presence of another visiting bhikkhuni. From the time of suspension, she stands in the place of a pakatatta (one with restored status).
At the end of the legal procedure, having undertaken the duties, she should inform the Saṅgha as explained in the section on penance for monks and then, desiring to live having laid down the duties, she should lay them down in the midst of the Saṅgha or, if the bhikkhunīs have departed, in the presence of one bhikkhunī or a companion, as explained. If another visiting bhikkhunī arrives, she should inform her and lay down the duties. From the time of laying them down, she stands in the state of being in good standing.
ID1591
Puna samādiyitvā aruṇaṃ uṭṭhapentiyā pana bhikkhunīnaṃyeva santike vasituṃ na labbhati . “Ubhatosaṅghe pakkhamānattaṃ caritabba”nti hi vuttaṃ, tasmā assā ācariyupajjhāyāhi vihāraṃ gantvā saṅgāhakapakkhe ṭhito eko mahāthero vā dhammakathiko vā bhikkhu vattabbo “ekissā bhikkhuniyā vinayakammaṃ kattabbamatthi, tatra no ayyā cattāro bhikkhū pesethā”ti. Saṅgahaṃ akātuṃ na labbhati, “pesessāmā”ti vattabbaṃ. Catūhi pakatattabhikkhunīhi mānattacāriniṃ bhikkhuniṃ gahetvā antoaruṇeyeva nikkhipitvā gāmūpacārato dve leḍḍupāte atikkamitvā maggā okkamma gumbavatiādīhi paṭicchanne ṭhāne nisīditabbaṃ, vihārūpacāratopi dve leḍḍupātā atikkamitabbā. Catūhi pakatattabhikkhūhipi tattha gantabbaṃ, gantvā pana bhikkhunīhi saddhiṃ na ekaṭṭhāne nisīditabbaṃ, paṭikkamitvā avidūre ṭhāne nisīditabbaṃ. Kurundimahāpaccarīsu pana “bhikkhunīhi byattaṃ ekaṃ vā dve vā upāsikāyo bhikkhūhipi ekaṃ vā dve vā upāsake attarakkhaṇatthāya gahetvā gantabba”nti vuttaṃ. Kurundiyaṃyeva ca “bhikkhunupassayassa ca vihārassa ca upacāraṃ muñcituṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ, “gāmassā”ti na vuttaṃ.
Having undertaken it again, a nun raising the dawn cannot reside only in the presence of nuns. It is said, “Fortnight probation must be observed in both Saṅghas,” so her preceptor or teacher should go to the monastery and say to a senior elder or Dhamma teacher monk standing on the side of assistance, “There is a disciplinary act to be performed for one nun; please send four monks there for us.” Assistance cannot be refused; it should be said, “We will send them.” Taking the nun observing probation with four regular nuns, she should be settled before dawn, passing beyond two stone-throws from the village boundary, stepping off the path, and sitting in a place concealed by bushes, etc., also passing beyond two stone-throws from the monastery boundary. Four regular monks should also go there, but they should not sit in the same place as the nuns; they should sit at a distance nearby. In the Kurundī and Mahāpaccarī, it is said, “The nuns should take one or two laywomen, and the monks one or two laymen, for self-protection.” In the Kurundī alone, it is said, “It is permissible to leave the boundary of the nuns’ residence and the monastery,” but not “of the village.”
However, one who undertakes (the practice) again, as the dawn arises, it is not allowed to stay only in the presence of bhikkhunis. For it is said, “The pakkhamānatta should be practiced in both Sanghas,” therefore, her teachers and preceptors, having gone to the monastery, should say to one senior monk or Dhamma speaker who stands on the supporting side of the Sangha, “There is a disciplinary action to be performed for a certain bhikkhuni; for that, venerable sirs, please send us four monks.” It is not permitted to not provide support; it should be said, “We will send.” Four pakatatta bhikkhunis, taking the bhikkhuni practicing mānatta, suspending her practice within the dawn, having gone beyond two stone-throws from the village boundary, having descended from the path, should sit down in a place concealed by bushes and so forth. Two stone-throws from the monastery boundary should also be exceeded. Four pakatatta monks should also go there. Having gone, however, they should not sit down in the same place with the bhikkhunis; having stepped back, they should sit down in a place not far away. In the Kurundi and Mahāpaccari, however, it is said, “The bhikkhunis, taking one or two competent female lay followers, and the monks, taking one or two male lay followers for self-protection, should go.” And in the Kurundi alone, it is said, “It is proper to leave the boundary of both the bhikkhuni residence and the monastery,” it is not said, “of the village.”
Having undertaken the duties again, when the dawn is rising, she cannot stay in the presence of the bhikkhunīs. As it is said, “Half-month penance must be observed in both Saṅghas,” therefore, her preceptor or teacher should go to the monastery and inform a senior monk or a Dhamma speaker among the supporting monks: “There is a legal procedure to be performed for a certain bhikkhunī. Venerable, please send four monks.” It is not permissible to say, “We will send them.” Four monks in good standing should take the bhikkhunī undergoing penance and, before dawn, place her beyond two stone-throws from the village, in a secluded place such as a thicket. From the monastery, she must also go beyond two stone-throws. Four monks in good standing should also go there, but they should not sit in the same place as the bhikkhunī; they should sit at a distance. In the Kurundī, it is said, “The bhikkhunīs should take one or two laywomen, and the monks should take one or two laymen for protection.” In the Kurundī, it is also said, “It is permissible to release the boundary of the bhikkhunīs’ residence and the monastery,” but it does not say, “the village.”
ID1592
Evaṃ nisinnesu pana bhikkhunīsu ca bhikkhūsu ca tāya bhikkhuniyā “mānattaṃ samādiyāmi, vattaṃ samādiyāmī”ti vattaṃ samādiyitvā bhikkhunisaṅghassa tāva evaṃ ārocetabbaṃ “ahaṃ, ayye, ekaṃ āpattiṃ āpajjiṃ gāmantaraṃ, sāhaṃ saṅghaṃ ekissā āpattiyā gāmantarāya pakkhamānattaṃ yāciṃ, tassā me saṅgho ekissā āpattiyā gāmantarāya pakkhamānattaṃ adāsi, sāhaṃ mānattaṃ carāmi, vediyāmahaṃ ayye, vediyatīti maṃ saṅgho dhāretū”ti.
When the nuns and monks are seated thus, that nun should undertake the duties, saying, “I undertake probation, I undertake the duties,” and first inform the nuns’ Saṅgha thus: “Venerable ladies, I have committed one offense of going between villages, and I requested fortnight probation from the Saṅgha for that one offense of going between villages; the Saṅgha gave me fortnight probation for that one offense of going between villages, and I am observing probation. I feel it, venerable ladies; let the Saṅgha consider me as feeling it.”
With the bhikkhunis and monks thus seated, that bhikkhuni, saying, “I undertake the mānatta, I undertake the practice,” having undertaken the practice, should first inform the bhikkhuni Sangha thus: “I, venerable lady, committed one offense, going to another village; I requested pakkhamānatta from the Sangha for one offense, going to another village; for that, the Sangha granted me pakkhamānatta for one offense, going to another village; I am practicing mānatta; I am informing, venerable lady; may the Sangha consider me as informing.”
When the bhikkhunīs and monks are thus seated, that bhikkhunī should say, “I undertake the penance, I undertake the duties,” and then inform the bhikkhunī Saṅgha: “Venerables, I have committed one offense of crossing a village boundary. I requested the Saṅgha for half-month penance for one offense of crossing a village boundary. The Saṅgha has given me half-month penance for one offense of crossing a village boundary. I am observing the penance. Venerables, I inform you, may the Saṅgha take note of me.”
ID1593
Tato bhikkhusaṅghassa santikaṃ gantvā evaṃ ārocetabbaṃ “ahaṃ, ayyā, ekaṃ āpattiṃ āpajjiṃ…pe… vediyāmahaṃ ayyā, vediyatīti maṃ saṅgho dhāretū”ti. Idhāpi yāya kāyaci bhāsāya ārocetuṃ vaṭṭati. Ārocetvā ca bhikkhunisaṅghasseva santike nisīditabbaṃ, ārocitakālato paṭṭhāya bhikkhūnaṃ gantuṃ vaṭṭati. Sace sāsaṅkā hoti, bhikkhuniyo tattheva ṭhānaṃ paccāsīsanti, ṭhātabbaṃ. Sace añño bhikkhu vā bhikkhunī vā taṃ ṭhānaṃ eti, passantiyā ārocetabbaṃ. No ce āroceti, ratticchedo ceva vattabhedadukkaṭañca . Sace ajānantiyā eva upacāraṃ okkamitvā gacchati, ratticchedova hoti, na vattabhedadukkaṭaṃ. Sace bhikkhuniyo upajjhāyādīnaṃ vattakaraṇatthaṃ pageva gantukāmā honti, rattivippavāsagaṇaohīyanagāmantarāpattirakkhaṇatthaṃ ekaṃ bhikkhuniṃ ṭhapetvā gantabbaṃ, tāya aruṇe uṭṭhite tassā santike vattaṃ nikkhipitabbaṃ. Etenupāyena akhaṇḍā pañcadasa rattiyo mānattaṃ caritabbaṃ.
Then, going to the monks’ Saṅgha, she should inform them thus: “Venerable sirs, I have committed one offense… I feel it, venerable sirs; let the Saṅgha consider me as feeling it.” Here too, she may inform them in any language. After informing, she should sit only in the presence of the nuns’ Saṅgha; from the time of informing, the monks may depart. If there is danger, the nuns expect a place there and should remain. If another monk or nun comes to that place, she should inform them in their presence. If she does not inform, it is a break in the nights and a dukkaṭa offense for breaching the duties. If someone unknowingly enters and leaves the boundary, it is only a break in the nights, not a dukkaṭa for breaching the duties. If the nuns wish to leave early to perform duties for their preceptors, etc., one nun should remain to avoid offenses of staying apart at night, exceeding the group, or going between villages, and the duties should be relinquished in her presence at dawn. In this way, she should observe probation without interruption for fifteen nights.
Then, having gone to the presence of the monk Sangha, she should inform thus: “I, venerable sirs, committed one offense… (pe)… I am informing, venerable sirs; may the Sangha consider me as informing.” Here too, it is proper to inform in any language whatsoever. And having informed, she should sit down in the presence of the bhikkhuni Sangha. From the time of informing, it is proper for the monks to leave. If there is apprehension, the bhikkhunis expect a place there, it should be stood. If another monk or bhikkhuni comes to that place, she should inform the one who sees. If she does not inform, there is a break in the night and a transgression of wrong conduct due to a breach of the practice. If, being unaware, he goes beyond the boundary, there is only a break in the night, not a transgression of wrong conduct due to a breach of the practice. If the bhikkhunis wish to go earlier for the purpose of performing their duties to their preceptors and so forth, they should go having appointed a bhikkhuni for the purpose of protecting from an offense of residing overnight apart, reducing the number of bhikkhunis, and going to another village. When the dawn has arisen, the practice should be suspended in the presence of that bhikkhuni. By this method, mānatta should be practiced for fifteen unbroken nights.
Then she should go to the presence of the monks’ Saṅgha and inform them: “Venerables, I have committed one offense… I inform you, may the Saṅgha take note of me.” Here too, she may inform them in any language she knows. After informing them, she should sit in the presence of the bhikkhunī Saṅgha. From the time of informing, the monks may leave. If there is any suspicion, the bhikkhunīs should wait there; they should stay. If another monk or bhikkhunī comes to that place, she should inform them if she sees them. If she does not inform them, there is an offense of interrupting the night and a wrongdoing. If she unknowingly enters the vicinity and leaves, there is only an offense of interrupting the night, not a wrongdoing. If the bhikkhunīs wish to go to their preceptor, etc., for the purpose of performing duties, they should leave one bhikkhunī behind and go, ensuring the protection from offenses of crossing village boundaries during the night. When dawn rises, the duties should be laid down in her presence. In this way, the penance should be observed for fifteen uninterrupted nights.
ID1594
Anikkhittavattāya pana pārivāsikakkhandhake vuttanayeneva sammā vattitabbaṃ. Ayaṃ pana viseso – “āgantukassa ārocetabba”nti ettha yattakā purebhattaṃ vā pacchābhattaṃ vā taṃ gāmaṃ bhikkhū vā bhikkhuniyo vā āgacchanti, sabbesaṃ ārocetabbaṃ. Anārocentiyā ratticchedo ceva vattabhedadukkaṭañca. Sacepi rattiṃ koci bhikkhu taṃ gāmūpacāraṃ okkamitvā gacchati, ratticchedo hotiyeva, ajānanapaccayā pana vattabhedato muccati. Kurundīādīsu pana “anikkhittavattabhikkhūnaṃ vuttanayeneva kathetabba”nti vuttaṃ, taṃ pārivāsikavattādīnaṃ upacārasīmāya paricchinnattā yuttataraṃ dissati. Uposathe ārocetabbaṃ, pavāraṇāya ārocetabbaṃ, catunnaṃ bhikkhūnañca bhikkhunīnañca devasikaṃ ārocetabbaṃ. Sace bhikkhūnaṃ tasmiṃ gāme bhikkhācāro sampajjati, tattheva gantabbaṃ. No ce sampajjati, aññatra caritvāpi tatra āgantvā attānaṃ dassetvā gantabbaṃ, bahigāme vā saṅketaṭṭhānaṃ kātabbaṃ “asukasmiṃ nāma ṭhāne amhe passissatī”ti. Tāya saṅketaṭṭhānaṃ gantvā ārocetabbaṃ, saṅketaṭṭhāne adisvā vihāraṃ gantvā ārocetabbaṃ. Vihāre sabbabhikkhūnaṃ ārocetabbaṃ. Sace sabbesaṃ sakkā na hoti ārocetuṃ, bahi upacārasīmāya ṭhatvā bhikkhuniyo pesetabbā, tāhi ānītānaṃ catunnaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ ārocetabbaṃ. Sace vihāro dūro hoti sāsaṅko, upāsake ca upāsikāyo ca gahetvā gantabbaṃ. Sace pana ayaṃ ekā vasati, rattivippavāsaṃ āpajjati, tasmāssā ekā pakatattā bhikkhunī sammannitvā dātabbā ekacchanne vasanatthāya.
For one who has not relinquished the duties, she should conduct herself properly as stated in the section on those under penance. This is the difference: Regarding “It should be announced to a visitor,” she must announce to all monks or nuns who come to that village before or after the meal. If she does not announce, it is a break in the nights and a dukkaṭa for breaching the duties. Even if a monk enters and leaves the village boundary at night, it is a break in the nights, but she is free from breaching the duties due to ignorance. In the Kurundī, etc., it is said, “It should be explained as stated for monks who have not relinquished the duties,” which seems more appropriate since the duties of those under penance are defined by the boundary. It should be announced on Uposatha, at the Pavāraṇā, and daily to four monks and nuns. If alms-round occurs in that village for the monks, she should go there. If it does not, she may go elsewhere but must return there, show herself, and depart, or establish a meeting place outside the village, saying, “He will see us at such-and-such a place.” She should go to the meeting place and announce; if she does not see them there, she should go to the monastery and announce to all the monks. If announcing to all is not possible, standing outside the boundary, she should send nuns to bring four monks to announce to them. If the monastery is far and dangerous, she should go with laymen and laywomen. If she resides alone, she commits an offense of staying apart at night, so one regular nun should be appointed for her to reside together under one roof.
However, by the one whose practice is not suspended, it should be properly practiced in the same way as stated in the pārivāsika chapter. But this is the difference – “She should inform a visitor” – here, all monks or bhikkhunis who come to that village before or after the meal, she should inform all of them. If she does not inform, there is a break in the night and a transgression of wrong conduct due to a breach of the practice. Even if a certain monk goes beyond the boundary of that village at night, there is indeed a break in the night; however, because of ignorance, she is released from a breach of the practice. In the Kurundi and others, however, it is said, “It should be told in the same way as stated for monks whose practice is not suspended,” that appears more appropriate because the boundary of practice and so forth for pārivāsikas is defined. She should inform on the Uposatha day, she should inform on the Pavāraṇā day, and she should inform four monks and bhikkhunis daily. If the monks obtain their alms-round in that village, she should go there. If they do not obtain it, having wandered elsewhere, she should go there, show herself, and then leave; or, a meeting place should be made outside the village, “You will see us at such and such a place.” She should go to the meeting place and inform; not seeing them at the meeting place, she should go to the monastery and inform. In the monastery, she should inform all the monks. If it is not possible to inform all of them, standing outside the boundary of the residence, bhikkhunis should be sent; she should inform the four monks brought by them. If the monastery is far and there is apprehension, she should go taking male and female lay followers. But if this one is dwelling alone, she commits the offense of residing overnight apart; therefore, a pakatatta bhikkhuni should be appointed and given to her for the purpose of dwelling under one roof.
For one who has not laid down the duties, she should act properly according to the method explained in the chapter on probationers. Here is the difference: “She should inform the visitor.” In this case, whenever monks or bhikkhunīs come to that village before or after the meal, she should inform all of them. If she does not inform them, there is an offense of interrupting the night and a wrongdoing. Even if a monk enters the vicinity of the village at night, there is an offense of interrupting the night, but due to not knowing, she is exempt from the wrongdoing. In the Kurundī, etc., it is said, “One who has not laid down the duties should speak according to the method explained for probationers.” This seems more appropriate because it is confined to the vicinity of the probationers’ duties, etc. She should inform them on the Uposatha, on the Pavāraṇā, and daily to the four monks and bhikkhunīs. If the monks in that village are on almsround, she should go there. If not, she should go elsewhere and then return to show herself and go. Or she should make an appointment outside the village: “You will see us at such-and-such a place.” She should go to the appointed place and inform them. If she does not see them at the appointed place, she should go to the monastery and inform them. She should inform all the monks in the monastery. If it is not possible to inform all of them, she should stand outside the boundary and send the bhikkhunīs to bring four monks and inform them. If the monastery is far and there is suspicion, she should take laymen and laywomen and go. If she is alone, she incurs an offense of spending the night alone. Therefore, one bhikkhunī in good standing should be appointed to stay with her in the same shelter.
ID1595
Evaṃ akhaṇḍaṃ mānattaṃ caritvā vīsatigaṇe bhikkhunisaṅghe vuttanayeneva abbhānaṃ kātabbaṃ. “Sace mānattaṃ caramānā antarāpattiṃ āpajjati, mūlāya paṭikassitvā tassā āpattiyā mānattaṃ dātabba”nti kurundiyaṃ vuttaṃ, idaṃ pakkhamānattaṃ nāma. Idaṃ pana pakkhamānattaṃ samantapāsādikāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102) pāḷimuttavinayavinicchayabhāvena āgatampi imasmiṃ vinayasaṅgahappakaraṇe ācariyena anuddhaṭaṃ. Ayaṃ panācariyassa adhippāyo siyā – idaṃ pakkhamānattaṃ bhikkhuniyoyeva sandhāya bhagavatā visuṃ paññattaṃ, bhikkhūhi asādhāraṇaṃ, imasmiñca kāle bhikkhunisaṅgho natthi, tasmā ganthassa lahubhāvatthaṃ idampi aññampi īdisaṃ ajjhupekkhitabbanti. Amhehi pana bhikkhunisaṅghe avijjamānepi “bhikkhusaṅgho bhikkhunīhi samādātabbavattaṃ jānissati. ’Dubbalajātikā hi bhīrukajātikā bhikkhuniyo bhagavato āṇaṃ patiṭṭhāpentiyo evarūpaṃ dukkaraṃ durabhisambhavaṃ vattaṃ samādayiṃsu, kimaṅgaṃ pana maya’nti manasi karontā bhagavato āṇaṃ patiṭṭhāpentā parivāsādivattaṃ samādiyissantī”ti mantvā ācariyena anuddhaṭampi imasmiṃ vinayālaṅkārappakaraṇe uddhaṭaṃ, tasmā sammāsambuddhe sañjātasaddhāpemagāravādiyuttehi satthusāsanakarehi bhikkhūhi sammā sikkhitabbaṃ. Ito parāni aṭṭhakathāyaṃ āgatanayeneva veditabbāni.
Having observed probation without interruption, rehabilitation should be performed in a group of twenty in the nuns’ Saṅgha as stated. It is said in the Kurundī, “If she commits an intermediate offense while observing probation, having withdrawn to the root, probation should be given for that offense”—this is fortnight probation. Though this fortnight probation appears in the Samantapāsādikā (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 102) as a Vinaya decision apart from the Pāli, the teacher did not include it in this Vinaya compendium. The teacher’s intention might be: This fortnight probation was specifically prescribed by the Blessed One for nuns alone, not shared with monks, and since there is no nuns’ Saṅgha at this time, it and other such matters should be overlooked for the brevity of the text. However, even without a nuns’ Saṅgha, we have included it in this Vinaya Alaṅkāra text, thinking, “The monks’ Saṅgha will know the duties to be undertaken from the nuns. Considering, ‘The nuns, being of a weaker and timid nature, undertook such difficult and hard-to-accomplish duties to establish the Blessed One’s command—how much more should we?’ they will undertake the duties of penance, etc., to establish the Blessed One’s command.” Therefore, monks who establish the Teacher’s teaching with faith and reverence for the Fully Enlightened One should train properly. From here onward, it should be understood as stated in the commentary.
Having thus practiced mānatta unbroken, abbhāna (rehabilitation) should be performed in the same way as stated, in a bhikkhuni Sangha of twenty. “If, while practicing mānatta, she commits an interim offense, having reverted to the original, mānatta should be given for that offense,” it is said in the Kurundi. This is called pakkhamānatta. But this pakkhamānatta, although come in the Samantapāsādikā (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102) as an independent disciplinary decision outside of the Pāḷi, is not extracted by the teacher in this Vinayasaṅgaha treatise. But this may be the teacher’s intention – this pakkhamānatta was prescribed separately by the Blessed One only for bhikkhunis, it is not applicable to monks, and at this time there is no bhikkhuni Sangha, therefore, for the purpose of making the text lighter, this and other similar things are overlooked. However, even though the bhikkhuni Sangha is not existing, thinking, “The monk Sangha will know the practice to be undertaken by bhikkhunis. ‘Bhikkhunis, being of weak nature and fearful nature, establishing the Blessed One’s command, undertook such a difficult and hard to attain practice; what then of us?’ thinking thus, establishing the Blessed One’s command, they will undertake the parivāsa and other practices,” although not extracted by the teacher, it is extracted in this Vinayālaṅkāra treatise, therefore it should be properly learned by monks who are endowed with faith, affection, and respect, born of the Perfectly Enlightened One, and who follow the Teacher’s instruction. From here onwards, they should be understood in the same way as stated in the commentary.
Having thus observed the penance without interruption, she should request rehabilitation in the presence of twenty bhikkhunīs according to the method explained. As stated in the Kurundī, “If she commits an offense while observing penance, she should be sent back to the beginning and given penance for that offense.” This is called half-month penance. This half-month penance, though mentioned in the Samantapāsādikā (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 102) as part of the Pāli and Vinaya analysis, was not extracted by the teacher in this Vinaya compilation. The teacher’s intention may be that this half-month penance was specifically prescribed by the Blessed One for bhikkhunīs and is not shared by monks. Since there is no bhikkhunī Saṅgha at this time, for the sake of brevity, this and other such matters should be overlooked. However, even though there is no bhikkhunī Saṅgha, we think, “The monks’ Saṅgha will know the duties to be undertaken by bhikkhunīs. ‘Weak and timid bhikkhunīs, establishing the Buddha’s command, undertook such difficult and hard-to-fulfill duties. How much more so should we?’ Reflecting thus, they will establish the Buddha’s command and undertake probation, etc.” Therefore, the teacher, though not extracting it in this Vinaya compilation, has extracted it in the Vinayālaṅkāra. Thus, monks who are endowed with faith, love, and respect for the Fully Enlightened One, and who are devoted to the Teacher’s dispensation, should train properly. From here on, the methods found in the commentaries should be understood accordingly.
ID1596
Mānattavinicchayakathā niṭṭhitā.
The discussion on determining probation is concluded.
The discourse on the determination of mānatta is concluded.
The discussion on the determination of penance is concluded.
ID1597
248. Pārivāsikavattakathāyaṃ navakataraṃ pārivāsikanti attanā navakataraṃ pārivāsikaṃ. Pārivāsikassa hi attanā navakataraṃ pārivāsikaṃ ṭhapetvā aññe mūlāyapaṭikassanāraha mānattāraha mānattacārika abbhānārahāpi pakatattaṭṭhāneyeva tiṭṭhanti. Tenāha “antamaso mūlāyapaṭikassanārahādīnampī”ti. Antamaso mūlāyapaṭikassanārahādīnampīti ādi-saddena mānattārahamānattacārikaabbhānārahe saṅgaṇhāti. Te hi pārivāsikānaṃ, pārivāsikā ca tesaṃ pakatattaṭṭhāne eva tiṭṭhanti. Adhotapādaṭṭhapanakanti yattha ṭhatvā pāde dhovanti, tādisaṃ dāruphalakakhaṇḍādiṃ. Pādaghaṃsananti sakkharakathalādiṃ. Pāde ghaṃsanti etenāti pādaghaṃsanaṃ, sakkharakathalādi. Vuttañhi bhagavatā “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, tisso pādaghaṃsaniyo sakkharaṃ kathalaṃ samuddapheṇa”nti (cūḷava. 269). Saddhivihārikānampi sādiyantassāti saddhivihārikānampi abhivādanādiṃ sādiyantassa. Vattaṃ karontīti ettakamattasseva vuttattā saddhivihārikādīhipi abhivādanādiṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭati. “Mā maṃ gāmappavesanaṃ āpucchathā”ti vutte anāpucchāpi gāmaṃ pavisituṃ vaṭṭati.
248. In the discussion of the duties of a monk under probation, “a more junior monk under probation” refers to a monk under probation who is junior to oneself. For, apart from a monk under probation who is junior to oneself, others—those worthy of being sent back to the beginning, worthy of penance, undergoing penance, or worthy of rehabilitation—remain in their natural state. Hence it is said, “even those worthy of being sent back to the beginning and so forth.” The phrase “even those worthy of being sent back to the beginning and so forth” includes, by the word “and so forth”, those worthy of penance, undergoing penance, and worthy of rehabilitation. Indeed, those under probation remain in their natural state relative to them, and they to those under probation. “A stand for washing feet” refers to something like a piece of wood or plank used for standing on while washing the feet. “Foot-rubbing material” refers to gravel, potsherds, or the like. That which is used to rub the feet is “foot-rubbing material”, such as gravel or potsherds. For the Blessed One has said, “I allow, monks, three types of foot-rubbing materials: gravel, potsherds, and sea-foam” (cūḷava. 269). “Even accepting it from co-residents” means accepting salutations and the like even from co-residents. “Performing the duties”—since it is said only to this extent, it is not permissible even for co-residents and others to perform salutations and the like. When it is said, “Do not ask me about entering the village,” it is permissible to enter the village even without asking.
248. In the discussion on the conduct for probationers, navakataraṃ pārivāsikanti refers to a probationer more junior than oneself. For a probationer, apart from a probationer more junior than himself, others – even those not liable for reinstatement to the original state, those liable for mānatta, those observing mānatta, those liable for rehabilitation – remain in the status of fully-accepted monks. Therefore, it is said, “antamaso mūlāyapaṭikassanārahādīnampī”ti. Antamaso mūlāyapaṭikassanārahādīnampīti, by the word ādi (and others), includes those liable for mānatta, those observing mānatta, and those liable for rehabilitation. For they, in relation to probationers, and probationers in relation to them, remain in the status of fully accepted monks. Adhotapādaṭṭhapanakanti a piece of wood or similar material placed where one washes one’s feet. Pādaghaṃsananti gravel, potsherds, and so on. Pādaghaṃsanaṃ, that by which the feet are rubbed, is gravel, potsherds and so on. Indeed, the Blessed One said, “I allow, monks, three kinds of foot-rubbers: gravel, potsherds, sea-foam” (cūḷava. 269). Saddhivihārikānampi sādiyantassāti one who approves even of his co-residents’ respectful salutations and so on. Vattaṃ karontīti, because only this much is said, it is not proper for co-residents, etc. to perform respectful salutation and so on. If one says “Do not ask me permission before entering the village,” then one is allowed to enter the village without asking permission.
248. In the discussion on the duties of a Pārivāsika monk, “navakataraṃ pārivāsika” means a Pārivāsika monk who is more junior. For a Pārivāsika monk, except for himself being the most junior, others such as those deserving to be sent back to the beginning, those deserving mānatta, those undergoing mānatta, and those deserving rehabilitation remain in their original positions. Therefore, it is said, “even those deserving to be sent back to the beginning, etc.” The word “ādi” includes those deserving mānatta, those undergoing mānatta, and those deserving rehabilitation. These are for the Pārivāsika monks, and the Pārivāsika monks remain in their original positions. “Adhotapādaṭṭhapanaka” refers to a wooden plank or similar object where one stands to wash their feet. “Pādaghaṃsana” means gravel, pebbles, etc., used to scrub the feet. It is called “pādaghaṃsana” because it is used to scrub the feet. The Blessed One said, “I allow, monks, three types of foot scrubbers: gravel, pebbles, and sea foam” (Cūḷavagga 269). “Saddhivihārikānampi sādiyantassā” means accepting the respects, such as bowing, from one’s pupils. “Vattaṃ karontī” means that since this much has been said, it is not proper for pupils, etc., to perform acts of respect such as bowing. If told, “Do not ask me before entering the village,” it is permissible to enter the village without asking.
ID1598
Yo yo vuḍḍhoti pārivāsikesu bhikkhūsu yo yo vuḍḍho. Navakatarassa sāditunti pārivāsikanavakatarassa abhivādanādiṃ sādituṃ. “Pārisuddhiuposathe kariyamāne”ti idaṃ pavāraṇadivasesu saṅghe pavārente anupagatachinnavassādīhi kariyamānaṃ pārisuddhiuposathampi sandhāya vuttaṃ. Tatthevāti saṅghanavakaṭṭhāneyeva. Attano pāḷiyā pavāretabbanti attano vassaggena pattapāḷiyā pavāretabbaṃ, na pana sabbesu pavāritesūti attho.
“Whichever is senior” refers to whichever monk is senior among those under probation. “To accept from the more junior” means to accept salutations and the like from a more junior monk under probation. “When the purity observance is being performed”—this is said with reference to the purity observance performed by those who have not approached the sangha or whose rains-retreat has been interrupted, even on invitation days when the sangha is inviting. “Right there” means in the place of the sangha’s novices. “He should invite according to his own lineup” means he should invite according to the lineup determined by his years of ordination, not after everyone has invited—this is the meaning.
Yo yo vuḍḍhoti any senior among the probationer monks. Navakatarassa sāditunti to approve of a junior probationer’s respectful salutation and so on. “Pārisuddhiuposathe kariyamāne”ti, this refers to even the purity uposatha that is performed by those who have not arrived, those who have missed the rains retreat, and others, when the Community is carrying out the invitation on invitation days. Tatthevāti right there, in the place of the most junior member of the community. Attano pāḷiyā pavāretabbanti he should invite according to the order that comes to him based on his seniority, but not after all have given their invitations, is the meaning.
“Yo yo vuḍḍho” means whoever is senior among the Pārivāsika monks. “Navakatarassa sādituṃ” means to accept the respects, such as bowing, from a more junior Pārivāsika monk. “Pārisuddhiuposathe kariyamāne” refers to the Pārisuddhi Uposatha being performed by the Sangha on the day of the Pavāraṇā, including those who have not completed the rains residence. “Tatthevā” means in the place of the Sangha’s junior. “Attano pāḷiyā pavāretabbaṃ” means one should perform the Pavāraṇā according to one’s own seniority, not when all have performed it.
ID1599
Oṇojanaṃ nāma vissajjanaṃ, taṃ pana pārivāsikena pāpitassa attanā sampaṭicchitasseva punadivasādiatthāya vissajjanaṃ kātabbaṃ. Asampaṭicchitvā ce vissajjeti, na labhatīti vuttaṃ. Yadi pana na gaṇhāti na vissajjetīti yadi purimadivase attano na gaṇhāti, gahetvā ca na vissajjeti.
“Distribution” means giving away; however, a monk under probation should only give away what he has received himself for the sake of the next day or beyond. If he gives away without having received it, it is said he does not obtain it. “But if he neither takes nor gives away” means if, on the previous day, he neither takes for himself nor, having taken, gives it away.
Oṇojanaṃ means disposal, but the probationer should perform disposal of what has been given to him by a probationer, specifically for the purpose of another day, etc., if he himself has accepted it. If he disposes of it without having accepted it, he does not receive it, it is said. Yadi pana na gaṇhāti na vissajjetīti If he does not take it himself on the previous day, and having taken it, does not dispose of it.
“Oṇojanaṃ” means returning. A Pārivāsika monk should return what he has received from a wrongdoer for the purpose of future use. If he returns it without receiving it, he does not gain it. “Yadi pana na gaṇhāti na vissajjetī” means if he does not take it on the previous day or does not return it after taking it.
ID1600
Catussālabhattanti bhojanasālāya paṭipāṭiyā dīyamānaṃ bhattaṃ. Hatthapāse ṭhitenāti dāyakassa hatthapāse ṭhitena, paṭiggahaṇaruhanaṭṭhāneti adhippāyo. Mahāpeḷabhattepīti mahantesu bhattapacchiādibhājanesu ṭhapetvā dīyamānabhattesupi. Ito parampi pārivāsikavattaṃ pāḷiyaṃ (cūḷava. 75) āgatanayeneva veditabbaṃ. Tattha pana aṭṭhakathāyaṃ āgatanayeneva attho suviññeyyo hoti, tasmā dubbiññeyyaṭṭhāneyeva kathayissāma.
“Four-hall almsfood” refers to almsfood given sequentially in the dining hall. “By one standing within reach” means by one standing within the donor’s reach, at the place suited for receiving—this is the intent. “Even in the case of large basket-almsfood” refers to almsfood given after being placed in large containers like baskets or pots. From here on, the duties of a monk under probation should be understood as they come in the Pali text (cūḷava. 75). There, the meaning is easily comprehensible through the method presented in the commentary, so we will only discuss the parts that are difficult to understand.
Catussālabhattanti food given in sequence in the dining hall. Hatthapāse ṭhitenāti by one standing within hand’s reach of the donor, meaning at the place where reception is permitted. Mahāpeḷabhattepīti also in the case of food that is placed and given in large food containers, etc. Beyond this, the probationer’s conduct should be understood as stated in the Pāḷi (cūḷava. 75). However, the meaning there is easily understood according to the method given in the commentary. Therefore, we will explain only the difficult passages.
“Catussālabhattaṃ” refers to food given in the dining hall in order. “Hatthapāse ṭhitenā” means standing near the donor, intending to receive the offering. “Mahāpeḷabhattepi” includes food given in large containers. The rest of the duties of a Pārivāsika monk should be understood according to the method found in the Pāli text (Cūḷavagga 75). There, the meaning given in the commentary is clear, so we will only explain what is difficult to understand.
ID1601
“Na sāmaṇero upaṭṭhāpetabbo”ti ettha dubbidhaṃ sāmaṇeraṃ dassetuṃ “añño”tiādimāha. “Na bhikkhuniyo ovaditabbā”ti ettha laddhasammutikena āṇattopi garudhammehi aññehi vā ovadituṃ na labhatīti āha “paṭibalassa vā bhikkhussa bhāro kātabbo”ti. Āgatā bhikkhuniyo vattabbāti sambandho. Savacanīyanti sadosaṃ. Jeṭṭhakaṭṭhānaṃ na kātabbanti padhānaṭṭhānaṃ na kātabbaṃ. Kiṃ tanti āha “pātimokkhuddesakenā”tiādi.
Regarding “A novice should not be attended to,” to show the twofold nature of novices, it begins with “another” and so forth. Regarding “Nuns should not be admonished,” even if authorized, one does not receive the ability to admonish nuns regarding the grave rules or otherwise; hence it says, “The burden should be placed on a capable monk.” The connection is: nuns who have come should be told this. “Blameworthy” means faulty. “The position of seniority should not be taken” means the principal position should not be assumed. What is that? It says, “by reciting the Pātimokkha” and so forth.
Here, in the statement “Na sāmaṇero upaṭṭhāpetabbo” (a novice should not be made to attend), to show the two kinds of novices, it is said, “añño”tiādi (another) and so forth. In the statement “Na bhikkhuniyo ovaditabbā” (nuns should not be exhorted), even if he has been appointed and instructed by one who is capable, he is not allowed to exhort with any other disciplinary matters except the weighty rules (garudhammas), so it states “paṭibalassa vā bhikkhussa bhāro kātabbo”ti. The meaning is the nuns who come should be told. Savacanīyanti faulty. Jeṭṭhakaṭṭhānaṃ na kātabbanti the position of leader should not be taken. What is that? It is said “pātimokkhuddesakenā”tiādi (by the Pātimokkha reciter) and so forth.
“A novice should not be attended to” — here, to show a twofold novice, it is said, “añño”, etc. “Nuns should not be advised” — here, even if one has received permission, it is not permissible to advise others due to the heavy offenses or other reasons. Therefore, it is said, “the duty should be given to a competent monk.” The connection is that nuns who come should be spoken to. “Savacanīyaṃ” means with fault. “Jeṭṭhakaṭṭhānaṃ na kātabbaṃ” means the main position should not be taken. What then? It is said, “by the reciter of the Pātimokkha,” etc.
ID1602
Rajehi hatā upahatā bhūmi etissāti rajohatabhūmi, rajokiṇṇabhūmīti attho. Paccayanti vassāvāsikalābhaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Ekapasse ṭhatvāti pāḷiṃ vihāya bhikkhūnaṃ pacchato ṭhatvā. Senāsanaṃ na labhatīti seyyapariyantabhāgitāya vassaggena gaṇhituṃ na labhati. Assāti bhaveyya. “Āgantukena ārocetabbaṃ, āgantukassa ārocetabba”nti avisesena vuttattā sace dve pārivāsikā gataṭṭhāne aññamaññaṃ passanti, ubhohipi aññamaññassa ārocetabbaṃ. Yathā bahi disvā ārocitassa bhikkhuno vihāraṃ āgatena puna ārocanakiccaṃ natthi, evaṃ aññavihāraṃ gatenapi tattha pubbe ārocitassa puna ārocanakiccaṃ natthīti vadanti. Avisesenāti pārivāsikassa ca ukkhittakassa ca avisesena.
A ground struck and damaged by dust is called “dust-struck ground”, meaning a ground covered with dust—this is the meaning. “Requisites” is said with reference to gains related to the rains-residence. “Standing to one side” means standing behind the monks, apart from the lineup. “He does not obtain a lodging” means he does not obtain it by seniority due to the allocation of sleeping places. “If there were” means it might be. Since it is said generally, “A visitor should inform, and a visitor should be informed,” if two monks under probation see each other at a place they have gone to, both should inform each other. Just as a monk who has informed someone outside and then enters a monastery has no further duty to inform, so too one who has gone to another monastery and previously informed there has no further duty to inform—this is what they say. “Generally” means without distinction between one under probation and one suspended.
Land that is covered, struck, or overwhelmed by dust is rajohatabhūmi, meaning land strewn with dust. Paccayanti this refers to the gains of the rains-residence. Ekapasse ṭhatvāti standing behind the monks, excluding the Pāḷi. Senāsanaṃ na labhatīti, he does not get it for the purpose of sharing a bed according to the seniority count. Assāti it would be. Because it has been said generally, “The newcomer should inform; one should inform the newcomer,” if two probationers see each other at a place they have gone to, both should inform each other. Just as there is no need for a monk who has been informed outside to be informed again when he comes to the monastery, in the same way, one who has gone to another monastery does not need to be informed again if he has already been informed there. Avisesenāti generally, for both the probationer and the suspended monk.
“Rajohatabhūmi” means a place covered with dust, a dusty ground. “Paccaya” refers to the gains of the rains residence. “Ekapasse ṭhatvā” means standing behind the monks, leaving the Pāli. “Senāsanaṃ na labhatī” means one does not receive a lodging due to the limit of the rains residence. “Assā” means it may be. “A newcomer should inform, a newcomer should be informed” — since this is said without distinction, if two Pārivāsika monks see each other in a place, both should inform each other. Just as a monk who has informed another upon seeing him outside does not need to inform again upon entering the monastery, similarly, if one goes to another monastery, there is no need to inform again if one has already informed before. “Avisesenā” means without distinction between a Pārivāsika monk and an expelled monk.
ID1603
Obaddhanti palibuddhaṃ. Sahavāsoti vuttappakāre channe bhikkhunā saddhiṃ sayanameva adhippetaṃ, na sesairiyāpathakappanaṃ. Sesamettha suviññeyyameva.
“Unbound” means obstructed. “Co-dwelling” refers only to sleeping together with a nun under a roof as described, not to other postures of activity. The rest here is indeed easily understood.
Obaddhanti obstructed. Sahavāsoti Here, the meaning is only sleeping together with a monk in a covered place, as previously stated, not performing other postures. The rest here is easily understood.
“Obaddha” means obstructed. “Sahavāso” refers to staying together with a monk under the same roof, specifically sharing a bed, not other forms of lodging. The rest here is clear.
ID1604
Pāpiṭṭhatarāti pārājikāpattīti ukkaṃsavasena vuttaṃ. Sañcarittādipaṇṇattivajjato pana sukkavissaṭṭhādikā lokavajjāva. Tatthapi saṅghabhedādikā pāpiṭṭhatarā eva. Kammanti pārivāsikakammavācāti etena “kammabhūtā vācā kammavācā”ti kammavācāsaddassa atthopi siddhoti veditabbo. Savacanīyanti ettha sa-saddo “santi”atthaṃ vadati, attano vacanena attano pavattanakammanti evamettha attho daṭṭhabbo, “mā pakkamāhī”ti vā “ehi vinayadharānaṃ sammukhībhāva”nti vā evaṃ attano āṇāya pavattanakakammaṃ na kātabbanti adhippāyo. Evañhi kenaci savacanīye kate anādarena atikkamituṃ na vaṭṭati, buddhassa saṅghassa āṇā atikkantā nāma hoti. Rajohatabhūmīti paṇṇasālāvisesanaṃ. Paccayanti vassāvāsikacīvaraṃ. Senāsanaṃ na labhatīti vassaggena na labhati. Apaṇṇakapaṭipadāti aviraddhapaṭipadā. Sace vāyamantopīti ettha avisayabhāvaṃ ñatvā avāyamantopi saṅgayhati. Avisesenāti pārivāsikukkhittakānaṃ sāmaññena. Pañcavaṇṇachadanabandhanaṭṭhānesūti pañcappakārachadanehi channaṭṭhānesu. Obaddhanti uṭṭhānādibyāpārapaṭibaddhaṃ, pīḷitanti attho. Mañce vā pīṭhe vāti ettha vāsaddo samuccayattho. Tena taṭṭikācammakhaṇḍādīsu dīghāsanesupi nisīdituṃ na vaṭṭatīti dīpitaṃ hoti. Na vattabhedadukkaṭanti vuḍḍhatarassa jānantassapi vattabhede dukkaṭaṃ natthīti dasseti. Vattaṃ nikkhipāpetvāti idampi parivāsādimeva sandhāya vuttaṃ, na sesakammāni.
“More sinful” refers to “an offense entailing defeat”, stated in terms of the highest degree. However, compared to offenses like mediation, which are violations of disciplinary rules, those like emission of semen are merely worldly faults. Among them, offenses like causing a schism in the sangha are indeed more sinful. “Action means the formal declaration for one under probation”—by this, it is understood that the meaning of the term “formal declaration” as “a statement constituting an action” is also established. Regarding “blameworthy”, the prefix “sa-” denotes “existing”; it should be understood here that an action undertaken by one’s own command is an action initiated by oneself, meaning one should not perform an action by one’s own order, such as “Do not depart” or “Come into the presence of disciplinary experts.” For if such a blameworthy act is committed by someone, it is not permissible to disregard it; it would amount to transgressing the command of the Buddha and the sangha. “Dust-struck ground” qualifies a leaf-hut. “Requisites” refers to robes for the rains-residence. “He does not obtain a lodging” means he does not obtain it by seniority. “Faultless path” means an unhindered path. “Even if he strives”—here, even one who does not strive, knowing it is beyond his scope, is included. “Generally” means commonly to those under probation and those suspended. “In places covered with five-colored roofs” means in places covered with five types of roofs. “Bound” means obstructed by activities like rising, meaning oppressed. “On a bed or a chair”—here, the word “or” has a conjunctive sense, indicating that it is not permissible to sit even on long seats made of lattice or leather strips. “No offense of breaking the duty” shows that there is no offense of wrong-doing in breaking a duty, even for a senior who knows it. “Having laid aside the duty”—this too is said only with reference to probation and the like, not to other actions.
Pāpiṭṭhatarāti pārājikāpattīti is stated as the highest. From the point of the formulated prohibitions of sañcaritta etc., however, ejaculation of semen etc. are also blameworthy by the world. Even among those, breaking the Community, etc., are more evil. Kammanti pārivāsikakammavācāti With this, it should be understood that the meaning of the word kammavācā (formal act speech) is settled as “speech that has the nature of a formal act, is a formal act speech.” Savacanīyanti here the word sa denotes the sense of “being”, one’s own action of ordering with one’s speech is thus the meaning should be regarded here. The meaning is that actions ordering with one’s command, such as “do not go away,” or “come to the presence of the Vinaya experts” should not be performed. For, if someone says something that is ‘savacanīya’, it is improper to transgress it disrespectfully, as that would constitute transgressing the command of the Buddha and the Sangha. Rajohatabhūmīti is a qualification of a leaf-hut. Paccayanti the robe for the rains residence. Senāsanaṃ na labhatīti, he does not get it according to seniority. Apaṇṇakapaṭipadāti non-conflicting conduct. Sace vāyamantopīti, here, knowing that it is beyond the scope, even one who is not striving is included. Avisesenāti, in general, for probationers and suspended monks. Pañcavaṇṇachadanabandhanaṭṭhānesūti in places covered with five kinds of coverings. Obaddhanti obstructed by activities such as getting up, etc., meaning pressured. Mañce vā pīṭhe vāti here the word vā is in the sense of aggregation. Thus, it shows that one is not allowed to sit on long seats such as mats or pieces of leather. Na vattabhedadukkaṭanti it shows that even if he knows of a senior monk, there is no offense of wrong-doing (dukkaṭa) for breaking the conduct. Vattaṃ nikkhipāpetvāti this, too, refers only to probation, etc., not to other formal acts.
“Pāpiṭṭhatarā” means “pārājikāpattī”, said in an exalted manner. However, from the standpoint of minor offenses and worldly faults, even serious offenses like causing a schism in the Sangha are worse. “Kammanti pārivāsikakammavācā” — here, it should be understood that the term “kammavācā” means “a speech that is an act.” “Savacanīyanti” — here, the prefix “sa” conveys the meaning of “existing,” meaning an act performed by one’s own speech. The intention is that one should not perform an act by one’s own authority, such as saying, “Do not go,” or “Come to the presence of the Vinaya experts.” For if someone is addressed in this manner, it is not permissible to disregard it, as it would be disregarding the authority of the Buddha and the Sangha. “Rajohatabhūmī” refers to a specific type of leaf hut. “Paccaya” refers to the robe of the rains residence. “Senāsanaṃ na labhatī” means one does not receive lodging due to the limit of the rains residence. “Apaṇṇakapaṭipadā” means an unbroken practice. “Sace vāyamantopī” — here, knowing it is out of one’s jurisdiction, even if one does not strive, it is included. “Avisesenā” means generally for Pārivāsika and expelled monks. “Pañcavaṇṇachadanabandhanaṭṭhānesū” refers to places covered with five types of coverings. “Obaddha” means hindered by activities such as rising, meaning oppressed. “Mañce vā pīṭhe vā” — here, the word “vā” has a collective meaning. Therefore, it is clarified that it is not permissible to sit on long seats such as mats, leather pieces, etc. “Na vattabhedadukkaṭa” means there is no offense of breaking the duty even if a senior knows. “Vattaṃ nikkhipāpetvā” — this also refers only to the duties of probation, etc., not other acts.
ID1605
“Senāsanaṃ na labhati seyyapariyantabhāgitāya. Uddesādīni dātumpi na labhatīti vadanti. ’Tadahupasampannepi pakatatte’ti vacanato anupasampannehi vasituṃ vaṭṭati. Samavassāti etena apacchā apurimaṃ nipajjane dvinnampi vattabhedāpattibhāvaṃ dīpeti. Attano attano navakataranti pārivāsikādinavakataraṃ. Paṭhamaṃ saṅghamajjhe parivāsaṃ gahetvā nikkhittavattena puna ekassapi santike samādiyituṃ nikkhipituñca vaṭṭati, mānatte pana nikkhipituṃ vaṭṭati. Ūnegaṇecaraṇadosattā na gahetunti eke. Paṭhamaṃ ādinnavattaṃ ekassa santike yathā nikkhipituṃ vaṭṭati, tathā samādiyitumpi vaṭṭatīti porāṇagaṇṭhipade”ti vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 76) vuttanti.
“He does not obtain a lodging” refers to the allocation of sleeping places. They say he also does not obtain the right to give recitation and so forth. From the statement “Even one ordained on that day is in a natural state,” it is permissible to dwell with those not fully ordained. “Of equal years”—by this, it indicates that both fall into the offense of breaking the duty if one lies down later or earlier. “The more junior to oneself” refers to one more junior among those under probation and the like. Having first taken probation in the midst of the sangha, one who has laid aside the duty may again undertake or lay it aside in the presence of even a single monk; but in the case of penance, it is permissible only to lay it aside. Some say that due to the fault of lacking a quorum, it cannot be taken. As it is permissible to lay aside a previously undertaken duty in the presence of one monk, so too it is permissible to undertake it—this is stated in the ancient commentary Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. cūḷava. 76).
**“Senāsanaṃ na labhati** he does not get it for the purpose of bed-sharing. They say he is also not allowed to give the recitation and so on. Because of the statement ‘even one ordained on that very day is a fully accepted monk’, it is allowable to reside with those who are not ordained. Samavassāti by this, it shows that if two people lie down, not before or after each other, there is an offense of breaking the conduct for both. Attano attano navakataranti the junior probationer, etc. of oneself, oneself. After first undertaking probation in the midst of the Community, it is permissible to take up and put down, even in the presence of a single person, the conduct that has been put down, but in the case of mānatta, it is only permissible to put it down. Some say that it is not taken up because of the fault of acting in an incomplete group. ‘Just as it is permissible to put down in the presence of a single person the conduct that has been taken up at first, so too it is permissible to take it up, says the ancient sub-commentary (porāṇagaṇṭhipade) in the Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 76)’.”
“Senāsanaṃ na labhati” — due to the limit of the rains residence. It is said that one cannot even give assignments, etc. “Even if one is newly ordained, one is in good standing” — this statement allows one to stay with those who are not fully ordained. “Samavassā” — this indicates that lying down in reverse or forward order incurs an offense of breaking the duty for both. “Attano attano navakataraṃ” — the more junior Pārivāsika, etc. After first taking probation in the midst of the Sangha and laying down the duty, it is permissible to undertake and lay it down again in the presence of even one monk. However, it is permissible to lay down mānatta. Some say that due to the fault of not completing the group, it is not taken. The ancient commentary states that just as it is permissible to lay down a duty first undertaken in the presence of one monk, so it is permissible to undertake it again.
ID1606
Idaṃ ettha yaṃ vattaṃ “catunavutipārivāsikavatta”nti pārivāsikakkhandhakapāḷiyaṃ (cūḷava. 75) āgataṃ, samantapāsādikāyampi ettakāya pāḷiyā (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 75-84) vaṇṇanaṃ vatvā “pārivāsikavattakathā niṭṭhitā”ti āha. Imasmiṃ vinayasaṅgahapakaraṇe (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 248) pana “na chamāyaṃ caṅkamante caṅkame caṅkamitabba”nti imassānantaraṃ “pārivāsikacatuttho ce, bhikkhave”tiādīni aggahetvā “na, bhikkhave, pārivāsikena bhikkhunā sāditabba”ntiādīni paṭhamaṃ paññattapadāni gahetvā tesaṃ padānaṃ saṃvaṇṇanaṃ katvā “idaṃ pārivāsikavatta”nti aññathā anukkamo vutto, so pāḷiyā ca aṭṭhakathāya ca na sameti. Ācariyassa pana ayamadhippāyo siyā – “pārivāsikacatuttho ce, bhikkhave”tiādīni pārivāsikabhikkhūnaṃ samādiyitabbāni na honti , atha kho kammakārakānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ kattabbākattabbakammadassanametaṃ, tasmā pārivāsikavatte na pavesetabbaṃ. “Na, bhikkhave, pārivāsikena bhikkhunā sāditabba”ntiādīni pana pārivāsikabhikkhūnaṃ sammāvattitabbavattāniyeva honti, tasmā imāniyeva pārivāsikavatte pavesetabbānīti. Amhehi pana pāḷiaṭṭhakathāṭīkāsu āgatānukkamena paṭhamaṃ paññattavattānaṃ atthaṃ paṭhamaṃ dassetvā pacchā paññattapadānaṃ attho pacchā vuttoti daṭṭhabbo.
Here, the duty referred to as “the ninety-four duties of one under probation” is found in the Pali text of the Probation Chapter (cūḷava. 75), and having commented on that much in the Samantapāsādikā (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 75-84), it concludes with “The discussion of the duties of one under probation is finished.” However, in this disciplinary compendium (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 248), after “One should not walk on the ground while another is walking on the walking path,” without taking up “If a fourth monk under probation, O monks,” and so forth, it first takes up the initially established rules like “A monk under probation should not accept, O monks,” and explains those rules, stating “This is the duty of one under probation,” presenting a different sequence that does not align with the Pali text or the commentary. Perhaps the teacher’s intention was this: “If a fourth monk under probation, O monks,” and so forth are not duties to be undertaken by monks under probation but rather show what should or should not be done by those performing the action; therefore, they should not be included in the duties of one under probation. However, “A monk under probation should not accept, O monks,” and so forth are indeed the duties to be properly observed by monks under probation, so these alone should be included in the duties of one under probation. But we have first explained the meaning of the initially established duties in the order they appear in the Pali text, commentary, and sub-commentary, and then explained the meaning of the later established rules afterward—this should be understood.
Here, this conduct, which has come in the Pāḷi of the Probationer section (cūḷava. 75) as “the conduct of the ninety-four probationers,” the Samantapāsādikā, having commented on this much of the Pāḷi (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 75-84), says, “the discussion of the conduct for probationers is finished.” However, in this compendium of Vinaya summaries (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 248), after “na chamāyaṃ caṅkamante caṅkame caṅkamitabba”nti, without taking up “pārivāsikacatuttho ce, bhikkhave”tiādīni, and taking up first “na, bhikkhave, pārivāsikena bhikkhunā sāditabba”ntiādīni, the first formulated rules, after commenting on the words of those rules, and stating “idaṃ pārivāsikavatta”nti, a different order is presented, which does not agree with the Pāḷi or the commentary. But perhaps this is the intention of the teacher: “pārivāsikacatuttho ce, bhikkhave”tiādīni are not to be practiced by the probationer monks; rather, this is a demonstration of the actions, proper and improper, to be done by the monks performing the formal act, therefore it should not be included in the conduct for probationers. However, “na, bhikkhave, pārivāsikena bhikkhunā sāditabba”ntiādīni are indeed the conduct to be properly practiced by the probationer monks, therefore these alone should be included in the conduct for probationers. But we should understand that, according to the order found in the Pāḷi, commentary and sub-commentary, having first presented the meaning of the conduct formulated first, we have afterwards presented the meaning of the rules formulated later.
Here, the duty mentioned as “catunavutipārivāsikavatta” in the Pārivāsika chapter of the Pāli text (Cūḷavagga 75) and explained in the Samantapāsādikā with the same amount of Pāli (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭha. 75-84) concludes with the statement, “the discussion on the duties of a Pārivāsika monk is completed.” In this Vinaya compilation (Vi. Saṅga. Aṭṭha. 248), however, after stating, “one should not walk on the ground or on a walking path,” the following statements such as “if, monks, a Pārivāsika monk is the fourth,” etc., are not included. Instead, the initial rules such as “a Pārivāsika monk should not accept,” etc., are taken first, and after explaining their meaning, it is said, “this is the duty of a Pārivāsika monk,” but this order does not match the Pāli text or the commentary. The teacher’s intention might be that statements like “if, monks, a Pārivāsika monk is the fourth,” etc., are not to be undertaken by Pārivāsika monks but are to be observed by the monks performing the act, and therefore should not be included in the duties of a Pārivāsika monk. However, statements like “a Pārivāsika monk should not accept,” etc., are indeed the proper duties to be observed by Pārivāsika monks, and thus only these should be included in the duties of a Pārivāsika monk. We, however, should first explain the meaning of the duties as they appear in the Pāli text and commentary, and then explain the meaning of the rules subsequently stated.
ID1607
Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the disciplinary compendium,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,
Thus, in the Vinayasaṅgaha commentary, the Vinayālaṅkāra,
ID1608
Garukāpattivuṭṭhānavinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma
The Ornament of the Discussion on Determining the Restoration from Grave Offenses
The chapter named Explanation of the Determination of Rising from Weighty Offenses
the chapter on the determination of rehabilitation from heavy offenses,
ID1609
Dvattiṃsatimo paricchedo.
Is the thirty-second chapter.
is the thirty-second section.
the thirty-second section, is completed.
ID1610
ID1611
249. Evaṃ garukāpattivuṭṭhānavinicchayakathaṃ kathetvā idāni kammākammavinicchayakathaṃ kathetuṃ “kammākammanti ettha panā”tiādimāha. Tattha samaggena saṅghena karīyate tanti kammaṃ, apalokanādicatubbidhavinayakammaṃ. Itarasmimpi eseva nayo. A-kāro vuddhiattho, na vuddhippattaṃ kammaṃ akammaṃ. Kammañca akammañca kammākammaṃ vajjāvajjaṃ viya, phalāphalaṃ viya ca. Tattha ca kammanti apalokanakammañattikammadvayaṃ. Akammanti ñattidutiyakammañatticatautthakammadvayaṃ. Atha vā kammanti catūsupi etesu lahukakammaṃ. Akammanti garukakammaṃ. Kammākammanti ettha pana vinicchayo evaṃ veditabboti yojanā. Tattha panāti pakkhantaratthe nipāto , garukāpattivuṭṭhānavinicchayakathāpakkhato añño kammākammavinicchayakathāpakkho veditabboti vā mayā vuccateti vā attho.
249. Having thus discussed the determination of restoration from grave offenses, now to discuss the determination of actions and non-actions, it begins with “Now, regarding actions and non-actions” and so forth. Therein, what is performed by a united sangha is an action, referring to the fourfold disciplinary actions such as acknowledgment. The same method applies to the rest. The prefix “non-” denotes maturity; an action that has not reached maturity is a non-action. “Actions and non-actions” refers to both actions and non-actions, like the blameworthy and blameless or the fruitful and fruitless. Therein, “action” refers to acknowledgment action and the two motion actions. “Non-action” refers to the motion-second action and the two motion-fourth actions. Alternatively, “action” refers to the lighter actions among these four, and “non-action” refers to the grave actions. The determination of actions and non-actions should be understood thus—this is the connection. Therein, “now” is a particle indicating a shift to another topic, meaning either that a different topic, the discussion on actions and non-actions, should be understood apart from the discussion on restoration from grave offenses, or that this is what I am saying—this is the meaning.
249. Having thus explained the determination of rising from weighty offenses, now, in order to explain the discussion of the determination of proper and improper formal acts, he begins with “kammākammanti ettha panā”tiādimāha. Here, kammaṃ is that which is done by the complete assembly, the four kinds of disciplinary acts, beginning with apalokana. The same method applies to the other. The ‘A’ has a negative meaning; akammaṃ is a formal act that has not reached completion (vuddhi). Kammākammaṃ is like vajjāvajjaṃ (blameworthy and not blameworthy), and like phalāphalaṃ (fruitful and not fruitful). Here, kammanti refers to the two formal acts of apalokana and ñatti. Akammanti refers to the two formal acts of ñattidutiya and ñatticatuttha. Or else, kammanti refers to the minor act among all four of these. Akammanti refers to the major act. The connection should be understood as, in kammākammaṃ, this determination should be understood. Here, panāti is a particle in the sense of an alternative view; another view, the view of the discussion of the determination of proper and improper formal acts, different from the discussion of the determination of rising from weighty offences, should be understood, or is being stated by me, is the meaning.
249. Having discussed the determination of rehabilitation from heavy offenses, now the discussion on what is and is not an act begins with the statement, “kammākammanti ettha panā”, etc. Here, what is performed by a united Sangha is called an act, such as the four types of Vinaya acts including the act of proposal. The same applies to others. The prefix “a” means growth; what has not grown is not an act. Both what is an act and what is not an act are called “kammākammaṃ”, like what is blameworthy and blameless, or like fruit and non-fruit. Here, “kamma” refers to the act of proposal and the two-part act. “Akamma” refers to the two-part act and the four-part act. Alternatively, “kamma” refers to the lighter acts among these four. “Akamma” refers to the heavier acts. The determination of what is and is not an act should be understood in this way. Here, “panā” is a particle indicating a transition, meaning that after the discussion on the determination of rehabilitation from heavy offenses, another discussion on the determination of what is and is not an act should be understood, or it is said by me.
ID1612
Cattāri kammānīti ettha cattārīti paricchedanidassanaṃ. Tena vinayakammāni nāma cattāri eva honti, na ito ūnādhikānīti dasseti. Kammānīti paricchinnakammanidassanaṃ. Apalokanakammantiādīni paricchinnakammānaṃ uddesakathanaṃ. Tattha apalokīyate āyācīyate apalokanaṃ, apapubbalokadhātu āyācanatthe, yupaccayo bhāvatthavācako. Apalokanavasena kattabbaṃ kammaṃ apalokanakammaṃ, sīmaṭṭhakasaṅghaṃ apaloketvā saṅghānumatiyā kattabbaṃ kammaṃ. Ñāpanā ñatti, saṅghassa jānāpanāti attho. Ñattiyā kattabbaṃ kammaṃ ñattikammaṃ, anussāvanaṃ akatvā suddhañattiyāyeva kattabbakammaṃ. Dvinnaṃ pūraṇī dutiyā, ñatti dutiyā etassa kammassāti ñattidutiyaṃ, ñattidutiyañca taṃ kammañcāti ñattidutiyakammaṃ, ekāya ñattiyā ekāya anussāvanāya kattabbakammaṃ. Catunnaṃ pūraṇī catutthī, ñatti catutthī etassa kammassāti ñatticatutthaṃ, ñatticatutthañca taṃ kammañcāti ñatticatutthakammaṃ, ekāya ñattiyā tīhi anussāvanāhi kattabbakammaṃ. Tena vakkhati “apalokanakammaṃ nāma sīmaṭṭhakasaṅghaṃ sodhetvā”tiādi.
“Four actions”—here, “four” indicates a limitation, showing that disciplinary actions are exactly four, neither fewer nor more. “Actions” indicates specified actions. “Acknowledgment action” and so forth are the enumeration of these specified actions. Therein, acknowledgment is requested or sought; the root “lok” with the prefix “apa” means requesting, and the suffix “yu” denotes an abstract noun. An action performed by means of acknowledgment is an “acknowledgment action”, an action performed with the consent of the sangha standing within the boundary after acknowledging it. A motion is a declaration, meaning making known to the sangha. An action performed by means of a motion is a “motion action”, an action performed solely by a motion without announcement. “Second” fulfills two; a motion is the second for this action, hence “motion-second,” and that action is a “motion-second action”, an action performed with one motion and one announcement. “Fourth” fulfills four; a motion is the fourth for this action, hence “motion-fourth,” and that action is a “motion-fourth action”, an action performed with one motion and three announcements. Thus, it will say, “An acknowledgment action is one that, having purified the sangha within the boundary,” and so forth.
Cattāri kammānīti, here, cattārīti indicates a division. Thus, it shows that there are only four disciplinary formal acts, neither less nor more than this. Kammānīti indicates the categorized formal acts. Apalokanakammantiādīni is the enumeration of the defined formal acts. There, apalokīyate means is asked permission, apalokanaṃ. The root lok with the prefix apa is in the sense of asking. The suffix yu has the sense of action (bhāva). Apalokanakammaṃ is the formal act to be done by means of asking (apalokana). Apalokanakammaṃ, the formal act to be performed with the consent of the Community after asking permission from the Community residing within the boundary. Ñāpanā is ñatti, meaning the informing of the Community. Ñattikammaṃ is the formal act to be done by a ñatti, a formal act to be performed by a mere formal declaration, without recitation (anussāvana). Dutiyā is the completion of two. Ñattidutiyaṃ is that act for which the formal declaration is the second element. Ñattidutiyakammaṃ is the formal act that is a ñattidutiya, a formal act to be done by one formal declaration and one recitation. Catutthī is the completion of four. Ñatticatutthaṃ is that act for which the formal declaration is the fourth element. Ñatticatutthakammaṃ is the formal act that is a ñatticatuttha, a formal act to be done by one formal declaration and three recitations. Therefore, he will say, “apalokanakammaṃ nāma sīmaṭṭhakasaṅghaṃ sodhetvā”tiādi.
“Cattāri kammānī” — here, “cattārī” indicates a definite number. Thus, there are exactly four Vinaya acts, no more, no less. “Kammānī” indicates the specific acts. “Apalokanakamma”, etc., are the names of the specific acts. Here, “apalokana” means to inform, to request; the prefix “apa” indicates the meaning of requesting. The suffix “na” is a verbal suffix indicating action. An act performed by informing is called “apalokanakamma”, such as informing the Sangha within the boundary and performing the act with the Sangha’s consent. “Ñatti” means informing, making the Sangha aware. An act performed by a motion is called “ñattikamma”, an act performed by a pure motion without a proclamation. The second of two is called “ñattidutiya”, meaning a motion followed by a second motion. An act performed by one motion and one proclamation is called “ñattidutiyakamma”. The fourth of four is called “ñatticatuttha”, meaning a motion followed by a fourth motion. An act performed by one motion and three proclamations is called “ñatticatutthakamma”. Therefore, it is said, “apalokanakamma is performed by informing the Sangha within the boundary,” etc.
ID1613
Evaṃ cattāri kammāni uddisitvā parivāre (pari. 482 ādayo) kammavagge āgatanayeneva tesaṃ catunnaṃ kammānaṃ vipattikāraṇāni pucchitvā vissajjetuṃ “imāni cattāri kammāni katihākārehi vipajjanti? Pañcahākārehi vipajjantī”tiādimāha. Tattha vatthutoti vinayakammassa kāraṇabhūtavatthuto. Ñattito anussāvanatoti dvepi kammavācāyameva. Sīmatoti kammakaraṇaṭṭhānabhūtabaddhasīmato. Parisatoti kammappattachandārahabhūtakārakasaṅghato. Tāniyeva hi pañca sabbesaṃ vinayakammānaṃ vipattikāraṇāni honti.
Having thus enumerated the four actions, to question and answer the causes of their failure as presented in the Actions Section of the Parivāra (pari. 482 onward), it begins with “These four actions—by how many factors do they fail? They fail by five factors” and so forth. Therein, “by the basis” refers to the basis that is the cause of the disciplinary action. “By the motion, by the announcement”—both pertain to the formal declaration itself. “By the boundary” refers to the fixed boundary that is the place of performing the action. “By the assembly” refers to the sangha performing the action, which is worthy of consent for the action. Indeed, these five are the causes of failure for all disciplinary actions.
Having thus enumerated the four formal acts, in order to ask and answer the causes of failure of these four formal acts, according to the method presented in the Kammavagga of the Parivāra (pari. 482 ff.), he says, “imāni cattāri kammāni katihākārehi vipajjanti? Pañcahākārehi vipajjantī”tiādimāha. There, vatthutoti from the point of view of the object, which is the cause of the disciplinary formal act. Ñattito anussāvanatoti both refer to the formal act statement (kammavācā) itself. Sīmatoti from the point of view of the established boundary, which is the place where the formal act is performed. Parisatoti from the point of view of the operative Community, who are qualified and authorized to participate in the formal act. These same five are indeed the causes of failure of all disciplinary formal acts.
Having thus listed the four acts, in the Parivāra (Parivāra 482, etc.), in the Kammavagga, according to the method found there, after asking the causes of failure for these four acts, it is said, “in how many ways do these four acts fail? They fail in five ways,” etc. Here, “vatthuto” means from the standpoint of the basis of the Vinaya act. “Ñattito anussāvanato” means both the motion and the proclamation. “Sīmato” means from the boundary where the act is performed. “Parisato” means from the Sangha qualified to consent to the act. These five are the causes of failure for all Vinaya acts.
ID1614
Tato taṃ kammavipattikāraṇabhūtaṃ vatthuṃ pāḷinayena vitthāretuṃ “sammukhākaraṇīyaṃ kammaṃ asammukhā karoti, vatthuvipannaṃ adhammakamma”ntyādimāha. Tattha sammukhākaraṇīyaṃ paṭipucchākaraṇīyaṃ paṭiññāyakaraṇīyanti imesaṃ tiṇṇaṃ atathākaraṇena, sativinayo amūḷhavinayo tassapāpiyasikā tajjanīyakammaṃ niyasakammaṃ pabbājanīyakammaṃ paṭisāraṇīyakammaṃ ukkhepanīyakammaṃ parivāso mūlāyapaṭikassanā mānattaṃ abbhānaṃ upasampadanti imesaṃ terasakammānaṃ aññakammārahassa aññakammakaraṇena, uposatho pavāraṇāti imesaṃ dvinnaṃ adivase karaṇena, paṇḍako theyyasaṃvāsako titthiyapakkantako tiracchānagato mātughātako pitughātako arahantaghātako lohituppādako saṅghabhedako bhikkhunidūsako ubhatobyañjanako ūnavīsativasso antimavatthuajjhāpannapubboti imesaṃ terasannaṃ puggalānaṃ upasampadākammakaraṇena iti imāni ekatiṃsa kammāni vatthuvipannaṃ adhammakammaṃ hoti. Ñattito pañca, anussāvanato pañcāti imāni dasa kāraṇāni antokammavācāyameva labhanti, sīmato ekādasa kāraṇāni sīmāsammutivasena labhanti, parisato dvādasa kāraṇāni catuvaggapañcavaggadasavaggavīsativaggasaṅkhātesu catūsu saṅghesu ekekasmiṃ kammapattachandārahasammukhībhūtasaṅkhātānaṃ tiṇṇaṃ tiṇṇaṃ saṅghānaṃ vasena labhantīti.
Then, to elaborate on the basis that is the cause of the failure of an action according to the Pali method, it begins with “An action to be done in presence, if done in absence, is a basis-failed, invalid action” and so forth. Therein, by not performing as required the three—those to be done in presence, by interrogation, or by acknowledgment—and by performing one action instead of another among the thirteen actions such as adjudication by verdict of past insanity, adjudication by verdict of innocence, adjudication for one deemed more sinful, censure, assigning dependence, banishment, reconciliation, suspension, probation, sending back to the beginning, penance, rehabilitation, and ordination; or by performing the two—observance day and invitation—on the wrong day; or by performing the ordination action for thirteen individuals such as a eunuch, a thief living in disguise, one who has gone over to another sect, an animal, a matricide, a patricide, a killer of an arahant, one who causes a schism, one who violates a nun, a hermaphrodite, one under twenty years, or one previously guilty of the ultimate offense—thus these thirty-one actions become a “basis-failed, invalid action”. Five causes from the motion and five from the announcement—these ten causes pertain solely to the formal declaration. Eleven causes from the boundary arise due to the boundary’s designation. Twelve causes from the assembly arise in each of the four sanghas—those of four, five, ten, or twenty—due to the three types of sanghas worthy of consent for each action being present.
Then, in order to elaborate on that object which is the cause of the result of action according to the canonical method, he says, “One performs an action that should be done in the presence incorrectly, the object is faulty, it is an unlawful action,” and so forth. Herein, regarding the three [actions]: that which should be performed in the presence, that which should be performed after questioning, and that which should be performed after acknowledgment, by doing these incorrectly; regarding these thirteen actions: formal act of sammuti for giving full ordination, formal act of amūḷhavinaya, formal act of tassapāpiyasikā, formal act of tajjanīya, formal act of niyasa, formal act of pabbājanīya, formal act of paṭisāraṇīya, formal act of ukkhepanīya, formal act of parivāsa, formal act of mūlāya paṭikassanā, formal act of mānatta, formal act of abbhāna, and performing another formal act for one who is deserving of another; regarding these two: Uposatha and Pavāraṇā, by doing them on the wrong day; regarding these thirteen persons: a eunuch, one who cohabits for theft, one who has gone over to another sect, one born in the animal realm, a matricide, a patricide, a murderer of an Arahant, one who causes a Buddha to bleed, a schismatic, a seducer of a bhikkhuni, one who is a hermaphrodite, one who is less than twenty years, and who has previously fallen into a serious offence, and one performing the act of Full Ordination; thus, these thirty-one actions are the object is faulty, it is an unlawful action. Ten reasons – five from the resolution, and five from the announcement – are obtained within the formal act statement; eleven reasons regarding the boundary are obtained based on the agreement of the boundary; twelve reasons regarding the assembly are obtained based on four kinds of Sangha – those reckoned as consisting of four, five, ten, and twenty members – with respect to three, three of the Saṅghas, reckoned as being fit for action, deserving of consent, and present.
Then, to elaborate on that matter which is the cause of the failure of the act, he says, “An act that should be performed in the presence (of the Saṅgha) is performed in the absence (of the Saṅgha), an act with a flawed basis is an unlawful act,” and so on. Herein, by not performing what should be done in the presence, by not performing what should be done through interrogation, and by not performing what should be done through acknowledgment, these three; by performing an act suitable for one person on another person, these thirteen acts: the act of settlement, the act of removing delusion, the act of censure, the act of suspension, the act of banishment, the act of reconciliation, the act of suspension, probation, sending back to the beginning, penance, rehabilitation, and full ordination; by performing these acts on a day other than the prescribed day, these two: the Uposatha and the Pavāraṇā; by performing the act of ordination on these thirteen individuals: a eunuch, one who lives by theft, one who has gone over to another sect, an animal, a matricide, a patricide, a murderer of an Arahant, one who causes a schism in the Saṅgha, one who seduces a bhikkhunī, a hermaphrodite, one who is less than twenty years old, and one who has committed the last extreme offense—thus, these thirty-one acts are an act with a flawed basis, an unlawful act. From the motion, five; from the proclamation, five—these ten causes are obtained within the act itself. From the boundary, eleven causes are obtained through the agreement on the boundary. From the assembly, twelve causes are obtained through the fourfold, fivefold, tenfold, and twentyfold Saṅghas, each consisting of three Saṅghas that are qualified to perform the act, being present and having agreed.
ID1615
Evaṃ kammavipattikāraṇāni dassetvā puna catuvaggasaṅghādīsu sannisinnānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ visesanāmaṃ dassetuṃ “catuvaggakaraṇe kamme”tiādimāha. Taṃ suviññeyyameva.
Having thus shown the causes of failure of actions, to further specify the designations of monks seated in the sanghas of four and so forth, it begins with “In an action performed by a group of four” and so forth. This is indeed easily understood.
Having thus shown the causes of the failure of action, again, to show the specific names of the bhikkhus assembled in the groups of four and so on, he says, “In the performance where four are needed,” and so on. That is easily understood.
Having thus shown the causes of the failure of the act, he further says, “In the act performed by a fourfold Saṅgha,” and so on, to show the distinctive name of the bhikkhus seated in the fourfold Saṅgha, etc. This is easily understandable.
ID1616
250. Tato paraṃ catunnaṃ kammānaṃ ṭhānaṃ saṅkhepato dassetuṃ “apalokanakammaṃ kati ṭhānāni gacchatī”tiādimāha. Tampi suviññeyyameva.
250. Then, to briefly show the scope of the four actions, it begins with “How many scopes does an acknowledgment action reach?” and so forth. This too is easily understood.
250. Then, in order to show in brief the place of the four actions, he says, “How many places does the apalokanakamma go to?” and so on. That too is easily understood.
250. Then, to briefly show the places where the four acts are performed, he says, “How many places does the act of information go to?” and so on. This is also easily understandable.
ID1617
251. Tato tāniyeva kammāni tesu ṭhānesu pavattāni vitthārato pakāsetukāmo “ayaṃ tāva pāḷinayo. Ayaṃ panettha ādito paṭṭhāya vinicchayakathā”tiādimāha. Tattha tassaṃ vinicchayakathāyaṃ catūsu kammesu katamaṃ apalokanakammaṃ nāmāti pucchāyaṃ taṃ dassetumāha “apalokanakammaṃ nāmā”tiādi. Tattha sīmaṭṭhakasaṅghaṃ sodhetvāti avippavāsasaṅkhātamahāsīmaṭṭhakaṃ saṅghaṃ sodhetvā. Na hi khaṇḍasīmāya sannipatite saṅghe sodhetabbakiccaṃ atthi, avippavāsasīmāsaṅkhātāya mahāsīmāya pana vitthārattā bahūnaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ vasanaṭṭhānattā samaggabhāvatthaṃ sodhetabbaṃ hoti. Chandārahānaṃ chandaṃ āharitvāti tissaṃ sīmāyaṃ catuvaggādigaṇaṃ pūretvā hatthapāsaṃ avijahitvā ṭhitehi bhikkhūhi aññesaṃ hatthapāsaṃ anāgatānaṃ pakatattabhikkhūnaṃ chandaṃ āharitvā. Vuttañhi “catuvaggakaraṇe kamme cattāro bhikkhū pakatattā kammappattā, avasesā pakatattā chandārahā”ti (pari. 497). Samaggassa saṅghassa anumatiyāti chandassa āharitattā hatthapāsaṃ āgatāpi anāgatāpi sabbe bhikkhū samaggāyeva honti, tasmā samaggassa saṅghassa anumatiyā. Tikkhattuṃ sāvetvāti “suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho”tiādinā kammavācaṃ abhaṇitvā “ruccati saṅghassa. Dutiyampi…pe… tatiyampi ruccati saṅghassā”ti tikkhattuṃ sāvetvā kattabbakammaṃ apalokanakammaṃ nāmāti yojanā. Vuttanayenevāti apalokanakamme vuttanayeneva. Iminā “sīmaṭṭhakasaṅghaṃ sodhetvā, chandārahānaṃ chandaṃ āharitvā”ti idaṃ dvayaṃ atidisati. Itaresupi eseva nayo.
251. Then, desiring to explain those same actions in detail as they operate within those scopes, it begins with “This, first, is the Pali method. Now, here is the discussion of determination from the beginning” and so forth. Therein, in that discussion of determination, when asked which among the four actions is called an acknowledgment action, it says to show this, “An acknowledgment action is” and so forth. Therein, “having purified the sangha within the boundary” means having purified the sangha within the great boundary, defined as not being absent. For there is no need to purify a sangha gathered in a partial boundary; but in the great boundary, defined as not being absent, due to its vastness and the residence of many monks, purification is necessary for unity. “Having brought the consent of those worthy of consent” means having brought the consent of natural monks who have not come within reach, by monks standing within reach without leaving it, fulfilling a group of four or more in that boundary. For it is said, “In an action performed by a group of four, four monks are natural and worthy of the action; the rest, being natural, are worthy of consent” (pari. 497). “With the consent of the united sangha”—since consent has been brought, all monks, whether they have come within reach or not, are indeed united; thus, with the consent of the united sangha. “Having announced it three times”—not reciting the formal declaration beginning with “May the sangha listen to me, venerable sirs,” but announcing three times, “It is agreeable to the sangha. For the second time… for the third time, it is agreeable to the sangha”—an action performed thus is called an acknowledgment action—this is the connection. “In the manner stated” means in the manner stated for the acknowledgment action. By this, it extends to the two aspects: “having purified the sangha within the boundary” and “having brought the consent of those worthy of consent.” The same method applies to the others.
251. Then, wishing to explain those same actions in detail, established in those places, he says, “This is the canonical method. Here is the discussion of determination, beginning from the very start,” and so on. Therein, in that discussion of determination, among the four formal acts, which is called formal act of apalokanakamma? – he says, “‘apalokanakamma is the name’,” and so on, to show that, in a question. Therein, having purified the Saṅgha that is standing within the boundary: having purified the Saṅgha standing within the great boundary, known as the avippavāsa. For there is no need to purify the Saṅgha gathered within a khaṇḍasīmā, but the great boundary known as avippavāsa sīmā, because of its extent and because it is the dwelling place of many bhikkhus, should be purified for the purpose of unity. Having obtained the consent of those who deserve to give consent: Having made up the quorum of four or more within the three boundaries and having those bhikkhus standing without breaking physical contact, one should obtain the consent of the other competent bhikkhus, who haven’t approached the hatthapāsa. For it is said, “For an act requiring four, four bhikkhus are competent and fit for the action, the remaining competent bhikkhus are those deserving to give consent” (pari. 497). With the agreement of the whole Saṅgha: because the consent has been obtained, all bhikkhus, whether they have come into physical contact or not, are truly in agreement; therefore, with the agreement of the whole Saṅgha. Having announced three times: not having spoken the formal act statement beginning with “Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho,” but having announced three times “It is agreeable to the Saṅgha. A second time … and … a third time it is agreeable to the Saṅgha” – the action to be performed is called a formal act of apalokanakamma; this is the explanation. By the method already stated: by the method stated in apalokanakamma. By this, he refers back to these two, “having purified the Saṅgha that is standing within the boundary, having obtained the consent of those who deserve to give consent”. The same method applies to the rest.
251. Then, wishing to explain in detail those very acts performed in those places, he says, “This, indeed, is the method of the Pāli. But here, from the beginning, is the discussion of the decision.” Herein, in that discussion of the decision, when asked what is called the act of information among the four acts, he says, “The act of information is called,” and so on. Herein, “Having purified the Saṅgha within the boundary,” means having purified the Saṅgha within the great boundary, which is called the non-separate boundary. For there is no need to purify the Saṅgha assembled within a fragmented boundary, but because the great boundary, called the non-separate boundary, is extensive and is the dwelling place of many bhikkhus, it should be purified for the sake of unity. “Having brought the consent of those worthy of consent,” means having filled the fourfold group within that boundary, without leaving the hand-span, and having brought the consent of the well-behaved bhikkhus who have not come within the hand-span. For it is said, “In an act performed by a fourfold group, four bhikkhus are well-behaved and qualified for the act; the rest are well-behaved and worthy of consent” (pari. 497). “With the approval of the united Saṅgha,” means because the consent has been brought, all the bhikkhus, whether they have come within the hand-span or not, are united; therefore, with the approval of the united Saṅgha. “Having announced it three times,” means having announced it three times by saying, “Venerable sirs, let the Saṅgha listen to me,” and so on, and then, “Does the Saṅgha approve? For the second time… for the third time, does the Saṅgha approve?” This is the act of information that should be performed. “In the manner stated,” means in the manner stated for the act of information. By this, he explains the two: “Having purified the Saṅgha within the boundary, having brought the consent of those worthy of consent.” The same method applies to the others as well.
ID1618
Tattha tesu catūsu kammesu kiṃ aññakammaṃ itarakammavasena kātabbanti codanaṃ sandhāyāha “tatra”iccādi. Evaṃ hotu, evaṃ sante avisesena sabbampi kammaṃ aññavasena kattabbanti āha “ñattidutiyakammaṃ panā”tiādi. Tattha pana-saddo visesatthajotako, ñattidutiyakamme pana viseso atthīti attho. Ito parāni suviññeyyāneva. Paṭikkhittameva aṭṭhakathāyanti ajjhāhārasambandho. Yadi evaṃ akkharaparihīnādīsu santesu kammakopo siyāti codanaṃ manasi katvā āha “sace panā”tiādi. Tattha akkharaparihīnanti “suṇātu me”tiādīsu su-kāra ṇā-kāra tu-kārādīnaṃ bhassanaṃ. Padaparihīnanti suṇātūtiādīnaṃ vibhatyantapadānaṃ bhassanaṃ. Duruttapadaṃ pana upari vakkhati.
Therein, among those four actions, addressing the question of which other action should be performed by means of another action, it says, “There” and so forth. Let it be so; if that is the case, it says generally that all actions should be performed by means of another, “But a motion-second action” and so forth. Therein, the word “but” indicates a distinction, meaning there is a distinction in the motion-second action—this is the meaning. From here on, it is indeed easily understood. “It is indeed prohibited in the commentary”—this is a contextual connection. If so, there might be a flaw in the action if there are omissions in letters and so forth; considering this objection, it says, “If, however” and so forth. Therein, “omission of letters” refers to the dropping of syllables like “su,” “ṇa,” “tu,” and so forth in “May it listen to me.” “Omission of words” refers to the dropping of inflected words like “may it listen.” “Mispronounced word” will be explained later.
Herein, among those four actions, he says “herein” and so on, with reference to the question, “What other action should be done by means of the other action?”. Let it be so, and with that being so, should all action be done without distinction by means of another, he said, “But the formal act with a resolution and one announcement.” etc. Herein, the word but (pana) illuminates the meaning of special, it has a meaning there is a special feature in a formal act with a resolution and one announcement. Those that come after this are easily understood. The commentary is already rejected, the connection of “is to be supplied”. Keeping in mind the reproach, if with such a deficiency of letters and so on, would there be an invalidation of the action, he said, “But if” etc. Herein, deficiency of letters means the dropping of the sounds su, ṇā, tu, and so forth, in “suṇātu me”, and so on. Deficiency of words means the dropping of inflected words like suṇātu etc. But the mispronounced words will be discussed later.
Herein, with reference to those four acts, he says, “Therein,” and so on, implying the question of what other act should be done by means of another act. Thus, if so, then all acts should be done by means of another act without distinction, he says, “But the act with a motion and one proclamation,” and so on. Herein, the word “but” indicates a special meaning; there is a special meaning in the act with a motion and one proclamation. The rest are easily understandable. The commentary has been rejected; this is a connection with the addition. Considering the question of whether there would be a defect in the act if there were omissions of letters, etc., he says, “But if,” and so on. Herein, “omission of letters” means the omission of the letters such as “su,” “ṇā,” “tu,” etc., in “Venerable sirs, let the Saṅgha listen to me,” and so on. “Omission of words” means the omission of the inflected words such as “let them listen,” etc. “Mispronounced words” will be explained later.
ID1619
Idāni punappunavacane payojanaṃ dassento “idaṃ akuppakamme daḷhikammaṃ hoti, kuppakamme kammaṃ hutvā tiṭṭhatī”ti āha. Tattha idanti idaṃ punappunaṃ vuttakammaṃ. Akuppakammeti akuppe ṭhānārahe purekatakamme. Daḷhikammaṃ hotīti thiratarakammaṃ hoti ekāya rajjuyā bandhitabbabhāre dutiyatatiyādirajjūhi bandhanaṃ viya. Kuppakammeti akkharaparihīnādivasena kuppe aṭṭhānārahe purekatakamme. Kammaṃ hutvā tiṭṭhatīti punappunaṃ vutte sati tesaṃ akkharaparihīnādīnaṃ sodhitattā parisuddhakammaṃ hutvā tiṭṭhati. Akuppakamme kuppakammeti vā bhāvenabhāvalakkhaṇatthe bhummavacanaṃ. Puretaraṃ katakammasmiṃ akuppakamme sati pacchā idaṃ punappunaṃ vuttakammaṃ daḷhikammaṃ hoti, purekatakammasmiṃ kuppakamme sati idaṃ punappunaṃ vuttakammaṃ akuppaṃ ṭhānārahaṃ parisuddhakammaṃ hutvā tiṭṭhatīti. Imaṃ pāṭhaṃ nissāya ācariyavarā ekapuggalampi anekakkhattuṃ upasampadakammaṃ karonti. Kasmā pana te bhikkhū lajjīpesalabahussutasikkhākāmabhūtānaṃ attano ācariyupajjhāyānaṃ santike sikkhaṃ gaṇhantīti? Na te attano ācariyupajjhāyānaṃ santikā laddhasikkhaṃ paccakkhāya aññaṃ gaṇhanti, atha kho tāya eva saddhiṃ diguṇatiguṇaṃ karonti. Evaṃ santepi purimasikkhāya asaddahantāyeva kareyyuṃ, no saddahantāti? No asaddahantā , saddahantāpi te bhikkhū punappunakaraṇe yuttitopi āgamatopi ādīnavaṃ apassantā ānisaṃsameva passantā karontīti.
Now, showing the purpose of repeated recitation, it says, “This becomes a strengthening action in an unshakable action; in a shakable action, it becomes an action and remains so”. Therein, “this” refers to this action recited repeatedly. “In an unshakable action” means in an action previously performed that is worthy of being unshakable. “It becomes a strengthening action” means it becomes a firmer action, like binding a load to be tied with one rope with a second or third rope. “In a shakable action” means in an action previously performed that is shakable due to omissions of letters and so forth, unworthy of its scope. “It becomes an action and remains so” means when recited repeatedly, it remains as a purified action due to the correction of those omissions of letters and so forth. Alternatively, “in an unshakable action, in a shakable action” uses the locative case in the sense of a state or condition. If a previously performed action is unshakable, this repeatedly recited action becomes a strengthening action; if a previously performed action is shakable, this repeatedly recited action remains as a purified action worthy of its scope—this is the meaning. Relying on this passage, eminent teachers perform the ordination action for a single individual multiple times. Why do those monks, who are modest, virtuous, learned, and eager for training, take training under their own teachers and preceptors? They do not reject the training received from their teachers and preceptors to take another; rather, they multiply it twofold or threefold with that same training. Even so, wouldn’t they be doing so out of disbelief in the prior training, not belief? No, not out of disbelief; even believing, those monks, seeing no harm either logically or scripturally in repeating it and seeing only benefit, perform it.
Now, showing the purpose of the repetition, he says, “This becomes a strengthening action in a non-invalidated action; in an invalidated action, it stands as an action.” Herein, this means this repeatedly uttered action. In a non-invalidated action, in a previously performed action that is valid and fit to stand. Becomes a strengthening act means it becomes a more firm act, like binding a load to be bound with one rope with a second, third, etc. ropes. In an invalidated action means in a previously performed action that is invalid due to deficiency of letters, etc., and not fit to stand. It stands as an action when repeated, those deficiencies of letters etc. having been corrected, it stands as a purified action. In an non-invalidated action, In an invalidated action is an instrumental case denoting the meaning of circumstance of conditions. When the previously performed action is non-invalidated, this repeatedly uttered action becomes a strengthening action, when the previously performed action is invalidated, this repeatedly uttered action becomes non-invalidated, fit to stand, and stands as a purified action. Relying on this text, the venerable teachers perform the act of Full Ordination even for a single person many times. But why do those bhikkhus accept the teaching in the presence of their own teachers and preceptors, who are conscientious, scrupulous, very learned, and desirous of training? They do not reject the teaching received from their own teachers and preceptors and accept another; rather, they make it double or triple with that very teaching. Even though this is so, they would do it not not-trusting the previous teaching, not trusting it? Not not-trusting, even though they are trusting, those bhikkhus, not seeing any fault in the repetition, either from reason or from scripture, but seeing only the benefit, do it.
Now, showing the purpose of repeated speech, he says, “This act becomes firm in an unshakable act, but in a shaky act, the act remains after being performed.” Herein, “this” means this act, which has been repeatedly stated. “In an unshakable act” means in an act that should be unshakable, previously performed. “Becomes firm” means it becomes more stable, like binding a load with one rope and then binding it with a second and third rope. “In a shaky act” means in an act that is shaky due to the omission of letters, etc., and should not be performed. “The act remains after being performed” means when it is repeatedly stated, because the omissions of letters, etc., have been corrected, it remains as a purified act. “In an unshakable act, in a shaky act” is a locative case indicating the state of being. When a previously performed act is unshakable, this repeatedly stated act becomes firm; when a previously performed act is shaky, this repeatedly stated act becomes unshakable, suitable for its place, and remains as a purified act. Based on this passage, some teachers perform the act of ordination on a single individual multiple times. Why do those bhikkhus, being modest, virtuous, learned, and desirous of training, receive training in the presence of their own teachers and preceptors? They do not reject the training received from their own teachers and preceptors and then take up another, but rather, they repeat it two or three times with the same. Even so, if they do not trust the previous training, would they do so? No, they do not distrust it; those bhikkhus, trusting it, see the benefit in repeated performance and do it accordingly.
ID1620
Kathaṃ yuttito ānisaṃsaṃ passanti? Yathā hi loke abhisittampi rājānaṃ punappunābhisiñcane ādīnavaṃ na passanti, atha kho abhisekānubhāvena rājiddhippattatādīhi kāraṇehi ānisaṃsameva passanti, yathā ca sāsane cetiyaṃ vā paṭimaṃ vā niṭṭhitasabbakiccaṃ “anekajātisaṃsāra”ntiādīhi bhagavato vacanehi abhisekamaṅgalaṃ karontāpi punappunakaraṇe ādīnavaṃ apassantā atirekataraṃ mahiddhikatāmahānubhāvatādiānisaṃsameva passantā punappunaṃ karontiyeva, evameva kataupasampadakammaṃ bhikkhuṃ punadeva kammavācābhaṇane ādīnavaṃ apassantā pubbe katakammasmiṃ vatthuādīsu pañcasu aṅgesu ekasmimpi aṅge aparipuṇṇe sati kammakopasambhavato idāni katakammena paripuṇṇaaṅge sati kammasampattisambhavañca pubbeva kammasampattisambhavepi daḷhikammathiratarasambhavañca ānisaṃsaṃ passantā karonti. Kathaṃ āgamato ānisaṃsaṃ passanti? Yathāvuttaparivāraṭṭhakathāpāṭhavinayasaṅgahapāṭhesu duruttapadassa sodhanatthaṃ punappunaṃ vattabbabhāvassa upalakkhaṇanayena vacanato. Sesañattidosaanussāvanadosānañca vatthuvipattisīmavipattiparisavipattidosānañca sodhanaṃ dassitaṃ hoti. Teneva ca kāraṇena ayampi pacchimapāṭho ācariyena vutto. Tassattho heṭṭhā vuttova. Iti pubbe katakammassa kopasambhavepi idāni katakammena sampajjanasaṅkhātaṃ ānisaṃsaṃ āgamato passantīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
How do they see benefit logically? Just as in the world, people do not see harm in repeatedly anointing a king already anointed but see only benefit due to reasons like the power attained through anointing; and just as in the teaching, when consecrating a completed shrine or image with the Buddha’s words like “Through countless births in saṃsāra,” they perform the consecration repeatedly, seeing no harm but only greater benefit like enhanced power and might, so too they perform it repeatedly; similarly, performing the ordination action again for a monk already ordained, they see no harm but, if any of the five factors like the basis was incomplete in the prior action, leading to a flaw in the action, they see benefit in the current action fulfilling those factors, ensuring the action’s success, and even if the prior action was successful, making it firmer and stronger—this is the benefit they see logically. How do they see benefit scripturally? From the statements in the Parivāra commentary and the disciplinary compendium passages mentioned, which indicate by way of illustration that repetition is to be done to correct mispronounced words, showing the correction of faults in the motion, announcement, basis, boundary, and assembly. For this very reason, this final passage was stated by the teacher. Its meaning has been explained above. Thus, they see benefit scripturally in the success achieved by the current action, even if the prior action was flawed—this should be understood.
How do they see the benefit through reason? Just as in the world, they do not see any fault in repeatedly anointing a king who has already been anointed, but rather, due to the power of the anointing, the attainment of royal power, and so on, they see only the benefit; and just as in the Dispensation, with a cetiya or an image that has all its work finished, those who perform the anointing ceremony with the Buddha’s words, such as “anekajātisaṃsāra”, etc., even though not seeing any fault in the repetition, seeing only the benefit of exceeding great psychic power, great influence, and so on, they do repeat it; in the same way, not seeing any fault in speaking the formal act statement again for a bhikkhu whose act of Full Ordination has already been performed, but seeing the benefit – that if one of the five factors, such as the object, etc., was incomplete in the previously performed action, there is the possibility of the action being invalid, but with the action performed now, with the factors complete, there is the possibility of the action’s success, and even if there was success of the action before, there is the possibility of a more firm, strengthened action – they do it. How do they see the benefit from scripture? By way of indication, from the saying of the repeated utterance for the purpose of correcting mispronounced words in the Parivāra, Aṭṭhakathā, Pāṭha and Vinayasaṅgaha texts as mentioned before. Correction of the faults of resolution and announcement, and the faults of object failure, boundary failure, and assembly failure are shown. And for that very reason, this latter text was spoken by the teacher. Its meaning has already been stated above. Thus, it should be understood that even though there is the possibility of invalidity of the previously performed action, they see, from scripture, the benefit called accomplishment by the action performed now.
How do they see the benefit through reasoning? Just as in the world, even after being anointed, a king does not see any harm in being anointed again, but rather sees the benefit through the power of the anointing, such as attaining royal power, etc.; and just as in the Dispensation, even after completing all the duties of a cetiya or an image, they do not see any harm in repeatedly performing the anointing and blessing ceremony, but rather see the benefit of greater power and majesty, etc., and thus perform it repeatedly; in the same way, when a bhikkhu who has performed the act of ordination repeats the act of proclamation, they do not see any harm, but see the benefit that, if in the previously performed act, any of the five factors such as the basis, etc., were incomplete, there would be a defect in the act, but now, with the act performed, all factors are complete, and thus the act is successful, and even before the act is successful, it becomes firm and stable. How do they see the benefit through the tradition? As stated in the commentaries, compendiums, and texts of the Vinaya, for the sake of correcting mispronounced words, the need for repeated speech is indicated. The correction of defects in the motion, proclamation, basis, boundary, and assembly has been shown. Therefore, this latter passage has been stated by the teacher. Its meaning is as stated above. Thus, even if there is a defect in the previously performed act, now, with the act performed, they see the benefit of success through the tradition.
ID1621
Keci pana ācariyā imaṃ “punappunaṃ vattuṃ vaṭṭatīti pāṭhaṃ tasmiṃyeva paṭhamakammakaraṇakāle duruttasodhanatthaṃ vattabbataṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, na cirakāle”ti vadanti, tadetaṃ vacanaṃ neva aṭṭhakathāyaṃ āgataṃ, na ṭīkādīsu vinicchitaṃ, tesaṃ matimattameva, tasmā na gahetabbaṃ. Apica tasmiṃ khaṇe punappunaṃ vacanatopi aparabhāge vacanaṃ mahapphalaṃ hoti mahānisaṃsaṃ. Tasmiñhi kāle punappunaṃ bhaṇane ñattidosaanussāvanadosāni pacchimabhaṇane suṭṭhu bhaṇanto sodhetuṃ sakkuṇeyya, na vatthuvipattisīmavipattiparisavipattidosāni. Tasmiñhi khaṇe tameva vatthu, sā eva sīmā, sā eva parisā, tasmā tāni punappunavacanena sodhetumasakkuṇeyyāni honti. Aparabhāge karonto pana pubbe aparipuṇṇavīsativassabhāvena vatthuvipattibhūtepi idāni paripuṇṇavīsativassattā vatthusampatti hoti, pubbe sīmasaṅkarādibhāvena sīmavipattisambhavepi idāni tadabhāvatthāya suṭṭhu sodhitattā sīmasampatti hoti, pubbe vaggakammādivasena parisavipattisambhavepi idāni tadabhāvatthāya suṭṭhu sodhitattā parisasampatti hoti, evaṃ pañca vipattiyo sodhetvā pañca sampattiyo sampādetvā kātuṃ sakkuṇeyyato paṭhamakāle punappunaṃ bhaṇanatopi aparabhāge bhaṇanaṃ mahapphalaṃ hoti mahānisaṃsanti veditabbaṃ.
However, some teachers say, “This passage, ‘It is permissible to recite repeatedly,’ refers to recitation at the time of the initial action for correcting mispronunciation, not later.” This statement is neither found in the commentary nor determined in the sub-commentaries; it is merely their opinion and should not be accepted. Moreover, even recitation repeated at that moment is highly fruitful and beneficial when done later. For at that time, by repeating, one could correct faults in the motion and announcement by reciting well the final time, but not faults in the basis, boundary, or assembly. For at that moment, it is the same basis, the same boundary, the same assembly, so those cannot be corrected by repetition. But one performing it later can correct all five failures and achieve all five successes: if the basis was flawed due to being under twenty years old, now being fully twenty it is successful; if the boundary was flawed due to overlap or the like, now being well-purified it is successful; if the assembly was flawed due to division or the like, now being well-purified it is successful—thus, correcting the five failures and achieving the five successes, it can be done. Therefore, recitation later is more fruitful and beneficial than repetition at the initial time—this should be understood.
But some teachers say, “This passage ‘it is proper to speak repeatedly’ was said with reference to the speaking for the purpose of correcting mispronunciations at the time of that very first performance of the action, not after a long time”. That statement has not come in the Aṭṭhakathā, nor has it been determined in the ṭīkā, etc.; it is merely their opinion; therefore, it should not be accepted. Moreover, speaking again after a later time is of great fruit and great benefit compared to speaking repeatedly at that moment. At that time, by speaking repeatedly, the speaker could correct the faults of resolution and announcement by speaking well in the latter utterance, but not the faults of object failure, boundary failure, and assembly failure. For at that time, it is the same object, the same boundary, the same assembly; therefore, they are not able to be corrected by repetition. But one who performs it after a later time, even if previously there was an object failure due to being less than twenty years of age, now there is object success due to being fully twenty years of age; even if previously there was the possibility of boundary failure due to the mixing of boundaries, etc., now, because that is absent and it has been well purified, there is boundary success; even if previously there was the possibility of assembly failure due to a quorum action, etc., now, because that is absent and it has been well purified, there is assembly success; thus, having corrected the five failures and accomplished the five successes, it is possible to do it; therefore, compared to speaking repeatedly at the first time, speaking after a later time is to be understood as of great fruit and great benefit.
Some teachers, however, say that this passage, “It is proper to repeat it,” was stated with reference to the need for correcting mispronounced words at the time of the first performance of the act, not after a long time. But this statement is not found in the commentaries, nor is it decided in the ṭīkās, etc.; it is merely their opinion, and therefore it should not be accepted. Moreover, even if repeated speech at that moment is beneficial, speech at a later time is of great fruit and great benefit. For at that time, by repeatedly speaking, one may be able to correct the defects in the motion and proclamation by speaking well at the last speech, but not the defects in the basis, boundary, and assembly. For at that time, the same basis, the same boundary, and the same assembly are present, and therefore they cannot be corrected by repeated speech. But one who performs it later, even if the basis was flawed due to not being twenty years old, now, being twenty years old, the basis is successful; even if the boundary was flawed due to overlapping boundaries, etc., now, because it has been well corrected, the boundary is successful; even if the assembly was flawed due to a factional act, etc., now, because it has been well corrected, the assembly is successful; thus, having corrected the five flaws and accomplished the five successes, one can perform it. Therefore, even if repeated speech at the first time is beneficial, speech at a later time is of great fruit and great benefit, it should be understood.
ID1622
Yadi evaṃ upasampadasikkhāya daharo bhaveyyāti? Na bhaveyya. Kasmā? Porāṇasikkhaṃ appaccakkhitvā tāya eva patiṭṭhitattāti. Evaṃ santepi purekatakammassa sampajjanabhāvena tiṭṭhante sati tāya ṭhitattā adaharo siyā. Purimakammassa asampajjanabhāvena idāni katakammeyeva upasampadabhāvena tiṭṭhante sati kasmā daharo na bhaveyyāti? Evaṃ sante daharo bhaveyya. Evaṃ daharo samāno purimasikkhāya vassaṃ gaṇetvā yathāvuḍḍhaṃ vandanādīni sampaṭicchanto mahāsāvajjo bhaveyyāti? Evaṃ purimasikkhāya aṭṭhitabhāvaṃ pacchimasikkhāya eva laddhupasampadabhāvaṃ tathato jānanto evaṃ karonto sāvajjo hoti, evaṃ pana ajānanto “purimasikkhāyameva ṭhito”ti maññitvā evaṃ karonto anavajjoti veditabbo. Kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce? “Anāpatti ūnavīsativassaṃ paripuṇṇasaññīti ettha kiñcāpi upasampādentassa anāpatti, puggalo pana anupasampannova hoti. Sace pana so dasavassaccayena aññaṃ upasampādeti, taṃ ce muñcitvā gaṇo pūrati, sūpasampanno. Sopi ca yāva na jānāti, tāvassa neva saggantarāyo, na mokkhantarāyo. Ñatvā pana puna upasampajjitabba”nti samantapāsādikāyaṃ (pāci. aṭṭha. 406) āgatattā viññāyati. Evaṃ vatthuvipannattā kammakopato anupasampannassa puggalassa upajjhāyo bhavituṃ yuttakāle puna upasampajjanena upasampannabhūtabhāvassa aṭṭhakathāyaṃ āgatattā iminā nayena sīmavipannapaasavipannañattivipannaanussāvanavipannabhūtattā kammakopato pubbe anupasampannabhūtaṃ puggalampi aparabhāge vuḍḍhippattikālepi pañca vipattidosāni sodhetvā puna upasampadakammavācākaraṇena upasampādetuṃ vaṭṭati. Sopi puggalo pubbakammakāle anupasampanno hutvāpi aparakammakāle upasampanno hotīti daṭṭhabbo.
If so, would he become junior in the ordination training? He would not. Why? Because he does not reject the prior training but is established in it. Even so, since the prior action remains successful, he would not be junior due to standing in it. If the prior action does not remain successful and only the current action stands as the ordination, why would he not be junior? In that case, he would be junior. Being junior in this way and receiving salutations and so forth according to seniority based on the prior training, would he not incur great blame? If he knows the prior training does not stand and the current training alone constitutes his ordination and acts thus, he incurs blame; but if he does not know and acts thus thinking, “I stand only in the prior training,” he is blameless—this should be understood. How is this known? From the statement in the Samantapāsādikā (pāci. aṭṭha. 406): “There is no offense for one who ordains someone under twenty thinking him complete; though the person remains unordained. If, after ten years, he ordains another, and if the group is complete without him, that one is well-ordained. As long as he does not know, there is no obstacle to heaven or liberation. But knowing, he must be ordained again.” Thus, it is known that due to a flawed basis causing a flaw in the action, an unordained person, when eligible to be a preceptor, can be ordained again and become fully ordained, as stated in the commentary. By this method, even a person previously unordained due to flaws in the basis, boundary, assembly, motion, or announcement causing a flaw in the action can, when mature, be ordained again by correcting the five faults—this is permissible. Such a person, though unordained at the time of the prior action, becomes ordained at the time of the later action—this should be understood.
If that’s the case, would he become a junior in Full Ordination instruction? He would not. Why? Because he is established on the old instruction, without rejecting it. Even if this is so, given that the former action stood with its successfulness, he could not be a junior since he has stood on that. Given that when the former action is unsuccessful, and at that time only with the performed action stands as an ordination, so why he will not become a junior? If that’s the case, he would become a junior. This junior, counting the years of the previous instruction and accepting prostration, etc., according to seniority, would be very blameworthy? One who, knowing thus – that he did not stand firmly on the previous instruction but has acquired Full Ordination only through the latter instruction – does so is blameworthy; but one who, not knowing thus, thinking “he is established on the previous instruction itself”, does so is to be understood as blameless. How is it known? “There is no offence for one who ordains a person less than twenty years of age, thinking that he is fully [twenty]” although here there is no offence for the one who ordains, the person is indeed not fully ordained. But if after the lapse of ten years he ordains another, and if excluding him, the quorum is complete, he is well ordained. And he, as long as he does not know, there is neither obstacle to heaven nor obstacle to liberation for him. But knowing, he should be ordained again” in the Samantapāsādikā (pāci. aṭṭha. 406) as it has come, so it is understood. Thus, because of object failure, due to the invalidity of the action, for a person who is not fully ordained, at the time when it is proper to become a preceptor, by being ordained again, one becomes fully ordained, as it has come in the commentary; by this method, due to boundary failure, assembly failure, resolution failure, and announcement failure, due to the invalidity of the action, even for a person who was previously not fully ordained, at a later time, even at the time of attaining seniority, having corrected the five faults of failure, it is proper to ordain him by performing the act of Full Ordination statement. And that person, even though he was not fully ordained at the time of the previous action, becomes fully ordained at the time of the latter action, is to be understood.
If so, would a young one be suitable for the training of ordination? He would not. Why? Because he has not rejected the ancient training and remains established in it. Even so, if the previously performed act remains successful, because he remains established in it, he would not be young. If the previously performed act was unsuccessful, and now the act performed remains as ordination, why would he not be young? If so, he would be young. Being thus young, having counted the years in the previous training, and receiving respect, etc., according to seniority, would he be greatly blameworthy? Knowing the state of being established in the previous training and the state of having received ordination in the later training, acting thus, he is blameworthy; but not knowing this, thinking, “I am established in the previous training,” and acting thus, he is blameless, it should be understood. How is it known? “There is no offense for one who is less than twenty years old but perceives himself as fully twenty,” herein, although there is no offense for the one who ordains him, the individual is still not ordained. But if, after ten years have passed, he ordains another, and if the group is filled by releasing him, he is well ordained. And as long as he does not know, there is no danger of falling from heaven or liberation for him. But knowing, he should be ordained again,” as stated in the Samantapāsādikā (pāci. aṭṭha. 406), it is known. Thus, because of the flaw in the basis, due to the defect in the act, the individual who was not ordained, when the time is right, should be ordained again by performing the act of ordination, and thus he becomes ordained. That individual, though not ordained at the time of the previous act, becomes ordained at the time of the later act, it should be understood.
ID1623
Ekacce pana bhikkhū porāṇasikkhaṃ paccakkhāya navasikkhameva gaṇhiṃsu, te pana bhikkhū navasikkhāvasena daharāva bhavanti, evaṃ karaṇañca ativiya guṇavisiṭṭhaṃ attano navakataraṃ bhikkhuṃ disvā tasmiṃ puggale payirupāsitukāmo taṃ puggalaṃ attanā vuḍḍhataraṃ kātukāmo attānaṃ daharaṃ kātukāmo hutvā dhammagāravena karonto yutto bhaveyya. Atha pana sikkhāsampannaṃ kattukāmo evaṃ kareyya, sikkhā nāma pañcaṅgasamannāgate sati sampajjati, sīlavisuddhiyeva kāraṇaṃ hoti, tasmā yadi purimasikkhā aṭṭhitā bhaveyya, paccakkhānakiccaṃ natthi, sayameva patitā hoti. Purimasikkhāya ṭhitāya sati vibbhamitukāmoyeva paccakkhānaṃ kareyya, na bhikkhubhavitukāmo, so pana catupārisuddhisīlameva parisuddhaṃ kareyya, tasmā porāṇasikkhāya paccakkhānaṃ ayuttaṃ viya dissati. Tato porāṇasikkhaṃ paccakkhāya navasikkhāgahaṇato punappunaṃ karaṇaṃyeva yuttataraṃ dissati. Kasmā? Porāṇasikkhaṃ paccakkhāya navasikkhāgahaṇe purimakammaṃ asampajjitvā pacchimakammasampajjane sati kiñcāpi purimasikkhā natthi, yā paccakkhātabbā, tathāpi navasikkhāya sampajjitattā doso natthi, daharabhāvaṃ pattopi yuttarūpoyeva.
However, some monks rejected the prior training and took only the new training; those monks become junior by the new training. Such an act, done out of respect for the Dhamma with the desire to honor a virtuous junior monk seen as superior, to make that person senior to oneself, and to make oneself junior, would be appropriate. Alternatively, if he did so desiring to perfect his training—since training is perfected when endowed with five factors and purification of virtue is the cause—if the prior training stood, there would be no need to reject it; it would fall away on its own. If the prior training stands and he wishes to disrobe, he would reject it, not if he wishes to remain a monk; he should simply purify the fourfold pure virtue. Thus, rejecting the prior training seems inappropriate. Therefore, rather than rejecting the prior training and taking the new training, repeating it seems more appropriate. Why? When rejecting the prior training and taking the new training, if the prior action does not succeed and the later action succeeds, though there is no prior training to reject, there is no fault since the new training succeeds; even reaching juniority, it is still appropriate.
Some bhikkhus, however, rejected the old instruction and accepted only the new instruction; those bhikkhus, therefore, become juniors based on the new instruction; and such a practice is exceedingly virtuous, seeing one’s own newly made bhikkhu, wishing to attend on that person, wishing to make that person senior to oneself, wishing to make oneself junior, acting out of respect for the Dhamma, would be appropriate. But if he were to do so wishing to make him accomplished in instruction, instruction is accomplished when the five factors are present; purity of morality alone is the cause; therefore, if the previous instruction were not established, there is no need for rejection, it has fallen away by itself. Given that the previous instruction is established, only one who wishes to fall away would make a rejection, not one who wishes to become a bhikkhu; he should rather purify the fourfold purity of morality; therefore, the rejection of the old instruction seems inappropriate. Therefore, compared to rejecting the old instruction and accepting the new instruction, repetition seems more appropriate. Why? In rejecting the old instruction and accepting the new instruction, if the previous action is not accomplished and the latter action is accomplished, although there is no previous instruction that is to be rejected, there is no fault because the new instruction has been accomplished; even though he has attained the state of being a junior, it is only appropriate.
Some bhikkhus, however, rejected the ancient training and took up only the new training; those bhikkhus, by taking up the new training, remain young. Thus, acting in this way is highly virtuous; seeing oneself as newer than the other bhikkhu, one should desire to attend upon that individual, to make oneself older than that individual, to make oneself younger, and to act with respect for the Dhamma. But if one desires to make oneself accomplished in training, one should act thus. Training is accomplished with five factors; purification of virtue is the cause. Therefore, if the previous training remains established, there is no need to reject it; it falls away by itself. If the previous training remains established, one who desires to disrobe should reject it, not one who desires to remain a bhikkhu. But one should purify the fourfold purity of virtue. Therefore, rejecting the ancient training and taking up the new training seems improper. But repeatedly performing it seems more proper. Why? By rejecting the ancient training and taking up the new training, even if the previous act is not successful, when the later act is successful, although there is no previous training to be rejected, because the new training is successful, there is no fault, and even if one attains youth, it is still proper.
ID1624
Yadi purimakammampi pacchimakammampi sampajjatiyeva, evaṃ sati purimasikkhāya paccakkhānaṃ niratthakaṃ. Pacchimasikkhāya ṭhitopi daharabhāvaṃ pattattā ayuttarūpo. Yadi pana purimakammameva sampajjati, na pacchimakammaṃ, evaṃ sati pubbe ṭhitaporāṇasikkhāpi paccakkhānena patitā. Pacchimasikkhāpi pacchimakammassa pañcannaṃ vipattīnaṃ aññatarena yogato na sampajjati, tasmā purimasikkhāya ca patitattā pacchimasikkhāya ca aladdhattā ubhato bhaṭṭhattā ayuttova hoti. Porāṇasikkhaṃ appaccakkhāya navasikkhāgahaṇe pana sati purimakammaṃ sampannaṃ hutvā pacchimakammaṃ asampannaṃ hontampi purimasikkhāya patiṭṭhitoyeva, purimaṃ asampannaṃ hutvā pacchimaṃ sampannampi pacchimasikkhāya ṭhito eva. Purimapacchimakammadvayampi pañcahaṅgehi sampannampi daḷhikammathiratarabhūtāya purimasikkhāya ṭhitoyeva so bhikkhu hoti, tasmā purimasikkhaṃ paccakkhāya navasikkhāgahaṇato purimasikkhaṃ appaccakkhāya punappunaṃ navasikkhāgahaṇaṃ yuttataraṃ hotīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
If both the earlier action and the later action are fully accomplished, then in that case, the rejection of the earlier training is meaningless. Even one established in the later training, having attained the state of a novice, is inappropriate. However, if only the earlier action is accomplished and not the later action, then in that case, the ancient training established previously has fallen due to rejection. The later training also does not succeed due to one of the five defects connected with the later action. Therefore, because of the fall of the earlier training and the non-attainment of the later training, he is unsuitable, having fallen from both. However, when taking up new training without rejecting the ancient training, even if the earlier action is accomplished and the later action is not accomplished, he remains established in the earlier training. Even if the earlier action is not accomplished and the later action is accomplished, he remains established in the later training. Even if both the earlier and later actions are accomplished with the five factors, that monk remains established in the earlier training, which is more firmly rooted and steadfast. Therefore, it should be understood that repeatedly taking up new training without rejecting the earlier training is more suitable than taking up new training after rejecting the earlier training.
If both the former and the latter acts are valid, then the renunciation of the former training is meaningless. Even if he remains in the latter training, he is unsuitable having attained the state of a junior. If, however, only the former act is valid, and not the latter act, then the previously established old training rule has also lapsed through renunciation. The latter training rule also, because of being connected to one or another of the five failures of the latter act, is not valid; therefore, because of the lapse of the former training rule and the non-acquisition of the latter training rule, being fallen from both, he is indeed unsuitable. But if, without renouncing the old training rule, he takes up the new training rule, even though the former act is accomplished and the latter act is not accomplished, he is still established in the former training rule; even though the former is not accomplished and the latter is accomplished, he is still established in the latter training rule. Even if both the former and the latter acts are accomplished with the five factors, that bhikkhu remains established in the former training rule, which is stronger and more stable because of the strengthening act. Therefore, it should be understood that it is more appropriate to take up the new training rule repeatedly without renouncing the former training rule than to renounce the former training rule and take up the new training rule.
If both the initial act and the subsequent act are successful, then the renunciation of the initial training is meaningless. Even if one remains in the subsequent training, due to having attained a junior status, it is inappropriate. However, if only the initial act is successful and not the subsequent act, then the previous training, which was maintained, also falls away due to renunciation. The subsequent training also fails because it is connected to one of the five failures of the subsequent act. Therefore, since the initial training has fallen away and the subsequent training has not been attained, one is inappropriately situated in both. If one does not renounce the old training but undertakes new training, then even if the initial act is successful and the subsequent act is unsuccessful, one remains established in the initial training. Similarly, if the initial act is unsuccessful and the subsequent act is successful, one remains in the subsequent training. Even if both the initial and subsequent acts are complete with all five factors, one remains firmly established in the initial training, which is more stable and enduring. Therefore, it should be understood that renouncing the initial training and undertaking new training is more appropriate than not renouncing the initial training and repeatedly undertaking new training.
ID1625
Imaṃ pana punappunaṃ karontānaṃ ācariyānaṃ vādaṃ amanasikarontā aññe ācariyā anekappakāraṃ anicchitakathaṃ kathenti. Kathaṃ? Ekacce therā evaṃ vadanti “kiṃ ime bhikkhū evaṃ karontā pārājikappattaṃ bhikkhuṃ puna sikkhāya patiṭṭhāpessāmāti maññantī”ti. Te therā punappunaṃ kammavācaṃ bhaṇante bhikkhū disvā “ime bhikkhū iminā kāraṇena evaṃ karontī”ti cintetvā evamāhaṃsu. Ekacce pana therā “kasmā ime bhikkhū punappunaṃ karonti, yathā nāma asani ekavārameva patantī satte jīvitakkhayaṃ pāpeti, evameva bhagavato āṇābhūtā kammavācā ekavāraṃ bhaṇamānā kammaṃ sijjhāpeti, na anekavāra”nti, tepi “kammasijjhanatthāya punappunaṃ bhaṇantī”ti cintetvā evamāhaṃsu. Bahavo pana bhikkhū punappunaṃ karonte disvā evaṃ vadanti “ime bhikkhū ācariyupajjhāyehi dinnasikkhaṃ asaddahantā evaṃ karonti, ācariyupajjhāyaguṇāparādhakā ete samaṇā”ti. Te “pubbasikkhaṃ asaddahitvā punappunaṃ karontī”ti maññantā evamāhaṃsu.
However, some teachers, disregarding the view of those teachers who repeatedly perform this, speak in various uncertain ways. How so? Some elders say thus: “What do these monks think they are doing by repeatedly acting in this way—re-establishing in training a monk who has fallen into a pārājika offense?” Seeing monks repeatedly reciting the kammavācā, these elders thought, “These monks are doing this for this reason,” and spoke thus. However, some other elders say: “Why do these monks act repeatedly? Just as lightning strikes only once and brings living beings to the end of life, so too the kammavācā, which is the command of the Blessed One, when recited once, accomplishes the action, not multiple times.” They too, thinking, “They recite repeatedly for the sake of accomplishing the action,” spoke thus. Many monks, seeing those who act repeatedly, say thus: “These monks, not trusting the training given by their teachers and preceptors, act in this way; these recluses are guilty of disrespecting the virtues of their teachers and preceptors.” They, thinking, “They act repeatedly because they do not trust the prior training,” spoke thus.
However, other teachers, not paying attention to the argument of the teachers who do this repeatedly, tell various kinds of unwanted stories. How? Some elders say thus: “Do these bhikkhus, doing thus, think ‘We will re-establish in the training a bhikkhu who has incurred a pārājika offense’?” Those elders, seeing bhikkhus reciting the kammavācā repeatedly, thinking “These bhikkhus are doing so for this reason,” spoke thus. Some elders, however, [say]: “Why do these bhikkhus do this repeatedly? Just as a thunderbolt, falling just once, brings beings to the end of their lives, in the same way, the kammavācā, which is the command of the Blessed One, accomplishes the act when recited once, not many times.” They, thinking “They recite repeatedly for the accomplishment of the act,” spoke thus. Many bhikkhus, seeing [others] doing [it] repeatedly, speak thus: “These bhikkhus, not trusting the training given by the teachers and preceptors, do thus. These ascetics are offenders against the virtues of the teachers and preceptors.” They, thinking “They do [it] repeatedly, not trusting the former training,” spoke thus.
Some elders, seeing monks repeatedly performing the act, say, “Why do these monks think that by doing so, they will re-establish a monk who has committed a pārājika offense in the training?” These elders, seeing monks repeatedly reciting the kammavācā, think, “These monks are doing this for this reason,” and thus they speak. Other elders say, “Why do these monks repeat the act? Just as a thunderbolt strikes only once and destroys life, so too the Buddha’s authoritative kammavācā, recited once, accomplishes the act, not repeatedly.” They think, “They recite repeatedly to ensure the success of the act,” and thus they speak. Many monks, seeing others repeatedly performing the act, say, “These monks, not trusting the training given by their teachers and preceptors, act thus; they are monks who offend against the virtues of their teachers and preceptors.” Thinking, “They do not trust the previous training and act repeatedly,” they speak thus.
ID1626
Apare pana therā “paṭhamaṃ upasampadakammavācābhaṇanakāleyeva punappunaṃ vattabbaṃ, na aparabhāge”ti, tattha kāraṇaṃ heṭṭhā vuttameva. Aññe evamāhaṃsu “ñattidutiyakammavācāyameva punappunaṃ vattabbanti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ, na ñatticatutthakamme, atha ca panime bhikkhū ñatticatutthakammabhūtāya upasampadakammavācāya punappunaṃ karonti, etaṃ aṭṭhakathāya na sametī”ti, taṃ nītatthameva gahetvā vadiṃsu. Neyyatthato pana iminā nayena catūsupi kammesu punappunaṃ kātabbanti dasseti. Kammasaṅkarameva hi ñattidutiyakamme visesato vadati, punappunaṃ vattabbabhāvo pana sabbesūti daṭṭhabbo. Teneva hi ñatticatutthakammavācāya upasampannaṭṭhāneyeva pubbe anupasampannassa puggalassa pacchā upasampajjitabbabhāvo aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttoti.
Other elders, however, say: “The recitation of the kammavācā for ordination should be repeated only at the time of the initial recitation, not later,” and the reason for this is as stated below. Others said thus: “It is stated in the commentary that repetition applies only to the ñattidutiyakamma-vācā, not to the ñatticatutthakamma. Yet these monks repeat the kammavācā for ordination, which is a ñatticatutthakamma, and this does not align with the commentary.” They spoke thus, taking it in its explicit meaning. However, in its implied meaning, it indicates that repetition may be done in all four types of actions in this way. Indeed, it specifically mentions the mixing of actions in the ñattidutiyakamma, but the state of being repeatable applies to all, as should be understood. This is why it is stated in the commentary that even in the case of a ñatticatutthakamma-vācā for ordination, a person previously unordained should later be ordained.
Other elders, however, [say]: “It should be said repeatedly only at the time of reciting the ordination kammavācā for the first time, not afterwards.” The reason for that has been stated below. Others spoke thus: “It is said in the commentary that it should be said repeatedly in the kammavācā with the motion as second, not in the [kammavācā] with the motion as fourth. But these bhikkhus do it repeatedly in the ordination kammavācā, which is a kammavācā with the motion as fourth. This does not agree with the commentary.” They spoke, taking it as having a direct meaning. In terms of the indirect meaning, however, by this method, it indicates that it should be done repeatedly in all four acts. For it is the confusion of acts that it speaks of specifically in the kammavācā with the motion as second. However, it should be understood that the state of being said repeatedly applies to all. For that very reason, it is stated in the commentary that the state of having to be ordained later, for a person who was previously not ordained, exists in the very place of being ordained by the kammavācā with the motion as fourth.
Other elders say, “The repetition should be done at the time of the first recitation of the upasampadā kammavācā, not later.” The reason for this has been stated above. Others say, “The commentary states that only the ñattidutiyakammavācā should be repeated, not the ñatticatutthakamma. Yet these monks repeat the upasampadā kammavācā, which is a ñatticatutthakamma, and this does not accord with the commentary.” They speak thus, taking the definitive meaning. From the interpretative standpoint, this method shows that repetition should be done in all four types of acts. For the ñattidutiyakamma particularly mentions the mixing of acts, but the need for repetition applies to all. Therefore, the commentary states that in the case of the ñatticatutthakammavācā, a person who was previously not upasampanna should later be upasampanna.
ID1627
Paṭipucchākaraṇīyādīsupīti ettha ādisaddena paṭiṃññāya karaṇīyādayo saṅgaṇhāti. Tattha paṭipucchāya karaṇīyaṃ appaṭipucchā karotīti pucchitvā codetvā sāretvā kātabbaṃ apucchitvā acodetvā asāretvā karoti. Paṭiññāya karaṇīyaṃ appaṭiññāya karotīti paṭiññaṃ āropetvā yathādinnāya paṭiññāya kātabbaṃ apaṭiññāya paṭiññaṃ akarontassa vilapantassa balakkārena karoti. Sativinayārahassāti dabbamallaputtattherasadisassa khīṇāsavassa. Amūḷhavinayārahassāti gaggabhikkhusadisassa ummattakassa. Tassapāpiyasikakammārahassāti upavāḷabhikkhusadisassa ussannapāpassa. Tajjanīyakammārahassāti paṇḍakalohitakabhikkhusadisassa bhaṇḍanakārakassa. Niyasakammārahassāti seyyasakabhikkhusadisassa abhiṇhāpattikassa. Pabbājanīyakammārahassāti assajipunabbasukabhikkhusadisassa kuladūsakassa. Paṭisāraṇīyakammārahassāti sudhammabhikkhusaasassa upāsake jātiādīhi dūsentassa. Ukkhepanīyakammārahassāti channabhikkhusadisassa āpattiṃ apassantassa āpattiṃ adesentassa ariṭṭhabhikkhusadisassa micchādiṭṭhiṃ avissajjentassa. Parivāsārahassāti paṭicchannasaṅghādisesāpattikassa. Mūlāyapaṭikassanārahassāti antarāpattiṃ āpannassa. Mānattārahanti appaṭicchannasaṅghādisesāpattikaṃ. Abbhānārahanti ciṇṇamānattaṃ bhikkhuṃ. Upasampādetīti upasampadakammaṃ karoti.
In matters to be done with questioning and so forth: Here, the word ādi (and so forth) includes matters to be done with consent and others. In that context, he does what should be done with questioning without questioning means he performs what should be done after questioning, admonishing, and reminding, without questioning, admonishing, or reminding. He does what should be done with consent without consent means he forcibly performs what should be done by obtaining consent and acting according to the given consent, without obtaining consent from one who is unwilling and lamenting. One worthy of sativinaya refers to an arahant like the Elder Dabbamallaputta, whose defilements are destroyed. One worthy of amūḷhavinaya refers to a madman like the monk Gagga. One worthy of tassapāpiyasikakamma refers to one with abundant evil like the monk Upavāḷa. One worthy of tajjanīyakamma refers to a quarrelsome person like the monk Paṇḍakalohitaka. One worthy of niyasakamma refers to a frequent offender like the monk Seyyasaka. One worthy of pabbājanīyakamma refers to a corrupter of families like the monks Assaji and Punabbasuka. One worthy of paṭisāraṇīyakamma refers to one who reviles laypeople regarding birth and so forth, like the monk Sudhamma. One worthy of ukkhepanīyakamma refers to one who does not see an offense, like the monk Channa, or one who does not confess an offense, or one who does not abandon wrong views, like the monk Ariṭṭha. One worthy of parivāsa refers to one who has concealed a saṅghādisesa offense. One worthy of mūlāyapaṭikassanā refers to one who has committed an intermediate offense. One worthy of mānatta refers to one with an unconcealed saṅghādisesa offense. One worthy of abbhāna refers to a monk who has completed mānatta. He ordains means he performs the ordination action.
In matters requiring questioning, etc., here, by the word etc., it includes matters requiring acknowledgment, and so forth. Here, he does without questioning what should be done with questioning means he does without questioning, without reproving, and without reminding, what should be done after questioning, reproving, and reminding. He does without acknowledgment what should be done with acknowledgment means he does forcefully, while the person is lamenting without making an acknowledgment, what should be done by establishing an acknowledgment, according to the acknowledgment that has been given. For one deserving a sativinaya means for a khīṇāsava similar to the Elder Dabbamallaputta. For one deserving an amūḷhavinaya means for a madman similar to the bhikkhu Gagga. For one deserving a tassapāpiyasikākamma means for one with abundant evil, similar to the bhikkhu Upavāḷa. For one deserving a tajjanīyakamma means for one causing quarrels, similar to the bhikkhus Paṇḍaka and Lohitaka. For one deserving a niyassakamma means for one with frequent offenses, similar to the bhikkhu Seyyasaka. For one deserving a pabbājanīyakamma means for one corrupting families, similar to the bhikkhus Assaji and Punabbasu. For one deserving a paṭisāraṇīyakamma means for one corrupting lay followers with [talk of] birth, etc., similar to the bhikkhu Sudhamma. For one deserving an ukkhepanīyakamma means for one who does not see an offense, similar to the bhikkhu Channa, for one who does not confess an offense, for one who does not give up a wrong view, similar to the bhikkhu Ariṭṭha. For one deserving parivāsa means for one with a concealed saṅghādisesa offense. For one deserving mūlāyapaṭikassanā means for one who has incurred an interim offense. For one deserving mānatta means for one with an unconcealed saṅghādisesa offense. For one deserving abbhāna means a bhikkhu who has completed the mānatta. He ordains means he performs the ordination act.
In the case of interrogation, etc., here the word etc. includes the duties of acknowledgment, etc. In this context, one performs the duty of interrogation without interrogation means one should interrogate, accuse, and remind, but one does so without interrogating, accusing, or reminding. One performs the duty of acknowledgment without acknowledgment means one imposes an acknowledgment and should act according to the acknowledgment given, but one does not acknowledge and acts without acknowledgment, reproaching the one who does not acknowledge. For one worthy of the settlement by mindfulness refers to one like the Venerable Dabba the Mallian, an arahant. For one worthy of the settlement by innocence refers to one like the monk Gagga, who was insane. For one worthy of the tassapāpiyasikākamma refers to one like the monk Upavāḷa, who was full of evil. For one worthy of the tajjanīyakamma refers to one like the monk Paṇḍaka Lohitaka, who was quarrelsome. For one worthy of the niyasakamma refers to one like the monk Seyyasaka, who was frequently committing offenses. For one worthy of the pabbājanīyakamma refers to one like the monk Assaji Punabbasu, who was corrupting families. For one worthy of the paṭisāraṇīyakamma refers to one like the monk Sudhamma, who was defiling lay followers with caste, etc. For one worthy of the ukkhepanīyakamma refers to one like the monk Channa, who did not see or confess his offense, and like the monk Ariṭṭha, who did not abandon his wrong view. For one worthy of parivāsa refers to one who has committed a concealed saṅghādisesa offense. For one worthy of mūlāyapaṭikassanā refers to one who has committed an intermediate offense. For one worthy of mānatta refers to one who has committed an unconcealed saṅghādisesa offense. For one worthy of abbhāna refers to a monk who has completed mānatta. One performs upasampadā means one performs the upasampadā act.
ID1628
Anuposathe uposathaṃ karotīti anuposathadivase uposathaṃ karoti. Uposathadivaso nāma ṭhapetvā kattikamāsaṃ avasesesu ekādasasu māsesu bhinnassa saṅghassa sāmaggidivaso ca yathāvuttā cātuddasapannarasā ca, etaṃ tippakārampi uposathadivasaṃ ṭhapetvā aññasmiṃ divase uposathaṃ karonto anuposathe uposathaṃ karoti nāma. Yatra hi pattacīvarādiatthāya appamattakena kāraṇena vivadantā uposathaṃ vā pavāraṇaṃ vā ṭhapenti, tattha tasmiṃ adhikaraṇe vinicchite “samaggā jātamhā”ti antarā sāmaggīuposathaṃ kātuṃ na labhanti, karontehi anuposathe uposatho kato nāma hoti.
On a non-uposatha day, he performs the uposatha: He performs the uposatha on a day that is not an uposatha day. An uposatha day is, except for the month of Kattika, in the remaining eleven months: the day of unity for a divided Sangha, and the fourteenth and fifteenth days as mentioned. Performing the uposatha on any day other than these three types of uposatha days is called performing the uposatha on a non-uposatha day. Indeed, where they suspend the uposatha or pavāraṇā for a minor reason, such as a dispute over bowl and robe, they cannot perform an interim unity uposatha after that matter is resolved, saying, “We have become united,” and if they do, it is called performing the uposatha on a non-uposatha day.
He performs the uposatha on a non-uposatha day means he performs the uposatha on a day that is not an uposatha day. An uposatha day means, excluding the month of Kattika, the day of reconciliation for a divided Saṅgha in the remaining eleven months, and the fourteenth and fifteenth [lunar days] that have been stated; excluding these three kinds of uposatha days, one performing the uposatha on another day is said to perform the uposatha on a non-uposatha day. For where they suspend the uposatha or pavāraṇā because of minor reasons regarding robes, alms-food, etc., having settled that dispute, they are not allowed to do the reconciliation uposatha in the interim because “we have become harmonious”; those who do it, it becomes performing an uposatha in a non-uposatha.(pari. aṭṭha. 483)
On a non-uposatha day, one performs the uposatha means one performs the uposatha on a day that is not the uposatha day. The uposatha day is, except for the month of Kattika, in the remaining eleven months, the day of unity for a divided Sangha, as well as the fourteenth and fifteenth days as mentioned. Performing the uposatha on any other day is called performing the uposatha on a non-uposatha day. For when monks, disputing over a minor matter such as robes or alms bowls, postpone the uposatha or pavāraṇā, then, even after the dispute is settled, they cannot perform the uposatha of unity, saying, “We have become united.” Those who perform it are said to have performed the uposatha on a non-uposatha day.
ID1629
Appavāraṇāya pavāretīti appavāraṇadivase pavāreti. Pavāraṇadivaso nāma ekasmiṃ kattikamāse bhinnassa saṅghassa sāmaggidivaso ca paccukkaḍḍhitvā ṭhapitadivaso ca dve ca puṇṇamāsiyo, etaṃ catubbidhaṃ pavāraṇadivasaṃ ṭhapetvā aññasmiṃ divase pavārento appavāraṇāya pavāreti nāma. Idhāpi appamattakassa vivādassa vūpasame sāmaggīpavāraṇaṃ kātuṃ na labhanti. Karontehi appavāraṇāya pavāraṇā katā hotīti ayaṃ aṭṭhakathāpāṭho (pari. aṭṭha. 483).
He performs the pavāraṇā on a non-pavāraṇā day: He performs the pavāraṇā on a day that is not a pavāraṇā day. A pavāraṇā day is, in the single month of Kattika: the day of unity for a divided Sangha, the day set aside after being withdrawn, and the two full-moon days. Performing the pavāraṇā on any day other than these four types of pavāraṇā days is called performing the pavāraṇā on a non-pavāraṇā day. Here too, they cannot perform a unity pavāraṇā after settling a minor dispute. If they do, it is called performing the pavāraṇā on a non-pavāraṇā day, according to this commentary text (pari. aṭṭha. 483).
He performs the pavāraṇā on a non-pavāraṇā day means he performs the pavāraṇā on a day that is not a pavāraṇā day. A pavāraṇā day means, in the one month of Kattika, the day of reconciliation for a divided Saṅgha, and the day fixed by postponing, and the two full-moon days. Excluding these four kinds of pavāraṇā days, one performing the pavāraṇā on another day is said to perform the pavāraṇā on a non-pavāraṇā day. Here also, on the settling of a minor dispute, they are not allowed to do the reconciliation pavāraṇā. By those who do it, it becomes a pavāraṇā done on a non-pavāraṇā [day]. This is the commentary text (pari. aṭṭha. 483).
On a non-pavāraṇā day, one performs the pavāraṇā means one performs the pavāraṇā on a day that is not the pavāraṇā day. The pavāraṇā day is, in one month of Kattika, the day of unity for a divided Sangha, as well as the postponed day and the two full moon days. Performing the pavāraṇā on any other day is called performing the pavāraṇā on a non-pavāraṇā day. Here too, due to the settlement of a minor dispute, they cannot perform the pavāraṇā of unity. Those who perform it are said to have performed the pavāraṇā on a non-pavāraṇā day. This is the commentary passage (pari. aṭṭha. 483).
ID1630
“Ummattakassa bhikkhuno ummattakasammuti ummattakena yācitvā kate asammukhāpi dātuṃ vaṭṭati, tattha nisinnepi na kuppati niyamābhāvato. Asammukhā kate pana dosābhāvaṃ dassetuṃ ‘asammukhā kataṃ sukataṃ hotī’ti vuttaṃ. Dūtena upasampadā pana sammukhā kātuṃ na sakkā kammavācānānattasambhavato. Pattanikkujjanādayo hatthapāsato apanītamattepi kātuṃ vaṭṭanti. Saṅghasammukhatātiādīsu yāvatikā bhikkhū kammappattā, te āgatā honti, chandārahānaṃ chando āhato hoti, sammukhībhūtā na paṭikkosanti, ayaṃ saṅghasammukhatā. Yena dhammena yena vinayena yena satthusāsanena saṅgho kammaṃ karoti, ayaṃ dhammasammukhatā vinayasammukhatā. Tattha dhammoti bhūtaṃ vatthu. Vinayoti codanā ceva sāraṇā ca. Satthusāsanaṃ nāma ñattisampadā ceva anussāvanasampadā ca. Yassa saṅgho kammaṃ karoti, tassa sammukhābhāvo puggalasammukhatā. Kattikamāsassa pavāraṇamāsattā ‘ṭhapetvā kattikamāsa’nti vuttaṃ. Paccukkaḍḍhitvā ṭhapitadivaso cāti kāḷapakkhe cātuddasiṃ pannarasiṃ vā sandhāya vuttaṃ. Dve puṇṇamāsiyoti paṭhamapacchimavassūpagatānaṃ vasena vutta”nti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. parivāra 3.483) āgataṃ.
“For a mad monk, the agreement for a madman, even if requested by the madman and done in his absence, may be given, and it does not fail even if he is seated there, due to the absence of restriction. To show the absence of fault in performing it in his absence, it is said: ‘What is done in absence is well done.’ However, ordination by a messenger cannot be done in person due to the impossibility of omitting the kammavācā announcement. Actions like overturning the bowl may be done even if the person is just beyond arm’s reach. In saṅghasammukhatā and so forth: As many monks as are required for the action have arrived, the consent of those deserving consent has been brought, and those present do not object—this is saṅghasammukhatā. The action performed by the Sangha in accordance with the Dhamma, the Vinaya, and the Teacher’s instruction is dhammasammukhatā vinayasammukhatā. Here, dhamma is the true basis, vinaya is the admonition and reminder, and the Teacher’s instruction is the perfection of the motion and the announcement. The presence of the person for whom the Sangha performs the action is puggalasammukhatā. Because Kattika is the month of pavāraṇā, it is said: ‘except for the month of Kattika.’ The day set aside after being withdrawn refers to the fourteenth or fifteenth of the dark fortnight. The two full-moon days refer to those at the beginning and end of the rains retreat,” as found in Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. parivāra 3.483).
“It is permissible to give the consent for a mad bhikkhu, even if not in the presence [of the Saṅgha], having asked for the consent for a madman from a madman, if it is done, there is no fault even if he is sitting there, due to the lack of a rule. However, to show the absence of fault if it is done not in the presence, it is said, ‘what is done not in the presence is well-done.’ But ordination by a messenger cannot be done in the presence due to the impossibility of many kammavācās. Acts such as overturning the bowl, etc., are permissible to be done even if removed from the hand’s reach. In presence of the Saṅgha, etc., as many bhikkhus as are fit for the act are present, the consent of those deserving consent has been brought, those present do not object — this is presence of the Saṅgha. By whatever dhamma, by whatever vinaya, by whatever teaching of the Teacher the Saṅgha performs the act, this is presence of the dhamma, presence of the vinaya. Here, dhamma means the existing object. Vinaya means both the charge and the reminder. The teaching of the Teacher means both the accomplishment of the motion and the accomplishment of the announcement. The presence of the one for whom the Saṅgha performs the act is presence of the person. Because the month of Kattika is the month of pavāraṇā, it is said, ‘excluding the month of Kattika.’ And the day fixed by postponing is said with reference to the fourteenth or fifteenth [day] of the waning moon. The two full-moon days are said with reference to those who entered the first and last rains retreat” — this has come in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. parivāra 3.483).
“For an insane monk, the consent of the insane is given by the insane, and even if done in absence, it is valid. Even if present, it does not invalidate due to the absence of a rule. However, to show the absence of fault in an act done in absence, it is said, ‘An act done in absence is well done.’ But ordination by messenger cannot be done face-to-face due to the variation in the kammavācā. The overturning of the bowl, etc., can be done even if the hand is just removed. Sangha-sammukhatā means that as many monks as are entitled to the act have come, the consent of those entitled has been obtained, and they do not object, being present. This is sangha-sammukhatā. The act is done in accordance with the Dhamma, the Vinaya, and the Teacher’s instruction. This is dhammasammukhatā, vinayasammukhatā. Here, Dhamma means the true matter. Vinaya means the accusation and the reminder. The Teacher’s instruction means the completeness of the motion and the completeness of the announcement. The presence of the person for whom the Sangha performs the act is puggalasammukhatā. Due to the pavāraṇā month being Kattika, it is said, ‘except for the month of Kattika.’ The postponed day refers to the fourteenth or fifteenth day of the dark fortnight. The two full moon days refers to the first and last months of the rainy season.” This is from the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. parivāra 3.483).
ID1631
“Ṭhapitauposathapavāraṇānaṃ kattikamāse sāmaggiyā katāya sāmaggīpavāraṇaṃ muñcitvā uposathaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭatīti āha ‘ṭhapetvā kattikamāsa’nti. Sace pana tesaṃ nānāsīmāsu mahāpavāraṇāya visuṃ pavāritānaṃ kattikamāsabbhantare sāmaggī hoti, sāmaggīuposatho eva tehi kātabbo, na pavāraṇā ekasmiṃ vasse katapavāraṇānaṃ puna pavāraṇāya avihitattā. Sāmaggīdivaso hotīti anuposathadivase sāmaggīkaraṇaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Sace pana cātuddasiyaṃ pannarasiyaṃ vā saṅgho sāmaggiṃ karoti, tadā sāmaggīuposathadivaso na hoti, cātuddasīpannarasīuposathova hoti. Upari pavāraṇāyapi eseva nayo. Paccukkaḍḍhitvā ṭhapitadivaso cāti bhaṇḍanakārakehi upaddutā vā kenacideva karaṇīyena pavāraṇasaṅgahaṃ vā katvā ṭhapito kāḷapakkhacātuddasīdivaso ca. Dve ca puṇṇamāsiyoti pubbakattikapuṇṇamā pacchimakattikapuṇṇamā cāti dve puṇṇamāsiyo. Etaṃ catubbidhanti puṇṇamāsidvayena saddhiṃ sāmaggīpavāraṇaṃ cātuddasīpavāraṇañca sampiṇḍetvā, idañca pakaticārittavasena vuttaṃ. Tathārūpapaccaye pana sati ubhinnaṃ puṇṇamāsīnaṃ purimā dve cātuddasiyo, kāḷapakkhacātuddasiyā anantarā pannarasīpīti imepi tayo divasā pavāraṇādivasā evāti imaṃ sattavidhampi pavāraṇādivasaṃ ṭhapetvā aññasmiṃ divase pavāretuṃ na vaṭṭatī”ti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. parivāra 2.483) āgataṃ.
“Having performed the uposatha and pavāraṇā that were set aside, it is not proper in the month of Kattika to perform the uposatha after releasing the unity pavāraṇā, thus it says: ‘except for the month of Kattika.’ However, if those who separately performed the great pavāraṇā in different boundaries become united within the month of Kattika, they should perform only the unity uposatha, not the pavāraṇā, since performing the pavāraṇā again in the same rains retreat is not prescribed. It becomes a day of unity refers to the act of unification on a non-uposatha day. However, if the Sangha achieves unity on the fourteenth or fifteenth, it is not a unity uposatha day but simply the uposatha of the fourteenth or fifteenth. The same applies to the pavāraṇā above. The day set aside after being withdrawn refers to the fourteenth day of the dark fortnight, set aside due to quarrelsome monks or some other matter requiring the suspension of the pavāraṇā. The two full-moon days are the earlier and later full moons of Kattika. This fourfold combines the two full-moon days with the unity pavāraṇā and the fourteenth-day pavāraṇā, stated in the usual manner. However, when such conditions arise, the earlier of the two full-moon days, the two fourteenths, and the fifteenth following the fourteenth of the dark fortnight—these three days—are also pavāraṇā days. Thus, it is not proper to perform the pavāraṇā on any day other than these seven types of pavāraṇā days,” as found in Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. parivāra 2.483).
“To say that it is not permissible to perform the uposatha without performing the reconciliation pavāraṇā if the suspended uposatha and pavāraṇā are performed with reconciliation in the month of Kattika, he says ‘excluding the month of Kattika.’ But if, for those who have performed the pavāraṇā separately in large pavāraṇās in different boundaries, there is reconciliation within the month of Kattika, only the reconciliation uposatha should be performed by them, not the pavāraṇā, because the pavāraṇā is not prescribed again for those who have performed the pavāraṇā in one rains retreat. It is a day of reconciliation is said with reference to performing the reconciliation on a non-uposatha day. But if the Saṅgha performs the reconciliation on the fourteenth or fifteenth [day], then it is not a reconciliation uposatha day; it is just the uposatha of the fourteenth or fifteenth [day]. Above, in the case of the pavāraṇā, the same method applies. And the day fixed by postponing means the day of the fourteenth [day] of the waning moon that has been fixed after making an agreement for the pavāraṇā, being hindered by those causing quarrels, or because of some duty. And the two full-moon days means the two full-moon days: the full moon of the former Kattika and the full moon of the latter Kattika. This fourfold means, combining together the reconciliation pavāraṇā and the fourteenth [day] pavāraṇā along with the two full-moon days. And this has been said on account of the ordinary practice. But if such a condition exists, then these three days also — the two fourteenth [days] prior to the two full moons, and the fifteenth [day] following the fourteenth [day] of the waning moon — are indeed pavāraṇā days. Excluding even these seven kinds of pavāraṇā days, it is not permissible to perform the pavāraṇā on another day” — this has come in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. parivāra 2.483).
“For those whose uposatha and pavāraṇā have been postponed, if unity is achieved in the month of Kattika, they should perform the uposatha of unity, not the pavāraṇā, because pavāraṇā is not prescribed again in the same year for those who have already performed it. The day of unity refers to achieving unity on a non-uposatha day. If the Sangha achieves unity on the fourteenth or fifteenth day, then it is the uposatha day of the fourteenth or fifteenth, not the day of unity. The same applies to the pavāraṇā. The postponed day refers to the fourteenth day of the dark fortnight, postponed due to quarrels or some other duty. The two full moon days refers to the first and last full moon days of Kattika. This fourfold refers to the two full moon days combined with the unity pavāraṇā and the fourteenth day pavāraṇā, and this is stated according to the usual practice. In such circumstances, the first two fourteenth days, the fourteenth day of the dark fortnight, and the fifteenth day are also three days for pavāraṇā. Thus, excluding these seven types of pavāraṇā days, it is not permissible to perform the pavāraṇā on any other day.” This is from the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. parivāra 2.483).
ID1632
Evaṃ vatthuvipattivinicchayaṃ dassetvā idāni ñattivipattivinicchayaṃ anussāvanavipattivinicchayañca dassento “ñattito vipattiyaṃ panā”tiādimāha. Tattha pañcamañattivipattiyaṃ “pacchā vā ñattiṃ ṭhapetī”ti etassa saṃvaṇṇanāyaṃ anussāvanakammaṃ katvāti paṭhamaṃ anussāvanaṃ sāvetvā “esā ñattī”ti anussāvanānantarameva sakalaṃ ñattiṃ vatvā, pariyosāne “esā ñattī”ti vatvāti adhippāyo.
Having shown the determination of basis-failure, now showing the determination of motion-failure and announcement-failure, it begins with: “But in the case of failure due to the motion…” In the explanation of the fifth motion-failure, having performed the announcement action means first making the announcement, saying, “This is the motion,” and immediately afterward stating the entire motion, concluding with, “This is the motion,” as intended.
Thus, having shown the determination of the failure of the object, now, showing the determination of the failure of the motion and the determination of the failure of the announcement, he says, “But in the failure of the motion,” etc. Here, in the explanation of the fifth failure of the motion, “he places the motion afterwards,” after performing the announcement act means, after reciting the first announcement, saying, “This is the motion,” immediately after the announcement, having said the entire motion, at the end, saying “This is the motion,” is the intention.
Having shown the resolution of the failure of the matter, now showing the resolution of the failure of the motion and the failure of the announcement, it is said, “In the case of the failure of the motion, etc.” Here, in the fifth failure of the motion, “one places the motion afterwards,” for the explanation of this, having performed the announcement act means first announcing, “This is the motion,” and immediately after the announcement, reciting the entire motion, and at the end saying, “This is the motion.” This is the meaning.
ID1633
252. Catutthaanussāvanavipattisaṃvaṇṇanāyaṃ “yvāyanti byañjanappabhedo adhippeto. Dasadhā byañjanabuddhiyā pabhedoti ettha dasadhā dasavidhena byañjanānaṃ pabhedoti yojetabbaṃ. Kenāyaṃ pabhedoti āha ‘byañjanabuddhiyā’ti. Yathādhippetatthabyañjanato byañjanasaṅkhātānaṃ akkharānaṃ janikā buddhi byañjanabuddhi, tāya byañjanabuddhiyā, akkharasamuṭṭhāpakacittabhedenevāti attho. Yaṃ vā saṃyogaparaṃ katvā vuccati, idampi garukanti yojanā”ti vimativinodaniyaṃ vuttaṃ.
252. In the explanation of the fourth announcement-failure, ‘this’ refers to a distinction in letter. The tenfold distinction by letter-understanding should be understood as the ten kinds of distinction of letters. It explains what this distinction is by saying ‘by letter-understanding.’ The understanding that produces letters from the intended meaning is letter-understanding, meaning by the distinction of mind that generates letters—this is the meaning, or alternatively, it is construed as having a consonant cluster, making it weighty, as stated in Vimativinodanī.
252. In the explanation of the fourth failure of the announcement, “by which” means the differentiation of the consonants is intended. The differentiation by the understanding of the consonants in ten ways—here, it should be construed: in ten ways, by the ten-fold [way] of the differentiation of the consonants. He says how this differentiation is: ‘by the understanding of the consonants.’ The understanding that produces the letters, which are called consonants, from the intended consonant of the meaning, is the understanding of the consonants. By that understanding of the consonants, that is, by the differentiation of the mind that arises from the letters. Or, taking it as connected to the conjunction: it is also heavy, is the construction”— this is said in Vimativinodani.
252. In the explanation of the fourth failure of the announcement, “yvāya” refers to the differentiation of syllables. The differentiation by tenfold syllable understanding means that the differentiation is to be understood as tenfold by the syllables. How is this differentiation? It is said, “by syllable understanding.” According to the intended meaning, the syllables are generated by the mind, and this is called syllable understanding. By this syllable understanding, the differentiation arises from the variety of mind that generates the syllables. Or, it is said by taking the conjunction as primary, and this is also heavy. This is the explanation in the Vimativinodanī.
ID1634
Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. parivāra 3.485) pana “ṭhānakaraṇāni sithilāni katvā uccāretabbamakkharaṃ sithilaṃ, tāniyeva dhanitāni asithilāni katvā uccāretabbamakkharaṃ dhanitaṃ. Dvimattakālaṃ dīghaṃ, ekamattakālaṃ rassaṃ. Dasadhā byañjanabuddhiyā pabhedoti evaṃ sithilādivasena byañjanabuddhiyā akkharuppādakacittassa dasappakārena pabhedo. Sabbāni hi akkharāni cittasamuṭṭhānāni yathādhippetatthabyañjanato byañjanāni ca. Saṃyogo paro etasmāti saṃyogaparo. Na saṃyogaparo asaṃyogaparo ’āyasmato buddharakkhitatherassa yassa na khamatī’ti ettha ta-kāra na-kārasahitāro asaṃyogaparo. Karaṇānīti kaṇṭhādīni” iti ettakaṃ vuttaṃ.
In Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. parivāra 3.485), it is said: “Making the articulatory organs lax, the letter to be pronounced is lax; making those same organs firm and not lax, the letter to be pronounced is firm. Having two mātrā durations is long, one mātrā duration is short. The tenfold distinction by letter-understanding means the tenfold distinction of the mind producing letters by way of laxness and so forth. All letters arise from the mind, and from the intended meaning they are letters. That which has a consonant cluster following it is saṃyogapara. That which does not have a consonant cluster following it is asaṃyogapara, as in ‘for the venerable Elder Buddharakkhita, for whom it is not acceptable,’ where the ‘ta’ and ‘na’ with consonants are asaṃyogapara. Organs refer to the throat and so forth.”
In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. parivāra 3.485), however, “making the places of articulation lax, the letter to be uttered is lax; making those very [places of articulation] resonant, not lax, the letter to be uttered is resonant. Two morae in time is long; one mora in time is short. The differentiation by the understanding of the consonants in ten ways—in this way, by the understanding of the consonants, such as lax, etc., there is a ten-fold differentiation of the mind that produces the letters. For all letters are arisen from the mind, and they are also consonants from the intended consonant of the meaning. That which has a conjunction after it is connected to a conjunction. Not connected to a conjunction is not connected to a conjunction; ‘of the venerable Buddharakkhita Thera, of whom it is not agreeable,’ here, the ta-sound with the na-sound is not connected to a conjunction. Places of articulation means the palate, etc.”—only this much has been said.
The Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. parivāra 3.485) states, “The letters should be pronounced loosely, making the articulatory organs slack, this is loose. The same letters should be pronounced firmly, making the articulatory organs not slack, this is firm. Long is twice the duration, short is once the duration. The differentiation by tenfold syllable understanding means that by the loose, etc., the syllable understanding, the mind that generates the syllables, is differentiated in ten ways. All syllables are generated by the mind according to the intended meaning, and thus they are syllables. The conjunction is primary, thus conjunction-primary. Not conjunction-primary is non-conjunction-primary, as in ‘the Venerable Buddharakkhita Thera, to whom it is not agreeable,’ here the ta-syllable and na-syllable are non-conjunction-primary. The articulatory organs are the throat, etc.” This much is said.
ID1635
Puna vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. parivāra 2.485) “tattha āyasmatotiādīsu sarānantaritāni sa-kāra ma-kārādibyañjanāni ’saṃyogo’ti vuccanti. Yo saṃyogo paro yassa a-kārādino, so saṃyogaparo nāma. Rassanti a-kārādibyañjanarahitaṃ padaṃ. Asaṃyogaparanti ’yassa na khamatī’tiādīsu sa-kāra na-kārādibyañjanasahitaṃ padaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Ta-kārassa tha-kāraṃ akatvā ’suṇātu me’tiādiṃ avatvā vaggantare sithilameva katvā ’suṇāṭu me’tiādiṃ vadantopi duruttaṃ karotiyeva ṭhapetvā anurūpaṃ ādesaṃ. Yañhi ’saccikatthaparamatthenā’ti vattabbe ’saccikaṭṭhaparamaṭṭhenā’ti ca ’atthakathā’ti ca vattabbe ’aṭṭhakathā’ti ca tattha tattha vuccati, tādisaṃ pāḷiaṭṭhakathādīsu diṭṭhapayogaṃ tadanurūpañca vattuṃ vaṭṭati, tato aññaṃ na vaṭṭati. Tenāha ‘anukkamāgataṃ paveṇiṃ avināsentenā’tiādi. ‘Dīghe vattabbe rassa’ntiādīsu ’bhikkhūna’nti vattabbe ’bhikkhuna’nti vā ’bahūsū’ti vattabbe ’bahusū’ti vā ’nakkhamatī’ti vattabbe ’na khamatī’ti vā ’upasampadāpekkho’ti vattabbe ’upasampadāpekho’ti vā evaṃ anurūpaṭṭhānesu eva dīgharassādirassadīghādivasena parivattetuṃ vaṭṭati, na pana ’nāgo’ti vattabbe ’nago’ti vā ’saṅgho’ti vattabbe ’sagho’ti vā ’tisso’ti vattabbe ’tiso’ti vā ’yācatī’ti vattabbe ’yācantī’ti vā evaṃ ananurūpaṭṭhānesu vattuṃ . Sambandhaṃ pana vavatthānañca sabbathāpi vaṭṭatīti gahetabba”nti āgataṃ. Sesāni aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttanayeneva suṭṭhu sallakkhetabbāni.
Again, in Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. parivāra 2.485), it is said: “In ‘for the venerable’ and so forth, consonants like ‘sa’ and ‘ma’ preceded by vowels are called ‘saṃyoga.’ That which has a consonant cluster following a vowel like ‘a’ is called saṃyogapara. Short refers to a word without consonants like ‘a.’ Asaṃyogapara refers to words like ‘for whom it is not acceptable,’ with consonants like ‘sa’ and ‘na.’ Even one who, instead of saying ‘suṇātu me’ with ‘tha,’ says ‘suṇāṭu me’ laxly within another group, commits a mispronunciation unless it is an appropriate substitute. For where it should be said ‘saccikatthaparamatthena’ but is said ‘saccikaṭṭhaparamaṭṭhena,’ or ‘atthakathā’ but is said ‘aṭṭhakathā,’ such usage seen in the Pali texts and commentaries, and what conforms to it, is permissible to say; anything else is not. Thus it says: ‘without destroying the tradition handed down in sequence.’ In ‘saying short where long is required’ and so forth, in appropriate places like saying ‘bhikkhūna’ as ‘bhikkhuna,’ or ‘bahūsu’ as ‘bahusu,’ or ‘nakkhamati’ as ‘na khamati,’ or ‘upasampadāpekkho’ as ‘upasampadāpekho,’ it is permissible to alternate long and short or vice versa, but not in inappropriate places like saying ‘nāgo’ as ‘nago,’ or ‘saṅgho’ as ‘sagho,’ or ‘tisso’ as ‘tiso,’ or ‘yācati’ as ‘yācanti.’ However, determining the connection is permissible in all cases.” The rest should be well considered according to the method stated in the commentary.
Again, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. parivāra 2.485), it is said: “In ‘tattha āyasmatotiādīsu’, consonants such as ‘s’ and ‘m’ etc., which are immediately preceded by vowels, are called ‘saṃyoga’. That which has a saṃyoga following it, such as the vowel ‘a’, is called saṃyogaparo. Rassanti refers to a word without the vowel ‘a’ etc. Asaṃyogaparanti is said with reference to a word accompanied by consonants such as ‘s’ and ‘n’ etc., as in ‘yassa na khamatī’ etc. Even one who, without changing ‘ta’ to ‘tha’, and without saying ‘suṇātu me’ etc., but uttering it slackly in another class, as ‘suṇāṭu me’ etc., still commits a wrong utterance, except making appropriate substitutions. Indeed, when one should say ‘saccikatthaparamatthenā’, but says ‘saccikaṭṭhaparamaṭṭhenā’, and when one should say ‘atthakathā’, but says ‘aṭṭhakathā’, such usage seen in the Pāḷi commentaries etc., and conforming to them, is permissible, but anything other than that is not permissible. Therefore, he said, ‘anukkamāgataṃ paveṇiṃ avināsentenā’tiādi. In instances such as ‘Dīghe vattabbe rassa’ntiādīsu, where one should say ‘bhikkhūnaṃ’, but says ‘bhikkhunaṃ’; or should say ‘bahūsū’, but says ‘bahusū’; or should say ‘nakkhamatī’, but says ‘na khamatī’; or should say ‘upasampadāpekkho’, but says ‘upasampadāpekho’, in such suitable places, it is permissible to change long vowels to short, or short to long, etc. But it is not permissible to say ‘nago’ when one should say ‘nāgo’; or ‘sagho’ when one should say ‘saṅgho’; or ‘tiso’ when one should say ‘tisso’; or ‘yācantī’ when one should say ‘yācatī’, in such unsuitable places. However, it should be understood that connection and arrangement are always permissible,” thus it has come. The remaining points should be well noted in the same way as stated in the commentary.
Furthermore, in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Parivāra 2.485), it is said: “Here, in the phrases like ‘āyasmato,’ the consonants such as ‘sa’ and ‘ma’ that follow the vowels are called ‘saṃyoga’ (conjunct consonants). That which has conjunct consonants like ‘a’ and others following it is called ‘saṃyogapara.’ ‘Rassa’ refers to a word devoid of consonants like ‘a.’ ‘Asaṃyogapara’ refers to words that include consonants like ‘sa’ and ‘na’ in phrases such as ‘yassa na khamatī.’ Without changing the ‘ta’ to ‘tha,’ and without saying ‘suṇātu me,’ but rather loosely changing it to ‘suṇāṭu me,’ even though it is incorrect, it is still considered appropriate to make such adjustments. For example, where one should say ‘saccikatthaparamatthenā,’ it is also said as ‘saccikaṭṭhaparamaṭṭhenā,’ and where ‘atthakathā’ should be said, it is also said as ‘aṭṭhakathā.’ Such usage is seen in the Pāli commentaries, and it is appropriate to follow such conventions. Therefore, it is said, ‘anukkamāgataṃ paveṇiṃ avināsentenā,’ etc. In cases where a long vowel should be used, a short one is used, such as ‘bhikkhūna’ instead of ‘bhikkhuna,’ or ‘bahūsu’ instead of ‘bahusū,’ or ‘na khamatī’ instead of ‘nakkhamatī,’ or ‘upasampadāpekkho’ instead of ‘upasampadāpekho.’ In such appropriate places, it is permissible to alternate between long and short vowels, but not in inappropriate places, such as saying ‘nāgo’ as ‘nago,’ or ‘saṅgho’ as ‘sagho,’ or ‘tisso’ as ‘tiso,’ or ‘yācatī’ as ‘yācantī.’ However, the connection and determination should always be maintained.” The rest should be carefully considered according to the method explained in the commentary.
ID1636
253. Sīmavipattivinicchayo pana heṭṭhā sīmakathāyaṃ sabbena kathito, tasmā tattha vuttanayeneva gahetabbo.
253. The determination of boundary-failure has been fully discussed below in the section on boundaries, so it should be understood according to the method stated there.
253. The determination of boundary defects, however, has been completely explained below in the discussion on boundaries; therefore, it should be understood according to the method stated there.
253. The discussion on the failure of boundary (sīmā) has already been fully explained in the earlier section on boundaries. Therefore, it should be understood according to what was said there.
ID1637
Parisavipattikathāya catuvaggakaraṇeti catuvaggena saṅghena kattabbe. Anissāritāti uposathaṭṭhapanādinā vā laddhinānāsaṃvāsakabhāvena vā na bahikatā. Aṭṭhakathāyañhi “apakatattassāti ukkhittakassa vā yassa vā uposathapavāraṇā ṭhapitā hontī”ti (pari. aṭṭha. 425) vuttattā ṭhapitauposathapavāraṇo bhikkhu apakatatto evāti gahetabbaṃ. Parisuddhasīlāti pārājikaṃ anāpannā adhippetā. Parivāsādikammesu pana garukaṭṭhāpi apakatattā evāti gahetabbaṃ. Avasesā…pe… chandārahāva hontīti hatthapāsaṃ vijahitvā ṭhite sandhāya vuttaṃ, avijahitvā ṭhitā pana chandārahā na honti, tepi catuvaggādito adhikā hatthapāsaṃ vijahitvāva chandārahā honti, tasmā saṅghato hatthapāsaṃ vijahitvā ṭhiteneva chando vā pārisuddhi vā dātabbā.
In the discussion of assembly-failure, with a group of four means to be done by a Sangha of four. Not expelled means not excluded by the suspension of uposatha or by difference of view leading to separate communion. For in the commentary, it is said: ‘Of one not in normal state’ refers to one suspended or for whom the uposatha or pavāraṇā has been set aside (pari. aṭṭha. 425); thus, a monk whose uposatha or pavāraṇā has been set aside is considered not in a normal state. Of pure virtue refers to those who have not committed a pārājika offense. Even those under serious actions like parivāsa are considered not in a normal state. The rest… indeed those deserving consent refers to those standing beyond arm’s reach; those standing within arm’s reach are not deserving of consent. Even those additional to a group of four or more, if beyond arm’s reach, are deserving of consent. Thus, consent or purity must be given only by one standing beyond arm’s reach from the Sangha.
In the discussion of assembly defects, catuvaggakaraṇeti means in the case of an act that should be performed by a chapter of four monks. Anissāritāti means not excluded, either by establishing the Uposatha, etc., or by the state of having different convictions and being non-affiliated. Indeed, in the commentary, it is said, “apakatattassāti means of one who is suspended, or one whose Uposatha and Pavāraṇā have been suspended” (pari. aṭṭha. 425), therefore, a bhikkhu whose Uposatha and Pavāraṇā are suspended should be considered as apakatatta (unrestored). Parisuddhasīlāti refers to those who have not committed a pārājika offense. However, in the case of acts such as probation, etc., even those who are in a difficult position (garukaṭṭha) are considered apakatatta. Avasesā…pe… chandārahāva hontīti is said with reference to those who stand outside arm’s reach; those who stand without leaving arm’s reach are not eligible to give consent. Only those who, being more than a group of four, etc., are standing outside the arm’s reach of the Sangha, are eligible to give consent; therefore, consent or declaration of purity should be given by one who is standing outside the arm’s reach of the Sangha.
In the discussion on the failure of the assembly, ‘catuvaggakaraṇe’ means it should be done by a Saṅgha of four groups. ‘Anissāritā’ means not being excluded by the establishment of the Uposatha or by being deprived of communal rights. In the commentary, it is said: “apakatattassā’ refers to one who has been suspended or whose Uposatha and Pavāraṇā have been postponed.” Therefore, it should be understood that a monk whose Uposatha and Pavāraṇā have been postponed is considered ‘apakatatta.’ ‘Parisuddhasīlā’ refers to one who has not committed a Pārājika offense. Even those who have committed serious offenses but are undergoing probation (parivāsa) are also considered ‘apakatatta.’ ‘Avasesā…pe… chandārahāva hontī’ refers to those standing beyond arm’s length. Those standing within arm’s length are not eligible to give consent. Even those beyond the four groups must stand beyond arm’s length to be eligible to give consent. Therefore, consent or purity should be given only by those standing beyond arm’s length from the Saṅgha.
ID1638
Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. parivāra 3.488) pana “anukkhittā pārājikaṃ anāpannā ca pakatattāti āha ‘pakatattā anukkhittā’tiādi. Tattha anissāritāti purimapadasseva vevacanaṃ. Parisuddhasīlāti pārājikaṃ anāpannā. Na tesaṃ chando vā pārisuddhi vā etīti tīsu dvīsu vā nisinnesu ekassa vā dvinnaṃ vā chandapārisuddhi āhaṭāpi anāhaṭāva hotīti adhippāyo”ti āgato. Evaṃ pāḷiyañca aṭṭhakathāya ca catunnampi kammānaṃ sampatti ca vipatti ca āgatā, ṭīkācariyehi ca vinicchitā, tasmā aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttanayeneva cattāri kammāni kattabbāni, na avuttanayena. Vuttañhi samantapāsādikāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 1. ganthārambhakathā; 2.431) –
In Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. parivāra 3.488), it is said: “Those not suspended and not having committed a pārājika are in a normal state, thus it says: ‘In a normal state, not suspended’ and so forth. Here, not expelled is a synonym for the previous term. Of pure virtue means not having committed a pārājika. Neither their consent nor purity comes to them means that even if consent or purity is brought for one, two, or three seated monks, it is as if not brought—this is the intent.” Thus, in the Pali and commentary, the success and failure of all four actions are stated and determined by the sub-commentators. Therefore, the four actions should be performed according to the method stated in the commentary, not otherwise. For it is said in Samantapāsādikā (pārā. aṭṭha. 1. ganthārambhakathā; 2.431):
However, in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. parivāra 3.488), it is said: “Those who are not suspended and have not committed a pārājika offense are called ‘pakatatta’, hence he says, ‘pakatattā anukkhittā’tiādi. Here, anissāritāti is a synonym for the previous term. Parisuddhasīlāti means those who have not committed a pārājika offense. Na tesaṃ chando vā pārisuddhi vā etīti means that when three or two are sitting, the consent and declaration of purity of one or two, even if brought, is as if it were not brought.” Thus, in both the Pāḷi and the commentary, the accomplishment and failure of all four types of acts have been presented, and determined by the authors of the sub-commentaries. Therefore, the four types of acts should be performed according to the method stated in the commentary, and not according to a method not stated. Indeed, it is said in the Samantapāsādikā (pārā. aṭṭha. 1. ganthārambhakathā; 2.431):
In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Parivāra 3.488), it is said: “One who has not committed a Pārājika offense and is in good standing is called ‘pakatattā anukkhittā.’ Here, ‘anissāritā’ is synonymous with the previous term. ‘Parisuddhasīlā’ refers to one who has not committed a Pārājika offense. ‘Na tesaṃ chando vā pārisuddhi vā etī’ means that even if consent or purity is brought for one or two who are sitting, it is as if it has not been brought.” Thus, both the Pāli texts and the commentaries have explained the success and failure of the four types of formal acts, and the sub-commentators have analyzed them. Therefore, the four types of formal acts should be performed according to the method explained in the commentary, not otherwise. As stated in the Samantapāsādikā (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1. Ganthārambhakathā; 2.431):
ID1639
“Buddhena dhammo vinayo ca vutto; Yo tassa puttehi tatheva ñāto; So yehi tesaṃ matimaccajantā; Yasmā pure aṭṭhakathā akaṃsu.
“The Dhamma and Vinaya were taught by the Buddha; they were understood as such by his sons; because some, surpassing their understanding, previously made commentaries.
“The Dhamma and Vinaya were spoken by the Buddha; That same was known by his sons; Those who transgress their opinion, Indeed previously made the commentary.”
“The Dhamma and Vinaya were taught by the Buddha; Known by his disciples in the same way; Those who, having understood their intention, Composed the commentaries in ancient times.
ID1640
“Tasmā hi yaṃ aṭṭhakathāsu vuttaṃ; Taṃ vajjayitvāna pamādalekhaṃ; Sabbampi sikkhāsu sagāravānaṃ; Yasmā pamāṇaṃ idha paṇḍitāna”nti.
“Therefore, what is stated in the commentaries, avoiding errors of negligence, is the authority here for all the trainings of the respectful, for the wise.”
“Therefore, whatever is stated in the commentaries; Disregarding that, a careless writing; Is indeed for those who are respectful of the disciplines, The standard for the wise here.”
“Therefore, what is stated in the commentaries, Avoiding negligence in writing, Should be respected by all learners, As the standard for the wise here.”
ID1641
Imasmiñhi kammavagge apalokanādīnaṃ catunnaṃ kammānaṃ karaṇaṭṭhānaṃ ekādasavipattisīmavimuttaṃ baddhasīmabhūtaṃyeva vuttaṃ, “ekādasahi ākārehi sīmato kammāni vipajjantī”ti (pari. 486) vacanato na abaddhaupacārasīmabhūtaṃ. Na hi tattha ekādasavipatti atthi. Aṭṭhakathāyampi (pari. aṭṭha. 482) “apalokanakammaṃ nāma sīmaṭṭhakasaṅghaṃ sodhetvā chandārahānaṃ chandaṃ āharitvā samaggassa saṅghassa anumatiyā tikkhattuṃ sāvetvā kattabbaṃ kamma”nti apalokanakammassāpi baddhasīmāyameva kattabbabhāvo vutto, na upacārasīmāyaṃ. Na hi tattha sīmaṭṭhakasaṅghasodhanañca chandārahānañca atthi, antosīmaṃ paviṭṭhapaviṭṭhānaṃ saṅghalābho dātabboyeva hoti, tasmā “ñattikammabhūtaṃ uposathapavāraṇākammaṃ abaddhasīmavihārepi kattabba”nti gaṇhantānaṃ ācariyānaṃ vādopi “ñattidutiyakammabhūtaṃ kathinadānakammaṃ upacārasīmāyameva kattabba”nti gaṇhantānaṃ ācariyānaṃ vādopi pāḷivirodho aṭṭhakathāvirodho ca hotīti veditabbo. Yamettha vattabbaṃ, taṃ uposathapavāraṇakathāvaṇṇanāyañca kathinakathāvaṇṇanāyañca vuttaṃ, atthikehi tattha suṭṭhu oloketvā saṃsayo vinodetabbo.
In this section on actions, the place for performing the four actions like apalokana is stated as only within a fixed boundary, free from the eleven failures, according to the statement: “Actions fail due to eleven aspects regarding the boundary” (pari. 486), and not in an unfixed or provisional boundary. For there are no eleven failures there. In the commentary too (pari. aṭṭha. 482), it is said: **“The apalokanakamma** is an action to be performed by purifying the Sangha within the boundary, bringing the consent of those deserving consent, and with the approval of the united Sangha, announced three times.” Thus, even the apalokanakamma is stated as to be performed only within a fixed boundary, not a provisional boundary. For there is no purification of the Sangha within the boundary or those deserving consent there, and the Sangha’s benefit must be given to those entering the boundary. Therefore, the view of some teachers that “the uposatha and pavāraṇā actions, being ñattikamma, may be performed even in a monastery with an unfixed boundary,” and the view of some teachers that “the kathina-giving action, being a ñattidutiyakamma, may be performed only in a provisional boundary,” are contrary to the Pali and the commentary. What should be said here is stated in the explanation of the uposatha and pavāraṇā discussion and the kathina discussion; those interested should carefully examine it there and resolve their doubts.
In this chapter on acts, the place for performing the four types of acts, such as the preliminary statement, etc., has been stated as being exclusively a bound-boundary area, free from the eleven boundary defects. Because it is said, “Acts fail due to eleven factors concerning the boundary” (pari. 486), it is not an unbound, upacāra-boundary area. For there, the eleven defects do not exist. Even in the commentary (pari. aṭṭha. 482), it is said, **“apalokanakammaṃ** nāma is an act that should be performed after purifying the Sangha residing within the boundary, bringing the consent of those eligible to give consent, and making the announcement three times with the agreement of the assembled Sangha,” stating that even a preliminary statement act should be performed within a bound boundary, not in an upacāra-boundary. For there, there is no purification of the Sangha residing within the boundary, and there are no monks eligible to give consent; the Sangha’s due is to be given to those who have entered the boundary. Therefore, the assertion of the teachers who hold that “the Uposatha and Pavāraṇā acts, which are formal acts of declaration, should be performed even in a monastery without a bound boundary”, and the assertion of the teachers who hold that “the Kathina-cloth-giving act, which is a formal act with a second declaration, should be performed only in an upacāra-boundary”, should be understood as contradictory to the Pāḷi and the commentary. What should be said here has been said in the explanation of the discussion on Uposatha and Pavāraṇā, and in the explanation of the discussion on Kathina; those who are interested should carefully examine it there and dispel their doubts.
In this chapter on formal acts, the place for performing the four types of formal acts, including seeking approval (apalokana), is said to be within a bound boundary, free from eleven types of failure, as stated: “Formal acts fail in eleven ways due to boundary issues” (Pari. 486). It is not said to be within an unbound proximate boundary. There are no eleven types of failure there. In the commentary (Pari. Aṭṭha. 482), it is said: “apalokanakammaṃ’ refers to a formal act where the Saṅgha within the boundary is purified, the consent of those eligible is obtained, and it is announced three times with the approval of the united Saṅgha.” Thus, the seeking approval formal act should also be performed within a bound boundary, not within a proximate boundary. For there, there is no purification of the Saṅgha within the boundary or obtaining consent from those eligible. The Saṅgha must be established within the boundary. Therefore, the view of some teachers that “the Uposatha and Pavāraṇā formal acts, which are ñatti-kamma, should be performed even in unbound boundaries,” and the view of other teachers that “the Kathina offering formal act, which is ñatti-dutiya-kamma, should be performed only within a proximate boundary,” are both contrary to the Pāli texts and the commentaries. What should be said here is explained in the commentaries on the Uposatha and Pavāraṇā and the Kathina. Those interested should carefully examine this and resolve their doubts.
ID1642
Idāni sabbe bhikkhū lekhakārehi paricayavasena sabbaganthānaṃ ādimhi likhitaṃ mahānamakkārapāṭhaṃ saraṇagamanassa, kammavācāya ca ārambhakāle mahatā ussāhena bhaṇanti, so pana pāṭho neva saraṇagamanapariyāpanno, na kammavācāpariyāpanno, nāpi kammavācāya pubbakaraṇapariyāpanno, tasmiṃ abhaṇitepi na saraṇagamanassa vā kammavācāya vā hāni atthi, na bhaṇite vaḍḍhi, tasmā pakaraṇācariyā saraṇagamanārambhepi kammavācārambhepi tassa mahānamakkārapāṭhassa vaṇṇanaṃ na vadanti, vadanto pana “bhagavato arahato sammāsambuddhassa” iti padānaṃ attho visuddhimaggasamantapāsādikāsāratthadīpanīādippakaraṇesu “bhagavā arahaṃ sammāsambuddho” itipadānaṃ attho viya vitthārena vattabbo siyā, evaṃ santepi bhagavato yathābhūtaguṇadīpanavasena pavattattā sabbepi ācariyā sabbesu ganthārambhesu tikkhattuṃ maṅgalatthaṃ bhaṇanti. Bhaṇantehi ca pana na-kāra mo-kārādīnaṃ ṭhānakaraṇādisampadaṃ ahāpentena sithiladhanitadīgharassādivisesaṃ manasi karontena samaṇasāruppena parimaṇḍalena padabyañjanena bhaṇitabbo hoti, na atiāyatakena gītasaddasadisena saddena. Vuttañhetaṃ bhagavatā “na, bhikkhave, āyatakena gītassarena dhammo gāyitabbo, yo gāyeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (cūḷava. 249).
Now, all monks, due to familiarity with scribal practice, recite the great salutation text written at the beginning of all texts, along with the going for refuge and the kammavācā, with great enthusiasm at the start. However, that text is neither included in the going for refuge nor the kammavācā, nor is it part of the preliminary actions of the kammavācā. There is no loss to the going for refuge or the kammavācā if it is not recited, nor any gain if it is recited. Therefore, treatise teachers do not comment on this great salutation text at the start of the going for refuge or the kammavācā. However, one who does comment might explain the meaning of the words “to the Blessed One, the Arahant, the Fully Enlightened One” in detail, as in texts like Visuddhimagga, Samantapāsādikā, and Sāratthadīpanī. Even so, since it proceeds by illuminating the true qualities of the Blessed One, all teachers recite it three times at the beginning of all texts for auspiciousness. When reciting, it should be done with proper articulation of ‘na,’ ‘mo,’ and so forth, without spoiling the perfection of the articulatory organs, mindful of distinctions like lax, firm, long, and short, in a manner befitting a recluse, with clear and rounded syllables and letters, not with an overly prolonged sound resembling a song. For the Blessed One said: “Monks, the Dhamma should not be chanted with a prolonged singing voice; one who does so commits an offense of wrongdoing” (cūḷava. 249).
Now, all the bhikkhus, by way of familiarity with the scribes, recite with great effort the great namakkāra passage written at the beginning of all texts at the beginning of the taking of refuge and the formal act. However, that passage is neither included in the taking of refuge, nor included in the formal act, nor included in the preliminaries of the formal act. Even if it is not recited, there is no loss to the taking of refuge or the formal act; nor is there any increase if it is recited. Therefore, the authors of treatises do not explain the great namakkāra passage at the beginning of the taking of refuge or the formal act. But if one were to explain it, the meaning of the words ‘bhagavato arahato sammāsambuddhassa’ would have to be explained in detail, like the meaning of the words ‘bhagavā arahaṃ sammāsambuddho’ in treatises such as the Visuddhimagga, Samantapāsādikā, and Sāratthadīpanī. Even so, because it is spoken for the purpose of showing the true qualities of the Blessed One, all the teachers recite it three times for auspiciousness at the beginning of all texts. And when reciting it, it should be recited with a proper pronunciation of syllables, without spoiling the proper place and manner of articulation of the syllables ‘na’, ‘mo’, etc., mindful of the distinctions of slack, aspirated, long, and short sounds, and with a proper and well-rounded articulation, not with an overly drawn-out sound resembling singing. Indeed, it was said by the Blessed One: “Monks, the Dhamma should not be chanted with a drawn-out, singing tone. Whoever chants it thus commits an offense of wrong-doing” (cūḷava. 249).
Now, all the monks, out of familiarity with the scribes, recite at the beginning of all texts the great homage passage, which is written at the start, and at the beginning of the Kammavācā, they recite it with great effort. However, this passage is neither part of the going for refuge nor part of the Kammavācā, nor is it a preliminary to the Kammavācā. Whether it is recited or not, there is no loss to the going for refuge or the Kammavācā, nor is there any gain by reciting it. Therefore, the teachers of the texts do not comment on the great homage passage at the beginning of the going for refuge or the Kammavācā. If one were to comment, the meaning of the phrase “bhagavato arahato sammāsambuddhassa” should be explained in detail, like the meaning of the phrase “bhagavā arahaṃ sammāsambuddho” in texts such as the Visuddhimagga, Samantapāsādikā, and Sāratthadīpanī. Even so, because it serves to illuminate the true qualities of the Blessed One, all teachers recite it three times at the beginning of all texts for auspiciousness. When reciting, one should not neglect the proper placement of consonants like ‘na’ and ‘ma,’ and should pay attention to the distinctions of short, long, and other vowel lengths, reciting with a voice suitable for a monk, rounded and clear, not with an overly elongated, song-like tone. For the Blessed One has said: “Monks, the Dhamma should not be chanted with an elongated, musical tone. Whoever does so commits a minor offense” (Cūḷava. 249).
ID1643
“Ekamatto bhave rasso, dvimatto dīghamuccate; Timatto tu pluto ñeyyo, byañjanañcaḍḍhamattika”nti. –
“One mātrā is short, two mātrās are called long; three mātrās are known as protracted, and a consonant is half a mātrā.”
“A short vowel has one mora, a long vowel is said to have two moras; A pluta is known to have three moras, and a consonant has half a mora.”
“A short vowel is one measure, a long vowel is two measures, and a prolonged vowel is three measures. A consonant is half a measure.”
ID1644
Saddappakaraṇācariyehi vuttaṃ saddalakkhaṇaṃ nissāya na-kārādīsu rassabhūte asare ekamattaṃ, na-byañjane aḍḍhamattaṃ sampiṇḍetvā diyaḍḍhamattakālaṃ pamāṇaṃ katvā uccārīyate. Mo-kārādīsu dīghabhūte o-kārādisare dvimattaṃ, ma-kārādibyañjane aḍḍhamattaṃ sampiṇḍetvā aḍḍhateyyamattākālaṃ pamāṇaṃ katvā uccārīyate, na tato uddhanti. Nanu “pluto timatto ñeyyo”ti vuttanti? Saccaṃ, sā pana dūrato avhāyanādīsuyeva labbhati, nāññattha. Vuttañhi kārikāyaṃ –
Based on the phonetic characteristics stated by grammar teachers, in ‘na’ and so forth, a short vowel alone is one mātrā, combined with the consonant ‘na’ as half a mātrā, making one and a half mātrās as the measure for pronunciation. In ‘mo’ and so forth, a long vowel like ‘o’ is two mātrās, combined with the consonant ‘ma’ as half a mātrā, making two and a half mātrās as the measure for pronunciation, and not beyond that. But isn’t it said, “protracted is known as three mātrās”? True, but that is found only in calling from a distance or in wailing, not elsewhere. For it is said in the verse:
Based on the phonetic characteristics stated by the authors of grammar treatises, in the case of ‘na’ etc., which have short vowels, one mora for the short vowel, and half a mora for the consonant ‘na’, are combined to make a duration of one and a half moras. In the case of ‘mo’ etc., which have long vowels, two moras for the long vowel ‘o’ etc., and half a mora for the consonant ‘m’ etc., are combined to make a duration of two and a half moras; it should not exceed that. Now, is it not said, “A pluta is known to have three moras”? True, but that is found only in calling from a distance, etc., not elsewhere. Indeed, it is said in the verse:
According to the teachers of phonetics, based on the characteristics of sound, in the case of short vowels like ‘na,’ which are one measure, and in the case of consonants like ‘na,’ which are half a measure, they are combined to make one and a half measures, and are pronounced accordingly. In the case of long vowels like ‘mo,’ which are two measures, and in the case of consonants like ‘ma,’ which are half a measure, they are combined to make two and a half measures, and are pronounced accordingly, not exceeding that. But is it not said that “a prolonged vowel is three measures”? True, but that is only applicable in cases of calling from a distance, singing, or weeping, not elsewhere. As stated in the verse:
ID1645
“Dūrato avhāne gīte, tatheva rodanepi ca; Plutā timattikā vuttā, sabbete nettha gayhare”ti. –
“In calling from afar, in song, and likewise in weeping too; protracted sounds are said to be three mātrās, but all these are not taken here.”
“In calling from a distance, in singing, and also in weeping; Plutā vowels are said to have three moras, all these are not to be employed here.”
“In calling from a distance, in singing, and in weeping, prolonged vowels of three measures are used, but not in other cases.”
ID1646
Kittakena pana kālena ekamattā viññeyyāti? Akkhinimisaummisamattakālenāti ācariyā. Eke pana ācariyā “aṅguliphoṭanakālappamāṇenā”ti vadanti. Vuttañhi ācariyadhammasenāpatittherena –
How long is one mātrā to be understood? Teachers say it is the duration of the blink of an eye. Some teachers, however, say, “It is the duration of snapping the fingers.” For it is said by the Elder Dhammasenāpati:
How long is the duration of one mora to be understood? The teachers say it is the time taken for the blinking of an eye. Some teachers say, “It is the duration of the time taken to snap the fingers.” Indeed, it has been said by the venerable teacher Dhammasenāpati:
How long is one measure? The teachers say it is the time it takes to blink an eye. Some teachers say it is the time it takes to snap a finger. As stated by the teacher Dhammasenāpati Thera:
ID1647
“Pamāṇaṃ ekamattassa, nimisummisatobravuṃ; Aṅguliphoṭakālassa, pamāṇenāpi abravu”nti.
“The measure of one mātrā, they say, is a blink; they also say it is the measure of snapping the fingers.”
“The measure of one mora, they said, is the time of blinking the eye; They also said it is by the measure of the time of snapping the fingers.”
“The measure of one measure, they said, is the time of blinking; Others said it is the time of snapping a finger.”
ID1648
Evaṃ saddasatthācariyehi vacanato suddharassasaraṭṭhāne ekamattāpamāṇaṃ, sabyañjanarassasaraṭṭhāne diyaḍḍhamattāpamāṇaṃ, suddhadīghasaraṭṭhāne dvimattāpamāṇaṃ, sabyañjanadīghasaraṭṭhāne aḍḍhateyyamattāpamāṇaṃ kālaṃ sallakkhetvā uccārīyate.
Thus, according to the statements of phonetic teachers, a pure short vowel is pronounced with a measure of one mātrā, a short vowel with a consonant with a measure of one and a half mātrās, a pure long vowel with a measure of two mātrās, and a long vowel with a consonant with a measure of two and a half mātrās, carefully observing the duration.
Thus, according to the statements of the teachers of phonetics, the duration of one mora in the case of a pure short vowel, the duration of one and a half moras in the case of a short vowel with a consonant, the duration of two moras in the case of a pure long vowel, and the duration of two and a half moras in the case of a long vowel with a consonant, should be carefully noted and pronounced.
Thus, according to the teachers of phonetics, in the case of pure short vowels, one measure is the standard; in the case of short vowels with consonants, one and a half measures; in the case of pure long vowels, two measures; and in the case of long vowels with consonants, two and a half measures. One should pronounce them after considering the appropriate length.
ID1649
Idāni pana bhikkhū mahānamakkārabhaṇane balavaussāhaṃ katvā bhaṇantā rassaṭṭhānesu dvitimattākālaṃ dīghaṭṭhānesu catupañcamattākālaṃ saraṃ paṭhapetvā bhaṇanti, tadayuttaṃ viya dissati. Apare paṭhamavāre bhaṇitvā “sammāsambuddhassā”ti pariyosānapadaṃ patvāpi tattha aṭṭhapetvā puna “namo tassā”ti bhaṇitvā sa-kāre ṭhapetvā thokaṃ vissamitvā dutiyavāre “bhagavato”ti idaṃ ādiṃ katvā yāva pariyosānaṃ bhaṇitvā ṭhapenti. Tatiyavāre pana ādito paṭṭhāya pariyosāne ṭhapenti. Evaṃ bhaṇantañca bahū pasaṃsanti, evaṃ pana kātabbanti neva pāḷiyaṃ, na aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vijjati. Yathā ñatticatutthakamme kariyamāne tīṇi anussāvanāni saddato ca atthato ca abhinnāni aññamaññaṃ saṅkaravirahitāni katvā bhaṇitabbāni, evaṃ mahānamakkārapāṭhe tikkhattuṃ bhaññamāne tayo vārā saddato ca atthato ca abhinne katvā saṅkaravirahite katvā ādito ārabhitvā pariyosāne ṭhapetabbā hontīti.
Nowadays, monks reciting the great salutation with great enthusiasm extend short vowels to two or three mātrās and long vowels to four or five mātrās, which seems inappropriate. Others, after reciting the first round and reaching the final word “sammāsambuddhassa,” pause there and then say “namo tassa” again, pausing at ‘sa,’ resting briefly, and in the second round start with “bhagavato” and recite to the end before pausing. In the third round, they recite from the beginning to the end and pause. Many praise this way of reciting, but there is no such instruction to do so in the Pali or the commentary. Just as in performing a ñatticatutthakamma, the three announcements should be recited identically in sound and meaning, without mixing them, so too in reciting the great salutation text three times, the three rounds should be identical in sound and meaning, without mixing, starting from the beginning and pausing at the end.
Nowadays, however, when reciting the great namakkāra, the bhikkhus, exerting great effort, recite the vowel for two moras in places of short vowels, and four or five moras in places of long vowels, which seems improper. Others, after reciting the first round and reaching the final word ‘sammāsambuddhassā’, do not stop there, but again recite ‘namo tassā’, stopping at the syllable ‘sa’, taking a short pause, and in the second round, starting from ‘bhagavato’, recite up to the end and stop. In the third round, they start from the beginning and stop at the end. Many praise those who recite in this way, but such a practice is found neither in the Pāḷi nor in the commentary. Just as in performing a formal act with a fourth declaration, the three announcements should be recited without difference in sound and meaning, and without intermingling, similarly, when reciting the great namakkāra passage three times, the three rounds should be made without difference in sound and meaning, and without intermingling, starting from the beginning and stopping at the end.
Now, some monks, when reciting the great homage, exert great effort and pronounce short vowels as two measures and long vowels as four or five measures, which seems appropriate. Others, after reciting the first round and reaching the final word ‘sammāsambuddhassā,’ pause there, then recite ‘namo tassā,’ pause at the ‘sa,’ rest briefly, and in the second round, start with ‘bhagavato’ and continue to the end. In the third round, they start from the beginning and continue to the end. Many praise this way of reciting, but there is no such instruction in the Pāli texts or the commentaries. Just as in the ñatti-catuttha-kamma, the three announcements should be recited distinctly in sound and meaning, without mixing, so too in the great homage passage, when recited three times, the three rounds should be distinct in sound and meaning, without mixing, starting from the beginning and ending at the conclusion.
ID1650
Tatrāyamekeevaṃ vadanti – yathā nāma javena gacchantassa ṭhātabbaṭṭhānaṃ patvāpi sahasā ṭhātuṃ na sakkoti, ekapādamattaṃ gantvā tiṭṭhati, evaṃ ādito bhaṇantassa balavaussāhattā pariyosāne pattepi ṭhapetuṃ na sakkoti, “namo tassā”ti dvipadamattaṃ bhaṇitvā sakkotīti. Evaṃ sante dutiyatatiyavāresu kasmā sakkotīti? Tadā pana dutiyavāre thokaṃ vissamitattā laddhassāso hutvā sakkotīti. Evaṃ te āyasmanto sayameva attānaṃ vighātaṃ pāpenti. Na hi “mahānamakkāraṃ bhaṇantena paṭhamavāre balavaussāhena bhaṇitabbo”ti bhagavatā paññatto, dhammasaṅgāhakattherehi vā ṭhapito atthi. Evaṃ sante yathā pātimokkhuddesakena pātimokkhaṃ uddisantena yattakā bhikkhū pātimokkhaṃ suṇanti, tesaṃ savanappamāṇena yāva pariyosānā uddisituṃ attano sarappamāṇaṃ gahetvā pātimokkho uddisitabbo, evaṃ kammavācaṃ bhaṇantenapi sīmamaṇḍale nisinnabhikkhūnaṃ savanappamāṇena yāva pariyosānā attano sarappamāṇaṃ gahetvā bhaṇitabbāti.
Some say thus: Just as one moving quickly cannot stop immediately upon reaching the stopping place and steps one foot further before standing, so too one reciting from the beginning with great enthusiasm cannot stop at the end and recites “namo tassa” for two words before being able to stop. If so, why can they stop in the second and third rounds? They say it is because, after resting briefly in the second round, they regain breath and can stop. Thus, these venerables cause themselves trouble. For neither the Blessed One nor the Dhamma-compiling elders prescribed that “the great salutation should be recited with great enthusiasm in the first round.” If so, just as one reciting the Pātimokkha adjusts his voice to the measure of the monks listening until the end, so too one reciting the kammavācā should adjust his voice to the measure of the monks seated in the boundary until the end.
Some here say the following: Just as a person walking quickly, even upon reaching the place to stop, cannot stop suddenly, but walks a foot’s length and then stops, similarly, one reciting from the beginning, due to great effort, even when reaching the end, cannot stop, but recites the two words ‘namo tassā’ and then is able to stop. If this is so, why is he able to stop in the second and third rounds? Then, in the second round, because he has paused a little and gained his breath, he is able to stop. Thus, these venerable ones themselves cause their own downfall. For it has not been prescribed by the Blessed One, nor established by the elders who compiled the Dhamma, that “when reciting the great namakkāra, one should recite it with great effort in the first round”. This being so, just as the reciter of the Pātimokkha, when reciting the Pātimokkha, should determine the measure of his voice by the hearing capacity of the bhikkhus who are listening to the Pātimokkha, and recite the Pātimokkha up to the end, similarly, one reciting the formal act should also determine the measure of his voice by the hearing capacity of the bhikkhus sitting in the boundary, and recite it up to the end.
Some say this: Just as one who is running cannot stop suddenly upon reaching the stopping point but must take one more step before stopping, so too, when reciting from the beginning with great effort, one cannot stop immediately upon reaching the end but can stop after reciting ‘namo tassā,’ which is like two steps. If so, why can one stop in the second and third rounds? Because in the second round, one has rested briefly and regained breath, so one can stop. Thus, these venerable ones cause themselves trouble. For the Blessed One did not prescribe that “the great homage should be recited with great effort in the first round,” nor did the compilers of the Dhamma establish it. Therefore, just as one who is reciting the Pātimokkha should recite it according to the extent of the monks’ hearing, from the beginning to the end, considering his own memory, so too, one who is reciting the Kammavācā should recite it according to the extent of the monks’ hearing within the boundary, from the beginning to the end, considering his own memory.
ID1651
Apare pana ācariyā mo-kārādīsu o-kārantapadesu aññesaṃ padānaṃ atirekena sarena dvattikkhattuṃ anukaraṇasaddaṃ anubandhāpayamānā bhaṇanti, tesaṃ ācariyānaṃ tādisaṃ bhaṇanaṃ sutvā paricayappattā aññe bhikkhū vā gahaṭṭhā vā aññesaṃ ācariyānaṃ kammavācaṃ na garuṃ karonti, tāya kammavācāya upasampadā alabhitabbā viya maññanti, tādisaṃ pana bhaṇanaṃ tesaṃ ācariyānaṃ sissānusissā eva tathā bhaṇanti, na aññe ācariyā. Te pana porāṇācariyānaṃ sarasampannānaṃ anukaraṇasaddarahitampi sahitaṃ viya khāyamānaṃ suṇantānaṃ atimanorathaṃ saddaṃ sutvā diṭṭhānugatiṃ āpajjantā evaṃ karonti maññe. Na hi vinaye vā saddasatthesu vā tathā bhaṇitabbanti atthi, tasmā vicāretabbametanti.
Other teachers, in words ending with ‘mo’ or ‘o,’ add an echoing sound two or three times beyond the other words while reciting. Hearing such recitation from those teachers and becoming accustomed to it, other monks or laypeople do not respect the kammavācā of other teachers, thinking ordination cannot be obtained with it. Such recitation is done only by the disciples of those teachers, not by others. Perhaps they imitate the melodious voices of ancient teachers, which, even without echoing sounds, seemed to have them, delighting listeners beyond expectation, and thus follow their example. For there is no such instruction in the Vinaya or phonetics to recite in that way, so this should be considered.
Other teachers, in words ending in ‘o’, such as ‘mo’ etc., prolong the sound excessively beyond the other words, making the imitative sound resonate two or three times. Hearing the recitation of those teachers, other bhikkhus or householders who have become familiar with it do not respect the formal acts of other teachers, thinking that full ordination cannot be obtained by that formal act. However, such a recitation is practiced only by the students and the students’ students of those teachers, not by other teachers. Those, I believe, do so, following the example they have seen, having heard the sound, satisfying the highest expectations, free from the imitative sounds of the ancient teachers with perfect voices, even though it seemed to have them. For it is not stated in the Vinaya or in the phonetic texts that it should be recited thus; therefore, this should be investigated.
Other teachers, in the case of long vowels like ‘mo,’ and in other places, add an extra sound, repeating it two or three times, making an imitative sound. When other monks or laypeople who are familiar with this hear such recitation by these teachers, they do not respect the Kammavācā of other teachers, thinking that one cannot receive ordination through such Kammavācā. However, only the disciples of those teachers recite in such a way, not other teachers. Those who hear the recitation of the ancient teachers, who were skilled in sound and did not use imitative sounds, but whose recitation was still pleasing, develop a strong desire and follow their example. But there is no such instruction in the Vinaya or the texts on phonetics. Therefore, this should be carefully considered.
ID1652
Bahū pana bhikkhū “sithilaṃ dhanitañca dīgharassa”ntiādinā vinaye kathitavinicchayañca “ettha pañcasu vaggesū”tiādinā saddasatthesu katavinicchayañca ajānantā piṭakattayakovidānaṃ vinayadharabahussutattherānaṃ santikā aladdhopadesā hutvā tattha tattha upasampadaṃ karontānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ vacanameva gahetvā heyyopādeyyaṃ ajānantā pubbe paradesato āgatānaṃ puññavantānaṃ sarasampannānaṃ mahātherānaṃ anosarena bhaṇamānānaṃ saraṃ sutvā tesaṃ theravarānaṃ matiṃ apucchitvāva yathādiṭṭhaṃ yathāsutaṃ likhitvā ṭhapentā anukkamena paṇḍitehi hasitabbaṃ ayuttaṃ kathaṃ dīpentā “imasmiṃ ṭhāne byagghiyā saddasadisaṃ saddaṃ karonti, imasmiṃ ṭhāne sakuṇiyā saddasadisaṃ saddaṃ karonti, imasmiṃ ṭhāne tambulakasaṭapātaṃ karonti, imasmiṃ ṭhāne dakkhiṇato namantā bhaṇanti, imasmiṃ ṭhāne vāmato namantā bhaṇanti, imasmiṃ ṭhāne vilāsaṃ kurumānā bhaṇantī”tiādīni vatvā tadeva saddahantā rukkhamūlaumaṅgaleṇādīsu nisīditvā tameva vacanaṃ anusikkhantā tadanurūpaṃ kammavācaṃ bhaṇantā “ahaṃ kammavācākusalo”ti vatvā bālajane saññāpetvā tesaṃ tesaṃ upasampadāpekkhānaṃ kammavācaṃ bhaṇanti, ime bhikkhū bhagavato āṇaṃ atikkāmenti, sāsanaṃ osakkāpentīti daṭṭhabbā.
Indeed, many monks, not knowing the decisions explained in the Vinaya such as “sithilaṃ dhanitañca dīgharassa” and the determinations made in phonetics such as “ettha pañcasu vaggesu,” and not having received instruction from the presence of elders skilled in the three Piṭakas, bearers of the Vinaya, and highly learned, take the words of monks performing upasampadā here and there. Unaware of what should be accepted or rejected, they hear the voices of meritorious, eloquent great elders who came from foreign lands in the past, reciting without hesitation. Without consulting the opinions of those venerable elders, they write down and preserve what they have seen and heard accordingly. Gradually, they expound improper discussions worthy of ridicule by the wise, saying things like: “In this place, they make a sound like a tiger; in this place, they make a sound like a bird; in this place, they make the sound of chewing betel leaves; in this place, they recite while bowing to the right; in this place, they recite while bowing to the left; in this place, they recite while making gestures.” Believing these very things, sitting at the foot of trees or in caves and such places, they rehearse those same words, recite kammavācā accordingly, and, declaring “I am skilled in kammavācā,” convince the foolish. They recite kammavācā for various candidates for upasampadā. These monks should be seen as transgressing the command of the Blessed One and causing the decline of the Sāsana.
However, many monks, not knowing the decisions stated in the Vinaya, such as “sithilaṃ dhanitañca dīgharassa” (slack, resonant, and concerning long vowels), and the decisions made in grammar, such as “ettha pañcasu vaggesū” (here, in the five groups), and not having received instruction from those learned in the three Piṭakas, experts in the Vinaya, and well-versed elders, only take the words of monks performing ordinations here and there, not understanding what should be rejected and what should be accepted, and hearing the pronunciation of those reciting without following the great elders of abundant merit and perfect sound, who came from foreign lands in the past; then, without asking for the opinion of those elder monks and writing down and preserving what they have seen and heard, gradually, showcasing unsuitable speech that should be mocked by the wise, they say: “In this place, they make a sound like the sound of a tigress; in this place, they make a sound like the sound of a female bird; in this place, they make a sound like betel juice that has become stale; in this place, they recite, leaning to the right; in this place, they recite, leaning to the left; in this place, they recite making an affectation,” and so on. Confident in only that, they sit at the foot of trees, in open spaces, and so forth, practicing only those words, and they recite the formal act (kammavācā) accordingly, saying “I am skilled in the formal act of ordination.” They convince foolish people, and they recite the formal act of ordination for those desiring full ordination. These monks should be seen as transgressing the command of the Blessed One and causing the Dispensation to decline.
Many monks, not knowing the decisions explained in the Vinaya such as “sithilaṃ dhanitañca dīgharassa” and the decisions made in the Saddasattha texts such as “ettha pañcasu vaggesū,” even though they are well-versed in the three Piṭakas and are learned in the Vinaya, having not received instruction from the great elders who are skilled in the Vinaya and have heard much, take the words of monks who give ordination here and there without knowing what is proper or improper. Without consulting the great elders who have come from other regions, who are virtuous and endowed with memory, they write down and establish what they have seen or heard as it is. Gradually, they teach inappropriate things, causing the wise to laugh, saying, “In this place, they make sounds like those of a tiger; in this place, they make sounds like those of a bird; in this place, they perform the tambulakasaṭapāta; in this place, they speak while bowing to the right; in this place, they speak while bowing to the left; in this place, they speak while making gestures.” Believing in such things, they sit at the foot of trees, in fields, or in caves, learning those very words and reciting the Kammavācā accordingly, saying, “I am skilled in the Kammavācā.” Deceiving foolish people, they recite the Kammavācā for those seeking ordination. These monks transgress the Buddha’s command and cause the dispensation to decline. This should be understood.
ID1653
Athāparepi bhikkhū gāmakāvāsādīsu vasantā paṇḍitānaṃ santike apayirupāsamānā vatthusampattimpi vatthuvipattimpi ñattianussāvanasīmaparisasampattimpi vipattimpi tathato ajānantā bahavo sisse ṭhapetvā pabbajjañca upasampadañca karontā parisaṃ vaḍḍhāpenti, tepi bhagavato sāsanaṃ osakkāpenti, tasmā bhagavato āṇaṃ karontehi lajjīpesalehi bahussutehi sikkhākāmehi sappurisabhikkhūhi evarūpānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ sahāyakehi upatthambhakehi ekasambhogasaṃvāsakarehi na bhavitabbaṃ. Idāni bhikkhū –
Moreover, other monks living in village residences and such, not associating with the wise, not truly knowing the success or failure of the object, the announcement, the boundary, or the assembly, establish many disciples and perform pabbajjā and upasampadā, thereby increasing the assembly. They too cause the decline of the Blessed One’s Sāsana. Therefore, monks who carry out the Blessed One’s command—conscientious, virtuous, learned, eager to train, and good persons—should not associate with, support, share meals with, or live in communion with such monks who are their companions and helpers. Now, monks—
Furthermore, other monks, dwelling in village residences and so on, not associating with the wise, not truly knowing the accomplishment of the requisites and the failure of the requisites, nor the accomplishment and failure of the resolution, the formal act of recitation, the boundary, and the assembly, establish many disciples, perform going-forth and full ordination, and increase the assembly. They also cause the dispensation of the Blessed One to decline. Therefore, those who respect the Buddha’s command, who are scrupulous, conscientious, learned, desirous of training, and who are virtuous monks, should not be companions, supporters, or those who share the same communal life and residence with such monks. Now, the monks –
Furthermore, other monks living in villages and towns, not approaching the wise, not knowing the proper or improper grounds, the suitability or unsuitability of the motion and proclamation, or the completeness or incompleteness of the boundary assembly, ordain many disciples and increase the community. They too cause the Buddha’s dispensation to decline. Therefore, when acting according to the Buddha’s command, good monks who are modest, learned, desirous of training, and virtuous should not associate with such monks as companions, supporters, or those who share the same residence. Now, monks—
ID1654
“Ca-kārantaṃ sa-kārantaṃ, ta-kārantasamaṃ vade; Ña-kārantaṃ la-kārantaṃ, na-kārantasamaṃ vade”ti. –
“Speak a word ending in ‘ca’ like one ending in ‘sa,’ and one ending in ‘ta’ the same; speak a word ending in ‘ña’ or ‘la’ like one ending in ‘na.’”
“One should pronounce that which ends in ‘ca’ and that which ends in ‘sa’ like that which ends in ‘ta’; One should pronounce that which ends in ‘ña’ and that which ends in ‘la’ like that which ends in ‘na’.” –
“Words ending with ‘ca’ and ‘sa,’ speak as equal to those ending with ‘ta’; words ending with ‘ña’ and ‘la,’ speak as equal to those ending with ‘na.’” —
ID1655
Imaṃ silokaṃ upanissāya saraṇagamanepi “buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmī”ti pāṭhaṃ “buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmī”ti paṭhanti. Kammavācāyampi “paṭhamaṃ upajjhaṃ gāhāpetabbo”tiādipāṭhaṃ “paṭhamaṃ upajjhaṃ gāhāpetabbo”tiādinā paṭhanti. Ettha yuttitopi āgamatopi kāraṇaṃ cintetabbaṃ.
Relying on this verse, even in going for refuge, they recite the text “buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi” as “buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi.” In kammavācā too, they recite texts like “paṭhamaṃ upajjhaṃ gāhāpetabbo” as “paṭhamaṃ upajjhaṃ gāhāpetabbo.” Here, the reasoning and tradition should be considered.
Relying on this verse, even in taking refuge, they recite the phrase “buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi” as “buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi.” Even in the formal act of ordination, they recite phrases like, “paṭhamaṃ upajjhaṃ gāhāpetabbo” as “paṭhamaṃ upajjhaṃ gāhāpetabbo” and so forth. Here, one should consider the reason both from the perspective of logic and from the perspective of scriptural authority.
Relying on this verse, even in taking refuge, they recite “buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmī” as “buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmī.” In the Kammavācā as well, they recite “paṭhamaṃ upajjhaṃ gāhāpetabbo” as “paṭhamaṃ upajjhaṃ gāhāpetabbo.” Here, one should consider the reason based on logic and tradition.
ID1656
Tatrāyaṃ yutticintā – “ca-kārantaṃ sa-kārantaṃ, ta-kārantasamaṃ vade”ti ettha ca-kāro tālujo, ta-kāro dantajo, evamete akkharā ṭhānatopi asamānā. Ca-kāro jivhāmajjhakaraṇo, ta-kāro jivhaggakaraṇo, evaṃ karaṇatopi asamānā. Ca-kāro dutiyavaggapariyāpanno, ta-kāro catutthavaggapariyāpanno, evaṃ vaggatopi asamānā. Saṃyogakkharavasena na pubbakkharā sutiṃ labhantā saravisesaṃ pāpuṇanti, teneva ca-kārena saddasatthakārācariyā “saṃyoge pare rassatta”nti ca “saṃyogapubbā e-kāro-kārā rassāiva vattabbā”ti ca vadanti. Evaṃ sante kathaṃ asamānaṭṭhānikena asamānakaraṇena asamānavaggena saṃyogakkharena laddhasutikā akkharā tato aññena asamānaṭṭhānikena asamānakaraṇena asamānavaggena saṃyogakkharena laddhasamānasutikā bhaveyyuṃ. Na kevalañca ete akkharā asamānaṭṭhānikā asamānakaraṇā asamānavaggāva honti, atha kho anāsannaṭṭhānikā anāsannakaraṇā anāsannavaggā ca honti. Yathā ca vīṇaṃ vādentānaṃ dūre tantissarena tato dūre tantissaro asamāno hoti, evaṃ dūraṭṭhānikena akkharena dūrakaraṇena tato dūraṭṭhāniko dūrakaraṇo samānasutiko kathaṃ bhaveyya, vaggakkharānañca aññamaññaṃ asaṅkaravasena asamānasutivasena pavattanato “vaggantaṃ vā vagge”ti sutte niggahitassa vaggantakaraṇe sati aññavaggasmiṃ pare aññavaggantaṃ na pāpuṇāti, “vagge ghosāghosānaṃ tatiyapaṭhamā”ti suttena ca asadisadvebhāvakaraṇe aññavagge aññavaggadvebhāvo na hoti.
Here is the reasoning: In “ca-kārantaṃ sa-kārantaṃ, ta-kārantasamaṃ vade,” the letter ‘ca’ is palatal, and ‘ta’ is dental; thus, these letters differ in place of articulation. ‘Ca’ is produced by the middle of the tongue, ‘ta’ by the tip; thus, they differ in the means of articulation. ‘Ca’ belongs to the second group, ‘ta’ to the fourth; thus, they differ in group. Letters in conjunction do not gain distinct sound unless preceded by another letter, and hence phoneticians say, “saṃyoge pare rassatta” and “saṃyogapubbā e-kāro-kārā rassāiva vattabbā.” If this is so, how could letters gaining sound through conjunction with dissimilar place, means, and group be equivalent to those with a different dissimilar place, means, and group? Not only are these letters dissimilar in place, means, and group, but they are also distant in place, means, and group. Just as when playing a vīṇā, a string far from another produces a dissimilar sound, how could a letter with a distant place and means produce an equivalent sound to one with a distant place and means? Since group letters operate without mixing and with dissimilar sounds, in the rule “vaggantaṃ vā vagge,” when a nasal precedes a group-ending letter, it does not become another group-ending letter in a different group. And by the rule “vagge ghosāghosānaṃ tatiyapaṭhamā,” no dual nature of another group arises in a dissimilar dual condition.
Herein, this is the consideration of logic: “One should pronounce that which ends in ‘ca’ and that which ends in ‘sa’ like that which ends in ‘ta.’” Here, the letter ‘ca’ is palatal, and the letter ‘ta’ is dental. Thus, these letters are dissimilar even in terms of their place of articulation. The letter ‘ca’ is produced by the middle of the tongue, and the letter ‘ta’ is produced by the tip of the tongue. Thus, they are dissimilar even in terms of their articulator. The letter ‘ca’ is included in the second group (of consonants), and the letter ‘ta’ is included in the fourth group. Thus, they are dissimilar even in terms of their group. Due to the conjunct consonant, the preceding letters do not receive pronunciation, and attain a special sound. It is because of this ‘ca’ that the grammar teachers say both “shortening occurs when a conjunct consonant follows” and “the letters ‘e’ and ‘o’ preceding a conjunct consonant should always be pronounced short.” This being the case, how can letters that have obtained pronunciation due to a conjunct consonant with a dissimilar place of articulation, a dissimilar articulator, and a dissimilar group, have the same pronunciation as those obtained by another conjunct consonant with a dissimilar place of articulation, a dissimilar articulator, and a dissimilar group? These letters are not only dissimilar in place of articulation, articulator, and group, but they are also not close in place of articulation, not close in articulator, and not close in group. Just as when playing the vīṇā, the sound of a distant string is dissimilar to the sound of a string further away, how can a letter with a distant place of articulation and a distant articulator have the same pronunciation as one with a further distant place of articulation and a further distant articulator? And since the grouped letters occur distinctly from each other, having dissimilar pronunciations, in the rule, “vaggantaṃ vā vagge” (optionally the final of a group), when making the final of a group, it does not reach the final of another group when another group follows; and by the rule, “vagge ghosāghosānaṃ tatiyapaṭhamā” (in a group, the voiced and unvoiced become the third and first respectively), when making two dissimilar things of another group, two dissimilar things of another group do not occur.
Here, the logical consideration is as follows: “Words ending with ‘ca’ and ‘sa,’ speak as equal to those ending with ‘ta.’” Here, the letter ‘ca’ is palatal, the letter ‘ta’ is dental; thus, these letters are different in their place of articulation. The letter ‘ca’ is produced in the middle of the tongue, the letter ‘ta’ is produced at the tip of the tongue; thus, they are different in their manner of articulation. The letter ‘ca’ belongs to the second group, the letter ‘ta’ belongs to the fourth group; thus, they are different in their group. Because of the conjunct letters, the preceding letters do not receive a short sound and attain a distinct sound. Therefore, the teachers of the Saddasattha say, “In conjuncts, the following letters are short,” and “In conjuncts, the preceding letters ‘e’ and ‘o’ should be pronounced short.” Thus, how can letters that are different in their place of articulation, manner of articulation, and group, and which have received a distinct sound due to conjunct letters, become equal in sound to other letters that are different in their place of articulation, manner of articulation, and group, and which have received a similar sound due to conjunct letters? Not only are these letters different in their place of articulation, manner of articulation, and group, but they are also distant in their place of articulation, manner of articulation, and group. Just as the sound of a lute played from a distance is not equal to the sound of a lute played from another distance, how can a letter with a distant place of articulation and manner of articulation become equal in sound to another letter with a distant place of articulation and manner of articulation? Since the letters of different groups are pronounced without confusion and with distinct sounds, as stated in the Sutta, “The end of a group or within a group,” when the end of one group is pronounced, the end of another group is not reached. And as stated in the Sutta, “Within a group, the third and first are voiced or voiceless,” the duality of another group does not occur in another group.
ID1657
Yadi ca ca-kārantakkharo ta-kārantakkharena samānasutiko siyā, evaṃ sati kiṃ ca-kārantakkharalekhanena sabbattha ta-kārantameva likheyya, tathā pana alikhitvā payogānurūpaṃ paṭhamakkharassa sadisadvebhāvaṭṭhāne “kacco kaccāyano”ti, asadisadvebhāvaṭṭhāne “vaccho vacchāyano”ti tatiyakkharassa sadisadvebhāvaṭṭhāne “majjaṃ sammajja”nti, asadisadvebhāvaṭṭhāne “upajjhā upajjhāyo”ti samānaṭṭhānasamānakaraṇasamānavaggakkharānameva dvebhāvo likhīyati, no itaresaṃ, tasmā payogānurūpaṃ ca-kāranta ja-kārantaṭṭhānesu sakavaggasutivaseneva vattabbaṃ, na aññavaggasutivasena. Sa-kārante pana sa-kārassa ta-kārena samānaṭṭhānikattā samānakaraṇattā ca vaggaavaggavasena bhinnepi avaggakkharānaṃ vaggakkharehi sādhāraṇattā ca avaggakkharānaṃ vaggakkharānaṃ viya visuṃ sutiyā abhāvato ca sa-kārantassa ta-kārantabhaṇanaṃ yuttaṃ siyā. Sa-kāropi hi dantajo, ta-kāropi, sa-kāropi jivhaggakaraṇo, ta-kāropi , tasmā samānaṭṭhānikānaṃ samānakaraṇānaṃ akkharānaṃ samānasutibhāvo yutto. Ña-kāranta la-kārantānaṃ na-kārantabhaṇanepi iminā nayena ña-kāranta na-kārantānaṃ asamānasutibhāvo la-kāranta na-kārantānaṃ samānasutibhāvo daṭṭhabboti. Ayamettha yutticintā.
If a letter ending in ‘ca’ were equivalent in sound to one ending in ‘ta,’ then why write ‘ca’ at all—everything could be written with ‘ta.’ Yet, it is not written so. According to usage, in places of similar dual nature like “kacco kaccāyano” for the first letter, “vaccho vacchāyano” for dissimilar dual nature, “majjaṃ sammajja” for similar dual nature of the third letter, and “upajjhā upajjhāyo” for dissimilar dual nature, only letters of the same place, means, and group are doubled, not others. Therefore, in places ending in ‘ca’ or ‘ja,’ they should be spoken only with the sound of their own group, not another group’s sound. However, for a word ending in ‘sa,’ its recitation as ‘ta’ might be reasonable since ‘sa’ and ‘ta’ share the same place and means of articulation. Although they differ as ungrouped and grouped, ungrouped letters share commonality with grouped ones, and ungrouped letters lack distinct sound apart from grouped ones. ‘Sa’ is dental, ‘ta’ is dental; ‘sa’ is produced by the tongue tip, ‘ta’ too. Thus, the equivalence of sound between letters of the same place and means is reasonable. For words ending in ‘ña’ or ‘la’ recited as ‘na,’ by this method, the dissimilarity of sound between ‘ña’ and ‘na’ and the similarity between ‘la’ and ‘na’ should be understood. This is the reasoning here.
If the letter ‘ca’ had the same pronunciation as the letter ‘ta’, then, why write the letter ‘ca’ at all? One should write ‘ta’ everywhere. However, instead of writing like that, conforming to usage, in the place of the similar double of the first letter, “kacco kaccāyano” is written; in the place of a dissimilar double, “vaccho vacchāyano” is written; in the place of the similar double of the third letter, “majjaṃ sammajja”nti is written; in the place of a dissimilar double, “upajjhā upajjhāyo” is written. Doubling is written only for letters with the same place of articulation, the same articulator, and the same group, not for others. Therefore, according to usage, in places of ‘ca’ and ‘ja’, one should speak according to the pronunciation of their own group, not according to the pronunciation of another group. As for that which ends in ‘sa’, since the letter ‘sa’ has the same place of articulation and the same articulator as the letter ‘ta’, even though they are different in terms of being grouped or ungrouped, and because ungrouped letters are common to grouped letters, and because ungrouped letters do not have a distinct pronunciation like grouped letters, the pronunciation of that which ends in ‘sa’ as ‘ta’ might be appropriate. For the letter ‘sa’ is also dental, and so is the letter ‘ta’; the letter ‘sa’ is also produced by the tip of the tongue, and so is the letter ‘ta’. Therefore, it is appropriate for letters with the same place of articulation and the same articulator to have the same pronunciation. Regarding the pronunciation of that which ends in ‘ña’ and that which ends in ‘la’ as ‘na’, by this method, the dissimilar pronunciation of that which ends in ‘ña’ and that which ends in ‘na’, and the similar pronunciation of that which ends in ‘la’ and that which ends in ‘na’ should be understood. This is the consideration of logic here.
If the letter ending with ‘ca’ were equal in sound to the letter ending with ‘ta,’ then why not write the letter ending with ‘ta’ everywhere instead of the letter ending with ‘ca’? However, not writing it thus, in accordance with usage, the duality of the first letter is written in the place of similarity, such as “kacco kaccāyano,” and in the place of dissimilarity, such as “vaccho vacchāyano.” The duality of the third letter is written in the place of similarity, such as “majjaṃ sammajja,” and in the place of dissimilarity, such as “upajjhā upajjhāyo.” Thus, the duality is written only for letters that are similar in place of articulation, manner of articulation, and group, not for others. Therefore, in accordance with usage, the letter ending with ‘ca’ should be pronounced according to the sound of its own group, not according to the sound of another group. However, in the case of the letter ending with ‘sa,’ since the letter ‘sa’ and the letter ‘ta’ are similar in their place of articulation and manner of articulation, even though they belong to different groups, because the non-group letters are common to the group letters, and because the non-group letters do not have a distinct sound like the group letters, it is appropriate to pronounce the letter ending with ‘sa’ as equal to the letter ending with ‘ta.’ For the letter ‘sa’ is also dental, and the letter ‘ta’ is also dental; the letter ‘sa’ is also produced at the tip of the tongue, and the letter ‘ta’ is also produced at the tip of the tongue. Therefore, it is appropriate for letters that are similar in place of articulation and manner of articulation to have a similar sound. In the case of the letters ending with ‘ña’ and ‘la,’ the pronunciation of the letter ending with ‘na’ should also be understood in this way: the letter ending with ‘ña’ does not have a similar sound to the letter ending with ‘na,’ but the letter ending with ‘la’ has a similar sound to the letter ending with ‘na.’ This is the logical consideration here.
ID1658
Āgamacintā pana evaṃ kātabbā –
The consideration of tradition should be done thus—
But the consideration of scriptural authority should be done thus:
The consideration based on tradition should be done as follows:—
ID1659
“Ca-kārantaṃ sa-kārantaṃ, ta-kārantasamaṃ vade; Ña-kārantaṃ la-kārantaṃ, na-kārantasamaṃ vade”ti. –
“Speak a word ending in ‘ca’ like one ending in ‘sa,’ and one ending in ‘ta’ the same; speak a word ending in ‘ña’ or ‘la’ like one ending in ‘na.’”
“One should pronounce that which ends in ‘ca’ and that which ends in ‘sa’ like that which ends in ‘ta’; One should pronounce that which ends in ‘ña’ and that which ends in ‘la’ like that which ends in ‘na’.” –
“Words ending with ‘ca’ and ‘sa,’ speak as equal to those ending with ‘ta’; words ending with ‘ña’ and ‘la,’ speak as equal to those ending with ‘na.’” —
ID1660
Ayaṃ siloko kuto pabhavo, kattha āgato, kena kāritoti? Tattha kuto pabhavoti bhagavantasmā vā dhammasaṅgāhakattherehi vā aṭṭhakathācariyehi vā pabhavo. Kattha āgatoti vinaye vā suttante vā abhidhamme vā pāḷiyaṃ vā aṭṭhakathāya vā ṭīkādīsu vā āgato. Kena kāritoti nettiniruttipeṭakopadesakaccāyanappakaraṇakārakena āyasmatā mahākaccāyanattherena vā mukhamattadīpanikārakena vajirabuddhācariyena vā padarūpasiddhikārakena buddhapiyācariyena vā saddanītippakaraṇakārakena aggavaṃsācariyena vā tadaññasatthakārakehi mahātherehi vā kāritoti evaṃ āgamacintāyaṃ sati ayaṃ siloko bhagavantasmā pabhavo dhammasaṅgāhakattherehi vā aṭṭhakathācariyehi vāti na paññāyati. “Vinaye vā suttante vā abhidhamme vā pāḷiyaṃ vā aṭṭhakathāya vā ṭīkāsu vā āgato”ti hi na sakkā vattuṃ. Kaccāyanācariyādīhi saddasatthakārakehi ācariyehi katotipi na dissati. Evaṃ sante appāṭihīrakataṃ idaṃ vacanaṃ āpajjati.
Where does this verse originate, where does it come from, and by whom was it made? Here, “where does it originate” means from the Blessed One, the compilers of the Dhamma, or the commentary teachers. “Where does it come from” means from the Vinaya, Suttanta, Abhidhamma, Pāli, commentaries, or sub-commentaries. “By whom was it made” means by the Venerable Mahākaccāyana, who composed the Nettiniruttipeṭakopadesa and Kaccāyana texts, or by Vajirabuddhi, who explained orally, or by Buddhapiya, who wrote Padarūpasiddhi, or by Aggavaṃsa, who wrote Saddanīti, or by other great elders who composed treatises. In considering tradition thus, this verse does not appear to originate from the Blessed One, the Dhamma compilers, or commentary teachers. It cannot be said to come from the Vinaya, Suttanta, Abhidhamma, Pāli, commentaries, or sub-commentaries. Nor does it appear to have been made by teachers like Kaccāyana who composed phonetic treatises. Thus, this statement seems to lack authoritative origin.
What is the origin of this verse? Where does it appear? Who composed it? Therein, what is the origin means whether it originated from the Blessed One, or from the elders who compiled the Dhamma, or from the commentators. Where does it appear means whether it appears in the Vinaya, the Suttanta, the Abhidhamma, the Pāḷi, the commentaries, or the sub-commentaries and so forth. Who composed it means whether it was composed by the venerable Mahākaccāyana, the author of the Nettippakaraṇa, the Netti, the Peṭakopadesa, and the Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa; or by Vajirabuddhi, the author of the Mukhamattadīpanī; or by Buddhappiya, the author of the Rūpasiddhi; or by Aggavaṃsa, the author of the Saddanītippakaraṇa; or by other great elders who were authors of grammatical works. Thus, in considering scriptural authority, it is not evident whether this verse originates from the Blessed One, the elders who compiled the Dhamma, or the commentators. For it cannot be said that it “appears in the Vinaya, the Suttanta, the Abhidhamma, the Pāḷi, the commentaries, or the sub-commentaries.” It is also not seen to have been composed by grammar teachers such as Kaccāyana and others. This being the case, this statement falls into the category of not showing any miraculous power.
Where does this verse originate, where does it come from, and by whom was it made? Here, where does it originate means it originates from the Blessed One, or from the elders who compiled the Dhamma, or from the teachers of the commentaries. Where does it come from means it comes from the Vinaya, the Suttanta, the Abhidhamma, the Pāḷi, the commentaries, or the sub-commentaries. By whom was it made means it was made by the venerable Mahākaccāyana, the teacher of the Nettippakaraṇa, or by Vajirabuddhācariya, the author of the Mukhamattadīpanī, or by Buddhapiyācariya, the author of the Padarūpasiddhi, or by Aggavaṃsācariya, the author of the Saddanītippakaraṇa, or by other great elders who composed texts. Thus, when considering the tradition, it is not evident that this verse originates from the Blessed One, or from the elders who compiled the Dhamma, or from the teachers of the commentaries. It cannot be said that it comes from the Vinaya, the Suttanta, the Abhidhamma, the Pāḷi, the commentaries, or the sub-commentaries. It is also not seen to have been made by the teachers like Kaccāyana who composed the Saddasattha. Thus, this statement becomes baseless.
ID1661
Evaṃ pana mayaṃ cintayimhā – rāmaññadese kira sakabhāsāyaṃ ca-kāranta ña-kārantā na santi , teneva rāmaññadesiyā bhikkhū “sacca”iti imaṃ pāṭhaṃ vadantā “satca”iti vadanti, “pañcaṅga”iti pāṭhaṃ vadantā “pancaṅga”iti vadanti, tasmā attano visaye avijjamānaṃ ca-kāranta ña-kārantaṃ yathāpāṭhaṃ vattumasakkontehi tehi bhikkhūhi sakabhāsānurūpato ayaṃ siloko kārito bhavissatīti. Evaṃ santepi marammabhāsāya ca-kāranta ña-kārantapadānaṃ sutivisesavasena visuṃ paññāyanato marammadesiyā bhikkhū taṃ silokaṃ anuvattitvā “buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmī”ti vā “paṭhamaṃ upatjhaṃ gāhāpetabbo”ti vā “hetupatcayo ārammaṇapatcayo”ti vā vattuṃ na arahanti. Rāmaññadesiyāpi sakabhāsāya visuṃ avijjamānampi ca-kāranta ña-kārantapadaṃ sakabhāsākathanakāleyeva bhāsānurūpaṃ ta-kāranta na-kārantabhāvena kathetabbaṃ, māgadhabhāsākathanakāle pana māgadhabhāsāya ca-kāranta ña-kārantapadānaṃ visuṃ payogadassanato māgadhabhāsānurūpaṃ ca-kāranta ña-kārantapadānaṃ visuṃ sutivasena yathāpāṭhameva kathetabbānīti no mati. Ayamettha āgamacintā.
We considered it thus: In the Rāmañña country, it is said that in their own language there are no words ending in ‘ca’ or ‘ña.’ Hence, monks from Rāmañña say “satca” for the text “sacca” and “pancaṅga” for “pañcaṅga.” Unable to pronounce words ending in ‘ca’ or ‘ña’ as in the text due to their absence in their region, those monks likely composed this verse according to their language. Even so, since words ending in ‘ca’ or ‘ña’ in the Maramma language are distinctly recognized by their specific sounds, monks from Maramma following this verse should not say “buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi,” “paṭhamaṃ upatjhaṃ gāhāpetabbo,” or “hetupatcayo ārammaṇapatcayo.” Even in Rāmañña, where their language lacks distinct words ending in ‘ca’ or ‘ña,’ when speaking their language, they should adjust to ‘ta’ or ‘na’ accordingly. But when speaking the Māgadha language, since words ending in ‘ca’ or ‘ña’ are distinctly used in Māgadha, they should be spoken as in the text with their distinct sounds according to Māgadha usage—this is our opinion. This is the consideration of tradition here.
But we have considered thus: It is said that in the Rāmañña country, the letters ‘ca’ and ‘ña’ do not exist in their own language. For this reason, monks from the Rāmañña country, when reciting the phrase “sacca,” pronounce it as “satca”; When reciting the phrase, “pañcaṅga”, they say, “pancaṅga”. Therefore, it is likely that this verse was composed by those monks, according to their own language, because they were unable to recite the letters ‘ca’ and ‘ña’, which do not exist in their region, according to the text. Even so, since in the Maramma language, words ending in ‘ca’ and ‘ña’ are clearly evident due to their distinct pronunciations, monks from the Maramma country should not follow that verse and say “buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmī” or “paṭhamaṃ upatjhaṃ gāhāpetabbo” or “hetupatcayo ārammaṇapatcayo”. Even the monks from the Rāmañña country, although words ending in ‘ca’ and ‘ña’ are not distinctly present in their own language, should pronounce them as ending in ‘ta’ and ‘na’ according to their own language only when speaking their own language. However, when speaking the Māgadhī language, since words ending in ‘ca’ and ‘ña’ are distinctly used in the Māgadhī language, words ending in ‘ca’ and ‘ña’ should be recited according to the Māgadhī language, with their distinct pronunciations, just as they are written. This is our opinion. This is the consideration of scriptural authority here.
However, we have considered this: In the Rāmañña country, it is said that words ending with ‘ca’ and ‘ña’ do not exist in their own language. Therefore, the monks of the Rāmañña country, when reciting “sacca,” say “satca,” and when reciting “pañcaṅga,” say “pancaṅga.” Thus, being unable to pronounce words ending with ‘ca’ and ‘ña’ as they are in their own region, those monks may have composed this verse according to their own language. Even so, since in the Maramma language, words ending with ‘ca’ and ‘ña’ are distinctly heard, the monks of the Maramma country, following this verse, should not say “buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmī” or “paṭhamaṃ upajjhaṃ gāhāpetabbo” or “hetupaccayo ārammaṇapaccayo.” Even in the Rāmañña country, although words ending with ‘ca’ and ‘ña’ do not exist in their own language, when speaking in their own language, they should speak words ending with ‘ta’ and ‘na’ according to their language. However, when speaking in the Māgadha language, since the usage of words ending with ‘ca’ and ‘ña’ is seen distinctly, they should speak words ending with ‘ca’ and ‘ña’ according to the Māgadha language, as they are heard. This is the consideration based on tradition.
ID1662
Jinasāsanamārabbha, kathāyaṃ kathitā mayā; Yuttāyuttaṃ cintayantu, paṇḍitā jinasāvakā.
Regarding the Conqueror’s Sāsana, this discussion has been presented by me; let the wise disciples of the Conqueror consider what is proper and improper.
Concerning the Dispensation of the Conqueror, this discussion has been presented by me; Let the wise disciples of the Conqueror consider what is appropriate and what is inappropriate.
Having spoken this discourse in connection with the teaching of the Victor, let the wise disciples of the Victor consider what is proper and improper.
ID1663
Yuttāyuttaṃ cintayitvā, yuttañce dhārayantu taṃ; Ayuttañce pajahantu, mānadosavivajjitāti.
Having considered what is proper and improper, let them retain what is proper; let them abandon what is improper, free from pride and aversion.
Having considered what is appropriate and what is inappropriate, hold on to what is appropriate; And abandon what is inappropriate, free from pride and দোষ (dosa).
Having considered what is proper and improper, let them uphold what is proper and abandon what is improper, free from pride and fault.
ID1664
254. Evaṃ catunnaṃ kammānaṃ sampattivipattiṃ dassetvā idāni tesaṃ kammānaṃ ṭhānappabhedaṃ dassento “apalokanakammaṃ katamāni pañca ṭhānāni gacchatī”tiādimāha. Tattha vinicchayo aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttanayeneva veditabbo. Anuttānapadatthameva dassayissāma. “Etarahi sacepi sāmaṇero”tiādīsu buddhādīnaṃ avaṇṇabhāsanampi akappiyādiṃ kappiyādibhāvena dīpanampi diṭṭhivipattiyaṃyeva pavisati, teneva vakkhati “taṃ laddhiṃ vissajjāpetabbo”ti. Bhikkhūnampi eseva nayo. Micchādiṭṭhikoti buddhavacanādhippāyaṃ viparītato gaṇhanto, so eva “antaggāhikāya diṭṭhiyā samannāgato”ti vutto. Keci pana “sassatucchedānaṃ aññataradiṭṭhiyā samannāgato”ti vadanti, taṃ na yuttaṃ. Sassatucchedagāhassa sāmaṇerānaṃ liṅganāsanāya kāraṇattena heṭṭhā aṭṭhakathāyameva vuttattā idha ca daṇḍakammanāsanāya eva adhippetattā. Kāyasambhogasāmaggīti sahaseyyapaṭiggahaṇādi. Soratoti subhe rato, suṭṭhu oratoti vā sorato. Nivātavuttīti nīcavutti.
254. Having shown the success and failure of the four actions, now, to indicate the distinctions of their places, it is said, “apalokanakammaṃ katamāni pañca ṭhānāni gacchatīti” and so forth. Therein, the decision should be understood as explained in the commentary. We will only show the meaning of unclear terms. In “etarahi sacepi sāmaṇero” and so forth, speaking ill of the Buddha and others or presenting the improper as proper also falls under the failure of view, which is why it will say, “taṃ laddhiṃ vissajjāpetabbo.” The same applies to monks. “Micchādiṭṭhiko” refers to one who grasps the meaning of the Buddha’s words perversely; he is said to be “antaggāhikāya diṭṭhiyā samannāgato.” Some say “sassatucchedānaṃ aññataradiṭṭhiyā samannāgato,” but this is not proper, as the grasping of eternalism or annihilationism as a reason for expelling sāmaṇeras was already stated in the commentary below, and here only expulsion by disciplinary action is intended. “Kāyasambhogasāmaggī” refers to sharing a bed and so forth. “Sorato” means delighting in good, or well-restrained; “nivātavuttī” means humble conduct.
254. Having thus shown the accomplishment and failure of the four formal acts, now, showing the distinctions of the places of those acts, he says, “apalokanakammaṃ katamāni pañca ṭhānāni gacchatī” (Into what five places does the apalokana-kamma go?), and so forth. The decision therein should be understood in the same way as stated in the commentary. We will only show the meaning of words that are not obvious. In “Etarahi sacepi sāmaṇero” (Now, even if a novice), and so forth, even speaking ill of the Buddha and so forth, and even showing what is improper and so forth as proper and so forth, enters into wrong view. Therefore, he will say, “he should be made to give up that view.” The same applies to monks. Micchādiṭṭhiko (one with wrong views) is one who grasps the meaning of the Buddha’s words in a contrary way. He is the same as “antaggāhikāya diṭṭhiyā samannāgato” (endowed with extreme views). Some, however, say, “endowed with one of the views of eternalism or annihilationism,” but that is not appropriate. Because the grasping of eternalism and annihilationism is stated in the commentary below as a reason for destroying the status of novices, and because here, it is intended only as a reason for the destruction of disciplinary action. Kāyasambhogasāmaggī (agreement in bodily communion) means sharing a dwelling, accepting (gifts), and so forth. Sorato (well-behaved) means delighting in goodness, or well-behaved (suṭṭhu orato). Nivātavuttī (humble conduct) means having a low demeanor.
254. Having shown the completeness and incompleteness of these four actions, now, to show the classification of the places for these actions, it is said, “To which five places does the act of consultation go?” Here, the decision should be understood according to the method explained in the commentary. We will only explain the unclear meaning. “Now, even if a novice”—here, even speaking ill of the Buddha, etc., or explaining the improper as proper, etc., falls into wrong view. Therefore, it is said, “That should be resolved by understanding.” The same applies to monks. “One with wrong view”—one who grasps the Buddha’s words in a contrary way—is said to be “endowed with a view that grasps extremes.” Some say, “Endowed with one of the views of eternalism or annihilationism,” but that is not correct. Since the novice who grasps eternalism or annihilationism is expelled for the reason of losing his status, as stated in the commentary below, and here it is intended for the reason of expulsion by the act of punishment. “Bodily companionship”—such as sharing a bed or receiving alms together. “Gentle”—delighting in what is good, or well-controlled. “Living in seclusion”—living in a lowly manner.
ID1665
Tassāpi dātabboti vijjamānaṃ mukharādibhāvaṃ nissāya appaṭipucchitvāpi paṭiññaṃ aggahetvāpi āpattiṃ anāropetvāpi desitāyapi āpattiyā khuṃsanādito anoramantassa dātabbova. Oramantassa pana khamāpentassa na dātabbo. Brahmadaṇḍassa dānanti kharadaṇḍassa ukkaṭṭhadaṇḍassa dānaṃ. Tajjanīyādikamme hi kate ovādānusāsanippadānapaṭikkhepo natthi, dinnabrahmadaṇḍe pana tasmiṃ saddhiṃ tajjanīyakammādikatehi paṭikkhittampi kātuṃ na vaṭṭati “neva vattabbo”tiādinā ālāpasallāpamattassapi na-kārena paṭikkhitattā. Tañhi disvā bhikkhū gīvaṃ parivattetvā olokanamattampi na karonti, evaṃ vivajjetabbaṃ nimmadanakaraṇatthameva tassa daṇḍassa anuññātattā. Teneva channattheropi ukkhepanīyādikammakatopi abhāyitvā brahmadaṇḍe dinne “saṅghenāhaṃ sabbathā vivajjito”ti mucchito papati. Yo pana brahmadaṇḍakatena saddhiṃ ñatvā saṃsaṭṭho avivajjetvā viharati, tassa dukkaṭamevāti gahetabbaṃ. Aññathā brahmadaṇḍavidhānassa niratthakatāpasaṅgato. Tenāti brahmadaṇḍakatena. Yathā tajjanīyādikammakatehi, evameva tato adhikampi saṅghaṃ ārādhentena sammā vattitabbaṃ, tañca “sorato nivātavuttī”tiādinā sarūpato dassitameva. Tenāha “sammā vattitvā khamāpentassa brahmadaṇḍo paṭippassambhetabbo”ti. Paṭisaṅkhāti paṭisaṅkhāya, ñāṇena upaparikkhitvā.
“Tassāpi dātabbo” means it should be given even to one who does not confess due to being talkative or such, without questioning, without taking consent, without charging an offense, even if the offense has been confessed, and without ceasing from reproaching. But it should not be given to one who ceases and seeks forgiveness. “Brahmadaṇḍassa dāna” refers to giving a harsh penalty, the highest penalty. When actions like tajjanīya are imposed, there is no prohibition on giving advice or instruction, but when brahmadaṇḍa is given, even what is prohibited by tajjanīyakamma and such must not be done, as even slight conversation is forbidden by “neva vattabbo.” Seeing him, monks turn their necks away and do not even glance, as this penalty was allowed precisely to ensure avoidance and correction. Thus, even Elder Channa, though subjected to ukkhepanīyakamma and such, was unafraid, but when brahmadaṇḍa was given, he fell unconscious, saying, “I am completely avoided by the Saṅgha.” One who knowingly associates with someone under brahmadaṇḍa without avoiding him incurs a dukkaṭa, as otherwise the prescription of brahmadaṇḍa would be pointless. “Tenā” means by the one under brahmadaṇḍa. Just as with those under tajjanīyakamma and such, one must act properly to please the Saṅgha even more, as shown by “sorato nivātavuttī” and so forth. Hence it says, “sammā vattitvā khamāpentassa brahmadaṇḍo paṭippassambhetabbo.” “Paṭisaṅkhā” means with reflection, having examined with wisdom.
Tassāpi dātabbo (It should be given even to him) means, based on the existing state of being garrulous and so forth, even without questioning, even without taking a confession, even without charging with an offense, even if the offense has been confessed, if he does not desist from slandering and so on, it should indeed be given. But to one who is desisting and asking for forgiveness, it should not be given. Brahmadaṇḍassa dānanti (The giving of the Brahma-punishment) means the giving of a harsh punishment, a severe punishment. For when the act of censure (tajjanīya) and so forth has been done, there is no prohibition of giving advice and instruction. But when the Brahma-punishment has been given, even if the act of censure and so forth has been done along with it, it is not appropriate to do what has been prohibited, because even mere addressing and conversing has been prohibited by the “neva vattabbo” (he should not be spoken to) and so forth, with the word “na” (not). Seeing that, the monks do not even turn their necks and look at him, thus, because this punishment is allowed only for the purpose of making him completely shunned and humbled. Therefore, even the elder Channa, although he had been subjected to the act of suspension (ukkhepanīya) and so on, upon receiving the Brahma-punishment, fainted and fell down, thinking, “I have been completely shunned by the Saṅgha.” One should understand that whoever knowingly associates with one who has been subjected to the Brahma-punishment, and does not avoid him, incurs only a dukkaṭa (offence of wrongdoing). Otherwise, the prescription of the Brahma-punishment would be pointless. Tenāti (By him) means by one subjected to the Brahma-punishment. Just as with those who have been subjected to the act of censure and so on, even more so should he behave properly, pleasing the Sangha. And that has been shown in its essence by “sorato nivātavuttī” (well-behaved and of humble conduct) and so forth. Therefore, he says, “sammā vattitvā khamāpentassa brahmadaṇḍo paṭippassambhetabbo” (having behaved properly and asked for forgiveness, the Brahma-punishment should be revoked). Paṭisaṅkhāti (reflection) means by reflection, having examined with wisdom.
“That should be given to him”—even if the state of being talkative, etc., is present, without questioning, without accepting the confession, without charging the offense, even if the offense has been confessed, if he does not refrain from mocking, etc., it should be given. However, if he refrains and asks for forgiveness, it should not be given. “The giving of the Brahma punishment”—the giving of a harsh or severe punishment. When acts of censure, etc., are done, there is no refusal to give advice and instruction, but when the Brahma punishment is given, even if acts of censure, etc., are done, it is not permissible to refuse, as it is prohibited by the mere act of speaking, “He should not be spoken to,” etc. Seeing this, the monks do not even turn their necks to look, as they should avoid it. The purpose of that punishment is to humble him. Therefore, even the venerable Channa, though he had undergone acts of suspension, etc., when the Brahma punishment was given, fainted, saying, “I have been completely abandoned by the Sangha.” But if one knows that the Brahma punishment has been given and associates with him without avoiding him, it is only a wrong-doing. Otherwise, the purpose of the Brahma punishment would be meaningless. “By him”—by the one who has given the Brahma punishment. Just as with those who have undergone acts of censure, etc., so too, even more so, one should act rightly to please the Sangha, and that is shown by the words “gentle, living in seclusion,” etc. Therefore, it is said, “Having acted rightly and asked for forgiveness, the Brahma punishment should be withdrawn.” “Reflecting”—reflecting, examining with knowledge.
ID1666
Yaṃ taṃ bhagavatā avandiyakammaṃ anuññātanti sambandho. “Tassa bhikkhuno daṇḍakammaṃ kātu”nti sāmaññato anuññātappakāraṃ dassetvā puna visesato anuññātappakāraṃ dassetuṃ “atha kho”tiādi pāḷiuddhaṭāti veditabbaṃ. Imassa apalokanakammassa ṭhānaṃ hotīti apalokanakammasāmaññassa pavattiṭṭhānaṃ hoti. Visesabyatirekena avijjamānampi tadaññattha appavattiṃ dassetuṃ visesanissitaṃ viya voharīyati. “Kammaññeva lakkhaṇa”nti iminā osāraṇādivasena gahitāvasesānaṃ sabbesaṃ apalokanakammasāmaññalakkhaṇavasena gahitattā “kammaññeva lakkhaṇamassāti kammalakkhaṇa”nti nibbacanaṃ dasseti, idañca vuttāvasesānaṃ kammānaṃ niṭṭhānaṭṭhānaṃ saṅkhārakkhandhadhammāyatanādīni viya vuttāvasesakhandhāyatanānanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Teneva vakkhati “ayaṃ panettha pāḷimuttakopi kammalakkhaṇavinicchayo”tiādi. Yathā cettha, evaṃ upari ñattikammādīsupi kammalakkhaṇaṃ vuttanti veditabbaṃ. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. parivāra 3.495-496) pana “kammameva lakkhaṇanti kammalakkhaṇaṃ. Osāraṇanissāraṇabhaṇḍukammādayo viya kammañca hutvā aññañca nāmaṃ na labhati, kammameva hutvā upalakkhīyatīti kammalakkhaṇanti vuccatī”ti vuttaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. parivāra 495-496) pana “imassa apalokanakammassa ṭhānaṃ hotīti evampi apalokanakammaṃ pavattatīti attho. Kammaññeva lakkhaṇanti kammalakkhaṇaṃ. Osāraṇanissāraṇabhaṇḍukammādayo viya kammañca hutvā aññañca nāmaṃ na labhati, kammameva hutvā upalakkhīyatīti kammalakkhaṇaṃ upanissayo viya. Hetupaccayādilakkhaṇavimutto hi sabbo paccayaviseso tattha saṅgayhatī”ti vuttaṃ. Tassa karaṇanti avandiyakammassa karaṇavidhānaṃ. Na vanditabboti, iminā vandantiyā dukkaṭanti dassetīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Saṅghena kataṃ katikaṃ ñatvā maddanaṃ viya hi saṅghasammutiṃ anādarena atikkamantassa āpatti eva hoti.
The connection is: “That which the Blessed One allowed as an action not to be revered.” Having shown the general allowance with “tassa bhikkhuno daṇḍakammaṃ kātu,” it should be understood that the Pāli quotation “atha kho” and so forth is cited to show the specific allowance. “Imassa apalokanakammassa ṭhānaṃ hoti” means it is a place where the general category of apalokanakamma operates. It is expressed as dependent on a specific feature to indicate that, despite its absence elsewhere through distinction or exclusion, it appears so. “Kammaññeva lakkhaṇa” shows that all remaining actions taken through summoning and so forth are included under the general characteristic of apalokanakamma, thus defining it as “kammalakkhaṇa,” like the remaining aggregates or sense bases such as saṅkhārakkhandha or dhammāyatana are understood for the remaining actions. Hence it will say, “ayaṃ panettha pāḷimuttakopi kammalakkhaṇavinicchayo” and so forth. As here, so too in the ñattikamma and others above, the characteristic of action should be understood as stated. In Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. parivāra 3.495-496), it is said: “Kamma alone is the characteristic, thus kammalakkhaṇa. Like summoning, expelling, or shaving actions, it is an action and does not take another name; being an action alone, it is characterized, hence called kammalakkhaṇa.” In Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. parivāra 495-496), it is said: “Imassa apalokanakammassa ṭhānaṃ hoti means this too is where apalokanakamma operates. Kamma alone is the characteristic, thus kammalakkhaṇa. Like summoning, expelling, or shaving actions, it is an action and does not take another name; being an action alone, it is characterized, thus kammalakkhaṇa, like a supporting condition. Every specific condition free from characteristics like cause or condition is included there.” “Tassa karaṇa” means the method of performing the action not to be revered. “Na vanditabbo” indicates that revering it is a dukkaṭa, as it should be seen as an offense for one who irreverently transgresses the Saṅgha’s agreement, like trampling a decision made by the Saṅgha.
The connection is, “That which was allowed by the Blessed One as a non-worship action.” Having shown the manner of general allowance with, “Punish that bhikkhu,” in order to further illustrate the manner of specific allowance, it should be understood that the passage beginning with “atha kho” is quoted from the Pali. Imassa apalokanakammassa ṭhānaṃ hotīti It is the place of occurrence for general apalokanakamma. Even though not existing distinctly because there is no differentiation by specification, it is spoken of as if it were contingent upon specification, to show its non-occurrence elsewhere. “Kammaññeva lakkhaṇa”ti By this, he indicates the definition as “having the characteristic of action” (kammalakkhaṇa), since they all—including restoration (osāraṇā) and the rest—have been grasped by way of the general characteristic of apalokanakamma. And it should be understood that these actions have cessation and occurrence, like the constituents of existence (khandhā), sense bases (āyatanāni), and so on. Therefore, he will say, “This here, though it be free from the Pali, is the determination of the characteristic of action,” and so on. Just as here, so also in the subsequent ñattikamma and others, the characteristic of action is mentioned, it should be understood. However, in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. parivāra 3.495-496), it is said, “Action itself is the characteristic, thus kammalakkhaṇaṃ. Like restoration, expulsion, being made to shave the head, etc., after having become an act (kamma), it does not receive another name; simply by being kamma, it is recognized, therefore, it’s called kammalakkhaṇa”. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. parivāra 495-496) it says, “‘Imassa apalokanakammassa ṭhānaṃ hoti’ means that even in this manner, apalokanakamma occurs. Since kamma alone is the defining characteristic, it is kammalakkhaṇa. Like the terms osāraṇā (reinstatement), nissāraṇā (expulsion), bhaṇḍukamma (making a monk shave his head), it does not receive another name, it is recognizable by being only kamma. Kammalakkhaṇa is like a supporting condition. For, every specific condition (paccayavisesa) is included in the general term devoid of characteristics like cause, condition, etc.” Tassa karaṇanti The procedure for performing a non-worship action. Na vanditabboti, By this, it should be understood that he is showing that there is a dukkaṭa offense for one who worships. Just as when one knowingly disregards a resolution made by the Sangha, disrespectfully transgressing it, there is an offense.
The connection is that the Blessed One permitted the act of not paying respect. To show the manner in which it was permitted in general, by stating, “Let a disciplinary act be performed against that monk,” and then to further specify the manner in which it was permitted, the phrase “atha kho” (then) and so on should be understood as a quotation from the Pali. “This is the occasion for the act of seeking permission” means that it is the occasion for the general practice of the act of seeking permission. Even if a specific instance does not exist apart from the general rule, it is spoken of as if it were dependent on a specific case to indicate that no other occasion arises. “The characteristic is merely the act”—by this, it is explained that since all remaining acts, such as summoning, are included under the general characteristic of the act of seeking permission, it is called “the characteristic of the act.” This should be understood as referring to the aggregates, sense bases, etc., which are the concluding points of the acts mentioned. Therefore, it is said, “Here, this is also the determination of the characteristic of the act, apart from the Pali.” Just as here, so too above in the case of motion acts and others, the characteristic of the act should be understood as stated. In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Parivāra 3.495-496), it is said, “The characteristic is merely the act”—this is called “the characteristic of the act.” Acts such as summoning, dismissing, and handling goods, though they are acts, do not receive another name; they are merely called acts and are thus distinguished. Therefore, it is called “the characteristic of the act.” In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Parivāra 495-496), it is said, “This is the occasion for the act of seeking permission”—this means that the act of seeking permission occurs in this way. “The characteristic is merely the act”—this is called “the characteristic of the act.” Acts such as summoning, dismissing, and handling goods, though they are acts, do not receive another name; they are merely called acts and are thus distinguished. This is like a supporting condition. For all specific conditions are included there, free from the characteristics of cause and condition. “The performance of that” refers to the procedure for performing the act of not paying respect. “One should not pay respect”—by this, it is shown that paying respect incurs a wrongdoing (dukkaṭa). It should be understood that just as crushing after knowing the agreement made by the Sangha, so too for one who disregards the Sangha’s agreement, an offense is incurred.
ID1667
255. Bhikkhusaṅghassapi panetaṃ labbhatiyevāti avandiyakammassa upalakkhaṇamattena gahitattā bhikkhusaṅghassapi kammalakkhaṇaṃ labbhati eva. Salākadānaṭṭhānaṃ salākaggaṃ nāma, yāgubhattānaṃ bhājanaṭṭhānāni yāgaggabhattaggāni nāma. Etesupi hi ṭhānesu sabbo saṅgho uposathe viya sannipatito, kammañca vaggakammaṃ na hoti, “mayametaṃ na jānimhā”ti pacchā khīyantāpi na honti, khaṇḍasīmāya pana kate khīyanti. Saṅghikapaccayañhi acchinnacīvarādīnaṃ dātuṃ apalokentehi upacārasīmaṭṭhānaṃ sabbesaṃ anumatiṃ gahetvāva kātabbaṃ. Yo pana visabhāgapuggalo dhammikaṃ apalokanaṃ paṭibāhati, taṃ upāyena bahiupacārasīmagataṃ vā katvā khaṇḍasīmaṃ vā pavisitvā kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Yaṃ sandhāya “apalokanakammaṃ karotī”ti sāmaññato dasseti, taṃ apalokanakammaṃ sarūpato dassetuṃ āha “acchinnacīvaraṃ”iccādi. Yadi apaloketvāva cīvaraṃ dātabbaṃ, kiṃ pana appamattakavissajjakasammutiyāti āha “appamattakavissajjakena panā”tiādi. Nāḷi vā upaḍḍhanāḷi vāti divase divase apaloketvā dātabbassa pamāṇadassanaṃ. Tena yāpanamattameva apaloketabbaṃ, na adhikanti dasseti. Ekadivasaṃyeva vātiādi dasavīsatidivasānaṃ ekasmiṃ divaseyeva dātabbaparicchedadassanaṃ. Tena “yāvajīva”nti vā “yāvarogā vuṭṭhahatī”ti vā evaṃ apaloketuṃ na vaṭṭatīti dasseti. Iṇapalibodhanti iṇavatthuṃ dātuṃ vaṭṭatīti sambandho. Tañca iṇāyikehi palibuddhassa lajjīpesalassa sāsanupakārakassa pamāṇayuttameva kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ niyametvā bhikkhūhi apaloketvā dātabbaṃ, na pana sahassaṃ vā satasahassaṃ vā mahāiṇaṃ. Tādisañhi bhikkhācariyavattena sabbehi bhikkhūhi tādisassa bhikkhuno pariyesitvā dātabbaṃ.
255. “Bhikkhusaṅghassapi panetaṃ labbhatiyevā” means that the monks’ Saṅgha too certainly obtains this kammalakkhaṇa, as it is included merely by the characteristic of the action not to be revered. The place for distributing tickets is called salākagga; the places for distributing porridge and meals are called yāgaggabhattaggāni. In these places too, the entire Saṅgha gathers as on Uposatha, and the action is not a partial action; those who later complain, “We did not know this,” do not prevail, though they do in a partial boundary. For Saṅgha property like uncut cloth, it must be given only after obtaining the consent of all within the surrounding boundary by those performing apalokana. If a discordant person obstructs a lawful apalokana, it is allowable to either maneuver them outside the surrounding boundary or enter a partial boundary to perform it. Referring to this, it generally states “apalokanakammaṃ karoti,” and to specify that apalokanakamma, it says “acchinnacīvaraṃ” and so forth. If cloth could be given without apalokana, why the agreement for minor distribution? Hence it says “appamattakavissajjakena panā” and so forth. “Nāḷi vā upaḍḍhanāḷi vā” indicates the measure to be given daily with apalokana, showing that only enough for sustenance should be considered, not more. “Ekadivasaṃyeva vā” and so forth indicate the limit of giving on just one day within ten or twenty days, showing that it should not be considered “for life” or “until recovery from illness.” “Iṇapalibodha” connects to: it is allowable to give an object of debt. That too, for a conscientious, virtuous monk helpful to the Sāsana who is hindered by creditors, should be a reasonable amount of allowable goods specified and given by monks with apalokana—not a thousand or a hundred thousand, a great debt. Such a thing must be sought and given by all monks through the practice of alms for such a monk.
255. Bhikkhusaṅghassapi panetaṃ labbhatiyevāti Because it is taken as an indication of the non-worship action, the kammalakkhaṇa (characteristic of action) is also available to the community of monks. The place for distributing lots is called salākagga; The places for apportioning gruel and meals are called yāgaggabhattaggāni. For at these places too, the entire Sangha has gathered, just as on the uposatha day, and the action is not a quorum-action (vaggakamma), and they do not complain later, saying, “We did not know this.” But when done within a boundary segment (khaṇḍasīmā), they do complain. For, when distributing requisites belonging to the Sangha to those whose robes have not been lost, and so forth, it should be done after taking the consent of all those within the upacārasīma (monastery boundary). But if a discordant person obstructs a lawful apalokana (announcement), it is permissible to either induce him to go outside of the upacārasīma or to enter a khaṇḍasīmā (sub-boundary) and perform it. Referencing that, he shows generally, “apalokanakammaṃ karoti”, and to show that apalokanakamma in its specific form, he says “acchinnacīvaraṃ”, and so on. If a robe is to be given after just making an announcement, then why is there a resolution for giving away small things? He answers this by saying, “appamattakavissajjakena panā”tiādi. Nāḷi vā upaḍḍhanāḷi vāti This shows the amount of what can be given after making an announcement each day. Thus, only enough for sustenance should be announced, not more. Ekadivasaṃyeva vātiādi This shows the determination of what can be given on a single day for ten or twenty days. Thus, it shows that it is not permissible to make an announcement saying, “For as long as he lives” or “until he recovers from illness”, and so on. Iṇapalibodhanti The connection is that it is permissible to give the item of debt. And that, having determined the amount of allowable goods appropriate for the one encumbered by debt, who is scrupulous, virtuous, and helpful to the dispensation, should be given by the monks without an announcement. However, an immense debt of a thousand or a hundred thousand is not to be given. For such debt, indeed, all of the monks, following the practice of teaching and learning, should investigate it and assist such a monk.
255. “This is also applicable to the Sangha of monks”—since the act of not paying respect is understood merely by its distinguishing mark, the characteristic of the act is also applicable to the Sangha of monks. The place for distributing voting tickets is called “salākagga” (the tip of the ticket). The vessels for rice gruel and food are called “yāgagga” and “bhattagga” (the tip for gruel and food). In these places, the entire Sangha assembles on the uposatha day, and the act is not a factional act. Even if they later say, “We did not know this,” they are not at fault. However, if a fragmented boundary is made, they are at fault. For Sangha property, such as uncut cloth, when seeking permission to give, it must be done after obtaining the consent of all within the boundary. If a person of improper conduct obstructs a lawful seeking of permission, it is appropriate to either place him outside the boundary or enter a fragmented boundary and perform the act. To show the act of seeking permission in general, it is stated, “uncut cloth” and so on. If the cloth should be given after seeking permission, what then is the purpose of the agreement for minor distributions? It is stated, “by the agreement for minor distributions” and so on. “A nāḷi or half a nāḷi”—this shows the measure to be given daily after seeking permission. By this, it is indicated that only what is sufficient for sustenance should be sought, not more. “Or even in a single day”—this shows the limit for giving within a single day out of twenty days. By this, it is indicated that one should not seek permission for a lifetime or until recovery from illness. “Hindrance by debt”—this refers to the connection with giving something as a debt. For one who is hindered by creditors, if he is modest, helpful to the teaching, and suitable in measure, the allowable goods should be determined by the monks and given after seeking permission. However, a large debt of a thousand or a hundred thousand should not be given. For such a monk, all monks should search for him and give accordingly, following the monastic practice.
ID1668
“Chattaṃ vā vedikaṃ vāti ettha vedikāti cetiyassa upari caturassacayo vuccati. Chattanti tato uddhaṃ valayāni dassetvā kato aggacayo vuccatī”ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. parivāra 3.495-496) vuttaṃ. Cetiyassa upanikkhepatoti cetiyassa paṭijagganatthāya vaḍḍhiyā payojetvā kappiyakārakehi ṭhapitavatthuto. Saṅghikenapīti na kevalañca tatruppādato paccayadāyakehi catupaccayatthāya saṅghassa dinnavatthunāpīti attho. Saṅghabhattaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭatīti mahādānaṃ dadantehipi kariyamānaṃ saṅghabhattaṃ viya kāretuṃ na vaṭṭatīti adhippāyo. “Yathāsukhaṃ paribhuñjituṃ ruccatī”ti vuttattā attano attano paribhogapahonakaṃ appaṃ vā bahuṃ vā gahetabbaṃ, adhikaṃ pana gahetuṃ na labhati.
“Chattaṃ vā vedikaṃ vā”—here, in Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. parivāra 3.495-496), it is said: “Vedikā refers to the square structure above a cetiya; chatta refers to the pinnacle made with rings above that.” “Cetiyassa upanikkhepato” means from the materials placed by allowable workers for the maintenance or enhancement of the cetiya. “Saṅghikenapi” means not only from what arises there but also from what is given to the Saṅgha by donors for the four requisites. “Saṅghabhattaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭati” means it is not allowable to prepare it like a Saṅgha meal made by those giving great offerings, implying this intent. Since it says “yathāsukhaṃ paribhuñjituṃ ruccati,” each should take what is sufficient for their use, little or much, but cannot take more.
“Chattaṃ vā vedikaṃ vā”ti In this context, vedikā refers to the square structure atop a cetiya. Chatta refers to the finial made above that, showing layers.” It is mentioned this way in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. parivāra 3.495-496). Cetiyassa upanikkhepatoti From the things deposited by donors for the maintenance of the cetiya, and used for its benefit by the caretakers. Saṅghikenapīti The meaning is, not only from that generated there but also with things given to the Sangha for the four requisites by donors of requisites. Saṅghabhattaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭatīti The meaning is that it should not be prepared like a Sangha meal offered by those who give a great offering. “Yathāsukhaṃ paribhuñjituṃ ruccatī”ti Because it’s said, “It pleases me to use it as I please,” one should take little or much, sufficient for one’s own consumption, but one should not take more.
“A parasol or a railing”—here, “vedikā” refers to the four-sided structure above a cetiya. “Chatta” refers to the circular structure above that, indicating the pinnacle. This is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Parivāra 3.495-496). “From the vicinity of the cetiya”—this refers to the place where the allowable workers have placed it for the purpose of maintaining the cetiya. “Even by the Sangha”—this means not only by the donors but also by the Sangha, using the property given to the Sangha for the four requisites. “It is not appropriate to prepare Sangha food”—even when giving a great donation, it is not appropriate to prepare Sangha food like a great feast. “To enjoy at will”—this means that one may take a small or large amount for personal use, but one may not take more than necessary.
ID1669
Uposathadivaseti nidassanamattaṃ, yasmiṃ kismiñci divasepi kataṃ sukatameva hoti. Karontena “yaṃ imasmiṃ vihāre antosīmāya saṅghasantakaṃ…pe… yathāsukhaṃ paribhuñjituṃ mayhaṃ ruccatī”ti evaṃ katikā kātabbā. Tathā dvīhi tīhipi “āyasmantānaṃ ruccatī”ti vacanameva hettha viseso. Tesampīti rukkhānaṃ. Sā eva katikāti visuṃ katikā na kātabbāti attho.
“Uposathadivase” is just an example; it is well done on any day. One performing it should make an agreement thus: “Whatever belongs to the Saṅgha within the boundary of this monastery… may I use it as I please.” Likewise, with two or three, saying “āyasmantānaṃ ruccati” is the distinction here. “Tesampi” refers to the trees. “Sā eva katikā” means no separate agreement should be made.
Uposathadivaseti This is just an example; whatever day it is done, it is well done. When performing it, one should make the resolution in this way: “Whatever Sangha property within this monastery’s boundary…etc… it pleases me to use as I please.” Similarly, with two or three people, the difference is only saying “it is pleasing to the venerable sirs.” Tesampīti Of the trees. Sā eva katikāti The meaning is that a separate resolution should not be made.
“On the uposatha day”—this is merely an example; it is well done on any day. When performing it, one should say, “Whatever in this monastery within the boundary belongs to the Sangha… I wish to enjoy it at will.” Similarly, with two or three, the only difference is saying, “Do the venerables agree?” “For them too”—this refers to the trees. “The same agreement”—this means a separate agreement should not be made.
ID1670
Tesanti rukkhānaṃ, saṅgho sāmīti sambandho. Purimavihāreti purime yathāsukhaṃ paribhogatthāya katakatike vihāre. Pariveṇāni katvā jaggantīti yattha arakkhiyamāne phalāphalāni rukkhā ca vinassanti, tādisaṃ ṭhānaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, tattha saṅghassa katikā na pavattatīti adhippāyo. Yehi pana rukkhabījāni ropetvā ādito paṭṭhāya paṭijaggitā, tepi dasamabhāgaṃ datvā ropakeheva paribhuñjitabbāni. Tehīti jaggitehi.
“Tesa” refers to the trees; the Saṅgha is the owner, connecting thus. “Purimavihāre” means in the previous monastery where an agreement was made for use as desired. “Pariveṇāni katvā jagganti” refers to a place where, if not protected, the fruit-bearing and non-fruit-bearing trees would perish, implying that the Saṅgha’s agreement does not apply there. Those who planted tree seeds and cared for them from the start should enjoy them after giving a tenth share, with the caretakers using them.
Tesanti of the trees. The Sangha is the owner. Purimavihāreti in the previous monastery where a resolution had been made for consuming as one pleases. Pariveṇāni katvā jaggantīti This refers to a place where, if left unguarded, the fruits and the trees would perish; the meaning is that the Sangha’s resolution does not apply there. But those who have planted tree seeds and guarded them from the beginning, they should also give a tenth share and consume them with those who planted them. Tehīti by the care givers.
“For them”—this refers to the trees, and the Sangha is the owner. “In the former monastery”—this refers to the former monasteries where agreements were made for enjoyment at will. “Having made enclosures, they guard”—this refers to places where, if not guarded, the fruits and trees are destroyed. There, the Sangha’s agreement does not apply. Those who plant tree seeds and care for them from the beginning should give a tenth part to the planter and enjoy the rest. “By them”—by those who guard.
ID1671
Tatthāti tasmiṃ vihāre. Mūletiādikāle, pubbeti attho. Dīghā katikāti aparicchinnakālā yathāsukhaṃ paribhogatthāya katikā. Nikkukkuccenāti “abhājitamida”nti kukkuccaṃ akatvāti attho. Khīyanamattameva tanti tena khīyanena bahuṃ khādantānaṃ doso natthi attano paribhogappamāṇasseva gahitattā, khīyantepi attano pahonakaṃ gahetvā khāditabbanti adhippāyo.
“Tatthā” means in that monastery. “Mūle” and so forth mean beforehand. “Dīghāsana katikā” refers to an agreement made for use as desired without a time limit. “Nikkukkuccena” means without scruple, thinking “this is unshared.” “Khīyanamattameva ta” means there is no fault in consuming much due to that depletion, as it was taken only according to one’s sufficient use; even if depleted, one should take and consume what is sufficient.
Tatthāti In that monastery. Mūletiādikāle, pubbeti attho. at the beginning, meaning previously. Dīghā katikāti an unlimited-time resolution for consuming as one pleases. Nikkukkuccenāti without creating scruples that “this is not distributed”. Khīyanamattameva tanti By that complaining, there is no fault for those who eat a lot, since they are taking only their own consumption portion. The meaning is that even when they complain, they should take what is sufficient for themselves and eat.
“There”—in that monastery. “At the root” and so on—this means earlier. “A long agreement”—an agreement for enjoyment at will, without a fixed time limit. “Without scruple”—this means without thinking, “This is not allowed.” “Only the exhaustion”—this means that even if much is eaten by those who exhaust it, there is no fault, as only the measure of one’s own use is taken. Even when exhausted, one should take one’s own portion and eat it.
ID1672
Gaṇhathāti na vattabbāti tathā vutte teneva bhikkhunā dinnaṃ viya maññeyyuṃ. Taṃ nissāya micchājīvasambhavo hotīti vuttaṃ. Tenāha “anuvicaritvā”tiādi. Upaḍḍhabhāgoti ekassa bhikkhuno paṭivīsato upaḍḍhabhāgo, dentena ca “ettakaṃ dātuṃ saṅgho anuññāsī”ti evaṃ attānaṃ parimocetvā yathā te saṅghe eva pasīdanti, evaṃ vatvā dātabbaṃ. Apaccāsīsantenāti gilānagamikissarādīnaṃ anuññātapuggalānampi attano santakaṃ dentena apaccāsīsanteneva dātabbaṃ. Ananuññātapuggalānaṃ pana apaccāsīsantenapi dātuṃ na vaṭṭatīti. Saṅghikameva yathākatikāya dāpetabbaṃ. Attano santakampi paccayadāyakādayo sayameva vissāsena gaṇhanti, na vāretabbā, “laddhakappiya”nti tuṇhī bhavitabbaṃ. Pubbe vuttamevāti “kuddho hi so rukkhepi chindeyyā”tiādinā tuṇhībhāve kāraṇaṃ pubbe vuttameva, tehi kataanatthābhāvepi kāruññena tuṇhī bhavituṃ vaṭṭati, “gaṇhathā”tiādi pana vattuṃ na vaṭṭati.
“Gaṇhathāti na vattabbā” means it should not be said thus, as they might think it was given by that monk alone. This could lead to wrong livelihood, hence it says “anuvicaritvā” and so forth. “Upaḍḍhabhāgo” means half a share for one monk from a group of twenty; the giver should say, “The Saṅgha allowed this much to be given,” freeing themselves so that they trust the Saṅgha, and give accordingly. “Apaccāsīsantena” means even allowable persons like the sick or travelers giving their own property should give without expectation of return. It is not allowable to give to unallowable persons even without expectation. Only Saṅgha property should be given as per the agreement. Donors and such may take their own property with confidence; they should not be stopped, and one should remain silent, thinking “it is lawfully obtained.” “Pubbe vuttameva” means the reason for silence, such as “an angry person might cut the trees,” was stated before; even without harm from them, it is allowable to remain silent out of compassion, but saying “take it” and so forth is not allowable.
Gaṇhathāti na vattabbāti If one were to say that, they might think it was given by that very monk. It is stated that because of this, there’s the possibility of wrong livelihood. Therefore, he states “anuvicaritvā”tiādi. Upaḍḍhabhāgoti Half of the share of one monk, and the giver should say, “The Sangha allowed this much to be given”, thus freeing himself, so that they have confidence in the Sangha; he should speak and give thusly. Apaccāsīsantenāti Even for those who are permitted, such as the sick, travelers, and rulers, a person giving from his own possessions should give without expecting anything in return. But for those who are not permitted, it is not permissible to give, even without expecting anything in return. He should cause it to be given according to the resolution, being Sangha property. If donors of requisites themselves take one’s own possessions confidently, they should not be prevented; one should remain silent, [thinking] “what is allowable has been obtained”. Pubbe vuttamevāti The reason for remaining silent has already been stated earlier, by “If he is angry, he might even cut down the trees” and so forth. Even if no harm is done by them, one should remain silent out of compassion, but it is not permissible to say “Take it” and so on.
“Do not say, ‘Take’”—if said thus, it would be as if given by that monk. This could lead to wrong livelihood. Therefore, it is said, “after considering” and so on. “Half a share”—this means half of one monk’s share out of twenty. When giving, one should say, “The Sangha has permitted this much to be given,” thus freeing oneself and giving in a way that pleases the Sangha. “Without expecting anything in return”—this means that even when giving to those permitted, such as the sick or travelers, one should give without expecting anything in return. However, for those not permitted, even if one does not expect anything in return, it is not appropriate to give. Only Sangha property should be given according to the agreement. Donors may take their own property with confidence and should not be prevented. One should remain silent, thinking, “It is allowable.” “As previously stated”—this refers to what was said earlier, “For if angry, he might even cut down a tree.” Even if no harm is done, out of compassion, one may remain silent, but it is not appropriate to say, “Take” and so on.
ID1673
Garubhaṇḍattā…pe… na dātabbanti jīvarukkhānaṃ ārāmaṭṭhāniyattā dārūnañca gehasambhārānupagatattā “sabbaṃ tvameva gaṇhāti dātuṃ na vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ. Akatāvāsaṃ vā katvāti pubbe avijjamānaṃ senāsanaṃ katvā. Jaggitakāleti phalavāre sampatte. Jagganakāleti jaggituṃ āraddhakāle.
“Garubhaṇḍattā… na dātabba” means it is not allowable to give everything, saying “take it all,” due to the substantial nature of cloth-producing trees, monastery land, and timber not suitable for house materials. “Akatāvāsaṃ vā katvā” means making a dwelling where none existed before. “Jaggitakāle” means when the fruit season arrives. “Jagganakāle” means when caretaking begins.
Garubhaṇḍattā…pe… na dātabbanti Because live trees are classified as belonging to the monastery, and wood is not included as material for a dwelling, it is said, “You are taking everything; it is not permissible to give.” Akatāvāsaṃ vā katvāti Making a dwelling where there was none before. Jaggitakāleti When the time for fruiting arrives. Jagganakāleti When the time for caring for it has started.
“Due to being heavy goods… not to be given”—this refers to the trees in the monastery and the timber not meant for household use. It is said, “You may take all of it, but it is not appropriate to give.” “Having made a residence where there was none”—this means having made a dwelling where there was none before. “At the time of guarding”—when the fruit season arrives. “At the time of guarding”—when guarding has begun.
ID1674
256. Ñattikammaṭṭhānabhedeti ñattikammassa ṭhānabhede.
256. “Ñattikammaṭṭhānabhede” means in the distinctions of places for ñattikamma.
256. Ñattikammaṭṭhānabhedeti in the difference of basis for the ñattikamma.
256. “In the differentiation of the basis for motion acts”—this refers to the differentiation of the basis for motion acts.
ID1675
Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is an explanation of the Vinaya compendium,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,
Thus, in the Vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanā, which is the essence of the Vinaya,
ID1676
Kammākammavinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma
This is called the adornment of the discussion on the determination of actions and non-actions,
The chapter called the Ornament of the Discourse on the Determination of Proper and Improper Actions
The chapter on the determination of acts and non-acts is called
ID1677
Tettiṃsatimo paricchedo.
The thirty-third chapter.
The Thirty-third Chapter.
The thirty-third chapter.
ID1678
ID1679
Evaṃ kammākammavinicchayakathaṃ kathetvā idāni pakiṇṇakavinicchayakathaṃ kathetuṃ “idāni pakiṇṇakakathā veditabbā”tiādimāha. Tattha pakārena kiṇṇāti pakiṇṇā, divāseyyāti kathā viya visuṃ visuṃ appavattitvā ekasmiṃyeva paricchede karaṇavasena pavattā gaṇabhojanakathādayo. Pakiṇṇakā sakatthe ka-paccayavasena.
Having discussed the determination of actions and non-actions, now to discuss miscellaneous determinations, it begins with “idāni pakiṇṇakakathā veditabbā” and so forth. Therein, “pakiṇṇā” means scattered in form, like a daytime discourse, not proceeding separately but collectively in one chapter through performance, such as discussions on group meals. “Pakiṇṇakā” uses the “ka” suffix in its own sense.
Having thus spoken the discourse on the determination of proper and improper actions, he now begins with “idāni pakiṇṇakakathā veditabbā”tiādi, to speak the discourse on the determination of miscellaneous matters. Herein, pakiṇṇā means scattered (pakārena kiṇṇā). Not occurring separately, like the discourse on sleeping during the day, but occurring by way of the action within a single chapter, such as the discourse on group meals, etc. Pakiṇṇakā with the suffix ka- in the sense of itself.
Having thus discussed the determination of acts and non-acts, now to discuss the determination of miscellaneous matters, it is said, “Now the miscellaneous discussion should be understood” and so on. Here, “miscellaneous” means scattered, like the discussion on daytime resting, which, though occurring separately, is included in a single chapter for the sake of convenience. “Miscellaneous” is formed with the suffix “ka.”
ID1680
Tatrāyaṃ pakiṇṇakamātikā –
Here is the list of miscellaneous topics—
Here is the miscellaneous outline:
Here is the list of miscellaneous topics—
ID1681
Gaṇabhojanakathā ca, paramparā ca bhojanā; Anāpucchā paṃsukūlaṃ, tato acchinnacīvaraṃ.
Discussion on group meals, successive meals; taking rag-robes without asking, then uncut cloth.
The discourse on group meals, and meals in succession; Unasked-for and refuse-rag [robes], then a robe that has not been lost.
The discussion on group meals, and successive meals; Taking rag-robes without permission, and then uncut cloth.
ID1682
Paṭibhānacittaṃ vippa-katabhojanameva ca; Uddisantuddisāpentā, tivassantarikā tathā.
Improvised recitation, interrupted meals; reciting and having others recite, and three-year intervals.
Intelligent-mind, unfinished meal, and furthermore; Directing and causing to direct, and three-year interval.
The mind of inspiration, and improper food; Those who recite and those who make others recite, and the three-year interval.
ID1683
Dīghāsanaṃ gilānupa-ṭṭhānaṃ maraṇavaṇṇakaṃ; Attapātanamappacca-vekkhitvā nisinnaṃ tathā.
Long seats, attending the sick, praising death; self-destruction, and sitting without reflection.
Long seat, caring for the sick, description of death; Self-destruction, and sitting without having looked.
Long sitting, attending to the sick, and the appearance of death; Self-torment, and sitting without reviewing.
ID1684
Davāya silāvijjhanaṃ, dāyāḷimpanakaṃ tathā; Micchādiṭṭhikulābhataṃ, gopakadānameva ca.
Playing for amusement, scratching stones; forest anointing, and gifts from herders.
For sport, piercing a stone, arson, and moreover; Offered to a family of wrong view, and giving to a cowherd.
Playing, piercing stones, and the gift of a torch; Wrong views, and the gift of a cow.
ID1685
Dhammikāyācanā ceva, uccārādīna chaḍḍanaṃ; Nhāne rukkhaghaṃsanāni, valikādīna dhāraṇaṃ.
Lawful requests, discarding excrement and such; bathing, rubbing trees, wearing sand and such.
A rightful request, and discarding excrement and so on; Bathing, rubbing against trees, wearing garlands, and so forth.
Lawful requests, and the disposal of excrement; Bathing, and damaging trees.
ID1686
Dīghakesā ādāsādi, naccādyaṅgacchedādi ca; Patto sabbapaṃsukūlaṃ, parissavana naggiyaṃ.
Long hair, mirrors and such, dance and limb-cutting and so forth; bowl, all rag-robes, strainer, nakedness.
Long hair, mirror and so on, dancing, limb-cutting, and so on; Bowl, all refuse-rags, straining-cloth, nakedness.
Long hair, mirrors, and dancing; A bowl, all rag-robes, and bathing naked.
ID1687
Gandhapupphaṃ āsittakaṃ, maḷorikekabhājanaṃ; Celapati pādaghaṃsī, bījanī chattameva ca.
Scented flowers, sprinkled water, single vessels in adornment; cloth seats, foot-rubbing, fans, and umbrellas.
Fragrant scents, flowers, sprinkling, and food in one single vessel; rubbing cloth with feet, a whisk, and an umbrella as well.
Perfume, flowers, and a single vessel; A cloth, a foot-wiping cloth, and a seed bag.
ID1688
Nakhālomā kāyabandhā, nivāsanapārupanā; Kāja dantakaṭṭhañceva, rukkhārohanakampi ca.
Nails and body hair, body bindings; undergarments and outer robes; carriers, tooth-sticks, and tree-climbing too.
Nails, body hair, waistbands, under- and outer robes; A carrying pole, tooth-cleaning stick, and also climbing trees.
Nails, hair, body ties, and wearing robes; A comb, a toothpick, and climbing trees.
ID1689
Chandāropā lokāyatā, khipitaṃ lasuṇaṃ tathā; Na akkamitabbādīni, avandiyā ca vandiyā.
Consent procedures, worldly knowledge, garlic thrown away; things not to step on, and those not to revere or to revere.
Proposing dissent, worldly lore, a sneeze, and garlic as well; Things not to be stepped on, and those not to be, and those to be worshipped.
Following one’s desire, worldly arts, and throwing garlic; What should not be stepped on, and what should not be paid respect to.
ID1690
Vandanākārakathā ca, āsandādikathāpi ca; Uccāsanamahāsanaṃ, pāsādaparibhogakaṃ.
Discussion on revering procedures, and on couches and such; high and grand seats, use of palaces.
And the discourse on the manner of worship, and also the discourse on seats and so forth; High seats, great seats, and the use of mansions.
The discussion on paying respect, and the discussion on seats; High seats, great seats, and the enjoyment of a mansion.
ID1691
Upāhanaṃ yānañceva, cīvaraṃ chinnacīvaraṃ; Akappiyacīvarañca, cīvarassa vicāraṇā.
Footwear, vehicles, robes, torn robes; improper robes, and consideration of robes.
Footwear, vehicles, robes, lost robes; Unallowable robes, and the handling of robes.
Footwear, vehicles, and robes; Cut robes, and unallowable robes.
ID1692
Daṇḍakathinakañceva, gahapaticīvaraṃ tathā; Chacīvaraṃ rajanādi, atirekañca cīvaraṃ.
Staff and bowl covers, and lay robes; six robes, dyeing and such, extra robes.
A staff, the kathina, and also a householder’s robe; Six robes, dyeing and so on, and extra robes.
The discussion on staffs, the kathina, and householder’s robes; Six robes, dyeing, and extra robes.
ID1693
Aṭṭhavaraṃ nisīdanaṃ, adhammakammameva ca; Okāso saddhādeyyo ca, santaruttarakopi ca.
Eight choice items, sitting cloths, improper actions; space, offerings of faith, and inner-outer robes too.
The eight blessings, a sitting cloth, and un-Dhamma-like action; Opportunity, an offering of faith, and also inner and outer garments.
Eightfold robes, a sitting cloth, and unlawful acts; Opportunity, a faithful gift, and an inner robe.
ID1694
Cīvaranikkhepo ceva, satthavatthikammaṃ tathā; Nahāpito dasabhāgo, pātheyyaṃ padesopi ca.
Robes deposit, weapon and cloth actions; barbers’ tenth share, provisions, and regions too.
Depositing robes, and the action of a knife and a needle; A barber, a tenth share, travel provisions, and also a region.
The disposal of robes, and the work of tools; A bath, a tenth part, and provisions for a journey.
ID1695
Saṃsaṭṭhaṃ pañcabhesajjaṃ, dutiyaṃ vasā mūlakaṃ; Piṭṭhaṃ kasāva paṇṇañca, phalañca jatu loṇakaṃ.
Association, five medicines, second fat and roots; flour, astringents, leaves, fruits, resin, salt.
Mixed, five medicines, a second [offense], ghee, root; Flour, decoction, leaf, fruit, resin, and salt.
Mixed medicine, the five kinds of medicine, the second being fat and root; flour, dye, leaves, fruits, resin, and salt.
ID1696
Cuṇṇaṃ amanussābādhaṃ, añjanaṃ natthumeva ca; Dhūmanettaṃ telapākaṃ, sedaṃ lohitamocanaṃ.
Powder, non-human afflictions, eye ointments; smoke for eyes, oil cooking, sweat, bloodletting.
Powder, affliction by non-humans, collyrium, and also nasal medication; Smoke-tube, oil-cooking, sweating, blood-letting.
Powder for non-human ailments, ointment, and also nasal treatment; eye smoke, oil preparation, sweat, and bloodletting.
ID1697
Pādabbhañjaṃ gaṇḍābādho, visañca gharadinnako; Duṭṭhagahaṇiko paṇḍu-rogo chavidosopi ca.
Foot massage, boils, poisons, and household gifts; chronic indigestion, jaundice, skin diseases too.
Foot-anointing, affliction of boils, poison, and a gift given indoors; A householder with bad [views], jaundice, and also sixfold emaciation.
Foot ointment, abscess treatment, and poison given in the house; affected by evil spirits, jaundice, and skin diseases.
ID1698
Abhisannadosakāyo, loṇasuvīrako tathā; Antovutthādikathā ca, uggahitapaṭiggaho.
Congested bodily humors, salt and sour milk; indoor living and such, and received learning.
The body afflicted with illness, salty suvīraka, and moreover; And the discourse on what has arisen internally, etc., accepting what has been learnt.
A body afflicted with severe illness, as well as salt and alkali treatments; and the discussion of internal ailments, the acceptance of what is received.
ID1699
Tato nihatakathā ca, purebhattapaṭiggaho; Vanaṭṭhaṃ pokkharaṭṭhañca, tathā akatakappataṃ.
Then bathing discussion, pre-meal acceptance; forest and lotus regions, and unallowable items too.
Then the discourse on what has been destroyed, acceptance before the meal; What is in the forest, what is in the lotus pond, and also that which is not made allowable.
Then the discussion of what is destroyed, the acceptance of food before the meal; forest-dwelling, lotus-root dwelling, and also the unfulfilled duty.
ID1700
Yāgukathā guḷakathā, mahāpadesameva ca; Ānisaṃsakathā ceti, pakiṇṇakamhi āgatā.
Porridge discussion, molasses discussion, great characteristics; benefits discussion, included in the miscellaneous.
The discourse on gruel, the discourse on molasses, and the great standards; The discourse on advantages, these have come under miscellaneous.
The discussion of gruel, the discussion of molasses, and the great authorities; the discussion of benefits, these are included in the miscellaneous section.
ID1701
ID1702
1. Tattha gaṇitabbo saṅkhyātabboti gaṇo, yo koci samūho, idha pana catuvaggādigaṇo adhippeto. Bhuñjate bhojanaṃ, byavaharaṇabhāvasaṅkhātā bhojanakiriyā, gaṇassa bhojanaṃ gaṇabhojanaṃ, tasmiṃ. Gaṇabhojane pācittiyaṃ hotīti ettha janakahetumhi bhummavacanaṃ. Aññatra samayāti gilānādisattavidhaṃ samayaṃ ṭhapetvā. Imassa sikkhāpadassa viññattiṃ katvā bhuñjanavatthusmiṃ paññattattā viññattito gaṇabhojanaṃ vatthuvaseneva pākaṭanti taṃ avatvā “gaṇabhojanaṃ nāma yattha…pe… nimantitā bhuñjantī”ti nimantanavasenevassa padabhājane gaṇabhojanaṃ vuttaṃ. Kiñci pana sikkhāpadaṃ vatthuanurūpampi siyāti “padabhājane vuttanayeneva gaṇabhojanaṃ hotī”ti kesañci āsaṅkā bhaveyyāti tannivattanatthaṃ “gaṇabhojanaṃ dvīhi ākārehi pasavatī”ti vuttaṃ. Ekato gaṇhantīti ettha aññamaññassa dvādasahatthaṃ amuñcitvā ṭhitā ekato gaṇhanti nāmāti gahetabbaṃ. “Amhākaṃ catunnampi bhattaṃ dehī’ti vā viññāpeyyu”nti vacanato, heṭṭhā “tvaṃ ekassa bhikkhuno bhattaṃ dehi, tvaṃ dvinnanti evaṃ viññāpetvā”ti vacanato ca attano atthāya aññena viññattampi sādiyantassa gaṇabhojanaṃ hotiyevāti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Evaṃ viññattito pasavatīti ettha viññattiyā sati gaṇantassa ekato hutvā gahaṇe iminā sikkhāpadena āpatti, visuṃ gahaṇe paṇītabhojanasūpodanaviññattīhi āpatti veditabbā.
1. Therein, “gaṇitabbo saṅkhyātabboti gaṇo” means a group to be counted or reckoned, any kind of assembly, but here it specifically refers to a group of four or more (catuvaggādigaṇo). “Bhuñjate bhojanaṃ” means eating food, the act of eating characterized by the state of consumption. The food of a group is “gaṇabhojanaṃ,” and “tasmiṃ” refers to that context. “Gaṇabhojane pācittiyaṃ hotī” means “In group eating, there is a pācittiya offense,” where the locative case is used for the causal condition. “Aññatra samayā” means “except on specific occasions,” excluding the seven types of occasions such as illness. Since this training rule was established regarding an object eaten after making a request, group eating arising from a request is evident by the object itself, and thus, without stating that, it is said in the analysis of terms (padabhājane) as “gaṇabhojanaṃ nāma yattha…pe… nimantitā bhuñjantī,” defining group eating solely in terms of invitation. However, since some training rules may also conform to their objects, to dispel the doubt of some that “group eating is only as described in the analysis of terms,” it is stated: “gaṇabhojanaṃ dvīhi ākārehi pasavatī” (“Group eating arises in two ways”). “Ekato gaṇhantī” here means “they take together,” implying they stand within twelve hand-spans of each other without separating and take it as a group—this should be understood. From the statement “’Amhākaṃ catunnampi bhattaṃ dehī’ti vā viññāpeyyu”” (“‘Give food for all four of us,’ they might request”) and from the earlier statement “‘tvaṃ ekassa bhikkhuno bhattaṃ dehi, tvaṃ dvinnanti evaṃ viññāpetvā’” (“‘You give food for one monk, you for two,’ having requested thus”), it should be seen that even requesting through another for one’s own benefit results in group eating. “Evaṃ viññattito pasavatī” means “Thus it arises from requesting”; when there is a request and the group takes it together, this training rule incurs an offense, but if taken separately, the offense should be understood as arising from the rules on exquisite food or requesting rice porridge.
1. Therein, gaṇa means countable, referred to as a number, any group, but here it is intended as a group of four or more. Bhuñjate means eating, the act of eating which is known as the state of consumption; gaṇassa bhojanaṃ is gaṇabhojanaṃ, in that. In “Gaṇabhojane pācittiyaṃ hoti”, the locative case is used because of the cause of arising. “Aññatra samayā” means except for the seven types of occasions such as illness, etc. Since this training rule was formulated in respect to the object [of the offence] after requesting [food], gaṇabhojana from the request is evident only in terms of object [of the offence]. That is not stated. “In the gaṇabhojana, that is where…etc… invitees eat,” in the section of word-explanation of that [rule], gaṇabhojana is stated only by way of invitation. However, the training rule is according to the objects [of the offence], “The gaṇabhojana happens only in the way stated in the section of word-explanation,” some may have doubt. For the sake of eliminating that, it is said, “Gaṇabhojanaṃ dvīhi ākārehi pasavati”. Herein “Ekato gaṇhantī”, standing without leaving twelve cubits of each other, they are considered taking together. Because of saying “Give us food for the four of us” or request,” and further down, “Give food to one bhikkhu, you, to two,” requesting in that way, it should be considered that when satisfying even [food] requested by others for one’s own sake, it definitely becomes gaṇabhojana. Herein “Evaṃ viññattito pasavati”, when there is requesting, for those who stand together as a group, taking together [is an offence] by this training rule; taking separately, [there is an] offence should be seen through requesting superior food: soup and curry.
1. Here, “gaṇo” refers to a group or any collection, but in this context, it specifically means a group of four or more. “Bhuñjate” means to eat food, and “bhojanakiriyā” refers to the act of eating. “Gaṇabhojanaṃ” means the eating of food by a group. In the phrase “Gaṇabhojane pācittiyaṃ hotī”, the term “hotī” is used in the locative case to indicate the cause of the offense. “Aññatra samayā” means except during the seven specified occasions, such as illness. Since this rule was established after observing the act of eating in a group, the group meal is evident from the context of the invitation. Without explicitly stating it, the phrase “gaṇabhojanaṃ nāma yattha…pe… nimantitā bhuñjantī” explains that a group meal is defined by the invitation. However, some may doubt whether a rule could be based on the context, so it is stated “gaṇabhojanaṃ dvīhi ākārehi pasavatī” to clarify that a group meal arises in two ways. “Ekato gaṇhantī” means that they hold hands together without letting go, standing close. If they say, “Give food to all four of us,” or if someone instructs, “Give food to one monk, and to two,” and the monk accepts the invitation on behalf of others, it is still considered a group meal. “Evaṃ viññattito pasavatī” means that if the invitation is made, and the group eats together, an offense is incurred under this rule. If they eat separately, offenses under other rules related to special food or rice porridge invitations should be understood.
ID1703
Pañcannaṃ bhojanānaṃ nāmaṃ gahetvāti ettha “bhojanaṃ gaṇhathāti vuttepi gaṇabhojanaṃ hotiyevā”ti vadanti. “Heṭṭhā addhānagamanavatthusmiṃ, nāvābhiruhanavatthusmiñca ’idheva, bhante, bhuñjathā’ti vutte yasmā kukkuccāyantā na paṭiggaṇhiṃsu, tasmā ’bhuñjathā’ti vuttepi gaṇabhojanaṃ hotiyevā”ti tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. “Pañcannaṃ bhojanānaṃ nāmaṃ gahetvā nimantetī”ti vuttattā pana “odanaṃ bhuñjathā”ti vā “bhattaṃ bhuñjathā”ti vā bhojananāmaṃ gahetvāva vutte gaṇabhojanaṃ hoti, na aññathā. “Idheva, bhante, bhuñjathā”ti etthāpi “odana”nti vā “bhatta”nti vā vatvāva te evaṃ nimantesunti gahetabbaṃ. Gaṇavasena vā nimantitattā te bhikkhū apakataññutāya kukkuccāyantā na paṭiggaṇhiṃsūti ayaṃ amhākaṃ khanti, vīmaṃsitvā yuttataraṃ gahetabbaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.217-218) pana “yena kenaci vevacanenāti vuttattā ’bhojanaṃ gaṇhathā’tiādisāmaññanāmenapi gaṇabhojanaṃ hoti. Yaṃ pana pāḷiyaṃ addhānagamanādivatthūsu ’idheva bhuñjathā’ti vuttavacanassa kukkuccāyanaṃ, tampi odanādināmaṃ gahetvā vuttattā eva katanti veditabba”nti vuttaṃ.
“Pañcannaṃ bhojanānaṃ nāmaṃ gahetvā” means “Having specified the names of the five types of food.” Here, they say, “Even if it is said, ‘Take food,’ it still constitutes group eating.” In all three knotty passages (gaṇṭhipadesu), it is stated: “In the cases of traveling a distance or boarding a boat, when it was said, ‘Venerables, eat here,’ because they hesitated out of scruple and did not accept, even when told ‘Eat,’ it still constitutes group eating.” However, since it is said, “‘Pañcannaṃ bhojanānaṃ nāmaṃ gahetvā nimantetī’” (“He invites by specifying the names of the five types of food”), group eating occurs only when the name of the food, such as “odana” (cooked rice) or “bhatta” (meal), is specified, not otherwise. In “‘Idheva, bhante, bhuñjathā’” (“‘Venerables, eat here’”), it should be understood that they invited them by saying “odana” or “bhatta.” Alternatively, due to being invited as a group, those monks, out of ignorance, hesitated and did not accept—this is our preference, but the more reasonable interpretation should be investigated. In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.217-218), it is said: **“‘Yena kenaci vevacanenā’** (‘By any synonymous term’), so even with a general term like ‘bhojanaṃ gaṇhathā’ (‘Take food’), it constitutes group eating. The hesitation in the text regarding the statement ‘idheva bhuñjathā’ in cases like traveling a distance should be understood as having been said with names like ‘odana,’ etc.”
Herein, “Pañcannaṃ bhojanānaṃ nāmaṃ gahetvā”, some say, “Even if one says ‘take food’, it definitely becomes gaṇabhojana.’” “Further down, in the story of traveling, and the story of boarding the ship, since, when they were told, ‘Venerable sirs, eat here,’ they did not accept because of conscience, therefore, even when they are told ‘eat’, it definitely becomes gaṇabhojana,” in three foot-notes it has been stated. However, because it has been stated “Invites taking the name of the five meals,” whether one says, “Eat odana,” or “Eat meal,” only when one speaks taking the name of a meal, it becomes gaṇabhojana, not otherwise. Here also “Venerable sirs, eat here” only by saying “odana” or “meal”, they invite them in that way, it should be taken. Or because they were invited as a group, those bhikkhus, with the nature of being ungrateful, did not accept out of conscience. This is our preference, having examined, the more reasonable should be taken. But, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.217-218) “yena kenaci vevacanenā” because it is stated, even by a general term such as ‘Take food’ etc., it becomes gaṇabhojana. However, in the Pāḷi in the stories of traveling, etc., the qualm of conscience about the statement, ‘Eat here,’ should also be understood as having been done by taking the name of odana, etc.” it is stated.
“Pañcannaṃ bhojanānaṃ nāmaṃ gahetvā” means that even if one simply says, “Take food,” it is still considered a group meal. In cases like traveling or boarding a boat, if someone says, “Eat here, Venerable,” and the monks refuse out of scruple, it is still considered a group meal. The phrase “pañcannaṃ bhojanānaṃ nāmaṃ gahetvā nimantetī” means that if one specifies the type of food, such as “Eat rice” or “Eat meal,” it is a group meal; otherwise, it is not. Even if one says, “Eat here, Venerable,” it must be understood that they are specifying the type of food, such as “rice” or “meal.” The monks refused due to their lack of gratitude, and this is our understanding, but further investigation is needed. In the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.217-218), it is stated “yena kenaci vevacanenā”, meaning that even if one uses a general term like “take food,” it is still a group meal. The hesitation in the Pali texts regarding cases like traveling or boarding a boat is also based on specifying the type of food, such as “rice.”
ID1704
Kurundīvacane vicāretīti pañcakhaṇḍādivasena saṃvidahati. Ghaṭṭetīti anuvātaṃ chinditvā hatthena, daṇḍakena vā ghaṭṭeti. Suttaṃ karotīti suttaṃ vaṭṭeti. Valetīti daṇḍake vā hatthe vā āvaṭṭeti. “Abhinavasseva cīvarassa karaṇaṃ idha cīvarakammaṃ nāma, purāṇacīvare sūcikammaṃ cīvarakammaṃ nāma na hotī”ti vadanti. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.217-218) pana “āgantukapaṭṭanti acchinditvā anvādhiṃ āropetvā karaṇacīvaraṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Ṭhapetīti ekaṃ antaṃ cīvare bandhanavasena ṭhapeti. Paccāgataṃ sibbatīti tasseva dutiyaantaṃ parivattitvā āhataṃ sibbati. Āgantukapaṭṭaṃ bandhatīti cīvarena laggaṃ karonto punappunaṃ tattha tattha suttena bandhati. Ghaṭṭetīti pamāṇena gahetvā daṇḍādīhi ghaṭṭeti. Suttaṃ karotīti suttaṃ tiguṇādibhāvena vaṭṭeti. Valetīti anekaguṇasuttaṃ hatthena vā cakkadaṇḍena vā vaṭṭeti ekattaṃ karoti. Parivattanaṃ karotīti parivattanadaṇḍayantakaṃ karoti. Yasmiṃ suttaguḷaṃ pavesetvā veḷunāḷikādīsu ṭhapetvā paribbhamāpetvā suttakoṭito paṭṭhāya ākaḍḍhantī”ti vuttaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. pācittiya 209-218) na “āgantukapaṭṭaṃ moghasuttena sibbitvā ṭhapenti. Tattha anuvāte yathā ekatalaṃ hoti, tathā hatthehi ghaṭṭeti. Valetīti āvaṭṭeti. Parivattananti suttaṃ gaṇhantānaṃ sukhaggahaṇatthaṃ suttaparivattanaṃ karoti, paṭṭaṃ sibbantānaṃ sukhasibbanatthaṃ paṭṭaparivattanañca, navacīvarakārako idhādhippeto, na itaro”ti vuttaṃ.
In the Kurundī commentary, “vicāretī” means arranging by way of the five sections, etc. “Ghaṭṭetī” means striking with the hand or a stick, cutting off the loose threads. “Suttaṃ karotī” means rolling the thread. “Valetī” means winding it around a stick or hand. They say, “The making of a new robe is called cīvarakammaṃ here; needlework on an old robe is not called cīvarakammaṃ.” In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.217-218), it is said: **“‘Āgantukapaṭṭa’** refers to a robe made by attaching an additional piece without cutting it off. ‘Ṭhapetī’ means securing one end to the robe by binding. ‘Paccāgataṃ sibbatī’ means sewing the other end after folding it back. ‘Āgantukapaṭṭaṃ bandhatī’ means repeatedly binding it with thread here and there while attaching it to the robe. ‘Ghaṭṭetī’ means striking it with a stick, etc., after measuring it. ‘Suttaṃ karotī’ means rolling the thread into a triple strand, etc. ‘Valetī’ means winding the multi-stranded thread with the hand or a spindle to make it uniform. ‘Parivattanaṃ karotī’ means making a turning rod, inserting the thread ball into a bamboo tube or the like, spinning it, and pulling it from the thread’s end.” In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pācittiya 209-218), it is said: “They sew the ‘āgantukapaṭṭa’ with loose thread and secure it. There, they strike it with their hands so it becomes flat. ‘Valetī’ means winding it. ‘Parivattana’ means preparing the thread for easy handling by those taking it or the cloth for easy sewing by those stitching it; a maker of new robes is intended here, not another.”
In Kurundi’s statement vicāretī means arranging in terms of five-sections etc. Ghaṭṭetī means rubbing with hand or with a stick after cutting off along the border. Suttaṃ karotī means he twists the thread. Valetī means he winds it around a stick or hand. “Making of a new robe itself is called cīvarakammaṃ here, the needlework on an old robe is not called cīvarakammaṃ,” they say. But, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.217-218), “āgantukapaṭṭa” is stated, referring to a robe made with extra cloth, put on without being cut. Ṭhapetī means he fixes one end by way of tying it to the robe. Paccāgataṃ sibbatī means he sews that second end, which has been turned and brought. Āgantukapaṭṭaṃ bandhatī means attaching it with the robe, tying it again and again here and there with thread. Ghaṭṭetī means taking it according to the measurement, he rubs it with sticks, etc. Suttaṃ karotī means he twists the thread into three strands, etc. Valetī means he twists the multiple-stranded thread by hand or with a wheeled stick, he makes it into one. Parivattanaṃ karotī means he makes the turning-stick implement. Into that, inserting the thread ball and placing it in bamboo tubes etc., rolling it around, pulling it out starting from the end of the thread,” it is said. In Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pācittiya 209-218) “The āgantukapaṭṭa is fixed after being sewn with empty thread. In that, so that the border becomes single-layered, they rub it with their hands. Valetī means winding. Parivattana means for the easy grasp of those who take the thread, thread-rolling is done; and for the easy sewing of those who sew the cloth, cloth-rolling is also done; the maker of a new robe is meant here, not another.” It is stated.
In the Kurundī, “vicāretī” means to arrange in five sections. “Ghaṭṭetī” means to cut against the grain and strike with the hand or a stick. “Suttaṃ karotī” means to twist the thread. “Valetī” means to twist with a stick or hand. Some say that “cīvarakammaṃ” here refers only to making new robes, not mending old ones. In the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.217-218), “āgantukapaṭṭa” refers to a robe that has been cut and sewn again, referring to a robe being made. “Ṭhapetī” means to fix one end of the robe by tying. “Paccāgataṃ sibbatī” means to sew the other end after turning it. “Āgantukapaṭṭaṃ bandhatī” means to repeatedly tie the robe with thread where it is attached. “Ghaṭṭetī” means to strike with a stick after measuring. “Suttaṃ karotī” means to twist the thread into three strands. “Valetī” means to twist multiple strands of thread with the hand or a wheel stick to make them one. “Parivattanaṃ karotī” means to make a turning stick. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pācittiya 209-218), it is said that “āgantukapaṭṭaṃ” is sewn with a useless thread and left. There, the thread is twisted with the hands so that it becomes single-layered. “Valetī” means to twist. “Parivattana” means to turn the thread for easy handling and to turn the robe for easy sewing. Here, the maker of new robes is intended, not others.
ID1705
Animantitacatutthanti animantito catuttho yassa bhikkhucatukkassa, taṃ animantitacatutthaṃ. Evaṃ sesesupi. Tenāha “pañcannaṃ catukkāna”nti, “catutthe āgate na yāpentīti vacanato sace añño koci āgacchanto natthi, cattāroyeva ca tattha nisinnā yāpetuṃ na sakkonti, na vaṭṭatī”ti vadanti. Gaṇabhojanāpattijanakanimantanabhāvato “akappiyanimantana”nti vuttaṃ. Sampavesetvāti nisīdāpetvā. Gaṇo bhijjatīti gaṇo āpattiṃ na āpajjatīti adhippāyo. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.220) pana “sampavesetvāti tehi yojetvā. Gaṇo bhijjatīti nimantitasaṅgho na hotīti attho”ti vuttaṃ.
“Animantitacatuttha” means the fourth without invitation, referring to a group of four monks where the fourth is uninvited. The same applies to the others. Thus it is said: “‘pañcannaṃ catukkāna’” (“of the five groups of four”), and “since it says ‘they cannot proceed when the fourth arrives,’ if no one else arrives and only four are seated there unable to proceed, it is not allowed.” Due to the nature of the invitation causing the group eating offense, it is called “akappiyanimantana” (“improper invitation”). “Sampavesetvā” means having seated them. “Gaṇo bhijjatī” means the group does not incur an offense—this is the intent. In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.220), it is said: **“‘Sampavesetvā’** means arranging it with them. ‘Gaṇo bhijjatī’ means the invited group is no longer so—this is the meaning.”
Animantitacatuttha means, for that group of four bhikkhus, whose fourth is uninvited. In this way, also in the remaining ones. Therefore he said, “Pañcannaṃ catukkāna” because “When the fourth has arrived, they do not carry on,” they say “If there is no other one who is coming, and only four are sitting there, they are not able to carry on, it is not allowable”. Because of the state of invitation that produces gaṇabhojana, it is said “akappiyanimantana”. Sampavesetvā means making them sit. Gaṇo bhijjatī means the gaṇa does not incur an offense. The intention is. But, in Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.220) “Sampavesetvā means joining them with those. Gaṇo bhijjatī means it does not become the invited saṅgha.” This is the meaning, it is stated.
“Animantitacatuttha” means the fourth monk who is uninvited in a group of four monks. This applies to the rest as well. Therefore, it is said “pañcannaṃ catukkāna”, meaning that if a fourth monk arrives uninvited, and no one else is coming, and the four seated there cannot continue, it is not allowable. Since the group meal offense arises from the invitation, it is called “akappiyanimantana”. “Sampavesetvā” means to seat them. “Gaṇo bhijjatī” means the group does not incur an offense, which is the intention. In the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.220), it is said “sampavesetvā” means to join them. “Gaṇo bhijjatī” means the invited Sangha is no longer considered a group, which is the meaning.
ID1706
“Yattha cattāro bhikkhū…pe… bhuñjantī”ti imāya pāḷiyā saṃsandanato “itaresaṃ pana gaṇapūrako hotī”ti vuttaṃ. Avisesenāti “gilāno vā cīvarakārako vā”ti avisesetvā sabbasādhāraṇavacanena. Tasmāti avisesitattā.
From comparing it with the text “‘Yattha cattāro bhikkhū…pe… bhuñjantī’” (“Where four monks… eat”), it is said: “‘itaresaṃ pana gaṇapūrako hotī’” (“But for the others, it completes the group”). “Avisesenā” means without distinction, using a general statement without specifying “whether sick or a robe-maker.” “Tasmā” means because of this lack of distinction.
Relating to this Pāḷi, “Where four bhikkhus…etc… eat,” it is said, “Itaresaṃ pana gaṇapūrako hotī”. Avisesenā means without differentiating whether “he is sick or making a robe,” with a common statement. Tasmā means because it is not differentiated.
From the phrase “yattha cattāro bhikkhū…pe… bhuñjantī”, it is concluded “itaresaṃ pana gaṇapūrako hotī”, meaning that others complete the group. “Avisesenā” means without distinction, such as “whether sick or robe-makers,” using a general term. “Tasmā” means because of this lack of distinction.
ID1707
Adhivāsetvā gatesūti ettha akappiyanimantanādhivāsanakkhaṇe pubbapayoge dukkaṭampi natthi, viññattito pasavane pana viññattikkhaṇe itarasikkhāpadehi dukkaṭaṃ hotīti gahetabbaṃ. Bhutvā gatesūti ettha āgatesupi bhojanakicce niṭṭhite gaṇhituṃ vaṭṭati. Tāni ca tehi ekato na gahitānīti yehi bhojanehi visaṅketo natthi, tāni bhojanāni tehi bhikkhūhi ekato na gahitāni ekena pacchā gahitattā. Mahāthereti bhikkhū sandhāya vuttaṃ. Nimantanaṃ sādiyathāti nimantanabhattaṃ paṭiggaṇhatha. Yānīti kummāsādīni tehi bhikkhūhi ekena pacchā gahitattā ekato na gahitāni. Bhattuddesakena paṇḍitena bhavitabbaṃ…pe… mocetabbāti etena bhattuddesakena akappiyanimantane sādite sabbesampi sāditaṃ hoti, ekato gaṇhantānaṃ gaṇabhojanāpatti ca hotīti dasseti. Dūtassa dvāre āgantvā puna “bhattaṃ gaṇhathā”ti vacanabhayena “gāmadvāre aṭṭhatvā”ti vuttaṃ. Tattha tattha gantvāti antaravīthiādīsu tattha tattha ṭhitānaṃ santikaṃ gantvā. Bhikkhūnaṃ atthāya gharadvāre ṭhapetvā dīyamānepi eseva nayo. Nivattathāti vutte pana nivattituṃ vaṭṭatīti “nivattathā”ti vicchinditvā pacchā “bhattaṃ gaṇhathā”ti vuttattā vaṭṭati.
“Adhivāsetvā gatesū” means “after accepting and departing”; at the moment of accepting an improper invitation, there is no initial wrongdoing (dukkata), but in the arising from a request, a wrongdoing arises from other training rules at the moment of requesting—this should be understood. “Bhutvā gatesū” means “after eating and departing”; even if they arrive, it is permissible to take it after the eating is complete. “Tāni ca tehi ekato na gahitānī” means “Those foods were not taken together by them,” referring to foods not separated, which were not taken together by those monks because one took them later. “Mahāthere” refers to the monks. “Nimantanaṃ sādiyathā” means “Accept the invitation meal.” “Yānī” refers to foods like rice porridge, etc., not taken together by those monks because one took them later. “Bhattuddesakena paṇḍitena bhavitabbaṃ…pe… mocetabbā” indicates that if the meal distributor, being wise, accepts an improper invitation, it is accepted by all, and for those taking it together, there is a group eating offense. Due to the fear of a messenger arriving at the door and saying again, “Take the meal,” it is said: “‘gāmadvāre aṭṭhatvā’” (“standing at the village gate”). “Tattha tattha gantvā” means going here and there to the monks standing in lanes, etc. Even if it is placed at the house door for the monks’ benefit, the same applies. “Nivattathāti vutte pana nivattituṃ vaṭṭatī” means “But if told ‘return,’ it is permissible to return,” because saying “return” and then “take the meal” afterward makes it allowable.
Herein, Adhivāsetvā gatesū, at the moment of assenting to the improper invitation, there is not even a dukkaṭa in the preliminary practice, but when it arises from a request, at the moment of requesting, there is a dukkaṭa with the other training rules. It should be understood. Herein, Bhutvā gatesū, even if those who arrived, when the eating activity is finished, it is allowable to take. Tāni ca tehi ekato na gahitānī means those foods about which there is no doubt, those foods were not taken together by those bhikkhus, because they were taken later by one. Mahāthere is stated referring to the bhikkhus. Nimantanaṃ sādiyathā means accept the invited meal. Yānī means, like kummāsa etc., those were not taken together by those bhikkhus, as they were taken later by one. By “Bhattuddesakena paṇḍitena bhavitabbaṃ…pe… mocetabbā” with this, the meal-distributor, if the improper invitation is accepted, it is accepted by all, and for those taking together, there is a gaṇabhojana offence, he shows. Because of the fear of the messenger coming to the door and saying again, “Take the meal,” it is said, “Gāmadvāre aṭṭhatvā”. Tattha tattha gantvā means going to the presence of those who are standing here and there in the inner streets etc. It is the same principle even when, establishing [food] at the door of the house for the sake of bhikkhus, it is being given. But when being told “Turn back”, it is allowable to turn back, because being told “Nivattathā,” it is separated, and later being told “Take the meal”, it is allowable.
“Adhivāsetvā gatesū” means that at the time of accepting an improper invitation, there is no offense in the initial act, but if the invitation is made, an offense of wrongdoing is incurred at the moment of invitation under other rules. “Bhutvā gatesū” means that even if they return after the meal is finished, it is still allowable to take food. “Tāni ca tehi ekato na gahitānī” means that the food items, which were not taken together by the monks due to lack of agreement, were taken later by one monk. “Mahāthere” refers to the monks. “Nimantanaṃ sādiyathā” means to accept the invitation meal. “Yānī” refers to items like sour gruel, which were taken later by one monk and not together. “Bhattuddesakena paṇḍitena bhavitabbaṃ…pe… mocetabbā” means that if the meal distributor accepts an improper invitation, all are considered to have accepted it, and those who eat together incur a group meal offense. Out of fear of being told, “Take the meal,” after arriving at the village gate, it is said “gāmadvāre aṭṭhatvā”. “Tattha tattha gantvā” means going to where they are standing in the streets, etc. Even if food is offered at the house door for the monks, the same applies. “Nivattathāti vutte pana nivattituṃ vaṭṭatī” means that if told, “Turn back,” it is allowable to turn back, but if later told, “Take the meal,” it is allowable.
ID1708
ID1709
2. Paramparabhojanakathāyaṃ pana parassa parassa bhojanaṃ paramparabhojanaṃ. Kiṃ taṃ? Paṭhamaṃ nimantitabhattaṃ ṭhapetvā aññassa bhojanakiriyā. Paramparabhojanaṃ gaṇabhojanaṃ viya viññattito ca nimantanato ca na pasavatīti āha “paramparabhojanaṃ panā”tiādi. Pana-saddo visesatthajotako. Vikappanāvaseneva taṃ bhattaṃ asantaṃ nāma hotīti anupaññattivasena vikappanaṃ aṭṭhapetvā yathāpaññattasikkhāpadameva ṭhapitaṃ. Parivāre (pari. 86) pana vikappanāyaṃ anujānanampi anupaññattisadisanti katvā “catasso anupaññattiyo”ti vuttaṃ, mahāpaccariyādīsu vuttanayaṃ pacchā vadanto pāḷiyā saṃsandanato parammukhāvikappanameva patiṭṭhāpeti. Keci pana “tadā attano santike ṭhapetvā bhagavantaṃ aññassa abhāvato thero sammukhāvikappanaṃ nākāsi, bhagavatā ca visuṃ sammukhāvikappanā na vuttā, tathāpi sammukhāvikappanāpi vaṭṭatī”ti vadanti. Teneva mātikāṭṭhakathāyampi (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. paramparabhojanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) “yo bhikkhu pañcasu sahadhammikesu aññatarassa ’mayhaṃ bhattapaccāsaṃ tuyhaṃ dammī’ti vā ’vikappemī’ti vā evaṃ sammukhā vā ’itthannāmassa dammī’ti vā ’vikappemī’ti vā evaṃ parammukhā vā paṭhamanimantanaṃ avikappetvā pacchā nimantitakule laddhabhikkhato ekasitthampi ajjhoharati, pācittiya”nti vuttaṃ.
2. In the discussion on sequential eating (paramparabhojanakathā), “paramparabhojanaṃ” means the eating of one after another. What is it? It is the act of eating another’s food, excluding the initially invited meal. Unlike group eating, sequential eating does not arise from requesting or invitation, thus it says: “paramparabhojanaṃ panā” (“But sequential eating…”), where “pana” indicates a distinction. By implication alone, that meal becomes as if it does not exist, so excluding inference (vikappanā) by way of a non-established rule, only the established training rule remains. In the Parivāra (pari. 86), even allowing inference is treated as similar to a non-established rule, stating “four non-established rules,” and later, aligning with the method in the Mahāpaccarī, etc., it establishes only remote inference (parammukhāvikappana) by comparing it with the text. Some say, “At that time, since there was no one else present with the Blessed One, the elder did not make a direct inference (sammukhāvikappana), and the Blessed One did not separately mention direct inference; still, direct inference is permissible.” Thus, in the commentary on the Mātikā (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. paramparabhojanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), it is said: “A monk who, among five co-religionists, says to one, ‘I give my meal expectation to you’ or ‘I infer it,’ whether directly or remotely by saying ‘I give it to so-and-so’ or ‘I infer it,’ without inferring the initial invitation and then eats even a spoonful from the alms received later in the invited family, incurs a pācittiya.”
2. But in the discussion of paramparabhojana, eating of another after another is paramparabhojanaṃ. What is that? Leaving aside the meal of the first invitation, the activity of eating another. Paramparabhojana does not arise from request and from invitation like gaṇabhojana, thus he says, “Paramparabhojanaṃ panā”, etc. The word Pana indicates the meaning of specification. By way of waiving that meal as not existing, thus by not establishing the waiving by the sub-ordinance, only the training rule as originally laid down, is established. But in the Parivāra (pari. 86), treating even the allowing of this waiving as being like a sub-ordinance, it is said “four sub-ordinances”, the principle stated in the Mahāpaccari, etc., he states later, establishing only the parammukhā waiving from the connection with the Pāḷi. Some, however, say, “At that time, placing it in his own presence, because of the absence of another to the Blessed One, the elder did not make a sammukhā waiving, and by the Blessed One a separate sammukhā waiving was not stated, even so, sammukhā waiving is also allowable.” Therefore, even in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. paramparabhojanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), it is said, “Whatever bhikkhu, towards any one of the five co-religionists, ‘I give my return-meal to you,’ or ‘I waive it’, in this way face-to-face, or ‘I give it to so-and-so,’ or ‘I waive it,’ in this way not face-to-face, without waiving the first invitation, afterwards consumes even a single grain of rice from the alms obtained at the inviting family, there is a pācittiya.”
2. In the discussion on successive meals, “paramparabhojanaṃ” refers to eating food meant for one person after another. What is it? It is the act of eating food intended for someone else after the initial invitation meal. Successive meals, like group meals, do not arise from invitation or announcement, as stated “paramparabhojanaṃ panā”. The word “pana” indicates a specific meaning. The meal becomes invalid through reallocation, and the rule is established based on the original rule. In the Parivāra (pari. 86), reallocation is allowed, similar to a supplementary rule, and it is said, “There are four supplementary rules.” Following the method stated in the Mahāpaccariya, etc., the commentary establishes reallocation as the primary method. Some say that at that time, the elder did not perform reallocation in the presence of the Buddha due to the absence of others, and the Buddha did not separately state reallocation, but reallocation is still allowable. Therefore, in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. paramparabhojanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), it is said, “A monk who, among five fellow monks, says to one, ‘I give my meal to you,’ or ‘I reallocate it,’ either in person or through another, ‘I give it to so-and-so,’ or ‘I reallocate it,’ without reallocating the first invitation, and later eats even a single mouthful from the invited family, commits a pācittiya offense.”
ID1710
Pañcahi bhojanehi nimantitassa yena yena paṭhamaṃ nimantito, tassa tassa bhojanato uppaṭipāṭiyā avikappetvā vā parassa parassa bhojanaṃ paramparabhojananti āha “sace pana mūlanimantanaṃ heṭṭhā hoti, pacchimaṃ pacchimaṃ upari, taṃ uparito paṭṭhāya bhuñjantassa āpattī”ti. Hatthaṃ anto pavesetvā sabbaheṭṭhimaṃ gaṇhantassa majjhe ṭhitampi antohatthagataṃ hotīti āha “hatthaṃ pana…pe… yathā yathā vā bhuñjantassa anāpattī”ti. Khīrassa rasassa ca bhattena amissaṃ hutvā upari ṭhitattā “khīraṃ vā rasaṃ vā pivato anāpattī”ti vuttaṃ.
For one invited with five foods, eating out of order without inferring the food he was first invited with constitutes sequential eating (paramparabhojana), thus it says: “sace pana mūlanimantanaṃ heṭṭhā hoti, pacchimaṃ pacchimaṃ upari, taṃ uparito paṭṭhāya bhuñjantassa āpattī” (“But if the original invitation is below and the later ones above, eating from the top incurs an offense”). If one inserts their hand and takes the lowest one, even what is in the middle becomes included in the hand, thus it says: “hatthaṃ pana…pe… yathā yathā vā bhuñjantassa anāpattī” (“But the hand… however he eats, there is no offense”). Since milk or juice is above and not mixed with the meal, it says: “khīraṃ vā rasaṃ vā pivato anāpattī” (“Drinking milk or juice incurs no offense”).
For one who is invited with the five meals, by whichever one he was first invited, without waiving from the meal of that, successively, eating of another after another is paramparabhojana, he says, “Sace pana mūlanimantanaṃ heṭṭhā hoti, pacchimaṃ pacchimaṃ upari, taṃ uparito paṭṭhāya bhuñjantassa āpattī”. Inserting the hand inside, for one taking what is lowest of all, even what is placed in the middle, becomes within reach of the hand, he said, “Hatthaṃ pana…pe… yathā yathā vā bhuñjantassa anāpattī”. Because the milk and the juice are mixed with the meal, standing above, it is said, “Khīraṃ vā rasaṃ vā pivato anāpattī”.
If one is invited with five types of food, and without reallocating the first invitation, eats food meant for others in succession, it is called successive eating, as stated “sace pana mūlanimantanaṃ heṭṭhā hoti, pacchimaṃ pacchimaṃ upari, taṃ uparito paṭṭhāya bhuñjantassa āpattī”. If one inserts the hand and takes the lowest portion, even if the middle portion is left, it is considered as having taken the inner portion, as stated “hatthaṃ pana…pe… yathā yathā vā bhuñjantassa anāpattī”. Since milk and juice are not mixed with the meal and remain on top, it is said “khīraṃ vā rasaṃ vā pivato anāpattī”.
ID1711
“Mahāupāsakoti gehassāmiko. Mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ ’āpattī’ti vacanena kurundiyaṃ ’vaṭṭatī’ti vacanaṃ viruddhaṃ viya dissati. Dvinnampi adhippāyo mahāpaccariyaṃ vibhāvito”ti mahāgaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ.
“Mahāupāsako” means a great lay follower, a householder. In the great commentary, the statement “there is an offense” seems to contradict the Kurundī’s “it is permissible,” but the intent of both is clarified in the Mahāpaccarī, as stated in the great knotty passage (mahāgaṇṭhipade).
“Mahāupāsako” means the householder. In the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, ‘by saying ‘there is an offence,’ in the Kurundi, the statement ‘it is allowable’ appears to be contradictory. The intention of both has been explained in the Mahāpaccari,” in the Mahāgaṇṭhipada, it is stated.
“Mahāupāsako” means the householder. In the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, the term “āpattī” seems to conflict with the term “vaṭṭatī” in the Kurundī. The intention of both is explained in the Mahāpaccariya.
ID1712
Sabbe nimantentīti akappiyanimantanavasena nimantenti. “Paramparabhojanaṃ nāma pañcannaṃ bhojanānaṃ aññatarena bhojanena nimantito, taṃ ṭhapetvā aññaṃ pañcannaṃ bhojanānaṃ aññataraṃ bhojanaṃ bhuñjati, etaṃ paramparabhojanaṃ nāmā”ti vuttattā satipi bhikkhācariyāya paṭhamaṃ laddhabhāve “piṇḍāya caritvā laddhaṃ bhattaṃ bhuñjati, āpattī”ti vuttaṃ.
“Sabbe nimantentī” means “All invite” with an improper invitation. Since it is said, “Sequential eating (paramparabhojanaṃ nāma) is when one invited with one of the five foods eats another of the five foods instead, this is called sequential eating,” even if alms were received first by begging, it says: “He eats the meal obtained by alms begging, there is an offense.”
Sabbe nimantentī means they invite by way of improper invitation. “The paramparabhojana is, a bhikkhu is invited with one of the five meals, leaving that aside, he eats one of the other five meals; this is called paramparabhojana.” Because of this statement, even though, in the course of alms-round, first obtained, it is stated “Having gone for alms, he eats the obtained meal, there is an offence.”
“Sabbe nimantentī” means they invite through improper invitation. “Successive eating refers to being invited with one of the five types of food and then eating another of the five types of food. Even if a monk first receives alms and then eats the meal, it is an offense,” as stated in the commentary.
ID1713
Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.229) pana “khīraṃ vā rasaṃ vāti pañcabhojanāmissaṃ bhattato upari ṭhitaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Tañhi abhojanattā uppaṭipāṭiyā pivatopi anāpatti. Tenāha ‘bhuñjantenā’tiādī”ti vuttaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. pācittiya 229) pana “ettha ’mahāupāsako bhikkhū nimanteti…pe… pacchā laddhaṃ bhattaṃ bhuñjantassa āpatti. Piṇḍāya caritvā laddhabhattaṃ bhuñjati, āpattī’ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vacanato, ’kālasseva piṇḍāya caritvā bhuñjimhā’ti pāḷito, khandhake ’na ca, bhikkhave, aññatra nimantane aññassa bhojjayāgu paribhuñjitabbā, yo bhuñjeyya, yathādhammo kāretabbo’ti vacanato ca nimantetvā vā pavedetu animantetvā vā, paṭhamagahitanimantitassa bhikkhuno paṭhamanimantanabhojanato aññaṃ yaṃ kiñci parasantakaṃ bhojanaṃ paramparabhojanāpattiṃ karoti. Attano santakaṃ, saṅghagaṇato laddhaṃ vā agahaṭṭhasantakaṃ vaṭṭati, nimantanato paṭhamaṃ nibaddhattā pana niccabhattādiparasantakampi vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ.
In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.229), it is said: **“‘khīraṃ vā rasaṃ vā’** refers to milk or juice above the meal, not mixed with the five foods, meaning there is no offense even if drunk out of order since it is not food. Thus it says: ‘bhuñjantenā’ (‘by one eating’), etc.” In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pācittiya 229), it is said: “Here, from the commentary’s statement ‘A great lay follower invites monks… eating a meal received later incurs an offense; eating a meal obtained by alms begging incurs an offense,’ from the text ‘We ate after begging for alms in the morning,’ and from the Khandhaka’s ‘Monks, except when invited, one should not partake of another’s coarse porridge; one who does should be dealt with according to the rule,’ whether invited and informed or not, a monk invited with an initial meal who eats any other food belonging to another incurs a sequential eating offense. Food owned by oneself or received from the Sangha or a non-householder is permissible, and even perpetual meals from another are allowable if established before the invitation.”
But, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.229) “Khīraṃ vā rasaṃ vā”, mixed with the five meals, it is stated referring to what is standing above the meal. That, because it is not a meal, even if one drinks it out of order, there is no offence. Therefore he said, “Bhuñjantenā” etc., it is stated. But in Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pācittiya 229), “Here, ‘the great lay devotee invites the bhikkhus…etc… afterwards he eats the obtained meal, there is an offence. Having gone for alms he eats the obtained meal, there is an offence.’ By this statement of the commentary, from the Pāḷi ‘We went for alms early in the morning and ate’, and from the Khandhaka, ‘Bhikkhus, a drink other than at an invitation should not be consumed. Whoever would consume, he should be dealt with according to the rule,’ therefore, whether invited or invited beforehand or not invited, any food belonging to another, other than the first-invitation meal of the bhikkhu first invited, creates a paramparabhojana offence. What belongs to oneself, obtained from the saṅgha or a group, or what belongs to a lay person is allowable, but because of being assigned first from the invitation, even the regular meal, etc. belonging to another, is allowable,” it is stated.
In the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.229), it is said “khīraṃ vā rasaṃ vā”, referring to what is placed above the meal among the five types of food. Since it is not food, drinking it in succession is not an offense. Therefore, it is said “bhuñjantenā”, etc. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pācittiya 229), it is said, “Here, ‘the great lay follower invites monks… and later eats the received meal, it is an offense. Eating a meal received after alms-round is an offense,’ as stated in the commentary. From the Pali, ‘we ate after alms-round at the proper time,’ and from the Khandhaka, ‘monks, except when invited, should not eat another’s congee. If one eats, he should be dealt with according to the rule.’ Whether invited or not, if the first monk’s first invitation meal is taken, any other food belonging to others constitutes a successive eating offense. One’s own food, received from the Sangha or not received, is allowable, but if it is regularly given, like a constant meal, it is also allowable.”
ID1714
ID1715
3. Anāpucchākathāyaṃ “pakativacanenāti ettha yaṃ dvādasahatthabbhantare ṭhitena sotuṃ sakkā bhaveyya, taṃ pakativacanaṃ nāma. Āpucchitabboti ’ahaṃ itthannāmassa gharaṃ gacchāmī’ti vā ’cārittakaṃ āpajjāmī’ti vā īdisena vacanena āpucchitabbo. Sesamettha uttānameva. Pañcannaṃ bhojanānaṃ aññatarena nimantanasādiyanaṃ, santaṃ bhikkhuṃ anāpucchā, bhattiyagharato aññagharappavesanaṃ, majjhanhikānatikkamo, samayassa vā āpadānaṃ vā abhāvoti imāni panettha pañca aṅgānī”ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.298) ettakameva vuttaṃ, vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pacittiya 2.298) pana “pariyesitvā ārocanakiccaṃ natthīti vuttattā yo apariyesitabbo upasaṅkamituṃ yuttaṭṭhāne dissati, so sacepi pakativacanassa savanūpacāraṃ atikkamma ṭhito, upasaṅkamitvā āpucchitabbo. Tenāha ‘apica…pe… yaṃ passati, so āpucchitabbo’tiādi. Anāpattivāre cettha antarārāmādīnaññeva vuttattā vihārato gāmavīthiṃ anuññātakāraṇaṃ vinā atikkamantassāpi āpatti hoti, na pana gharūpacāraṃ atikkamantasseva. Yaṃ pana pāḷiyaṃ ’aññassa gharūpacāraṃ okkamantassa…pe… paṭhamapādaṃ ummāraṃ atikkāmetī’tiādi vuttaṃ, taṃ gāme paviṭṭhaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, tathāpi aññassa gharūpacāraṃ anokkamitvā vīthimajjheneva gantvā icchiticchitagharadvārābhimukhe ṭhatvā manusse oloketvā gacchantassapi pācittiyameva. Tattha keci ’vīthiyaṃ atikkamantassa gharūpacāragaṇanāya āpattiyo’ti vadanti. Aññe pana ’yāni kulāni uddissa gato, tesaṃ gaṇanāyā’ti. Pañcannaṃ bhojanānaṃ aññatarena nimantanasādiyanaṃ, santaṃ bhikkhuṃ anāpucchanā, bhattiyagharato aññagharūpasaṅkamanaṃ, majjhanhikānatikkamo, samayāpadānaṃ abhāvoti imānettha pañca aṅgānī”ti. Vikālagāmappavesanepi “aparikkhittassa gāmassa upacāro adinnādāne vuttanayeneva veditabbo”ti iminā dutiyaleḍḍupāto idha upacāroti dasseti. Sesamettha uttānameva. Santaṃ bhikkhuṃ anāpucchanā, anuññātakāraṇābhāvo, vikāle gāmappavesananti imāni panettha tīṇi aṅgāni.
3. In the discussion on not asking permission (anāpucchākathā), “pakativacanenā” means with natural speech, referring to what could be heard by someone standing within twelve hand-spans. “Āpucchitabbo” means “he should be asked,” with words such as “I am going to so-and-so’s house” or “I am engaging in an errand,” or similar statements. The rest here is clear. In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.298), only this much is said: “Accepting an invitation with one of the five foods, not asking a present monk, entering another house from the meal house, not exceeding midday, and the absence of a specific occasion or emergency—these are the five factors here.” In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.298), it is said: “‘pariyesitvā ārocanakiccaṃ natthī’** (‘There is no duty to search and inform’), so one who need not be searched for and is seen in a suitable place to approach, even if standing beyond the range of hearing natural speech, should be approached and asked. Thus it says: ‘apica…pe… yaṃ passati, so āpucchitabbo’ (‘Moreover… whoever he sees, he should be asked’), etc. In the section on non-offenses, since only monastery interiors and the like are mentioned, there is an offense for one who leaves the monastery for the village street without an authorized reason, but not merely for exceeding a house’s boundary. What is said in the text, ‘Entering another house’s boundary… when the first foot crosses the threshold,’ etc., refers to one who has entered the village; even so, going along the middle of the street without entering another house’s boundary, standing facing desired house doors, looking at people, and departing still incurs a pācittiya. Some say, ‘There are offenses based on the number of house boundaries crossed on the street,’ while others say, ‘Based on the number of families he intended to visit.’ Accepting an invitation with one of the five foods, not asking a present monk, approaching another house from the meal house, not exceeding midday, and the absence of a specific occasion or emergency—these are the five factors here.” In the case of entering a village at an improper time, ”‘aparikkhittassa gāmassa upacāro adinnādāne vuttanayeneva veditabbo’“** (”The boundary of an unenclosed village should be understood as stated in the rule on taking what is not given”) indicates that the second stone-throw distance is the boundary here. The rest is clear. Not asking a present monk, absence of an authorized reason, and entering a village at an improper time—these are the three factors here.
3. In the discourse on not asking permission, “by ordinary speech” here means that which can be heard by one standing within twelve cubits, that is called ordinary speech. One should be asked means one should be asked with a statement like, ‘I am going to the house of so-and-so,’ or ‘I am undertaking a journey.’ The rest here is clear. In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.298) it is only said this much: “The five factors here are: having accepted an invitation for one of the five kinds of food, not asking permission from a present monk, entering a house other than the one of the meal invitation, passing midday, and the absence of a specified time or emergency”. However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pacittiya 2.298), since it is said, “There is no need to investigate and inform”, whoever is seen in a place appropriate to approach and is not to be investigated, even if he is standing beyond the range of hearing ordinary speech, should be approached and asked for permission. Therefore, it says, ‘But… etc. … whoever he sees, he should ask’. In the non-offense section, since only inner monasteries and so forth are mentioned, there is an offense even for one who goes beyond the village street from the monastery without a permitted reason, but not just for one who goes beyond the vicinity of a house. However, it is stated in the Pāḷi, ‘For one entering the vicinity of another’s house…etc… when he lifts his first foot over the threshold’, which is said with reference to entering the village. Even so, for one who, without entering the vicinity of another’s house, goes by the middle of the street, stands facing the door of the desired house, looks at the people, and then goes, there is still a pācittiya. Here, some say, ‘There are offenses according to the number of house vicinities while passing through the street’. Others, however, say, ‘It is according to the number of families that he intended to visit’. The five factors here are: having accepted an invitation for one of the five types of food, not asking a present monk, entering a house other than the meal invitation, passing midday, and the absence of time or emergency.” In the case of entering a village at the wrong time, the statement “The vicinity of a fortified village should be understood in the same way as mentioned in the case of taking what is not given” indicates that the vicinity here is the second leḍḍupāta. The rest here is clear. The three factors here are: not asking a present monk, the absence of a permitted reason, and entering a village at the wrong time.
3. In the discussion on not asking for permission, “pakativacanenā” means here that which can be heard by one standing within a distance of twelve hands; this is called natural speech. Āpucchitabbo means one should ask for permission by saying, “I am going to the house of so-and-so,” or “I am going to perform such-and-such a duty.” The rest here is clear. Regarding the acceptance of an invitation for any of the five kinds of food, entering another house from the house where alms are received without asking permission from a bhikkhu who is present, passing the midday, or the absence of a proper time or emergency—these are the five factors here. This is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Pācittiya 3.298). However, in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Pācittiya 2.298), it is said, “pariyesitvā ārocanakiccaṃ natthī”, meaning there is no need to search for someone to inform. Therefore, even if one goes beyond the range of natural speech, one should approach and ask for permission. Hence it is said, ‘apica…pe… yaṃ passati, so āpucchitabbo’ and so on. In the section on non-offenses, since it is stated that even for those who pass through the monastery grounds without permission, an offense is incurred, but not for merely passing by a house. However, what is stated in the Pāli, “entering the vicinity of another’s house… passing beyond the threshold,” refers to entering a village. Even so, if one walks through the middle of the street without entering another’s house, stands facing the desired house door, looks at the people, and then leaves, it is still a pācittiya offense. Some say that offenses are counted based on passing by houses in the street. Others say that the counting is based on the households one intends to visit. Regarding the acceptance of an invitation for any of the five kinds of food, not asking permission from a bhikkhu who is present, entering another house from the house where alms are received, passing the midday, or the absence of a proper time or emergency—these are the five factors here. Even in entering a village at an improper time, “aparikkhittassa gāmassa upacāro adinnādāne vuttanayeneva veditabbo”, meaning the approach to an unenclosed village should be understood in the same way as stated in the section on stealing. The second blow of the stick here indicates the approach. The rest is clear. Not asking permission from a bhikkhu who is present, the absence of permission, and entering a village at an improper time—these are the three factors here.
ID1716
ID1717
4. Paṃsukūlakathāyaṃ abhinne sarīreti abbhuṇhe allasarīre. “Abbhuṇhe”ti imināpi vuttameva pariyāyabhedamantarena vibhāvetuṃ “allasarīre”ti vuttaṃ.
4. In the discussion on rag-robes (paṃsukūlakathā), “abhinne sarīre” means on an intact body, a moist body (allasarīre). By saying “abbhuṇhe” (warm), it is further clarified with a synonym as “allasarīre” (moist body), without altering the meaning.
4. In the discourse on the dust-heap cloth, “on an intact body” means on a fresh, moist body. Since “fresh” is already mentioned, “on a moist body” is said to clarify it, differentiating it by way of synonym.
4. In the discussion on rag-robes, abhinne sarīre means a fresh, unbroken body. The term “abbhuṇhe” is used to clarify the meaning through different expressions, hence “allasarīre” is stated.
ID1718
Visabhāgasarīreti itthisarīre. Visabhāgasarīrattā accāsannena na bhavitabbanti āha “sīse vā”tiādi. Vaṭṭatīti visabhāgasarīrepi attanāva vuttavidhiṃ kātuṃ sāṭakañca gahetuṃ vaṭṭati . Keci pana “kiñcāpi iminā sikkhāpadena anāpatti, itthirūpaṃ pana āmasantassa dukkaṭa”nti vadanti. “Yathākammaṃ gatoti tato petattabhāvato matabhāvaṃ dasseti. Abbhuṇheti āsannamaraṇatāya sarīrassa uṇhasamaṅgitaṃ dasseti, tenevāha ‘allasarīre’ti. Kuṇapasabhāvaṃ upagatampi bhinnameva allabhāvato bhinnattā. Visabhāgasarīreti itthisarīre. ‘Sīse vā’tiādi adhakkhake ubbhajāṇumaṇḍale padese cittavikārappattiṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, yattha katthaci anāmasantena kataṃ sukatameva. Matasarīrampi hi yena kenaci ākārena sañcicca phusantassa anāmāsadukkaṭamevāti vadanti, taṃ yuttameva. Na hi apārājikavatthukepi cittādiitthirūpe bhavantaṃ dukkaṭaṃ pārājikavatthubhūte matitthisarīre nivattatī”ti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.135) vutta.
“Visabhāgasarīre” means on a dissimilar body, a woman’s body. Due to it being dissimilar, one should not be too close, thus it says: “‘sīse vā’” (“on the head or”), etc. “Vaṭṭatī” means it is permissible to perform the described method oneself and take the cloth even on a dissimilar body. Some say, “Although there is no offense under this training rule, touching a woman’s form incurs a dukkata.” “‘Yathākammaṃ gato’” indicates death from that state, referring to the state of a departed being (peta). “Abbhuṇhe” shows the body’s warmth due to impending death, thus it says: “allasarīre”. Even a body that has become a corpse is considered intact due to its moist state, hence distinct. “Visabhāgasarīre” means a woman’s body. “‘Sīse vā’”, etc., refers to areas like above the knees or below the collarbone where mental disturbance might arise; if done anywhere without touching, it is well done. They say that even intentionally touching a dead body in any way incurs only a dukkata for non-contact, which is reasonable. For even in cases not involving a pārājika offense, a dukkata arising from mental inclination toward a woman’s form does not cease in the case of a dead woman’s body, which is a basis for a pārājika,” as stated in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.135).
On a dissimilar body means on the body of a woman. Because it is a dissimilar body, one should not be too close, therefore it says, “on the head or…” etc. It is permissible means that even on a dissimilar body, it is permissible to perform the stated procedure by oneself and also to take the cloth. Some, however, say, “Although there is no offense according to this training rule, there is a dukkaṭa for touching a woman’s form.” “Having gone according to his kamma” indicates the dead state, which is from the state of being a departed spirit. Fresh indicates that the body is still warm due to recent death, hence it says, ‘on a moist body’. Even when it has attained the state of a corpse, it is still considered fresh because it is different from the moist state due to being decomposed. On a dissimilar body means on a woman’s body. ‘On the head or’ etc. is said in reference to causing mental disturbance in the lower leg or above the knee areas. Whatever is done anywhere without touching is well-done. Indeed, even touching a corpse deliberately in any way incurs a dukkaṭa of touching what is not to be touched, they say, and that is correct. In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.135) it is said “For even in the cases of apārājika, a dukkaṭa occurs regarding the mind and form of a woman, this dukkaṭa does not cease concerning a dead woman’s body which has become the object of pārājika.”.
Visabhāgasarīre means a female body. Due to the dissimilarity of the body, one should not be too close, hence it is said, “sīse vā” and so on. Vaṭṭatī means even in the case of a dissimilar body, one may follow the prescribed method and take the robe. Some, however, say, “Although there is no offense under this training rule, touching a female form incurs a dukkaṭa offense.” “Yathākammaṃ gato” indicates the state of being a ghost after death. Abbhuṇhe indicates the warmth of the body due to nearness to death, hence it is said, ‘allasarīre’. Even though it has the nature of a corpse, it is still considered unbroken due to its freshness. Visabhāgasarīre means a female body. ‘Sīse vā’ and so on refer to areas below the knee and above the thigh, where mental disturbance may arise. It is well done if one does not touch these areas. Even in the case of a dead body, intentionally touching it in any way incurs a dukkaṭa offense. This is reasonable, for even in cases not involving a pārājika offense, a dukkaṭa offense arises for touching a living female form, but not for a dead female body. This is stated in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.135).
ID1719
Imasmiṃ ṭhāne ācariyena avuttāpi paṃsukūlakathā paṃsukūlasāmaññena veditabbā. Sā hi cīvarakkhandhake (mahāva. 340) evaṃ āgatā “tena kho pana samayena ye te bhikkhū gahapaticīvaraṃ sādiyanti, te kukkuccāyantā paṃsukūlaṃ na sādiyanti ’ekaṃyeva bhagavatā cīvaraṃ anuññātaṃ, na dve’ti. Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ – anujānāmi, bhikkhave, gahapaticīvaraṃ sādiyantena paṃsukūlampi sādiyituṃ, tadubhayenapāhaṃ, bhikkhave, santuṭṭhiṃ vaṇṇemī”ti. Tattha “ekaṃyeva bhagavatā cīvaraṃ anuññātaṃ, na dveti te ’kira itarītarena cīvarenā’ti etassa ’gahapatikena vā paṃsukūlena vā’ti evaṃ atthaṃ sallakkhiṃsu. Tattha pana itarītarenapīti appagghenapi mahagghenapi yena kenacīti attho”ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vutto, tasmā dhutaṅgaṃ asamādiyitvā vinayapaṃsukūlamattasādiyakena bhikkhunā gahapaticīvarampi sāditabbaṃ hoti, paṃsukūladhutaṅgadharassa pana gahapaticīvaraṃ na vaṭṭati “gahapaticīvaraṃ paṭikkhipāmi, paṃsukūlikaṅgaṃ samādiyāmī”ti samādānatoti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
At this point, though not mentioned by the teacher, the discussion on rag-robes (paṃsukūlakathā) should be understood under the general category of rag-robes. It is presented in the Cīvarakkhandhaka (mahāva. 340) as follows: “At that time, those monks who accepted householders’ robes hesitated to accept rag-robes out of scruple, thinking, ‘The Blessed One has allowed only one type of robe, not two.’ They reported this to the Blessed One. ‘I allow, monks, one who accepts householders’ robes to also accept rag-robes; I praise contentment with both, monks.’” Therein, “‘ekaṃyeva bhagavatā cīvaraṃ anuññātaṃ, na dve’” means they understood the phrase “with one or the other robe” as “with a householder’s or a rag-robe,” interpreting it thus. In the commentary, it is said: “‘itarītarenapī’” means “with any robe, whether of little or great value.” Therefore, a monk who accepts only disciplinary rag-robes without undertaking the austerity (dhutaṅga) should also accept householders’ robes, but for one bearing the rag-robe austerity, householders’ robes are not permissible due to the undertaking: “I reject householders’ robes; I undertake the rag-robe practice”—this should be understood.
At this point, even the discourse on dust-heap cloth, though not mentioned by the teacher, should be understood with reference to the common features of dust-heap cloths. Indeed, it comes thus in the Cīvarakkhandhaka (mahāva. 340): “At that time, those monks who accepted householders’ robes, being scrupulous, did not accept dust-heap cloths, thinking, ‘Only one robe is allowed by the Blessed One, not two.’ They reported this matter to the Blessed One. – ‘Monks, I allow one who accepts a householder’s robe to also accept a dust-heap cloth; I praise contentment, monks, with both of these.’ There, ”Only one robe is allowed by the Blessed One, not two”, they understood this to mean, ‘with one or the other robe,’ taking it as ‘either by a householder or by a dust-heap cloth.’ There, however, in the commentary, it is said that ”even with one or the other” means, ‘with any whatsoever, whether of low or high value.’ Therefore, a monk who accepts only the Vinaya’s allowance for dust-heap cloths without undertaking the dhutaṅga practice, should also accept a householder’s robe. But for one who upholds the dhutaṅga of dust-heap cloth, a householder’s robe is not permissible, since it should be understood that he has made the undertaking”I reject a householder’s robe, I undertake the practice of using dust-heap cloths.”
In this context, although the teacher did not mention the discussion on rag-robes, it should be understood in terms of the general practice of rag-robes. This is found in the Cīvarakkhandhaka (Mahāva. 340) as follows: “At that time, bhikkhus who accepted householder robes were hesitant to accept rag-robes, thinking, ‘The Blessed One has allowed only one robe, not two.’ They reported this matter to the Blessed One. The Blessed One said, ‘I allow, bhikkhus, those who accept householder robes to also accept rag-robes. I praise contentment with both.’ Here, “ekaṃyeva bhagavatā cīvaraṃ anuññātaṃ, na dve”, they understood this to mean either a householder robe or a rag-robe. Itarītarenapī means whether of little value or great value, whatever it may be. This is stated in the commentary. Therefore, a bhikkhu who does not undertake the dhutaṅga practice but merely accepts rag-robes according to the Vinaya may also accept householder robes. However, for one who undertakes the rag-robe dhutaṅga, householder robes are not allowed, as they have vowed, ‘I reject householder robes and undertake the rag-robe practice.’ This should be understood.
ID1720
Tena kho pana samayena sambahulā bhikkhū kosalesu janapadesu addhānamaggappaṭipannā honti. Ekacce bhikkhū susānaṃ okkamiṃsu paṃsukūlāya, ekacce bhikkhū nāgamesuṃ. Ye te bhikkhū susānaṃ okkamiṃsu paṃsukūlāya, te paṃsukūlāni labhiṃsu. Ye te bhikkhū nāgamesuṃ, te evamāhaṃsu “amhākampi, āvuso, bhāgaṃ dethā”ti. Te evamāhaṃsu “na mayaṃ, āvuso, tumhākaṃ bhāgaṃ dassāma, kissa tumhe nāgamitthā”ti. Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ – anujānāmi, bhikkhave, nāgamentānaṃ nākāmā bhāgaṃ dātunti. Tattha nāgamesunti yāva te susānato āgacchanti, tāva te na acchiṃsu, pakkamiṃsuyeva. Nākāmā bhāgaṃ dātunti na anicchāya dātuṃ. Yadi pana icchanti, dātabbo.
At that time, several monks were traveling along a highway in the Kosala region. Some monks entered a cemetery for rag-robes, while others waited. Those who entered the cemetery obtained rag-robes, while those who waited said, “Friends, give us a share too.” They replied, “Friends, we won’t give you a share; why didn’t you wait?” They reported this to the Blessed One. “I allow, monks, those who do not wait to give a share if they are unwilling.” Therein, “nāgamesu” means they did not remain until the others returned from the cemetery but left instead. “Nākāmā bhāgaṃ dātu” means not to give a share unwillingly; if they wish, it may be given.
At that time, a number of monks were traveling on a highway in the Kosala country. Some monks entered a charnel ground for dust-heap cloths; some monks did not go along. Those monks who entered the charnel ground for dust-heap cloths obtained dust-heap cloths. Those monks who did not go along said thus: “Give us a share too, friends.” They said thus: “We will not give you a share, friends. Why did you not come along?” They reported this matter to the Blessed One. – ‘Monks, I allow giving a share, even against their will, to those who did not go along’. There, did not go along means that until they returned from the cemetery, they did not wait, but they just left. To give a share even against their will means not to give against one’s wish. But if they are willing, it should be given.
At that time, several bhikkhus were traveling on a road in the Kosala country. Some bhikkhus entered a charnel ground for rag-robes, while others did not enter. Those who entered the charnel ground obtained rag-robes. Those who did not enter said, ‘Friends, give us a share.’ They replied, ‘We will not give you a share, why did you not enter?’ They reported this matter to the Blessed One. The Blessed One said, ‘I allow, bhikkhus, to give a share to those who did not enter, but not unwillingly.’ Here, nāgamesu means they did not wait until the others returned from the charnel ground but left immediately. Nākāmā bhāgaṃ dātu means not giving unwillingly. If they wish, they may give.
ID1721
Tena kho pana samayena sambahulā bhikkhū kosalesu janapadesu addhānamaggappaṭipannā honti. Ekacce bhikkhū susānaṃ okkamiṃsu paṃsukūlāya, ekacce bhikkhū āgamesuṃ. Ye te bhikkhū susānaṃ okkamiṃsu paṃsukūlāya, te paṃsukūlāni labhiṃsu. Ye te bhikkhū āgamesuṃ, te evamāhaṃsu “amhākampi, āvusā,e bhāgaṃ dethā”ti. Te evamāhaṃsu “na mayaṃ, āvuso, tumhākaṃ bhāgaṃ dassāma, kissa tumhe na okkamitthā”ti. Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ – anujānāmi, bhikkhave, āgamentānaṃ akāmā bhāgaṃ dātunti.
At that time, several monks were traveling along a highway in the Kosala region. Some monks entered a cemetery for rag-robes, while others waited. Those who entered obtained rag-robes, while those who waited said, “Friends, give us a share too.” They replied, “Friends, we won’t give you a share; why didn’t you enter?” They reported this to the Blessed One. “I allow, monks, those who wait to give a share if they are unwilling.”
At that time, a number of monks were traveling on a highway in the Kosala country. Some monks entered a charnel ground for dust-heap cloths; some monks waited. Those monks who entered the charnel ground for dust-heap cloths obtained dust-heap cloths. Those monks who waited said thus: “Give us a share too, friends.” They said thus: “We will not give you a share, friends. Why did you not enter?” They reported this matter to the Blessed One. – ‘Monks, I allow giving a share, against their will, to those who waited’.
At that time, several bhikkhus were traveling on a road in the Kosala country. Some bhikkhus entered a charnel ground for rag-robes, while others arrived later. Those who entered the charnel ground obtained rag-robes. Those who arrived later said, ‘Friends, give us a share.’ They replied, ‘We will not give you a share, why did you not enter earlier?’ They reported this matter to the Blessed One. The Blessed One said, ‘I allow, bhikkhus, to give a share to those who arrived later, but not unwillingly.’
ID1722
Tena kho pana samayena sambahulā bhikkhū kosalesu janapadesu addhānamaggappaṭipannā honti. Ekacce bhikkhū paṭhamaṃ susānaṃ okkamiṃsu paṃsukūlāya, ekacce bhikkhū pacchā okkamiṃsu. Ye te bhikkhū paṭhamaṃ susānaṃ okkamiṃsu paṃsukūlāya, te paṃsukūlāni labhiṃsu. Ye te bhikkhū pacchā okkamiṃsu, te na labhiṃsu. Te evamāhaṃsu “amhākampi, āvuso, bhāgaṃ dethā”ti. Te evamāhaṃsu “na mayaṃ, āvuso, tumhākaṃ bhāgaṃ dassāma, kissa tumhe pacchā okkamitthā”ti. Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ – anujānāmi, bhikkhave, pacchā okkantānaṃ nākāmā bhāgaṃ dātunti.
At that time, several monks were traveling along a highway in the Kosala region. Some monks entered a cemetery for rag-robes first, while others entered later. Those who entered first obtained rag-robes, while those who entered later did not. The latter said, “Friends, give us a share too.” They replied, “Friends, we won’t give you a share; why did you enter later?” They reported this to the Blessed One. “I allow, monks, those who enter later to give a share if they are unwilling.”
At that time, a number of monks were traveling on a highway in the Kosala country. Some monks first entered a charnel ground for dust-heap cloths; some monks entered later. Those monks who first entered the charnel ground for dust-heap cloths obtained dust-heap cloths. Those monks who entered later did not obtain any. They said thus: “Give us a share too, friends.” They said thus: “We will not give you a share, friends. Why did you enter later?” They reported this matter to the Blessed One. – ‘Monks, I allow giving a share, even against their will, to those who entered later’.
At that time, several bhikkhus were traveling on a road in the Kosala country. Some bhikkhus entered a charnel ground first for rag-robes, while others entered later. Those who entered first obtained rag-robes. Those who entered later did not obtain any. They said, ‘Friends, give us a share.’ They replied, ‘We will not give you a share, why did you enter later?’ They reported this matter to the Blessed One. The Blessed One said, ‘I allow, bhikkhus, to give a share to those who entered later, but not unwillingly.’
ID1723
Tena kho pana samayena sambahulā bhikkhū kosalesu janapadesu addhānamaggappaṭipannā honti. Te sadisā susānaṃ okkamiṃsu paṃsukūlāya. Ekacce bhikkhū paṃsukūlāni labhiṃsu, ekacce bhikkhū na labhiṃsu. Ye te bhikkhū na labhiṃsu, te evamāhaṃsu “amhākampi, āvuso, bhāgaṃ dethā”ti. Te evamāhaṃsu “na mayaṃ, āvuso, tumhākaṃ bhāgaṃ dassāma, kissa tumhe na labhitthā”ti. Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ – anujānāmi, bhikkhave, sadisānaṃ okkantānaṃ akāmā bhāgaṃ dātunti.
At that time, several monks were traveling along a highway in the Kosala region. They all entered a cemetery for rag-robes together. Some monks obtained rag-robes, while others did not. Those who did not said, “Friends, give us a share too.” They replied, “Friends, we won’t give you a share; why didn’t you obtain any?” They reported this to the Blessed One. “I allow, monks, those who enter together to give a share if they are unwilling.”
At that time, a number of monks were traveling on a highway in the Kosala country. They entered a charnel ground together for dust-heap cloths. Some monks obtained dust-heap cloths; some monks did not obtain any. Those monks who did not obtain any said thus: “Give us a share too, friends.” They said thus: “We will not give you a share, friends. Why did you not obtain any?” They reported this matter to the Blessed One. – ‘Monks, I allow giving a share, against their will, to those who entered together’.
At that time, several bhikkhus were traveling on a road in the Kosala country. They entered a charnel ground together for rag-robes. Some bhikkhus obtained rag-robes, while others did not. Those who did not obtain any said, ‘Friends, give us a share.’ They replied, ‘We will not give you a share, why did you not obtain any?’ They reported this matter to the Blessed One. The Blessed One said, ‘I allow, bhikkhus, to give a share to those who entered together, but not unwillingly.’
ID1724
Tattha āgamesunti upacāre acchiṃsu. Tenāha bhagavā “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, āgamentānaṃ akāmā bhāgaṃ dātu”nti. Upacāreti susānassa āsannappadese. Yadi pana manussā “idhāgatā eva gaṇhantū”ti denti, saññāṇaṃ vā katvā gacchanti “sampattā gaṇhantū”ti . Sampattānaṃ sabbesampi pāpuṇāti. Sace chaḍḍetvā gatā, yena gahitaṃ, so eva sāmī. Sadisā susānaṃ okkamiṃsūti sabbe samaṃ okkamiṃsu, ekadisāya vā okkamiṃsūtipi attho.
Therein, “āgamesu” means they remained at the boundary. Thus the Blessed One said, “I allow, monks, those who wait to give a share if they are unwilling.” “Upacāre” means at a place near the cemetery. If people say, “Let those who come here take it,” or leave a sign and depart saying, “Let those who arrive take it,” it is available to all who arrive. If they abandon it and leave, whoever takes it becomes the owner. “Sadisā susānaṃ okkamiṃsū” means they all entered together, or it can mean they entered from the same direction.
There, waited means that they stayed in the vicinity. Therefore, the Blessed One said, “I allow, monks, giving a share, against their will, to those who waited.” In the vicinity means in a place close to the charnel ground. But if people give saying, “Let only those who have come here take,” or if they leave having made a sign saying, “Let those who arrive take”. It belongs to all who arrive. If they have discarded and gone, whoever has taken it is the owner. They entered the charnel ground together means they all entered at the same time; or it also means they entered from the same direction.
Here, āgamesu means they waited nearby. Hence the Blessed One said, ‘I allow, bhikkhus, to give a share to those who arrived, but not unwillingly.’ Upacāre means near the charnel ground. If people say, ‘Let those who come here take,’ or they leave after making a sign, ‘Let those who arrive take,’ then it reaches all who arrive. If they leave after discarding, whoever takes it becomes the owner. Sadisā susānaṃ okkamiṃsū means they all entered equally, or some entered in a similar manner.
ID1725
Tena kho pana samayena sambahulā bhikkhū kosalesu janapadesu addhānamaggappaṭipannā honti. Te katikaṃ katvā susānaṃ okkamiṃsu paṃsukūlāya. Ekacce bhikkhū paṃsukūlāni labhiṃsu, ekacce bhikkhū na labhiṃsu. Ye te bhikkhū na labhiṃsu, te evamāhaṃsu “amhākampi, āvuso, bhāgaṃ dethā”ti. Te evamāhaṃsu “na mayaṃ, āvuso, tumhākaṃ bhāgaṃ dassāma, kissa tumhe na labhitthā”ti. Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ – anujānāmi, bhikkhave, katikaṃ katvā okkantānaṃ akāmā bhāgaṃ dātunti. Tattha te katikaṃ katvāti “laddhaṃ paṃsukūlaṃ sabbe bhājetvā gaṇhissāmā”ti bahimeva katikaṃ katvā. Chaḍḍetvā gatāti kiñci avatvāyeva chaḍḍetvā gatā. Etena “bhikkhū gaṇhantū”ti chaḍḍite eva akāmā bhāgadānaṃ vihitaṃ, kevalaṃ chaḍḍite pana katikāya asati ekato bahūsu paviṭṭhesu yena gahitaṃ, tena akāmā bhāgo na dātabboti dasseti. Samānā disā puratthimādibhedā etesanti sadisāti āha “ekadisāya vā okkamiṃsū”ti.
At that time, several monks were traveling along a highway in the Kosala region. They made an agreement and entered a cemetery for rag-robes. Some monks obtained rag-robes, while others did not. Those who did not said, “Friends, give us a share too.” They replied, “Friends, we won’t give you a share; why didn’t you obtain any?” They reported this to the Blessed One. “I allow, monks, those who enter with an agreement to give a share if they are unwilling.” Therein, “te katikaṃ katvā” means they made an agreement beforehand, saying, “We will divide and take whatever rag-robes are obtained.” “Chaḍḍetvā gatā” means they left without saying anything. This shows that giving a share unwillingly is prescribed only for what is explicitly abandoned for monks to take; if no agreement exists and many enter together, whoever takes it need not give a share unwillingly. “Sadisā” means those sharing the same direction, such as east, etc., thus it says: “‘ekadisāya vā okkamiṃsū’” (“or they entered from the same direction”).
At that time, a number of monks were traveling on a highway in the Kosala country. They entered a charnel ground for dust-heap cloths after making an agreement. Some monks obtained dust-heap cloths; some monks did not obtain any. Those monks who did not obtain any said thus: “Give us a share too, friends.” They said thus: “We will not give you a share, friends. Why did you not obtain any?” They reported this matter to the Blessed One. – ‘Monks, I allow giving a share, against their will, to those who entered after making an agreement’. There, they after making an agreement means after making an agreement beforehand saying, “We will all divide and take whatever dust-heap cloth is obtained.” Discarded and gone means discarded and gone without saying anything. By this, it is shown that the giving of a share against their will is permitted only for those discarded with the words “Let the monks take”, however, when there is no agreement about merely discarding, if many have entered together and one has obtained it, no share should be given against his will. Because those who are equal are different as those from east etc, and ‘sadisā’ it says “Or they entered from one direction”.
At that time, several bhikkhus were traveling on a road in the Kosala country. They made an agreement and entered a charnel ground for rag-robes. Some bhikkhus obtained rag-robes, while others did not. Those who did not obtain any said, ‘Friends, give us a share.’ They replied, ‘We will not give you a share, why did you not obtain any?’ They reported this matter to the Blessed One. The Blessed One said, ‘I allow, bhikkhus, to give a share to those who entered after making an agreement, but not unwillingly.’ Here, te katikaṃ katvā means they made an agreement, ‘We will divide the obtained rag-robes among all.’ Chaḍḍetvā gatā means they left without saying anything. This indicates that if bhikkhus discard something saying, ‘Let the bhikkhus take,’ then the share should not be given unwillingly. However, if there is no agreement and many enter together, the share should not be given to the one who took it. Ekadisāya vā okkamiṃsū means they entered in the same direction, such as east, etc.
ID1726
ID1727
5. Acchinnacīvarakathāyaṃ anupubbakathāti anupubbena vinicchayakathā. Sesaparikkhārānaṃ saddhivihārikehi gahitattā nivāsanapārupanameva avasiṭṭhanti āha “nivāsanapārupanamattaṃyeva haritvā”ti. Saddhivihārikānaṃ tāva āgamanassa vā anāgamanassa vā ajānanatāya vuttaṃ “therehi neva tāva…pe… bhuñjitabba”nti. Paresampi atthāya labhantīti attano cīvaraṃ dadamānā sayaṃ sākhābhaṅgena paṭicchādentīti tesaṃ atthāyapi bhañjituṃ labhanti. “Tiṇena vā paṇṇena vā paṭicchādetvā āgantabba”nti vacanato īdisesu bhūtagāmapātabyatāpi anuññātāyeva hotīti āha “neva bhūtagāmapātabyatāya pācittiyaṃ hotī”ti. Na tesaṃ dhāraṇe dukkaṭanti tesaṃ titthiyadhajānaṃ dhāraṇepi dukkaṭaṃ natthi.
5. In the discussion on stolen robes (acchinnacīvarakathā), “anupubbakathā” means a discussion determining sequentially. Since the accompanying novices took the other requisites, only clothing and covering remained, thus it says: “‘nivāsanapārupanamattaṃyeva haritvā’” (“taking only clothing and covering”). Due to not knowing whether the novices would return, it says: “‘therehi neva tāva…pe… bhuñjitabba’” (“The elders should not yet… eat”). “Paresampi atthāya labhantī” means those giving their own robes, covering themselves with broken branches, can break them for others’ sake too. From the statement “They should come covering themselves with grass or leaves,” even the destruction of plant life in such cases is permitted, thus it says: “‘neva bhūtagāmapātabyatāya pācittiyaṃ hotī’” (“There is no pācittiya offense for destroying plant life”). “Na tesaṃ dhāraṇe dukkaṭa” means there is no dukkata for wearing those sectarian banners.
5. In the discourse on stolen robes, sequential discourse means the determination following the sequence. Since the other requisites have been taken by the saddhivihārikas, only the lower and upper robes remain, therefore it says, “taking only the lower and upper robes”. Because it is not known whether the saddhivihārikas will come or not, it is said, “The elders should not… etc… eat”. They obtain for the benefit of others too means, giving their own robe, they themselves cover themselves with branches, therefore, they are allowed to break even for their sake. Because it is said, ‘One should come after covering oneself with grass or leaves’, in such cases, even causing harm to vegetation is permitted, therefore it says, “there is no pācittiya for causing harm to vegetation”. There is no dukkaṭa for wearing them means there is no dukkaṭa even for wearing those titthiya banners.
5. In the discussion on uncut cloth, anupubbakathā means a gradual discussion. Since the other requisites are taken by the co-resident, only the lower and upper robes remain, hence it is said, “nivāsanapārupanamattaṃyeva haritvā”. Since the co-residents do not know whether the elders will return or not, it is said, “therehi neva tāva…pe… bhuñjitabba”. Paresampi atthāya labhantī means they also obtain for the sake of others by giving their own robe and covering themselves with a branch. Therefore, they are allowed to break it for their sake. Since it is said, ‘One should return after covering with grass or leaves,’ even the cutting of living plants is allowed in such cases, hence it is said, “neva bhūtagāmapātabyatāya pācittiyaṃ hotī”. Na tesaṃ dhāraṇe dukkaṭa means there is no dukkaṭa offense in wearing the banners of heretics.
ID1728
Yāni ca nesaṃ vatthāni dentīti sambandho. Therānaṃ sayameva dinnattā vuttaṃ “acchinnacīvaraṭṭhāne ṭhitattā”ti. Yadi laddhiṃ gaṇhāti, titthiyapakkantako nāma hoti. Tasmā vuttaṃ “laddhiṃ aggahetvā”ti. “No ce hoti, saṅghassa vihāracīvaraṃ vā…pe… āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti iminā antarāmagge paviṭṭhavihārato nikkhamitvā aññattha attano abhirucitaṭṭhānaṃ gacchantassa dukkaṭaṃ vuttaṃ, iminā ca “yaṃ āvāsaṃ paṭhamaṃ upagacchatī”ti vuttaṃ antarāmagge ṭhitavihārampi sace naggo hutvā gacchati, dukkaṭamevāti veditabbaṃ. Yadi evaṃ tattha kasmā na vuttanti ce? Anokāsattā. Tattha hi “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, acchinnacīvarassa vā…pe… cīvaraṃ viññāpetu”nti iminā sambandhena saṅghikampi cīvaraṃ nivāsetuṃ pārupituñca anujānanto “yaṃ āvāsaṃ paṭhamaṃ…pe… gahetvā pārupitu”nti āha, tasmā tattha anokāsattā dukkaṭaṃ na vuttaṃ.
The connection is “And what they give as their cloths.” Since the elders themselves gave them, it says: “‘acchinnacīvaraṭṭhāne ṭhitattā’” (“because they stood at the place of the stolen robe”). If he adopts their views, he becomes a sectarian defector, thus it says: “‘laddhiṃ aggahetvā’” (“without adopting their views”). “If there is none, whether Sangha monastery robes… there is a dukkata offense” indicates a dukkata for one leaving a monastery entered en route and going elsewhere as desired; it also implies that even a monastery on the way incurs only a dukkata if one goes naked—this should be understood. If so, why isn’t it stated there? Due to lack of context. There, with the connection “I allow, monks, one with a stolen robe… to request a robe,” permitting the wearing and covering with Sangha robes, it says, “to the monastery he first reaches… taking and covering,” so the dukkata is not mentioned due to lack of context.
And it is related that they give their cloths. Because they were given to the elders themselves, it is said, “because they stand in the place of stolen robes”. If he accepts their doctrine, he is called a defector to the titthiyas. Therefore, it is said, “without accepting their doctrine”. “If there is none, the Sangha’s monastery robe… etc. … offense of dukkaṭa”; by this, a dukkaṭa is stated for one who, after entering a monastery on the way, leaves and goes to another place he desires; and by this, “whichever dwelling he first approaches”, it should be understood that even if he goes naked to a monastery situated on the way, it is still a dukkaṭa. If so, why is it not stated there? Because there is no opportunity. There, indeed, with the connection “Monks, I allow one whose robe has been stolen…etc…to request a robe”, allowing even a Sangha robe to be worn as a lower or upper robe, he says “whichever dwelling he first approaches…etc…take and wear”, therefore, there being no opportunity there, the dukkaṭa is not stated.
The connection is with the cloth given to them. Since the elders themselves gave it, it is said, “acchinnacīvaraṭṭhāne ṭhitattā”. If one accepts it, one becomes a follower of heretics. Therefore, it is said, “laddhiṃ aggahetvā”. If not, the monastery robe or… a dukkaṭa offense is incurred. This refers to the dukkaṭa offense incurred by one who leaves the monastery after entering and goes elsewhere to a place of his liking. This also indicates that if one goes naked while staying in a monastery on the way, it is also a dukkaṭa offense. Why is this not stated there? Because there was no opportunity. There, the Blessed One said, ‘I allow, bhikkhus, to request a robe for one whose robe is torn…’ and so on, allowing the use of communal robes for wearing and covering. Therefore, since there was no opportunity, the dukkaṭa offense was not stated there.
ID1729
Vihāracīvaranti senāsanacīvaraṃ. Cimilikāhīti paṭapilotikāhi. Tassa uparīti bhūmattharaṇassa upari. Videsagatenāti aññaṃ cīvaraṃ alabhitvā videsagatena. Ekasmiṃ…pe… ṭhapetabbanti ettha sesena gahetvā āgatattā ṭhapentena ca saṅghikaparibhogavaseneva ṭhapitattā aññasmiṃ senāsane niyamitampi aññattha ṭhapetuṃ vaṭṭatīti vadanti. Paribhogenevāti aññaṃ cīvaraṃ alabhitvā paribhuñjanena.
“Vihāracīvara” means monastery lodging robes. “Cimilikāhī” means with scraps of cloth. “Tassa uparī” means above the floor covering. “Videsagatenā” means by one gone abroad without obtaining another robe. “Ekasmiṃ…pe… ṭhapetabba” means it may be placed elsewhere even if designated for another monastery, since it was taken with the remainder and placed only for Sangha use, they say. “Paribhogenevā” means by using it without obtaining another robe.
Monastery robe means the lodging robe. With pieces of cloth means with pieces of cloth or rags. Above that means above the floor covering. By one gone abroad means by one who has gone abroad without obtaining another robe. In one… etc… should be placed; here, because the rest have been taken and brought, and because it is placed by the one placing it only for the use of the Sangha, it is said that it is permissible to place it elsewhere even though it is assigned to another lodging. By using means by using it without having obtained another robe.
Vihāracīvara means the robe of the dwelling. Cimilikāhī means with rags. Tassa uparī means on top of the floor covering. Videsagatenā means having gone elsewhere without obtaining another robe. Ekasmiṃ…pe… ṭhapetabba means since the rest is taken and brought, and since it is placed for communal use, it is allowed to place it elsewhere on another seat. Paribhogenevā means using it after not obtaining another robe.
ID1730
Paribhogajiṇṇanti yathā tena cīvarena sarīraṃ paṭicchādetuṃ na sakkā, evaṃ jiṇṇaṃ. Kappiyavohārenāti kayavikkayāpattito mocanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. “Viññāpentassā”ti imasseva atthaṃ vibhāveti “cetāpentassa parivattāpentassā”ti. Attano dhanena hi viññāpanaṃ nāma parivattanamevāti adhippāyo. Saṅghavasena pavāritānaṃ viññāpane vattaṃ dasseti “pamāṇameva vaṭṭatī”ti. Saṅghavasena hi pavārite sabbesaṃ sādhāraṇattā adhikaṃ viññāpetuṃ na vaṭṭati. Yaṃ yaṃ pavāretīti yaṃ yaṃ cīvarādiṃ dassāmīti pavāreti. Viññāpanakiccaṃ natthīti vinā viññattiyā dīyamānattā viññāpetvā kiṃ karissatīti adhippāyo. Aññassatthāyāti etthapi “ñātakānaṃ pavāritāna”nti idaṃ anuvattatiyevāti āha “attano ñātakapavārite”tiādi. Vikappanupagacīvaratā, samayābhāvo, aññātakaviññatti, tāya ca paṭilābhoti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni.
Paribhogajiṇṇa means worn out to the extent that the robe cannot cover the body. Kappiyavohārena refers to a lawful transaction, stated for the purpose of avoiding the offense of buying and selling. “Viññāpentassa” clarifies its own meaning with “cetāpentassa parivattāpentassa,” implying that requesting with one’s own wealth is essentially an exchange. It indicates the rule for requesting from those invited by the Sangha with “pamāṇameva vaṭṭati,” since, due to the common benefit for all when invited by the Sangha, it is not permissible to request excessively. Yaṃ yaṃ pavāreti means whatever robes or similar items one offers, saying, “I will give this.” Viññāpanakiccaṃ natthi implies that since it is given without a request, there is no need to request—what would one do after requesting? Regarding aññassatthāya, the phrase “invited by relatives” is implicitly carried over, so it says “attano ñātakapavārite” and so forth. The four factors here are: the robe being suitable for sharing, the absence of a specific time, requesting from a non-relative, and obtaining it thereby.
Paribhogajiṇṇanti means worn out such that one cannot cover the body with that robe. Kappiyavohārenāti is said in order to release from the offense of buying and selling. He explains the meaning of “Viññāpentassā”ti with “cetāpentassa parivattāpentassā”ti. The intention is that requesting with one’s own wealth is indeed an exchange. He shows the conduct for requesting from those who have offered in the name of the Sangha with “pamāṇameva vaṭṭatī”ti. Indeed, when an offer is made in the name of the Sangha, it is common to all, so it is not proper to request more. Yaṃ yaṃ pavāretīti whatever robe, etc., he offers, saying, “I will give.” Viññāpanakiccaṃ natthīti, the meaning is, “What is the use of requesting since it is given without a request?” Aññassatthāyāti here too, “of relatives, of those who have offered” should be carried over, therefore he says “attano ñātakapavārite”ti, etc. The four factors here are: the robe is not subject to agreement, it is not the right time, it is a request from a non-relative, and acquiring the robe with that request.
Paribhogajiṇṇa means worn out to the extent that the body cannot be covered with that robe. Kappiyavohārena is said for the purpose of being free from the offense of buying and selling. The phrase “cetāpentassa parivattāpentassā” clarifies the meaning of “viññāpentassa.” The intention is that requesting with one’s own wealth is indeed an exchange. The rule is shown for the request made by those invited by the Saṅgha, “pamāṇameva vaṭṭatī” meaning that since the Saṅgha has invited, it is not permissible to request more than what is common to all. Yaṃ yaṃ pavāretī means whatever robe or other item one offers. Viññāpanakiccaṃ natthī implies that since it is given without a request, what is the use of requesting? Aññassatthāyā here also follows the phrase “ñātakānaṃ pavāritāna,” hence it is said “attano ñātakapavārite” and so on. Here, the four factors are: the robe being subject to redistribution, the absence of a specific time, a request from a non-relative, and the acquisition through that request.
ID1731
Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.515) pana pāḷiyaṃ dhammanimantanāti samaṇesu vattabbācāradhammamattavasena nimantanā, dātukāmatāya katanimantanā na hotīti attho. Teneva “viññāpessatī”ti vuttaṃ. Aññātakaappavāritato hi viññatti nāma hoti.
In the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.515), however, the Pali term dhammanimantanā refers to an invitation based solely on the conduct and Dhamma to be observed among ascetics, not an invitation made out of a desire to give—this is the meaning. Hence, it says “viññāpessati,” because requesting indeed occurs only from a non-relative who has not been invited.
In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.515), however, dhammanimantanāti in the Pāḷi means invitation only as a matter of customary practice to be observed with respect to ascetics, not an invitation made out of a desire to give. For that very reason it is said, “viññāpessatī”ti. Indeed, request occurs from a non-relative, non-offerer.
In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.515), the phrase dhammanimantanā refers to an invitation based on the Dhamma, such as the conduct proper for ascetics, and not an invitation made out of a desire to give. Therefore, it is said, “viññāpessatī.” For a request from a non-relative who has not been invited is indeed called a request.
ID1732
“Tiṇena vā paṇṇena vā paṭicchādetvā āgantabba”nti iminā bhūtagāmavikopanaṃ anuññātanti āha “nevabhūtagāmapātabyatāyā”tiādi. Paṭhamaṃ suddhacittena liṅgaṃ gahetvā pacchā laddhiṃ gaṇhantopi titthiyapakkantako evāti āha “nivāsetvāpi laddhi na gahetabbā”ti.
“Having covered it with grass or leaves, one should come” indicates that damaging plants is permitted, so it says “nevabhūtagāmapātabyatāya” and so forth. Even one who first takes the insignia with a pure mind and later adopts a view is still considered to have gone over to the sectarians, so it says “nivāsetvāpi laddhi na gahetabbā.”
“One should come after covering with grass or leaves” – by this, harming vegetation is allowed, thus he says, “nevabhūtagāmapātabyatāyā”ti, etc. One who first takes up the sign with a pure mind and later accepts a doctrine is still gone over to the sectarians, therefore he says, “nivāsetvāpi laddhi na gahetabbā”ti.
The phrase “Tiṇena vā paṇṇena vā paṭicchādetvā āgantabba” means that destruction of living plants is permitted, hence it is said “nevabhūtagāmapātabyatāyā” and so on. Even if one first takes the sign with a pure mind and later accepts the belief, they are still considered as having left the sect, hence it is said “nivāsetvāpi laddhi na gahetabbā”.
ID1733
Yaṃ āvāsaṃ paṭhamaṃ upagacchatīti etthapi vihāracīvarādiatthāya pavisantenapi tiṇādīhi paṭicchādetvāva gantabbaṃ, “na tveva naggena āgantabba”nti sāmaññato dukkaṭassa vuttattā. Cimilikāhīti paṭapilotikāhi. Paribhogenevāti aññaṃ cīvaraṃ alabhitvā paribhuñjanena. Paribhogajiṇṇanti yathā taṃ cīvaraṃ paribhuñjiyamānaṃ obhaggavibhaggatāya asāruppaṃ hoti, evaṃ jiṇṇaṃ.
Regarding yaṃ āvāsaṃ paṭhamaṃ upagacchati, even when entering for the sake of a monastery robe or similar items, one must go only after covering with grass or the like, because it is generally stated that coming naked incurs a dukkaṭa offense—“na tveva naggena āgantabba.” Cimilikāhi means with rags or scraps of cloth. Paribhogeneva means by using it without obtaining another robe. Paribhogajiṇṇa means worn out to the point that, when used, it becomes torn and split, rendering it unsuitable.
Yaṃ āvāsaṃ paṭhamaṃ upagacchatīti here too, even one who enters for the sake of dwelling robes, etc., should go only after covering with grass, etc., because a dukkaṭa offense is generally stated that “one should not, however, come naked.” Cimilikāhīti with cloth rags. Paribhogenevāti through using without having obtained another robe. Paribhogajiṇṇanti is when that robe being used becomes unsuitable due to breaking and splitting, thus worn out.
Yaṃ āvāsaṃ paṭhamaṃ upagacchatī means that even when entering for the purpose of obtaining a monastery robe or other items, one should go covered with grass or other materials, as it is said, “na tveva naggena āgantabba,” and from the general rule, a dukkaṭa offense is stated. Cimilikāhī means with rags. Paribhogenevā means using another robe when one is not available. Paribhogajiṇṇa means worn out to the extent that the robe, when used, becomes unsuitable due to being torn or tattered.
ID1734
Aññassatthāyāti etthapi “ñātakānaṃ pavāritāna”nti idaṃ anuvattatevāti āha “attano ñātakapavārite”tiādi. Idha pana aññassa acchinnanaṭṭhacīvarassa atthāya aññātakaappavārite viññāpentassa nissaggiyena anāpattīti attho gahetabbo, itarathā “ñātakānaṃ pavāritāna”nti iminā viseso na bhaveyya, teneva anantarasikkhāpade vakkhati “aṭṭhakathāsu (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.526) pana ñātakapavāritaṭṭhāne…pe… pamāṇameva vaṭṭatīti vuttaṃ, taṃ pāḷiyā na sametī”ti ca “yasmā panidaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ aññassatthāya viññāpanavatthusmiṃyeva paññattaṃ, tasmā idha ’aññassatthāyā’ti na vutta”nti ca. Vikappanupagacīvaratā, samayābhāvo, aññātakaviññatti, tāya ca paṭilābhoti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni.
Regarding aññassatthāya, the phrase “invited by relatives” is implicitly carried over, so it says “attano ñātakapavārite” and so forth. Here, however, it should be understood that there is no nissaggiya offense for requesting from a non-relative who has not been invited for the sake of another whose robe is neither torn nor lost; otherwise, there would be no distinction with “invited by relatives.” Hence, in the next training rule, it will say: “In the commentaries (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.526), it is stated regarding the case of those invited by relatives… only the proper measure is permissible, but this does not accord with the Pali text,” and “Since this training rule is established solely concerning requesting for another, therefore ‘aññassatthāya’ is not stated here.” The four factors here are: the robe being suitable for sharing, the absence of a specific time, requesting from a non-relative, and obtaining it thereby.
Aññassatthāyāti here also, “of relatives, of those who have offered” is carried over, therefore he says “attano ñātakapavārite”ti, etc. Here, however, the meaning should be taken that there is no nissaggiya offense for one who makes a request to non-relatives, non-offerers, for the sake of another whose robes have been snatched away or lost; otherwise, the specification “of relatives, of those who have offered” would not exist. For that very reason, in the next training rule he will say, “But in the commentaries (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.526), it is said, ‘In the place of relatives and those invited… only the proper measure is allowable,’ this does not agree with the Pāḷi” and, “Because this training rule is laid down only with respect to the matter of making requests for the sake of another, therefore, ‘for the sake of another’ is not mentioned here.” The four factors here are: a robe not subject to agreement, it is not the right time, it is a request from a non-relative, and acquiring the robe with that request.
Aññassatthāyā here also follows the phrase “ñātakānaṃ pavāritāna,” hence it is said “attano ñātakapavārite” and so on. Here, however, the meaning to be understood is that there is no offense entailing expiation for requesting from a non-relative who has not been invited, for the sake of another whose robe has not been cut off. Otherwise, there would be no distinction with the phrase “ñātakānaṃ pavāritāna.” Therefore, in the following training rule, it is said, “In the commentaries (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.526), regarding the place of relatives who have been invited… it is said, ‘pamāṇameva vaṭṭatī,’ but this does not match the Pāli.” Also, “since this training rule was laid down specifically for the case of requesting for the sake of another, therefore, ‘aññassatthāyā’ is not stated here.” The four factors here are: the robe being subject to redistribution, the absence of a specific time, a request from a non-relative, and the acquisition through that request.
ID1735
“Tañce aññātako gahapati vā gahapatānī vā bahūhi cīvarehi abhihaṭṭhuṃ pavāreyya, santaruttaraparamaṃ tena bhikkhunā tato cīvaraṃ sāditabbaṃ, tato ce uttari sādiyeyya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiya”nti imasmiṃ taduttarisikkhāpade (pārā. 523) abhihaṭṭhunti ettha abhīti upasaggo, haritunti attho, gaṇhitunti vuttaṃ hoti. Pavāreyyāti icchāpeyya, icchaṃ ruciṃ uppādeyya vadeyya nimanteyyāti attho. Abhihaṭṭhuṃ pavārentena pana yathā vattabbaṃ. Taṃ ākāraṃ dassetuṃ “yāvattakaṃ icchasi, tāvattakaṃ gaṇhāhī”ti evamassa padabhājanaṃ vuttaṃ. Atha vā yathā “nekkhammaṃ daṭṭhu khemato”ti ettha disvāti attho, evamidhapi abhihaṭṭhuṃ pavāreyyāti abhiharitvā pavāreyyāti attho. Tattha kāyābhihāro vācābhihāroti duvidho abhihāro. Kāyena vā hi vatthādīni abhiharitvā pādamūle ṭhapetvā “yattakaṃ icchasi, tattakaṃ gaṇhāhī”ti vadanto pavāreyya, vācāya vā “amhākaṃ dussakoṭṭhāgāraṃ paripuṇṇaṃ, yattakaṃ icchasi, tattakaṃ gaṇhāhī”ti vadanto pavāreyya, tadubhayampi ekajjhaṃ katvā “abhihaṭṭhuṃ pavāreyyā”ti vuttaṃ.
“If a non-relative householder or householder’s wife invites him to take many robes, a monk may accept robes from that up to the limit of inner and outer garments; if he accepts beyond that, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense” (pārā. 523). Here, abhihaṭṭhu has the prefix abhī, meaning “to bring,” which is stated as “to take.” Pavāreyya means to wish, to arouse desire, to speak, or to invite—this is the meaning. The manner of invitation is shown with “Take as much as you wish,” as stated in its word-by-word explanation. Alternatively, just as in “seeing renunciation as safe,” the meaning is “having seen,” so here too abhihaṭṭhuṃ pavāreyya means “having brought, he invites.” There, bringing is twofold: by body or by speech. One might invite by bringing cloth or the like with the body, placing it at the feet, and saying, “Take as much as you wish,” or by saying with speech, “Our storehouse of cloth is full; take as much as you wish”—both are combined as “abhihaṭṭhuṃ pavāreyya.”
“If a non-relative householder, male or female, were to offer many robes on approaching, then at most an inner and outer robe should be accepted from those robes by that monk; if he were to accept more than that, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya” – in this taduttari training rule (pārā. 523), abhihaṭṭhunti here, abhīti is a prefix; haritu means, to take, it is said to be “to accept”. Pavāreyyāti means to make desirable, to make the desire arise, to speak, to invite. But how should one who offers on approaching speak? To show that manner, the phrase “take as much as you desire” is given as the explanation of his words. Or, just as “nekkhammaṃ daṭṭhu khemato”ti means ‘having seen’, likewise here also, abhihaṭṭhuṃ pavāreyyāti means to offer having brought near. Therein, bringing near is of two kinds: physical bringing near and verbal bringing near. For one might offer, having physically brought near cloth, etc., placing them at the feet and saying, “Take as much as you desire,” or one might offer verbally, saying, “Our cloth storehouse is full; take as much as you desire.” Taking both of them together, it is said, “abhihaṭṭhuṃ pavāreyyā”ti.
“If a non-relative householder or housewife, having prepared many robes, invites a monk to accept them, the monk should accept only up to an inner and upper robe from them. If he accepts more than that, it is to be confessed.” In this supplementary training rule (pārā. 523), abhihaṭṭhu means abhī is a prefix, meaning to bring, hence it is said to take. Pavāreyyā means to wish, to express a desire, to invite. The manner in which one should speak when inviting is shown by the phrase, “Take as much as you wish.” Alternatively, just as in the phrase “nekkhammaṃ daṭṭhu khemato,” where “disvā” means to see, here too abhihaṭṭhuṃ pavāreyyā means to bring and invite. There, the bringing is of two kinds: bodily and verbal. Either by bringing cloth or other items with the body and placing them at the feet, saying, “Take as much as you wish,” or by saying with speech, “Our storeroom is full, take as much as you wish,” both are combined and said as “abhihaṭṭhuṃ pavāreyyā.”
ID1736
Santaruttaraparamanti saantaraṃ uttaraṃ paramaṃ assa cīvarassāti santaruttaraparamaṃ, nivāsanena saddhiṃ pārupanaṃ ukkaṭṭhaparicchedo assāti vuttaṃ hoti. Tato cīvaraṃ sāditabbanti tato abhihaṭacīvarato ettakaṃ cīvaraṃ gahetabbaṃ, na ito paranti attho. Yasmā pana acchinnasabbacīvarena tecīvarikeneva bhikkhunā evaṃ paṭipajjitabbaṃ, aññena aññathāpi, tasmā taṃ vibhāgaṃ dassetuṃ “sace tīṇi naṭṭhāni hontī”tiādinā nayenassa padabhājanaṃ vuttaṃ.
Santaruttaraparama means having an inner and an outer garment as the maximum robe, with the upper limit being an undergarment together with an outer robe—this is stated. Tato cīvaraṃ sāditabba means a certain amount of robe should be accepted from that offered robe, not beyond that—this is the meaning. Since a monk with all robes intact, possessing the three robes, must act thus, while another may act otherwise, its word-by-word explanation is given with “If all three are lost” and so forth to clarify this distinction.
Santaruttaraparamanti means the robe with inner and outer [robes] as its limit; it is said that the upper limit is the wearing [robe] along with the under [robe]. Tato cīvaraṃ sāditabbanti means so much robe should be accepted from that approached robe, not more than this. But because a monk with all robes unlost should practice thus, another [monk should practice] differently, therefore to show that division, the explanation of his words is given in a way beginning, “sace tīṇi naṭṭhāni hontī”ti.
Santaruttaraparama means the maximum of an inner and upper robe, meaning the lower robe together with the upper robe, as the limit of excellence. Tato cīvaraṃ sāditabba means to take that much robe from the offered robes, and no more. Since a monk who has all three robes intact should act accordingly, and another should act differently, therefore, to show this distinction, it is said, “If three are lost,” and so on.
ID1737
Tatrāyaṃ vinicchayo – yassa tīṇi naṭṭhāni, tena dve sāditabbāni, ekaṃ nivāsetvā ekaṃ pārupitvā aññaṃ sabhāgaṭṭhānato pariyesissati. Yassa dve naṭṭhāni, tena ekaṃ sāditabbaṃ. Sace pakatiyāva santaruttarena carati, dve sāditabbāni, evaṃ ekaṃ sādiyanteneva samo bhavissati. Yassa tīsu ekaṃ naṭṭhaṃ, na sāditabbaṃ. Yassa pana dvīsu ekaṃ naṭṭhaṃ, ekaṃ sāditabbaṃ. Yassa ekaṃyeva hoti, tañca naṭṭhaṃ, dve sāditabbāni. Bhikkhuniyā pana pañcasupi naṭṭhesu dve sāditabbāni, catūsu naṭṭhesu ekaṃ sāditabbaṃ, tīsu naṭṭhesu kiñci na sāditabbaṃ, ko pana vādo dvīsu vā ekasmiṃ vā. Yena kenaci hi santaruttaraparamatāya ṭhātabbaṃ, tato uttari na labbhatīti idamettha lakkhaṇaṃ.
Here is the decision: One whose three robes are lost may accept two; wearing one and covering with another, he will seek the rest from a suitable place. One whose two robes are lost may accept one. If he naturally uses inner and outer garments, he may accept two, thus equaling others by accepting one. One whose one of three is lost should not accept any. One whose one of two is lost may accept one. One who has only one and it is lost may accept two. For a nun, if all five are lost, she may accept two; if four are lost, one; if three are lost, nothing; how much more so if two or one. One must abide by the limit of inner and outer garments with whatever is available—beyond that, nothing is obtained; this is the characteristic here.
Here is the decision concerning that: One whose three [robes] are lost should accept two, having worn one and wrapped one, he will seek another from a suitable place. One whose two [robes] are lost should accept one. If he usually lives with just the inner and outer robes, he should accept two, thus he will be equal by accepting one. One whose single [robe] of the three is lost, should not accept. But one whose single [robe] of the two is lost, should accept one. One who has only one and that is lost should accept two. A bhikkhunī, however, when five [robes] are lost, should accept two; when four are lost, she should accept one; when three are lost, she should not accept anything; what then needs to be said of [when] two or one [are lost]? Indeed, one should remain at most with an inner and outer robe, more than that is not obtained; this is the characteristic here.
Here is the decision: For one who has lost three robes, two should be accepted; one should be worn, one should be put on, and another should be sought from a similar place. For one who has lost two robes, one should be accepted. If one naturally uses an inner and upper robe, two should be accepted, and thus accepting one will be equal. For one who has lost one out of three, none should be accepted. For one who has lost one out of two, one should be accepted. For one who has only one, and it is lost, two should be accepted. For a nun, if five are lost, two should be accepted; if four are lost, one should be accepted; if three are lost, none should be accepted, let alone two or one. For whatever reason one should stand at the limit of an inner and upper robe, beyond that is not permissible—this is the characteristic here.
ID1738
Sesakaṃ āharissāmīti dve cīvarāni katvā sesaṃ puna āharissāmīti attho. Na acchinnakāraṇāti bāhusaccādiguṇavasena denti. Ñātakānantiādīsu ñātakānaṃ dentānaṃ sādiyantassa, pavāritānaṃ dentānaṃ sādiyantassa, attano dhanena sādiyantassa anāpattīti attho. Aṭṭhakathāsu pana “ñātakapavāritaṭṭhāne pakatiyā bahumpi vaṭṭati, acchinnakāraṇā pamāṇameva vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ, taṃ pāḷiyā na sameti. Yasmā panidaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ aññassatthāya viññāpanavatthusmiṃyeva paññattaṃ, tasmā idha “aññassatthāyā”ti na vuttaṃ. Sesaṃ uttānatthameva. Samuṭṭhānādīsu idampi chasamuṭṭhānaṃ , kiriyaṃ, nosaññāvimokkhaṃ, acittakaṃ, paṇṇattivajjaṃ, kāyakammavacīkammaṃ, ticittaṃ, tivedananti.
Sesakaṃ āharissāmi means having made two robes, I will bring the rest again—this is the meaning. Na acchinnakāraṇā means they give due to virtues like great learning. Regarding ñātakānaṃ and so forth, there is no offense for accepting from relatives who give, from those invited who give, or with one’s own wealth—this is the meaning. In the commentaries, however, it is said, “In the case of those invited by relatives, even a lot is permissible naturally; for the reason of loss, only the measure is permissible,” but this does not accord with the Pali text. Since this training rule is established solely concerning requesting for another, therefore “aññassatthāya” is not stated here. The rest is self-evident. Regarding its origin and so forth, this too arises from six origins, is an action, not released by perception, without intention, a fault by stipulation, an act of body and speech, with three minds, and three feelings.
Sesakaṃ āharissāmīti means after making two robes, I will bring the rest later. Na acchinnakāraṇāti they give due to qualities such as great learning. Ñātakānanti, etc. means that there is no offense for accepting from those who give to relatives, for accepting from those who give to those who have offered, and for accepting with one’s own wealth. But in the commentaries, it is said, “In the place of relatives and those invited, normally even much is allowable, due to a reason for loss, only the proper measure is allowable”; this does not agree with the Pāḷi. But because this training rule is laid down only in the case of making requests for the sake of another, therefore, ‘for the sake of another’ is not mentioned here. The rest has a clear meaning. Among origins, etc., this also has six origins, it is a kriya, it is not exempt from perception, it is non-intentional, it is a fault of convention, it is a bodily and verbal action, it has three mental states, it has three feelings.
Sesakaṃ āharissāmī means to make two robes and bring the rest later. Na acchinnakāraṇā means they give due to qualities such as learning. Ñātakāna means there is no offense for accepting from relatives who give, for accepting from those who have been invited, or for accepting with one’s own wealth. In the commentaries, it is said, “For relatives who have been invited, it is generally permissible, but for those who give without cutting off, only a measure is permissible,” but this does not match the Pāli. Since this training rule was laid down specifically for the case of requesting for the sake of another, therefore, “aññassatthāyā” is not stated here. The rest is clear. In the six origins, this is also one of the six origins: action, not release through perception, unconscious, precept, bodily and verbal action, three consciousnesses, and three feelings.
ID1739
Sattame pāḷiyaṃ paggāhikasālanti dussavāṇijakānaṃ āpaṇaṃ, “paggāhitasāla”ntipi paṭhanti. Abhīti upasaggoti tassa visesatthābhāvaṃ dasseti. Tenāha “haritunti attho”ti. Varasaddassa icchāyaṃ vattamānattā āha “icchāpeyyā”ti. Daṭṭhu khematoti ettha gāthābandhavasena anunāsikalopo daṭṭhabbo. Saantaranti antaravāsakasahitaṃ. Uttaranti uttarāsaṅgaṃ. Assa cīvarassāti sāditabbacīvarassa. Acchinnasabbacīvarenāti acchinnāni sabbāni tīṇi cīvarāni assāti acchinnasabbacīvaro, tenāti attho. Yassa hi acchindanasamaye tīṇi cīvarāni sannihitāni honti, tāni sabbāni acchinnānīti so “acchinnasabbacīvaro”ti vuccati. Teneva “acchinnasabbacīvarena tecīvarikenā”ti vuttaṃ. Tecīvarikenāti hi acchindanasamaye ticīvarassa sannihitabhāvaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, na pana vinaye tecīvarikābhāvaṃ, dhutaṅgatecīvarikabhāvaṃ vā sandhāya. Evaṃ paṭipajjitabbanti “santaruttaraparamaṃ tena bhikkhunā tato cīvaraṃ sāditabba”nti vuttavidhinā paṭipajjitabbaṃ. Aññenāti acchinnaasabbacīvarena. Yassa tīsu cīvaresu ekaṃ vā dve vā cīvarāni acchinnāni honti, tenāti attho. Aññathāpīti “santaruttaraparama”nti vuttavidhānato aññathāpi. Yassa hi tīsu dve cīvarāni acchinnāni honti, ekaṃ sāditabbaṃ, ekasmiṃ acchinne na sāditabbanti na tassa santaruttaraparamasādiyanaṃ sambhavati. Ayameva ca attho padabhājanena vibhāvito. Tenāha “taṃ vibhāgaṃ dassetu”nti.
In the seventh Pali text, paggāhikasāla means the shop of cloth merchants; some also read it as “paggāhitasāla.” Abhīti upasaggo indicates the prefix has no special meaning, so it says “haritunti attho.” Since the excellent term is used in the sense of wishing, it says “icchāpeyya.” In daṭṭhu khemato, the elision of the nasal is to be seen due to the verse structure. Saantara means with an undergarment. Uttara means an upper robe. Assa cīvarassa means of the robe to be accepted. Acchinnasabbacīvarena means by one whose all three robes are intact—this is the meaning. For one whose three robes are present at the time of loss, all being intact, he is called “acchinnasabbacīvaro”—hence it says “acchinnasabbacīvarena tecīvarikena.” Tecīvarikena refers to the presence of the three robes at the time of loss, not to the state of having three robes in the Vinaya or the ascetic practice of three robes. Evaṃ paṭipajjitabba means it must be practiced according to the method stated: “A monk may accept robes up to the limit of inner and outer garments.” Aññena means by one whose all robes are not intact, i.e., one whose one or two of the three robes are lost—this is the meaning. Aññathāpi means otherwise than the method stated as “inner and outer garments as the maximum.” For one whose two of three robes are intact, he may accept one; if one is intact, he should not accept—this does not allow accepting up to inner and outer garments. This meaning is clarified by the word-by-word explanation, so it says “taṃ vibhāgaṃ dassetu.”
In the seventh, in the Pāḷi, paggāhikasālanti means a shop of cloth merchants; they also read “paggāhitasāla”nti. Abhīti upasaggoti shows the absence of a specific meaning of that. Therefore he says, “haritunti attho”ti. Because the word vara is used in the sense of desire, he says “icchāpeyyā”ti. Daṭṭhu khematoti here the elision of the nasal should be seen as due to the arrangement of the verse. Saantaranti means along with the under-robe. Uttaranti means the upper robe. Assa cīvarassāti of the robe to be accepted. Acchinnasabbacīvarenāti means one whose all three robes are unlost, by him. Indeed, he who has three robes present at the time of a loss, all of them are unlost, so he is called “acchinnasabbacīvaro”ti. Therefore it is said, “acchinnasabbacīvarena tecīvarikenā”ti. Tecīvarikenāti is said in reference to the presence of the three robes at the time of a loss, but not in reference to the absence of the three robes in the Vinaya, or in reference to the three robes of one practicing the dhutaṅga. Evaṃ paṭipajjitabbanti means one should practice in the manner stated as, “an inner and outer robe at most should be accepted from those robes by that monk.” Aññenāti by one whose all robes are not unlost. Meaning, by one whose one or two of the three robes are unlost. Aññathāpīti means even differently from the method stated as “santaruttaraparama”nti. Indeed, for one whose two of the three robes are unlost, one should be accepted, when one is unlost, one should not accept, thus the acceptance of the maximum of inner and outer robes is not possible for him. And this very meaning has been explained by the explanation of the words. Therefore he says, “taṃ vibhāgaṃ dassetu”nti.
In the seventh Pāli, paggāhikasāla means a shop of cloth merchants, and some read it as “paggāhitasāla.” Abhīti upasaggo shows the absence of a special meaning, hence it is said, “haritunti attho.” Since the word “vara” is used in the sense of desire, it is said, “icchāpeyyā.” Daṭṭhu khemato here, due to the connection with the verse, the elision of the nasal should be seen. Saantara means together with the lower robe. Uttara means the upper robe. Assa cīvarassā means the robe to be accepted. Acchinnasabbacīvarenā means all three robes are intact at the time of cutting off, hence it is called “acchinnasabbacīvaro,” and therefore it is said, “acchinnasabbacīvarena tecīvarikenā.” Tecīvarikenā refers to the presence of the three robes at the time of cutting off, not to the absence of the three robes in the Vinaya or to the ascetic practice of the three robes. Evaṃ paṭipajjitabba means one should act according to the rule, “santaruttaraparamaṃ tena bhikkhunā tato cīvaraṃ sāditabba.” Aññenā means by one who does not have all three robes intact. For one who has one or two robes intact out of three, this is the meaning. Aññathāpī means differently from the rule stated as “santaruttaraparama.” For one who has two robes intact out of three, one should be accepted, and if one is lost, it should not be accepted, hence the acceptance of an inner and upper robe is not possible. This meaning is clarified by the division of the words, hence it is said, “taṃ vibhāgaṃ dassetu.”
ID1740
Keci pana “tecīvarikenāti vuttattā ticīvaraṃ parikkhāracoḷavasena adhiṭṭhahitvā paribhuñjato tasmiṃ naṭṭhe bahūnipi gahetuṃ labhatī”ti vadanti, taṃ na gahetabbaṃ. Padabhājanassa hi adhippāyaṃ dassentena yasmā pana “acchinnasabbacīvarena…pe… taṃ vibhāgaṃ dassetu”nti vuttaṃ, padabhājane ca na tādiso attho upalabbhati, tasmā taṃ na gahetabbameva. Yampi mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. tatuttarisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) vuttaṃ “yassa adhiṭṭhitaticīvarassa tīṇi naṭṭhānī”ti, tatthapi adhiṭṭhitaggahaṇaṃ sarūpakathanamattanti gahetabbaṃ, na pana ticīvarādhiṭṭhānena adhiṭṭhitacīvarassevāti evamattho gahetabbo pāḷiyaṃ aṭṭhakathāyañca tathā atthassāsambhavato . Na hi ticīvarādhiṭṭhānena adhiṭṭhitacīvarasseva idaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ paññattanti sakkā viññātuṃ. Purimasikkhāpadena hi acchinnacīvarassa aññātakaviññattiyā anuññātattā pamāṇaṃ ajānitvā viññāpanavatthusmiṃ pamāṇato sādiyanaṃ anujānantena bhagavatā idaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ paññattaṃ, tasmā parikkhāracoḷikassa bahumpi sādituṃ vaṭṭatīti ayamattho neva pāḷiyā sameti, na ca bhagavato adhippāyaṃ anulometi.
Some say, “Since it says ‘tecīvarikena,’ one who has determined the three robes as requisite cloth and uses them can take even many if they are lost,” but this should not be accepted. Since the word-by-word explanation states, “Because by one whose all robes are intact… to show that distinction,” and no such meaning is found in the explanation, it should not be accepted. Regarding what is said in the commentary on the table of contents (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. tatuttarisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), “One whose determined three robes are lost,” the mention of determination should be understood as merely stating the form, not that it applies only to robes determined by the three-robe rule—this meaning cannot be taken from the Pali text or commentary. It cannot be understood that this training rule is established only for robes determined by the three-robe rule. Since the previous training rule permits requesting from non-relatives for a lost robe, and this rule is established by the Blessed One to allow accepting a measure without knowing it in the matter of excessive requesting, the notion that even much requisite cloth can be accepted neither accords with the Pali text nor conforms to the Blessed One’s intention.
Some, however, say, “Because ’tecīvarikenā’ti is said, one who has determined the three robes as requisite cloths and uses them, when that is lost, he is allowed to take many.” That should not be accepted. Indeed, showing the intention of the explanation of words, it is said “Because ‘acchinnasabbacīvarena… therefore… to show that division’”, and in the explanation of words, such a meaning is not found, therefore it should not be accepted. And what is said in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. tatuttarisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), “one whose three robes, which have been determined, are lost”, even there the mention of “determined” should be understood as only a description of the form, but not the meaning that this training rule is only for a robe which has been determined with the determination of the three robes because such a meaning is not found in the Pāḷi and the commentary. Indeed, it cannot be understood that this training rule is laid down only for a robe determined by the determination of the three robes. Because in the previous training rule, request from a non-relative by one whose robes are unlost is allowed, this training rule is laid down by the Blessed One allowing acceptance up to the limit in the case of making a request without knowing the limit. Therefore this meaning that one having a small requisite is allowed to accept much, neither agrees with the Pāḷi nor conforms to the intention of the Blessed One.
Some say, “Since it is said ‘tecīvarikenā,’ one who has determined the three robes as requisites and uses them, when they are lost, can take many,” but this should not be accepted. For the intention of the word division is shown by the phrase, “acchinnasabbacīvarena…pe… taṃ vibhāgaṃ dassetu,” and in the word division, such a meaning is not found, hence it should not be accepted. What is stated in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. tatuttarisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), “For one who has determined the three robes, if three are lost,” there the determination is only for the sake of similar explanation, and not that the determination of the three robes is the only meaning to be taken from the Pāli and the commentaries, as such a meaning is not possible. For this training rule was not laid down specifically for one who has determined the three robes. In the previous training rule, since a request from a non-relative for an intact robe was permitted, the Buddha laid down this training rule to allow acceptance within a measure in the case of requesting. Therefore, it is not permissible to accept many even for one who has determined the robe as a requisite. This meaning does not match the Pāli, nor does it conform to the Buddha’s intention.
ID1741
Yassa tīṇi naṭṭhāni, tena dve sāditabbānīti ettha yassa ticīvarato adhikampi cīvaraṃ aññattha ṭhitaṃ atthi, tadā tassa cīvarassa alabbhanīyabhāvato tenapi sādituṃ vaṭṭatīti veditabbaṃ. Pakatiyāva santaruttarena caratīti sāsaṅkasikkhāpadavasena vā avippavāsasammutivasena vā tatiyassa alābhena vā carati. “Dve naṭṭhānī”ti adhikārattā vuttaṃ “dve sāditabbānī”ti. Ekaṃ sādiyanteneva samo bhavissatīti tiṇṇaṃ cīvarānaṃ dvīsu naṭṭhesu ekaṃ sādiyantena samo bhavissati ubhinnampi santaruttaraparamatāya avaṭṭhānato. Yassa ekaṃyeva hotīti aññena kenaci kāraṇena vinaṭṭhasesacīvaraṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ.
In yassa tīṇi naṭṭhāni, tena dve sāditabbāni, if one has more robes elsewhere beyond the three, since they cannot be obtained, it should be understood that he too may accept them. Pakatiyāva santaruttarena carati means he lives naturally with inner and outer garments, either due to a training rule with doubt, an agreement not to be absent, or lack of a third robe. Due to the context “two are lost,” it says “dve sāditabbāni.” Ekaṃ sādiyanteneva samo bhavissati means by accepting one when two of three robes are lost, he becomes equal, as exceeding inner and outer garments does not apply to both. Yassa ekaṃyeva hoti refers to one whose remaining robes are lost for some other reason.
Yassa tīṇi naṭṭhāni, tena dve sāditabbānīti, here it should be understood that even for one who has more robes than the three robes kept elsewhere, due to the un-obtainability of those robes, he too is allowed to accept. Pakatiyāva santaruttarena caratīti, he lives [thus] either due to the training rule concerning doubt, or due to being granted non-absence, or due to not obtaining a third. Because “two are lost” is in authority, it is said, “dve sāditabbānī”ti. Ekaṃ sādiyanteneva samo bhavissatīti, when two of the three robes are lost, he will be equal by accepting one, due to the remaining of both with a maximum of the inner and outer robes. Yassa ekaṃyeva hotīti is said in reference to one whose remaining robes are lost due to some other reason.
Yassa tīṇi naṭṭhāni, tena dve sāditabbānī means that for one who has more than three robes elsewhere, since that robe cannot be obtained, it is permissible to accept that as well. Pakatiyāva santaruttarena caratī means one who lives with an inner and upper robe due to a risky training rule, an agreement of non-separation, or the lack of a third robe. “Dve naṭṭhānī” is said due to excess, hence “dve sāditabbānī.” Ekaṃ sādiyanteneva samo bhavissatī means that for one who has lost two out of three robes, accepting one will be equal, as both will not exceed the limit of an inner and upper robe. Yassa ekaṃyeva hotī refers to one who has lost the rest of the robe due to some other reason.
ID1742
“Sesakaṃ tumheva hotūti dentī”ti vuttattā “pamāṇayuttaṃ gaṇhissāma, sesakaṃ āharissāmā”ti vatvā gahetvā gamanasamayepi “sesakampi tumhākaṃyeva hotū”ti vadanti, laddhakappiyameva. Pavāritānanti acchinnakālato pubbeyeva pavāritānaṃ. Pāḷiyā na sametīti santaruttaraparamato uttari sādiyane anāpattidassanatthaṃ “anāpatti ñātakānaṃ pavāritāna”nti vuttattā na sameti. Santaruttaraparamaṃ sādiyantassa hi āpattippasaṅgoyeva natthi, sati ca sikkhāpadena āpattippasaṅge anāpatti yuttā dassetunti adhippāyo. Keci pana “pamāṇameva vaṭṭatīti idaṃ sallekhadassanatthaṃ vutta”nti vadanti.
Since it says “Let the rest be yours,” saying “We will take the proper measure and bring the rest,” taking it and leaving, even if they say “Let the rest be yours too,” it is still lawfully accepted. Pavāritāna means those invited even before the time of loss. Pāḷiyā na sameti means it does not accord with the Pali text, as “There is no offense for relatives or those invited” is stated to show no offense in accepting beyond inner and outer garments; if there were an offense due to the training rule, showing no offense would be appropriate—this is the implication. Some say “pamāṇameva vaṭṭati is said to indicate brevity.”
Because it is said, “Let the remainder be yours,” even at the time of taking after having said, “We will take what is measured, we will bring the rest,” they say, “Let the remainder also be yours,” what is obtained becomes allowable. Pavāritānanti of those offered before the time of loss. Pāḷiyā na sametīti, because it is said “anāpatti ñātakānaṃ pavāritāna”nti to show the non-offense in accepting more than the maximum of inner and outer robes, it does not agree. Indeed, the mere mention of offense is not possible for one accepting the maximum of inner and outer robes; the meaning is that if, with the training rule, an offense were possible, it is appropriate to show the non-offense. Some, however, say that “pamāṇameva vaṭṭatī”ti is said to show contentment.
Since it is said, “Sesakaṃ tumheva hotūti dentī,” meaning, “We will take a measured amount, and bring the rest later,” even at the time of leaving, they say, “The rest is yours,” and it is permissible. Pavāritāna means those who were invited before the time of cutting off. Pāḷiyā na sametī means it does not match the Pāli, as it is said, “There is no offense for relatives who have been invited,” to show that there is no offense for accepting beyond the limit of an inner and upper robe. For one who accepts within the limit of an inner and upper robe, there is no offense, and if there is an offense due to the training rule, it is appropriate to show that there is no offense. Some say, “pamāṇameva vaṭṭatī is said for the purpose of purification.”
ID1743
Yasmā panidaṃ…pe… na vuttanti etthāyamadhippāyo – “aññassatthāyā”ti vuccamāne aññesaṃ atthāya pamāṇaṃ atikkamitvāpi gaṇhituṃ vaṭṭatīti āpajjati, tañca aññassatthāya viññāpanavatthusmiṃ paññattattā vatthunā saṃsandiyamānaṃ na sameti. Na hi yaṃ vatthuṃ nissāya sikkhāpadaṃ paññattaṃ, tasmiṃyeva anāpattivacanaṃ yuttanti. Gaṇṭhipadesu pana tīsupi “imassa sikkhāpadassa attano sādiyanapaṭibaddhatāvasena pavattattā ’aññassatthāyā’ti vattuṃ okāsoyeva natthi, tasmā na vutta”nti kathitaṃ. Idha “aññassatthāyā”ti avuttattā aññesaṃ atthāya ñātakapavāritesu adhikaṃ viññāpentassa āpattīti ce? Na, tattha purimasikkhāpadeneva anāpattisiddhito. Tatuttaritā, acchinnādikāraṇatā, aññātakaviññatti, tāya ca paṭilābhoti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni.
Regarding yasmā panidaṃ… na vutta, the implication here is: If “aññassatthāya” were stated, it would imply that one could take beyond the measure for others’ sake, which contradicts the purpose of establishing this training rule regarding requesting for another—it does not accord with the object. It is not reasonable to state no offense in the very matter for which the training rule is established. In the glosses, however, it is said of all three, “Since this training rule operates in relation to accepting for oneself, there is no opportunity to say ‘aññassatthāya,’ so it is not stated.” Since “aññassatthāya” is not stated here, would there be an offense for requesting excessively from relatives or those invited for others’ sake? No, because no offense is established by the previous training rule. The four factors here are: exceeding the limit, the reason of loss or similar, requesting from a non-relative, and obtaining it thereby.
Yasmā panidaṃ…pe… na vuttanti, the intention here is this – If “aññassatthāyā”ti were said, it results that it is allowable to take even exceeding the limit for the sake of others, and that, being laid down in the case of making requests for the sake of another, does not agree when being compared with the case. Indeed, the statement of non-offense is not fitting in the very case on account of which the training rule is laid down. However, in the Gaṇṭhipadas, in all three, it is said, “Because this training rule occurs due to being connected with one’s own acceptance, there is no opportunity to say ‘for the sake of another,’ therefore it is not said.” Here, is it an offense for one to request more from relatives and offerers for the sake of others due to “aññassatthāyā”ti not being said? No, because non-offense is established there by the previous training rule. The four factors here are: more than that, being a reason such as loss, it is a request from a non-relative, and acquiring the robe with that request.
Yasmā panidaṃ…pe… na vutta means the intention here is that when “aññassatthāyā” is said, it is permissible to take beyond the measure for the sake of others, and this incurs an offense. Since this training rule was laid down specifically for the case of requesting for the sake of another, it does not match the basis. For it is not appropriate to state non-offense for the very basis on which the training rule was laid down. In the knot points, however, it is said, “Since this training rule operates in connection with one’s own acceptance, there is no opportunity to say ‘aññassatthāyā,’ hence it is not stated.” Here, since “aññassatthāyā” is not stated, does it mean there is an offense for requesting more from relatives who have been invited for the sake of others? No, because the previous training rule already establishes non-offense. The four factors here are: the robe being subject to redistribution, the absence of a specific time, a request from a non-relative, and the acquisition through that request.
ID1744
Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.522-524) pana “pāḷiyaṃ paggāhikasālanti dussāpaṇaṃ. Tañhi vāṇijakehi dussāni paggahetvā dassanaṭṭhānatāya ’paggāhikasālā’ti vuccati. Assa cīvarassāti sāditabbacīvarassa. Tecīvarikenāti iminā acchinnaticīvarato aññassa vihārādīsu nihitassa cīvarassa abhāvaṃ dasseti . Yadi bhaveyya, viññāpetuṃ na vaṭṭeyya, tāvakālikaṃ nivāsetvā attano cīvaraṃ gahetabbaṃ. Tāvakālikampi alabhantassa bhūtagāmavikopanaṃ katvā tiṇapaṇṇehi chadanaṃ viya viññāpanampi vaṭṭati eva. Aññenāti acchinnaasabbacīvarena. ’Dve naṭṭhānī’ti adhikārato vuttaṃ ‘dve sāditabbānī’ti. Pāḷiyā na sametīti ’anāpatti ñātakānaṃ pavāritāna’nti (pārā. 526) imāya pāḷiyā na sameti tatuttari viññāpanaāpattippasaṅge eva vuttattā. Aññassatthāyāti na vuttanti idaṃ aññassatthāya tatuttari viññāpane nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ hotīti imamatthaṃ dīpeti. Tañca pācittiyaṃ yesaṃ atthāya viññāpeti, tesaṃ vā siyā viññāpakasseva vā, na tāva tesaṃ, tehi aviññāpitattā, nāpi viññāpakassa, attānaṃ uddissa aviññattattā. Tasmā aññassatthāya viññāpentassapi nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ na dissati. Pāḷiyaṃ pana imassa sikkhāpadassa attano sādiyanapaṭibaddhatāvasena pavattattā ’aññassatthāyā’ti anāpattivāre na vuttanti vadanti, tañca yuttaṃ viya dissati, vīmaṃsitvā gahetabbaṃ. Tatuttaricīvaratā, acchinnādikāraṇatā, aññātakaviññatti, tāya ca paṭilābhoti imānettha cattāri aṅgānī”ti.
In the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.522-524), it says: “In the Pali text, paggāhikasāla means a cloth shop, called ‘paggāhikasāla’ because merchants display cloth there for viewing. Assa cīvarassa means of the robe to be accepted. Tecīvarikena indicates the absence of another robe stored in a monastery or elsewhere apart from the lost three robes. If there were one, it would not be permissible to request; one should wear it temporarily and take one’s own robe. Even for one who cannot obtain a temporary one, requesting is permissible, just as covering with grass or leaves after damaging plants is allowed. Aññena means by one whose all robes are not intact. Due to the context ‘two are lost,’ it says ‘dve sāditabbāni.’ Pāḷiyā na sameti means it does not accord with the Pali text ‘There is no offense for relatives or those invited’ (pārā. 526), as it is stated only in the context of an offense for excessive requesting. Aññassatthāyāti na vutta clarifies that there is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense for requesting beyond the limit for another. That pācittiya offense would not apply to those for whom it is requested, since they did not request, nor to the requester, since he did not request for himself. Thus, no nissaggiya pācittiya offense is evident for requesting for another. However, since this training rule operates in relation to accepting for oneself in the Pali text, they say ‘aññassatthāya’ is not stated in the no-offense clause—this seems reasonable and should be accepted after examination. The four factors here are: exceeding the robe limit, the reason of loss or similar, requesting from a non-relative, and obtaining it thereby.”
In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.522-524), however, it says: “paggāhikasālanti in the Pāli [means] a cloth shop. Because merchants display cloths there for viewing, it is called ‘paggāhikasālā’. Assa cīvarassāti means ‘of a robe that should be confessed’. Tecīvarikenāti, by this, he shows the absence of a robe other than the triple robe that has been taken away, [a robe] that has been placed in the monastery, etc. If there were [another robe], it would not be proper to request one, having worn the temporary one, the own robe should be taken. Even for one who does not obtain a temporary one, it is proper to request just as to cover with grass and leaves having violated the rule related to living vegetation. Aññenāti means with a robe other than one’s own taken robe which has been confiscated, which should be forfeit . ‘Two places are lost’ - because of context it means, ‘two are to be forfeited’. Pāḷiyā na sametīti it does not align with this Pāli statement: ‘there is no offense for relatives or those who have been invited’ (pārā. 526), because that is stated in the context of encountering the offense of subsequent requesting. Aññassatthāyāti na vuttanti, this highlights the meaning that ‘for the sake of another’ there is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense in requesting subsequently. And that pācittiya offense would be either for those for whom one requests, or for the requester, but not for them (for whose benefit it was requested), because they did not request it, nor for the requester, because he didn’t request for himself. Therefore, a nissaggiya pācittiya is not seen even for one who requests for the sake of another. But in the Pāli, because this training rule occurs due to its connection with one’s own forfeiture, it is said that ‘for the sake of another’ is not stated in the case of no offense, and that seems to be reasonable, but should be understood after careful consideration. The four factors here are the state of being subsequent to that [initial transaction], the reason for the confiscation, etc., requesting from someone who is not a relative, and obtaining [a robe] through that.”
In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.522-524), it is stated: “In the Pāli, paggāhikasāla refers to a cloth market. It is called ‘paggāhikasālā’ because merchants display cloth there for the purpose of showing it. Assa cīvarassāti refers to a robe that is to be accepted. Tecīvarikenāti indicates the absence of another robe left in other places, such as a dwelling, when one has not been deprived of one’s three robes. If there were another robe, it would not be proper to request one; instead, one should wear a temporary robe and take one’s own robe. Even if one does not obtain a temporary robe, it is permissible to request one after causing damage to a village by covering oneself with grass or leaves. Aññenāti refers to one who has not been deprived of all robes. The phrase ‘dve naṭṭhānī’ is said in relation to the excess, meaning ‘dve sāditabbānī’. Pāḷiyā na sametīti means it does not accord with the Pāli passage ‘anāpatti ñātakānaṃ pavāritāna’ (Pārā. 526), as it further explains the offense of requesting beyond that. Aññassatthāyāti na vuttanti clarifies that requesting for another’s sake beyond that incurs a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. This pācittiya offense applies to those for whom the request is made, or to the requester, but not to others, as they have not been requested, nor to the requester, as they have not requested for themselves. Therefore, even if one requests for another’s sake, a nissaggiya pācittiya offense is not seen. However, in the Pāli, because this training rule is connected to one’s own acceptance, the phrase ‘aññassatthāyā’ is not mentioned in the non-offense section, and this seems appropriate; it should be examined and understood. The four factors here are: the robe being beyond the three, the reason for not being deprived, the request from a stranger, and the acquisition through that request.”
ID1745
Idaṃ tatuttarisikkhāpadavinicchayaṃ ācariyena avuttampi acchinnacīvarādhikāreyeva pavattattā amhehi gahitaṃ, aññātakaviññattisikkhāpadassa samayesu acchinnacīvarakāle aññātakānaṃ viññāpetabbabhāvo bhagavatā vutto, tehi dinnacīvarassa mattaso gahitabhāvo tatuttarisikkhāpadena vutto. Tasmā acchinnacīvaraadhikāroyeva hotīti.
This decision on the training rule of exceeding the limit, though not stated by the teacher, is taken by us as it pertains only to the context of a lost robe, since the Blessed One stated in the training rule on requesting from non-relatives that one may request from non-relatives at the time of a lost robe, and the training rule on exceeding the limit addresses accepting it in moderation. Thus, it pertains only to the context of a lost robe.
This determination of the subsequent training rule, although not stated by the teacher, was taken by us because it occurs only in the context of robe-confiscation, the Blessed One stated that in times of robe confiscation, the fact of request from non-relatives is a situation of the non-relatives request training rule, the fact of having taken the robe given by them in measure was stated in the subsequent training rule. Therefore, it is only in the context of robe confiscation.
This decision regarding the training rule beyond the three robes, though not explicitly stated by the teacher, is understood by us to apply only in the context of not being deprived of robes, as the Buddha stated that during the time of not being deprived of robes, one may request robes from strangers. The acceptance of robes given by them is mentioned in the training rule beyond the three. Therefore, it pertains only to the context of not being deprived of robes.
ID1746
ID1747
Ito paraṃ acchindanasāmaññena cīvaraacchindanavinicchayaṃ vakkhāma – tattha yampi tyāhanti yampi te ahaṃ. So kira “mama pattacīvaraupāhanapaccattharaṇāni vahanto mayā saddhiṃ cārikaṃ pakkamissatī”ti adāsi. Tenevamāha “mayā saddhiṃ janapadacārikaṃ pakkamissatī”ti. Acchindīti balakkārena aggahesi, sakasaññāya gahitattā panassa pārājikaṃ natthi, kilametvā gahitattā āpatti paññattā.
From here, we will discuss the decision on robe loss in general terms—there, yampi tyāha means “whatever I said to you.” He reportedly gave it thinking, “Carrying my bowl, robe, sandals, and mat, he will set out on a journey with me,” so he said, “He will set out with me on a journey through the countryside.” Acchindī means he forcibly took it; since it was taken under his own perception, there is no pārājika offense, but an offense was established due to taking it with effort.
Hereafter, with the commonality of confiscation, we will speak of the determination of robe-confiscation – there, yampi tyāhanti means ‘whatever I said to you’. He, indeed, gave [the robe], thinking, “Carrying my bowl, robe, sandals, and mat, he will go on a journey with me.” Therefore, he said this: “He will go on a journey through the countryside with me.” Acchindīti means he took it by force, but because he took it with the perception of it being his own, there is no pārājika offense, an offense has been declared because he took it causing fatigue.
Hereafter, we will explain the decision regarding robe deprivation in general terms. In this context, yampi tyāhanti means “what I said to you.” It is said that he gave with the thought, “The one who carries my bowl, robe, sandals, and mat will go on a journey with me.” Therefore, he said, “You will go on a journey with me through the countryside.” Acchindīti means he seized it by force. Since it was taken with the perception of ownership, there is no pārājika offense, but due to the effort involved, an offense has been declared.
ID1748
Sayaṃ acchindati, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyanti ekaṃ cīvaraṃ ekābaddhāni ca bahūni acchindato ekā āpatti, ekato abaddhāni visuṃ visuṃ ṭhitāni bahūni acchindato, “saṅghāṭiṃ āhara, uttarāsaṅgaṃ āharā”ti evaṃ āharāpayato ca vatthugaṇanāya āpattiyo. “Mayā dinnāni sabbāni āharā”ti vadatopi ekavacaneneva sambahulā āpattiyo.
Sayaṃ acchindati, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiya means if he himself takes one robe or many tied together, it is one offense; if he takes many separate items not tied together, or has them brought saying, “Bring the saṅghāṭi, bring the upper robe,” there are offenses according to the number of items. Even saying, “Bring all that I gave,” with one statement, there are multiple offenses.
Sayaṃ acchindati, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyanti, for one who confiscates one robe and many [robes] joined together, there is one offense; for one who confiscates many [robes] that are unattached and separate, or for one who causes [another] to bring [robes], saying, “Bring the outer robe, bring the upper robe,” there are offenses according to the number of cloths. Even if one says, “Bring all that I gave,” there are multiple offenses with just one utterance.
Sayaṃ acchindati, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyanti means if one seizes one robe or many robes tied together, it is one offense. If one seizes many robes separately tied, or if one instructs, “Bring the upper robe, bring the outer robe,” offenses are counted according to the number of items. Even if one says, “Bring all the robes I have given,” multiple offenses are incurred with a single command.
ID1749
Aññaṃ āṇāpeti, āpatti dukkaṭassāti “cīvaraṃ gaṇhā”ti āṇāpeti, ekaṃ dukkaṭaṃ. Āṇatto bahūni gaṇhāti, ekaṃ pācittiyaṃ. “Saṅghāṭiṃ gaṇha, uttarāsaṅgaṃ gaṇhā”ti vadato vācāya vācāya dukkaṭaṃ. “Mayā dinnāni sabbāni gaṇhā”ti vadato ekavācāya sambahulā āpattiyo.
Aññaṃ āṇāpeti, āpatti dukkaṭassa means if he orders, “Take the robe,” it is one dukkaṭa. If the one ordered takes many, it is one pācittiya. Saying, “Take the saṅghāṭi, take the upper robe,” incurs a dukkaṭa for each statement. Saying, “Take all that I gave,” with one statement incurs multiple offenses.
Aññaṃ āṇāpeti, āpatti dukkaṭassāti, he commands, “Take the robe,” there is one dukkaṭa. The one commanded takes many [robes], there is one pācittiya. For one who says, “Take the outer robe, take the upper robe,” there is a dukkaṭa for each utterance. For one who says, “Take all that I gave,” there are multiple offenses with one utterance.
Aññaṃ āṇāpeti, āpatti dukkaṭassāti means if one orders, “Take the robe,” it is one dukkaṭa offense. If the ordered person takes many robes, it is one pācittiya offense. If one says, “Take the upper robe, take the outer robe,” each utterance incurs a dukkaṭa offense. If one says, “Take all the robes I have given,” multiple offenses are incurred with a single command.
ID1750
Aññaṃ parikkhāranti vikappanupagapacchimaṃ cīvaraṃ ṭhapetvā yaṃ kiñci antamaso sūcimpi. Veṭhetvā ṭhapitasūcīsupi vatthugaṇanāya dukkaṭāni. Sithilaveṭhitāsu evaṃ. Gāḷhaṃ katvā baddhāsu pana ekameva dukkaṭanti mahāpaccariyaṃ vuttaṃ. Sūcighare pakkhittāsupi eseva nayo. Thavikāya pakkhipitvā sithilabaddhagāḷhabaddhesu tikaṭukādīsu bhesajjesupi eseva nayo.
Aññaṃ parikkhāra means any requisite apart from the last robe suitable for sharing, even a needle. For needles wrapped and placed, there are dukkaṭas according to the number of items. The same applies to loosely wrapped ones. For those tightly bound, however, the Mahāpaccariya states it is only one dukkaṭa. The same applies to those placed in a needle case. The same method applies to medicines like ginger or turmeric placed in a bag, whether loosely or tightly bound.
Aññaṃ parikkhāranti means any other requisite apart from the last robe that is not subject to joint-determination, even down to a needle. Even for rolled and stored needles, there are dukkaṭas according to the number of cloths. This is the case for loosely rolled ones. But for those tightly bound, there is only one dukkaṭa, as stated in the Mahāpaccari. This same principle applies to those put in a needle case. The same principle applies to the three kinds of medicines, mildly bound and tightly bound, put in a bag.
Aññaṃ parikkhāranti refers to any item, even a needle, except for a robe that has been designated. Even if a needle is wrapped and set aside, offenses are counted according to the number of items. If loosely wrapped, it is the same. If tightly wrapped, it is only one dukkaṭa offense, as stated in the Mahāpaccarī. The same applies to needles placed in a needle case. If placed in a bag, whether loosely or tightly tied, the same applies to medicines like ginger and garlic.
ID1751
So vā detīti “bhante, tumhākaṃyeva idaṃ sāruppa”nti evaṃ vā deti. Atha vā pana “āvuso, mayaṃ tuyhaṃ ’vattapaṭipattiṃ karissati, amhākaṃ santike upajjhaṃ gaṇhissati, dhammaṃ pariyāpuṇissatī’ti cīvaraṃ adamhā, sodāni tvaṃ na vattaṃ karosi, na upajjhaṃ gaṇhāsi, na dhammaṃ pariyāpuṇāsī”ti evamādīhi vutto “bhante, cīvaratthāya maññe bhaṇatha, idaṃ vo cīvara”nti deti, evampi so vā deti. Disāpakkantaṃ vā pana daharaṃ “nivattetha na”nti bhaṇati, so na nivattati. “Cīvaraṃ gahetvā rundhathā”ti evaṃ ce nivattati, sādhu. Sace “pattacīvaratthāya maññe tumhe bhaṇatha, gaṇhatha na”nti deti, evampi soyeva deti. Vibbhantaṃ vā disvā “mayaṃ tuyhaṃ ’vattaṃ karissatī’ti pattacīvaraṃ adamhā, sodāni tvaṃ vibbhamitvā carasī”ti vadati, itaro “gaṇhatha tumhākaṃ pattacīvara”nti deti, evampi so vā deti. “Mama santike upajjhaṃ gaṇhantasseva te demi, aññattha gaṇhantassa na demi. Vattaṃ karontasseva demi, akarontassa na demi. Dhammaṃ pariyāpuṇantasseva demi, apariyāpuṇantassa na demi. Avibbhamantasseva demi, vibbhamantassa na demī”ti evaṃ pana dātuṃ na vaṭṭati, dadato dukkaṭaṃ, āharāpetuṃ pana vaṭṭati. Cajitvā dinnaṃ acchinditvā gaṇhanto bhaṇḍagghena kāretabbo. Sesamettha uttānameva. Ayaṃ samantapāsādikato uddhaṭavinicchayo.
So vā detī means he gives it saying, “Venerable, this is indeed suitable for you,” or alternatively, if told, “Friend, we gave you a robe thinking, ‘He will fulfill his duties, take a preceptor with us, learn the Dhamma,’ but now you do neither,” he says, “Venerable, you must be speaking for the sake of a robe—here is your robe,” and gives it—thus he gives it himself. Or he says to a young monk gone to another region, “Call him back,” and he does not return. If he returns when told, “Take his robe and stop him,” it is good. If he says, “You must be speaking for the sake of a bowl and robe—take it,” and gives it, he gives it himself. Or seeing one disrobed, he says, “We gave you a bowl and robe thinking, ‘He will fulfill his duties,’ but now you wander disrobed,” and the other says, “Take your bowl and robe,” and gives it—thus he gives it himself. However, it is not permissible to give saying, “I give it only if you take a preceptor with me, not elsewhere; only if you fulfill duties, not if you don’t; only if you learn the Dhamma, not if you don’t; only if you do not disrobe, not if you do”—giving thus incurs a dukkaṭa, but it is permissible to have it brought. One who takes what was given with relinquishment without effort must compensate its value. The rest here is clear. This is the decision extracted from the Samantapāsādikā.
So vā detīti means he gives it, saying, “Venerable sir, this is suitable for you,” or in some other such way. Or else, being told such things as, “Friend, we gave you a robe thinking, ‘You will perform your duties for us, you will take your preceptor-ship in our presence, you will learn the Dhamma,’ but now you do not perform your duties, you do not take your preceptor-ship, you do not learn the Dhamma,” he says, “Venerable sir, I think you are speaking for the sake of the robe, here is your robe,” and in this way too, he gives it. Or, he tells a junior monk who has gone in a different direction, “Do not turn back.” He does not turn back. “Take the robe and restrain him.” If, in this way, he turns back, it is good. If he says, “I think you are speaking for the sake of the bowl and robe, take them,” in this way too, he himself gives it. Or, seeing one who has become disrobed, he says, “We gave you the bowl and robe, thinking, ‘You will perform your duties,’ but now you are wandering around having disrobed.” The other says, “Take your bowl and robe,” and in this way too, he gives it. But it is not proper to give [a robe] saying, “I will only give it to you if you take your preceptor-ship in my presence, I will not give it if you take it elsewhere. I will only give it if you perform your duties, I will not give it if you do not. I will only give it if you learn the Dhamma, I will not give it if you do not. I will only give it if you do not disrobe, I will not give it if you disrobe.” Giving in this way incurs a dukkaṭa, but it is proper to have it brought back. Having given it up and then it been given, taking without confiscating, it should be dealt with by means of payment of the value of property. The rest here is clearly stated. This determination is taken from the Samantapāsādikā.
So vā detīti means he gives, saying, “Venerable, this is suitable for you.” Or he may say, “Friend, we gave you a robe thinking you would perform duties, take a preceptor from us, and learn the Dhamma. Now you do not perform duties, do not take a preceptor, and do not learn the Dhamma.” When spoken to thus, he says, “Venerable, you seem to speak for the sake of a robe; here is your robe,” and gives it. Even so, he gives. If a young monk has gone in a direction and is told, “Do not turn back,” but he does not turn back, and is told, “Take the robe and stop,” if he turns back, it is good. If he says, “You seem to speak for the sake of a bowl and robe; take it,” and gives it, even so, he gives. If he sees one who has disrobed and says, “We gave you a bowl and robe thinking you would perform duties, but now you have disrobed and wander,” the other says, “Take your bowl and robe,” and gives it. Even so, he gives. “I give only to one who takes a preceptor from me, not to one who takes it elsewhere. I give only to one who performs duties, not to one who does not. I give only to one who learns the Dhamma, not to one who does not. I give only to one who does not disrobe, not to one who disrobes.” It is not proper to give in this way; giving thus incurs a dukkaṭa offense, but it is proper to have it brought. One who takes what has been given after relinquishing it should be dealt with as a thief. The rest here is clear. This is the decision extracted from the Samantapāsādikā.
ID1752
Yampi tyāhanti ettha yanti kāraṇavacanaṃ, tasmā evamettha sambandho veditabbo – “mayā saddhiṃ janapadacārikaṃ pakkamissatīti yaṃ kāraṇaṃ nissāya ahaṃ te, āvuso, cīvaraṃ adāsiṃ, taṃ na karosī”ti kupito anattamano acchindīti. Yanti vā cīvaraṃ parāmasati. Tattha “mayā saddhiṃ janapadacārikaṃ pakkamissatīti yampi te ahaṃ cīvaraṃ adāsiṃ, taṃ cīvaraṃ gaṇhissāmī”ti kupito anattamano acchindīti sambandhitabbaṃ.
In yampi tyāha, ya is a causal term, so the connection here should be understood as: “Angered and displeased, he takes it because I gave it to you, friend, for the reason that you would set out with me on a journey through the countryside, and you do not do so.” Alternatively, ya refers to the robe, thus: “Angered and displeased, he takes the robe that I gave you thinking, ‘He will set out with me on a journey through the countryside.’”
Yampi tyāhanti, here yanti is a word of cause, so the connection here should be understood thus: “Because of the reason, friend, that I gave you the robe, thinking, ‘He will go on a journey through the countryside with me,’ and you are not doing that,” being angry and displeased, he confiscated it. Or, Yanti refers to the robe. There, “Being angry and displeased, thinking ‘I will take the robe that I gave you, thinking he will go on a journey with me’,” the connection should be made.
Yampi tyāhanti here yanti is an instrumental case, so the connection should be understood as: “The reason I gave you a robe, friend, thinking you would go on a journey with me through the countryside, you do not do,” and being angry and displeased, he seizes it. Yanti can also refer to the robe being handled. Here, “Thinking you would go on a journey with me through the countryside, I gave you a robe, and now I will take that robe,” being angry and displeased, he seizes it. This is the connection.
ID1753
Āṇatto bahūni gaṇhāti, ekaṃ pācittiyanti “cīvaraṃ gaṇhā”ti āṇattiyā ekacīvaravisayattā ekameva pācittiyaṃ. Vācāya vācāya dukkaṭanti ettha acchinnesu vatthugaṇanāya pācittiyāni. Ekavācāya sambahulā āpattiyoti idaṃ acchinnesu vatthugaṇanāya āpajjitabbaṃ pācittiyāpattiṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, āṇattiyā āpajjitabbaṃ pana dukkaṭaṃ ekameva.
Āṇatto bahūni gaṇhāti, ekaṃ pācittiya means since the order “Take the robe” pertains to one robe, it is only one pācittiya. Vācāya vācāya dukkaṭa means for each statement regarding what is taken, there are pācittiya offenses according to the number of items. Ekavācāya sambahulā āpattiyo refers to the pācittiya offenses to be incurred according to the number of items taken, while the dukkaṭa from ordering is only one.
Āṇatto bahūni gaṇhāti, ekaṃ pācittiyanti, since the command “Take the robe” is with respect to a single robe, there is only one pācittiya. Vācāya vācāya dukkaṭanti, here, regarding confiscated items, there are pācittiyas according to the number of cloths. Ekavācāya sambahulā āpattiyoti, this is said with reference to the pācittiya offense to be incurred according to the number of cloths in confiscated items, but the dukkaṭa to be incurred by the command is only one.
Āṇatto bahūni gaṇhāti, ekaṃ pācittiyanti means if one is ordered, “Take the robe,” and takes many robes, it is one pācittiya offense, as it pertains to a single robe. Vācāya vācāya dukkaṭanti here refers to offenses counted according to the number of items when not deprived. Ekavācāya sambahulā āpattiyoti refers to incurring multiple pācittiya offenses for counting items when not deprived, but for the order, only one dukkaṭa offense is incurred.
ID1754
Evanti iminā “vatthugaṇanāya dukkaṭānī”ti idaṃ parāmasati. Eseva nayoti sithilaṃ gāḷhañca pakkhittāsu āpattiyā bahuttaṃ ekattañca atidisati.
Eva refers to “duikkaṭas according to the number of items.” Eseva nayo further specifies the plurality or singularity of offenses for items placed loosely or tightly.
Evanti, by this, it refers to this: “There are dukkaṭas according to the number of cloths.” Eseva nayoti, it indicates the multiplicity and singularity of offenses for those [items] put [away] loosely and tightly.
Evanti here refers to “offenses counted according to the number of items.” Eseva nayoti indicates that whether loosely or tightly placed, the offenses are many or one.
ID1755
Āvuso mayantiādīsu gaṇhitukāmatāya evaṃ vuttepi teneva dinnattā anāpatti. Amhākaṃ santike upajjhaṃ gaṇhissatīti idaṃ sāmaṇerassapi dānaṃ dīpeti, tasmā kiñcāpi pāḷiyaṃ “bhikkhussa sāmaṃ cīvaraṃ datvā”ti vuttaṃ, tathāpi anupasampannakāle datvāpi upasampannakāle acchindantassa pācittiyamevāti veditabbaṃ. Acchindanasamaye upasampannabhāvoyeva hettha pamāṇaṃ. Detīti tuṭṭho vā kupito vā deti. Ruddhathāti nivāretha. Evaṃ pana dātuṃ na vaṭṭatīti ettha evaṃ dinnaṃ na tāva “tassa santaka”nti anadhiṭṭhahitvāva paribhuñjitabbanti veditabbaṃ. Āharāpetuṃ pana vaṭṭatīti evaṃ dinnaṃ bhatisadisattā āharāpetuṃ vaṭṭati. Cajitvā dinnanti vuttanayena adatvā anapekkhena hutvā tasseva dinnaṃ. Bhaṇḍagghena kāretabboti sakasaññāya vinā gaṇhanto bhaṇḍaṃ agghāpetvā āpattiyā kāretabbo. Vikappanupagapacchimacīvaratā, sāmaṃ dinnatā, sakasaññitā, upasampannatā, kodhavasena acchindanaṃ vā acchindāpanaṃ vāti imānettha pañca aṅgāni. Ayaṃ sāratthadīpanīpāṭho (sārattha. ṭī. 2.635).
In āvuso maya and so forth, even if spoken with intent to take, there is no offense since it is given by him. Amhākaṃ santike upajjhaṃ gaṇhissati also indicates giving to a novice, so although the Pali text says “Having given a robe to a monk himself,” it should be understood that taking it after giving it to an unordained person when he is ordained incurs only a pācittiya. The criterion here is being ordained at the time of taking. Deti means he gives, whether pleased or angered. Ruddhatha means stop him. Evaṃ pana dātuṃ na vaṭṭati means what is given thus should not be used without determining it as “his property”—this should be understood. Āharāpetuṃ pana vaṭṭati means it is permissible to have what is given thus brought, as with a servant’s work. Cajitvā dinna means given to him with relinquishment without attachment as stated. Bhaṇḍagghena kāretabbo means one who takes without effort apart from his own perception must compensate the value and address the offense. The five factors here are: the last robe suitable for sharing, given by oneself, perceived as one’s own, being ordained, and taking or ordering it taken out of anger. This is the text of the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.635).
Āvuso mayantiādīsu, even if it is said in this way because of the desire to take, since it has been given by him, there is no offense. Amhākaṃ santike upajjhaṃ gaṇhissatīti, this indicates the giving even to a novice, therefore, although in the Pāli it is said, “Having given a robe himself to a bhikkhu,” even if it is given during the time of being a non-fully ordained one, if one confiscates it at the time of full ordination, it should be understood that it is indeed a pācittiya. The state of being fully ordained at the time of confiscation is the determining factor here. Detīti, he gives, either pleased or angry. Ruddhathāti means restrain. Evaṃ pana dātuṃ na vaṭṭatīti, here, it should be understood that it is not yet [a case of] “belonging to him,” and therefore, one should not use what is given in this way without having determined it. Āharāpetuṃ pana vaṭṭatīti, it is proper to have what is given in this way brought back, as it is like wages. Cajitvā dinnanti, given to him without expectation, not giving in the stated way. Bhaṇḍagghena kāretabboti, one who takes without [it being given] with the perception of it being his own, should be made to [incur] the offense after having the property valued. The five factors here are the state of being a robe not subject to joint-determination, having been given himself, the perception of it being his own, the state of being fully ordained, and confiscation or causing confiscation out of anger. This is the Sāratthadīpanī text (sārattha. ṭī. 2.635).
Āvuso mayantiādīsu even if said with the intention of taking, since it is given by him, there is no offense. Amhākaṃ santike upajjhaṃ gaṇhissatīti this indicates giving to a novice as well, so even though the Pāli says, “giving a robe directly to a monk,” it should be understood that even if given before full ordination, taking it after full ordination incurs a pācittiya offense. The time of taking is the measure for full ordination. Detīti means he gives, whether pleased or angry. Ruddhathāti means to stop. Evaṃ pana dātuṃ na vaṭṭatīti here it should be understood that what is given in this way should not be used without determining it as his own. Āharāpetuṃ pana vaṭṭatīti means it is proper to have it brought, as it is like food. Cajitvā dinnanti means giving without relinquishing, without concern, giving it to him. Bhaṇḍagghena kāretabboti means one who takes without the perception of ownership should be dealt with as a thief. The five factors here are: the robe being designated, given directly, with the perception of ownership, taken by a fully ordained monk, and taken out of anger. This is the explanation from the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.635).
ID1756
Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.631) pana “yampi…pe… acchindīti ettha yaṃ te ahaṃ cīvaraṃ adāsiṃ, taṃ ’mayā saddhiṃ pakkamissatī’ti saññāya adāsiṃ, na aññathāti kupito acchindīti evaṃ ajjhāharitvā yojetabbaṃ. Ekaṃ dukkaṭanti yadi āṇatto avassaṃ acchindati, āṇattikkhaṇe eva pācittiyaṃ. Yadi na acchindati, tadā eva dukkaṭanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Ekavācāya sambahulāpattiyoti yadi āṇatto anantarāyena acchindati, āṇattikkhaṇeyeva vatthugaṇanāya pācittiyāpattiyo payogakaraṇakkhaṇeyeva āpattiyā āpajjitabbato, cīvaraṃ pana acchinneyeva nissaggiyaṃ hoti. Yadi so na acchindati, āṇattikkhaṇe ekameva dukkaṭanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Evamaññatthapi īdisesu nayo ñātabbo. Upajjhaṃ gaṇhissatīti sāmaṇerassa dānaṃ dīpeti, tena ca sāmaṇerakāle datvā upasampannakāle acchindatopi pācittiyaṃ dīpeti. “Bhikkhussa sāmaṃ cīvaraṃ datvā”ti idaṃ ukkaṭṭhavasena vuttaṃ. Āharāpetuṃ pana vaṭṭatīti kamme akate bhatisadisattā vuttaṃ. Vikappanupagapacchimacīvaratā, sāmaṃ dinnatā, sakasaññitā, upasampannatā, kodhavasena acchindanaṃ vā acchindāpanaṃ vāti imānettha pañca aṅgānī”ti vuttaṃ.
In the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.631), it says: “In yampi… acchindī, it should be construed as: ‘Angered, he takes it, having given you the robe with the perception that you would set out with me, not otherwise.’ Ekaṃ dukkaṭa means if the one ordered definitely takes it, it is a pācittiya at the moment of ordering; if he does not take it, it is only a dukkaṭa then—this should be seen. Ekavācāya sambahulā āpattiyo means if the one ordered takes it without interruption, there are pācittiya offenses according to the number of items at the moment of ordering due to the act being performed, but the robe becomes nissaggiya only when taken; if he does not take it, it is only one dukkaṭa at the moment of ordering—this should be seen. This method should be understood in similar cases elsewhere. Upajjhaṃ gaṇhissati indicates giving to a novice, thus also indicating a pācittiya for taking it when ordained after giving it as a novice. ‘Having given a robe to a monk himself’ is stated as the highest case. Āharāpetuṃ pana vaṭṭati is said because the task is not done, like a servant’s work. The five factors here are: the last robe suitable for sharing, given by oneself, perceived as one’s own, being ordained, and taking or ordering it taken out of anger.”
In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.631), however, it is said: “yampi…pe… acchindīti, here, the robe that I gave you, I gave it with the thought, ‘He will go on a journey with me,’ not otherwise,” being angry, he confiscated it—it should be connected by supplying this. Ekaṃ dukkaṭanti, if the one commanded inevitably confiscates, there is a pācittiya at the very moment of the command. If he does not confiscate, then it should be considered a dukkaṭa. Ekavācāya sambahulāpattiyoti, if the one commanded confiscates without interruption, there are pācittiya offenses according to the number of cloths at the very moment of the command, since the offense should be incurred at the moment of the action of exertion; however, once the robe is confiscated, it becomes nissaggiya. If he does not confiscate, it should be considered a single dukkaṭa at the moment of the command. In this way, the principle should be understood in other such cases. Upajjhaṃ gaṇhissatīti indicates the giving to a novice, and by that, it indicates a pācittiya even if one confiscates at the time of full ordination, after having given during the time of being a novice. “Having given a robe himself to a bhikkhu,” this is stated by way of eminence. Āharāpetuṃ pana vaṭṭatīti, it is stated because it is like wages when the action has not been performed. The five factors here are the state of being a robe not subject to joint-determination, having been given himself, the perception of it being his own, the state of being fully ordained, and confiscation or causing confiscation out of anger.”
In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.631), it is stated: “yampi…pe… acchindīti here, “The robe I gave you, thinking you would go with me, I gave with that perception, not otherwise,” being angry, he seizes it. This is how it should be understood. Ekaṃ dukkaṭanti means if one is ordered and seizes it without delay, it is a pācittiya offense at the moment of the order. If one does not seize it, it is only a dukkaṭa offense at that moment. Ekavācāya sambahulāpattiyoti means if one is ordered and seizes it without delay, pācittiya offenses are incurred at the moment of the order according to the number of items. If one does not seize it, it is only one dukkaṭa offense at the moment of the order. The same principle applies in other similar cases. Upajjhaṃ gaṇhissatīti indicates giving to a novice, and even if given during the novice period, taking it after full ordination incurs a pācittiya offense. “Giving a robe directly to a monk” is said in an elevated sense. Āharāpetuṃ pana vaṭṭatīti refers to what is said in the context of an unfinished action, like food. The five factors here are: the robe being designated, given directly, with the perception of ownership, taken by a fully ordained monk, and taken out of anger.
ID1757
ID1758
6. Paṭibhānacittakathāyaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttanayeneva suviññeyyanti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ na kiñci vuttaṃ, vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.299) pana “karohīti vattuṃ na vaṭṭatīti āṇattiyā eva paṭikkhittattā dvārapālaṃ ’kiṃ na karosī’tiādinā pariyāyena vattuṃ vaṭṭati. Jātakapakaraṇanti jātakapaṭisaṃyuttaṃ itthipurisādi yaṃ kiñci rūpaṃ adhippetaṃ. ‘Parehi kārāpetu’nti vuttattā buddharūpampi sayaṃ kātuṃ na labhatī”ti vuttaṃ.
6. In the Discussion on Reflective Mindfulness, since it is easily understood by the method stated in the commentary, nothing is said in the Sāratthadīpanī. In the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.299), however, it says: “Karohīti vattuṃ na vaṭṭati means it is not permissible to say ‘Do it’ due to the prohibition of direct ordering, but it is permissible to say to a doorkeeper indirectly, ‘Why don’t you do it?’ or similar. Jātakapakaraṇa means anything related to the Jātakas, such as figures of men or women. Since it says ‘parehi kārāpetu,’ one cannot make even a Buddha image oneself.”
6. In the Paṭibhānacittakathā, it is very easy to understand by the method stated in the commentary, so nothing is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī; in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.299), however, it is said: “karohīti vattuṃ na vaṭṭatīti, since it is prohibited by the very command, it is proper to address the gatekeeper indirectly, saying, “Why don’t you do it?” and so on. Jātakapakaraṇanti means any kind of form related to the Jātakas, of men, women, etc. ‘Parehi kārāpetu’nti, since it is stated, he does not obtain to make even a Buddha image himself.”
6. In the discussion on Paṭibhānacitta, the commentary is easily understood as stated, and nothing further is mentioned in the Sāratthadīpanī. However, in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 2.299), it is stated: “karohīti vattuṃ na vaṭṭatīti means since the order is rejected, it is proper to speak indirectly, such as saying to a gatekeeper, “Why do you not do it?” Jātakapakaraṇanti refers to anything related to the Jātaka, such as forms of men or women. ‘Parehi kārāpetu’nti means even a Buddha image cannot be made by oneself.
ID1759
ID1760
7. Vippakatabhojanakathāyampi sāratthadīpanī vimativinodanī vajirabuddhiṭīkāsu na kiñci vuttaṃ. Paṭhamaṃ kataṃ pakataṃ, vi aniṭṭhitaṃ pakataṃ vippakataṃ, vippakataṃ bhojanaṃ yena so vippakatabhojano, paṭhamaṃ bhuñjitvā aniṭṭhitabhojanakicco bhikkhu. Vuttena bhikkhunā pavisitabbanti sambandho. Rittahatthampi uṭṭhāpetuṃ na vaṭṭatīti ettha kāraṇamāha “vippakatabhojanoyeva hi so hotī”ti, yāgukhajjakādīsupi pītesu khāditesupi bhattassa abhuttattā aniṭṭhitabhojanakicco hoti. Pavārito hoti, tena vattabboti pavāritena āsanā vuṭṭhitena bhuñjituṃ alabhamānattā attano santike udake asante vattabboti attho. Sesaṃ suviññeyyameva.
7. In the Discussion on Incomplete Meals, nothing is said in the Sāratthadīpanī, Vimativinodanī, or Vajirabuddhiṭīkā. What is first made is pakata; what is not finished is vi-pakata; one who eats incomplete food is vippakatabhojano, a monk who eats first but has not completed the duty of eating. It connects with “must be entered by the stated monk.” Rittahatthampi uṭṭhāpetuṃ na vaṭṭati gives the reason: “vippakatabhojanoyeva hi so hoti,” meaning even after drinking gruel or eating hard food, the duty of eating remains incomplete since the meal is not eaten. Pavārito hoti, tena vattabbo means since one invited cannot eat after rising from the seat, he should be told if there is no water nearby. The rest is easily understood.
7. In the Vippakatabhojanakathā too, nothing is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī, Vimativinodanī, and Vajirabuddhiṭīkās. What is first done is ‘pakataṃ’, unfinished ‘pakataṃ’ is ‘vippakataṃ’, one who has unfinished food is vippakatabhojano, a bhikkhu who has eaten first but has not finished the task of eating. The connection is that he should be addressed by the stated bhikkhu. Rittahatthampi uṭṭhāpetuṃ na vaṭṭatīti, here it states the reason: “vippakatabhojanoyeva hi so hotī”ti, because even if gruel, hard food, etc., have been drunk and eaten, since the meal has not been eaten, the task of eating is not finished. Pavārito hoti, tena vattabboti, since one who has been invited and has risen from the seat is unable to eat, when there is no water in one’s presence, he should be addressed—that is the meaning. The rest is easy to understand.
7. In the discussion on Vippakatabhojana, nothing further is mentioned in the Sāratthadīpanī, Vimativinodanī, or Vajirabuddhiṭīkā. First, what is made is called pakata, and what is not completed is called vippakata. Vippakata food is that by which one is called vippakatabhojano, a monk who has eaten first and whose meal duty is incomplete. The connection is that such a monk should be entered upon by the stated monk. Rittahatthampi uṭṭhāpetuṃ na vaṭṭatīti here the reason is stated: “vippakatabhojanoyeva hi so hotī”ti, meaning even if one has drunk gruel or eaten snacks, if the meal is not eaten, the meal duty is incomplete. Pavārito hoti, tena vattabboti means since one who has finished eating cannot eat again, one should be told to bring water if there is none nearby. The rest is easily understood.
ID1761
ID1762
8. Uddisantauddisāpanakathāyaṃ uddisantenāti uddesaṃ dentena, pāḷiṃ vācentenāti attho. Uddisāpentenāti uddesaṃ gaṇhantena, pāḷiṃ vācāpentenāti attho. Uccatarepīti pi-saddena samānāsanaṃ sampiṇḍeti. Nīcatarepīti etthāpi eseva nayo.
8. In the Discussion on Teaching and Causing to Teach, uddisantena means by one teaching, i.e., reciting the Pali text. Uddisāpentena means by one causing to teach, i.e., having the Pali text recited. Uccatarepi includes a similar seat with the particle pi. Nīcatarepi follows the same method.
8. In the Uddisantauddisāpanakathā, uddisantenāti means by one who is giving the recitation, reciting the Pāli, that is the meaning. Uddisāpentenāti means by one who is taking the recitation, causing the Pāli to be recited, that is the meaning. Uccatarepīti, with the word pi, it includes the same seat. Nīcatarepīti, here too, the same principle applies.
8. In the discussion on Uddisanta and Uddisāpana, uddisantenāti means one who gives the recitation, or recites the Pāli. Uddisāpentenāti means one who receives the recitation, or causes the Pāli to be recited. Uccatarepīti the particle pi connects it with sitting together. Nīcatarepīti here the same applies.
ID1763
ID1764
9. Tivassantarikakathāyaṃ tīṇi vassāni tivassaṃ, tīṇi vā vassāni tivassāni, tivassānaṃ antaraṃ tivassantaraṃ, tivassantare ṭhitoti tivassantaro, tena tivassantarena, antara-saddo majjhatthavācako, ṇa-paccayo ṭhitatthe. Tenāha vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 320) “tivassantarenāti tiṇṇaṃ vassānaṃ anto ṭhitenā”ti. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 320) pana sarūpameva dassento “tivassantaro nāmā”tiādimāha. Ime sabbeti sabbe tividhā ime samānāsanikā. Sesaṃ suviññeyyameva.
9. In the Discussion on Three-Year Intervals, three years are tivassaṃ; or three years are tivassāni; the interval between three years is tivassantara; one standing in that interval is tivassantaro, thus tivassantarena. The term antara denotes the middle, and the suffix ṇa indicates standing. Hence, the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 320) says: “tivassantarena means standing within three years.” The commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 320), however, explains the form itself, saying “tivassantaro nāma” and so forth. Ime sabbe means all these three kinds of co-seated ones. The rest is easily understood.
9. In the Tivassantarikakathā, three rains are ‘tivassaṃ’, or three rains are ‘tivassāni’, the interval of three rains is ‘tivassantaraṃ’, one who is situated in the tivassantara is ‘tivassantaro’, by that tivassantarena, the word antara means ‘middle’, the suffix ‘ṇa’ is in the sense of ‘situated’. Therefore, it says in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 320): “tivassantarenāti means ‘by one who is situated within three rains’.” In the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 320), however, showing the very form, it says, “tivassantaro nāmā”ti, etc. Ime sabbeti means all these three kinds of those seated on the same seat. The rest is easy to understand.
9. In the discussion on Tivassantarikā, three years is called tivassa, and the interval between three years is called tivassantara. One who stands within three years is called tivassantaro. Therefore, tivassantarena, antara-sadda is a term indicating the middle, and the suffix ṇa indicates permanence. Therefore, the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 320) states: “tivassantarenāti means standing within three years.” The commentary (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 320) similarly states: “tivassantaro nāmā”ti. Ime sabbeti all these are of three kinds, these are the same-seated ones. The rest is easily understood.
ID1765
ID1766
10. Dīghāsanakathāyaṃ saṃhārimaṃ vāti saṃharituṃ yuttaṃ kaṭasārakādi. Asaṃhārimaṃ vāti saṃharituṃ asakkuṇeyyaṃ pāsāṇādi āsanaṃ. Tenāha sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.320) “dīghāsanaṃ nāma mañcapīṭhavinimuttaṃ yaṃ kiñci tiṇṇannaṃ ekato sukhaṃ nisīdituṃ pahotī”ti. Kasmā pana “tiṇṇannaṃ pahotī”ti vuttaṃ, nanu dvinnaṃ pahonakāsanampi dīghamevāti codanaṃ sandhāyāha “anujānāmi…pe… ettakaṃ pacchimaṃ dīghāsananti hi vutta”nti. Dvinnaṃ pahonake hi adīghāsane samānāsanikeheva saha nisīdituṃ vaṭṭati, tiṇṇannaṃ pahonakato paṭṭhāya gahite dīghāsane pana asamānāsanikehipi saha nisīdituṃ vaṭṭati. Yadi evaṃ paṇḍakādīhipi saha nisīdituṃ vaṭṭeyyāti codanaṃ manasi katvā āha “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, ṭhapetvā paṇḍaka”ntiādi. Tattha attho suviññeyyova.
10. In the discussion on the long seat, saṃhārimaṃ vā refers to something suitable to be folded, such as a mat made of rushes or similar materials. Asaṃhārimaṃ vā refers to a seat made of stone or the like, which cannot be folded. Hence it is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.320), “dīghāsanaṃ** means any seat, apart from a bed or a stool, that allows three people to sit together comfortably.” Why, then, is it said “it suffices for three,” when a seat sufficient for two is also considered long? Addressing this objection, it is stated, “I allow… up to this point, the final long seat,”** as it is said. For a seat sufficient for two, which is not a long seat, it is permissible to sit together only with those of the same status. However, for a long seat sufficient for three or more, it is permissible to sit even with those of different status. If this is so, would it then be permissible to sit with paṇḍakas and the like? Considering this objection, it is said, “I allow, bhikkhus, except for a paṇḍaka,” and so forth. The meaning there is quite clear.
10. In the discussion on long seats, saṃhārimaṃ vāti refers to a portable seat like a mat or stool. Asaṃhārimaṃ vāti refers to a non-portable seat like a stone. Therefore, it is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.320), “‘dīghāsanaṃ’ (long seat) means any seat other than a bed or a stool, which is sufficient for three people to sit comfortably together.” But why is it said “sufficient for three”? Is not a seat sufficient for two also considered long? With reference to this objection, he says, “anujānāmi…pe… ettakaṃ pacchimaṃ dīghāsananti hi vutta”nti (I allow… etc… this much is the limit of a long seat, it is said). On a seat that is not long, sufficient for two, it is permissible to sit with those who have similar seats. But on a long seat, starting from what is sufficient for three, it is permissible to sit even with those who do not have similar seats. If so, it would be permissible to sit even with eunuchs, etc. Thinking about this kind of refutation, he spoke, beginning “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, ṭhapetvā paṇḍaka”ntiādi (I allow, monks, except for a eunuch). The meaning there is easily understood.
10. In the discussion on long seats, “removable” means a seat that is suitable to be folded, such as a chair or bench. “Non-removable” means a seat that cannot be folded, such as a stone seat. Therefore, the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 3.320) states: “A long seat** is anything detached from a bed or bench that is capable of comfortably seating three people together.” Why is it said, “capable of seating three”? Isn’t a seat capable of seating two also long? This objection is addressed by saying, ”I allow… this much as the maximum length for a long seat.”** For two people, even a non-long seat is sufficient for sitting together with others of equal status. However, from the point where it can seat three, a long seat allows even those of unequal status to sit together. If this is the case, could one also sit together with a eunuch, etc.? Considering this objection, it is said, “I allow, monks, except for a eunuch,” etc. The meaning here is clear.
ID1767
ID1768
11. Gilānupaṭṭhānakathāyaṃ palipannoti nimuggo, makkhitoti attho. Uccāretvāti ukkhipitvā. Samānācariyakoti ettha “sacepi ekassa ācariyassa eko antevāsiko hoti, eko saddhivihāriko, etepi aññamaññaṃ samānācariyakā evā”ti vadanti. Bhesajjaṃ yojetuṃ asamattho hotīti vejjena “idañcidañca bhesajjaṃ gahetvā iminā yojetvā dātabba”nti vutte tathā kātuṃ asamatthoti attho. Nīhātunti nīharituṃ, chaḍḍetunti attho. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.365-366) pana “bhūmiyaṃ paribhaṇḍaṃ akāsīti gilānena nipannabhūmiyaṃ kiliṭṭhaṭṭhānaṃ dhovitvā haritūpalittaṃ kāresīti attho. Bhesajjaṃ yojetuṃ asamatthoti parehi vuttavidhimpi kātuṃ asamattho”ti vuttaṃ.
11. In the discourse on attending to the sick, palipanno means submerged or smeared, that is, covered. Uccāretvā means having lifted up. Samānācariyako here refers to those under the same teacher; it is said, “Even if one is a pupil and another a co-resident under the same teacher, they are still considered samānācariyakā to each other.” Bhesajjaṃ yojetuṃ asamattho hoti means unable to prepare medicine; that is, when a physician says, “Take this or that medicine and administer it in this way,” one is unable to do so. Nīhātu means to remove or discard. However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.365-366), it is said, “bhūmiyaṃ paribhaṇḍaṃ akāsi** means that the sick person washes the soiled area on the ground where they lie and applies a green plaster.” Bhesajjaṃ yojetuṃ asamattho** means unable to follow even the method prescribed by others.
11. In the discussion of attending to the sick, palipannoti means sunk, meaning soiled. Uccāretvāti means lifting up. Samānācariyakoti, here, “even if one teacher has one pupil and one co-resident, these are also considered to have the same teacher as each other,” it is said. Bhesajjaṃ yojetuṃ asamattho hotīti means being unable to do as told when the physician says, “Take this and this medicine, mix it with this, and administer it.” Nīhātunti means to remove, to discard. However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.365-366), it is said, “bhūmiyaṃ paribhaṇḍaṃ akāsī”ti means he cleaned the soiled area on the ground where the sick person was lying and had it plastered with green clay. “Bhesajjaṃ yojetuṃ asamattho”ti means unable to do even according to the method prescribed by others,” it is said.
11. In the discussion on attending the sick, “smeared” means covered or soiled. “Having lifted” means having raised. “Fellow student” here refers to those who share the same teacher, even if one is a pupil and the other a co-student; they are considered fellow students. “Unable to prepare medicine” means being incapable of preparing medicine as instructed by a physician, such as, “Take this and that medicine, prepare it in this way, and give it.” “To remove” means to discard. The Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.365-366) states: “Having defiled the ground” means having cleaned a soiled area where the sick person lay and having applied green clay. “Unable to prepare medicine” means being incapable of following the instructions given by others.
ID1769
ID1770
12. Maraṇavaṇṇakathāyaṃ maraṇatthikāva hutvāti imassa kāyassa bhedena saggapāpanādhippāyattā atthato maraṇatthikāva hutvā. Maraṇatthikabhāvaṃ ajānantāti “evaṃ adhippāyino maraṇatthikā nāma hontī”ti attano maraṇatthikabhāvaṃ ajānantā. Na hi te attano cittappavattiṃ na jānanti. Vohāravasenāti pubbabhāgavohāravasena, maraṇādhippāyassa sanniṭṭhāpakacetanākkhaṇe karuṇāya abhāvato kāruññena pāse baddhasūkaramocanaṃ viya na hotīti adhippāyo. “Yathāyunā”ti vuttamevatthaṃ yathānusandhināti pariyāyantarena vuttaṃ, yathānusandhinā yathāyuparicchedenāti vuttaṃ hoti. Atha vā yathānusandhināti yathānuppabandhena, yāva tasmiṃ bhave santānassa anuppabandho avicchinnapavatti hoti, tāva ṭhatvāti vuttaṃ hoti.
12. In the discourse on the quality of death, maraṇatthikāva hutvā means essentially desiring death due to an intention for heaven or evil states after the breakup of this body. Maraṇatthikabhāvaṃ ajānantā means not knowing their own state of desiring death, thinking, “Those with such intentions are called maraṇatthikā.” It is not that they are unaware of their own mental processes. Vohāravasenā means by way of preliminary expression, for at the moment of decisive intention toward death, due to the absence of compassion, it is not like releasing a pig bound in a snare out of pity—this is the implication. Yathāyunā restates the same meaning as yathānusandhinā, a different phrasing, meaning “according to the continuity of life.” Alternatively, yathānusandhinā means “according to continuation,” that is, remaining as long as the continuum in that existence persists without interruption.
12. In the discussion on praising death, maraṇatthikāva hutvāti means, because of the intention to attain heaven through the breaking up of this body, in essence, being desirous of death. Maraṇatthikabhāvaṃ ajānantāti means not knowing their own state of being desirous of death, [thinking] “Those with such an intention are called ‘desirous of death’.” It is not that they do not know their own mental activity. Vohāravasenāti means by way of preliminary behavior, because at the moment of the volition that determines the intention of death, there is no compassion; the meaning is that it is not like releasing a pig caught in a snare out of compassion. The meaning of “Yathāyunā”ti (according to one’s lifespan) is conveyed with another term, yathānusandhināti. It is said to be “yathānusandhinā yathāyuparicchedenāti” (according to the connection, according to the extent of one’s lifespan). Or, yathānusandhināti means according to the continuous connection, meaning to remain as long as the continuity in that existence is uninterrupted.
12. In the discussion on the description of death, “desiring death” means intending to die by the breaking up of this body, aiming for heaven or hell. “Not knowing the state of desiring death” means not recognizing that one has the intention to die in this way. They do not know the workings of their own mind. “By way of conventional speech” means through prior conventional expressions, as at the moment of decisive intention for death, there is no compassion, and thus, like the release of a pig caught in a snare, it does not occur. “According to the connection” is another way of saying “according to the lifespan,” meaning according to the extent of one’s lifespan. Alternatively, “according to the connection” means according to the continuity, as long as the continuity of existence remains unbroken.
ID1771
Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.180) “vohāravasenāti pubbabhāgavohāravasena maraṇādhippāyassa sanniṭṭhāpakacetanākkhaṇe karuṇāya abhāvato, kāruññena pāse baddhasūkaramocanaṃ viya na hotīti adhippāyo. ’Yathāyunā’ti vuttamevatthaṃ yathānusandhināti pariyāyantarena vutta”nti vuttaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 180) pana “maraṇatthikāva hutvāti imassa kāyassa bhedena saggapāpanādhippāyattā atthato maraṇatthikāva hutvā. “Evaṃadhippāyino maraṇatthikā nāma hontī”ti attano maraṇatthikabhāvaṃ ajānantā āpannā pārājikaṃ. Na hi te attano cittappavattiṃ na jānantīti vuccanti. Vohāravasenāti pubbabhāge vohāravasena, sanniṭṭhāne panetaṃ natthi, pāse baddhasūkaramocane viya na hoti. Yathānusandhināti antarā amaritvāti attho”ti vuttaṃ.
In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.180), it is said, “vohāravasenā** means by way of preliminary expression, for at the moment of decisive intention toward death, due to the absence of compassion, it is not like releasing a pig bound in a snare out of pity—this is the implication. ‘Yathāyunā’ restates the same meaning as yathānusandhinā, a different phrasing.” In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 180), however, it is said, “maraṇatthikāva hutvā** means essentially desiring death due to an intention for heaven or evil states after the breakup of this body. Not knowing their own state of desiring death, thinking, ‘Those with such intentions are called maraṇatthikā,’ they incur a pārājika offense. It is not said that they are unaware of their own mental processes. Vohāravasenā means by way of preliminary expression; at the decisive moment, this does not apply, unlike releasing a pig bound in a snare. Yathānusandhinā means without dying in between.”
In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.180), it is said, “vohāravasenā”ti means by way of preliminary behavior, because at the moment of the volition that determines the intention of death, there is no compassion; the meaning is that it is not like releasing a pig caught in a snare out of compassion. The meaning conveyed by ‘Yathāyunā’ti is conveyed with another term, ’yathānusandhinā’ti”. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 180), it is said, “maraṇatthikāva hutvā”ti means, because of the intention to attain heaven through the breaking up of this body, in essence being desirous of death. Those who do not know that ’those who have such an intention are called desirous of death’, have incurred a pārājika. It is not said that these ones do not know their own state of mind. Vohāravasenāti by reason of conduct in a former time, but this does not exist in determination of intention, it is not similar to the release of a pig caught in a snare. Yathānusandhināti means not having died in between.”
The Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.180) states: “By way of conventional speech” means through prior conventional expressions, as at the moment of decisive intention for death, there is no compassion, and thus, like the release of a pig caught in a snare, it does not occur. “According to the connection” is another way of saying “according to the lifespan.” The Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Pārājika 180) states: “Desiring death” means intending to die by the breaking up of this body, aiming for heaven or hell. “Not knowing the state of desiring death” means not recognizing that one has the intention to die in this way. They do not know the workings of their own mind. “By way of conventional speech” means through prior conventional expressions, as at the moment of decisive intention, there is no compassion, and thus, like the release of a pig caught in a snare, it does not occur. “According to the connection” means without dying in between.
ID1772
ID1773
13. Attapātanakathāyaṃ vibhattibyattayenāti vibhattivipariṇāmena. Visesādhigamoti samādhi vipassanā ca. Ativiya pākaṭattā “hatthappatto viya dissatī”ti vuttaṃ. Upacchindatīti visesādhigamassa vikkhepo mā hotūti āhāraṃ upacchindati. Visesādhigamanti lokuttaradhammapaṭilābhaṃ. Byākaritvāti ārocetvā. Upacchindati, na vaṭṭatīti yasmā sabhāgānaṃ lajjībhikkhūnaṃyeva ariyā attanā adhigatavisesaṃ tādise kāraṇe sati ārocenti, te ca bhikkhū appatirūpāya anesanāya paccayaṃ na pariyesanti, tasmā tehi pariyesitapaccaye kukkuccaṃ uppādetvā āhāraṃ upacchindituṃ na vaṭṭatīti attho. Sabhāgānañhi byākatattā upacchindituṃ na labhati. Te hi kappiyakhettaṃ ārocenti. Teneva “sabhāgānañhi lajjībhikkhūnaṃ kathetuṃ vaṭṭatīti idaṃ ’upacchindati, na vaṭṭatī’ti imassa kāraṇaṃ dassentena vutta”nti tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. Atha vā visesādhigamaṃ byākaritvāti idaṃ visesassa adhigatabhāvadassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ, adhigamantarāyaṃ āsaṅkanteneva ca āhārupacchedo kātabboti anuññātattā adhigatena na kātabboti dassetuṃ “visesādhigamaṃ byākaritvā āhāraṃ upacchindati, na vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ. Kiṃ pana ariyā attanā adhigatavisesaṃ aññesaṃ ārocentīti imissā codanāya “sabhāgānañhi lajjībhikkhūnaṃ kathetuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ, ayamettha yuttataroti amhākaṃ khanti, gaṇṭhipadepi ayamattho dassitoyevāti.
13. In the discourse on self-destruction, vibhattibyattayenā means through a change in grammatical form. Visesādhigamo refers to concentration and insight. Due to its extreme clarity, it is said, “hatthappatto viya dissati,” meaning “it appears as if within hand’s reach.” Upacchindati means he cuts off food so that the attainment of distinction is not disrupted. Visesādhigama refers to the attainment of supramundane states. Byākaritvā means having declared. Upacchindati, na vaṭṭati means it is not proper to cut off food, because only noble ones, who are conscientious bhikkhus of the same community, declare their attained distinction for such a reason, and those bhikkhus do not seek requisites through improper means. Therefore, it is not proper to cause them remorse by cutting off food acquired by them—this is the meaning. Since it is declared by those of the same community, one does not have the right to cut it off. They indeed declare it as a permissible field. Hence, it is said in all three commentarial passages, “It is proper to declare to conscientious bhikkhus of the same community—this is stated as the reason for ‘upacchindati, na vaṭṭati.’” Alternatively, visesādhigamaṃ byākaritvā is said to indicate the attainment of distinction, and to show that cutting off food is permitted only when suspecting an obstacle to attainment, not after attaining it, it is said, “visesādhigamaṃ byākaritvā āhāraṃ upacchindati, na vaṭṭati.” To the objection, “Do noble ones declare their attained distinction to others?” it is said, “sabhāgānañhi lajjībhikkhūnaṃ kathetuṃ vaṭṭati,” meaning “It is proper to declare to conscientious bhikkhus of the same community.” This seems more reasonable to us, and this meaning is indeed shown in the commentarial passages.
13. In the discussion on throwing oneself down, vibhattibyattayenāti means by a change of case ending. Visesādhigamoti means concentration and insight. Because it is extremely evident, it is said, “hatthappatto viya dissatī”ti (it appears as if it has been attained). Upacchindatīti means he cuts off food so that there will be no distraction to the attainment of distinction. Visesādhigamanti means the attainment of supramundane states. Byākaritvāti means having declared. Upacchindati, na vaṭṭatīti means, because only modest monks among those of the same group declare to the noble ones, in such a case, the distinction they have attained, and those monks do not seek requisites through improper searching, therefore, it is not permissible to cause scrupulousness in regards to requisites sought by them and cut off food. Because it has been declared to those of the same group, he cannot cut it off. Because these ones declare [it] to a proper sphere. Therefore it has been said in all three gaṇṭhipadas, “This, ‘it is permissible to tell modest monks of the same group,’ is stated by showing reason for this, ‘he cuts off, it is not permissible’.” Or, visesādhigamaṃ byākaritvāti, this is said to show the fact that distinction has been attained. Because cutting off food is allowed only when one is anxious about an obstacle to the attainment, it is said, “visesādhigamaṃ byākaritvā āhāraṃ upacchindati, na vaṭṭatī”ti (having declared the attainment of distinction, he cuts off food, it is not permissible), in order to show that one who has attained it should not do so. But do the noble ones declare the distinction they have attained to others? For this question, it is said, “sabhāgānañhi lajjībhikkhūnaṃ kathetuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti (it is permissible to tell modest monks of the same group). This meaning, here, is what we prefer as more appropriate, and in the gaṇṭhipada, this meaning has already been shown.
13. In the discussion on suicide, “by alteration of posture” means by changing one’s posture. “Attainment of distinction” refers to concentration and insight. Because these are very evident, it is said, “as if visible to the hand.” “Interrupts” means to cut off food so that the attainment of distinction is not disturbed. “Attainment of distinction” refers to the attainment of supramundane states. “Having declared” means having informed. “Interrupts, it is not allowable” means that noble ones, having attained distinction, inform their fellow virtuous monks, and those monks do not seek requisites in an improper manner. Therefore, it is not allowable to cause them anxiety by seeking requisites and then cutting off their food. For it is not permissible to cut off food from those who have declared. They inform the proper field of merit. Therefore, it is said, “It is allowable for virtuous monks to speak,” etc., in the three sections of the commentary. Alternatively, “having declared the attainment of distinction” is said to show the attainment of distinction, and because the interruption of food is allowed only when there is a risk of hindering attainment, it is not to be done after attainment. Therefore, it is said, “Having declared the attainment of distinction, one interrupts food, it is not allowable.” Why do noble ones inform others of their attainments? To address this objection, it is said, “It is allowable for virtuous monks to speak,” etc. This is more appropriate, and this meaning is shown in the commentary.
ID1774
Vimativinodaniyampi (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.182-183) “vibhattibyattayenāti vibhattivipariṇāmena. Visesādhigamoti samādhi vipassanā ca. Visesādhigamanti lokuttaradhammapaṭilābhaṃ. Byākaritvāti ārocetvā, idañca visesassa adhigatabhāvadassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Adhigatavisesā hi diṭṭhānugatiāpajjanatthaṃ lajjībhikkhūnaṃ avassaṃ adhigamaṃ byākaronti, adhigatavisesena pana abyākaritvāpi āhāraṃ upacchindituṃ na vaṭṭati, adhigamantarāyavinodanatthameva āhārupacchedassa anuññātattā tadadhigame so na kātabbova. Kiṃ panādhigamaṃ ārocetuṃ vaṭṭatīti āha sabhāgānañhītiādī”ti vuttaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 181-183) “hatthappatto viya dissati, ’tassa vikkhepo mā hotū’ti upacchindati, visesādhigamaṃ byākaritvā tappabhavaṃ sakkāraṃ lajjāyanto āhāraṃ upacchindati sabhāgānaṃ byākatattā. Te hi kappiyakhettaṃ ārocentī”ti vuttaṃ.
In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.182-183), it is said, **“vibhattibyattayenā** means through a change in grammatical form. Visesādhigamo refers to concentration and insight. Visesādhigama refers to the attainment of supramundane states. Byākaritvā means having declared, and this is said to indicate the attainment of distinction. Those with attained distinction inevitably declare their attainment to conscientious bhikkhus for the sake of following their example, but it is not proper to cut off food without declaring it even with attained distinction, since cutting off food is permitted only to remove obstacles to attainment, not after attaining it. To the question, ‘Is it proper to declare the attainment?’ it says, ‘To those of the same community…’ and so forth.” In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 181-183), it is said, “It appears as if within hand’s reach, and upacchindati means he cuts it off so that there is no disruption to it. visesādhigamaṃ byākaritvā āhāraṃ upacchindati means, being ashamed of the honor resulting from it, he cuts off food after declaring it to those of the same community. They indeed declare it as a permissible field.”
Also in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.182-183), it is said, “vibhattibyattayenā”ti means by a change of case ending. Visesādhigamoti means concentration and insight. Visesādhigamanti means the attainment of supramundane states. Byākaritvāti means having declared, and this is said to show the fact that distinction has been attained. For those who have attained distinction, in order to avoid following the views of others, necessarily declare their attainment to modest monks. But, even without having declared the attainment of distinction, one who has attained distinction should not cut off food, because the cutting off of food is allowed only for the purpose of removing obstacles to the attainment; when it has been attained, it should not be done. But is it proper to declare the attainment? He says, starting with, “sabhāgānañhītiādi” (to those in the same group).
The Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.182-183) states: “By alteration of posture” means by changing one’s posture. “Attainment of distinction” refers to concentration and insight. “Attainment of distinction” refers to the attainment of supramundane states. “Having declared” means having informed, and this is said to show the attainment of distinction. Those who have attained distinction inform virtuous monks out of respect, but even without declaring their attainment, it is not allowable to cut off food, as the interruption of food is allowed only to remove hindrances to attainment. Therefore, after attainment, it is not to be done. Why is it allowable to inform others of one’s attainment? It is said, “It is allowable for virtuous monks,” etc. The Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Pārājika 181-183) states: “As if visible to the hand,” and “so that its disturbance does not occur,” and “having declared the attainment of distinction,” one cuts off food out of respect for those who have declared. They inform the proper field of merit.
ID1775
ID1776
14. Appaccavekkhitvā nisinnakathāyaṃ appaṭivekkhitvāti anupaparikkhitvā. Uddhaṃ vā adho vā saṅkamantīti pacchā āgatānaṃ okāsadānatthaṃ nisinnapāḷiyā uddhaṃ vā adho vā gacchanti. Paṭivekkhaṇakiccaṃ natthīti pacchā āgatehi upaparikkhaṇakiccaṃ natthi. Heṭṭhā kismiñci vijjamāne sāṭakaṃ valiṃ gaṇhātīti āha “yasmiṃ vali na paññāyatī”ti. Paṭivekkhaṇañcetaṃ gihīnaṃ santakeyevāti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Vimativinodaniyampi (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.180) “heṭṭhā kismiñci vijjamāne sāṭakaṃ valiṃ gaṇhātīti āha ‘yasmiṃ vali na paññāyatī’ti. Paṭivekkhaṇañcetaṃ gihīnaṃ santake evāti daṭṭhabba”nti ettakameva vuttaṃ, vajirabuddhiṭīkāyampi (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 180) “appaṭivekkhitvāti avicāretvā. Heṭṭhimabhāge hi kismiñci vijjamāne vali paññāyatī”ti ettakameva.
14. In the discourse on sitting without reflection, appaṭivekkhitvā means without examining. Uddhaṃ vā adho vā saṅkamanti means they move up or down in the row of seated people to make space for those who arrive later. Paṭivekkhaṇakiccaṃ natthi means there is no duty of examination for those arriving later. Since a fold in the cloth could catch on something below, it is said, “yasmiṃ vali na paññāyati,” meaning “where no fold is visible.” This examination pertains only to laypeople’s property, as should be understood. In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.180), it is said, “Since a fold in the cloth could catch on something below, it says, ‘yasmiṃ vali na paññāyati.’ This examination pertains only to laypeople’s property, as should be understood.” In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 180), it is said, **“appaṭivekkhitvā** means without considering. For in the lower part, if something exists, a fold becomes visible,” and that is all.
14. In the discussion of sitting without having examined, appaṭivekkhitvāti means without having inspected. Uddhaṃ vā adho vā saṅkamantīti means they move up or down the row of seats to give space to those who come later. Paṭivekkhaṇakiccaṃ natthīti means there is no need to inspect for those who come later. If there is something below, the robe catches a fold. Therefore, he says, “yasmiṃ vali na paññāyatī”ti (in which a fold is not evident). This inspection should be understood as only concerning the possessions of laypeople. Also in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.180), it is said, “If there is something below, the robe catches a fold, therefore he says, ‘yasmiṃ vali na paññāyatī’ti (in which a fold is not evident). This inspection should be understood as only concerning the possessions of lay people,” only this much is said. Also in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 180), it is said, “appaṭivekkhitvā”ti means without having investigated. If there is something in the lower part, a fold is evident,” only this much.
14. In the discussion on sitting without inspection, “without inspecting” means without examining. “Going above or below” means moving up or down from the seated position to make room for those arriving later. “There is no duty of inspection” means there is no need for those arriving later to inspect. If something is present below, the robe may form a crease. Therefore, it is said, “where a crease is not visible.” This inspection is only for householders. The Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.180) states: “If something is present below, the robe may form a crease,” and “this inspection is only for householders.” The Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Pārājika 180) states: “Without inspecting” means without considering. If something is present below, a crease is visible.
ID1777
ID1778
15. Davāyasilāvijjhanakathāyaṃ davāsaddo hasādhippāyavācako. Paṭipubbavidha-dhātu pavaṭṭanatthoti āha “hasādhippāyena pāsāṇo na pavaṭṭetabbo”ti. Silāsaddassa pāsāṇavācakattā so eva na paṭivijjhitabboti codanaṃ sandhāyāha “na kevalañcā”tiādi. Yadi evaṃ sabbesampi atthāya na vaṭṭeyyāti āha “cetiyādīnaṃ atthāyā”tiādi. Dhovanadaṇḍakanti bhaṇḍadhovanadaṇḍaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.182-183) pana “bhaṇḍakaṃ vā dhovantāti cīvaraṃ vā dhovantā. Dhovanadaṇḍakanti cīvaradhovanadaṇḍa”nti vuttaṃ.
15. In the discourse on playfully piercing a rock, the word davā denotes an intention to jest. Since the root paṭipubbavidha means to set in motion, it is said, “hasādhippāyena pāsāṇo na pavaṭṭetabbo,” meaning “A stone should not be set in motion with an intent to jest.” Addressing the objection that since the word silā means stone, it should not be pierced either, it says, “na kevalañca,” and so forth. If so, would it not be permissible for any purpose? It says, “cetiyādīnaṃ atthāyā,” and so forth. Dhovanadaṇḍaka refers to a stick for washing items. However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.182-183), it is said, **“bhaṇḍakaṃ vā dhovantā** means washing articles or robes. Dhovanadaṇḍaka means a stick for washing robes.”
15. In the discussion of playfully piercing a rock, the word davā is a word that means the intention of sport. The root vidha- with the prefix paṭi- has the meaning of rolling, therefore he says, “hasādhippāyena pāsāṇo na pavaṭṭetabbo”ti (a stone should not be rolled with the intention of sport). Because the word silā is a word for stone, it should not be pierced; with reference to this refutation, he says, “na kevalañcā”tiādi (and not only…). If so, it would not be permissible for anyone’s sake. Therefore, he says, “cetiyādīnaṃ atthāyā”tiādi (for the sake of cetiyas, etc.). Dhovanadaṇḍakanti means a stick for washing utensils. However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.182-183), it is said, “bhaṇḍakaṃ vā dhovantā”ti means washing a robe. Dhovanadaṇḍakanti means a stick for washing robes,” it is said.
15. In the discussion on rolling stones for fun, the word “fun” refers to the intention of play. The root meaning is to cause to roll. Therefore, it is said, “A stone should not be rolled with the intention of play.” The word “stone” refers to a rock, and thus it should not be rolled. Addressing this objection, it is said, “Not only that,” etc. If this is the case, should it not be allowed for all purposes? It is said, “For the sake of a shrine,” etc. “Washing stick” refers to a stick used for washing utensils. The Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.182-183) states: “Washing utensils” means washing robes. “Washing stick” refers to a stick used for washing robes.
ID1779
ID1780
16. Dāyālimpanakathāyaṃ alla…pe… pācittiyanti sukkhaṭṭhānepi aggiṃ pātetvā iminā adhippāyena ālimpentassa pācittiyameva. Dukkaṭanti sukkhaṭṭhāne vā sukkhaṃ “asukkha”nti avavatthapetvā vā aggiṃ pātentassa dukkaṭaṃ. Kīḷādhippāyepi eseva nayo, kīḷādhippāyo ca paṭapaṭāyamānasaddassādavaseneva veditabbo. Paṭipakkhabhūto aggi paṭaggi. Parittakaraṇanti ārakkhakaraṇaṃ. Sayaṃ vā uṭṭhitanti vāteritānaṃ veḷuādīnaṃ aññamaññasaṅghaṭṭanena samuṭṭhitaṃ. Nirupādānoti indhanarahito. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.190) pana “khiḍḍādhippāyenapi dukkaṭanti sukkhatiṇādīsu aggikaraṇaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Allesu pana kīḷādhippāyenapi karontassa pācittiyameva. Paṭipakkhabhūto, paṭimukhaṃ gacchanto vā aggi paṭaggi, tassa allatiṇādīsupi dānaṃ anuññātaṃ. Taṃ dentena dūratova āgacchantaṃ dāvaggiṃ disvā vihārassa samantato ekakkhaṇe akatvā ekadesato paṭṭhāya vihārassa samantato saṇikaṃ jhāpetvā yathā mahantopi aggi vihāraṃ pāpuṇituṃ na sakkoti, evaṃ vihārassa samantā abbhokāsaṃ katvā paṭaggi dātabbo. So ḍāvaggino paṭipathaṃ gantvā ekato hutvā tena saha nibbāti. Parittakaraṇanti samantā rukkhatiṇādicchedanaparikhākhaṇanādiārakkhakaraṇaṃ. Tenāha ‘tiṇakuṭikānaṃ samantā bhūmitacchana’ntiādī”ti, vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 190) pana “parittanti rakkhaṇaṃ, taṃ dassetuṃ ‘samantā bhūmitacchana’ntiādi vutta”nti ettakameva vuttaṃ.
16. In the discourse on smearing a forest, alla…pe… pācittiya means that even in a dry place, lighting a fire with this intention incurs only a pācittiya offense. Dukkaṭa means a dukkaṭa offense for lighting a fire in a dry place or in a dry area mistaken as wet without determining it. The same applies with a playful intent, and playful intent should be understood solely by the sound of crackling. The opposing fire is paṭaggi. Parittakaraṇa means making a protective measure. Sayaṃ vā uṭṭhita means arising spontaneously, such as from the friction of bamboos or the like stirred by the wind. Nirupādāno means without fuel. In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.190), however, it is said, “khiḍḍādhippāyenapi dukkaṭa** refers to making a fire with dry grass or the like in mind. But in wet areas, even with playful intent, it is only a pācittiya. The opposing fire, or one going against it, is paṭaggi, and giving it even in wet grass or the like is permitted. When giving it, seeing a forest fire coming from afar, one should not burn all around the monastery at once but gradually burn from one side around the monastery so that even a large fire cannot reach it, creating an open space around the monastery and giving the paṭaggi. It goes against the path of the forest fire, merging with it and extinguishing together. Parittakaraṇa means making a protective measure by cutting trees, grass, or digging a trench around.” It says, “tiṇakuṭikānaṃ samantā bhūmitacchana,”** and so forth. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 190), however, it is said, **“paritta** means protection, and to show this, it says, ‘samantā bhūmitacchana,’ and so forth,” and that is all.
16. In the discussion on lighting a fire, alla…pe… pācittiyanti, even in a dry place, having set a fire and lighting it with this intention, it is a pācittiya. Dukkaṭanti means, in a dry place, or having set a fire without determining dry to be “non-dry,” it is a dukkaṭa. The same principle applies to the intention of playing; and the intention of playing should be understood only by the sound of crackling. Fire that is in opposition is paṭaggi. Parittakaraṇanti means making a protection. Sayaṃ vā uṭṭhitanti means arisen by itself, from the friction of bamboos, etc., blown by the wind. Nirupādānoti means without fuel. However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.190) it is said **“khiḍḍādhippāyenapi dukkaṭanti” (even with the intention of play, a dukkata) is stated in relation to starting a fire on dry grass, etc.. But even if one is doing it with the intention of playing on damp areas, it is a pācittiya. Fire that is in opposition, or fire going against [the wind], is paṭaggi, it is permitted to set that even among damp grass, etc.. One setting that, upon seeing a forest fire approaching from afar, without making a single space all around the monastery in one instant, and starting from one point, charring little by little around the monastery, to where even a large fire is not able to reach the monastery, in this way, creating an open space all around the monastery, a counter-fire should be set. This, traveling against the forest fire, merging into one, and, together, extinguishing. Parittakaraṇanti means making a protection around, such as cutting grass and trees, and digging trenches. For this reason he spoke ’tiṇakuṭikānaṃ samantā bhūmitacchana’ntiādi** (the clearing the ground around grass huts, etc.)”, and, in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 190) it is said, “‘paritta’nti means protection, in order to show that, ’samantā bhūmitacchana’ntiādi (clearing the ground all around, etc.) is said”, only this much is said.
16. In the discussion on lighting fires, “wet… pe… pācittiya” means that even in a dry place, lighting a fire with this intention incurs a pācittiya offense. “Dukkaṭa” refers to lighting a fire in a dry place or lighting a fire without distinguishing between dry and wet. The same applies to the intention of play, which is understood by the sound of cracking. The opposite fire is “counter-fire.” “Protection” means safeguarding. “Self-arisen” refers to fires caused by the friction of bamboo, etc., blown by the wind. “Without fuel” means without combustible material. The Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.190) states: “Even with the intention of play, dukkaṭa” refers to making fire in dry grass, etc. In wet conditions, even with the intention of play, it incurs a pācittiya offense. The opposite fire, moving forward, is “counter-fire,” and its offering in wet grass, etc., is allowed. When giving, one should see the approaching forest fire from a distance and, without setting the entire area ablaze at once, gradually burn around the monastery so that even a large fire cannot reach the monastery. The counter-fire will meet the forest fire and extinguish it. “Protection” means cutting trees, grass, digging trenches, etc., around the area. Therefore, it is said, “Covering the ground around grass huts,” etc. The Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Pārājika 190) states: “Protection” means safeguarding, and to show this, it is said, “Covering the ground around,” etc.
ID1781
ID1782
17. Micchādiṭṭhikulābhatakathāyaṃ natthi saddhā etesūti assaddhā, maccharino, tesu assaddhesu. Micchādiṭṭhiyā yuttāni kulāni micchādiṭṭhikulāni, majjhelopatatiyātappurisasamāso, “natthi dinna”ntiādinayappavattāya dasavatthukāya micchādiṭṭhiyā yuttakulāni, tesu. Micchādiṭṭhikulesu labhitvāti sambandho. Asakkaccakārīnaṃ tesaṃ sakkaccakaraṇena, appaṇītadāyīnaṃ tesaṃ paṇītadānena bhavitabbamettha kāraṇenāti kāraṇaṃ upaparikkhitvāva bhuñjituṃ yuttanti āha “anupaparikkhitvā neva attanā bhuñjitabbaṃ, na paresaṃ dātabba”nti. Yena kāraṇena bhavitabbaṃ, taṃ dassetuṃ “visamissampi hī”tiādi vuttaṃ. Na kevalaṃ piṇḍapātamevāti āha “yampī”tiādi. Tattha kāraṇamāha “apihitavatthusmimpi hī”tiādi. Tato aññampi dasseti gandhahaliddādimakkhitotiādinā . Tatthapi kāraṇaṃ dassetumāha “sarīre rogaṭṭhānānī”tiādi.
17. In the discourse on offerings from families with wrong views, those without faith are assaddhā, stingy, and among them are assaddhesu. Families associated with wrong views are micchādiṭṭhikulāni, a compound with the middle term elided, meaning families associated with the wrong view of the ten bases, such as “There is no giving,” and so forth—among them. The connection is “obtained from families with wrong views.” Since they lack reverence and give inferior things, one should partake only after examining the reason, with reverence and offering superior things. Hence it is said, “anupaparikkhitvā neva attanā bhuñjitabbaṃ, na paresaṃ dātabba,” meaning “Without examining, it should neither be consumed by oneself nor given to others.” To show the reason for this, it says, “visamissampi hi,” and so forth. Not only alms food, it says, “yampi,” and so forth. There it states the reason, “apihitavatthusmimpi hi,” and so forth. It also shows something else with gandhahaliddādimakkhito, and so forth. There too, it states the reason, “sarīre rogaṭṭhānāni,” and so forth.
17. In the discussion on obtaining from families with wrong views, those in whom there is no faith are called faithless (assaddhā), the stingy ones, among those assaddhesu (faithless ones). Families connected with wrong views are micchādiṭṭhikulāni, a tatpurisa compound with the elision of the middle term, families connected with the ten-item wrong view, starting with “there is no [merit in] giving”. Having obtained from families with wrong views (micchādiṭṭhikulesu) is the connection. Because they are disrespectful, they should be respectful, because they are givers of unrefined things, they should be givers of refined things. For this reason, having carefully considered the reason, it is proper to eat. Therefore, he says, “anupaparikkhitvā neva attanā bhuñjitabbaṃ, na paresaṃ dātabba”nti (without having investigated, one should neither eat it oneself nor give it to others). To show the reason why it should be so, he says, “visamissampi hī”tiādi (for it may even be mixed with poison). He says, “yampī”tiādi (even that which…), to say that it is not only almsfood. The reason for that, he states as “apihitavatthusmimpi hī”tiādi (for even in things that are covered…). He shows another [reason] besides that with gandhahaliddādimakkhitotiādinā (smeared with scents, turmeric, etc.). He states a reason for that too, saying, “sarīre rogaṭṭhānānī”tiādi (places of disease in the body…).
17. In the discussion on families with wrong views, “without faith” means lacking faith, being stingy, and “in those without faith.” Families associated with wrong views are “families with wrong views,” a compound meaning “middle, low, and fallen people,” referring to families associated with the tenfold wrong view, such as “there is no giving,” etc. “Having received from families with wrong views” is the connection. For those who are careless, they should act carefully; for those who give inferior things, they should give superior things. Therefore, one should eat only after considering the reason. It is said, “Without consideration, one should not eat oneself nor give to others.” To show the reason, it is said, “Even if mixed,” etc. Not only almsfood, but also other things are mentioned, such as “smeared with sandalwood or turmeric,” etc. To show the reason, it is said, “On the body, there are places of disease,” etc.
ID1783
ID1784
18. Gopakadānakathāyaṃ paresaṃ santakaṃ gopeti rakkhatīti gopako, tassa dānaṃ gopakadānaṃ, uyyānapālakādīhi bhikkhūnaṃ dātabbadānaṃ. Tattha paṇṇaṃ āropetvāti “ettakeheva rukkhehi ettakameva gahetabba”nti paṇṇaṃ āropetvā, likhitvāti vuttaṃ hoti. Nimittasaññaṃ katvāti saṅketaṃ katvā. Dārakāti tesaṃ puttanattādayo dārakā. Aññepi ye keci gopakā honti, te sabbepi vuttā. Sabbatthapi gihīnaṃ gopakadāne yattakaṃ gopakā denti, tattakaṃ gahetabbaṃ. Saṅghike pana yathāparicchedameva gahetabbanti dīpitattā “atthato eka”nti vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyampi (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.156) “paṇṇaṃ āropetvāti ’ettake rukkhe rakkhitvā tato ettakaṃ gahetabba’nti paṇṇaṃ āropetvā. Nimittasaññaṃ katvāti saṅketaṃ katvā. Dārakāti tesaṃ puttanattādayo ye keci gopenti, te sabbepi idha ’dārakā’ti vuttā”ti, vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 156) pana “ārāmarakkhakāti vissatthavasena gahetabbaṃ. Adhippāyaṃ ñatvāti ettha yassa dānaṃ paṭiggaṇhantaṃ bhikkhuṃ, bhāgaṃ vā sāmikā na rakkhanti na daṇḍenti, tassa dānaṃ appaṭicchādetvā gahetuṃ vaṭṭatīti idha sanniṭṭhānaṃ, tampi ’na vaṭṭati saṅghike’ti vutta”nti vuttaṃ.
18. In the discourse on giving by herdsmen, one who protects or guards what belongs to others is a gopaka, and his giving is gopakadāna, the giving to bhikkhus by park keepers and the like. There, paṇṇaṃ āropetvā means having assigned a note, that is, having written, “From these trees, only this much may be taken.” Nimittasaññaṃ katvā means having made a sign or agreement. Dārakā refers to their sons, grandsons, or any children. All others who are herdsmen are also included here. In all cases of giving by lay herdsmen, one may take as much as the herdsmen give. But in the case of the Saṅgha, only the designated amount should be taken, as indicated by “atthato eka,” meaning “essentially one.” In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.156), it is said, “paṇṇaṃ āropetvā** means having assigned a note, ‘Protecting these trees, only this much may be taken from them.’ Nimittasaññaṃ katvā means having made an agreement. Dārakā refers to their sons, grandsons, or anyone who protects—all are called ‘dārakā’ here.” In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 156), however, it is said, “ārāmarakkhakā** means it may be taken freely. Adhippāyaṃ ñatvā means here the conclusion is that it is permissible to take the giving of one whose donation to a bhikkhu, or a portion, the owners neither protect nor punish, without concealing it—but it is said, ‘This is not permissible in the case of the Saṅgha.’”
18. In the story of the cowherd’s gift, he guards, protects, the property of others, therefore, he is a gopaka (cowherd), his gift is gopakadānaṃ, the gift to be given to the monks by the keepers of gardens and so on. Therein, paṇṇaṃ āropetvāti, means writing down, stating, “From so many trees, only this much should be taken,” by marking on a leaf. Nimittasaññaṃ katvāti, by making a sign. Dārakāti, their sons, grandsons, and so on, are dārakā. All others, whoever are cowherds, are also mentioned. Everywhere, in the cowherd’s gift of lay people, as much as the cowherds give, that much should be taken. But in the case of the Saṅgha’s property, it should be taken only according to the limit, because it is indicated, it is said, “atthato eka”. Also in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.156), “paṇṇaṃ āropetvāti, by marking on a leaf as ‘After protecting so many trees, this much should be taken from there.’ Nimittasaññaṃ katvāti, making a sign. Dārakāti, their sons, grandsons, and so on, whoever guards, all of them are referred to here as ‘dārakā’”, in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Pārājika 156), however, ”ārāmarakkhakāti, it should be taken in the sense of trust. Adhippāyaṃ ñatvāti, here, the determination here is that it is allowable to accept the gift without concealing it, from whom the owners do not protect or punish, when a monk accepts a gift, or a share, but it is said, ‘It is not allowable in the case of the Sangha property’“, it is said.
18. In the discussion on Gopakadāna, a “gopaka” is one who protects and guards the belongings of others. The act of giving by such a person is called gopakadāna, which refers to the offering given by park keepers and others to the monks. Here, “having marked a leaf” means having written on a leaf, “Only this many trees should be taken from, and only this much should be taken.” “Having made a sign” means having made an agreement. “Children” refers to their sons and relatives. Others who are also gopakas are all included here. In all cases, whatever amount the gopakas give, that much should be taken. However, in the case of Sangha property, only the specified amount should be taken, as indicated by the phrase “in essence, it is one.” In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.156), it is also stated: “Having marked a leaf” means having written, “After guarding this many trees, only this much should be taken.” “Having made a sign” means having made an agreement. “Children” refers to their sons and relatives, and whoever else is guarding, all are referred to here as “children.” In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 156), it is further explained: “Park keepers” should be understood in a general sense. “Knowing the intention” means that if the donor does not guard or punish the monk receiving the offering, then the offering can be accepted without concealment. However, it is stated that this does not apply to Sangha property.
ID1785
Yatthāti yasmiṃ āvāse. Aññesaṃ abhāvanti aññesaṃ āgantukabhikkhūnaṃ abhāvaṃ. Tatthāti tādise āvāse. Bhājetvā khādantīti āgantukānampi sampattānaṃ bhājetvā khādantīti adhippāyo. Catūsu paccayesu sammā upanentīti ambaphalādīni vikkiṇitvā cīvarādīsu catūsu paccayesu sammā upanenti. Cīvaratthāya niyametvā dinnāti “imesaṃ rukkhānaṃ phalāni vikkiṇitvā cīvaresuyeva upanetabbāni, na bhājetvā khāditabbānī”ti evaṃ niyametvā dinnā. Tesupi āgantukā anissarāti paccayaparibhogatthāya niyametvā dinnattā bhājetvā khādituṃ anissarā. Na tesu…pe… ṭhātabbanti ettha āgantukehi heṭṭhā vuttanayena bhājetvā khāditabbanti adhippāyo. Tesaṃ katikāya ṭhātabbanti “bhājetvā na khāditabba”nti vā “ettakesu rukkhesu phalāni gaṇhissāmā”ti vā “ettakāni phalāni gaṇhissāmā”ti vā “ettakānaṃ divasānaṃ abbhantare gaṇhissāmā”ti vā “na kiñci gaṇhissāmā”ti vā evaṃ katāya āvāsikānaṃ katikāya āgantukehi ṭhātabbaṃ. Mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ “anissarā”ti vacanena dīpitoyeva attho mahāpaccariyaṃ “catunnaṃ paccayāna”ntiādinā vitthāretvā dassito. Paribhogavasenevāti ettha eva-saddo aṭṭhānappayutto, paribhogavasena tameva bhājetvāti yojetabbaṃ. Ettha etasmiṃ vihāre, raṭṭhevā.
Yatthā means in whichever monastery. Aññesaṃ abhāva means the absence of other visiting bhikkhus. Tatthā means in such a monastery. Bhājetvā khādanti means they divide and eat even with visiting bhikkhus who arrive—this is the implication. Catūsu paccayesu sammā upanenti means they properly apply mangoes or other fruits, selling them for the four requisites like robes. Cīvaratthāya niyametvā dinnā means given with the designation, “The fruits of these trees should be sold and applied only to robes, not divided and eaten.” Tesupi āgantukā anissarā means even the visitors have no authority to divide and eat them, as they were designated for the use of requisites. Na tesu…pe… ṭhātabba means here the implication is that visitors should divide and eat them according to the method stated earlier. Tesaṃ katikāya ṭhātabba means the visitors should abide by the agreement of the residents, such as “They should not be divided and eaten,” or “We will take fruits from these trees,” or “We will take this many fruits,” or “We will take them within this many days,” or “We will take nothing.” In the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā, the meaning indicated by “anissarā” is elaborated in the Mahāpaccarī with “catunnaṃ paccayāna” and so forth. Paribhogavasenevā means here the word eva is used inappropriately; it should be understood as “dividing only for use.” Ettha means in this monastery, or in the region.
Yatthāti in which dwelling. Aññesaṃ abhāvanti the absence of other visiting monks. Tatthāti in such a dwelling. Bhājetvā khādantīti the intention is that they eat after distributing to visiting monks who have arrived. Catūsu paccayesu sammā upanentīti they properly apply the proceeds from the sale of mango fruits and the like to the four requisites, such as robes. Cīvaratthāya niyametvā dinnāti having given with the stipulation that “the fruits of these trees should be sold and applied only to robes, not to be eaten after distribution,” given with such a stipulation. Tesupi āgantukā anissarāti because it was given with the stipulation for the consumption of requisites, they are not entitled to eat after distributing. Na tesu…pe… ṭhātabbanti here, the intention is that visiting monks should eat after distributing according to the method stated below. Tesaṃ katikāya ṭhātabbanti visiting monks should abide by the agreement made by the resident monks, whether it is stated that “it should not be eaten after distribution” or “we will take the fruits from these many trees” or “we will take this many fruits” or “we will take within these many days” or “we will not take anything.” In the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā, the meaning illuminated by the statement “anissarā” is explained in detail in the Mahāpaccari with “catunnaṃ paccayāna”nti, etc. Paribhogavasenevāti here, the word eva is used inappropriately; it should be connected as paribhogavasena tameva bhājetvā, ‘distribute that (which is meant) for consumption’. Ettha in this monastery, or kingdom.
“Where” means in which residence. “The absence of others” refers to the absence of other visiting monks. “There” means in such a residence. “Having divided and eaten” implies that even when visitors arrive, they should share and eat together. “Properly supplying the four requisites” means selling fruits like mangoes and properly supplying the four requisites such as robes. “Given for the purpose of robes” means that the fruits of these trees should be sold and used only for robes, not divided and eaten. “Even the visitors have no authority over them” means that since the requisites are given for specific use, they cannot be divided and eaten. “One should not… stand by” here means that visitors should divide and eat as previously explained. “One should stand by their agreement” means that visitors should abide by the agreement of the residents, such as “Do not divide and eat,” or “We will take fruits from these trees,” or “We will take this many fruits,” or “We will take within this many days,” or “We will take nothing.” In the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, the meaning of “no authority” is explained, and in the Mahāpaccarī, it is elaborated upon with the phrase “for the four requisites.” “Through the mode of use” here means that the word “eva” is used inappropriately, and it should be understood as “dividing and using accordingly.” “Here” means in this monastery or in the country.
ID1786
Senāsanapaccayanti senāsanañca tadatthāya niyametvā ṭhapitañca. Lāmakakoṭiyāti lāmakaṃ ādiṃ katvā, lāmakasenāsanato paṭṭhāyāti vuttaṃ hoti. Senāsanepi tiṇādīni lāmakakoṭiyāva vissajjetabbāni, senāsanaparikkhārāpi lāmakakoṭiyāva vissajjetabbā. Mūlavatthucchedaṃ pana katvā na upanetabbanti iminā kiṃ vuttaṃ hoti? Tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu tāva idaṃ vuttaṃ “sabbāni senāsanāni na vissajjetabbānīti vuttaṃ hotī”ti. Lāmakakoṭiyā vissajjantehipi senāsanabhūmiyo na vissajjetabbāti ayamattho vutto hotīti no khanti. Vīmaṃsitvā yaṃ ruccati, taṃ gahetabbaṃ.
Senāsanapaccaya means lodgings and what is designated for their purpose. Lāmakakoṭiyā means starting with the inferior, that is, beginning with inferior lodgings. Even in lodgings, grass and the like should be distributed starting with the inferior, and lodging furnishings should also be distributed starting with the inferior. Mūlavatthucchedaṃ pana katvā na upanetabba—what does this mean? In all three commentarial passages, it is said, “This means all lodgings should not be distributed.” It seems reasonable to us that even when distributing starting with the inferior, the land of the lodgings should not be distributed. After examination, take what seems appropriate.
Senāsanapaccayanti the dwelling place and what has been set aside and stipulated for that purpose. Lāmakakoṭiyāti starting from the lowest; it means from the lowest dwelling place onwards. Even the grass and other things in the dwelling place should be relinquished starting from the lowest, and also the accessories of the dwelling place should be relinquished starting from the lowest. Mūlavatthucchedaṃ pana katvā na upanetabbanti what is meant by this? In all three Gaṇṭhipada texts, it is stated that “it means that all dwelling places should not be relinquished.” It is said that this meaning is not favoured – that even when relinquishing starting from the lowest, the land of the dwelling places should not be relinquished. After reflecting, one should take what one is pleased with.
“The requisites for lodging” refers to lodging and what is set aside for that purpose. “From the inferior end” means starting from the inferior, from the inferior lodging. Even grass and other materials for lodging should be distributed from the inferior end, and lodging accessories should also be distributed from the inferior end. “Having cut off the root source, it should not be supplied”—what does this mean? First, in the three sections, it is stated that “all lodgings should not be distributed.” Even when distributing from the inferior end, the lodging grounds should not be distributed. This is the meaning. Reflect and accept what seems reasonable.
ID1787
Dhammasantakena buddhapūjaṃ kātuṃ, buddhasantakena vā dhammapūjaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati na vaṭṭatīti? “Tathāgatassa kho etaṃ, vāseṭṭha, adhivacanaṃ dhammakāyo itipī”ti ca “yo kho, vakkali, dhammaṃ passati, so maṃ passatī”ti (saṃ. ni. 3.87) ca vacanato vaṭṭatīti vadanti. Keci pana “evaṃ sante ’yo, bhikkhave, maṃ upaṭṭhaheyya, so gilānaṃ upaṭṭhaheyyā’ti (mahāva. 365) vacanato buddhasantakena gilānassapi bhesajjaṃ kātuṃ yuttanti āpajjeyya, tasmā na vaṭṭatī”ti vadanti, taṃ akāraṇaṃ. Na hi “yo, bhikkhave, maṃ upaṭṭhaheyya, so gilānaṃ upaṭṭhaheyyā”ti (mahāva. 365) iminā attano ca gilānassa ca ekasadisatā, tadupaṭṭhānassa vā samaphalatā vuttā. Ayañhettha attho – “yo maṃ ovādānusāsanīkaraṇena upaṭṭhaheyya, so gilānaṃ upaṭṭhaheyya, mama ovādakārakena gilāno upaṭṭhātabbo”ti (mahāva. aṭṭha. 365). Bhagavato ca gilānassa ca upaṭṭhānaṃ ekasadisanti evaṃ panettha attho na gahetabbo, tasmā “yo vo, ānanda, mayā dhammo ca vinayo ca desito paññatto, so vo mamaccayena satthā”ti (dī. ni. 2.216) vacanato “ahañca kho panidāni ekakova ovadāmi anusāsāmi, mayi parinibbute imāni caturāsīti buddhasahassāni tumhe ovadissanti anusāsissantī”ti (dī. ni. aṭṭha. 2.216) vuttattā ca bahussutaṃ bhikkhuṃ pasaṃsantena ca “yo bahussuto, na so tumhākaṃ sāvako nāma, buddho nāma esa cundā”ti vuttattā dhammagarukattā ca tathāgatassa pubbanayo eva pasatthataroti amhākaṃ khanti. Vimativinodaniyampi “yatthāti yasmiṃ āvāse. Aññesanti aññesaṃ āgantukānaṃ. Tesupi āgantukā anissarāti senāsane nirantaraṃ vasantānaṃ cīvaratthāya dāyakehi, bhikkhūhi vā niyametvā dinnattā bhājetvā khādituṃ anissarā. Āgantukehipi icchantehi tasmiṃ vihāre vassānādīsu pavisitvā cīvaratthāya gahetabbaṃ. Tesaṃ katikāya ṭhātabbanti sabbāni phalāphalāni abhājetvā ’ettakesu rukkhesu phalāni bhājetvā paribhuñjissāma, aññesu phalāphalehi senāsanāni paṭijaggissāmā’ti vā ’piṇḍapātādipaccayaṃ sampādessāmā’ti vā ’kiñcipi abhājetvā catupaccayatthāyeva upanemā’ti vā evaṃ sammā upanentānaṃ āvāsikānaṃ katikāya āgantukehi ṭhātabbaṃ. Mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ ’anissarā’ti vacanena dīpito eva attho, mahāpaccariyaṃ ’catunnaṃ paccayāna’ntiādinā vitthāretvā dassito. Paribhogavasenevāti ettha eva-saddo aṭṭhānappayutto, paribhogavasena tameva bhājetvāti yojetabbaṃ. Etthāti etasmiṃ vihāre, raṭṭhe vā. Senāsanapaccayanti senāsanañca tadatthāya niyametvā ṭhapitañca. ’Ekaṃ vā dve vā varasenāsanāni ṭhapetvā’ti vuttamevatthaṃ puna byatirekamukhena dassetuṃ ‘mūlavatthucchedaṃ pana katvā na upanetabba’nti vuttaṃ, senāsanasaṅkhātavatthuno mūlacchedaṃ katvā sabbāni senāsanāni na vissajjetabbānīti attho. Keci panettha ’ekaṃ vā dve vā varasenāsanāni ṭhapetvā lāmakato paṭṭhāya vissajjantehipi senāsanabhūmiyo na vissajjetabbāti ayamattho vutto’ti vadanti, tampi yuttameva imassapi atthassa avassaṃ vattabbato, itarathā keci saha vatthunāpi vissajjetabbaṃ maññeyyu”nti.
Is it permissible to perform a Buddha-pūjā with what belongs to the Dhamma or a Dhamma-pūjā with what belongs to the Buddha? Based on statements like, “This, Vāseṭṭha, is a designation of the Tathāgata, the Dhamma-body” and “He who sees the Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me” (saṃ. ni. 3.87), it is said to be permissible. Some, however, say, “If so, it would follow from the statement, ‘Whoever would serve me, let him serve the sick’ (mahāva. 365), that it would be proper to use what belongs to the Buddha for medicine for the sick, so it is not permissible.” But this is not a valid reason. For the statement, “Whoever would serve me, let him serve the sick” (mahāva. 365), does not imply that oneself and the sick are identical or that serving them yields the same fruit. The meaning here is, “Whoever would serve me by following my instruction should serve the sick; the sick should be served by one who follows my instruction” (mahāva. aṭṭha. 365). One should not take it as meaning that serving the Blessed One and the sick are identical. Therefore, based on the statement, “The Dhamma and Vinaya I have taught and laid down for you, Ānanda, will be your teacher after my passing” (dī. ni. 2.216), and “Now I alone instruct and admonish you, but after my passing, these eighty-four thousand Buddhas will instruct and admonish you” (dī. ni. aṭṭha. 2.216), and because one who praises a learned bhikkhu says, “He who is learned is not merely your disciple, Cundā, he is a Buddha,” and due to the Tathāgata’s reverence for the Dhamma, the earlier practice is indeed more praiseworthy—this is our preference. In the Vimativinodanī, it is said, **“yatthā** means in whichever monastery. Aññesa means of other visitors. Tesupi āgantukā anissarā means the visitors have no authority to divide and eat them, as they were given by donors or bhikkhus for robes for those residing continuously in the lodgings. Even visitors wishing to do so may enter the monastery during the rains or other times and take them for robes. Tesaṃ katikāya ṭhātabba means the visitors should abide by the agreement of the residents who properly apply them, such as ‘We will divide and use the fruits from these trees, and with the rest of the fruits we will maintain the lodgings,’ or ‘We will procure requisites like alms food,’ or ‘Without dividing anything, we will apply them only for the four requisites.’ The meaning indicated by ‘anissarā’ in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā is elaborated in the Mahāpaccarī with ‘catunnaṃ paccayāna’ and so forth. Paribhogavasenevā means here the word eva is used inappropriately; it should be understood as ‘dividing only for use.’ Ettha means in this monastery, or in the region. Senāsanapaccaya means lodgings and what is designated for their purpose. ‘mūlavatthucchedaṃ pana katvā na upanetabba’ restates the same meaning as ‘Leaving one or two superior lodgings’ through another approach, meaning all lodgings constituting the property should not be distributed by cutting off the root. Some say here, ‘Even when distributing starting with the inferior, leaving one or two superior lodgings, the land of the lodgings should not be distributed—this is the meaning,’ and this too is reasonable since this meaning must necessarily be stated, otherwise some might think it permissible to distribute even with the land.”
Is it allowable or not to perform a buddhapūjā (offering to the Buddha) with what belongs to the Dhamma, or a dhammapūjā (offering to the Dhamma) with what belongs to the Buddha? Because of the statements, “Indeed, Vāseṭṭha, this is an appellation for the Tathāgata: ‘Dhammakāya’” and “He, Vakkali, who sees the Dhamma, sees me” (saṃ. ni. 3.87), some say it is allowable. However, some say, “If that were so, because of the statement, ‘Monks, he who would attend to me should attend to the sick’ (mahāva. 365), it would be proper to provide medicine to the sick with what belongs to the Buddha; therefore, it is not allowable,” but that is not a reason. Indeed, by the statement, “Monks, he who would attend to me should attend to the sick” (mahāva. 365), it is not stated that the self and the sick are identical, or that attending to them has the same result. The meaning here is this: “He who would attend to me by following my advice and instruction should attend to the sick; the sick should be attended to by one who follows my advice” (mahāva. aṭṭha. 365). The meaning here should not be taken as ‘attending to the Blessed One and the sick are identical’; therefore, because of the statement, “Ānanda, the Dhamma and Vinaya taught and formulated by me will be your teacher after my passing” (dī. ni. 2.216), and because it is stated, “Now I alone advise and instruct; when I have attained parinibbāna, these eighty-four thousand Buddhas will advise and instruct you” (dī. ni. aṭṭha. 2.216), and because one who praises a learned monk says, “He who is learned is not your disciple, Cunda, he is a Buddha,” and because of the Tathāgata’s respect for the Dhamma, the former approach is more commendable, is our opinion. In the Vimativinodani also, yatthāti in which dwelling. Aññesanti of other visiting monks. Tesupi āgantukā anissarāti they are not entitled to eat after distributing because it was given by donors or monks with the stipulation for robes for those residing continuously in the dwelling place. Visiting monks, if they wish, should enter that monastery during the rainy season and take it for robes. Tesaṃ katikāya ṭhātabbanti visiting monks should abide by the agreement made by the resident monks, who are properly applying all fruits and non-fruits without distributing, ‘we will eat the fruits from these many trees after distributing, and we will maintain the dwelling places with the fruits and non-fruits of the others’ or ‘we will obtain the requisites of almsfood, etc.’ or ‘without distributing anything, we will apply it only for the four requisites’. In the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā, the meaning illuminated by the statement ‘anissarā’ is explained in detail in the Mahāpaccari with ‘catunnaṃ paccayāna’nti, etc. Paribhogavasenevāti here, the word eva is used inappropriately; it should be connected as paribhogavasena tameva bhājetvā, ’distribute that (which is meant) for consumption’. Etthāti in this monastery, or kingdom. Senāsanapaccayanti the dwelling place and what has been set aside and stipulated for that purpose. To show again the same meaning, which was stated as ‘setting aside one or two excellent dwelling places’ by way of stating the opposite, it is stated ‘mūlavatthucchedaṃ pana katvā na upanetabba’nti, meaning that, having made a complete cutting off of the vatthu which is reckoned as a dwelling, one should not dispose of all dwellings. Some here say ‘even, when disposing from the worst and up, after setting aside one or two excellent dwellings, one should not dispose of the ground of the dwellings - this meaning is what has been stated’, but that is appropriate, because this meaning too must necessarily be stated, otherwise some might think that disposal should be done together with the vatthu (grounds)“.
Is it permissible to perform Buddha worship using Dhamma property, or Dhamma worship using Buddha property? Some say it is permissible based on the statements: “For the Tathāgata, Vāseṭṭha, this is a designation: the Dhamma-body,” and “Whoever sees the Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me” (Saṃ. Ni. 3.87). However, others argue that if this were the case, then based on the statement, “Whoever, monks, would tend to me, should tend to the sick” (Mahāva. 365), it would be appropriate to use Buddha property for medicine for the sick, but this is not permissible. This is not a valid argument. The statement “Whoever, monks, would tend to me, should tend to the sick” (Mahāva. 365) does not imply that tending to the Buddha and tending to the sick are the same or yield the same result. The meaning here is: “Whoever tends to me by following my advice and instruction, should tend to the sick; the sick should be tended to by one who follows my advice.” The idea that tending to the Buddha and the sick is the same should not be accepted here. Therefore, based on the statement, “Ānanda, the Dhamma and Vinaya that I have taught and laid down shall be your teacher after my passing” (Dī. Ni. 2.216), and “Now I alone advise and instruct; after my passing, these 84,000 Buddhas will advise and instruct you” (Dī. Ni. Aṭṭha. 2.216), and because the Buddha praised a learned monk, saying, “Whoever is learned is not your disciple; this, Cunda, is the Buddha,” and because of the reverence for the Dhamma, the Tathāgata’s former conduct is more esteemed. In the Vimativinodanī, it is also stated: “Where” means in which residence. “Others” refers to other visitors. “Even the visitors have no authority over them” means that since the requisites are given for the purpose of robes by the donors or monks, they cannot be divided and eaten. Even visitors, if they wish, can enter the monastery during the rains retreat and take for the purpose of robes. “One should stand by their agreement” means that all fruits should not be divided, and one should say, “We will divide and enjoy the fruits of these trees, and with other fruits, we will maintain the lodgings,” or “We will provide alms and other requisites,” or “We will not divide anything but will supply only for the four requisites.” In the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, the meaning of “no authority” is explained, and in the Mahāpaccarī, it is elaborated upon with the phrase “for the four requisites.” “Through the mode of use” here means that the word “eva” is used inappropriately, and it should be understood as “dividing and using accordingly.” “Here” means in this monastery or in the country. “The requisites for lodging” refers to lodging and what is set aside for that purpose. The phrase “having cut off the root source, it should not be supplied” is stated to further clarify the meaning by exclusion: “Having cut off the root source of the lodging, all lodgings should not be distributed.” Some say that even after setting aside one or two superior lodgings, the lodging grounds should not be distributed from the inferior end. This is also reasonable, as otherwise, some might think that even the land should be distributed.
ID1788
Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 153) “ettha etasmiṃ vihāre paracakkādibhayaṃ āgataṃ. Mūlavatthucchedanti ’sabbasenāsanānaṃ ete issarā’ti vacanato itare anissarāti dīpitaṃ hoti. Ayameva bhikkhu issaroti yattha so icchati, tattha attañātahetuṃ labhatīti kira attho, api ca ’daharo’ti vadanti. Savatthukanti saha bhūmiyāti vuttaṃ hotī”ti.
In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 153), it is said, **“ettha** means in this monastery where danger from external forces or the like has arisen. Mūlavatthuccheda means that since it says, ‘They are the owners of all lodgings,’ it is indicated that the others are not owners. Ayameva bhikkhu issaro means that where he wishes, he obtains it for his relatives—this seems to be the meaning, and they also say ‘young.’ Savatthuka means with the land, it is said.”
In the Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 153), ettha in this monastery, a danger from an enemy army, etc., has arisen. Mūlavatthucchedanti because of the statement ‘these are the owners of all dwelling places’, it is illuminated that the others are not entitled. Ayameva bhikkhu issaroti the meaning is that wherever he wishes, he obtains his own benefit; and also, they say ‘he is young’. Savatthukanti it means ‘together with the ground’“.
In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 153), it is stated: “Here” means in this monastery, where there is fear of foreign invasion. “Cutting off the root source” means that since the statement “They are the owners of all lodgings” indicates that others have no authority. “This monk is the owner” means that wherever he wishes, he can take for himself—this is the meaning. Some also say, “He is young.” “With the land” means together with the ground.
ID1789
ID1790
19. Dhammikārakkhayācanakathāyaṃ “gīvāyevāti āṇattiyā abhāvato. Tesaṃ anatthakāmatāyāti ’coro’ti vuttaṃ mama vacanaṃ sutvā keci daṇḍissanti, jīvitā voropessantīti evaṃ saññāya. Etena kevalaṃ bhayena vā parikkhāraggahaṇatthaṃ vā sahasā ’coro’ti vutte daṇḍitepi na dosoti dasseti. Rājapurisānañhi ’coro aya’nti uddissakathane eva gīvā. Bhikkhūnaṃ, pana ārāmikādīnaṃ vā sammukhā ’asuko coro evamakāsī’ti kenaci vuttavacanaṃ nissāya ārāmikādīsu rājapurisānaṃ vatvā daṇḍāpentesupi bhikkhussa na gīvā rājapurisānaṃ avuttattā, yesañca vuttaṃ, tehi sayaṃ corassa adaṇḍitattāti gahetabbaṃ. ’Tvaṃ etassa santakaṃ acchindā’ti āṇattopi hi sace aññena acchindāpeti, āṇāpakassa anāpatti visaṅketattā. Attano vacanakaranti idaṃ sāmīcivasena vuttaṃ. Vacanaṃ akarontānaṃ rājapurisānampi ’iminā gahitaparikkhāraṃ āharāpehi, mā cassa daṇḍaṃ karohī’ti uddissa vadantassapi daṇḍe gahitepi na gīvā eva daṇḍaggahaṇassa paṭikkhittattā ’asukabhaṇḍaṃ avaharā’ti āṇāpetvā vippaṭisāre uppanne puna paṭikkhipane (pārā. 121) viya. Dāsādīnaṃ sampaṭicchane viya tadatthāya aḍḍakaraṇe bhikkhūnampi dukkaṭanti āha ‘kappiyaaḍḍo nāma, na vaṭṭatī’ti. Kenaci pana bhikkhunā khettādiatthāya vohārikānaṃ santikaṃ gantvā aḍḍe katepi taṃ khettādisampaṭicchane viya sabbesaṃ akappiyaṃ na hoti pubbe eva saṅghasantakattā. Bhikkhusseva pana payogavasena āpattiyo honti. Dāsādīnampi pana atthāya rakkhaṃ yācituṃ vohārikena puṭṭhena saṅghassa uppannaṃ kappiyakkamaṃ vattuṃ ārāmikādīhi ca aḍḍaṃ kārāpetuṃ vaṭṭati eva. Vihāravatthādikappiyaaḍḍaṃ pana bhikkhunā sayampi kātuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.679) āgato.
19. In the discourse on requesting righteous protection, “gīvāyeva” means due to the absence of a command. Tesaṃ anatthakāmatāya means with the perception, “Having heard my words calling him a thief, some might punish him or deprive him of life.” This shows that if one says “thief” merely out of fear or to seize possessions hastily, there is no fault even if he is punished. For royal officers, pointing out “This is a thief” is sufficient for punishment. However, for bhikkhus or monastery attendants, if someone says in their presence, “Such-and-such a person is a thief and did this,” and they tell royal officers who then punish him, there is no offense for the bhikkhu since he did not tell the royal officers, and those who were told did not punish the thief themselves—this should be understood. Even if one commands, “You seize his property,” and another causes it to be seized, there is no offense for the one who commanded due to the lack of direct involvement. Attano vacanakara is said in a general sense. Even if royal officers do not follow the words, and one says to them regarding him, “Have his seized possessions brought, but do not punish him,” there is no offense even if punishment is carried out, since taking punishment is prohibited, as in the case of commanding, “Steal such-and-such an item,” and retracting it when remorse arises (pārā. 121). In the case of servants accepting it, or in litigation for that purpose, it is a dukkaṭa offense for bhikkhus too, hence it says, “kappiyaaḍḍo nāma, na vaṭṭati,” meaning “A lawful lawsuit is not permissible.” However, if a bhikkhu goes to authorities for a field or the like and litigation occurs, it is not unlawful for all, as it already belongs to the Saṅgha. The bhikkhu incurs offenses only through his own actions. It is indeed permissible to request protection for servants or the like, to report lawful proceedings arising for the Saṅgha when questioned by authorities, and for monastery attendants to conduct litigation. A bhikkhu may even conduct lawful litigation regarding monastery land or the like himself—this is stated in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.679).
19. In the account of requesting lawful protection, gīvāyevāti because there is no command. Tesaṃ anatthakāmatāyāti with the thought that ‘hearing my statement that he is a thief, some will punish him, will deprive him of life’. By this, it shows that there is no fault even if one is punished when one suddenly says ‘thief’ merely out of fear or for the purpose of seizing requisites. For royal officials, there is a gīvā (neck, here meaning a serious offense) only in declaring someone as ‘this is a thief’. However, for monks, there is no gīvā even if, based on a statement made by someone in the presence of ārāmikas (monastery keepers) or others, saying ‘so-and-so is a thief and did such-and-such,’ the ārāmikas inform the royal officials and have the thief punished, because the monks did not speak to the royal officials, and those to whom they did speak did not punish the thief themselves; this should be understood. Indeed, even if one commands, “You seize what belongs to this one,” if one has it seized by another, there is no offense for the commander because it is disassociated. Attano vacanakaranti this is stated in the sense of ownership. Even for royal officials who do not carry out one’s words, if one says, specifying, “Have the requisites seized by this one brought back, do not punish him,” even if punishment is carried out, there is no gīvā because the taking of punishment was forbidden, like ordering, “Steal so-and-so’s goods,” and then forbidding it again when remorse arises (pārā. 121). Just as it would be a dukkaṭa (offense of wrong-doing) for monks if slaves and others accepted, it is stated that it is not allowable, when doing legal work, even for their purpose, ‘kappiyaaḍḍo nāma, na vaṭṭatī’ti. However, if a monk goes to legal officials for the purpose of a field or other matter, and a case is made, it is not unlawful for everyone, like the acceptance of that field, etc., because it was previously owned by the Sangha. But there are offenses for the monk based on his actions. It is allowable to request protection even for the sake of slaves and others, to state the proper procedure arisen for the Sangha when questioned by a legal official, and for ārāmikas and others to have a case made. However, it is allowable for a monk himself to make a lawful case for the monastery grounds, etc,” this has come down in the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.679).
19. In the discussion on Righteous Protection, “by the neck” means due to the absence of a command. “Because they do not wish harm” means that some, upon hearing my words “thief,” might punish or even kill. This shows that even if one hastily says “thief” out of fear or for the sake of seizing belongings, and is punished, there is no fault. For royal officials, the neck is mentioned only in the context of identifying a thief. However, for monks or park keepers, if someone says in their presence, “That thief did such and such,” and based on that statement, the park keepers report to the royal officials and have the thief punished, the monk’s neck is not involved because the royal officials were not informed by the monk. And since those who were informed did not punish the thief themselves, this should be understood. Even if one commands, “You, seize his belongings,” if another seizes them, the commander is not at fault due to the lack of agreement. “One who acts on one’s own words” refers to acting in accordance with one’s duty. Even if royal officials do not act on the words, if one says, “Bring the seized belongings, do not punish him,” and they still punish, the neck is not involved, as the act of seizing is rejected. It is like commanding, “Take such and such goods,” and upon regret, rejecting it again (Pārā. 121). Similarly, in the case of accepting slaves, etc., it is a dukkaṭa offense for monks to engage in a lawsuit for that purpose. It is stated, “A kappiya lawsuit is not permissible.” However, if a monk goes to the officials for the sake of a field, etc., and a lawsuit is conducted, it is not improper for all, as it was previously Sangha property. But for the monk, offenses arise based on his effort. It is permissible for slaves, etc., to request protection when asked by the officials, and for park keepers to conduct a lawsuit. However, it is permissible for a monk to personally conduct a lawsuit regarding monastery property.
ID1791
Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. pācittiya 681) “gīvāti kevalaṃ gīvā eva hoti, na pārājikaṃ. Kārāpetvā dātabbāti ettha sace āvudhabhaṇḍaṃ hoti, tassa dhārā na kārāpetabbā, aññena pana ākārena saññāpetabba”nti vuttaṃ.
In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pācittiya 681), it is said, **“gīvā** means it is only a gīvā, not a pārājika offense. Kārāpetvā dātabbā means if it involves a weapon, it should not be made with its edge; it should be indicated in another way.”
In the Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pācittiya 681), gīvāti it is only a gīvā, not a pārājika. Kārāpetvā dātabbāti here, if it is a weapon, its edge should not be sharpened; it should be marked in another way,” it is stated.
In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pācittiya 681), it is stated: “By the neck” means only by the neck, not a pārājika offense. “Having made, it should be given” means that if it is a weapon, its edge should not be sharpened, but it should be made recognizable in another way.
ID1792
ID1793
20. Uccārādichaḍḍanakathāyaṃ aṭṭhame uccārādichaḍḍane “uccārādibhāvo, anapalokanaṃ, vaḷañjanaṭṭhānaṃ, tirokuṭṭapākāratā, chaḍḍanaṃ vā chaḍḍāpanaṃ vāti imāni panettha pañca aṅgāni, navame haritūpari chaḍḍane sabbesanti bhikkhussa bhikkhuniyā ca. Idha khettapālakā ārāmādigopakā ca sāmikā evā”ti ettakameva sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.830) vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.830) pana “aṭṭhame vaḷañjiyamānatirokuṭṭāditā, anapaloketvā uccārādīnaṃ chaḍḍanādīti dve aṅgāni. Navame ’matthakacchinnanāḷikerampī’ti vuttattā haritūpari chaḍḍanameva paṭikkhittaṃ. Tenāha ‘anikkhittabījesū’tiādi. Yattha ca chaḍḍetuṃ vaṭṭati, tattha harite vaccādiṃ kātumpi vaṭṭati eva. Sabbesanti bhikkhubhikkhunīna”nti vuttaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. pācittiya 832) pana “sāmike apaloketvāva chaḍḍetīti katthaci potthake natthi, katthaci atthi, atthibhāvova seyyo kiriyākiriyattā sikkhāpadassa. Idha khettapālakā ārāmādigopakā ca sāmikā eva. ’Saṅghassa khette ārāme ca tattha kacavaraṃ na chaḍḍetabbanti katikā ce natthi, bhikkhussa chaḍḍetuṃ vaṭṭati saṅghapariyāpannattā, na bhikkhunīnaṃ. Tāsampi bhikkhunisaṅghasantake vuttanayena vaṭṭati, na tattha bhikkhussa. Evaṃ santepi sāruppavaseneva kātabbanti vutta”nti vuttaṃ.
20. In the discourse on discarding excrement and the like, in the eighth rule regarding discarding excrement and the like, “The state of excrement or the like, not looking around, an inhabited place, being beyond a wall or fence, and discarding or causing to discard—these five factors are here. In the ninth, discarding on green grass—for sabbesa means for both bhikkhus and bhikkhunīs. Here, field guardians and park keepers are indeed the owners”—this much is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.830). In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.830), however, it is said, “In the eighth, being in an inhabited place beyond a wall and discarding excrement and the like without looking around are two factors. In the ninth, since it says, ‘Even a coconut with its top cut off,’ discarding on green grass alone is prohibited. Hence it says, ‘anikkhittabījesu,’ and so forth. Where it is permissible to discard, it is also permissible to relieve oneself on green grass. Sabbesa means for bhikkhus and bhikkhunīs.” In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pācittiya 832), it is said, “Discarding without consulting the owners is not found in some texts but is in others; its presence is better due to the active nature of the rule. Here, field guardians and park keepers are indeed the sāmikā. ‘In the Saṅgha’s field or park, if there is no agreement not to discard rubbish there, it is permissible for a bhikkhu to discard due to it belonging to the Saṅgha, but not for bhikkhunīs. For them too, it is permissible in the same way in what belongs to the bhikkhunī Saṅgha, but not for a bhikkhu there. Even so, it should be done only in an appropriate manner,’ it is said.”
20. In the account of discarding excrement, etc., in the eighth, regarding discarding excrement, etc., “the state of being excrement, etc., not looking around, the place of use, being beyond a wall or enclosure, discarding or causing to discard – these are the five factors here; in the ninth, regarding discarding on green vegetation, sabbesanti for both the monk and the nun. Here, field guards, monastery keepers, and others are the sāmikā (owners) themselves,” only this much is stated in the Sāratthadīpani (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.830). In the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.830), however, “in the eighth, the state of being used beyond a wall, etc., discarding excrement, etc., without looking around – these are the two factors. In the ninth, because it is stated ‘even a coconut cut at the top,’ only discarding on green vegetation is forbidden. Therefore, it states ‘anikkhittabījesū’ti, etc. Where it is allowable to discard, it is also allowable to do excrement, etc., on green vegetation. Sabbesanti for both monks and nuns,” it is stated. In the Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pācittiya 832), however, “without looking at the owners, he discards,” is not in some texts, it is in some; the presence is better because the sikkhāpada (training rule) is about action and non-action. Here, field guards, monastery keepers, and others are the sāmikā themselves. ‘If there is no agreement that rubbish should not be discarded there in the field or monastery of the Sangha, it is allowable for a monk to discard because it is included in the Sangha, but not for nuns. Even for them, it is allowable according to the stated method in what belongs to the nuns’ Sangha, but not there for the monk. Even so, it should be done in a suitable manner,’ it is stated.”
20. In the discussion on disposing of excrement, etc., in the eighth case, the five factors are: the nature of excrement, etc., not informing, the place of disposal, being beyond a wall or fence, and disposing or having it disposed of. In the ninth case, regarding disposal on plants, “all” refers to both monks and nuns. Here, field guards and park keepers are the owners. This is the essence as explained in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.830). In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.830), it is stated: in the eighth case, the two factors are: being beyond a wall, etc., while being disposed of, and disposing of excrement, etc., without informing. In the ninth case, since it is stated, “even a coconut with its top cut off,” disposal on plants is prohibited. Hence, it is said, “where seeds are not discarded,” etc. Where disposal is permissible, even making a toilet on plants is permissible. “All” refers to monks and nuns. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pācittiya 832), it is stated: “Having informed the owner, one should dispose of it”—this is found in some texts but not in others; its presence is better due to the nature of the training rule. Here, field guards and park keepers are the “owners.” “If there is no agreement not to dispose of waste in the Sangha’s field or park, it is permissible for a monk to dispose of it, as it belongs to the Sangha, but not for nuns. Even so, it should be done in a suitable manner.”
ID1794
Bhikkhuvibhaṅge pana sekhiyavaṇṇanāyaṃ (pāci. aṭṭha. 651) “asañciccāti paṭicchannaṭṭhānaṃ gacchantassa sahasā uccāro vā passāvo vā nikkhamati, asañciccakato nāma, anāpatti. Na hariteti ettha yampi jīvarukkhassa mūlaṃ pathaviyaṃ dissamānaṃ gacchati, sākhā vā bhūmilaggā gacchati, sabbaṃ haritasaṅkhātameva, khandhe nisīditvā appaharitaṭṭhāne pātetuṃ vaṭṭati. Appaharitaṭṭhānaṃ olokentasseva sahasā nikkhamati, gilānaṭṭhāne ṭhito hoti, vaṭṭati. Appaharite katoti appaharitaṃ alabhantena tiṇaṇḍupakaṃ vā palālaṇḍupakaṃ vā ṭhapetvā katopi pacchā haritaṃ ottharati, vaṭṭatiyeva. ’Kheḷena cettha siṅghāṇikāpi saṅgahitā’ti mahāpaccariyaṃ vuttaṃ. Na udaketi etaṃ paribhogaudakameva sandhāya vuttaṃ. Vaccakuṭisamauddādiudakesu pana aparibhogesu anāpatti. Deve vassante samantato udakogho hoti, anudakaṭṭhānaṃ olokentasseva nikkhamati, vaṭṭati. Mahāpaccariyaṃ vuttaṃ etādise kāle anudakaṭṭhānaṃ alabhantena kātuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ. Tassaṃ vaṇṇanāyaṃ vimativinodaniyañca (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.652) “kheḷena cettha siṅghāṇikāpi saṅgahitāti ettha udakagaṇḍusakaṃ katvā ucchukacavarādiñca mukheneva harituṃ udakesu chaḍḍetuṃ vaṭṭatīti daṭṭhabba”nti vuttaṃ.
In the Bhikkhuvibhaṅga, in the commentary on the Sekhiya rules (pāci. aṭṭha. 651), “asañciccā” means that if, while going to a secluded place, excrement or urine suddenly escapes unintentionally, it is called an unintentional act, and there is no offense. “Na harite” here refers to anything considered green, including the roots of a dye-tree visible on the ground or branches extending along the earth; sitting on a branch and letting it fall in a non-green place is permissible. If it escapes suddenly while looking for a non-green place, or while standing in a sick condition, it is permissible. “Appaharite kato” means that even if one, unable to find a non-green place, places a bundle of grass or straw and does it there, and later green spreads over it, it is still permissible. It is said in the Mahāpaccari that “here, kheḷena also includes nasal mucus.” “Na udake” refers only to water meant for use. In water not meant for use, such as that in a latrine hut or the sea, there is no offense. When it rains and water floods all around, if it escapes while looking for a dry place, it is permissible. The Mahāpaccari states, “In such a time, it is permissible to do it if a dry place cannot be found.” In that commentary and in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.652), it is said regarding “kheḷena cettha siṅghāṇikāpi saṅgahitā” that it should be understood as permissible to take a mouthful of water and spit out sugarcane refuse or similar things into water.
However, in the analysis of the bhikkhus’ training rules, in the explanation of the Sekhiya rules (pāci. aṭṭha. 651), it says: “asañciccāti means that when someone is going to a covered place, excrement or urine suddenly comes out; this is called unintentional, and there is no offense. Na hariteti - here, even a root of a living tree that is visible going into the earth, or a branch that is touching the ground, is all considered as ‘greenery.’ It is permissible to sit on the trunk and discharge it in a place that is not green. If it comes out suddenly while one is looking for a place that is not green, or if one is standing in a place appropriate for the sick, it is permissible. Appaharite katoti - If, not finding a non-green place, one places a bundle of grass or a bundle of straw and discharges on it, and afterwards it spreads onto the green, it is still permissible. It is said in the Mahāpaccari that ‘here, even nasal mucus is included along with spittle’. Na udaketi - this is said with reference only to water for consumption. However, in non-consumable waters like those in latrines, cesspools, and so on, there is no offense. When it rains, there is a flood of water everywhere; if it comes out while one is looking for a place without water, it is permissible. It is said in the Mahāpaccari that in such a time, it is permissible to do it if one cannot find a place without water.’ In that explanation and also in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.652), it is said, “kheḷena cettha siṅghāṇikāpi saṅgahitāti - here, it should be understood that it is permissible to make a mouthful of water and to throw things like sugarcane refuse, through the mouth, into the water.’
In the Bhikkhu Vibhaṅga, in the explanation of the Sekhiya rules (Pācittiya 651), “asañciccā” means that when one is walking in a concealed place, and feces or urine suddenly comes out unintentionally, there is no offense. “Na harite” means that even if one walks on the exposed roots of a green tree or on branches that touch the ground, all such places are considered green. It is permissible to relieve oneself while sitting on the trunk in a place not covered by greenery. If one is looking for a place not covered by greenery and it suddenly comes out, or if one is standing in a place suitable for the sick, it is permissible. “Appaharite kato” means that if one cannot find a place not covered by greenery, one may use a clump of grass or straw and later cover it with greenery; this is permissible. The Mahāpaccariya states that spittle and mucus are also included here. “Na udake” refers specifically to water used for drinking or bathing. There is no offense if it is done in water not meant for use, such as in a latrine or a reservoir. When it is raining and water is everywhere, if one is looking for a dry place and it suddenly comes out, it is permissible. The Mahāpaccariya states that in such circumstances, if one cannot find a dry place, it is permissible to do so. In the Vimativinodanī (Vinaya Vi. Ṭī. Pācittiya 2.652), it is said, “kheḷena cettha siṅghāṇikāpi saṅgahitā”—here, it should be understood that it is permissible to spit or discard things like betel nut into water after rinsing the mouth.
ID1795
Imasmiṃ ṭhāne paṇḍitehi vicāretabbaṃ atthi – “vaccakuṭisamuddādiudakesu pana aparibhogesu anāpattī”ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ, evaṃ sante nadījātassarādīsu āpatti vā anāpatti vāti. Tattha samuddādīti ādi-saddena nadījātassarāpi saṅgahitāva, tasmā anāpattīti ce? Na cevaṃ daṭṭhabbaṃ. Yadi hi samuddādīti ettha ādi-saddena nadījātassarāpi saṅgahitā, evaṃ sati ṭīkācariyā vadeyyuṃ, na pana vadanti, aṭṭhakathāyañca “vaccakuṭisamuddādiudakesū”ti ettakameva vadeyya, tathā pana avatvā “aparibhogesū”ti hetumantavisesanapadampi gahitaṃ. Tena ñāyati “ādisaddena aparibhogāni candanikādiudakāni eva gahitāni, na paribhogāni nadījātassarādiudakānī”ti. Tena ca vaccakuṭisamuddādiudakāni aparibhogattā anāpattikarāni honti, nadījātassarādiudakāni pana paribhogattā āpattikarānīti. Kathaṃ pana “aparibhogesū”ti imassa padassa hetumantapadabhāvo jānitabboti? Yuttito āgamato ca. Kathaṃ yuttito? “Vaccakuṭisamuddādiudakāni paribhogānipi santi, aparibhogānipī”ti abyabhicāriyabhāvato. Byabhicāre hi sambhave eva sati visesanaṃ sātthakaṃ siyā. Kathaṃ āgamato? Vuttañhetaṃ ācariyabuddhadattattherena vinayavinicchaye (vi. vi. 1954) “tesaṃ aparibhogattā”ti. Tasmā ādi-saddena aparibhogāniyeva udakāni gahitāni, na paribhogāni. Vuttañhetaṃ vinayavinicchayaṭīkāyaṃ “vaccakuṭisamuddādiudakesūti ettha ādi-saddena sabbaṃ aparibhogajalaṃ saṅgayhati, teneva tesaṃ aparibhogattameva kāraṇamāhā”ti, tasmā manussānaṃ paribhogesu nadījātassarataḷākapokkharaṇiyādiudakesu uccārapassāvādikaraṇaṃ na vaṭṭatīti jānitabbametaṃ. “Deve vassante samantato udakogho hoti, anudakaṭṭhānaṃ olokentasseva nikkhamati, vaṭṭati. Mahāpaccariyaṃ vuttaṃ etādise kāle anudakaṭṭhānaṃ alabhantena kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti vutta”nti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ āgatattā mahantesu nadījātassarādīsu nāvādīhi gatakāle tādise kāraṇe sati “tīraṃ upanehī”ti vatvā “upanetuṃ asakkuṇeyyaṭṭhāne udakepi kātuṃ vaṭṭati, anāpattī”ti aṭṭhakathānulomato viññāyati, upaparikkhitvā gahetabbaṃ.
There is something here for the wise to consider: It is stated in the commentary that “in water not meant for use, such as that in a latrine hut or the sea, there is no offense.” If so, is there an offense or not in rivers, lakes, and similar places? Regarding “samuddādi”, does the word “ādi” include rivers and lakes, thus implying no offense? This should not be understood in this way. If “ādi” in “samuddādi” included rivers and lakes, the subcommentary teachers would have said so, but they do not. Moreover, the commentary only says “in waters like latrine huts and the sea” and does not stop there; it adds the qualifying phrase “not meant for use.” From this, it is understood that the word “ādi” refers only to waters not meant for use, such as wastewater, and not to waters meant for use, like rivers and lakes. Thus, waters like latrine huts and the sea, being not meant for use, incur no offense, while rivers and lakes, being meant for use, do incur an offense. How is it known that the phrase “not meant for use” is a causal qualifier? Through reasoning and textual authority. How through reasoning? Because “waters like latrine huts and the sea can be both meant and not meant for use,” and the lack of absolute consistency makes the qualifier meaningful. How through textual authority? It is said by the venerable teacher Buddhadatta in the Vinayavinicchaya (vi. vi. 1954), “because they are not meant for use.” Therefore, the word “ādi” refers only to waters not meant for use, not those meant for use. It is stated in the Vinayavinicchaya subcommentary regarding “vaccakuṭisamuddādiudakesu” that “the word ‘ādi’ includes all water not meant for use, and this is precisely why it states their not being meant for use as the reason.” Thus, it should be understood that defecating or urinating in waters meant for human use, such as rivers, lakes, tanks, or ponds, is not permissible. Since the commentary states, “When it rains and water floods all around, if it escapes while looking for a dry place, it is permissible; the Mahāpaccari says that in such a time, it is permissible to do it if a dry place cannot be found,” it is understood in accordance with the commentary that, in cases of large rivers or lakes when traveling by boat or similar means, if such a reason arises, saying “bring it to the shore” and being unable to reach it, it is permissible to do it even in the water without offense; this should be carefully examined and understood.
On this point, there is something for the learned to consider: it is said in the commentary that “in non-consumable waters such as latrine water, ocean water, and so forth, there is no offence”; given this, would there be offence or no offence if one were to do this in rivers, natural lakes, and the like? Therein, with the word samuddādīti (ādi-saddena), are rivers and natural lakes also included using the word ādi (“and so forth”), Therefore if it’s said that there is no offence? That should not be the case. For, if rivers and natural lakes were also included here by the word ādi in “samuddādīti”, then the author of the subcommentary would say so, but they do not. Moreover, in the commentary, it only says “vaccakuṭisamuddādiudakesū” (in latrine water, ocean water and so forth), but instead of only saying that, it also includes the conditional and specificatory term “aparibhogesū” (in non-consumable). From this it is understood that “by the word ‘ādi’, only non-consumable waters such as those in small ponds are included, not consumable waters such as those in rivers, natural lakes, and the like”. Therefore, the waters of latrines, cesspools, oceans, and the like are non-offensive because they are non-consumable, while the waters of rivers, natural lakes and so forth are causing the offence because they are consumable. But how is it to be known that this term “aparibhogesū” is a conditional term? From reason and from scripture. How from reason? “Latrine water, ocean water, and so forth are both consumable and non-consumable,” this is due to their not being mutually exclusive. For an additional specification to have meaning, it can only exist when there is some exception. How from scripture? The venerable teacher Buddhadatta Thera said this in the Vinayavinicchaya (vi. vi. 1954): “tesaṃ aparibhogattā” (because of their being non-consumable). Therefore, by the word ‘ādi’ only non-consumable waters are included, not consumable ones. It has been said in the Vinayavinicchaya subcommentary: “vaccakuṭisamuddādiudakesūti - Here, with the word ‘ādi’, all non-consumable water is included; therefore, he states their being non-consumable as the very reason.” Therefore, it should be known that it is not permissible to discharge excrement, urine, and so forth in consumable waters for humans, such as rivers, natural lakes, ponds, reservoirs, and the like. “When it rains, there is a flood of water everywhere; if it comes out while one is looking for a place without water, it is permissible. It is said in the Mahāpaccari that in such a time, it is permissible to do it if one cannot find a place without water.’ Since it is said so in the commentary, it is understood, following the commentary, that when traveling by boat, etc. on large rivers, natural lakes, etc. if there is such a need, then, after having said “Take it to the shore”, and it is impossible to bring it to shore, it is permissible to do it even in the water; there is no offence, one should consider well before deciding.
In this context, the wise should consider whether there is an offense or not in rivers, lakes, etc. The commentary states, “vaccakuṭisamuddādiudakesu pana aparibhogesu anāpattī”—thus, in rivers, lakes, etc., there is no offense. But if “samuddādī” includes rivers and lakes through the word “ādi,” then why is there no offense? This should not be understood in this way. If “samuddādī” included rivers and lakes through the word “ādi,” the ṭīkā teachers would have said so, but they do not. The commentary only mentions “vaccakuṭisamuddādiudakesu,” and adds the qualifying phrase “aparibhogesu.” Therefore, it is clear that the word “ādi” refers to water not meant for use, such as water in small ponds, and not to water in rivers and lakes, which are meant for use. Thus, water in latrines and reservoirs, being not meant for use, does not incur an offense, but water in rivers and lakes, being meant for use, does incur an offense. How then should the phrase “aparibhogesu” be understood as a qualifying phrase? This is known through reasoning and scriptural authority. How through reasoning? Because water in latrines and reservoirs can be both for use and not for use, the qualification is meaningful. How through scriptural authority? It is stated by the elder Ācariya Buddhaddatta in the Vinayavinicchaya (Vinaya Vi. 1954), “tesaṃ aparibhogattā”—therefore, the word “ādi” refers only to water not meant for use, not to water meant for use. It is also stated in the Vinayavinicchayaṭīkā, “vaccakuṭisamuddādiudakesū”—here, the word “ādi” includes all water not meant for use, and this is the reason for their being not meant for use. Therefore, it should be understood that it is not permissible to defecate or urinate in water meant for human use, such as rivers, lakes, ponds, and reservoirs. The commentary states, “deve vassante samantato udakogho hoti, anudakaṭṭhānaṃ olokentasseva nikkhamati, vaṭṭati. Mahāpaccariyaṃ vuttaṃ etādise kāle anudakaṭṭhānaṃ alabhantena kātuṃ vaṭṭatī”—thus, in large rivers and lakes, when one is traveling by boat and such circumstances arise, it is permissible to say, “tīraṃ upanehī” (bring the boat to the shore), and if one cannot bring it to the shore, it is permissible to do so in the water, and there is no offense. This should be understood in accordance with the commentary and should be carefully considered.
ID1796
ID1797
21. Nahāne rukkhādighaṃsananti ettha aṭṭhapadākārenāti aṭṭhapadaphalakākārena, jūtaphalakasadisanti vuttaṃ hoti. Mallakamūlakasaṇṭhānenāti kheḷamallakamūlasaṇṭhānena. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.243) pana “aṭṭhapadākārenāti jūtaphalake aṭṭhagabbharājiākārena. Mallakamūlasaṇṭhānenāti kheḷamallakamūlasaṇṭhānena. Idañca vaṭṭādhārakaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Kaṇṭake uṭṭhāpetvā katavaṭṭakapālassetaṃ adhivacanaṃ. Puthupāṇikanti muṭṭhiṃ akatvā vikasitahatthatalehi piṭṭhiparikammaṃ vuccati. Etameva sandhāya hatthaparikamma”nti vuttaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 244) pana “puthupāṇinā kattabbaṃ kammaṃ puthupāṇikamma”nti vuttaṃ.
21. Regarding “bathing, trees, and rubbing,” “aṭṭhapadākārena” means in the manner of an eight-square board, similar to a gambling board. “Mallakamūlakasaṇṭhānena” means in the shape of the root of a saliva mallaka tree. In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.243), however, “aṭṭhapadākārena” is explained as “in the manner of a gambling board with eight rows of squares,” and “mallakamūlasaṇṭhānena” as “in the shape of the root of a saliva mallaka tree,” referring to a round base, with “round leaf” being a term for a circular shape made by raising thorns. “Puthupāṇika” refers to back-rubbing with open palms without making a fist, and this is what is meant by “hatthaparikamma”. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 244), it is said, “Work done with open hands is called puthupāṇikamma.”
21. Regarding rubbing against trees and the like while bathing, aṭṭhapadākārenāti means in the manner of a checkerboard, meaning similar to a gaming board. Mallakamūlakasaṇṭhānenāti means in the shape of the base of a spittoon. However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.243) it says, “aṭṭhapadākārenāti means in the shape of the eight-square pattern rows on a gaming board. Mallakamūlasaṇṭhānenāti means in the shape of the base of a spittoon. And this is said with reference to the round support. This is the term for the round support having spikes protruding from it. Puthupāṇikanti refers to massaging the back with open palms, without making a fist. With reference to this very thing, hatthaparikamma”nti is said. But, in the Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 244) it is stated, “The action to be performed with the open palm is puthupāṇikamma”nti.”
21. In the context of damaging trees for bathing, “aṭṭhapadākārenā” means in the shape of an eight-petaled lotus, similar to a chessboard. “Mallakamūlakasaṇṭhānenā” means in the shape of the root of a jasmine plant. The Vimativinodanī (Vinaya Vi. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 2.243) states, “aṭṭhapadākārenā”—in the shape of a chessboard with eight divisions. “Mallakamūlasaṇṭhānenā”—in the shape of the root of a jasmine plant. This refers to a circular stand. It is also called “kaṇṭake uṭṭhāpetvā katavaṭṭakapālassetaṃ adhivacanaṃ.” “Puthupāṇika” means massaging the back with open hands, not making a fist. This is referred to as “hatthaparikamma.” The Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 244) states, “puthupāṇinā kattabbaṃ kammaṃ puthupāṇikamma”—work done with open hands is called “puthupāṇikamma.”
ID1798
Evaṃ pāḷianusāreneva nahāne kattabbākattabbaṃ dassetvā idāni nahānatitthe nahāyantānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ nahānavidhiṃ dassento “idaṃ panettha nahānavatta”ntiādimāha. Tattha passantānaṃ appasādāvahanato, gihipurisānaṃ kammaṃ viyāti garahitabbabhāvato ca vuttaṃ “yattha vā tattha vā…pe… na otaritabba”nti. Aññesu sammukhībhūtesu anudakasāṭakena nahāyituṃ dukkarattā “sabbadisā pana oloketvā vivittabhāvaṃ ñatvā”ti vuttaṃ. Evampi khāṇugumbalatādīhi paṭicchannāpi hutvā tiṭṭheyyunti āha “khāṇu…pe… ukkāsitvā”ti. Uddhaṃmukhena cīvarāpanayanaṃ harāyitabbaṃ siyāti vuttaṃ “avakujja…pe… apanetvā”ti. Tato kāyabandhanaṭṭhapanavattamāha “kāyabandhana”ntyādinā . Tato udakasāṭikāya sati taṃ nivāsetvā otaritabbaṃ siyā, tāya asatiyā kiṃ kātabbanti codanaṃ sandhāyāha “sace”tiādi. Tattha pubbe “ṭhitakeneva na otaritabba”nti ahirikākārassa paṭisiddhattā idha hirimantākāraṃ dasseti udakante ukkuṭikaṃ nisīditvā nivāsanaṃ mocetvāti. Uṇṇaṭṭhāne, samaṭṭhāne vā pasārite sati vā tena aññattha gaccheyyāti āha “sace ninnaṭṭhāna”ntiādi.
Thus, having shown what should and should not be done in bathing according to the Pali text, now, to explain the bathing procedure for monks bathing at a bathing ford, it says, “idaṃ panettha nahānavatta” and so forth. Therein, it is said, “yattha vā tattha vā…pe… na otaritabba”, because it does not inspire confidence in onlookers and is censurable as resembling the actions of laymen. Due to the difficulty of bathing with a dry cloth when others are present in front, it says, “sabbadisā pana oloketvā vivittabhāvaṃ ñatvā”. It also says, “khāṇu…pe… ukkāsitvā”, because even then one might remain concealed by stumps, bushes, or vines. It says, “avakujja…pe… apanetvā”, because removing the robe upward might cause embarrassment. Then it explains the procedure for placing the waistband with “kāyabandhana” and so forth. Then, addressing the question of what to do if there is a wet cloth or not, it says, “sace” and so forth. Since shameless behavior was previously prohibited with “one should not go down while standing,” here it shows a modest manner with “udakante ukkuṭikaṃ nisīditvā nivāsanaṃ mocetvā”. It says, “sace ninnaṭṭhāna” and so forth, because if spread out in a high or flat place, it might go elsewhere.
Thus, having shown what is to be done and what is not to be done while bathing, according to the Pāḷi itself, now, showing the bathing procedure for monks bathing at bathing places, he says “idaṃ panettha nahānavatta”nti, and so on. Therein, because it causes displeasure to those who see it, and because it is like the action of householders, that it is blameworthy and the “yattha vā tattha vā…pe… na otaritabba”nti has been said. Because it is difficult to bathe with a water-cloth in the presence of others, “sabbadisā pana oloketvā vivittabhāvaṃ ñatvā”ti has been said. Even so, thinking there might still be thorns, stumps, creepers and so forth, he says “khāṇu…pe… ukkāsitvā”ti. Raising the head and removing the robe might be embarrassing, so it says “avakujja…pe… apanetvā”ti. Then, he states the practice regarding the waist-cloth with “kāyabandhana”ntyādinā. Then, if there is a bathing cloth, one should put it on and descend. If there isn’t one, what should be done? With reference to the inquiry, he states “sace”ti, and so on. Therein, since the shameless way of “one should not descend while standing” was previously prohibited, he now shows the modest way with udakante ukkuṭikaṃ nisīditvā nivāsanaṃ mocetvāti. Thinking that if it is spread out on an elevated place or on a level place, the wind might blow it elsewhere, he says “sace ninnaṭṭhāna”nti, and so on.
Thus, after explaining what should and should not be done during bathing according to the Pāḷi, the text now explains the bathing procedure for monks bathing at a bathing place, stating, “idaṃ panettha nahānavatta” (this is the bathing rule). Here, it is said that one should not bathe in a way that causes displeasure to onlookers or resembles the actions of laypeople, hence the rule, “yattha vā tattha vā…pe… na otaritabba” (one should not enter the water here or there). Since it is difficult to bathe with a wet robe in the presence of others, it is said, “sabbadisā pana oloketvā vivittabhāvaṃ ñatvā” (one should look in all directions and ascertain that the place is secluded). Even if one is concealed by stumps or thickets, it is said, “khāṇu…pe… ukkāsitvā” (one should cough or make a sound). It is said that one should not remove the robe facing upwards, “avakujja…pe… apanetvā” (one should remove it facing downwards). Then, the rule for placing the waistband is stated, “kāyabandhana” (the waistband). If one has a bathing cloth, one should wear it before entering the water; if not, what should be done? The text states, “sace” (if). Here, since it was previously prohibited to enter the water while standing, to avoid shamelessness, the text now describes the proper way, “udakante ukkuṭikaṃ nisīditvā nivāsanaṃ mocetvā” (one should sit in a crouching position at the edge of the water and remove the lower robe). If the water is deep or shallow, or if one spreads the robe, one may go elsewhere, as stated, “sace ninnaṭṭhāna” (if the place is deep).
ID1799
Otarantena kiṃ kātabbanti pucchaṃ sandhāya “otarantena saṇika”ntyādi. Tattha pubbe “vegena na otaritabba”nti paṭisiddhānurūpamāha “saṇika”nti. Atigambhīraṃ gacchanto udakoghataraṅgavātādīhi paharanto calitakāyo siyā, atiuttāne nisīdanto appaṭicchannakāyo siyāti vuttaṃ “nābhippamāṇamattaṃ otaritvā”ti. Attano hatthavikārādīhi vīciṃ uṭṭhāpento, saddañca karonto uddhaṭacapalabhāvo siyāti vuttaṃ “vīciṃ anuṭṭhapentena saddaṃ akarontena nivattitvā”ti. Nivattitvā kiṃ kātabbanti āha āgatadisābhimukhena nimujjitabba”nti, abhimukhena hutvāti pāṭhaseso. Idāni tapphalaṃ dassento “eva”ntyādimāha. Tato ummujjantena kiṃ kātabbanti pucchāyamāha “ummujjantenapī”tiādi. Sesaṃ suviññeyyameva. Cīvaraṃ pārupitvāva ṭhātabbaṃ, kasmāti ce? Na tāva kāyato udakaṃ otarati, tasmā thokaṃ kālaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ cīvaraṃ ubhohi hatthehi ante gahetvā purato katvā ṭhātabbaṃ. Tato kāyassa sukkhabhāvaṃ ñatvā cīvaraṃ pārupitvā yathāruci gantabbanti.
Addressing what should be done when descending, it says, “otarantena saṇika” and so forth. Therein, it says “saṇika” in accordance with the prior prohibition against descending quickly. It says, “nābhippamāṇamattaṃ otaritvā”, because going too deep might cause the body to sway due to currents, waves, or wind, and sitting in too shallow water might leave the body uncovered. It says, “vīciṃ anuṭṭhapentena saddaṃ akarontena nivattitvā”, because raising waves or making noise with hand movements might suggest restlessness or agitation. It says, “āgatadisābhimukhena nimujjitabba”, meaning one should submerge facing the direction of arrival, with the rest implied. Now, showing the result, it says, “eva” and so forth. Addressing what should be done when emerging, it says, “ummujjantenapi” and so forth. The rest is easily understood. “Cīvaraṃ pārupitvāva ṭhātabbaṃ”, but why? Because the water has not yet dried from the body, so one should stand for a short time holding the upper robe with both hands at the ends in front. Then, knowing the body is dry, one should wear the robe and go as desired.
With reference to the question “What should be done when descending?”, “otarantena saṇika”ntyādi. Therein, as a counterpart to what was previously prohibited, “one should not descend rapidly”, “saṇika”nti is said. Going to a very deep spot, one might be struck by waves, currents, wind, and so on, and have an unsteady body; sitting in a very shallow place, one’s body might be inadequately covered. So it says “nābhippamāṇamattaṃ otaritvā”ti. Agitating the water with one’s own hand movements and the like, and making noise, one would be agitated and restless. So, he says “vīciṃ anuṭṭhapentena saddaṃ akarontena nivattitvā”ti. Having turned around, what should one do? He says, āgatadisābhimukhena nimujjitabba”nti, Facing in the direction one came from, is added as continuation of the sentence. Now, showing its result, he says “eva”ntyādi. Then, with reference to the question, “What should be done by the one emerging?” He says “ummujjantenapī”tiādi. The rest is easily understood. Cīvaraṃ pārupitvāva ṭhātabbaṃ, And why? The water is not yet draining from the body, therefore, for a short while the upper robe should be held with both hands at the ends and brought in front. Then, knowing that the body is dry, one should put on the robe and go as one wishes.
When entering the water, what should be done? The text states, “otarantena saṇika” (one should enter slowly). Here, since it was previously prohibited to enter hastily, the text now says, “saṇika” (slowly). If one goes into deep water, one may be struck by waves or wind and lose balance; if one sits in shallow water, one’s body may be exposed, as stated, “nābhippamāṇamattaṃ otaritvā” (one should enter up to the navel). If one stirs the water with one’s hands or makes noise, one may appear restless, as stated, “vīciṃ anuṭṭhapentena saddaṃ akarontena nivattitvā” (one should not stir the water or make noise, and should turn back). After turning back, what should be done? The text states, “āgatadisābhimukhena nimujjitabba” (one should dive facing the direction one came from), with the rest of the text implying that one should face that direction. Now, the result of this practice is explained, “eva” (thus). Then, when emerging from the water, what should be done? The text states, “ummujjantenapī” (even when emerging). The rest is easy to understand. “Cīvaraṃ pārupitvāva ṭhātabbaṃ” (one should stand only after putting on the robe). Why? Because the water does not immediately leave the body, so one should hold the upper robe with both hands, place it in front, and stand for a short time. Then, after the body has dried, one should put on the robe and go as one wishes.
ID1800
ID1801
22. Valikādikathāyaṃ “muttolambakādīnanti ādi-saddena kuṇḍalādiṃ saṅgaṇhāti. Palambakasuttanti yaññopacitākārena olambakasutta”nti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.245). Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.245) pana “muttolambakādīnanti ādi-saddena kuṇḍalādiṃ saṅgaṇhāti. Palambakasuttanti brāhmaṇānaṃ yaññopacitasuttādiākāraṃ vuccati. Valayanti hatthapādavalaya”nti vuttaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 245) pana “kaṇṇato nikkhantamuttolambakādīnaṃ kuṇḍalādīnanti likhitaṃ. ’Kāyūra’nti pāḷipāṭho. ’Keyūrādīnī’ti ācariyenuddhaṭa”nti vuttaṃ.
22. In the discussion on sand and similar matters, “muttolambakādīna” includes earrings and the like with the word “ādi”. “Palambakasutta” refers to a hanging thread shaped like a sacrificial cord, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.245). In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.245), “muttolambakādīna” includes earrings and the like with the word “ādi”, and “palambakasutta” refers to the form of a sacrificial thread used by brahmins. “Valaya” means bracelets for hands or feet. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 245), it is written, “From the ear, things like pearl pendants and earrings,” and the Pali reading “kāyūra” is cited, with “keyūrādīni” extracted by the teacher.
22. In the discussion of necklaces and the like, “muttolambakādīnanti, with the word ādi-saddena, it includes things like earrings. Palambakasuttanti means a hanging thread in the manner of a sacred thread,” is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.245). However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.245), it is said: “muttolambakādīnanti, with the word ādi-saddena, it includes things like earrings. Palambakasuttanti refers to the form of the sacred thread of Brahmins, and so forth. Valayanti means bracelets for the hands and feet.” However, in the Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 245) it is written: “Of pearl necklaces hanging from the ear, and the like, earrings and so forth”. ‘Kāyūra’ is the Pāḷi reading. ‘Keyūrādīnī’ is selected by the teacher.”
22. In the discussion on sand, etc., “muttolambakādīna” includes earrings, etc., through the word “ādi.” “Palambakasutta” refers to threads used in sacrifices, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 3.245). The Vimativinodanī (Vinaya Vi. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 2.245) states, “muttolambakādīna” includes earrings, etc., through the word “ādi.” “Palambakasutta” refers to threads used in Brahmin sacrifices. “Valaya” refers to bracelets for the hands and feet. The Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. �ī. Cūḷavagga 245) states, “kaṇṇato nikkhantamuttolambakādīnaṃ kuṇḍalādīnanti likhitaṃ” (it is written that earrings, etc., hang from the ears). “Kāyūra” is the Pāḷi reading. “Keyūrādīnī” is quoted by the teacher.
ID1802
ID1803
23. Dīghakesakathāyaṃ sāratthadīpaniyaṃ na kiñci vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.246) pana “dvaṅguleti upayogabahuvacanaṃ, dvaṅgulappamāṇaṃ atikkāmetuṃ na vaṭṭatīti attho. Ettha ca dumāsassa vā dvaṅgulassa vā atikkantabhāvaṃ ajānantassapi kesamassugaṇanāya acittakāpattiyo hontīti vadanti. Kocchenāti usīrahīrādīni bandhitvā samakaṃ chinditvā gahitakocchena. Cikkalenāti silesayuttatelena. Uṇhābhitattarajasirānampīti uṇhābhitattānaṃ rajokiṇṇasirānaṃ. Addahatthenāti allahatthenā”ti vuttaṃ.
23. In the discussion on long hair, nothing is said in the Sāratthadīpanī. In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.246), however, “dvaṅgule” is in the instrumental plural, meaning it is not permissible to exceed two finger-widths. It is said that even for one unaware of exceeding two months or two finger-widths, there are unintentional offenses based on counting hair and beard. “Kocchena” means with a comb made by tying and evenly cutting roots like usīra. “Cikkalena” means with oil mixed with gum. “Uṇhābhitattarajasirānampi” means even of veins heated and dusty. “Addahatthena” means with a wet hand.
23. In the discussion of long hair, nothing is said in the Sāratthadīpanī. However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.246), it is said: “dvaṅguleti is a plural indicating use, meaning it is not permissible to let it exceed the measure of two finger-breadths. And here, they say that even one who is unaware that it exceeds two months or two finger breadths incurs offenses through inattention regarding the calculation of the hair and beard. Kocchenāti means with a hair-brush made by tying together things like vetiver and reeds, cutting them evenly, and taking them. Cikkalenāti means with oil mixed with wax. Uṇhābhitattarajasirānampīti means of those whose heads are afflicted by heat and are filled with dust. Addahatthenāti means with a wet hand.”
23. In the discussion on long hair, the Sāratthadīpanī does not say anything. The Vimativinodanī (Vinaya Vi. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 2.246) states, “dvaṅgule” is a plural form of use, meaning that one should not exceed the length of two fingers. Here, even if one does not know that the hair has exceeded the length of two months or two fingers, there are offenses of negligence in counting the hair. “Kocchenā” means cutting evenly after tying with a cord made of grass or fiber. “Cikkalenā” means with a heated iron. “Uṇhābhitattarajasirānampī” means those whose heads are covered with hot dust. “Addahatthenā” means with wet hands.
ID1804
Upari pana pāḷiyaṃ (cūḷava. 275) “tena kho pana samayena chabbaggiyā bhikkhū massuṃ kappāpenti. Massuṃ vaḍḍhāpenti. Golomikaṃ kārāpenti. Caturassakaṃ kārāpenti. Parimukhaṃ kārāpenti. Aḍḍhadukaṃ kārāpenti. Dāṭhikaṃ ṭhapenti. Sambādhe lomaṃ saṃharāpenti. Manussā ujjhāyanti khīyanti vipācenti ’seyyathāpi gihī kāmabhogino’ti . Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ – na, bhikkhave, massu kappāpetabbaṃ. Na massu vaḍḍhāpetabbaṃ. Na golomikaṃ kārāpetabbaṃ. Na caturassakaṃ kārāpetabbaṃ. Na parimukhaṃ kārāpetabbaṃ. Na aḍḍhadukaṃ kārāpetabbaṃ. Na dāṭhikā ṭhapetabbā. Na sambādhe lomaṃ saṃharāpetabbaṃ, yo saṃharāpeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti āgataṃ. Aṭṭhakathāyampi (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 275) “massuṃ kappāpentīti kattariyā massuṃ chedāpenti. Massuṃ vaḍḍhāpentīti massuṃ dīghaṃ kārenti. Golomikanti hanukamhi dīghaṃ katvā ṭhapitaṃ eḷakamassu vuccati. Caturassakanti catukoṇaṃ. Parimukhanti udare lomasaṃharaṇaṃ. Aḍḍhadukanti udare lomarājiṭṭhapanaṃ. Āpatti dukkaṭassāti massukappāpanādīsu sabbattha āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti vuttaṃ.
Further, in the Pali text (cūḷava. 275), “At that time, the group-of-six monks had their beards trimmed, grew their beards long, had them shaped into a goatee, a square, a circle around the mouth, a half-circle, kept a mustache, and removed hair from private parts. People grumbled, were annoyed, and criticized, ‘Just like laypeople who enjoy sensual pleasures.’ They reported this to the Blessed One: ‘Monks, beards should not be trimmed, nor grown long, nor shaped into a goatee, a square, a circle around the mouth, a half-circle, nor should a mustache be kept, nor hair removed from private parts. Whoever does so commits an offense of wrongdoing.’” In the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 275), “massuṃ kappāpenti” means they have their beards cut with scissors. “Massuṃ vaḍḍhāpenti” means they grow their beards long. “Golomika” refers to a long goatee left on the chin, called a goat’s beard. “Caturassaka” means four-sided. “Parimukha” means hair removal on the stomach. “Aḍḍhaduka” means keeping a line of hair on the stomach. “Āpatti dukkaṭassa” means in all cases of beard trimming and so forth, there is an offense of wrongdoing.
Further, in the Pāḷi (cūḷava. 275), “Now at that time, the monks of the group of six were having their beards trimmed. They were having their beards grown long. They were having them made round. They were having them made square. They were having them shaped around the abdomen. They were having half of them shaved. They were having mustaches kept. They were having the hair in constricted places plucked out. People were annoyed, vexed, and complained, ‘Just like householders who indulge in sense pleasures.’ They informed the Blessed One of this matter. – Monks, the beard should not be trimmed. The beard should not be grown long. It should not be made round. It should not be made square. It should not be shaped around the abdomen. Half of it should not be shaved. Mustaches should not be kept. The hair in constricted places should not be plucked out; whoever plucks it out incurs an offense of wrong-doing.” Also in the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 275) it says: “massuṃ kappāpentīti means they have their beards cut with scissors. Massuṃ vaḍḍhāpentīti means they make their beards long. Golomikanti refers to a goat’s beard that is made long and kept on the chin. Caturassakanti means four-cornered. Parimukhanti means removing hair around the abdomen. Aḍḍhadukanti means keeping a line of hair on the abdomen. Āpatti dukkaṭassāti means in all cases of trimming the beard and so on, there is an offense of wrong-doing.”
Furthermore, in the Pāḷi (Cūḷava. 275), “tena kho pana samayena chabbaggiyā bhikkhū massuṃ kappāpenti. Massuṃ vaḍḍhāpenti. Golomikaṃ kārāpenti. Caturassakaṃ kārāpenti. Parimukhaṃ kārāpenti. Aḍḍhadukaṃ kārāpenti. Dāṭhikaṃ ṭhapenti. Sambādhe lomaṃ saṃharāpenti. Manussā ujjhāyanti khīyanti vipācenti ’seyyathāpi gihī kāmabhogino’ti. Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ – na, bhikkhave, massu kappāpetabbaṃ. Na massu vaḍḍhāpetabbaṃ. Na golomikaṃ kārāpetabbaṃ. Na caturassakaṃ kārāpetabbaṃ. Na parimukhaṃ kārāpetabbaṃ. Na aḍḍhadukaṃ kārāpetabbaṃ. Na dāṭhikā ṭhapetabbā. Na sambādhe lomaṃ saṃharāpetabbaṃ, yo saṃharāpeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”—it is said. The commentary (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 275) states, “massuṃ kappāpentī” means having the beard trimmed. “Massuṃ vaḍḍhāpentī” means making the beard long. “Golomika” refers to a long beard left on the chin, called a goat’s beard. “Caturassaka” means square-shaped. “Parimukha” refers to removing hair from the abdomen. “Aḍḍhaduka” refers to leaving a line of hair on the abdomen. “Āpatti dukkaṭassā” means that in all cases of trimming the beard, etc., there is an offense of wrongdoing.
ID1805
Puna pāḷiyaṃ (cūḷava. 275) “tena kho pana samayena bhikkhū sakkharikāyapi madhusitthakenapi nāsikālomaṃ gāhāpenti, nāsikā dukkhā honti. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, saṇḍāsanti. Tena kho pana samayena chabbaggiyā bhikkhū palitaṃ gāhāpenti. Manussā ujjhāyanti khīyanti vipācenti ’seyyathāpi gihī kāmabhogino’ti. Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ – na, bhikkhave, palitaṃ gāhāpetabbaṃ, yo gāhāpeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti āgataṃ. “Sakkharādīhi nāsikālomaggāhāpane āpatti natthi, anurakkhaṇatthaṃ pana saṇḍāso anuññāto”ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ. “Na, bhikkhave, palitaṃ gāhāpetabbanti ettha bhamukāya vā nalāṭe vā dāṭhikāya vā uggantvā bībhacchaṃ ṭhitaṃ, tādisaṃ lomaṃ palitaṃ vā apalitaṃ vā gāhāpetuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti ca vuttaṃ.
Again, in the Pali text (cūḷava. 275), “At that time, monks had nasal hair removed with sugar syrup or honey wax, and their noses became painful. ‘I allow tweezers, monks,’ [said the Blessed One]. At that time, the group-of-six monks had gray hair removed. People grumbled, were annoyed, and criticized, ‘Just like laypeople who enjoy sensual pleasures.’ They reported this to the Blessed One: ‘Monks, gray hair should not be removed. Whoever does so commits an offense of wrongdoing.’” The commentary states, “There is no offense in removing nasal hair with sugar syrup or similar means, but tweezers are allowed for protection.” Regarding “na, bhikkhave, palitaṃ gāhāpetabba”, it says, “It is permissible to remove hair, gray or not, that grows disgustingly on the eyebrows, forehead, or mustache.”
Again in the Pāḷi (cūḷava. 275), “Now at that time, monks were having their nose-hairs pulled out with pebbles and beeswax; their noses became painful. I allow, monks, tweezers. Now at that time the monks of the group of six were having their grey hairs plucked out. People were annoyed, vexed, and complained, ‘Just like householders who indulge in sense pleasures.’ They informed the Blessed One of this matter. – Monks, grey hairs should not be plucked out; whoever plucks them out incurs an offense of wrong-doing.” It is said in the commentary that “there is no offense in having the nose-hairs pulled out with pebbles and so forth, but tweezers are allowed for protection.” “Na, bhikkhave, palitaṃ gāhāpetabbanti - Here, it is also said that “it is permissible to have such hair, whether grey or not, plucked out, if it has grown on the eyebrows, the forehead, or the beard, and is unsightly.”
Again, in the Pāḷi (Cūḷava. 275), “tena kho pana samayena bhikkhū sakkharikāyapi madhusitthakenapi nāsikālomaṃ gāhāpenti, nāsikā dukkhā honti. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, saṇḍāsanti. Tena kho pana samayena chabbaggiyā bhikkhū palitaṃ gāhāpenti. Manussā ujjhāyanti khīyanti vipācenti ’seyyathāpi gihī kāmabhogino’ti. Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ – na, bhikkhave, palitaṃ gāhāpetabbaṃ, yo gāhāpeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”—it is said. The commentary states, “sakkharādīhi nāsikālomaggāhāpane āpatti natthi, anurakkhaṇatthaṃ pana saṇḍāso anuññāto”—there is no offense in removing nasal hair with sugar or honey paste, but a tweezer is allowed for protection. “Na, bhikkhave, palitaṃ gāhāpetabba”—here, it is said that one should not remove hair that grows on the eyebrows, forehead, or teeth, whether gray or not.
ID1806
ID1807
24. Ādāsādikathāyaṃ ādāso nāma maṇḍanapakatikānaṃ manussānaṃ attano mukhacchāyādassanatthaṃ kaṃsalohādīhi kato bhaṇḍaviseso. Udakapatto nāma udakaṭṭhapanako pātisarāvādiko bhājanaviseso. Kaṃsapattādīnīti ādāsabhāvena akatāni parisuddhabhāvena ālokakarāni vatthūni. Ādi-saddena suvaṇṇarajatajātiphalikādayo saṅgaṇhāti, kañjiyādīnīti ettha ādi-saddena dravajātikāni telamadhukhīrādīni. Ābādhapaccayāti attano mukhe uppannavaṇapaccayā. Tenāha “sañchavi nu kho me vaṇo”tiādi. Āyuṃ saṅkharotīti āyusaṅkhāro. Ko so? Attabhāvo, taṃ āyusaṅkhāraṃ, taṃ olokento kenākārena olokeyyāti pucchāyamāha “jiṇṇo nu khomhi noti eva”nti. Tassattho – mama attabhāvo jiṇṇo nu kho vā, no jiṇṇo nu kho vāti evaṃ iminā manasikārena kammaṭṭhānasīsena oloketuṃ vaṭṭati. “Sobhati nu kho me attabhāvo, no vā”ti evaṃ pavattena attasinehavasena oloketuṃ na vaṭṭatīti.
24. In the discussion on mirrors and similar matters, “ādāso” refers to a special object made of bronze or similar material, naturally used by people for adornment to see the reflection of their face. “Udakapatto” refers to a special vessel like a bowl or dish for holding water. “Kaṃsapattādīni” refers to objects like bronze plates that, though not made as mirrors, reflect light due to their purity, and the word “ādi” includes gold, silver, crystal, and the like. “Kañjiyādīni” refers to liquid substances, with “ādi” including oil, honey, milk, and so forth. “Ābādhapaccayā” means due to a sore appearing on one’s face. Hence it says, “sañchavi nu kho me vaṇo” and so forth. “He sustains life” refers to the life-formation, “āyusaṅkhāra”, meaning the self; regarding how one should look at it, it says, “jiṇṇo nu khomhi noti eva”. Its meaning is: “Is my self old or not?”—it is permissible to look with this mindfulness as a meditation subject. It is not permissible to look with self-affection, thinking, “Does my self look good or not?”
24. In the discussion on mirrors and the like, mirror (ādāso) is a type of utensil made of bronze, metal, and other materials for people accustomed to adornment, to see the reflection of their own faces. Water pot (udakapatto) refers to a type of vessel, like a water pot or bowl, for holding water. Bronze pots, etc. (kaṃsapattādīnī) refers to objects that are not made as mirrors, but are pure and illuminating by their nature. The word etc. (ādi) includes things like gold, silver, and crystal. Regarding rice-water, etc. (kañjiyādīnī), the word etc. (ādi) here includes liquid substances like oil, honey, milk, and so on. Due to illness (ābādhapaccayā) means due to a wound that has appeared on one’s face. Therefore, it says, “Is my wound healed or not?” and so on. That which conditions life is the life-conditioner (āyusaṅkhāro). What is that? It is the existence of self (attabhāvo). Looking at that life-conditioner (āyusaṅkhāraṃ), in what way should one look? To this question, it says, “Am I old or not?” like this (jiṇṇo nu khomhi noti eva). The meaning of this is – one should look at one’s own existence (attabhāvo) with the mental attitude, thinking: “Am I old, or am I not old?” One should look in this manner, with the mind focused on the meditation subject. One should not look with the intention arising from self-affection, thinking, “Is my existence beautiful, or not?”
24. In the discussion on the mirror, ādāsa refers to a special type of vessel made of bronze or other metals, crafted for people who adorn themselves to see the reflection of their own faces. Udakapatta refers to a vessel used for holding water, such as a bowl or dish. Kaṃsapattādīni refers to objects that are not made as mirrors but are polished and reflective, such as those made of gold, silver, or crystal. The term ādi includes items like gold, silver, and crystal. Kañjiyādīni refers to liquid substances such as oil, honey, and milk. Ābādhapaccayā refers to a wound or sore that has arisen on one’s own face. Hence, it is said, “Is there a sore on my face?” and so on. The term āyusaṅkhāra refers to the life-sustaining force. What is it? It is the individual existence. Reflecting on this, one might ask, “Am I old or not?” The meaning is that one should reflect on whether one’s own existence is old or not, using this contemplation as a basis for meditation. However, reflecting out of self-love, thinking, “Is my existence beautiful or not?” is not appropriate.
ID1808
Na mukhaṃ ālimpitabbanti vippasannachavivaṇṇakarehi mukhalepanehi na limpitabbaṃ. Na ummadditabbanti nānāummaddanehi na ummadditabbaṃ. Na cuṇṇetabbanti mukhacuṇṇakena na makkhetabbaṃ. Na manosilikāya mukhaṃ lañjetabbanti manosilāya tilakādilañjanāni na kātabbāni . Na kevalaṃ manosilāyameva, haritālādīhipi tāni na vaṭṭantiyeva. Aṅgarāgādayo pākaṭāyeva.
“Na mukhaṃ ālimpitabba” means the face should not be smeared with cosmetics that enhance skin clarity. “Na ummadditabba” means it should not be rubbed with various ointments. “Na cuṇṇetabba” means it should not be powdered with face powder. “Na manosilikāya mukhaṃ lañjetabba” means markings like tilakas should not be made with manosilā, and not only with manosilā but also with haritāla and similar substances; these are not permissible. “Aṅgarāgādayo” are obviously prohibited.
The face should not be smeared (na mukhaṃ ālimpitabbaṃ) means it should not be smeared with face creams that make the complexion clear and beautiful. It should not be massaged (na ummadditabbaṃ) means it should not be massaged with various massage substances. It should not be powdered (na cuṇṇetabbaṃ) means it should not be smeared with face powder. The face should not be marked with red arsenic (na manosilikāya mukhaṃ lañjetabbaṃ) means that marks, such as tilaka, should not be made with red arsenic. Not only with red arsenic (manosilā), but also with yellow orpiment (haritāla) and other such substances, it is not allowable. Coloring for the body, etc. (aṅgarāgādayo) are clearly evident.
Na mukhaṃ ālimpitabba means that one should not apply cosmetics that enhance the clarity and complexion of the skin. Na ummadditabba means that one should not rub the face with various rubbing substances. Na cuṇṇetabba means that one should not smear the face with face powder. Na manosilikāya mukhaṃ lañjetabba means that one should not make marks on the face with a pencil or similar tools. Not only with a pencil, but also with substances like yellow orpiment, such marks are not allowed. Aṅgarāgādayo are clearly prohibited.
ID1809
ID1810
25. Naccādikathāyaṃ “sādhugītanti aniccatādipaṭisaṃyuttagītaṃ. Caturassena vattenāti paripuṇṇena uccāraṇavattena. Taraṅgavattādīnaṃ uccāraṇavidhānāni naṭṭhappayogānī”ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.248-249) vuttaṃ, vimativinodaniyampi (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.248-249) “sādhugītanti aniccatādipaṭisaññuttaṃ gītaṃ. Caturassena vattenāti paripuṇṇena uccāraṇavattena. Taraṅgavattādīnaṃ sabbesaṃ sāmaññalakkhaṇaṃ dassetuṃ ‘sabbesaṃ…pe… lakkhaṇa’nti vuttaṃ. Yattakāhi mattāhi akkharaṃ paripuṇṇaṃ hoti, tatopi adhikamattāyuttaṃ katvā kathanaṃ vikārakathanaṃ nāma, tathā akatvā kathanameva lakkhaṇanti attho”ti vuttaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 248-249) pana “sādhugītaṃ nāma parinibbutaṭṭhāne gītanti likhitaṃ. Dantagītaṃ gāyitukāmānaṃ vākkaraṇīyaṃ. Dantagītassa vibhāvanatthaṃ ‘yaṃ gāyissāmā’tiādimāha. Caturassavattaṃ nāma catupādagāthāvattaṃ. ’Taraṅgavattādīni uccāraṇavidhānāni naṭṭhappayogānī’ti likhita”nti vuttaṃ.
25. In the discussion on dancing and similar matters, in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.248-249), it is said, “sādhugīta” refers to songs connected with impermanence and so forth, and “caturassena vattenā” means with complete pronunciation. “The methods of recitation like taraṅgavatta have been lost in practice.” In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.248-249), “sādhugīta” refers to songs connected with impermanence and so forth, and “caturassena vattenā” means with complete pronunciation; to show the common characteristic of all, it says, “sabbesaṃ…pe… lakkhaṇa”. “Speaking with more syllables than needed to complete a word is called vikārakathana; speaking without doing so is the characteristic.” In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 248-249), it is written, “sādhugīta” refers to songs sung at the time of parinibbāna. “Dantagīta” is for those who wish to sing vocally. To explain dantagīta, it says, “yaṃ gāyissāma” and so forth. “Caturassavatta” refers to a verse form with four feet. “The methods of recitation like taraṅgavatta have been lost in practice,” it is written.
25. In the discussion on dancing and the like, good song (sādhugīta) is a song connected with impermanence, etc. (aniccatādipaṭisaṃyutta). With perfect pronunciation (caturassena vattenā) means with complete and clear utterance. The methods of utterance, such as wave-like intonation (taraṅgavatta), are theatrical techniques, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.248-249). In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.248-249) also, it says, good song (sādhugīta) is a song connected with impermanence, etc. With perfect pronunciation (caturassena vattenā) means with complete and clear utterance. To show the common characteristic of all of them, such as wave-like intonation, it says, “Of all… etc… characteristic” (sabbesaṃ…pe… lakkhaṇa). Speaking with more syllables than the number of syllables that make a letter complete is called distorted speech (vikārakathana). Speaking without doing so is the characteristic (lakkhaṇa), that is the meaning. In the Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 248-249), however, it is written that good song (sādhugīta) means a song sung at the place of a deceased person. Tooth-song (dantagītaṃ) is what should be uttered by those who wish to sing. To explain the tooth-song, it says, “That which we will sing” and so forth. Perfect verse (caturassavattaṃ) means the meter of a four-line verse. It is written that ‘the methods of utterance, such as wave-like intonation, are theatrical techniques’.
25. In the discussion on dancing, “sādhugīta” refers to singing connected with themes such as impermanence. “Caturassena vattenā” means with a complete and proper method of pronunciation. The methods of pronunciation like taraṅgavatta, etc., are not suitable for actors. This is explained in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 3.248-249). In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 2.248-249), “sādhugīta” refers to singing connected with themes such as impermanence. “Caturassena vattenā” means with a complete and proper method of pronunciation. To show the common characteristics of all, it is said, “all… the characteristics.” Pronouncing a letter with more emphasis than necessary is called vikārakathana, and not doing so is the characteristic. This is the meaning. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 248-249), “sādhugīta” refers to singing in a place of complete peace. “Dantagīta” is what should be sung by those who wish to sing. To explain the nature of dantagīta, it is said, “What shall we sing?” and so on. “Caturassavatta” refers to a four-lined stanza. It is written that the methods of pronunciation like taraṅgavatta, etc., are not suitable for actors.
ID1811
ID1812
26. Aṅgacchedādikathāyaṃ “attano aṅgajātaṃ chindantasseva thullaccayaṃ, tato aññaṃ chindantassa dukkaṭaṃ, ābādhapaccayā chindantassa anāpattī”ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.251) pana “aṅgajātanti bījavirahitaṃ purisanimittaṃ. Bīje hi chinne opakkamikapaṇḍako nāma abhabbo hotīti vadanti. Eke pana ’bījassapi chedanakkhaṇe dukkaṭāpatti eva, kamena purisindriyādike antarahite paṇḍako nāma abhabbo hoti, tadā liṅganāsanāya nāsetabbo’ti vadanti. Tādisaṃ vā dukkhaṃ uppādentassāti muṭṭhippahārādīhi attano dukkhaṃ uppādentassā”ti vuttaṃ.
26. In the discussion on cutting limbs and similar matters, the commentary states, “Cutting one’s own generative organ incurs a grave offense; cutting another’s incurs a minor offense; cutting due to a medical condition incurs no offense.” In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.251), “aṅgajāta” refers to the male organ without seeds, for they say that if the seeds are cut, one becomes an impotent eunuch, incapable. Some say, “At the moment of cutting the seeds, it is only a minor offense, but when the male faculties gradually disappear, one becomes an eunuch, incapable, and then should be expelled by the destruction of gender.” “Tādisaṃ vā dukkhaṃ uppādentassa” refers to causing oneself pain with blows like a fist.
26. In the discussion on cutting limbs, etc., the commentary (aṭṭhakathā) says, “For one who cuts off his own limb, there is a grave offense (thullaccaya); for one who cuts off another’s, there is a minor offense (dukkaṭa); for one who cuts off [a limb] due to illness, there is no offense.” In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.251), however, it says, limb (aṅgajāta) means the male organ without seeds. For it is said that when the seeds are cut, one becomes a non-procreative eunuch (opakkamikapaṇḍako) who is incapable [of procreation]. But some say, ‘Even at the moment of cutting the seeds, there is only a minor offense (dukkaṭāpatti); gradually, when the male faculties and the like disappear, one becomes a eunuch (paṇḍako) who is incapable [of procreation], and then, because of the destruction of the sexual characteristic, he should be expelled.’ Causing such pain (tādisaṃ vā dukkhaṃ uppādentassā) means causing pain to oneself by blows of the fist and so on.”
26. In the discussion on cutting limbs, it is said in the commentary that cutting one’s own genital organ incurs a grave offense, cutting another’s incurs a minor offense, and cutting due to illness incurs no offense. In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 2.251), “aṅgajāta” refers to the male organ without semen. Some say that if the semen is cut, one becomes incapable of procreation. Others say that even if the semen is cut, a minor offense is incurred, and when the male organ gradually disappears, one becomes a eunuch and should be expelled. “Tādisaṃ vā dukkhaṃ uppādentassā” refers to one who causes oneself suffering by means such as striking with a fist.
ID1813
ID1814
28. Pattakathāyaṃ “bhūmiādhāraketi valayādhārake. Dāruādhārakadaṇḍādhārakesūti ekadārunā kataādhārake, bahūhi daṇḍakehi kataādhārake vāti attho . Tīhi daṇḍehi kato pana na vaṭṭati. Bhūmiyaṃ pana nikkujjitvā ekameva ṭhapetabbanti ettha ’dve ṭhapentena upari ṭhapitapattaṃ ekena passena bhūmiyaṃ phusāpetvā ṭhapetuṃ vaṭṭatī’ti vadanti. Ālindakamiḍḍhikādīnanti pamukhamiḍḍhikādīnaṃ. Parivattetvā tattheva patiṭṭhātīti ettha ’parivattetvā tatiyavāre tattheva miḍḍhiyā patiṭṭhātī’ti gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. Paribhaṇḍanteti ettha paribhaṇḍaṃ nāma gehassa bahikuṭṭapādassa thirabhāvatthaṃ katā tanukamiḍḍhikā vuccati. Tanukamiḍḍhikāyāti khuddakamiḍḍhikāya. Miḍḍhantepi ādhārake ṭhapetuṃ vaṭṭati. ’Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, ādhāraka’nti hi vacanato miḍḍhādīsu yattha katthaci ādhārakaṃ ṭhapetvā tattha pattaṃ ṭhapetuṃ vaṭṭati ādhārake ṭhapanokāsassa aniyamitattāti vadanti. ’Pattamāḷo nāma vaṭṭetvā pattānaṃ agamanatthaṃ vaṭṭaṃ vā caturassaṃ vā iṭṭhakādīhi parikkhipitvā kato’ti gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. Ghaṭikanti upari yojitaṃ aggaḷaṃ. Tāvakālikaṃ paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatīti sakideva gahetvā tena āmisaṃ paribhuñjitvā chaḍḍetuṃ vaṭṭatīti adhippāyo. Ghaṭikaṭāheti bhājanakapāle. Pāḷiyaṃ abhuṃ meti ettha bhavatīti bhū, vaḍḍhi. Na bhūti abhū, avaḍḍhi. Bhayavasena pana sā itthī ‘abhu’nti āha, vināso mayhanti attho. Chavasīsassa pattanti chavasīsamayaṃ pattaṃ. Pakativikārasambandhe cetaṃ sāmivacanaṃ. Abhedepi vā tadupacāravasenevāyaṃ vohāro ’silāputtakassa sarīra’ntiādīsu viya. Cabbetvāti khāditvā. Ekaṃ udakagaṇḍusaṃ gahetvāti vāmahattheneva pattaṃ ukkhipitvā mukhena gaṇḍusaṃ gahetvā. Ucchiṭṭhahatthenāti sāmisena hatthena. Ettāvatāti ekagaṇḍusaṃ gahaṇamattena. Luñcitvāti tato maṃsaṃ uddharitvā. Etesu sabbesu paṇṇattiṃ jānātu vā, mā vā, āpattiyevā”ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.253-255) vuttaṃ.
28. In the discussion on bowls, “bhūmiādhārake” means with a base on the ground, a circular base. “Dāruādhārakadaṇḍādhārakesu” means a base made from a single piece of wood or from multiple sticks; one made with three sticks, however, is not permissible. “Bhūmiyaṃ pana nikkujjitvā ekameva ṭhapetabba” means only one should be placed upside down on the ground; they say, “If placing two, the upper bowl may be placed touching the ground on one side.” “Ālindakamiḍḍhikādīna” refers to porch lintels and the like. “Parivattetvā tattheva patiṭṭhāti” means it rolls and stops there; in the notes, it is said, “It rolls and stops on the lintel on the third turn.” Regarding “paribhaṇḍante”, “paribhaṇḍa” refers to a thin lintel made for the stability of the house’s outer wall base. “Tanukamiḍḍhikāya” means on a small lintel. It is permissible to place it on a lintel base as well. They say, “Since it is said, ‘I allow a base, monks,’ it is permissible to place a bowl on a base anywhere, such as a lintel, as the location for the base is not specified.” In the notes, it is said, “Pattamāḷo” refers to a circular or square area enclosed with bricks or the like to prevent bowls from moving. “Ghaṭika” refers to a latch attached above. “Tāvakālikaṃ paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati” means it is permissible to use it temporarily by taking it once, consuming the food with it, and discarding it. “Ghaṭikaṭāhe” means in a pot shard. In the Pali, “abhuṃ me” means “it was” (bhū, growth); “abhū” means “it was not” (no growth). Out of fear, that woman said “abhuṃ”, meaning “destruction is mine.” “Chavasīsassa patta” refers to a bowl made of a corpse’s head; this is a genitive of material relation, or metaphorically used in a non-literal sense, as in “the body of a stone doll.” “Cabbetvā” means having chewed. “Ekaṃ udakagaṇḍusaṃ gahetvā” means taking a mouthful of water, lifting the bowl with the left hand and taking it with the mouth. “Ucchiṭṭhahatthena” means with a soiled hand. “Ettāvatā” means with just taking one mouthful. “Luñcitvā” means having extracted the meat from it. In all these cases, whether one knows the rule or not, there is an offense, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.253-255).
28. In the discussion on bowls, on a circular stand (bhūmiādhārake) means on a ring-shaped stand. On a wooden stand or a stand made of sticks (dāruādhārakadaṇḍādhārakesū) means on a stand made of a single piece of wood, or on a stand made of many sticks. But one made of three sticks is not allowed. Regarding placing only one [bowl] upside down on the ground (bhūmiyaṃ pana nikkujjitvā ekameva ṭhapetabba), here it is said that ‘when placing two, one should place the bowl placed on top touching the ground with one side.’ Regarding the entrance-way bricks, etc. (ālindakamiḍḍhikādīnā), it means the front-step bricks, etc. Regarding turning it around and it stands in the same place (parivattetvā tattheva patiṭṭhātī), it is said in the knot-explanations (gaṇṭhipadesu) that ‘after turning it around, for the third time, it stands in the same place on the brick.’ Regarding around the outer boundary (paribhaṇḍante), outer boundary (paribhaṇḍaṃ) refers to the thin brickwork done to strengthen the base of the outer wall of the house. On the thin brickwork (tanukamiḍḍhikāyā) means on the small brickwork. It is allowable to place it on a stand, even if it is on a brick [surface]. Because it says, ‘I allow, monks, a stand,’ it is allowable to place a stand anywhere on bricks, etc., and place the bowl there, because the place for placing the stand is not restricted, so they say. In the knot-explanations (gaṇṭhipadesu), it is said, “Bowl-shelf” (pattamāḷo) means a round or square [structure] made by enclosing [a space] with bricks or the like, to prevent the bowls from falling. Latch (ghaṭika) means the bolt attached above. It is allowable to use it temporarily (tāvakālikaṃ paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatī) means the intention is that it is allowable to take it once, use that food, and then discard it. On a pot lid (ghaṭikaṭāhe) means on the lid of a vessel. In the Pāli, regarding was not to me (abhuṃ me), “bhavati” becomes “bhū”, growth. Not “bhū” is abhū, non-growth. But out of fear, that woman said “abhu” meaning, “it is destruction for me”. The skull’s bowl (chavasīsassa patta) means a bowl made of a skull. This is a genitive case in the sense of a relationship between the natural state and its modification. Or even without distinction, this usage is due to metaphor, as in ‘the body of the stone statue’ and so on. Having chewed (cabbetvā) means having eaten. Taking one mouthful of water (ekaṃ udakagaṇḍusaṃ gahetvā) means holding up the bowl with the left hand and taking a mouthful with the mouth. With an unclean hand (ucchiṭṭhahatthenā) means with a hand that has food on it. By this much (ettāvatā) means merely by taking one mouthful. Plucking out (luñcitvā) means pulling out the flesh from it. Regarding all of these, whether one knows the rule or not, there is still an offense, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.253-255).
28. In the discussion on the bowl, “bhūmiādhārake” refers to a stand made of rings. “Dāruādhārakadaṇḍādhārakesū” refers to a stand made of a single piece of wood or multiple sticks. A stand made of three sticks is not allowed. “Bhūmiyaṃ pana nikkujjitvā ekameva ṭhapetabba” means that when placing a bowl upside down on the ground, it should be placed on one side only. Some say that when placing two bowls, the upper bowl should touch the ground on one side. “Ālindakamiḍḍhikādīna” refers to the main platforms, etc. “Parivattetvā tattheva patiṭṭhātī” means that after turning it, it should be placed on the platform in the third round. “Paribhaṇḍante” refers to a thin platform made to stabilize the many pillars of a house. “Tanukamiḍḍhikāyā” refers to a small platform. It is also allowed to place the bowl on a stand. Since it is said, “I allow, monks, a stand,” it is permissible to place the bowl on a stand anywhere, as there is no restriction on where the stand is placed. “Pattamāḷo” refers to a circular or square frame made of bricks, etc., to prevent bowls from falling. “Ghaṭika” refers to a latch fixed above. “Tāvakālikaṃ paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatī” means that it is allowed to take food once and eat it, then discard it. “Ghaṭikaṭāhe” refers to a vessel made of clay. In the Pāli, “abhuṃ me” means “it is destroyed.” The woman says “abhu” out of fear, meaning “I am ruined.” “Chavasīsassa patta” refers to a bowl at the time of death. This is a term used in relation to natural decay. Even if it is not broken, it is called so by convention, as in “the body of Silāputtaka” and similar cases. “Cabbetvā” means chewing. “Ekaṃ udakagaṇḍusaṃ gahetvā” means taking a mouthful of water with the left hand while holding the bowl. “Ucchiṭṭhahatthenā” means with the hand that has touched food. “Ettāvatā” means just taking one mouthful. “Luñcitvā” means removing the meat. In all these cases, whether one knows the rule or not, an offense is incurred.
ID1815
Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.252) pana “gihivikaṭānīti gihisantakāni. Pāḷiyaṃ na acchupiyantīti na phussitāni honti. Rūpakākiṇṇāni itthirūpādiākiṇṇāni. Bhūmiādhāraketi dantādīhi kate valayādhārake. Etassa valayādhārakassa anucchavitāya ṭhapitā pattā na parivattantīti ’tayo patte ṭhapetuṃ vaṭṭatī’ti vuttaṃ. Anuccatañhi sandhāya ayaṃ ’bhūmiādhārako’ti vutto. Dāruādhārakadaṇḍādhārakesūti ekadārunā kataādhārake ca bahūhi daṇḍakehi kataādhārake ca, ete ca uccatarā honti pattehi saha patanasabhāvā, tena ‘susajjitesū’ti vuttaṃ. Bhamakoṭisadisenāti yattha dhamakaraṇādiṃ pavesetvā likhanti, tassa bhamakassa koṭiyā sadiso. Tādisassa dāruādhārakassa avitthiṇṇatāya ṭhapitopi patto patatīti ’anokāso’ti vutto. Ālindakamiḍḍhikādīnanti pamukhamiḍḍhikādīnaṃ, uccavatthukānanti attho. Bāhirapasseti pāsādādīnaṃ bahikuṭṭe. Tanukamiḍḍhikāyāti vedikāya. Sabbattha pana hatthappamāṇato abbhantare ṭhapetuṃ vaṭṭati, ādhārake pana tato bahipi vaṭṭati. Aññena pana bhaṇḍakenāti aññena bhārabhaṇḍena bhaṇḍakena. ‘Bandhitvā olambitu’nti ca vuttattā pattatthavikāya aṃsabaddhako yathā laggitaṭṭhānato na parigaḷati, tathā sabbathāpi bandhitvā ṭhapetuṃ vaṭṭati. Bandhitvāpi upari ṭhapetuṃ na vaṭṭatīti ’upari nisīdantā ottharitvā bhindantī’ti vuttaṃ. Tattha ṭhapetuṃ vaṭṭatīti nisīdanasaṅkābhāvato vuttaṃ. Bandhitvā vāti bandhitvā ṭhapitachatte vā. Yo kocīti bhattapūropi tucchapattopi. Pariharitunti divase divase piṇḍāya caraṇatthāya ṭhapetuṃ. Pattaṃ alabhantena pana ekadivasaṃ piṇḍāya caritvā bhuñjitvā chaḍḍetuṃ vaṭṭati. Paṇṇapuṭādīsupi eseva nayo. Chavasīsassa pattoti chavasīsamayo patto, pakativikārasambandhe cetaṃ sāmivacanaṃ. Cabbetvāti niṭṭhubhitvā. ’Paṭiggahaṃ katvā’ti vuttattā ucchiṭṭhahatthena udakaṃ gahetvā pattaṃ paripphositvā dhovanaghaṃsanavasena hatthaṃ dhovituṃ vaṭṭati. Ettakena hi pattaṃ paṭiggahaṃ katvā hattho dhovito nāma na hoti. Ekaṃ udakagaṇḍusaṃ gahetvāti pattaṃ aphusitvā tattha udakameva ucchiṭṭhahatthena ukkhipitvā gaṇḍusaṃ katvā, vāmahattheneva vā pattaṃ ukkhipitvā mukhena gaṇḍusaṃ gahetumpi vaṭṭati. Bahi udakena vikkhāletvāti dvīsu aṅgulīsu āmisamattaṃ vikkhāletvā bahi gahetumpi vaṭṭati. Paṭikhāditukāmoti ettha sayaṃ na khāditukāmopi aññesaṃ khādanārahaṃ ṭhapetuṃ labhati. Tattheva katvāti patteyeva yathāṭhapitaṭṭhānato anuddharitvā. Luñcitvāti tato maṃsameva niravasesaṃ uppaṭṭetvā”ti vuttaṃ.
In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.252), “gihivikaṭāni” means belongings of laypeople. In the Pali, “na acchupiyanti” means they are not touched. “Rūpakākiṇṇāni” means adorned with images of women and the like. “Bhūmiādhārake” means on a circular base made of ivory or the like; it is said, “Three bowls may be placed because those placed on such a suitable circular base do not roll,” as this “ground base” is mentioned with reference to its suitability. “Dāruādhārakadaṇḍādhārakesu” means on a base made from a single piece of wood or multiple sticks, which are higher and liable to fall with the bowls, hence it says “susajjitesu”. “Bhamakoṭisadisena” means resembling the edge of a spinning top where a spindle is inserted; a bowl placed on such an unstable wooden base falls, hence it is called “unsuitable.” “Ālindakamiḍḍhikādīna” means porch lintels and the like, meaning high platforms. “Bāhirapasse” means on the outer side of a mansion or the like. “Tanukamiḍḍhikāya” means on a railing; in all cases, it is permissible to place within a hand’s breadth, but on a base, even beyond that is permissible. “Aññena pana bhaṇḍakena” means with another piece of goods or load. Since it says “bandhitvā olambituṃ”, it is permissible to tie it securely with a bowl bag attached to the shoulder so it does not slip from its place. “Bandhitvāpi upari ṭhapetuṃ na vaṭṭati” means it is not permissible to place it above even if tied, because “those sitting above might crush and break it.” “Tattha ṭhapetuṃ vaṭṭati” is said because there is no concern of sitting. “Bandhitvā vā” means tied and placed on an umbrella or the like. “Yo koci” means any bowl, full of food or empty. “Pariharituṃ” means to keep it for going on alms rounds daily; if a bowl is unavailable, it is permissible to use it for one day, eat, and discard it; the same applies to leaf bags and the like. “Chavasīsassa patto” means a bowl made of a corpse’s head, a genitive of material relation. “Cabbetvā” means having spat out. Since it says “having received,” it is permissible to take water with a soiled hand, rinse the bowl, and wash the hand by rubbing; for with this alone, the bowl is not considered received and the hand washed. “Ekaṃ udakagaṇḍusaṃ gahetvā” means taking a mouthful of water without touching the bowl, lifting the water with a soiled hand, or lifting the bowl with the left hand and taking it with the mouth; both are permissible. “Bahi udakena vikkhāletvā” means rinsing a bit of food off two fingers and taking it outside is permissible. “Paṭikhāditukāmo” means even if not wanting to eat oneself, one may keep it suitable for others to eat. “Tattheva katvā” means doing it right in the bowl without removing it from its place. “Luñcitvā” means extracting all the meat without leaving any.
In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.252), however, belonging to householders (gihivikaṭānī) means belonging to householders. In the Pāli, are not touched (na acchupiyantī) means they are not touched. Filled with images (rūpakākiṇṇāni) means filled with images of women and the like. On a circular stand (bhūmiādhārake) means on a ring-shaped stand made of ivory or other materials. Because bowls placed on this ring-shaped stand, due to its incompatibility, do not turn around, it is said that ‘it is allowable to place three bowls.’ This is called ‘circular stand’ in reference to its shortness. On a wooden stand or a stand made of sticks (dāruādhārakadaṇḍādhārakesū) means on a stand made of a single piece of wood and on a stand made of many sticks, and these are higher and are likely to fall along with the bowls; therefore, it is said, “on those well-arranged” (susajjitesū). Like the tip of a turning wheel (bhamakoṭisadisenā) means the tip of the turning wheel of the wheel used for writing where one inserts a writing instrument. Even a bowl placed on such a wooden stand, due to its narrowness, falls; therefore, it is called ‘without space’. The entrance-way bricks, etc. (ālindakamiḍḍhikādīna) means the front-step bricks, etc., meaning high places. On the outer side (bāhirapasse) means on the outer wall of buildings like palaces. On the thin brickwork (tanukamiḍḍhikāyā) means on the platform. But everywhere, it is allowable to place it within the reach of one’s hand; but on the stand, it is allowable even beyond that. With another utensil (aññena pana bhaṇḍakenā) means with another heavy utensil. Because it is also said, “Having tied it, hang it down” (bandhitvā olambitu), it is allowable to tie and place the bowl-bag in every way so that the shoulder strap does not slip from the place where it is attached. It is not allowable to place it on top even after tying it (bandhitvāpi upari ṭhapetuṃ na vaṭṭatī) because it is said, ‘those who sit on top crush and break [it].’ It is allowable to place it there (tattha ṭhapetuṃ vaṭṭatī) is said because there is no concern about sitting [there]. Or tying it (bandhitvā vā) means or on an umbrella that is tied and placed. Any (yo kocī) means even a full bowl or an empty bowl. To carry around (pariharitu) means to place it for going for alms daily. But one who does not obtain a bowl is allowed to go for alms for one day, eat, and then discard it. The same applies to leaf-wrappers, etc. The skull’s bowl (chavasīsassa patto) means a bowl made of a skull. This is a genitive case (sāmivacanaṃ) showing a relationship between material and product. Chewing (cabbetvā) means spitting out. Because it is said, ‘having accepted it’, it is allowable to take water with an unclean hand, rinse the bowl, and wash the hand by rubbing and washing it. For by this much, the bowl has not been accepted and the hand washed. Taking one mouthful of water (ekaṃ udakagaṇḍusaṃ gahetvā) means holding up the bowl without touching it, taking the water in it with an unclean hand and making a mouthful, or it is also allowable to hold up the bowl with the left hand and take a mouthful with the mouth. Washing it outside with water (bahi udakena vikkhāletvā) means washing away just the amount of food on two fingers and taking it outside is also allowable. Wishing to eat again (paṭikhāditukāmo), here, even if one does not wish to eat oneself, one can place food suitable for others to eat. Doing it there (tattheva katvā) means without removing the food from the place where it has been placed in the bowl. Plucking out (luñcitvā) means pulling out all the flesh from it,” it is said.
In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 2.252), “gihivikaṭānī” refers to household items. In the Pāli, “na acchupiyantī” means they are not touched. “Rūpakākiṇṇāni” refers to items mixed with female forms, etc. “Bhūmiādhārake” refers to a stand made of ivory, etc. Because this stand is not hollow, the bowls placed on it do not turn over. Hence, it is said that three bowls can be placed. This is called “bhūmiādhārako.” “Dāruādhārakadaṇḍādhārakesū” refers to a stand made of a single piece of wood or multiple sticks, and these are higher than the bowls, so they are called “susajjitesū.” “Bhamakoṭisadisenā” refers to a wooden stand similar to the corner of a spinning wheel. Because such a stand is not level, even if a bowl is placed on it, it will fall, so it is called “anokāso.” “Ālindakamiḍḍhikādīna” refers to the main platforms, etc., meaning high platforms. “Bāhirapasse” refers to the outer walls of buildings. “Tanukamiḍḍhikāyā” refers to a railing. In all cases, it is allowed to place the bowl within a hand’s breadth inside, but on a stand, it can also be placed outside. “Aññena pana bhaṇḍakenā” refers to another type of vessel. Since it is said, “tie and hang,” the bowl can be tied and placed so that it does not fall from the shoulder. “Bandhitvāpi upari ṭhapetuṃ na vaṭṭatī” means that sitting on it and pressing it will cause it to break. “Tattha ṭhapetuṃ vaṭṭatī” means it can be placed there without the fear of sitting. “Bandhitvā vā” means tying and placing it under a canopy. “Yo kocī” refers to any bowl, whether valuable or not. “Pariharitu” means to carry it daily for alms. If one cannot obtain a bowl, one can go for alms for one day, eat, and then discard it. The same applies to leaf wrappers, etc. “Chavasīsassa patto” refers to a bowl at the time of death, a term used in relation to natural decay. “Cabbetvā” means spitting. Since it is said, “having received,” it is allowed to take water with the hand that has touched food, rinse the bowl, and wash the hand by scrubbing. By this much, the hand is not considered washed after receiving the bowl. “Ekaṃ udakagaṇḍusaṃ gahetvā” means taking a mouthful of water without touching the bowl, lifting it with the left hand, or taking a mouthful with the mouth. “Bahi udakena vikkhāletvā” means washing the two fingers with water and taking it out. “Paṭikhāditukāmo” means even if one does not wish to chew oneself, one can leave it for others to chew. “Tattheva katvā” means leaving it in the same place without moving it. “Luñcitvā” means removing all the meat completely.
ID1816
Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 254) pana “ālindakamiḍḍhikādīnanti pamukhamiḍḍhikādīnaṃ. Parivattetvā tatthevāti ettha ’parivattetvā tatiyavāre tattheva miḍḍhikāya patiṭṭhātī’ti likhitaṃ. Paribhaṇḍaṃ nāma gehassa bahikuṭṭapādassa thirabhāvatthaṃ katā tanukamiḍḍhikā vuccati, ettha ’parivattetvā patto bhijjatīti adhikaraṇabhedāsaṅkāraabhāve ṭhāne ṭhapetuṃ vaṭṭatī’ti likhitaṃ. Pattamāḷo vattetvā pattānaṃ apatanatthaṃ vaṭṭaṃ vā caturassaṃ vā iṭṭhakādīhi parikkhipitvā māḷakacchannena kato. ’Pattamaṇḍalikā pattapacchikā kālapaṇṇādīhi katā’ti ca likhitaṃ. Miḍḍhante ādhārake ṭhapetuṃ vaṭṭati pattasandhāraṇatthaṃ vuttattā. Mañce ādhārakepi na vaṭṭati nisīdanapaccayā vāritattā. Āsannabhūmikattā olambetuṃ vaṭṭati. ’Aṃsakūṭe laggetvāti (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 254) vacanato aggahatthe laggetvā aṅke ṭhapetuṃ na vaṭṭatī’ti keci vadanti, na sundaraṃ. Na kevalaṃ yassa pattotiādi yadi hatthena gahitapatte bhedasaññā, pageva aññena sarīrāvayavenāti katvā vuttaṃ. Pāḷiyaṃ pana pacuravohāravasena vuttaṃ. Ghaṭikapālamayaṃ ghaṭikaṭāhaṃ. Chavasīsassa pattanti ’silāputtakassa sarīraṃ, khīrassa dhārā’tiādivohāravasena vuttaṃ, mañce nisīdituṃ āgatoti attho. Pisācillikāti pisācadārakātipi vadanti. Dinnakameva paṭiggahitameva. Cabbetvāti khāditvā. Aṭṭhīni ca kaṇṭakāni ca aṭṭhikaṇṭakāni. Etesu sabbesu paṇṇattiṃ jānātu vā, mā vā, āpattiyevāti likhita”nti vuttaṃ.
In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 254), “ālindakamiḍḍhikādīna” means porch lintels and the like. Regarding “parivattetvā tattheva”, it is written, “It rolls and stops on the lintel on the third turn.” “Paribhaṇḍa” refers to a thin lintel made for the stability of the house’s outer wall base; it is written, “parivattetvā patto bhijjati”, meaning it is permissible to place it where there is no risk of breaking due to structural differences. “Pattamāḷo” refers to a circular or square area enclosed with bricks or the like and covered to prevent bowls from falling. It is written, “Pattamaṇḍalikā and pattapacchikā are made of black leaves or the like.” It is permissible to place it on a lintel base because it is stated for supporting bowls. It is not permissible on a bed base due to the prohibition against sitting. Due to proximity to the ground, “olambetuṃ vaṭṭati”. Some say, “Since it says ‘hanging from the shoulder peak’ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 254), it is not permissible to hang it from the hand and place it on the lap,” but this is not reasonable. “Na kevalaṃ yassa patto” and so forth is said considering that if there is perception of breaking with a hand-held bowl, how much more with another body part; but in the Pali, it is stated in common usage. “Ghaṭikaṭāhaṃ” refers to a pot shard. “Chavasīsassa patta” is said metaphorically, as in “the body of a stone doll” or “a stream of milk,” meaning one came to sit on a bed. “Pisācillikā” means demon children, some say. “Dinnakameva” means only what is given and received. “Cabbetvā” means having chewed. “Aṭṭhikaṇṭakāni” refers to bones and thorns. In all these cases, whether one knows the rule or not, there is an offense, it is written.
In the Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 254), however, the entrance-way bricks, etc. (ālindakamiḍḍhikādīna) means the front-step bricks, etc. Regarding turning it around and it stands in the same place (parivattetvā tatthevā), here it is written that ‘after turning it around, for the third time, it stands in the same place on the brick.’ Outer boundary (paribhaṇḍaṃ) refers to the thin brickwork done to strengthen the base of the outer wall of the house, here it is written, ‘because the bowl breaks after turning around,** it is allowable to place it in a place where there is no concern about breaking the support.’ The bowl-shelf is a round or square [structure] made by enclosing [a space] with bricks or the like, covered with a small roof, to prevent the bowls from falling. It is also written that ‘bowl-boxes are bowl-baskets made of kāla leaves, etc.’ It is allowable to place it on a stand on the brick [surface] because it is stated for the purpose of supporting the bowl. It is not allowable on a bed or even on a stand because it is prohibited due to the possibility of sitting. Because it is a nearby surface, it is allowable to hang it down. Some say, ‘because it says (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 254) ’attaching it to the shoulder-peg’, it is not allowable to attach it to the upper arm and place it on the lap’, but this is not proper. Not only the one whose bowl** (na kevalaṃ yassa patto), etc. if there is a thought of breaking in a bowl held by the hand, all the more so with another part of the body, is said. But in the Pāli, it is said in terms of common usage. Made of a pot lid (ghaṭikapālamayaṃ) is pot-lid-bowl (ghaṭikaṭāhaṃ). The skull’s bowl (chavasīsassa patta) is said in accordance with usages like ‘the body of the stone statue, the stream of milk’, meaning ‘one who has come to sit on the seat’. Pisācillikā is also called a pisāca child. Given only (dinnakameva) means accepted only. Chewing (cabbetvā) means having eaten. Bones and thorns are bones and thorns (aṭṭhikaṇṭakāni). Regarding all of these, whether one knows the rule or not, there is still an offense, as it is written,” it is said.
In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 254), “ālindakamiḍḍhikādīna” refers to the main platforms, etc. “Parivattetvā tatthevā” means that after turning it, it should be placed on the platform in the third round. “Paribhaṇḍaṃ” refers to a thin platform made to stabilize the many pillars of a house. Here, it is written that “after turning, the bowl breaks,” meaning it can be placed where there is no fear of breaking. “Pattamāḷo” refers to a circular or square frame made of bricks, etc., to prevent bowls from falling. It is also written that “pattamaṇḍalikā” and “pattapacchikā” are made with Kālapāṇṇa, etc. It is allowed to place the bowl on a stand for holding the bowl. It is not allowed to place it on a bed stand due to the prohibition of sitting. Because it is close to the ground, it is allowed to hang it. Some say that it is not allowed to place it on the lap after tying it to the shoulder, but this is not proper. “Na kevalaṃ yassa patto” means that if there is a perception of breaking even when holding the bowl with the hand, how much more so with another part of the body. In the Pāli, it is said conventionally. “Ghaṭikapālamayaṃ” refers to a clay vessel. “Chavasīsassa patta” refers to the body of Silāputtaka, the stream of milk, etc., by convention. It means that one has come to sit on the bed. “Pisācillikā” refers to a female goblin. “Dinnakameva” means what has been received. “Cabbetvā” means chewing. Bones and thorns are “aṭṭhikaṇṭakāni.” In all these cases, whether one knows the rule or not, an offense is incurred.
ID1817
ID1818
29. Sabbapaṃsukūlādikathāyaṃ paṃsu viya kucchitabhāvena ulati pavattatīti paṃsukūlaṃ, sabbaṃ taṃ etassāti sabbapaṃsukūliko, pattacīvarādikaṃ sabbaṃ samaṇaparikkhāraṃ paṃsukūlaṃyeva katvā dhāraṇasīloti attho. Samaṇaparikkhāresu katamaṃ paṃsukūlaṃ katvā dhāretuṃ vaṭṭatīti pucchaṃ sandhāyāha “ettha pana cīvarañca mañcapīṭhañca paṃsukūlaṃ vaṭṭatī”ti. Tattha ca cīvaraṃ vinayavasena ca dhutaṅgasamādānavasena ca vaṭṭati, mañcapīṭhaṃ vinayavaseneva. Katamaṃ paṃsukūlaṃ na vaṭṭatīti āha “ajjhoharaṇīyaṃ pana dinnameva gahetabba”nti, na adinnaṃ, tasmā paṃsukūlaṃ na vaṭṭatīti adhippāyo. Ettha ca “ajjhoharaṇīya”nti vacanena piṇḍapātagilānapaccayabhesajjapaakkhāravasena ubhopi paccaye dasseti.
29. In the discussion of all things related to paṃsukūla and so forth, paṃsu means “dust,” and due to its repulsive nature, it clings and persists; thus, it is called paṃsukūlaṃ. One who possesses all of this is a sabbapaṃsukūliko, meaning one who habitually wears only paṃsukūla for all monastic requisites such as robes and bowls. In response to the question, “Which among the monastic requisites may be made into paṃsukūla and worn?” it is said, “ettha pana cīvarañca mañcapīṭhañca paṃsukūlaṃ vaṭṭati”, meaning “here, however, the robe and the bed and seat may be paṃsukūla.” Of these, the robe is permissible both by Vinaya rules and by undertaking the dhutaṅga practice, while the bed and seat are permissible only by Vinaya rules. To the question, “Which paṃsukūla is not permissible?” it is said, “ajjhoharaṇīyaṃ pana dinnameva gahetabba”, meaning “however, consumables must only be taken when given,” not when ungiven; thus, paṃsukūla is not permissible for them, according to the intended meaning. Here, by the term “ajjhoharaṇīya”, it indicates both kinds of requisites: those for almsfood and those for medicinal needs of the sick.
29. In the account of all paṃsukūla and other items, paṃsukūla is what proceeds, through its contemptible nature, like dust (paṃsu); sabbapaṃsukūliko is one for whom all that [is paṃsukūla], meaning one who is in the habit of using all the requisites of a monk, such as bowl and robes, etc., only having made them paṃsukūla. Concerning the question of which among the requisites of a monk is allowable to be kept having made it paṃsukūla, he says, “Here, however, cloth for robes, a bed, and a chair are allowable as paṃsukūla.” Of these, cloth for robes is allowable both by way of the Vinaya and by way of undertaking the austere practice; a bed and a chair are allowable by way of the Vinaya only. He states what kind of paṃsukūla is not allowable: ”But what is to be swallowed should be taken only when given”, meaning, not when ungiven; therefore, it is not allowable as paṃsukūla. And here, by the word “what is to be swallowed”, he shows both types of requisites, through the categories of almsfood, restorative requisites and medicines.
29. In the discussion on sabbapaṃsukūla, paṃsukūla means something that is discarded like dust due to its undesirable nature. Sabbapaṃsukūliko refers to one who makes all the requisites of a monk, such as robes and bowls, into paṃsukūla (discarded cloth) and wears them, thus observing the practice of wearing discarded cloth. The question arises as to which monk’s requisites can be made into paṃsukūla and worn. It is said, “Here, robes, beds, and chairs can be made into paṃsukūla.” Among these, robes are permissible both according to the Vinaya and the observance of the dhutaṅga (ascetic practices), while beds and chairs are permissible only according to the Vinaya. As for what cannot be made into paṃsukūla, it is stated, “Edible items, however, must be accepted only when given,” meaning they cannot be taken without being offered, and thus cannot be made into paṃsukūla. Here, the term “ajjhoharaṇīya” (edible) refers to both alms food and medicine for the sick.
ID1819
ID1820
30. Parissāvanakathāyaṃ addhānamaggo nāma sabbantimaparicchedena aḍḍhayojanappamāṇo, tattakaṃ maggaṃ parissāvanaṃ aggahetvā gacchantopi aññena aparissāvanakena bhikkhunā yāciyamāno hutvā adentopi na vaṭṭati, āpattiyeva. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, parissāvana”nti anujānitvā “coḷakaṃ nappahoti. Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ – anujānāmi , bhikkhave, kaṭacchuparissāvana”nti (cūḷava. 258) vuttattā pakatiparissāvanato kaṭacchuparissāvanaṃ khuddakanti viññāyati. Pakatiparissāvanassa vidhānaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ na vuttaṃ, kaṭacchuparissāvanassa pana vidhānaṃ “kaṭacchuparissāvanaṃ nāma tīsu daṇḍakesu vinandhitvā kata”nti (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 258) vuttaṃ. Kaṭacchuparissāvanaṃ vatvā puna “coḷakaṃ nappahoti. Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ – anujānāmi, bhikkhave, dhamakaraṇa”nti (cūḷava. 258) vuttattā kaṭacchuparissāvanatopi dhamakaraṇo khuddakataroti viññāyati. Dhamakaraṇassa vidhānaṃ heṭṭhā parikkhārakathāyaṃ vuttameva. “Bhikkhū navakammaṃ karonti, parissāvanaṃ na sammati. Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ – anujānāmi, bhikkhave, daṇḍaparissāvana”nti (cūḷava 259) vuttattā pakatiparissāvanatopi daṇḍaparissāvanaṃ mahantataranti viññāyati. “Daṇḍaparissāvanaṃ na sammati. Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ – anujānāmi, bhikkhave, ottharaka”nti (cūḷava. 259) vacanato daṇḍaparissāvanatopi ottharakaṃ mahantataranti viññāyati. Tesaṃ pana dvinnampi parissāvanānaṃ vidhānaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 259) āgatameva.
30. In the discussion on the strainer, addhānamaggo refers to a journey of at least half a yojana by the smallest measure; even one who travels such a distance without taking a strainer, or who, when requested by another monk without a strainer, does not give it, is not permitted to do so and incurs an offense. After the allowance, “I allow, bhikkhus, a strainer,” it was said, “A piece of cloth is not sufficient. They reported this matter to the Blessed One – I allow, bhikkhus, a kaṭacchuparissāvana” (cūḷava. 258); thus, it is understood that the kaṭacchuparissāvana is smaller than the ordinary strainer. The method of making the ordinary strainer is not stated in the commentary, but the method of making the kaṭacchuparissāvana is stated as **“kaṭacchuparissāvanaṃ** means one made by weaving together three sticks” (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 258). After mentioning the kaṭacchuparissāvana, it is further said, “A piece of cloth is not sufficient. They reported this matter to the Blessed One – I allow, bhikkhus, a dhamakaraṇa” (cūḷava. 258); thus, it is understood that the dhamakaraṇa is even smaller than the kaṭacchuparissāvana. The method of making the dhamakaraṇa has already been stated below in the discussion on requisites. It is said, “The monks were doing new work, and the strainer was not suitable. They reported this matter to the Blessed One – I allow, bhikkhus, a daṇḍaparissāvana” (cūḷava 259); thus, it is understood that the daṇḍaparissāvana is larger than the ordinary strainer. From the statement, “The daṇḍaparissāvana was not suitable. They reported this matter to the Blessed One – I allow, bhikkhus, an ottharaka” (cūḷava. 259), it is understood that the ottharaka is even larger than the daṇḍaparissāvana. The methods of making both of these strainers are indeed found in the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 259).
30. In the account of the water-strainer, a journey’s road is, by absolute minimum definition, a distance of half a yojana; even going that distance without taking a water-strainer, one should not be asked by another monk who does not possess a water-strainer and it is also not proper not to give one if asked; It is, in fact, an offense. Because it was permitted, “I allow, monks, a water-strainer”, and it was further said “A small piece of cloth is not enough. They informed the Blessed One of this matter. – I allow, monks, a spoon-shaped water-strainer” (Cūḷava. 258), it is understood that the spoon-shaped water-strainer is smaller than the ordinary water-strainer. The method for the ordinary water-strainer is not stated in the commentary, but the method for the spoon-shaped water-strainer is stated: **“A spoon-shaped water-strainer** is made by weaving together three sticks” (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 258). After mentioning the spoon-shaped water-strainer, because it is again said, “A small piece of cloth is not enough. They informed the Blessed One of this matter. – I allow, monks, a dhamakaraṇa” (Cūḷava. 258), it is understood that the dhamakaraṇa is even smaller than the spoon-shaped water-strainer. The method for the dhamakaraṇa has already been stated above in the account of requisites. Because it is said, “The monks are doing new work; the water-strainer is not sufficient. They informed the Blessed One of this matter. – I allow, monks, a water-strainer with a handle” (Cūḷava 259), it is understood that the water-strainer with a handle is larger than the ordinary water-strainer. Because it is said, “The water-strainer with a handle is not sufficient. They informed the Blessed One of this matter. – I allow, monks, a ottharaka” (Cūḷava. 259), it is understood that the ottharaka is even larger than the water-strainer with a handle. The method for both of those water-strainers has indeed appeared in the commentary (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 259).
30. In the discussion on parissāvana (water-strainer), addhānamaggo refers to a road of a certain length, specifically half a yojana. Even if a monk travels such a distance without carrying a water-strainer and, when asked by another monk who does not have one, refuses to give it, he commits an offense. The Buddha said, “I allow, monks, the use of a water-strainer.” However, when it was reported that a cloth strainer was insufficient, the Buddha said, “I allow, monks, the use of a kaṭacchu strainer” (Cūḷavagga 258). Thus, the kaṭacchu strainer is considered smaller than the ordinary strainer. The method for making an ordinary strainer is not mentioned in the commentary, but for the kaṭacchu strainer, it is said, “A kaṭacchu strainer is made by tying it to three sticks” (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 258). After allowing the kaṭacchu strainer, it was further reported that even this was insufficient, and the Buddha said, “I allow, monks, the use of a dhamakaraṇa strainer” (Cūḷavagga 258). Thus, the dhamakaraṇa is considered even smaller than the kaṭacchu. The method for making the dhamakaraṇa is explained earlier in the discussion on requisites. When monks engaged in construction work found the dhamakaraṇa insufficient, the Buddha said, “I allow, monks, the use of a daṇḍa strainer” (Cūḷavagga 259). Thus, the daṇḍa strainer is considered larger than the ordinary strainer. When even the daṇḍa strainer was insufficient, the Buddha said, “I allow, monks, the use of an ottharaka strainer” (Cūḷavagga 259). Thus, the ottharaka is considered larger than the daṇḍa strainer. The methods for making both these strainers are mentioned in the commentary (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 259).
ID1821
ID1822
31. Naggakathāyaṃ na naggena naggo abhivādetabboti naggena navakatarena bhikkhunā naggo vuḍḍhataro bhikkhu na abhivādetabbo na vanditabbo. Kasmā? “Na, bhikkhave, naggena naggo abhivādetabbo, yo abhivādeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (cūḷava. 261) bhagavatā vacanato na abhivādetabboti yojanā . Ettha pana vadi abhivādanathutīsūti dhātussa curādigaṇattā ṇe-paccayo hoti, na hetvatthattā.
31. In the discussion on nakedness, na naggena naggo abhivādetabbo means a naked junior monk should not salute or pay respects to a naked senior monk. Why? Because the Blessed One said, “Bhikkhus, a naked person should not salute a naked person; whoever salutes incurs an offense of dukkaṭa” (cūḷava. 261), and thus it is construed that saluting is not allowed. Here, regarding vadi—which refers to saluting or praising—the root in the curādi group takes the ṇe suffix, not implying causation.
31. In the account of nakedness, a naked person should not be paid respect by a naked person means that a naked junior monk should not pay respect to, should not salute, a naked senior monk. Why? The sentence “A naked person, monks, should not be paid respect by a naked person; whoever should pay respect, there is an offense of wrong-doing” (Cūḷava. 261), given by the Blessed One, should be construed as meaning “should not be paid respect”. Here, however, because the root vadi, among those “for paying respect, praising,” belongs to the curādi class, the ṇe suffix occurs, and not because of having the sense of a causative.
31. In the discussion on nakedness, it is said, “A naked monk should not be greeted by another naked monk.” A newly ordained naked monk should not greet or pay respects to a senior naked monk. Why? Because the Buddha said, “Monks, a naked monk should not be greeted by another naked monk. Whoever does so commits a dukkaṭa offense” (Cūḷavagga 261). Here, the root vadi (to speak) takes the suffix ṇe due to its inclusion in the curādi group, not because of a causative meaning.
ID1823
“Akammakehi dhātūhi, bhāve kiccā bhavanti te; Sakammakehi kammatthe, arahasakkatthadīpakā”ti. –
“From intransitive roots, they become bhāva or kicca; from transitive roots, they indicate the object, showing what is worthy or intended.”
“With intransitive roots, kicca suffixes occur in the sense of the impersonal passive; With transitive roots, in the sense of the object, indicating possibility and worthiness.” –
“With non-causative roots, the suffixes indicate the state; with causative roots, they indicate the action, as in the case of arahasakkatthadīpakā.”
ID1824
Vacanato kammatthe tabba-paccayoti daṭṭhabbo. Na naggena abhivādetabbanti ettha tu naggena bhikkhunā na abhivādetabbanti ettakameva yojanā. Nanu ca bho –
From this statement, the tabba suffix should be understood as pertaining to the object. In na naggena abhivādetabba, it is simply construed as “a naked monk should not salute,” and that is all. But isn’t it so—
From this statement, it should be understood [that the suffix]-tabba is in the sense of the object. In na naggena abhivādetabba, however, the sentence is merely: “By a naked monk, [someone] should not be paid respect”. Now, oh sir –
Thus, in the context of action, the suffix tabba should be understood. “A naked monk should not be greeted” means that a naked monk should not be greeted by another naked monk. This is the only interpretation. But consider:
ID1825
“Kiccā dhātuhyakammehi, bhāveyeva napuṃsake; Tadantā pāyato kamme, sakammehi tiliṅgikā”ti. –
“From transitive roots in kicca, it is only in bhāva and neuter; from those ending in such, in the object case with transitive roots, it applies to all genders.”
“The kicca [suffixes] with intransitive roots [occur] in the impersonal passive sense in the neuter gender; Those ending in them [occur] commonly in the object sense, with transitive roots, in the three genders.” –
“With causative roots, the suffixes indicate the action; with non-causative roots, they indicate the state. In the case of neuter gender, the action is implied by the root itself.”
ID1826
Vacanato, imissā ca dhātuyā sakammattā kammaṃ ajjhāharitabbaṃ, kammānurūpañca liṅgaṃ ṭhapetabbaṃ, atha kasmā ettakameva yojanā katāti? Kammavacanicchābhāvato. Vuttañhi –
From this statement, since this root is transitive, an object should be supplied, and the gender should conform to the object; so why is it construed only thus? Because there is no desire to express the object. For it is said—
According to this statement, and because this root is transitive, the object should be supplied, and the gender should be established in accordance with the object; so why is the sentence constructed only thus? Because of the non-intention to express the object. It has been said –
Thus, since this root is causative, the action should be implied, and the appropriate gender should be applied. Why, then, is only this interpretation given? Because there is no intention to express the action. It is said:
ID1827
“Kammassāvacanicchāyaṃ, sakammākhyātapaccayā; Bhāvepi taṃ yathā gehe, devadattena paccate”ti.
“When there is a desire to express the object, verbal suffixes from transitive roots occur; even in bhāva, it is so, as in ‘Devadatta cooks in the house.’”
“When there is no intention to express the object, transitive verbal suffixes; are in the passive even then, as in gehe devadattena paccate (In the house, it is cooked by Devadatta).”
“In the absence of an intention to express the action, even with causative roots, the state is indicated, as in the case of devadattena paccate.”
ID1828
Yathā ākhyātapaccayasaṅkhātā vibhattiyo sakammakadhātuto bhavantāpi kammavacanicchāya asati kammaṃ avatvā bhāvatthameva vadanti, evaṃ kiccapaccayāpi sakammakadhātuto bhavantāpi kammavacanicchāyābhāvato kammaṃ avatvā bhāvatthameva vadanti, tasmā kammañca anajjhāharitaṃ, kammānurūpañca liṅgaṃ na ṭhapitaṃ, bhāvatthānurūpameva ṭhapitanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Ettha hi “ayaṃ nāma puggalo abhivādetabbo”ti acintetvā sāmaññato kattārameva gahetvā ṭhapitoti veditabbo.
Just as verbal endings, known as vibhatti, arising from transitive roots, even when present, express only the sense of bhāva without stating the object when there is no desire to express it, so too kicca suffixes arising from transitive roots, in the absence of a desire to express the object, express only the sense of bhāva without stating the object. Therefore, neither an object is supplied nor a gender conforming to the object is established; only that which conforms to the sense of bhāva is established. Here, it should be understood that it is stated generally, taking only the agent without considering “this specific person should be saluted.”
Just as conjugational suffixes, which are verbal suffixes from transitive roots, although occurring, do not express the object when there is no intention to express the object, but express only the sense of the impersonal passive, similarly, kicca suffixes, too, although occurring from transitive roots, do not express the object due to the absence of the intention to express the object, but express only the sense of the impersonal passive; therefore, the object is not supplied, and the gender is not established in accordance with the object, but is established in accordance with the sense of the impersonal passive, it should be understood. For here, it should be understood that without considering “this particular person should be paid respect,” one establishes [the sentence] by taking the agent in a general sense.
Just as the suffixes, which are called ākhyātapaccaya (indicating the verb), express the state even when derived from causative roots in the absence of an intention to express the action, so too, even with causative roots, in the absence of such intention, the state is expressed. Therefore, the action is not implied, and the appropriate gender is not applied; only the state is indicated. Here, one should understand that the subject is taken in a general sense, without considering the specific individual.
ID1829
Na naggena naggo abhivādāpetabboti ettha pana naggena vuḍḍhatarena bhikkhunā naggo navakataro bhikkhu na abhivādāpetabbo, na vandāpetabboti yojanā. Ettha hi sakāritassa kiccapaccayassa diṭṭhattā, dhātuyā ca sakammakattā navakataro bhikkhu dhātukattā hoti, vuḍḍhataro bhikkhu dhātukammaṃ , puna kāritasambandhe vuḍḍhataro bhikkhu kāritakattā hoti, navakataro bhikkhu kāritakammaṃ. Vuttañhi –
In na naggena naggo abhivādāpetabbo, it is construed that a naked senior monk should not cause a naked junior monk to salute or pay respects. Here, due to the causative form of the kicca suffix and the transitive nature of the root, the junior monk becomes the agent of the root, the senior monk the object of the root, and in the causative relation, the senior monk becomes the causative agent, and the junior monk the causative object. For it is said—
In na naggena naggo abhivādāpetabbo, however, the sentence is: “By a naked senior monk, a naked junior monk should not be caused to pay respect, should not be caused to salute”. For here, because the kicca suffix with the causative marker is seen, and because the root is transitive, the junior monk is the agent of the root, the senior monk is the object of the root; again, in relation to the causative, the senior monk is the causative agent, the junior monk is the causative object. It has been said –
“A naked monk should not be made to greet another naked monk.” Here, a senior naked monk should not make a junior naked monk greet or pay respects to him. This is the interpretation. Here, since the action is performed by the junior monk, he is the agent, and the senior monk is the object. It is said:
ID1830
“Hetukriyāya sambandhī-bhāvā kammanti manyate; Hetukriyāpadhānattā, aññathānupapattito”ti.
“The relation to the causative action is considered bhāva or object; due to the prominence of the causative action, it cannot be otherwise.”
“The relation of cause-and-effect is considered to be the object; Because the causative action is primary, otherwise it would not be possible.”
“Due to the connection with the causative action, the object is considered the action; because the causative action is primary, it cannot be otherwise.”
ID1831
Na naggena abhivādāpetabbanti ettha tu naggena vuḍḍhatarena bhikkhunā na abhivādāpetabbaṃ, na vandāpetabbanti yojanā, etthāpi kammavacanicchāyābhāvato vuttanayena bhāveyeva kiccapaccayo hotīti daṭṭhabbo. Nanu vandāpake sati vandāpetabbo labbhatiyeva, atha “kasmā kammavacanicchāyābhāvato”ti vuttanti? “Vatticchānupubbikā saddapaṭipattī”ti vacanato vatticchābhāvato na vuttanti. Vuttañhetaṃ pubbācariyehi –
In na naggena abhivādāpetabba, it is construed as “a naked senior monk should not cause saluting or paying of respects,” and here too, due to the absence of desire to express the object, as explained earlier, the kicca suffix remains in bhāva alone. But when there is one who causes paying of respects, isn’t there necessarily one who is caused to pay respects? Why then is it said “due to the absence of desire to express the object”? Because, as stated, “The sequence of expression follows the desire to express,” it is not stated due to the absence of such desire. This was indeed said by earlier teachers—
In na naggena abhivādāpetabba, however, the sentence is: “By a naked senior monk, [someone] should not be caused to pay respect, should not be caused to salute”; here too, due to the absence of the intention to express the object, the kicca suffix occurs in the sense of the impersonal passive, according to the stated method, it should be understood. Now, when there is a causer of saluting, the one to be caused to salute is indeed obtained; so why is it said that “due to the absence of the intention to express the object”? Because there is no [speaker’s] wish to express it according to the saying: “The use of words follows the speaker’s wish.” It has been said by the elders of old –
“A naked monk should not be made to greet” means that a senior naked monk should not make a junior naked monk greet or pay respects to him. Here too, due to the absence of an intention to express the action, the state is indicated by the causative suffix. But if there is someone to make the junior monk pay respects, why is it said that there is no intention to express the action? Because, as it is said, “The sequence of speech depends on the intention of the speaker.” The ancient teachers said:
ID1832
“Vatticchā na bhave santa-mapyasantampi sā bhave; Taṃ yathānudarā kaññā, samuddo kuṇḍikāti cā”ti.
“When the desire to express is absent, it may or may not be there; just as a maiden follows her lover, or the ocean a small pot.”
“The speaker’s wish, though not existing, might be as though existing; That [is] as in the examples of anudarā kaññā (a girl without a belly) and samuddo kuṇḍikāti cā (and the ocean is [called] a water pot).”
“Even if the intention is not present, it may still exist; just as a maiden may be called a sea or a pitcher.”
ID1833
Itaresupi suviññeyyameva. Paṭicchādenti aṅgamaṅgāni etāhīti paṭicchādiyo.
The rest is easily understood. Paṭicchādiyo means those that cover the limbs.
In the other [cases], it is easily understood. Paṭicchādiyo are things by which the limbs are covered.
This is also easily understood in other cases. They cover the limbs, hence they are called paṭicchādiyo (coverings).
ID1834
ID1835
32. Gandhapupphakathāyaṃ “gandhagandhaṃ pana gahetvā kavāṭe pañcaṅguliṃ dātuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vacanato gandhe dinne paṭiggahituṃ vaṭṭati, no limpitunti siddhaṃ. Idāni pana manussā bhikkhū bhojetvā hatthadhovanāvasāne hatthavāsatthāya gandhavilepanaṃ denti, taṃ bhikkhū paṭiggahetvā ekacce hatthameva limpenti, ekacce kāyampi mukhampi ālimpenti, “sugandho vatā”tiādīni vatvā haṭṭhapahaṭṭhākāraṃ karonti, taṃ vaṭṭati, na vaṭṭatīti? “Kavāṭe pañcaṅgulikaṃ dātuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vihāre kavāṭadhūpanamattasseva vuttattā kāyadhūpanassa avuttattā, “mālāgandhavilepanadhāraṇamaṇḍanavibhūsanaṭṭhānā veramaṇī”ti vacanassānulomato ca na vaṭṭatīti dissati, vīmaṃsitvā gahetabbaṃ. “Pupphaṃ gahetvā vihāre ekamantaṃ nikkhipitu”nti vacanato pupphe dinne gahetuṃ vaṭṭati, na piḷandhanādīni kātunti siddhaṃ. Idāni pana bhikkhūsu gandhapupphesu laddhesu “surabhigandhaṃ vatidaṃ puppha”ntiādīni vatvā pahaṭṭhākāraṃ katvā siṅghanti, taṃ vaṭṭati, na vaṭṭatīti? Tampi vihāreyeva ekamantaṃ ṭhapanassa vuttattā siṅghitabbādibhāvassa avuttattā, mālāgandhādipāṭhassa anulomato ca na vaṭṭatīti dissati, vīmaṃsitvā gahetabbaṃ. “Ekamantaṃ nikkhipitu”nti vacanassa pana sāmatthiyato cetiyapaṭimāpūjanādīni ca kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti viññāyati.
32. In the discussion on scents and flowers, from the statement “gandhagandhaṃ pana gahetvā kavāṭe pañcaṅguliṃ dātuṃ vaṭṭati”, it is permissible to accept a given scent, but not to smear it; this is established. Nowadays, people, after feeding monks, give scented ointment for handwashing at the end; some monks accept it and smear only their hands, while others smear their bodies and faces, saying things like “what a pleasant scent” and displaying delight—is this permissible or not? Since it is stated only for fumigating the door in the monastery and not for fumigating the body, and because it aligns with the statement “abstaining from wearing garlands, scents, ointments, adornments, and decorations,” it appears not permissible; it should be examined and understood. From the statement “pupphaṃ gahetvā vihāre ekamantaṃ nikkhipitu”, it is permissible to accept given flowers, but not to wear them or do similar acts; this is established. Nowadays, when monks receive scents and flowers, they say things like “this flower has a delightful scent,” showing delight and sniffing them—is this permissible or not? Since it is stated only for placing them aside in the monastery and not for sniffing or similar acts, and because it aligns with the reading on garlands and scents, it appears not permissible; it should be examined and understood. However, due to the capability implied in “placing aside,” it is understood that acts like honoring a cetiya or image are permissible.
32. In the account of perfume and flowers, because of the statement, “It is allowable to put a five-finger mark on the door after taking perfume”, it is established that it is allowable to accept perfume when it is offered, but not to smear [it on oneself]. Now, however, people, after feeding monks and at the conclusion of washing their hands, offer fragrant unguents for the purpose of scenting their hands; the monks, having accepted it, some smear only their hands, some anoint even their bodies and faces, making expressions of delight, saying things like, “How fragrant it is!” and so on; is that allowable or not? Because only the anointing of the door in the monastery is mentioned, saying “It is allowable to put a five-finger mark on the door”, and anointing the body is not mentioned, and from conformity with the statement “abstaining from the use of garlands, perfumes, unguents, adornments, and embellishments”, it appears that it is not allowable; it should be taken after careful consideration. Because of the statement, “After taking a flower, placing it to one side in the monastery”, it is established that it is allowable to accept a flower when it is offered, but not to make garlands and so on. Now, however, when monks receive perfumes and flowers, they express delight, saying things like, “This flower has a fragrant scent!” and so on, and they smell it; is that allowable or not? That, too, because only placing it to one side in the monastery is mentioned, and the state of being something to be smelled and so on is not mentioned, and from conformity with the passage on garlands, perfumes, etc., it appears that it is not allowable; it should be taken after careful consideration. However, from the force of the statement “placing it to one side”, it is understood that it is allowable to make offerings to cetiyas, images, and so on.
32. In the discussion on perfumes and flowers, it is said, “It is permissible to take perfume and apply it to the door with five fingers.” Thus, it is permissible to accept perfume when offered, but not to smear it. Now, people offer monks perfumed ointment after washing their hands following a meal. Some monks accept it and smear only their hands, while others smear their bodies and faces as well, saying, “How fragrant!” and showing delight. Is this permissible or not? Since it is said, “It is permissible to apply it to the door with five fingers,” and this refers only to fumigating the door of the monastery, not to smearing the body, and since it is contrary to the rule, “Abstaining from wearing garlands, perfumes, and ointments for adornment,” it seems impermissible. One should consider carefully before accepting. “It is permissible to take flowers and place them aside in the monastery.” Thus, it is permissible to accept flowers when offered, but not to wear them as garlands, etc. Now, when monks receive perfumes and flowers, they say, “How fragrant these flowers are!” and show delight by sniffing them. Is this permissible or not? Since it is said that flowers should be placed aside in the monastery, and there is no mention of sniffing them, and since it is contrary to the rule on garlands and perfumes, it seems impermissible. One should consider carefully before accepting. The phrase “place them aside” also implies that they can be used for worshiping stupas or images.
ID1836
ID1837
33. Āsittakūpadhānakathāyaṃ manussānaṃ bharaṇasīlataṃ sandhāya “tambalohena vā rajatena vā”ti vuttaṃ, vikappanatthena pana vā-saddena hiraññena vā suvaṇṇena vātiādiṃ saṅgaṇhāti. Paṭikkhittattā panāti bhagavatā pana āsittakūpadhānassa sāmaññavasena paṭikkhittattā. Na kevalaṃ ratanapeḷā eva na vaṭṭati, atha kho dārumayāpīti. Ettha pi-saddo sampiṇḍanattho, taṃ na vilīvamayatālapaṇṇamayavettamayādikaṃ sampiṇḍeti.
33. In the discussion on sprinkled pillows, referring to the habit of people bearing them, it is said “tambalohena vā rajatena vā”, meaning “with copper or silver,” and by the word vā, implying an option, it includes gold or other such materials. Paṭikkhittattā pana means because the Blessed One generally prohibited sprinkled pillows. Not only jewel-encrusted boxes are impermissible, but also dārumayāpi, meaning “those made of wood too.” Here, the word pi has a connective sense, but it does not include those made of willow, palm leaves, bamboo, or similar materials.
33. In the account of the pitcher-stand, with reference to people’s habit of adorning, it is said, “either with copper or with silver”; however, by the word vā, used in the sense of alternatives, is included gold or money and so on. But because it is prohibited, it is because a pitcher-stand in general is prohibited by the Blessed One. Not only is a jewel-box not allowable, but also even one made of wood. Here, the word pi has the meaning of inclusion; it includes those made of cane, palm leaf, wicker, and so on.
33. In the discussion on āsittakūpadhāna (metal vessels), it is said, “Made of copper or silver,” referring to the tendency of people to hoard. The word “vā” (or) indicates alternatives, such as gold or other metals. “Because it is prohibited” means that the Buddha generally prohibited the use of metal vessels. Not only are jeweled vessels not allowed, but even “wooden ones” are included. Here, the word “pi” (even) serves to connect, but it does not include vessels made of ivory, palm leaves, or bamboo.
ID1838
ID1839
34. Maḷorikakathāyaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, maḷorika”nti gilāno bhikkhu bhuñjamāno na sakkoti hatthena pattaṃ sandhāretuṃ, tasmā anuññātaṃ. Pubbe pattasaṅgopanatthaṃ ādhārako anuññāto, idāni bhuñjanatthaṃ. Daṇḍādhārako vuccatīti daṇḍādhārako padhānato maḷorikoti vuccati. Yaṭṭhi…pe… pīṭhādīnipi ādhārakasāmaññena ettheva paviṭṭhānīti sambandho. Ādhārakaṃ nāma chiddaṃ viddhampi atthi, aviddhampi atthi, tesu katamaṃ vaṭṭatīti āha “ādhārasaṅkhepagamanato hi…pe… vaṭṭatiyevā”ti.
34. In the discussion on armrests, “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, maḷorika” means a sick monk, unable to hold a bowl with his hand while eating, is allowed this; previously, a support was allowed for holding the bowl, but now for eating. Daṇḍādhārako vuccati means it is called an armrest primarily due to its stick support. The connection is that sticks, seats, and so forth are included here under the general term of supports. A support may have a hole or not; which is permissible? It is said, “ādhārasaṅkhepagamanato hi…pe… vaṭṭatiyeva”, meaning “indeed, only that which simplifies support is permissible.”
34. In the account of the maḷorika, “I allow, monks, a maḷorika”, because a sick monk, while eating, is unable to hold the bowl with his hand, therefore it was permitted. Previously, a stand for supporting the bowl was permitted; now [it is permitted] for the purpose of eating. It is called a stand with a handle; a stand with a handle is principally called a maḷorika. The connection is that a staff…etc… even a stool and so on are included here by virtue of the commonality of [being] a stand. A stand has both what is pierced with a hole and what is not pierced; concerning which of these is allowable, he says, “Because of falling under the category of a stand…etc…it is indeed allowable.”
34. In the discussion on maḷorika (a support for the bowl), it is said, “I allow, monks, the use of a maḷorika.” This is because a sick monk, while eating, cannot hold his bowl with his hand, so it is allowed. Previously, a support was allowed for storing the bowl, but now it is allowed for eating. “A daṇḍādhāraka is called a maḷorika.” A daṇḍādhāraka is primarily called a maḷorika. Sticks, chairs, etc., are also included under the general term “support.” A support may be pierced or unpierced. Which is permissible? It is said, “Since it is classified as a support, it is permissible.”
ID1840
ID1841
35. Ekabhājanādikathāyaṃ ekatobhuñjanaṃ nāma ekabhājanasmiṃ ekakkhaṇeyeva sahabhuñjanaṃ, na nānābhājane. Ekabhājanasmimpi na nānākkhaṇeti āha “sace panā”tiādi. Tasmiṃ apagate tassa apagatattā itarassa sesakaṃ bhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati. Iminā ekakkhaṇe abhuñjanabhāvaṃ dasseti. Itarassapītiādīsu itarassapīti itarītarakathanaṃ, sesabhuñjakaitarato itarassāti attho. Tena paṭhamaṃ gahetvā gatabhikkhumevāha. Tasmiṃ khīṇe tassa khaṇattā paṭhamaṃ gahitavatthussa khīṇattā puna gahetuṃ vaṭṭati. Iminā sahaabhuñjanabhāvaṃ dasseti.
35. In the discussion on eating from one vessel and so forth, ekatobhuñjanaṃ means eating together from one vessel at the same moment, not from different vessels. Even in one vessel, it is not at different moments, hence it says “sace pana” and so forth. Tasmiṃ apagate means “when that one is gone,” and due to his absence, itarassa sesakaṃ bhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati, meaning “it is permissible for the other to eat the remainder,” indicating the absence of eating together at the same moment. In itarassapi and so forth, itarassapi refers to discussing one and the other, meaning from the one who eats the remainder to the other; thus, it refers to the monk who first took and left. Tasmiṃ khīṇe means “when that is finished,” due to the exhaustion of what was first taken, puna gahetuṃ vaṭṭati, meaning “it is permissible to take again,” indicating the absence of eating together.
35. In the account of eating from one vessel, etc., eating together means eating together from one vessel at the same time, not from different vessels. Even in one vessel, it is not at different times, he says, “But if…” etc. When that [monk] has departed, because of that [monk]’s departure, it is allowable for the other to eat the remainder. By this, he shows the non-eating together at the same time. In itarassapī, etc., itarassapī is a reciprocal statement, meaning, for the other than the other who is eating the remainder. By that, he refers to the monk who took [food] first and departed. When that [food] is finished, because of the finishing of that; because of the finishing of the thing taken first, it is allowable to take again. By this, he shows the non-eating together.
35. In the discussion on eating from a single bowl, “eating together” means eating from the same bowl at the same time, not from separate bowls. Even in the same bowl, it is not at different times, as stated, “But if…” etc. “When that is gone” means when the first portion is finished, “the remainder can be eaten by another.” This shows that eating is not done simultaneously. “By another as well” refers to others, meaning the remainder can be eaten by another. Thus, the first monk who took the food is referred to. “When that is exhausted” means when the portion taken by the first monk is finished, “it is permissible to take more.” This shows that eating is done together.
ID1842
Na ekamañce nipajjitabbaṃ satipi nānāattharaṇe “na ekamañce tuvaṭṭitabbaṃ, yo tuvaṭṭeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (cūḷava. 264) vacanato. Na ekattharaṇe nipajjitabbaṃ satipi nānāmañce “na ekattharaṇā tuvaṭṭitabba”nti (cūḷava. 264) vacanato, pageva ubhinnaṃ ekatteti attho. Yadi evaṃ nānāmañcanānāattharaṇesu asantesu kathaṃ anāpatti siyāti cintāyamāha “vavatthānaṃ panā”tiādi. Ekattharaṇapāvuraṇehīti ettha pana ayaṃ ekattharaṇapāvuraṇasaddo na catthasamāso hoti, atha kho bāhiratthasamāsoti āha “ekaṃ attharaṇañceva pāvuraṇañca etesanti ekattharaṇapāvuraṇā”ti, tipadatulyādhikaraṇabāhiratthasamāsoyaṃ. Kesametamadhivacanantyāha “ekaṃ antaṃ attharitvā ekaṃ pārupitvā nipajjantānametaṃ adhivacana”nti, evaṃ nipajjantānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ etaṃ ekattharaṇapāvuraṇapadaṃ adhivacanaṃ hotīti adhippāyo. Kesaṃ pana antanti āha “saṃhārimāna”ntiādi.
Na ekamañce nipajjitabbaṃ means “one should not lie on the same bed,” even with different bedding, because of the statement “one should not sleep on the same bed; whoever does so incurs an offense of dukkaṭa” (cūḷava. 264). Na ekattharaṇe nipajjitabbaṃ means “one should not lie on the same bedding,” even with different beds, because of the statement “one should not sleep on the same bedding” (cūḷava. 264), especially when both are the same. If so, how can there be no offense when there are neither different beds nor different bedding? Reflecting on this, it says “vavatthānaṃ pana” and so forth. Ekattharaṇapāvuraṇehi means “with one bedding and covering”; here, the term ekattharaṇapāvuraṇa is not a four-term compound but an external compound, hence it says “ekaṃ attharaṇañceva pāvuraṇañca etesanti ekattharaṇapāvuraṇā”, meaning “having one bedding and one covering,” a three-term external compound in apposition. To whom does this refer? It says “ekaṃ antaṃ attharitvā ekaṃ pārupitvā nipajjantānametaṃ adhivacana”, meaning “this is a designation for those monks lying with one end spread and one covering,” intending that this term applies to such monks. Which end? It says “saṃhārimāna” and so forth.
One should not lie down on the same bed, even if there are different bedspreads, because of [the rule], “One should not recline on the same bed; whoever should recline, there is an offense of wrong-doing” (Cūḷava. 264). One should not lie down on the same bedspread, even if there are different beds, because of [the rule], “One should not recline on the same bedspread” (Cūḷava. 264), let alone when both are the same, is the meaning. If so, when there are no different beds and different bedspreads, how could there be no offense? Considering this, he says, “But arrangement…” etc. In ekattharaṇapāvuraṇehī, however, this word ekattharaṇapāvuraṇa is not a catthasamāsa (dvandva compound), but rather a bāhiratthasamāso(bahuvrihi compound), he says, “ekaṃ attharaṇañceva pāvuraṇañca etesanti ekattharaṇapāvuraṇā”, this is a tipadatulyādhikaraṇabāhiratthasamāso (bahuvrihi compound with three terms having the same case). What does this refer to? He says, “This refers to those who lie down after spreading out one end and covering themselves with one end”; this means that for monks who lie down thus, this word ekattharaṇapāvuraṇa is the designation. But whose ends? He says, “Of those that are folded…”, etc.
“One should not lie down on the same bed” even if the bedding is different, as stated, “One should not lie down on the same bed. Whoever does so commits a dukkaṭa offense” (Cūḷavagga 264). “One should not lie down on the same bedding” even if the beds are different, as stated, “One should not lie down on the same bedding” (Cūḷavagga 264), meaning especially when both are the same. If this is the case, how can there be no offense when the beds and bedding are different? Reflecting on this, it is said, “But if there is a distinction…” etc. “By covering with the same bedding” means that the term ekattharaṇapāvuraṇa is not a catthasamāsa (compound with a specific meaning), but a bāhiratthasamāsa (compound with an external meaning), as stated, “One bedding and one covering, hence ekattharaṇapāvuraṇa.” This is a three-word compound with an external meaning. It is called an adhivacana (synonym), as stated, “This is a synonym for monks who lie down after covering one side and covering themselves with one covering.” Thus, this term ekattharaṇapāvuraṇa is a synonym for monks who lie down in this manner. Whose side is referred to? It is said, “Those who fold…” etc.
ID1843
ID1844
36. Celapaṭikakathāyaṃ celapaṭikanti celasantharaṃ. Kiṃ pana bhagavato sikkhāpadapaññāpane kāraṇanti? “Bodhirājakumāro kira ’sace ahaṃ puttaṃ lacchāmi, akkamissati me bhagavā celapaṭika’nti iminā ajjhāsayena santhari, abhabbo cesa puttalābhāya, tasmā bhagavā na akkami. Yadi akkameyya, pacchā puttaṃ alabhanto ’nāyaṃ sabbaññū’ti diṭṭhiṃ gaṇheyya, idaṃ tāva bhagavato anakkamane kāraṇaṃ. Yasmā pana bhikkhūpi ye ajānantā akkameyyuṃ, te gihīnaṃ paribhūtā bhaveyyuṃ, tasmā bhikkhū paribhavato mocetuṃ sikkhāpadaṃ paññapesi, idaṃ sikkhāpadapaññāpane kāraṇa”nti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 268) vuttaṃ.
36. In the discussion on cloth carpets, celapaṭika means a cloth spread. What was the reason for the Blessed One laying down a training rule? It is said in the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 268): “Prince Bodhi, it seems, thought, ‘If I obtain a son, the Blessed One will step on my cloth carpet,’ and with this intention spread it. But he was incapable of obtaining a son, so the Blessed One did not step on it. If he had stepped on it, later, not obtaining a son, he might have taken the view, ‘This one is not omniscient.’ This was the reason for the Blessed One not stepping on it. Moreover, if monks who did not know stepped on it, they would be despised by laypeople; thus, to free the monks from contempt, he laid down the training rule. This was the reason for establishing the training rule.”
36. In the account of the cloth spread, celapaṭika means a cloth spread. But what is the reason for the Blessed One’s laying down of the precept? “It is said that Bodhirājakumāra spread [it] with this intention: ‘If I obtain a son, the Blessed One will step on my cloth spread;’ but he is not destined to obtain a son, therefore the Blessed One did not step [on it]. If he had stepped [on it], later, not obtaining a son, he would have formed the view, ‘This is not an omniscient one’; this, indeed, is the reason for the Blessed One’s not stepping [on it]. But because monks, too, who do not know, might step [on it], and they would be despised by householders, therefore, to save monks from being despised, he laid down the precept; this is the reason for the laying down of the precept,” it is said in the commentary (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 268).
36. In the discussion on celapaṭika (cloth spread), celapaṭika means a cloth spread. What is the reason for the Buddha to establish this rule? It is said, “Prince Bodhi spread a cloth, thinking, ‘If I obtain a son, the Buddha will step on this cloth.’ Since he was incapable of having a son, the Buddha did not step on it. If he had stepped on it, and the prince later failed to obtain a son, he might have thought, ‘This Buddha is not omniscient.’ This is the reason for the Buddha not stepping on it. Moreover, monks who, not knowing this, might step on such cloths, would be despised by laypeople. Therefore, to protect monks from such contempt, the Buddha established this rule.” This is explained in the commentary (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 268).
ID1845
Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.268) pana “bhagavā tuṇhī ahosīti ’kissa nu kho atthāya rājakumārena ayaṃ mahāsakkāro kato’ti āvajjento puttapatthanāya katabhāvaṃ aññāsi. So hi rājaputto aputtako, sutañcānena ahosi ’buddhānaṃ kira adhikāraṃ katvā manasā icchitaṃ labhantī’ti, so ’sacāhaṃ puttaṃ labhissāmi, sammāsambuddho imaṃ celapaṭikaṃ akkamissati. No ce labhissāmi, na akkamissatī’ti patthanaṃ katvā santharāpesi. Atha bhagavā ’nibbattissati nu kho etassa putto’ti āvajjetvā ’na nibbattissatī’ti addasa. Pubbe kira so ekasmiṃ dīpe vasamāno bhariyāya samānacchando anekasakuṇapotake khādi. ’Sacassa mātugāmo puññavā bhaveyya, puttaṃ labheyya, ubhohi pana samānacchandehi hutvā pāpakammaṃ kataṃ , tenassa putto na nibbattissatīti aññāsi. Dusse pana akkante ’buddhānaṃ adhikāraṃ katvā patthitaṃ labhantīti loke anussavo, mayā ca mahāadhikāro kato, na ca puttaṃ labhāmi, tucchaṃ idaṃ vacana’nti micchāgāhaṃ gaṇheyya. Titthiyāpi ’natthi samaṇānaṃ akattabbaṃ nāma, celapaṭikampi maddantā āhiṇḍantī’ti ujjhāyeyyuṃ, etarahi ca akkamantesu bahū bhikkhū paracittaviduno, te bhabbattaṃ jānitvā akkamissanti. Abhabbataṃ jānitvā na akkamissanti. Anāgate pana upanissayo mando bhavissati, anāgataṃ na jānissanti. Tesu akkamantesu sace patthitaṃ samijjhissati, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ. No ce ijjhissati, ’pubbe bhikkhusaṅghassa adhikāraṃ katvā icchiticchitaṃ labhanti, idāni na labhanti, teyeva maññe bhikkhū paṭipattipūrakā ahesuṃ, ime pana paṭipattiṃ pūretuṃ na sakkontī’ti manussā vippaṭisārino bhavissantīti imehi tīhi kāraṇehi bhagavā akkamituṃ anicchanto tuṇhī ahosi. Pacchimaṃ janataṃ tathāgato anukampatīti idaṃ pana thero vuttesu kāraṇesu tatiyakāraṇaṃ sandhāyāhā”ti vuttaṃ.
In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.268), it is said: “bhagavā tuṇhī ahosi”, meaning “the Blessed One was silent,” reflecting, “For what purpose has this great honor been done by the prince?” and understood it was for the wish for a son. That prince was childless and had heard, “It is said that by making an offering to the Buddhas, one obtains what is desired in mind.” He made a vow: “If I obtain a son, the Fully Enlightened One will step on this cloth carpet; if I do not, he will not.” Then the Blessed One, reflecting, “Will a son be born to him?” saw, “He will not be born.” Previously, while living on an island, he and his wife, sharing the same inclination, ate many bird fledglings. “If his wife were virtuous, he might obtain a son, but due to the evil deed done by both with shared inclination, a son will not be born to him,” he understood. If he stepped on the carpet, the prince might think, “There is a saying in the world that one obtains what is wished for by making an offering to the Buddhas; I made a great offering, yet I did not obtain a son; this saying is empty,” and take a wrong view. The sectarians might also complain, “There is nothing the ascetics won’t do; they wander about trampling cloth carpets.” Now, if monks knowing others’ minds step on it, they will step knowing capability; knowing incapability, they will not step. But in the future, when the supporting condition weakens, they will not know the future. If they step and the wish is fulfilled, that is good; if not, people might say, “Previously, by making an offering to the monastic community, they obtained what they wished; now they do not. Perhaps those monks fulfilled the practice, but these cannot,” and become remorseful. For these three reasons, the Blessed One, not wishing to step, remained silent. “Pacchimaṃ janataṃ tathāgato anukampati”, “The Tathāgata has compassion for later people,” was said by the elder referring to the third of these reasons.
In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.268), however, it is said: “The Blessed One remained silent”, considering, ‘For what purpose did the royal prince make this great offering?’ he understood that it was done for the sake of requesting a son. For that royal prince was childless, and he had heard, ‘By making an offering to the Buddhas, one obtains what one wishes for in one’s mind.’ So, thinking, ‘If I am to obtain a son, the Perfectly Enlightened One will step on this cloth. If I am not to obtain one, he will not step on it,’ he made a wish and had it spread out. Then the Blessed One, reflecting, ‘Will this one beget a son?’ saw, ‘He will not beget one.’ In the past, while living on an island, he had, with the same desire as his wife, eaten many young birds. ‘If his wife were meritorious, he would obtain a son; but because the evil deed was done with both having the same desire, he will not beget a son,’ he understood. But if he stepped on the cloth, ‘People commonly believe that by making an offering to the Buddhas, one obtains what one wishes for. And I have made a great offering, but I do not obtain a son; this statement is false,’ he would grasp wrong view. And the sectarians would complain, ‘There is nothing that the recluses will not do; they even trample on cloth,’ and now, if they were to step on, there are many monks who know the minds of others, they, knowing the capability, will step, knowing the incapability, they will not step. In the future, however, the supporting conditions will be weak; they will not know the future. When they step on, if what is desired is successful, this is good. If it is not successful, people will become remorseful, thinking, ‘In the past, by making an offering to the community of monks, people obtained what they wished for. Now, they do not. Surely, those monks were the ones who fulfilled the practice; these ones are not able to fulfill the practice.’ For these three reasons, the Blessed One, not wishing to step on, remained silent. The Tathāgata has compassion for later generations - this, however, the elder said with reference to the third reason among the reasons mentioned.”
In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 3.268), it is stated: “The Blessed One remained silent”—reflecting on why the prince had shown such great honor, He understood that it was done out of a desire for a son. For that prince was childless, and he had heard that “those who make offerings to the Buddhas and wish for something in their minds will obtain it.” He thought, “If I obtain a son, the Fully Enlightened One will step on this cloth. If I do not obtain a son, He will not step on it,” and thus he spread the cloth with this aspiration. Then the Blessed One, reflecting, “Will a son be born to him?” saw that no son would be born. It is said that in the past, while living on an island, he and his wife, being of similar disposition, had eaten many young birds. “If his wife had been virtuous, she would have borne a son, but since both were of similar disposition and had committed evil deeds, no son would be born to him,” He understood. If the Blessed One had stepped on the cloth, the prince, being of wrong view, might have thought, “There is a saying in the world that those who make offerings to the Buddhas obtain what they wish, but though I have made a great offering, I have not obtained a son. This saying is false.” The sectarians might also have criticized, saying, “There is nothing the ascetics will not do; they even trample on cloths while wandering.” Moreover, at present, many monks are skilled in reading others’ minds; they would step on it knowing it is suitable, and not step on it knowing it is unsuitable. In the future, however, the connection will be weak, and they will not know the future. If they step on it and the wish is fulfilled, that is good. If not, people will regret, thinking, “Previously, when offerings were made to the Sangha, they obtained whatever they wished, but now they do not. Perhaps those monks were fully accomplished in practice, but these monks are not capable of fulfilling the practice.” For these three reasons, the Blessed One, not wishing to step on it, remained silent. “The Tathāgata has compassion for future generations”—this, the Elder said, referring to the third reason among those mentioned.
ID1846
Pāḷiyaṃ (cūḷava. 268) “yāciyamānena celapaṭikaṃ akkamitu”nti vacanato yāciyamānena eva akkamitabbaṃ, no ayāciyamānenāti siddhaṃ, tatthapi “maṅgalatthāyā”ti (cūḷava. 268) vacanato maṅgalatthāya yāciyamānena akkamitabbaṃ, na sirisobhaggādiatthāya yāciyamānenāti ca, tatthapi “gihīna”nti (cūḷava. 268) vacanato gihīnaṃ eva celasantharaṃ akkamitabbaṃ, na pabbajitānanti ca. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 268) “yā kāci itthī apagatagabbhā vā hotu, garugabbhā vā”ti aniyamavācakena vā-saddena vacanato na kevalaṃ imā dveyeva gahetabbā, atha kho “patiṭṭhitagabbhā vā vijātiputtā vā”tiādinā yā kāci maṅgalikāyo itthiyopi purisāpi gahetabbā. “Evarūpesu ṭhānesū”ti vuttattā na kevalaṃ yathāvuttaṭṭhānesuyeva, atha kho taṃsadisesu yesu kesuci maṅgalaṭṭhānesu yesaṃ kesañci gihīnaṃ maṅgalatthāya yāciyamānānaṃ celasantharaṃ akkamituṃ vaṭṭatīti sijjhati, vīmaṃsitvā gahetabbaṃ. Pāḷiyaṃ (cūḷava. 268) “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, dhotapādakaṃ akkamitu”nti sāmaññavasena vacanato, aṭṭhakathāyañca (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 268) “taṃ akkamituṃ vaṭṭatī”ti avisesena vuttattā dhotapādakaṃ ayāciyamānenapi bhikkhunā akkamitabbanti siddhaṃ, “dhotehi pādehi akkamanatthāyā”ti pana vuttattā adhotehi akkamituṃ na vaṭṭatīti ca, vīmaṃsitvā gahetabbaṃ.
From the text (cūḷava. 268), “yāciyamānena celapaṭikaṃ akkamitu,” it is established that it may be stepped on only when requested, not otherwise; and from “maṅgalatthāya” (cūḷava. 268), it must be when requested for auspiciousness, not for glory or beauty; and from “gihīna” (cūḷava. 268), it is to be stepped on only for laypeople’s cloth spread, not for renunciants. In the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 268), “yā kāci itthī apagatagabbhā vā hotu, garugabbhā vā”, with the indefinite vā, means not only these two should be taken, but also “a woman with an established pregnancy or one who has given birth” and so forth—any auspicious men or women may be included. From “evarūpesu ṭhānesu”, it is not only in the stated places but in any similar auspicious places for any laypeople’s request for auspiciousness that stepping on the cloth spread is permissible; this is established, to be examined and understood. From the text (cūḷava. 268), “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, dhotapādakaṃ akkamitu,” generally stated, and the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 268), “taṃ akkamituṃ vaṭṭati,” stated without distinction, it is established that a monk may step on a washed platform even without being requested; but from “dhotehi pādehi akkamanatthāya”, it is not permissible with unwashed feet; this should be examined and understood.
In the Pāḷi (cūḷava. 268), because of the statement “when requested, one should step on the cloth spread,” it is established that one should step on only when requested, not when unrequested. Even there, because of the statement “for the purpose of blessing” (cūḷava. 268), one should step on when requested for the purpose of blessing, not when requested for the purpose of glory, prosperity, and so on. Even there, because of the statement “of householders” (cūḷava. 268), one should step on only the cloth spread of householders, not of renunciants. In the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 268), because of the word “vā” (or) in the indeterminate statement, “Whether a woman who is not pregnant or one who is heavily pregnant,” not only these two should be taken, but also, ‘women who have stable pregnancies, or those who have given birth’, any auspicious women or men should be included. Because “in such places” is said, it is appropriate not only in the places mentioned above, but also in any similar auspicious places, for any householders, when requested for the sake of blessing, to step on the cloth spread; this should be understood after careful consideration. In the Pāḷi (cūḷava. 268), because of the general statement, “I allow, monks, stepping on a foot-wiper”, and in the commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 268), because it is said without specification, “it is appropriate to step on it,” it is established that a foot-wiper, even when unrequested, should be stepped on by a monk. But because it is stated, “for the purpose of stepping on with washed feet,” it is not appropriate to step on with unwashed feet, and this should be considered.
In the Pāli (Cūḷava. 268), the phrase “when requested, step on the cloth” indicates that it should be stepped on only when requested, not otherwise. Furthermore, the phrase “for the sake of auspiciousness” (Cūḷava. 268) means it should be stepped on when requested for auspicious purposes, not for the sake of glory or splendor. Also, the phrase “for laypeople” (Cūḷava. 268) means that the cloth spread by laypeople should be stepped on, not that spread by monastics. In the commentary (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 268), the phrase “any woman who is either without a womb or with a difficult pregnancy” is not limited to just these two, but includes any woman or man who seeks auspiciousness, as indicated by the word “or” and phrases like “a woman with an established pregnancy or one who has given birth to a son,” etc. The phrase “in such cases” means it is not limited to the aforementioned situations, but applies to any similar circumstances where laypeople request the cloth to be stepped on for auspicious purposes. This should be understood after careful consideration. In the Pāli (Cūḷava. 268), the phrase “I allow, monks, to step on with washed feet” is a general statement, and the commentary (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 268) states “it is permissible to step on it,” meaning that even if not requested, a monk with washed feet may step on it. However, the phrase “for the purpose of stepping with washed feet” implies that stepping with unwashed feet is not permissible. This should also be understood after careful consideration.
ID1847
ID1848
37. Pādaghaṃsanīyakathāyaṃ paṭhamaṃ tāva akappiyapādaghaṃsaniṃ dassetuṃ “katakaṃ na vaṭṭatī”ti āha. Katakaṃ nāma kīdisanti pucchāya sati vuttaṃ “katakaṃ nāma padumakaṇṇikākāra”ntiādi. Kasmā paṭikkhittanti vuttaṃ “bāhulikānuyogattā”ti. Tato kappiyapādaghaṃsaniyo dassetumāha “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, tisso pādaghaṃsaniyo”tiādi. Sesaṃ suviññeyyameva.
37. In the discussion on foot-wipers, first, to show an impermissible foot-wiper, it says “katakaṃ na vaṭṭati”, meaning “a kataka is not permissible.” When asked, “What is a kataka?” it says “katakaṃ nāma padumakaṇṇikākāra” and so forth. Why is it prohibited? It says “bāhulikānuyogattā”, meaning “due to indulgence in luxury.” Then, to show permissible foot-wipers, it says “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, tisso pādaghaṃsaniyo” and so forth. The rest is easily understood.
37. In the story of the foot-scrubber, first, to show the improper foot-scrubber, he says, “A kataka is not allowed.” When asked what a kataka is like, he says, “Kataka means like the pericarp of a lotus,” and so on. When asked why it is prohibited, he says, “Because of the application of excessiveness.” Then, to show the proper foot-scrubbers, he says, “I allow, monks, three foot-scrubbers,” and so on. The rest is easily understood.
37. In the discussion on foot scrapers, first, to show what is unsuitable, it is said: “A kataka is not permissible.” When asked what a kataka is, it is explained: “A kataka is shaped like a lotus bud,” etc. The reason for its prohibition is stated: “Due to indulgence.” Then, to show suitable foot scrapers, it is said: “I allow, monks, three types of foot scrapers,” etc. The rest is clear.
ID1849
ID1850
38. Bījanīkathāyaṃ paṭhamaṃ tāva akappiyabījaniṃ dassetuṃ “camarīvālehi katabījanī na vaṭṭatī”ti āha. Tato kappiyachabījaniyo dassetuṃ “makasabījanīādi vaṭṭatī”ti āha. Tattha kappiyachabījaniyo nāma makasabījanī, vākamayabījanī, usīramayabījanī, morapiñchamayabījanī, vidhūpanaṃ, tālavaṇṭañcāti. Tāsaṃ visesaṃ dassetuṃ “vidhūpananti bījanī vuccatī”tiādimāha . Usīramayaṃ morapiñchamayañca suviññeyyattā na vuttaṃ. “Bījaninti caturassabījaniṃ. Tālavaṇṭanti tālapattādīhi kataṃ maṇḍalikabījani”nti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.269) vuttaṃ.
38. In the discussion on fans, first, to show an impermissible fan, it says “camarīvālehi katabījanī na vaṭṭati”, meaning “a fan made with yak-tail hair is not permissible.” Then, to show six permissible fans, it says “makasabījanīādi vaṭṭati”, meaning “a spider-web fan and so forth are permissible.” Here, kappiyachabījaniyo means a spider-web fan, a bark fan, a usīra fan, a peacock-feather fan, a vidhūpana, and a palm-leaf fan. To specify them, it says “vidhūpananti bījanī vuccati” and so forth. The usīra and peacock-feather fans are not explained due to their obviousness. In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.269), it says **“bījani** means a square fan. Tālavaṇṭa means a round fan made of palm leaves or similar.”
38. In the story of the fan, first, to show the improper fan, he says, “A fan made with yak-tail hairs is not allowed.” Then to show the six proper fans, he states “Fans for insects and so forth are allowable.” Therein, the six allowable types of fans are: a fan for insects, a fan made of grass, a fan made of usīra root, a fan made of peacock feathers, a vidhūpana, and a palmyra-leaf fan. To show the specific characteristic of each, he speaks: **“Vidhūpana is called fan** and so on. Usīra root and the fan made of peacock feathers are not mentioned due to their being well understood. ”Bījani” means a square fan. ”Palmyra fan means a round fan made with palmyra leaves and so forth” is mentioned in Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.269).
38. In the discussion on fans, first, to show what is unsuitable, it is said: “A fan made of yak tail hair is not permissible.” Then, to show suitable fans, it is said: “A fan made of makasa grass, etc., is permissible.” Here, “suitable fans” refers to six types: the makasa fan, the bark fan, the usīra fan, the peacock feather fan, the vidhūpana, and the tālavaṇṭa. To explain their differences, it is said: “The vidhūpana is called a fan,” etc. The usīra and peacock feather fans are not mentioned due to their obviousness. “Fan” refers to a four-sided fan. “Tālavaṇṭa” means a circular fan made of palm leaves, etc., as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 3.269).
ID1851
ID1852
39. Chattakathāyaṃ chattaṃ nāma tīṇi chattāni setacchattaṃ, kilañjacchattaṃ, paṇṇacchattanti. Tattha setacchattanti vatthapaliguṇṭhitaṃ paṇḍaracchattaṃ. Kilañjacchattanti vilīvacchattaṃ. Paṇṇacchattanti tālapaṇṇādīhi yehi kehici kataṃ. Maṇḍalabaddhaṃ salākabaddhanti idaṃ pana tiṇṇampi chattānaṃ pañjaradassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Tāni hi maṇḍalabaddhāni ceva honti salākabaddhāni ca. Yampi tatthajātakadaṇḍena kataṃ ekapaṇṇacchattaṃ hoti, tampi chattameva. “Vilīvacchattanti veṇuvilīvehi kataṃ chattaṃ. Tatthajātakadaṇḍakena katanti tālapaṇṇaṃ saha daṇḍakena chinditvā tameva chattadaṇḍaṃ karonti gopālakādayo viya, taṃ sandhāyetaṃ vutta”nti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.634) vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.634) pana “vilīvacchattanti veṇupesikāhi kataṃ. Maṇḍalabaddhānīti dīghasalākāsu tiriyaṃ valayākārena salākaṃ ṭhapetvā suttehi baddhāni dīghañca tiriyañca ujukameva salākāyo ṭhapetvā daḷhabaddhāni ceva tiriyaṃ ṭhapetvā dīghadaṇḍakeheva saṅkocārahaṃ katvā sutteheva tiriyaṃ baddhāni. Tatthajātakadaṇḍakena katanti saha daṇḍakena chinnatālapaṇṇādīhi kata”nti vuttaṃ. Idha pana chattadhārakapuggalavasena vuttaṃ, tasmā agilānassa bhikkhuno chattaṃ dhāretuṃ na vaṭṭati. Sesaṃ suviññeyyameva.
39. In the discussion on umbrellas, chattaṃ means three types of umbrellas: a white umbrella, a kilañja umbrella, and a leaf umbrella. Here, setacchatta means a white umbrella wrapped in cloth. Kilañjacchatta means a willow umbrella. Paṇṇacchatta means one made of palm leaves or similar. Maṇḍalabaddhaṃ salākabaddha is said to show the framework of all three, being both circularly bound and stick-bound. Even one made with a locally grown stick as a single-leaf umbrella is still an umbrella. In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.634), it says “vilīvacchatta** means an umbrella made of bamboo and willow. Tatthajātakadaṇḍakena kata means, like cowherds, cutting a palm leaf with its stick and using that as the umbrella stick.” In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.634), it says ”vilīvacchatta** means one made with bamboo strips. Maṇḍalabaddhāni means bound with threads in a circular shape across long sticks, or firmly bound with straight sticks lengthwise and crosswise, or made collapsible with threads across a long stick.” Here, it is stated regarding the person bearing the umbrella; thus, a non-sick monk may not bear an umbrella. The rest is easily understood.
39. In the story of the parasol, a parasol means three parasols: a white parasol, a kilañja parasol, and a leaf parasol. Herein, a white parasol is a white parasol covered with cloth. A kilañja parasol is a bamboo parasol. A leaf parasol is one made with palmyra leaves and so on. “Fixed in a circle, fixed with ribs” is, however, said to show the frame of all three parasols. For they are both fixed in a circle and fixed with ribs. Even a single-leaf parasol made with a stalk born with it is a parasol. “A bamboo parasol” is a parasol made with bamboo strips. “Made with a stalk born with it” means this is said with reference to how cowherds and others cut a palmyra leaf together with its stalk and make that the parasol handle,” it is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.634). In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.634), however, it is said: “A bamboo parasol” is one made with bamboo splints. “Fixed in a circle” means with long ribs, placing ribs across in a circular shape and tied with threads; and placing ribs both lengthwise and across straight, firmly tied; and placing across and making it contractible with long handles, and tied across with threads. “Made with a stalk born with it” is one made with palmyra leaves and so on cut together with the stalk.” Here, however, it is said with reference to the person holding the parasol, therefore, it is not proper for a non-ill monk to hold a parasol. The rest is easily understood.
39. In the discussion on umbrellas, “umbrella” refers to three types: the white umbrella, the kilañja umbrella, and the leaf umbrella. Here, “white umbrella” means a white umbrella covered with cloth. “Kilañja umbrella” means a bamboo umbrella. “Leaf umbrella” means one made of palm leaves or similar materials. “Circular and ribbed” refers to the structure of all three types of umbrellas, which are both circular and ribbed. Even a single-leaf umbrella made from a naturally occurring stick is considered an umbrella. “Bamboo umbrella” means one made of bamboo strips. “Made with a naturally occurring stick” refers to cutting a palm leaf along with its stick and using that stick as the umbrella handle, as done by cowherds, etc. This is explained in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Pācittiya 3.634). In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Pācittiya 2.634), it is further explained: “Bamboo umbrella” means one made of bamboo slats. “Circular” refers to long ribs arranged horizontally in a circular pattern and bound with threads, making them firm and straight. “Made with a naturally occurring stick” means made with palm leaves cut along with their sticks. Here, the discussion is from the perspective of the person carrying the umbrella, so it is not permissible for a healthy monk to carry an umbrella. The rest is clear.
ID1853
ID1854
40. Nakhakathāyaṃ dīghanakhadhāraṇapaccayā uppanne vatthusmiṃ “na, bhikkhave, dīghā nakhā dhāretabbā, yo dhāreyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (cūḷava. 274) vacanato dhārentassa āpatti. “Nakhenapi nakhaṃ chindanti, mukhenapi nakhaṃ chindanti, kuṭṭepi ghaṃsanti, aṅguliyo dukkhā honti. Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ – anujānāmi, bhikkhave, nakhacchedana”nti (cūḷava. 274) vacanato nakhacchedanasatthakaṃ dhāretuṃ vaṭṭati. Heṭṭhā ca “nakhacchedanaṃ valitakaṃyeva karonti, tasmā taṃ vaṭṭatī”ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.85) vuttaṃ. “Valitakanti nakhacchedanakāle daḷhaggahaṇatthaṃ valīhi yuttameva karonti, tasmā taṃ vaṭṭatī”ti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.85) vuttaṃ. Maṃsappamāṇenāti aṅgulaggamaṃsappamāṇena. Vīsatimaṭṭhanti vīsatipi hatthapādanakhe likhitamaṭṭhe karonti. Sesaṃ suviññeyyameva.
40. In the discussion on nails, due to an incident arising from wearing long nails, it says, “Bhikkhus, long nails should not be worn; whoever wears them incurs an offense of dukkaṭa” (cūḷava. 274), so there is an offense for wearing them. “They cut nails with nails, with mouths, rubbed them on walls, and fingers became painful. They reported this matter to the Blessed One – I allow, bhikkhave, a nail-cutter” (cūḷava. 274); thus, it is permissible to bear a nail-cutter. Below, in the commentary (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.85), it says, “They make the nail-cutter only with ridges; thus, it is permissible.” In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.85), it says “valitaka** means they make it with ridges for a firm grip during nail-cutting; thus, it is permissible.” Maṃsappamāṇena** means according to the measure of finger flesh. Vīsatimaṭṭha means they trim and polish all twenty nails of hands and feet. The rest is easily understood.
40. In the story of the nails, when an incident arose due to the keeping of long nails, because of the statement, “Monks, long nails should not be kept; whoever keeps them, commits an offense of wrong-doing” (cūḷava. 274), the one who keeps them commits an offense. “They cut nails with nails, they cut nails with their mouths, they rub them on walls, their fingers become painful. They informed the Blessed One of this matter. – ‘I allow, monks, a nail-cutter’” (cūḷava. 274), therefore, it is allowable to keep a nail-cutting instrument. And below, it is stated in the commentary (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.85), “They make the nail-cutter bent only, therefore it is allowed.” “Bent” means they make it with bends for a firm grip at the time of cutting nails, therefore it is allowed,” it is said in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.85). “To the extent of the flesh” means to the extent of the flesh at the tip of the finger. “Twenty are polished” means they polish the twenty nails of the hands and feet. The rest is easily understood.
40. In the discussion on nails, regarding the issue arising from wearing long nails, it is said: “Monks, long nails should not be worn. Whoever wears them commits an offense of wrong conduct” (Cūḷava. 274), indicating an offense for wearing them. “They cut nails with nails, bite nails with their mouths, scratch with their nails, and their fingers become painful. They reported this matter to the Blessed One—I allow, monks, the cutting of nails” (Cūḷava. 274), indicating that a nail-cutting tool is permissible. Earlier, it is stated in the commentary (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1.85): “They make the nail-cutting tool curved, so it is permissible.” In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.85), it is explained: “Curved” means that during nail-cutting, they make it curved for a firm grip, so it is permissible. “To the extent of the flesh” means to the extent of the flesh of the finger. “Twenty marks” refers to making twenty marks on the nails of the hands and feet. The rest is clear.
ID1855
ID1856
Lomakathāyaṃ “sambādhelomaṃ saṃharāpenti. Manussā ujjhāyanti khīyanti vipācenti seyyathāpi gihī kāmabhogino”ti vatthusmiṃ uppanne “na, bhikkhave…pe… dukkaṭassā”ti (cūḷava. 275) vacanato saṃharāpentassa āpatti. Aññatarassa bhikkhuno sambādhe vaṇo hoti, bhesajjaṃ na tiṭṭhatīti imissā aṭṭhuppattiyā “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, ābādhapaccayā sambādhe lomaṃ saṃharāpetu”nti (cūḷava. 275) vacanato ābādhapaccayā bhesajjapatiṭṭhāpanatthāya sambādhe lomaṃ harāpentassa anāpatti. “Seyyathāpi pisācillikā”ti manussānaṃ ujjhāyanapaccayā “na, bhikkhave, dīghaṃ nāsikālomaṃ dhāretabbaṃ, yo dhāreyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (cūḷava. 275) vacanato dhāraṇapaccayā āpatti. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, saṇḍāsa”nti anurakkhaṇatthāya saṇḍāso anuññāto, tasmā nāsikālomaṃ saṇḍāsena harāpetuṃ vaṭṭati. Palitanti paṇḍarakesaṃ. Gāhetuṃ na vaṭṭati “mā me jarābhāvo hotū”ti manasi katattā. Bībhacchaṃ hutvāti virūpaṃ hutvā. Palitaṃ vā apalitaṃ vāti paṇḍaraṃ vā apaṇḍaraṃ vā. Gāhāpetuṃ vaṭṭati appasādāvahattāti.
In the discussion on body hair, due to an incident where “they removed hair in private parts, and people complained, grumbled, and criticized, just as laypeople enjoying sensual pleasures,” it says, “Bhikkhus… incurs an offense of dukkaṭa” (cūḷava. 275), so there is an offense for removing it. Due to a monk having a sore in a private part where medicine would not stay, it says, “I allow, bhikkhus, due to illness, to remove hair in private parts” (cūḷava. 275); thus, there is no offense for removing hair in private parts due to illness for applying medicine. Due to people complaining, “just like female goblins,” it says, “Bhikkhus, long nose hair should not be worn; whoever wears it incurs an offense of dukkaṭa” (cūḷava. 275), so there is an offense for wearing it. “I allow, bhikkhus, tweezers” was permitted for protection; thus, it is permissible to remove nose hair with tweezers. Palita means gray hair. Gāhetuṃ na vaṭṭati means “it is not permissible to pluck” due to thinking, “May I not show aging.” Bībhacchaṃ hutvā means “becoming repulsive.” Palitaṃ vā apalitaṃ vā means “gray or non-gray.” Gāhāpetuṃ vaṭṭati means “it is permissible to have it plucked” as it does not inspire confidence.
In the story of the hair, when an incident arose in which “they have the hair in private parts removed. People are annoyed, ashamed, and disgusted, just like householders enjoying sensual pleasures,” because of the statement, “Monks,… (as before)… commits an offense of wrong-doing” (cūḷava. 275), the one who has it removed commits an offense. When a certain monk had a wound in a private part, and the medicine would not stay, because of this incident and the statement, “I allow, monks, due to illness, to have the hair in private parts removed” (cūḷava. 275), there is no offense for one who has the hair in private parts removed due to illness for the purpose of applying medicine. “Just like witches” due to people’s annoyance, because of the statement “Monks, long nostril hair should not be kept; whoever keeps it, commits an offense of wrong-doing” (cūḷava. 275), there is an offence due to keeping it. “I allow, monks, tweezers” - tweezers are allowed for the purpose of protection, therefore it is allowable to have nostril hair removed with tweezers. Palita means white hair. One should not grasp it because of the thought “May I not become old.” Becoming unsightly means becoming deformed. Whether it is white or not white, whether grey or not grey. It is appropriate to remove it as it causes disapproval.
In the discussion on hair, regarding the issue arising from removing hair from the private parts, it is said: “Monks, hair should not be removed from the private parts. Whoever does so commits an offense of wrong conduct” (Cūḷava. 275), indicating an offense for removing it. A certain monk had a wound in his private parts, and medicine would not stay there. Due to this reason, it is said: “I allow, monks, to remove hair from the private parts for the sake of applying medicine” (Cūḷava. 275), indicating no offense for removing hair for medicinal purposes. “Like a female goblin”—due to people’s criticism, it is said: “Monks, long nose hair should not be worn. Whoever wears it commits an offense of wrong conduct” (Cūḷava. 275), indicating an offense for wearing it. “I allow, monks, the use of tweezers”—tweezers are allowed for protection, so it is permissible to remove nose hair with tweezers. “Gray hair” refers to white hair. “It is not permissible to pluck”—thinking, “May I not grow old.” “Being repulsive” means becoming ugly. “Gray or non-gray” means white or non-white. “It is permissible to pluck”—due to causing displeasure.
ID1857
ID1858
41. Kāyabandhanakathāyaṃ akāyabandhanenāti abandhitakāyabandhanena. Bhikkhunāti seso. Atha vā akāyabandhanenāti abandhitakāyabandhano hutvāti itthambhūtatthe karaṇavacanaṃ yathā “bhinnena sīsena paggharantena lohitena paṭivisake ujjhāpesī”ti. Tenāha “abandhitvā nikkhamantena yattha sarati, tattha bandhitabba”nti. Kāyabandhanaṃ nāma cha kāyabandhanāni kalābukaṃ, deḍḍubhakaṃ, murajaṃ, maddavīṇaṃ, paṭṭikaṃ, sūkarantakanti. Tattha kalābukaṃ nāma bahurajjukaṃ. Deḍḍubhakaṃ nāma udakasappasīsasadisaṃ. Murajaṃ nāma murajavaṭṭisaṇṭhānaṃ veṭhetvā kataṃ. Maddavīṇaṃ nāma pāmaṅgasaṇṭhānaṃ. Īdisañhi ekampi na vaṭṭati, pageva bahūni. Tasmā paṭikkhittāni akappiyakāyabandhanāni nāma cattāri honti, paṭṭikaṃ, sūkarantakanti imāni dve kāyabandhanāni bhagavatā anuññātāni kappiyakāyabandhanāni nāma, tassa pakativītā vā macchakaṇṭakavāyimā vā paṭṭikā vaṭṭati, sesā kuñjaracchikādibhedā na vaṭṭati. Sūkarantakaṃ nāma kuñcikakosakasaṇṭhānaṃ hoti, ekarajjukaṃ, pana muddikakāyabandhanañca sūkarantakaṃ anulometi. Imehi pana dvīhi saddhiṃ aṭṭha kāyabandhanāni honti. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, murajaṃ maddavīṇa”nti idaṃ dasāsuyeva anuññātanti pāmaṅgadasā cettha catunnaṃ upari na vaṭṭati. Sobhakaṃ nāma veṭhetvā mukhavaṭṭisibbanaṃ. Guṇakaṃ nāma mudiṅgasaṇṭhānena sibbanaṃ. Evaṃ sibbitā hi anto thirā hontīti vuccati. Pavanantoti pāsanto vuccati. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 277-278) pana “muddikakāyabandhanaṃ nāma caturassaṃ akatvā sajjitaṃ . Pāmaṅgadasā caturassā. Mudiṅgasaṇṭhānenāti saṅghāṭiyā mudiṅgasibbanākārena varakasīsākārena. Pavanantoti pāsanto, ’dasāmūla’nti ca likhitaṃ. Akāyabandhanena sañcicca vā asañcicca vā gāmappavesane āpatti. Saritaṭṭhānato bandhitvā pavisitabbaṃ, nivattitabbaṃ vāti likhita”nti vuttaṃ.
41. In the discussion on body ties, akāyabandhanena means “without a body tie,” with “monk” implied. Alternatively, akāyabandhanena means “being without a body tie,” an instrumental expressing a state, as in “he annoyed the neighbors with a broken head dripping blood.” Thus, it says “abandhitvā nikkhamantena yattha sarati, tattha bandhitabba”, meaning “one going out without tying it should tie it where it is remembered.” Kāyabandhanaṃ means six body ties: kalābuka, deḍḍubhaka, muraja, maddavīṇa, paṭṭika, and sūkaranta. Here, kalābuka means one with many cords. Deḍḍubhaka means one like a water snake’s head. Muraja means one wound like a drum rim. Maddavīṇa means one shaped like a palm fruit. Even one of these is not permissible, let alone many. Thus, four impermissible body ties are prohibited; paṭṭika and sūkaranta, permitted by the Blessed One, are permissible body ties. For paṭṭika, one with natural thread or fishhook weave is permissible; elephant-tusk and other types are not. Sūkarantaka means one shaped like a key loop, with one cord, and a ring body tie aligns with it. With these two, there are eight body ties. “I allow, bhikkhus, muraja and maddavīṇa” was permitted only for a fringe, so a palm-fruit fringe beyond these four is not permissible. Sobhaka means winding and sewing the mouth rim. Guṇaka means sewing like a small drum. Such sewing makes it firm inside, it is said. Pavananto means the looped end. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 277-278), it says, “muddikakāyabandhanaṃ means one prepared without squaring. Pāmaṅgadasā means squared. Mudiṅgasaṇṭhānena means sewn like a small drum with the robe’s edge like a fine head. Pavananto means the looped end, also written as ‘root of ten.’ Entering a village without a body tie, intentionally or not, incurs an offense; it should be tied and entered or returned from where remembered.”
41. In the story of the waistband, without a waistband means without a tied waistband. The rest is ‘monk’. Or, without a waistband means being one who has not tied a waistband, a use of the instrumental case to mean ‘being thus’ just as in “with his head split, with blood flowing, he annoyed his neighbors”. Therefore, he stated: “going out without having tied it, he should tie it wherever he remembers”. Waistband means six waistbands: kalābuka, deḍḍubhaka, muraja, maddavīṇa, paṭṭika, and sūkaranta. Among them, kalābuka means having many strings. Deḍḍubhaka means like the head of a water snake. Muraja means made by winding in the shape of a muraja drum. Maddavīṇa means in the shape of a lute neck. Even one of these is not allowed, much less many. Therefore, there are four prohibited improper waistbands, paṭṭika, and sūkaranta, these two waistbands are allowed by the Blessed One as proper waistbands, the natural one or one woven like a fish bone or a paṭṭikā is allowable, the rest such as one with the forms of the slough of an elephant etc. is not allowed. Sūkarantaka means like the shape of a key box, one with a single string, but a muddika waistband also conforms to sūkaranta. But with these two, there are eight waistbands. “I allow, monks, a muraja, a maddavīṇa” this is allowed only for those with fringes, a fringe at the neck is not allowed above the four here. Sobhaka means sewing the mouth of the winding. Guṇaka means sewing in the shape of a mudiṅga drum. For, thus sewn, it is said that they are firm inside. Pavananto is said to be pāsanto. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 277-278), however, it is said, “a muddika waistband means one that is made without being squared. The fringe at the neck is squared. In the shape of a mudiṅga means like the sewing of a mudiṅga on a double-layered robe, in the shape of the head of a calf. Pavananto is pāsanto, and ‘the root of the fringe’ is also written. Entering a village either intentionally or unintentionally without a waistband is an offense. It should be tied from the place where one remembers and entered, or returned, it is written.”
41. In the discussion on body bindings, “without a body binding” means without tying a body binding. The rest refers to a monk. Alternatively, “without a body binding” means being without a tied body binding, as in the example: “With a broken head, blood flowing, he criticized his neighbors.” Therefore, it is said: “One should tie it wherever one remembers, before leaving.” “Body binding” refers to six types: the kalābuka, the deḍḍubhaka, the muraja, the maddavīṇa, the paṭṭika, and the sūkarantaka. Here, “kalābuka” means a multi-stranded cord. “Deḍḍubhaka” means resembling a water snake’s head. “Muraja” means made by wrapping in the shape of a muraja drum. “Maddavīṇa” means shaped like a pāmaṅga drum. Even one such item is not permissible, let alone many. Therefore, four are prohibited as unsuitable body bindings: the paṭṭika and the sūkarantaka. These two body bindings were allowed by the Blessed One as suitable body bindings. The paṭṭika is permissible if it is naturally smooth or has fish-scale patterns, but others like elephant skin are not permissible. “Sūkarantaka” means shaped like a keyhole, with a single cord, but the muddikakāyabandhana is also similar to the sūkarantaka. Including these, there are eight body bindings. “I allow, monks, the muraja and the maddavīṇa”—this refers only to the ten-stringed ones, and no more than four are permissible. “Sobhaka” means sewn in a circular shape around the mouth. “Guṇaka” means sewn in the shape of a mudiṅga drum. Thus sewn, they are firm inside. “Pavananto” means spreading. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 277-278), it is further explained: “Muddikakāyabandhana” means not made four-sided but adorned. “Pāmaṅgadasā” means four-sided. “Mudiṅgasaṇṭhāna” means sewn in the shape of a mudiṅga drum, like the head of a varaka. “Pavananto” means spreading, and “dasāmūla” is also written. Entering a village without a body binding, whether intentionally or unintentionally, is an offense. One should tie it where remembered before entering or turning back.
ID1859
ID1860
42. Nivāsanapārupanakathāyaṃ hatthisoṇḍādivasena gihinivatthaṃ na nivāsetabbanti ettha hatthisoṇḍakaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 280; kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. parimaṇḍalasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) nāma nābhimūlato hatthisoṇḍasaṇṭhānaṃ olambakaṃ katvā nivatthaṃ coḷikaitthīnaṃ nivāsanaṃ viya. Macchavāḷakaṃ nāma ekato dasantaṃ ekato pāsantaṃ olambitvā nivatthaṃ. Catukaṇṇakaṃ nāma uparito dve, heṭṭhato dveti evaṃ cattāro kaṇṇe dassetvā nivatthaṃ. Tālavaṇṭakaṃ nāma tālavaṇṭākārena sāṭakaṃ olambitvā nivāsanaṃ. Satavalikaṃ nāma dīghasāṭakaṃ anekakkhattuṃ obhujitvā ovaṭṭikaṃ karontena nivatthaṃ, vāmadakkhiṇapassesu vā nirantaraṃ valiyo dassetvā nivatthaṃ. Sace pana jāṇuto paṭṭhāya ekaṃ vā dve vā valiyo paññāyanti, vaṭṭati. Saṃvelliyaṃ nivāsentīti mallakammakārādayo viya kacchaṃ bandhitvā nivāsenti, evaṃ nivāsetuṃ gilānassapi maggappaṭipannassapi na vaṭṭati. Setapaṭapārutādivasena na gihipārutaṃ pārupitabbanti ettha yaṃ kiñci setapaṭapārutaṃ paribbājakapārutaṃ ekasāṭakapārutaṃ soṇḍapārutaṃ antepurikapārutaṃ mahājeṭṭhakapārutaṃ kuṭipavesakapārutaṃ brāhmaṇapārutaṃ pāḷikārakapārutanti evamādi parimaṇḍalalakkhaṇato aññathā pārutaṃ sabbametaṃ gihipārutaṃ nāma, tasmā yathā setapaṭā aḍḍhapālakanigaṇṭhā pārupanti, yathā ca ekacce paribbājakā uraṃ vivaritvā dvīsu aṃsakūṭesu pāvuraṇaṃ ṭhapenti, yathā ca ekasāṭakā manussā nivatthasāṭakassa ekena antena piṭṭhiṃ pārupitvā ubho kaṇṇe ubhosu aṃsakūṭesu ṭhapenti, yathā ca surāsoṇḍādayo sāṭakena gīvaṃ parikkhipitvā ubho ante ure vā olambenti, piṭṭhiyaṃ vā khipenti, yathā ca antepurikāyo akkhitārakamattaṃ dassetvā oguṇṭhikaṃ pārupanti, yathā ca mahājeṭṭhā dīghasāṭakaṃ nivāsetvā tasseva ekena antena sakalasarīraṃ pārupanti, yathā ca kassakā khettakuṭiṃ pavisantā sāṭakaṃ paliveṭhetvā upakacchake pakkhipitvā tasseva ekena antena sarīraṃ pārupanti, yathā ca brāhmaṇā ubhinnaṃ upakacchakānaṃ antare sāṭakaṃ pavesetvā aṃsakūṭesu pārupanti, yathā ca pāḷikārako bhikkhu ekaṃsapārupanena pārutaṃ vāmabāhuṃ vivaritvā cīvaraṃ aṃsakūṭe āropeti. Evaṃ apārupitvā sabbepi ete aññe ca evarūpe pārupanadose vajjetvā nibbikāraṃ parimaṇḍalaṃ pārupitabbaṃ. Tathā apārupitvā ārāme vā antaraghare vā anādarena yaṃ kiñci vikāraṃ karontassa dukkaṭaṃ.
42. In the discussion on wearing and covering, it is said: “One should not wear the clothing of a layperson in the manner of an elephant’s trunk and so forth.” Here, hatthisoṇḍakaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 280; kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. parimaṇḍalasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) refers to a garment worn hanging down from the base of the navel in the shape of an elephant’s trunk, like the clothing of women made of cloth strips. Macchavāḷakaṃ refers to a garment worn with one end pointed and the other looped, hanging down. Catukaṇṇakaṃ refers to a garment worn displaying four corners—two above and two below. Tālavaṇṭakaṃ refers to a garment worn hanging down in the shape of a palm fan. Satavalikaṃ refers to a long garment folded multiple times into a circular shape and worn, or worn with continuous folds visible on the left and right sides. However, if one or two folds appear from the knee downward, it is permissible. “They wear it as saṃvelliyaṃ” means tying the waist like wrestlers or workers; even for the sick or those traveling, such a manner of wearing is not allowed. It is also said: “One should not cover oneself with the covering of a layperson, such as a white cloth and so forth.” Here, any covering such as a white cloth (setapaṭapārutaṃ), a wanderer’s covering, a single-cloth covering, a drunkard’s covering, a palace woman’s covering, a senior merchant’s covering, a field hut entrant’s covering, a brahmin’s covering, or a monk’s covering in a textual style—all these, when worn in a way contrary to the characteristic of being evenly arranged (parimaṇḍala), are called gihipārutaṃ (layperson’s covering). Thus, just as those with white cloths cover themselves like half-covered ascetics, or some wanderers expose their chests and place the upper robe on both shoulders, or those with a single cloth cover their backs with one end of the worn cloth and place both corners on both shoulders, or drunkards and the like wrap their necks with a cloth and let both ends hang over their chests or throw them over their backs, or palace women cover themselves with a veil showing only the size of a star, or senior merchants wear a long cloth and cover their entire body with one end of it, or farmers entering a field hut wrap a cloth around their armpits and cover their body with one end of it, or brahmins pass a cloth between both armpits and cover their shoulders, or a monk in a textual style exposes the left arm covered with one shoulder and places the robe over the shoulder—all these should not be worn in such ways. Avoiding all such faults in covering and any others of this kind, one should cover oneself evenly (parimaṇḍala) without distortion. Likewise, for one who, without covering properly, makes any distortion carelessly in a monastery or within a village, there is an offense of wrongdoing (dukkaṭaṃ).
42. In the account of dressing and covering, “one should not dress like a layperson, with styles like hatthisoṇḍa, etc.,” here, hatthisoṇḍakaṃ (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 280; Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Parimaṇḍalasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) refers to a style of dressing where a piece of cloth hangs down from the navel like an elephant’s trunk, similar to the dressing of coḷika women. Macchavāḷakaṃ refers to dressing with one end hanging down on one side and one end on the side. Catukaṇṇakaṃ refers to dressing showing four corners, two above and two below. Tālavaṇṭakaṃ refers to dressing by draping the cloth in the shape of a palmyra leaf fan. Satavalikaṃ refers to dressing with a long cloth that is repeatedly folded and made into a roll, or dressing by showing continuous folds on the left and right sides. But if one or two folds are visible from the knees downwards, it is permissible. Saṃvelliyaṃ nivāsentī means to dress by tying the kaccha like wrestlers and others; it is not permitted to dress in this way even for the sick or for those on a journey. “One should not cover oneself like a layperson, with styles like covering with a white cloth, etc.,” here, whatever is covered with a white cloth, covered like an ascetic, covered with a single cloth, covered in the soṇḍa style, covered like those in the inner palace, covered like the chief elder, covered on entering a hut, covered like a Brahmin, covered like a pāḷikāraka, and so on, anything covered differently from the circular fashion is called covering like a layperson. Therefore, just as the setapaṭa Aḍḍhapālaka Nigaṇṭhas cover themselves, and just as some ascetics cover themselves by opening their chest and placing their garment on both shoulders, and just as single-clothed people cover their backs with one end of their lower garment and place both corners on both shoulders, and just as drunkards and others wrap their necks with a cloth and either hang both ends on their chest or throw them on their back, and just as women in the inner palace cover themselves leaving only the pupils of their eyes visible like a veil, and just as chief elders dress with a long cloth and cover their whole body with one end of it, and just as farmers entering a field hut wrap their cloth, put it in their armpit, and cover their body with one end of it, and just as Brahmins insert their cloth between both armpits and cover their shoulders, and just as a bhikkhu who is a pāḷikāraka covers himself with the ekansapārupana method, exposes his left arm, and places the robe on his shoulder, not covering in these ways, but avoiding all these and other such faults of covering, one should cover in a circular fashion without any distortion. If, without covering in such a manner, one acts carelessly either in a monastery or inside a house, making some distortion, there is an offence of wrong-doing (dukkaṭa).
42. In the discussion on robes and upper garments, one should not wear lay clothing resembling an elephant’s trunk, etc. Here, hatthisoṇḍaka (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 280; Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī Aṭṭhakathā, Parimaṇḍala Sikkhāpada Vaṇṇanā) refers to a garment that hangs down from the navel in the shape of an elephant’s trunk, similar to the undergarments worn by women. Macchavāḷaka refers to a garment with one end hanging down like a fish’s tail and the other end spread out. Catukaṇṇaka refers to a garment with four corners, two above and two below. Tālavaṇṭaka refers to a garment hanging down in the shape of a palm leaf. Satavalika refers to a long garment folded many times to create pleats, or a garment with continuous folds on both sides. If one or two folds are visible from the knee, it is acceptable. Wearing a tightly wrapped garment like wrestlers or laborers do by tying it around the waist is not permissible, even for the sick or those on a journey. One should not wear lay clothing resembling a white cloth, etc. Here, any garment worn by laypeople that deviates from the parimaṇḍala (properly wrapped) characteristic, such as a white cloth, a wanderer’s garment, a single-piece garment, a garment resembling a trunk, a garment worn by palace women, a garment worn by elders, a garment worn by farmers, a Brahmin’s garment, or a garment worn by a servant, is called gihipāruta (lay clothing). Therefore, just as the white-clad ascetics wear half-covered garments, some wanderers leave their chest exposed and drape the garment over both shoulders, some single-cloth wearers wrap one end of the garment around their back and place both ends on the shoulders, some drunkards wrap the garment around their neck and let both ends hang on the chest or throw them over the back, some palace women cover themselves leaving only the eyes visible, some elders wear a long garment and wrap the entire body with one end, some farmers entering a field hut wrap the garment around their waist and tuck it into the armpits, some Brahmins insert the garment between both armpits and drape it over the shoulders, and some servants wear the robe leaving one shoulder bare and drape the robe over the shoulder—all these should be avoided. One should wear the robe properly wrapped without any alterations. If one disregards this and makes any improper adjustments in the monastery or in a village, it is an offense of wrongdoing (dukkaṭa).
ID1861
ID1862
43. Kājakathāyaṃ muṇḍaveṭhīti yathā rañño kuhiñci gacchanto parikkhārabhaṇḍaggahaṇamanussāti adhippāyo. Ubhatokājanti ekasmiṃyeva kāje purato ca pacchato ca ubhosu bhāgesu laggetvā vahitabbabhāraṃ. Ekatokājanti ekato pacchatoyeva laggetvā vahitabbabhāraṃ. Antarākājanti majjhe laggetvā dvīhi vahitabbabhāraṃ. Sīsabhārādayo sīsādīhi vahitabbabhārādayo eva. Olambakanti hatthena olambitvā vahitabbabhāraṃ. Etesu ubhatokājameva na vaṭṭati, sesā vaṭṭanti.
43. In the discussion on loads, muṇḍaveṭhī refers to something like a headband, as if implying attendants carrying the king’s equipment when he goes somewhere. Ubhatokāja refers to a load attached to both the front and back of a single pole for carrying. Ekatokāja refers to a load attached only to the rear side for carrying. Antarākāja refers to a load attached in the middle for carrying by two people. Sīsabhārā and the like refer to loads carried on the head and so forth. Olambaka refers to a load carried by hand, hanging down. Among these, only ubhatokāja is not permissible; the rest are allowed.
43. In the account of carrying poles, muṇḍaveṭhī is as intended for the king when going somewhere, the person carrying his belongings. Ubhatokāja means a load to be carried by attaching it on both the front and back parts of a single carrying pole. Ekatokāja means a load to be carried by attaching it only to the back end. Antarākāja means a load to be carried by two people, attaching it in the middle. Sīsabhārā and the rest are simply loads to be carried on the head and so on. Olambaka means a load to be carried by hanging it in the hand. Among these, only the ubhatokāja is not permitted, the rest are permitted.
43. In the discussion on carrying poles, muṇḍaveṭhī refers to those who carry the king’s belongings when he travels. Ubhatokāja refers to a load carried by placing it on both ends of a single pole, front and back. Ekatokāja refers to a load carried by placing it on one end of the pole, either front or back. Antarākāja refers to a load carried by placing it in the middle of the pole. Sīsabhārā refers to loads carried on the head, etc. Olambaka refers to a load carried by hanging it from the hand. Among these, only the ubhatokāja is not permissible; the rest are permissible.
ID1863
ID1864
44. Dantakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ dantakaṭṭhassa akhādane pañca dose, khādane pañcānisaṃse ca dassetvā bhagavatā bhikkhūnaṃ dantakaṭṭhaṃ anuññātaṃ. Tattha pañca dosā nāma acakkhussaṃ, mukhaṃ duggandhaṃ, rasaharaṇiyo na visujjhanti, pittaṃ semhaṃ bhattaṃ pariyonandhati, bhattamassa nacchādetīti. Tattha acakkhussanti cakkhūnaṃ hitaṃ na hoti, parihāniṃ janeti. Nacchādetīti na ruccati. Pañcānisaṃsā vuttapaṭipakkhato veditabbā. Tato dīghadantakaṭṭhakhādane ca atimadāhakadantakaṭṭhakhādane ca dukkaṭaṃ paññapetvā aṭṭhaṅgulaparamaṃ caturaṅgulapacchimaṃ dantakaṭṭhaṃ anuññātaṃ. Tattha aṭṭhaṅgulaṃ paramaṃ etassa dantakaṭṭhassāti aṭṭhaṅgulaparamaṃ. Caturaṅgulaṃ pacchimaṃ pamāṇaṃ etassa dantakaṭṭhassāti caturaṅgulapacchimaṃ. Atimadāhakanti atikhuddakaṃ. Aṭṭhaṅgulaṃ mahādantakaṭṭhaṃ nāma, caturaṅgulaṃ khuddakadantakaṭṭhaṃ nāma, pañcachasattaṅgulaṃ majjhimadantakaṭṭhaṃ nāma. Tena vuttaṃ “duvidhena udakena tividhena dantakaṭṭhenā”ti. “Aṭṭhaṅgulaparamanti manussānaṃ pamāṇaṅgulena aṭṭhaṅgulaparama”nti aṭṭhakathāya (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 282) māha.
44. In the discussion on tooth-sticks, the Blessed One permitted monks to use tooth-sticks, showing five disadvantages of not chewing them and five benefits of chewing them. Here, the five disadvantages are: harm to the eyes (acakkhussaṃ), bad breath (mukhaṃ duggandhaṃ), unclean taste channels (rasaharaṇiyo na visujjhanti), bile, phlegm, and food being obstructed (pittaṃ semhaṃ bhattaṃ pariyonandhati), and lack of enjoyment of food (bhattamassa nacchādeti). In this context, acakkhussaṃ means it is not beneficial to the eyes and causes deterioration. Nacchādeti means it is not pleasing. The five benefits should be understood as the opposites of those stated. Furthermore, an offense of wrongdoing (dukkaṭaṃ) was established for chewing a tooth-stick that is too long or too harsh, and a tooth-stick of a maximum of eight finger-widths (aṭṭhaṅgulaparamaṃ) and a minimum of four finger-widths (caturaṅgulapacchimaṃ) was permitted. Here, aṭṭhaṅgulaparamaṃ means eight finger-widths is the maximum size of this tooth-stick. Caturaṅgulapacchimaṃ means four finger-widths is the minimum measure of this tooth-stick. Atimadāhaka means excessively small. A tooth-stick of eight finger-widths is called a large tooth-stick, one of four finger-widths a small tooth-stick, and one of five, six, or seven finger-widths a medium tooth-stick. Hence it is said: “With two kinds of water and three kinds of tooth-sticks.” The commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 282) states: “Aṭṭhaṅgulaparamaṃ means a maximum of eight finger-widths according to human measure.”
44. In the account of tooth-sticks, having shown five disadvantages of not chewing a tooth-stick and five advantages of chewing it, the Blessed One allowed tooth-sticks for the bhikkhus. Here, the five disadvantages are: it is not beneficial for the eyes (acakkhussaṃ), the mouth is foul-smelling, the taste receptors are not cleansed, phlegm and mucus cover the food, and the food is not appealing (nacchādeti). Here, acakkhussa means it is not good for the eyes, it causes deterioration. Nacchādetī means it is not liked. The five advantages should be understood as the opposites of what has been stated. Then, having prescribed an offence of wrong-doing (dukkaṭa) for chewing a long tooth-stick and for chewing an excessively small tooth-stick, a tooth-stick that is a maximum of eight fingerbreadths and a minimum of four fingerbreadths was allowed. Here, eight fingerbreadths are the maximum for this tooth-stick, thus it is aṭṭhaṅgulaparamaṃ. Four fingerbreadths are the minimum size for this tooth-stick, thus it is caturaṅgulapacchimaṃ. Atimadāhaka means excessively small. A tooth-stick of eight fingerbreadths is called a large tooth-stick, a tooth-stick of four fingerbreadths is called a small tooth-stick, and a tooth-stick of five, six, or seven fingerbreadths is called a medium tooth-stick. Therefore, it is said, “with two kinds of water and three kinds of tooth-sticks”. **“Aṭṭhaṅgulaparama** means a maximum of eight fingerbreadths according to the standard fingerbreadth of humans,” thus it is said in the commentary (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 282).
44. In the discussion on tooth-cleaning sticks, the Buddha, after explaining the five faults of not using a tooth-cleaning stick and the five benefits of using one, allowed the monks to use tooth-cleaning sticks. The five faults are: it is not beneficial for the eyes, the mouth becomes foul, the taste buds do not function properly, bile and phlegm cover the food, and the food does not become appetizing. Here, acakkhussa means it is not beneficial for the eyes and causes deterioration. Nacchādeti means the food does not become appetizing. The five benefits should be understood as the opposite of the faults. Then, the Buddha established a wrongdoing (dukkaṭa) for using tooth-cleaning sticks that are too long or too short and allowed tooth-cleaning sticks to be no longer than eight fingers and no shorter than four fingers. Here, aṭṭhaṅgulaparamaṃ means the maximum length of the tooth-cleaning stick is eight fingers. Caturaṅgulapacchimaṃ means the minimum length is four fingers. Atimadāhaka means too small. A tooth-cleaning stick of eight fingers is called a large tooth-cleaning stick, four fingers is called a small tooth-cleaning stick, and five to seven fingers is called a medium tooth-cleaning stick. Hence, it is said, “With two kinds of water and three kinds of tooth-cleaning sticks.” “Aṭṭhaṅgulaparamaṃ” means, according to the commentary (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 282), “the maximum length is eight fingers according to the standard finger measurement of humans.”
ID1865
Ettha ca pamāṇaṅgulenāti idaṃ pakatiaṅgulenāti gahetvā manussānaṃ pakatiaṅgulena aṭṭhaṅgulato adhikappamāṇaṃ dantakaṭṭhaṃ na vaṭṭatīti vadanti. Tattakameva ca katvā khādanti. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana “manussānaṃ pamāṇaṅgulena” icceva vuttaṃ, na “pakatiaṅgulenā”ti. Tasmā yaṃ vaḍḍhakihatthato aṅgulaṃ pamāṇaṃ katvā manussā gehādīni minanti, tena manussānaṃ pamāṇaṅgulabhūtena vaḍḍhakiaṅgulena aṭṭhaṅgulaparamanti attho gahetabbo. Vuttañhi sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.280-282) “pamāṇaṅgulenāti vaḍḍhakiaṅgulaṃ sandhāya vutta”nti. Vimativinodaniyañca (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.282) “pamāṇaṅgulenāti vaḍḍhakiaṅgulena, keci pana ’pakatiaṅgulenā’ti vadanti, taṃ caturaṅgulapacchimavacanena sameti. Na hi pakatiaṅgulena caturaṅgulappamāṇaṃ dantakaṭṭhaṃ kaṇṭhe avilaggaṃ khādituṃ sakkā”ti.
Here, pamāṇaṅgulena is taken to mean “with a standard finger-width,” and they say that a tooth-stick exceeding eight finger-widths according to the standard human finger-width is not permissible. They chew it only up to that size. However, in the commentary, it is simply stated “with human measure finger-widths” and not “with a standard finger-width.” Therefore, it should be understood that the measure is eight finger-widths according to the carpenter’s finger-width (vaḍḍhakiaṅgula), which is the human measure finger-width used by people to measure houses and the like. For it is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.280-282): “Pamāṇaṅgulena refers to the carpenter’s finger-width.” And in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.282): “Pamāṇaṅgulena means with the carpenter’s finger-width; some say ‘with a standard finger-width,’ which aligns with the statement about the minimum of four finger-widths. For it is not possible to chew a tooth-stick of four finger-widths by standard measure without it sticking in the throat.”
And here, taking pamāṇaṅgulenā as ‘with the standard fingerbreadth’, they say that a tooth-stick exceeding eight fingerbreadths of a human’s standard fingerbreadth is not permitted. And they make and chew them only that much. But in the commentary, it is only said “with the standard fingerbreadth of humans,” not “with the standard fingerbreadth”. Therefore, the meaning should be taken as a maximum of eight fingerbreadths according to the carpenter’s fingerbreadth, which is used as the standard fingerbreadth by humans for measuring houses and so on. For it is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 3.280-282), “Pamāṇaṅgulenā** is said referring to the carpenter’s fingerbreadth.” And in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 2.282) it is said, ”Pamāṇaṅgulenā** means with the carpenter’s fingerbreadth. But some say, ‘with the standard fingerbreadth’, which agrees with the statement of a minimum of four fingerbreadths. For it is not possible to chew a tooth-stick four fingerbreadths long according to the standard fingerbreadth without it getting stuck in the throat.”
Here, pamāṇaṅgulena refers to the standard finger measurement, meaning a tooth-cleaning stick longer than eight fingers is not permissible. However, the commentary states “according to the standard finger measurement of humans,” not “according to the natural finger measurement.” Therefore, the meaning should be understood as the measurement of a carpenter’s finger, which is used to measure houses, etc., and is considered the standard finger measurement of humans. As stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha Ṭīkā, Cūḷavagga 3.280-282), “pamāṇaṅgulena” refers to the carpenter’s finger. The Vimativinodanī (Vimati Vinodanī Ṭīkā, Cūḷavagga 2.282) also states, “pamāṇaṅgulena” means the carpenter’s finger, though some say it refers to the natural finger measurement, which aligns with the minimum measurement of four fingers. For it is not possible to chew a tooth-cleaning stick of four fingers’ length without it touching the throat if measured by the natural finger.
ID1866
ID1867
45. Rukkhārohanakathāyaṃ puriso pamāṇo yassa rukkhassāti poriso, uddhaṃ ukkhipitahatthena saddhiṃ manussakāyappamāṇo pañcahatthamattaucco rukkhapadeso, taṃ porisaṃ rukkhaṃ, avayave samudāyavohāro yathā “samuddo diṭṭho”ti, ābhuso padanti gacchanti pavattantīti āpadā, parissayā. Yāva attho atthi etasmiṃ rukkheti yāvadattho, rukkho, attha-saddo payojanavācako. Yāva tasmiṃ rukkhe bhikkhussa attho payojanaṃ atthi, tāva abhiruhitabboti adhippāyo. Sesaṃ suviññeyyameva.
45. In the discussion on climbing trees, poriso means a man as the measure of a tree; a tree region about five hand-spans tall, including a man’s body with raised hands, is called porisaṃ rukkhaṃ. The term is used for the whole based on its parts, as in “the ocean is seen.” Āpadā means dangers, as they arise and occur. Yāvadattho means “as long as there is purpose in this tree”; the word “attha” signifies purpose. The meaning is that a monk may climb it as long as there is a purpose or benefit in that tree. The rest is easily understood.
45. In the account of climbing trees, poriso means the height of a tree that is the measure of a man, poriso, a tree region as high as a man’s body with his hand raised upwards, about five hatthas high, that is a porisaṃ tree, using the term for the whole to refer to a part, like “the ocean has been seen.” Ābhuso padanti means they go, they proceed, thus āpadā, dangers. As long as there is a need in this tree, that is yāvadattho, the tree, the word attha means purpose. The meaning is that one should climb as long as there is a need or purpose for the bhikkhu in that tree. The rest is easily understood.
45. In the discussion on climbing trees, poriso refers to a tree that is as tall as a person, measured by raising the hand above the head, approximately five cubits high. Porisaṃ rukkhaṃ refers to such a tree. The collective term for its parts is like saying “the ocean is seen.” Āpadā refers to dangers. Yāvadattho means as long as there is a purpose for the monk in climbing the tree. The rest is easy to understand.
ID1868
ID1869
46. Chandāropanakathāyaṃ chandasoti sakkaṭabhāsāya. Na āropetabbanti vācanāmaggaṃ na āropetabbaṃ. Sakāya niruttiyāti māgadhabhāsāya. Tattha santehi katāti sakkaṭā, aṭṭhakavāmakādīhi samitapāpehi isīhi katāti attho. Atha vā sakkaritabbā pūjitabbāti sakkaṭā manussānaṃ hitasukhāvahanato, tadatthikehi manussehi pūjitabbāti attho. Bhāsīyateti bhāsā, sakkaṭā ca sā bhāsā cāti sakkaṭabhāsā. Vedattayagatā nirutti, sassa esāti sakā, bhagavato vacanantyattho. Magadhe jātā māgadhikā, ādikappakāle magadharaṭṭhe jātāti attho. Uccateti utti, nīharitvā utti nirutti, piṭakattayato nīharitvā kathīyatetyattho. Vuttañhetaṃ porāṇehi –
46. In the discussion on teaching by consent, chandaso means in the Sanskrit language (sakkaṭabhāsāya). Na āropetabbaṃ means it should not be taught in the way of recitation. Sakāya niruttiyā means in the Māgadhī language. Here, sakkaṭā means made by the competent ones, meaning created by sages like the authors of the eightfold verses who eradicated evil; or it means worthy of reverence and honor by people for bringing them welfare and happiness. Bhāsā means language, so sakkaṭabhāsā is the Sanskrit language. Sakā means belonging to him, referring to the Blessed One’s speech. Māgadhikā means born in Magadha, originating in the Magadha region at the beginning of the eon. Nirutti means expression, derived and explained from the threefold scriptures. This has been stated by the ancients:
46. In the account of reciting in a chanting tone, chandaso means in the Sanskrit language. Na āropetabba means it should not be rendered into a chanting melody. Sakāya niruttiyā means in the Magadhan language. Here, sakkaṭā means made by the good, meaning made by the sages free from evil, like aṭṭhakavāmaka and others. Or else, sakkaṭā means worthy of respect and veneration because it brings benefit and happiness to humans, meaning worthy of veneration by humans who seek that. Bhāsīyateti bhāsā, sakkaṭā ca sā bhāsā cāti sakkaṭabhāsā, the language of Sanskrit. The language found in the three Vedas, sassa esāti sakā, means the Blessed One’s words. Born in Magadha, thus māgadhikā, meaning born in the Magadha country in the beginning of the kappa. Uccateti utti, extracting and saying, nirutti, meaning extracted and spoken from the three piṭakas. It is said by the ancients:
46. In the discussion on adopting a dialect, chandaso refers to the Sakkaṭa language. Na āropetabbaṃ means one should not adopt the way of speaking. Sakāya niruttiyā refers to the Māgadha language. Here, sakkaṭā means made by the virtuous, such as the Aṭṭhakavāmaka and other sinless sages. Alternatively, it means worthy of respect and honor because it brings welfare and happiness to humans. Sakkaṭabhāsā means the language spoken by the Sakkaṭa people. Sakā refers to the Buddha’s own language. Māgadhikā means originating in Magadha. Nirutti means the language extracted from the three Piṭakas. As stated by the ancients: “That Māgadhī is the root language; it was spoken by humans in the beginning; the Brahmins spoke it; and the Buddhas also spoke it.” The rest is easy to understand.
ID1870
“Sā māgadhī mūlabhāsā; Narā yāyādikappikā; Brahmāno cāssutālāpā; Sambuddhā cāpi bhāsare”ti.
“The Māgadhī is the root language; it was used by people at the beginning of the eon; the Brahmas speak without sound; and the Fully Awakened Ones also speak it.”
“That Magadhi is the root language; humans in the beginning of the kappa; Brahmās and those who have not heard sounds; and the Buddhas also speak (it).”
“That Māgadhī is the root language; it was spoken by humans in the beginning; the Brahmins spoke it; and the Buddhas also spoke it.”
ID1871
Sesaṃ suviññeyyameva.
The rest is easily understood.
The rest is easily understood.
The rest is easy to understand.
ID1872
ID1873
47. Lokāyatakathāyaṃ lokiyanti patiṭṭhahanti puññāpuññāni tabbipāko cāti loko, sattaloko. Ābhuso yatanti vīriyaṃ karonti etthāti āyataṃ, lokassa āyataṃ lokāyataṃ, sattānaṃ bhuso vīriyakaraṇaṭṭhānantyattho. Kiṃ taṃ? Titthiyasatthaṃ. Sabbaṃ ucchiṭṭhaṃ, kasmā? Sakuṇādīhi paribhuttapubbattā. Sabbaṃ anucchiṭṭhaṃ imassa avasesabhojanassa kenaci aparibhuttapubbattā. Seto kāko aṭṭhissa setattā, kāḷo bako pādassa kāḷattāti. Natthi attho etthāti niratthakaṃ, niratthakameva kāraṇaṃ niratthakakāraṇaṃ. Tena paṭisaṃyuttaṃ niratthakakāraṇapaṭisaṃyuttaṃ. Taranti etthāti titthaṃ, paṭṭanaṃ. Titthaṃ viyāti titthaṃ, laddhi, taṃ etesaṃ atthīti titthiyā, viparītadassanā. Sāsanti attano sāvake etthāti satthaṃ, titthiyānaṃ satthaṃ titthiyasatthaṃ. Na tiracchānavijjā pariyāpuṇitabbāti ettha tiracchānavijjā nāma yā kāci bāhirakā anatthasañhitā. Na pariyāpuṇitabbāti attanā na pariyāpuṇitabbā. Na vācetabbāti paresaṃ na vācetabbā. Sesaṃ suviññeyyameva.
47. In the discussion on materialist views, loko means the world where merits and demerits and their results are established—the world of beings. Āyataṃ means where great effort is exerted; lokāyataṃ means pertaining to the world, the place of great effort by beings. What is it? The doctrine of the sectarians (titthiyasatthaṃ). Sabbaṃ ucchiṭṭhaṃ—why? Because it has been previously consumed by birds and the like. Sabbaṃ anucchiṭṭhaṃ—because this remaining food has not been consumed by anyone. Seto kāko—because its bones are white; kāḷo bako—because its feet are black. Niratthakaṃ means meaningless; niratthakakāraṇaṃ means a meaningless reason. Niratthakakāraṇapaṭisaṃyuttaṃ means connected with a meaningless reason. Titthaṃ means a ford, a landing place; figuratively, a doctrine (laddhi); titthiyā means sectarians, those with perverse views. Satthaṃ means a teaching, as they instruct their disciples with it; titthiyasatthaṃ is the doctrine of the sectarians. Na tiracchānavijjā pariyāpuṇitabbā—here, tiracchānavijjā means any external knowledge that is unbeneficial. Na pariyāpuṇitabbā means it should not be learned by oneself. Na vācetabbā means it should not be taught to others. The rest is easily understood.
47. In the account of Lokāyata, lokiyanti patiṭṭhahanti meaning good and bad deeds and their results abide, loko, the world of beings. Ābhuso yatanti meaning they exert effort, thus, āyataṃ. Lokassa āyataṃ lokāyataṃ, meaning the place where beings frequently exert effort. What is that? The Titthiya doctrine. Sabbaṃ ucchiṭṭhaṃ, why? Because it has been previously consumed by birds and others. Sabbaṃ anucchiṭṭhaṃ because this remainder of food has not been previously consumed by anyone. Seto kāko because of the whiteness of its bones, kāḷo bako because of the blackness of its feet. There is no meaning in this, thus niratthakaṃ, niratthakakāraṇaṃ. Connected with that, niratthakakāraṇapaṭisaṃyuttaṃ. They cross here, thus titthaṃ, a landing place. Titthaṃ viyāti titthaṃ, a doctrine, those who have that are titthiyā, those with wrong views. They teach their disciples here, thus satthaṃ, the doctrine of the titthiyās is titthiyasatthaṃ. Na tiracchānavijjā pariyāpuṇitabbā, here, tiracchānavijjā is any external knowledge that is unbeneficial. Na pariyāpuṇitabbā means one should not master it oneself. Na vācetabbā means one should not teach it to others. The rest is easily understood.
47. In the discussion on worldly arts, lokāyataṃ refers to the world of beings, where actions and their results are established. Lokāyataṃ means the exertion of effort in this world, the place where beings exert effort. What is it? The doctrines of the heretics. All is impure because it has been consumed by birds, etc. All is pure because the remainder of the food has not been consumed by anyone. A white crow is white due to its bones, and a black heron is black due to its feet. There is no meaning here, so it is meaningless. Meaningless actions are niratthakakāraṇapaṭisaṃyuttaṃ. Tittha means a ford, a landing place. Titthiya refers to those who hold wrong views. Titthiyasatthaṃ refers to the doctrines of the heretics. One should not learn animal arts—here, tiracchānavijjā refers to any external knowledge that is not beneficial. One should not learn it oneself, nor teach it to others. The rest is easy to understand.
ID1874
ID1875
48. Khipitakathāyaṃ khipīyitthāti khipito. Khipi abyattasaddeti dhātu. Bhāvenabhāvalakkhaṇattā tasmiṃ khipiteti vibhatyantaṃ. “Yasmiṃ kismiñci puggale”ti lakkhaṇavantakattā ajjhāharitabbo. Jīvāti jīva pāṇadhāraṇeti dhātu, vibhattilopo. Yasmiṃ kismiñci puggale khipite bhikkhunā “jīvā”ti vacanaṃ na vattabbaṃ, bhikkhusmiṃ khipite gihinā “jīvatha bhante”ti vuccamāne sati “ciraṃ jīvā”ti bhikkhunā vattuṃ vaṭṭatīti yojanā. “Vuccamāne”ti ettha pana lakkhaṇassa kammavācakattā tena samānādhikaraṇaṃ kammabhūtaṃ “bhikkhusmi”nti lakkhaṇavantakammaṃ ajjhāharitabbaṃ yathā kiṃ “gosu duyhamānāsu puriso āgato”ti . Apare pana ācariyā īdisesu ṭhānesu “santesū”ti padaṃ ajjhāharitvā idameva lakkhaṇapadaṃ, “gosu duyhamānāsū”ti padadvayaṃ pana “santesū”ti ettha pakativikativasena kattā evāti vadanti, vīmaṃsitvā gahetabbaṃ.
48. In the discussion on sneezing, khipito means one who sneezes, from the root “khipi,” meaning to make an inarticulate sound, with the suffix indicating a state. “In any person” should be inferred due to its defining characteristic. Jīvā means “live,” from the root meaning to sustain life, with the suffix omitted. When any person sneezes, a monk should not say jīvā; but when a monk sneezes and a layperson says “Live long, venerable sir,” it is permissible for the monk to say “May you live long.” In “when it is said,” due to the characteristic of being an action’s object, the object “in a monk” should be inferred as co-referential with it, as in “when the cows are being milked, a man arrives.” However, some teachers infer the word “existing” in such cases and say that this characteristic phrase and the phrase “when the cows are being milked” relate to “existing” as the subject in its natural and modified forms; this should be examined and understood.
48. In the account of sneezing, khipīyitthāti khipito. The root is khipi abyattasaddeti. Due to its marking action as a state, khipite is the inflected form. ‘When any person’ should be supplied because it signifies the agent. Jīvāti the root is jīva pāṇadhāraṇeti, with the omission of the inflection. When any person sneezes, a bhikkhu should not say, “jīvā”. When a layperson says “Jīvatha bhante” to a bhikkhu who has sneezed, it is permissible for the bhikkhu to say, “Ciraṃ jīvā”. This is the explanation. In “Vuccamāne” since, in this case, marks an action, in grammatical agreement with its action, is the action-object ‘bhikkhusmi’. The full phrase containing the implied meaning is: ‘When a bhikkhu is addressed…’. This is like ‘When the cows are being milked, the man arrived’. Some other teachers, however, in such cases, do not imply the word ‘santesū’ but say that this very word which indicates the action, the two words ‘gosu duyhamānāsū’, are the doer in the form of ‘being’ and ‘becoming’ in relation to ‘santesū’, this should be considered carefully.
48. In the discussion on throwing, khipīyitthā means thrown. Khipi is an irregular root. Because it indicates the state of being thrown, the term khipite is used. “In whatever person” refers to the characteristic of being thrown. Jīvā means life, the sustaining of life. In whatever person is thrown, a monk should not say, “Live!” If a layperson says to a monk, “Live long, venerable sir,” the monk may reply, “May you live long.” Here, “being said” refers to the characteristic of the action, and the term “bhikkhusmiṃ” should be understood as the object of the action, as in “when the cows are being milked, a man comes.” Some teachers interpret such cases by adding the word “santesu” and consider the two words “gosu duyhamānāsū” as “santesu,” meaning the subject is the same. This should be carefully considered.
ID1876
ID1877
49. Lasuṇakathāyaṃ “lasuṇaṃ nāma māgadhaka”nti (pāci. 795) pāḷiyaṃ āgataṃ. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pāci. aṭṭha. 795) pana “māgadhakanti magadhesu jātaṃ. Magadharaṭṭhe jātalasuṇameva hi idha lasuṇanti adhippetaṃ, tampi bhaṇḍikalasuṇameva, na ekadvitimiñjakaṃ. Kurundiyaṃ pana ’jātidesaṃ avatvā ’māgadhakaṃ nāma bhaṇḍikalasuṇa’nti vutta”nti vuttaṃ. Sace dve tayo bhaṇḍike ekatoyeva saṅkharitvā ajjhoharati, ekaṃ pācittiyaṃ. Bhinditvā ekekaṃ miñjaṃ khādantiyā pana payogagaṇanāya pācittiyāni, idaṃ bhikkhunīnaṃ vasena pācittiyaṃ, bhikkhussa pana dukkaṭaṃ.
49. In the discussion on garlic, it is stated in the text (pāci. 795): “Lasuṇaṃ nāma māgadhakaṃ.” In the commentary (pāci. aṭṭha. 795), “māgadhakaṃ means grown in Magadha. Here, garlic refers only to that grown in the Magadha region, specifically bulb garlic (bhaṇḍikalasuṇaṃ), not one or two-cloved garlic. In the Kurundī, it is said without specifying the place of origin: ‘Māgadhakaṃ means bulb garlic.’” If one cooks two or three bulbs together and consumes them, it is one offense of expiation (pācittiyaṃ). However, for one who breaks it apart and eats each clove separately, the offenses of expiation are counted by the acts; this applies to nuns as an offense of expiation, but for a monk, it is an offense of wrongdoing (dukkaṭaṃ).
49. In the account of garlic, “garlic is called māgadhaka” (Pāci. 795) is stated in the Pāḷi. But in the commentary (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 795), **“māgadhaka** means grown in Magadha. Indeed, only the garlic grown in the Magadha country is meant here by garlic, and that too is only the clustered garlic, not the one with single or double cloves. But in the Kurundi, it is said, ‘without specifying the type or region, ’māgadhaka’ means clustered garlic’.” If one consumes two or three clusters together at once, it is one pācittiya offense. But if one breaks them apart and eats each clove, the pācittiya offenses are according to the number of actions. This pācittiya offense is for bhikkhunīs, but for a bhikkhu, it is a dukkaṭa offense.
49. In the discussion on garlic, “garlic is called māgadhaka” (Pācittiya 795) is found in the Pāli. In the commentary (Pācittiya Aṭṭhakathā 795), māgadhaka means grown in Magadha. Here, garlic grown in the Magadha region is intended, and it refers specifically to bulb garlic, not single or double cloves. In Kurundī, it is said, “Without specifying the place of origin, it is called bulb garlic.” If one consumes two or three bulbs together, it is one offense. If one breaks them and eats each clove separately, it is counted as multiple offenses. For nuns, it is a pācittiya offense; for monks, it is a wrongdoing (dukkaṭa).
ID1878
Palaṇḍukādīnaṃ vaṇṇena vā miñjāya vā nānattaṃ veditabbaṃ. Vaṇṇena tāva palaṇḍuko nāma paṇḍuvaṇṇo hoti. Bhañjanako lohitavaṇṇo, haritako haritavaṇṇo, miñjāya pana palaṇḍukassa ekā miñjā hoti, bhañjanakassa dve, haritakassa tisso, cāpalasuṇo amiñjako. Aṅkuramattameva hi tassa hoti. Mahāpaccariyādīsu pana “palaṇḍukassa tīṇi miñjāni, bhañjanakassa dve, haritakassa eka”nti vuttaṃ. Ete palaṇḍukādayo sabhāveneva vaṭṭanti, sūpasampākādīsu pana māgadhakampi vaṭṭati. Tañhi paccamānesu muggasūpādīsu vā macchamaṃsavikatiyā vā telādīsu vā badarasāḷavādīsu vā ambilapākādīsu vā uttaribhaṅge vā yattha katthaci antamaso yāgupattepi pakkhipituṃ vaṭṭatīti vuttaṃ. “Sabhāvenevāti sūpasampākādiṃ vināva. Badarasāḷavaṃ nāma badaraphalāni sukkhāpetvā cuṇṇetvā kattabbā khādanīyavikatī”ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.793-797) vuttaṃ.
The differences between onions and the like should be understood by their color or cloves. By color: palaṇḍuko is pale yellow; bhañjanako is reddish; haritako is greenish. By cloves: palaṇḍuko has one clove, bhañjanako has two, haritako has three, and cāpalasuṇo has no cloves, only a sprout. However, in the Mahāpaccarī and other texts, it is said: “Palaṇḍuko has three cloves, bhañjanako has two, haritako has one.” These, like palaṇḍuko, are permissible by nature; even māgadhakaṃ is permissible in cooking soups and the like. It is said that it may be added to mung bean soup among the cooked dishes, or to fish or meat preparations, or to oil and the like, or to dried jujube dishes, or to sour preparations, or to additional seasonings, or even to a bowl of porridge—anywhere at all. “Sabhāveneva” means by its nature, without cooking in soups and the like. “Badarasāḷavaṃ refers to a chewable preparation made by drying and powdering jujube fruits,” as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.793-797).
The distinction of palaṇḍu, etc., should be understood by their color or pith. In terms of color, palaṇḍu is yellowish. Bhañjanaka is reddish, haritaka is green. In terms of pith, palaṇḍuka has one pith, bhañjanaka has two, haritaka has three, cāpalasuṇa has no pith. Indeed, it only has a sprout. However, in the Mahāpaccari, etc., it is said that “palaṇḍuka has three piths, bhañjanaka has two, haritaka has one.” These palaṇḍu, etc. are suitable in their natural state. But for cooking as a soup, etc., even the māgadhaka type is suitable. It is said that it is permissible to add it to anything, even in a portion of medicinal gruel, such as when cooking bean soup, fish, meat dishes, or oil-based dishes, jujube, or sal tree preparations, or other dishes cooked in sour liquids, or other dishes. “In their natural state” means without cooking as soup, etc.. It is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.793-797) that “badarasāḷavaṃ” means “a type of food prepared by drying jujube fruits, grinding them into powder.”
The diversity of Palaṇḍuka and others should be understood by their color or by their marrow. By color, firstly, the Palaṇḍuka is of a pale color. The Bhañjanaka is of a red color, the Haritaka is of a green color. By marrow, however, the Palaṇḍuka has one marrow, the Bhañjanaka has two, the Haritaka has three, and the Cāpalasuṇa has no marrow. It has only a sprout. In the Mahāpaccariyādi, however, it is said that the Palaṇḍuka has three marrows, the Bhañjanaka has two, and the Haritaka has one. These Palaṇḍuka and others naturally exist, but in the preparation of soups and the like, even the Māgadhaka is used. For it is said that when cooking bean soup or the like, or when preparing fish or meat dishes, or in oil preparations, or in dishes like Badarasāḷa, or in sour preparations, or in any other preparation, even in a porridge pot, it is permissible to add them. “Naturally” means without the preparation of soups and the like. Badarasāḷa refers to a preparation made by drying and powdering jujube fruits, as explained in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Pācittiya 3.793-797).
ID1879
ID1880
50. Naakkamitabbādikathāyaṃ “paribhaṇḍakatabhūmi nāma saṇhamattikāhi katā kāḷavaṇṇādibhūmi . Senāsanaṃ mañcapīṭhādikāyeva. Tatheva vaḷañjetuṃ vaṭṭatīti aññehi āvāsikehi bhikkhūhi paribhuttanīhārena paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati. ’Nevāsikā pakatiyā anatthatāya bhūmiyā ṭhapenti ce, tesampi anāpattiyevā’ti gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. ’Dvārampī’tiādinā vuttadvāravātapānādayo aparikammakatāpi na apassayitabbā. Lomesūti lomesu phusantesū”ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.324) vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyampi (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.324) “paribhaṇḍakatabhūmi vāti kāḷavaṇṇādikatasaṇhabhūmi vā. Senāsanaṃ vāti mañcapīṭhādi vā. Tatheva vaḷañjetuṃ vaṭṭatīti iminā nevāsikehi dhotapādādīhi vaḷañjanaṭṭhāne sañcicca adhotapādādīhi vaḷañjantasseva āpatti paññattāti dasseti , ‘dvārampī’tiādinā sāmaññato vuttattā dvāravātapānādayo aparikammakatāpi na apassayitabbā. Ajānitvā apassayantassapi idha lomagaṇanāya āpattī”ti vuttaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 323-324) “nevāsikā pakatiyā anatthatāya bhūmiyā ṭhapenti ce, tesampi anāpattiyevāti likhitaṃ, dvāravātapānādayo aparikammakatāpi na apassayitabbāti likhita”nti vuttaṃ.
50. In the discussion on not stepping and so forth, paribhaṇḍakatabhūmi refers to ground prepared with fine clay, such as black-colored ground and the like. Senāsanaṃ refers only to beds, seats, and the like. “Tatheva vaḷañjetuṃ vaṭṭati” means it is permissible to use it in the same way as other resident monks use the leftovers. It is stated in the notes: “If resident monks naturally place it on the ground without intent to harm, there is no offense for them either.” Doors, windows, and the like mentioned with “dvārampī” and so forth, even if unprepared, should not be lain upon. “Lomesu” means “touching the hair,” as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.324). The Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.324) states: “Paribhaṇḍakatabhūmi vā means prepared ground like black-colored fine clay or the like. Senāsanaṃ vā means beds, seats, or the like. Tatheva vaḷañjetuṃ vaṭṭati indicates that an offense is established only for one who deliberately uses it with unwashed feet and the like in a place where resident monks use it with washed feet and the like; with ‘dvārampī’ and so forth, since it is stated generally, doors, windows, and the like, even if unprepared, should not be lain upon. Even for one who lies on them unknowingly, there is an offense counted by the hairs here.” In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 323-324), it is written: “If resident monks naturally place it on the ground without intent to harm, there is no offense for them either; doors, windows, and the like, even if unprepared, should not be lain upon.”
50. In the story of what should not be stepped on, etc., “paribhaṇḍakatabhūmi” refers to a ground made of smooth clay, which is black, etc. Senāsanaṃ means a bed, seat, etc.. It is suitable to use it in the same manner means it is suitable to use in a manner that is used by other resident monks. It is stated in the Gaṇṭhipada that “if the residents place them on a ground that is, by nature, not spread, there is no offense for them either.” The doors, etc., mentioned with ‘even the door, etc.’ should not be leaned against, even if they are not prepared. It is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.324), “In the hairs” means “when they touch the hairs”. In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.324) also it is said: “paribhaṇḍakatabhūmi” means a smooth ground, black in color, etc. “Senāsanaṃ vā” means bed and seat, etc. Tatheva vaḷañjetuṃ vaṭṭati By this, it is indicated that the offense is declared only to him who intentionally uses it by the feet without washed, etc., the place is used with washed feet, etc., by the residents. Because the word “even door, etc.” is stated in general way, even door, windows, etc. should not lean against. Even if he leans against it without knowing, there is an offense determined by counting of the hairs here.” In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 323-324) it is said: “If residents placed it on the ground which is not spread out by nature, no offense for them, has been written. Even the unprepared doors and windows etc. should not be leaned against” has been written.
50. In the discussion on what should not be stepped on, etc., “Paribhaṇḍakatabhūmi” refers to ground made of soft clay, black or of other colors. “Senāsana” refers to beds, chairs, and the like. “Tatheva vaḷañjetuṃ vaṭṭatī” means it is permissible for other resident monks to use them after they have been used by others. It is said in the Gaṇṭhipada that if the residents place them on the ground out of necessity, there is no offense. “Dvārampī”tiādinā refers to doors, windows, and the like that are not properly prepared and should not be leaned against. “Lomesū”ti refers to touching the hairs, as explained in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 3.324). In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 2.324), “Paribhaṇḍakatabhūmi vā”ti refers to ground of black or other colors made of soft clay. “Senāsanaṃ vā”ti refers to beds, chairs, and the like. “Tatheva vaḷañjetuṃ vaṭṭatī”ti indicates that if the residents intentionally use them without washing their feet, etc., an offense is incurred. “Dvārampī”tiādinā refers to doors, windows, and the like that are not properly prepared and should not be leaned against. Even if one leans against them unknowingly, an offense is incurred by counting the hairs. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 323-324), it is said that if the residents place them on the ground out of necessity, there is no offense, and doors, windows, and the like that are not properly prepared should not be leaned against.
ID1881
ID1882
51. Avandiyavandiyakathāyaṃ idha pakaraṇācariyena senāsanakkhandhakapāḷivasena dasa avandiyā, tayo vandiyā ca vuttā, aṭṭhakathāṭīkāsu ca na kiñci vuttā, tasmā idha āgatanayeneva attho daṭṭhabbo. Parivārapāḷiyaṃ (pari. 467 ādayo) pana upālipañcake pañcapañcakavasena pañcavīsati avandiyā, pañca vandiyā ca vuttā. Kathaṃ? “Kati nu kho, bhante, avandiyāti? Pañcime, upāli, avandiyā. Katame pañca? Antaragharaṃ paviṭṭho avandiyo, racchagato avandiyo, otamasiko avandiyo, asamannāharanto avandiyo, sutto avandiyo. Ime kho, upāli, pañca avandiyā. Aparepi, upāli, pañca avandiyā. Katame pañca? Yāgupāne avandiyo, bhattagge avandiyo, ekāvatto avandiyo, aññavihito avandiyo, naggo avandiyo. Ime kho, upāli, pañca avandiyā. Aparepi, upāli, pañca avandiyā. Katame pañca? Khādanto avandiyo, bhuñjanto avandiyo, uccāraṃ karonto avandiyo, passāvaṃ karonto avandiyo, ukkhittako avandiyo. Ime kho, upāli, pañca avandiyā. Aparepi, upāli, pañca avandiyā. Katame pañca? Pureupasampannena pacchāupasampanno avandiyo, anupasampanno avandiyo , nānāsaṃvāsako vuḍḍhataro adhammavādī avandiyo, mātugāmo avandiyo, paṇḍako avandiyo. Ime kho, upāli, pañca avandiyā. Aparepi, upāli, pañca avandiyā. Katame pañca? Pārivāsiko avandiyo, mūlāyapaṭikassanāraho avandiyo, mānattāraho avandiyo, mānattacāriko avandiyo, abbhānāraho avandiyo. Ime kho, upāli, pañca avandiyā”ti.
51. In the discussion on those not to be saluted and those to be saluted, here the author of the section states ten who are not to be saluted and three who are to be saluted based on the text of the Senāsanakkhandhaka; nothing is said in the commentaries or sub-commentaries, so the meaning should be taken as presented here. However, in the Parivārapāḷi (pari. 467 and following), in the fivefold questions to Upāli, twenty-five who are not to be saluted and five who are to be saluted are mentioned in groups of five. How so? “How many, venerable sir, are not to be saluted? There are five, Upāli, not to be saluted. Which five? One who has entered a house is not to be saluted, one on a street is not to be saluted, one in a lowly state is not to be saluted, one not paying attention is not to be saluted, one asleep is not to be saluted. These, Upāli, are five not to be saluted. Again, Upāli, there are five more not to be saluted. Which five? One drinking porridge is not to be saluted, one at a meal is not to be saluted, one turned to one side is not to be saluted, one otherwise engaged is not to be saluted, one naked is not to be saluted. These, Upāli, are five not to be saluted. Again, Upāli, there are five more not to be saluted. Which five? One chewing is not to be saluted, one eating is not to be saluted, one defecating is not to be saluted, one urinating is not to be saluted, one suspended is not to be saluted. These, Upāli, are five not to be saluted. Again, Upāli, there are five more not to be saluted. Which five? One ordained later compared to one ordained earlier is not to be saluted, one unordained is not to be saluted, one of a different community, even if senior, who speaks against the Dhamma is not to be saluted, a woman is not to be saluted, a eunuch is not to be saluted. These, Upāli, are five not to be saluted. Again, Upāli, there are five more not to be saluted. Which five? One under probation is not to be saluted, one deserving reinstatement to the beginning is not to be saluted, one deserving penance is not to be saluted, one undergoing penance is not to be saluted, one deserving rehabilitation is not to be saluted. These, Upāli, are five not to be saluted.”
51. In the story of who should not be saluted and who should be, the teacher of this section has mentioned ten who should not be saluted and three who should, according to the Senāsanakkhandhaka Pāḷi. Nothing is mentioned in the commentaries and sub-commentaries. Therefore, the meaning should be understood according to the manner presented here. But in the Parivāra Pāḷi (pari. 467, etc.) twenty-five who should not be saluted and five who should be are mentioned, in five groups of five in Upāli’s section of five. How? “How many, venerable sir, are those who should not be saluted? These five, Upāli, should not be saluted. Which five? One who has entered a house should not be saluted, one who is on the road should not be saluted, one who is in darkness should not be saluted, one who is not paying attention should not be saluted, one who is asleep should not be saluted. These, Upāli, are the five who should not be saluted. There are another five, Upāli, who should not be saluted. Which five? One who is in a gruel hall should not be saluted, one who is in a meal hall should not be saluted, one who is turned to one side should not be saluted, one who is preoccupied should not be saluted, a naked person should not be saluted. These, Upāli, are the five who should not be saluted. There are another five, Upāli, who should not be saluted. Which five? One who is eating should not be saluted, one who is consuming should not be saluted, one who is defecating should not be saluted, one who is urinating should not be saluted, one who has been expelled should not be saluted. These, Upāli, are the five who should not be saluted. There are another five, Upāli, who should not be saluted. Which five? One who was ordained earlier should not be saluted by one who was ordained later, one who is not ordained should not be saluted, an older monk of different affiliation who is a speaker of non-Dhamma should not be saluted, a woman should not be saluted, a paṇḍaka (a type of eunuch) should not be saluted. These, Upāli, are the five who should not be saluted. There are another five, Upāli, who should not be saluted. Which five? One who is undergoing probation should not be saluted, one who deserves to be sent back to the beginning should not be saluted, one who deserves mānatta (a disciplinary penance) should not be saluted, one who is undergoing mānatta should not be saluted, one who deserves to be rehabilitated should not be saluted. These, Upāli, are the five who should not be saluted.”
51. In the discussion on what should not be greeted and what should be greeted, the Pakaraṇācariya, following the Senāsanakkhandhaka, mentions ten things that should not be greeted and three that should be greeted. The commentaries and sub-commentaries do not mention anything further, so the meaning should be understood according to the method presented here. In the Parivāra (Pari. 467 ff.), however, in the Upālipañcaka, twenty-five things that should not be greeted and five that should be greeted are mentioned in sets of five. How? “How many, Venerable Sir, are the things that should not be greeted? There are five, Upāli, that should not be greeted. Which five? One who has entered a house should not be greeted, one who is on the road should not be greeted, one who is in darkness should not be greeted, one who is not paying attention should not be greeted, and one who is asleep should not be greeted. These, Upāli, are the five things that should not be greeted. Further, Upāli, there are five more things that should not be greeted. Which five? One who is drinking porridge should not be greeted, one who is in the dining hall should not be greeted, one who is facing away should not be greeted, one who is distracted should not be greeted, and one who is naked should not be greeted. These, Upāli, are the five things that should not be greeted. Further, Upāli, there are five more things that should not be greeted. Which five? One who is eating solid food should not be greeted, one who is eating a meal should not be greeted, one who is defecating should not be greeted, one who is urinating should not be greeted, and one who has been expelled should not be greeted. These, Upāli, are the five things that should not be greeted. Further, Upāli, there are five more things that should not be greeted. Which five? One who was ordained later should not greet one who was ordained earlier, one who is not ordained should not be greeted, one who is of a different community and is older but speaks wrongly should not be greeted, a woman should not be greeted, and a eunuch should not be greeted. These, Upāli, are the five things that should not be greeted. Further, Upāli, there are five more things that should not be greeted. Which five? One who is on probation should not be greeted, one who deserves to be sent back to the beginning should not be greeted, one who deserves the mānatta discipline should not be greeted, one who is undergoing the mānatta discipline should not be greeted, and one who deserves rehabilitation should not be greeted. These, Upāli, are the five things that should not be greeted.”
ID1883
“Kati nu kho, bhante, vandiyāti? Pañcime, upāli, vandiyā. Katame pañca? Pacchāupasampannena pureupasampanno vandiyo, nānāsaṃvāsako vuḍḍhataro dhammavādī vandiyo, ācariyo vandiyo, upajjhāyo vandiyo, sadevake loke samārake sabrahmake sassamaṇabrāhmaṇiyā pajāya sadevamanussāya tathāgato arahaṃ sammāsambuddho vandiyo. Ime kho, upāli, pañca vandiyā”ti.
“How many, venerable sir, are to be saluted? There are five, Upāli, to be saluted. Which five? One ordained earlier compared to one ordained later is to be saluted, one of a different community, even if senior, who speaks in accord with the Dhamma is to be saluted, a teacher is to be saluted, a preceptor is to be saluted, the Tathāgata, the Worthy One, the Fully Awakened One, in this world with its devas, Māras, Brahmas, ascetics, and brahmins, among this generation with its devas and humans, is to be saluted. These, Upāli, are five to be saluted.”
“How many, venerable sir, are those who should be saluted? These five, Upāli, should be saluted. Which five? One who was ordained earlier should be saluted by one who was ordained later, an older monk of different affiliation who is a speaker of Dhamma should be saluted, a teacher should be saluted, a preceptor should be saluted, the Tathāgata, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One, should be saluted in the world with its gods, Māras, and Brahmās, among the multitude of recluses and brahmins, gods and humans. These, Upāli, are the five who should be saluted.”
“How many, Venerable Sir, are the things that should be greeted? There are five, Upāli, that should be greeted. Which five? One who was ordained earlier should greet one who was ordained later, one who is of a different community and is older but speaks rightly should be greeted, a teacher should be greeted, a preceptor should be greeted, and the Tathāgata, the Arahant, the Fully Enlightened One, should be greeted in the world with its devas, Māras, and Brahmās, in this generation with its ascetics and brahmins, its devas and humans. These, Upāli, are the five things that should be greeted.”
ID1884
Aṭṭhakathāyañca (pari. aṭṭha. 467) “otamasitoti andhakāragato. Tañhi vandantassa mañcapādādīsupi nalāṭaṃ paṭihaññeyya. Asamannāharantoti kiccappasutattā vandanaṃ asamannāharanto. Suttoti niddaṃ okkanto. Ekāvattoti ekato āvatto sapattapakkhe ṭhito verī visabhāgapuggalo vuccati, ayaṃ avandiyo. Ayañhi vandiyamāno pādenapi pahareyya. Aññavihitoti aññaṃ cintayamāno. Khādantoti piṭṭhakhajjakādīni khādanto. Uccārañca passāvañca karonto anokāsagatattā avandiyo. Ukkhittakoti tividhenapi ukkhepanīyakammena ukkhittako avandiyo, tajjanīyādikammakatā pana cattāro vanditabbā, uposathapavāraṇāpi tehi saddhiṃ labbhanti. Ādito paṭṭhāya ca vuttesu avandiyesu naggañca ukkhittakañca vandantasseva hoti āpatti , itaresaṃ pana asāruppaṭṭhena ca antarā vuttakāraṇena ca vandanā paṭikkhittā. Ito paraṃ pacchāupasampannādayo dasapi āpattivatthubhāveneva avandiyā. Te vandantassa hi niyameneva āpatti. Iti imesu pañcasu pañcakesu terasa jane vandantassa anāpatti, dvādasannaṃ vandanāya āpatti. Ācariyo vandiyoti pabbajjācariyo upasampadācariyo nissayācariyo uddesācariyo ovādācariyoti ayaṃ pañcavidhopi ācariyo vandiyo”ti āgato.
In the commentary (pari. aṭṭha. 467), it is said: “Otamasiko means one in darkness; for saluting him, one’s forehead might strike a bedpost or the like. Asamannāharanto means one not paying attention due to being busy with duties. Sutto means one who has fallen asleep. Ekāvatto means one turned to one side, an enemy or hostile person standing on the opposing side, who is not to be saluted; for if saluted, he might strike with his foot. Aññavihito means one thinking of something else. Khādanto means one chewing hard foods and the like. Uccārañca passāvañca karonto is not to be saluted due to being in an inappropriate place. Ukkhittako means one suspended by any of the three types of suspension acts, who is not to be saluted; however, those subjected to the four acts like censure are to be saluted, and Uposatha and Pavāraṇā may be performed with them. Among those not to be saluted mentioned from the beginning, saluting one who is naked or suspended incurs an offense; for the others, salutation is prohibited due to impropriety or the reasons stated in between. Beyond this, the ten from one ordained later and so forth are not to be saluted precisely because they are bases for an offense; saluting them certainly incurs an offense. Thus, among these five groups of five, saluting thirteen persons incurs no offense, while saluting twelve incurs an offense. Ācariyo vandiyo means a teacher—whether one who gives the going-forth, one who gives full ordination, one who provides dependence, one who gives instruction, or one who gives advice—all five types of teachers are to be saluted.”
And in the commentary (pari. aṭṭha. 467), “otamasito” means one who is in darkness. If one were to salute him, one’s forehead might be struck against the legs of a bed, etc. Asamannāharanto means one who is not paying attention to the salutation due to being preoccupied with a task. Sutto means one who has fallen asleep. Ekāvatto refers to one who is turned to one side, stationed on the side of an enemy, hostile, a dissimilar person; this one should not be saluted. For this one, if saluted, might even strike with his foot. Aññavihito means one who is thinking of something else. Khādanto means one who is eating foods like pastries, etc. One who is defecating and urinating is not to be saluted because he is in an inappropriate place. Ukkhittako means one who is expelled by any of the three expulsion procedures is not to be saluted. But the four who have performed the act deserving of censure, etc., should be saluted, even uposatha and pavāraṇā ceremonies are permitted with them. Among those mentioned as not to be saluted, from the beginning, the offense occurs for one who salutes a naked person and an expelled person. But for others, the salutation is prohibited due to the impropriety and the reasons mentioned in between. Hereafter, the ten, beginning with one who has been ordained later, etc., are not to be saluted because they are the objects of offenses. For one who salutes them, there is necessarily an offense. Thus, in these five groups of five, there is no offense for saluting thirteen people, and by saluting twelve, there is an offense. Ācariyo vandiyo means a teacher should be saluted. It is stated that a teacher of going forth, a teacher of ordination, a teacher of dependence, a teacher of recitation, a teacher of admonishment, all these five types of teachers should be saluted.”
In the commentary (Pari. Aṭṭha. 467), “Otamasito”ti means one who is in darkness. For if one greets in such a state, one might strike one’s forehead against the bedpost or the like. “Asamannāharanto”ti means one who is not paying attention due to being engrossed in some activity. “Sutto”ti means one who has fallen asleep. “Ekāvatto”ti means one who has turned away, standing in an opposing faction, a hostile person of a different group. Such a person should not be greeted, for if greeted, they might even strike with their foot. “Aññavihito”ti means one who is thinking of something else. “Khādanto”ti means one who is eating solid food like rice cakes. “Uccārañca passāvañca karonto” means one who is defecating or urinating, and due to the lack of opportunity, should not be greeted. “Ukkhittako”ti means one who has been expelled by any of the three types of expulsion acts. However, those who have been subjected to acts of censure, etc., should be greeted, and they are also allowed to participate in the Uposatha and Pavāraṇā. From the beginning, among the things that should not be greeted, greeting a naked person or one who has been expelled incurs an offense. For the others, due to their inappropriateness and the reasons mentioned earlier, greeting is prohibited. From this point onward, the ten things, including those ordained later, etc., are not to be greeted because they are grounds for offenses. Greeting them incurs an offense by rule. Thus, among these five sets of five, greeting thirteen people incurs no offense, but greeting twelve incurs an offense. “Ācariyo vandiyo”ti refers to the teacher of the going forth, the teacher of full ordination, the teacher of dependence, the teacher of instruction, and the teacher of advice. These five types of teachers should be greeted.”
ID1885
“Antarā vuttakāraṇenāti tañhi vandantassa mañcapādādīsu nalāṭaṃ paṭihaññeyyātiādinā vuttakāraṇenā”ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. parivāra 3.467) vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭi. parivāra 2.467) pana “mañcapādādīsupi nalāṭaṃ paṭihaññeyyāti andhakāre cammakhaṇḍaṃ paññapetvā vandituṃ onamantassa nalāṭaṃ vā akkhi vā mañcādīsu paṭihaññati. Etena vandatopi āpattiabhāvaṃ vatvā vandanāya sabbathā paṭikkhepābhāvañca dīpeti. Evaṃ sabbattha suttantarehi appaṭikkhittesu. Naggādīsu pana vandituṃ na vaṭṭatīti. Ekato āvattoti ekasmiṃ dosāgatipakkhe parivatto, paviṭṭhoti attho. Tenāha ‘sapattapakkhe ṭhito’ti. Vandiyamānoti onamitvā vandiyamāno. Vanditabbesu uddesācariyo nissayācariyo ca yasmā navakāpi honti, tasmā ’te vuḍḍhā eva vandiyā’ti vanditabbā”ti āgataṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. parivāra 467) “ekāvattotipi paṭhanti, tassa kuddho kodhābhibhūtoti kira attho. Ekavatthotipi keci, uttarāsaṅgaṃ apanetvā ṭhitoti kira attho. Taṃ sabbaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ uddhaṭapāḷiyā virujjhati. Ekāvattoti hi uddhaṭaṃ, tasmā na gahetabbaṃ. Antarā vuttakāraṇenāti kiccappasutattā asamannāharanto ’nalāṭaṃ paṭihaññeyyā’tiādivuttakāraṇenā”ti āgataṃ.
“Antarā vuttakāraṇena means due to the reason stated in between, such as one’s forehead might strike a bedpost or the like,” as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. parivāra 3.467). In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. parivāra 2.467), it is said: “Mañcapādādīsupi nalāṭaṃ paṭihaññeyya means that when bowing to one in darkness with a piece of leather spread out, the forehead or eye might strike a bed or the like; this indicates that even the one saluting incurs an offense, showing that salutation is not entirely prohibited. So it is in all cases not contradicted by other texts. However, it is not permissible to salute those who are naked and the like. Ekato āvatto means turned to one side in a faction of fault or enmity, meaning entered into it; hence it says ‘sapattapakkhe ṭhito’. Vandiyamāno means being saluted by bowing. Among those to be saluted, since instructors and dependence providers may be novices, it is said ‘only seniors are to be saluted.’” In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. parivāra 467), it is said: “Ekāvatto is also read by some; they say it means one angry or overcome by anger. Some say ekavattho, meaning one standing without an upper robe; but all this contradicts the text cited in the commentary, where ekāvatto is cited, so it should not be accepted. Antarā vuttakāraṇena means due to being busy with duties and not paying attention, or ‘the forehead might strike’ and so forth as stated.”
“antarā** vuttakāraṇenāti means by the reasons stated between, such as ‘one’s forehead might be struck against the legs of a bed, etc., if one were to salute him’,” is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. parivāra 3.467). However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭi. parivāra 2.467), ”mañcapādādīsupi nalāṭaṃ paṭihaññeyyāti means ‘one’s forehead or eye might be struck against bed legs, etc., when one bows down to salute after spreading a leather mat in the darkness.’ By this, having stated the absence of an offense even for one who salutes, it indicates that the salutation is not completely prohibited. Similarly, in all other cases that are not prohibited by the discourses. But, it is not proper to salute a naked person, etc. Ekato āvattoti means turned or entered in the wrong direction of defilements, that’s the meaning. Therefore, it is said, ’sapattapakkhe ṭhito’. Vandiyamāno**ti means when he is saluted bowing. It is stated that among those to be saluted, since both the teacher of recitation and the teacher of dependence can also be newly ordained, ‘only the elders among them should be saluted.’” In Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. parivāra 467), “It is also read ‘ekāvatto’, its meaning is wrathful, overwhelmed by anger. Some say ‘ekavatthoti’, it’s meaning is he who stands without upper robe. All that contradicts the Pali text quoted in commentary. It is ekāvattoti what is quoted, so that should not accepted. Antarā vuttakāraṇenāti means due to reasons stated in between, one who is not paying attention due to being occupied, ‘one’s forehead may hit,’ etc.” has been stated.
“Antarā vuttakāraṇenā”ti means that if one greets in such a state, one might strike one’s forehead against the bedpost or the like, as mentioned earlier, as explained in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Parivāra 3.467). In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭi. Parivāra 2.467), however, “Mañcapādādīsupi nalāṭaṃ paṭihaññeyyā”ti means that in darkness, if one sets up a piece of leather and bends down to greet, one’s forehead or eye might strike against the bed or the like. This indicates that even if one greets in such a state, there is no offense, and there is no complete prohibition on greeting. Thus, in all cases where the suttas do not prohibit it. However, one should not greet a naked person, etc. “Ekato āvatto”ti means one who has turned to one side, standing in a faction of enmity, as explained. Hence, it is said “Sapattapakkhe ṭhito”ti. “Vandiyamāno”ti means one who is bending down to greet. Among those who should be greeted, the teacher of instruction and the teacher of dependence, even if they are newly ordained, should be greeted as elders. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Parivāra 467), “Ekāvatto”tipi is read, meaning one who is angry and overcome by anger. Some read it as “Ekavattho,” meaning one who stands having removed the upper robe. All this contradicts the commentary’s extracted text. “Ekāvatto” is the extracted reading, so it should not be taken otherwise. “Antarā vuttakāraṇenā”ti means one who is not paying attention due to being engrossed in some activity, as mentioned earlier, “one might strike one’s forehead,” etc.
ID1886
Dutiyagāthāsaṅgaṇikaṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pari. aṭṭha. 477) “dasa puggalā nābhivādetabbāti senāsanakkhandhake vuttā dasa janā. Añjalisāmīcena cāti sāmīcikammena saddhiṃ añjali ca tesaṃ na kātabbo. Neva pānīyapucchanatālavaṇṭaggahaṇādi khandhakavattaṃ tesaṃ dassetabbaṃ, na añjali paggaṇhitabboti attho. Dasannaṃ dukkaṭanti tesaṃyeva dasannaṃ evaṃ karontassa dukkaṭaṃ hotī”ti āgataṃ, tasmā añjalikammamattampi nesaṃ na kattabbanti.
In the commentary on the second verse collection (pari. aṭṭha. 477), it is said: “Dasa puggalā nābhivādetabbā refers to the ten persons mentioned in the Senāsanakkhandhaka. Añjalisāmīcena ca means neither the raising of hands nor respectful acts are to be done for them; nor should the duties of the Khandhaka, such as asking for water or taking a fan, be shown to them, nor should hands be raised—such is the meaning. Dasannaṃ dukkaṭaṃ means an offense of wrongdoing occurs for doing so to those ten.” Thus, even raising hands alone should not be done for them.
In the commentary on the second collection of verses (pari. aṭṭha. 477), “dasa puggalā nābhivādetabbāti refers to the ten people mentioned in the Senāsanakkhandhaka. Añjalisāmīcena cāti means that neither añjali (reverential salutation) nor any other act of respect should be performed for them. Neither the Khandhaka practice of offering water, fanning them etc. should be shown to them, nor should the añjali be offered. It is stated Dasannaṃ dukkaṭanti means it is a dukkaṭa (offense of wrong-doing) for one to do this to those ten.” Therefore, not even the act of añjali should be performed for them.
In the commentary on the second verse (Pari. Aṭṭha. 477), “Dasa puggalā nābhivādetabbā”ti refers to the ten people mentioned in the Senāsanakkhandhaka. “Añjalisāmīcena cā”ti means that even the respectful gesture of joining the palms should not be made to them. One should not show them the customary duties of offering water, holding the ladle, etc., nor should one raise the joined palms. “Dasannaṃ dukkaṭa”nti means that doing so to these ten incurs a wrongdoing. Therefore, even the mere act of joining the palms should not be done to them.
ID1887
“Navakatarena, bhante, bhikkhunā vuḍḍhatarassa bhikkhuno pāde vandantena kati dhamme ajjhattaṃ upaṭṭhāpetvā pādā vanditabbāti? Navakatarenupāli, bhikkhunā vuḍḍhatarassa bhikkhuno pāde vandantena pañca dhamme ajjhattaṃ upaṭṭhāpetvā pādā vanditabbā. Katame pañca? Navakatarenupāli, bhikkhunā vuḍḍhatarassa bhikkhuno pāde vandantena ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ katvā añjaliṃ paggahetvā ubhohi pāṇitalehi pādāni parisambāhantena pemañca gāravañca upaṭṭhāpetvā pādā vanditabbā. Navakatarenupāli, bhikkhunā vuḍḍhatarassa bhikkhuno pāde vandantena ime pañca dhamme ajjhattaṃ upaṭṭhāpetvā pādā vanditabbā”ti (pari. 469) imasmiṃ ṭhāne sammāsambuddhena āyasmato upālissa vandanānayova ācikkhito.
“Venerable sir, how many qualities should a junior monk internally establish when saluting the feet of a senior monk? Upāli, a junior monk should internally establish five qualities when saluting the feet of a senior monk. Which five? Upāli, a junior monk, when saluting the feet of a senior monk, should arrange the upper robe over one shoulder, raise the hands in salutation, rub the feet with both palms, and establish love and respect—thus should the feet be saluted. Upāli, a junior monk should internally establish these five qualities when saluting the feet of a senior monk,” as stated in (pari. 469). Here, the Fully Awakened One explained only the method of salutation to the venerable Upāli.
“Venerable sir, with how many qualities should a newly ordained monk establish himself internally when saluting the feet of an older monk? Upāli, a newly ordained monk should establish himself internally with five qualities when saluting the feet of an older monk. Which five? Upāli, a newly ordained monk, when saluting the feet of an older monk, should arrange his upper robe over one shoulder, make añjali, caress the feet with both palms, and establish love and respect while saluting the feet. Upāli, a newly ordained monk should establish himself internally with these five qualities when saluting the feet of an older monk.” (pari. 469) In this place, the Perfectly Enlightened One explained the proper way of salutation to the venerable Upāli.
“Venerable Sir, how many qualities should a newly ordained monk, while paying respects to an elder monk, establish internally before paying respects to his feet? Upāli, a newly ordained monk, while paying respects to an elder monk, should establish five qualities internally before paying respects to his feet. Which five? Upāli, a newly ordained monk, while paying respects to an elder monk, should arrange his upper robe over one shoulder, raise his joined palms, stroke the feet with both palms, establish affection and respect, and then pay respects to the feet. Upāli, a newly ordained monk, while paying respects to an elder monk, should establish these five qualities internally before paying respects to his feet” (Pari. 469). In this context, the Fully Enlightened One explained to Venerable Upāli the method of paying respects.
ID1888
Pañcapatiṭṭhitena vanditvāti ettha pañcasarūpañca kathitaṃ. Kathaṃ? Vuḍḍhatarassa pāde vandantena ubho aṃse vivaritvā vanditabbā, na ca ubho aṃse pārupitvā vanditabbā, atha kho ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvā vanditabbāti. Etena saṅghāṭi pana ekaṃsaṃ katāpi akatāpi natthi dosoti pakāsito hoti. “Dasanakhasamodhānasamujjalaṃ karapuṭasaṅkhātaṃ añjaliṃ paggahetvāva vanditabbā, na hatthatalapakāsanamattena vā na hatthamuṭṭhipakāsanādinā vā vanditabbā”ti ca “na ekena hatthena cīvarakaṇṇachupanādimattena vanditabbā, atha kho ubhohi pāṇitalehi pādāni parisambāhantena vanditabbā”ti ca “evaṃ vandantehi na duṭṭhacittañca anādarañca upaṭṭhāpetvā vanditabbā, atha kho pemañca gāravañca upaṭṭhāpetvā pādā vanditabbā”ti ca evaṃ vandanānayo ācikkhito hoti.
Pañcapatiṭṭhitena vanditvā—here, the form of the fivefold establishment is explained. How so? When saluting the feet of a senior, one should salute with both shoulders uncovered, not with both shoulders covered; rather, arranging the upper robe over one shoulder, one should salute. This shows that whether the outer robe (saṅghāṭi) is arranged over one shoulder or not, there is no fault. “One should salute only by raising the hands in a salutation shaped like a lotus with all ten nails together, not merely by showing the palm or fist or the like.” And “One should not salute with one hand merely touching the robe’s corner or the like; rather, one should salute by rubbing the feet with both palms.” And “Those saluting in this way should not establish ill-will or disrespect; rather, they should establish love and respect when saluting the feet.” Thus, the method of salutation is explained.
Pañcapatiṭṭhitena vanditvāti: here, the fivefold form is explained. How? One who is saluting the feet of an elder should uncover both shoulders; he should not salute with both shoulders covered. Rather, he should arrange his upper robe over one shoulder and salute. By this, it is clarified that there is no fault whether the saṅghāṭi (outer robe) is arranged over one shoulder or not. It’s also explained as “Salutation should made with an añjali, called a cupped hands gesture, filled with the meeting of the ten fingernails. Not with a mere showing of the palms, nor by displaying a fist, etc.” and “One should not salute merely by touching the edge of the robe with one hand, etc., but rather, one should caress the feet with both palms” and “Those saluting in this way should not establish ill-will and disrespect, but should establish love and respect while saluting the feet.” Thus, the proper manner of salutation is explained.
“Pañcapatiṭṭhitena vanditvā”ti refers to the fivefold manner explained here. How? When paying respects to an elder’s feet, one should open both shoulders and pay respects, not covering both shoulders, but arranging the upper robe over one shoulder and paying respects. This indicates that there is no fault whether the saṅghāti is arranged over one shoulder or not. “One should pay respects by raising the joined palms, shining with the ten nails, like a jeweled box, not merely by showing the palms or the back of the hands, etc., nor by touching the robe’s edge with one hand, but by stroking the feet with both palms.” “When paying respects in this manner, one should not establish a hostile or disrespectful mind, but should establish affection and respect and then pay respects to the feet.” Thus, the method of paying respects is explained.
ID1889
Kathaṃ pañcapatiṭṭhitasarūpaṃ kathitaṃ? Idha ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvāti ekaṃ, añjaliṃ paggahetvāti ekaṃ, ubhohi pāṇitalehi pādāni parisambāhantenāti ekaṃ, pemañca upaṭṭhāpetvāti ekaṃ, gāravañca upaṭṭhāpetvāti ekaṃ, evaṃ pañcapatiṭṭhitasarūpaṃ kathitaṃ hoti. Tenāha “pañca dhamme ajjhattaṃ upaṭṭhāpetvā pādā vanditabbā”ti. Evaṃ sakalalokassa hitasukhakārakena dhammassāminā kāyapaṇāmamanopaṇāmavasena mahato hitasukhassa pavattanatthaṃ āyasmato upālittherassa ācikkhitena vandanānayena vandituṃ vaṭṭati.
How is the form of the fivefold establishment explained? Arranging the upper robe over one shoulder is one, raising the hands in salutation is one, rubbing the feet with both palms is one, establishing love is one, establishing respect is one—thus, the form of the fivefold establishment is explained. Hence it is said: “Five qualities should be internally established when saluting the feet.” Thus, it is permissible to salute with this method of salutation taught to the venerable elder Upāli by the Lord of the Dhamma, who brings welfare and happiness to the entire world, for the sake of great welfare and happiness through physical and mental homage.
How is the fivefold established form explained? Here, arranging the upper robe over one shoulder is one; making añjali is one; caressing the feet with both palms is one; establishing love is one; establishing respect is one. Thus, the fivefold established form is explained. Therefore, he said, “Establishing oneself internally with five qualities, one should salute the feet.” Thus, one should salute according to the manner of salutation explained by the Teacher of the Dhamma, the benefactor of the entire world, for the sake of the great benefit and happiness by means of physical and mental prostration, to the venerable elder Upāli.
How is the fivefold manner explained? Here, arranging the upper robe over one shoulder is one, raising the joined palms is one, stroking the feet with both palms is one, establishing affection is one, and establishing respect is one. Thus, the fivefold manner is explained. Hence, it is said, “One should establish these five qualities internally before paying respects to the feet.” Thus, it is permissible to pay respects according to the method explained by the Lord of the Dhamma, the benefactor of the world’s welfare and happiness, through bodily and mental homage, for the sake of generating great welfare and happiness, as taught to Venerable Upāli.
ID1890
Idāni pana ācariyā abhinavaāgatānaṃ daharānañca sāmaṇerānañca vandanānayaṃ sikkhantā na imaṃ āhaccabhāsitaṃ pāḷiṃ gahetvā sikkhanti, atha kho paveṇīāgatanayaṃyeva gahetvā sikkhanti. Kathaṃ? Yadi ṭhatvā vandatha, dve pādatalāni samaṃ bhūmiyaṃ patiṭṭhāpetvā dve hatthatalāni samaṃ phusāpetvā nalāṭe patiṭṭhāpetvā vanditabbābhimukhaṃ onamitvā vandathāti, ayaṃ nayo “evaṃ mahāsatto suvaṇṇakadali viya bārāṇasinagarābhimukhaṃ onamitvā mātāpitaro vanditvā”ti imaṃ jātakaṭṭhakathāvacanañca “dasanakhasamodhānasamujjalaṃ añjaliṃ paggayha sirasmiṃ patiṭṭhāpetvā”tiādiaṭṭhakathāvacanañca anulometi. Idha pana dve pādatalāni, dve hatthatalāni, nalāṭañcāti pañcasu patiṭṭhitānīti sarūpaṃ vadanti. Yadi nisīditvā vandatha, paṭhamaṃ dve pādatalāni bhūmiyaṃ samaṃ patiṭṭhāpetvā dve jāṇumaṇḍalāni samaṃ ussāpetvā dve kapparāni dvinnaṃ jāṇūnaṃ upari samaṃ ṭhapetvā dve hatthatalāni samaṃ phusitāni katvā añjalisaṅkhātaṃ karapuṭaṃ sirasaṅkhāte nalāṭe patiṭṭhāpetvā vandatha. Tato onamitvā dve jāṇumaṇḍalāni ca dve kapparāni ca bhūmiyaṃ samaṃ patiṭṭhāpetvā dve hatthatalāni pasāretvā samaṃ bhūmiyaṃ ṭhapetvā sīsaṃ ubhinnaṃ hatthapiṭṭhīnaṃ upari katvā bhūmiyaṃ patiṭṭhāpetvā vandathāti. Ettha tu dve pādatalāni ekaṃ katvā, tathā dve jāṇumaṇḍalāni ekaṃ, dve kapparāni ekaṃ, dve hatthatalāni ekaṃ, sīsaṃ ekaṃ katvā pañcapatiṭṭhitasarūpaṃ kathenti. Esa nayo pāḷiaṭṭhakathāṭīkāsu na diṭṭho.
Nowadays, however, teachers training newly arrived novices and young monks in the method of salutation do not use this directly stated textual language for training; rather, they train them only in the method handed down by tradition. How so? “If you salute while standing, place both soles evenly on the ground, touch both palms evenly together, place them on the forehead, and bow facing forward to salute.” This method aligns with the Jātaka commentary statement: “Thus the Great Being, like a golden banana plant, bowed toward the city of Bārāṇasī and saluted his parents,” and with the commentary statement: “Raising the hands in a salutation shaped like a lotus with all ten nails together and placing them on the head,” and so forth. Here, they say the form consists of five establishments: both soles, both palms, and the forehead. “If you salute while sitting, first place both soles evenly on the ground, raise both knees evenly, place both elbows evenly on the knees, touch both palms evenly together, place the hands in a salutation on the forehead, and salute. Then, bowing down, place both knees and both elbows evenly on the ground, extend both palms evenly on the ground, place the head on the backs of both hands on the ground, and salute.” Here, counting both soles as one, both knees as one, both elbows as one, both palms as one, and the head as one, they explain the form of the fivefold establishment. This method is not seen in the texts, commentaries, or sub-commentaries.
Nowadays, however, when teaching the manner of salutation to newly arrived, young, and novice monks, the teachers do not adopt this specific Pāḷi discourse, but rather, they adopt the tradition that has come down through generations. How? If you are saluting while standing, place both soles of the feet evenly on the ground, join both palms together evenly, place them on the forehead, and bow towards the one to be saluted. This method aligns with the Jātaka commentary statement, “Thus, the Great Being, like a golden plantain tree, bowed down towards the city of Bārāṇasī and saluted his parents,” and the commentary statement, “Having made añjali, filled with ten nails placed on the head.” etc. Here, they define the established form as five: the two soles of the feet, the two palms of the hands, and the forehead. If you are saluting while seated, first place both soles of the feet evenly on the ground, raise both knees evenly, place both elbows evenly on top of the two knees, join both palms together evenly, and place the cupped hands, known as añjali, on the forehead, known as the head. Then, bowing down, place both knees and both elbows evenly on the ground, spread out both palms and place them evenly on the ground, and place the head on top of the back of both hands, establishing it on the ground, and salute. Here, however, they count the two soles of the feet as one, likewise the two knees as one, the two elbows as one, the two palms as one, and the head as one, thus describing the fivefold established form. This method is not seen in the Pāḷi, commentaries, and sub-commentaries.
Now, however, teachers, when instructing newly arrived novices and young sāmaṇeras in the method of paying respects, do not teach them by taking this Pāli text verbatim, but rather teach them according to the traditional method. How? If standing to pay respects, one should place both soles of the feet evenly on the ground, place both palms evenly together, touch the forehead, and bend forward to pay respects. This method is in accordance with the Jātakaṭṭhakathā statement, “Thus, the great being, like a golden banana tree, bent forward towards the city of Bārāṇasī and paid respects to his parents,” and the commentary statement, “Raising the joined palms, shining with the ten nails, and placing them on the head.” Here, however, they say that the five points of contact are the two soles of the feet, the two palms, and the forehead. If sitting to pay respects, first place both soles of the feet evenly on the ground, raise both knees evenly, place both elbows evenly above the knees, place both palms evenly together, form the joined palms into a jeweled box, place it on the forehead, and pay respects. Then, bending forward, place both knees and both elbows evenly on the ground, stretch out both palms, place them evenly on the ground, place the head on the backs of both hands, and pay respects. Here, however, they explain the fivefold manner by combining the two soles of the feet into one, the two knees into one, the two elbows into one, the two palms into one, and the head into one. This method is not seen in the Pāli commentaries and sub-commentaries.
ID1891
Samīpaṃ gantvā pādānaṃ vandanakāle pana ekacce paṭhamaṃ attano sīsaṃ hatthena parāmasitvā tena hatthadvayena therānaṃ jāṇumaṇḍalaṃ cīvarassa upariyeva sambāhanti. Ekacce paṭhamaṃ therānaṃ jāṇumaṇḍalaṃ sacīvaraṃyeva parāmasitvā teneva hatthadvayena attano sīsaṃ parāmasanti. Ekacce chupanamattameva karonti. Esapi nayo na kismiñci diṭṭho. Rāmaññadesiyā pana bhikkhū evaṃ samīpaṃ gantvā vandanakāle therānaṃ pādaggaṃ apassantāpi pariyesitvā cīvarato nīharitvā pādaggameva punappunaṃ hatthena sambāhitvā sīsena pavaṭṭetvā cumbitvā lehitvā cirappavāsāgatapiyamanāpaupajjhāyaṃ vā ācariyaṃ vā passantā viya katvā vandanti. Taṃ kiriyaṃ parivārapāḷiyaṃ “ubhohi pāṇitalehi pādāni parisambāhantena pemañca gāravañca upaṭṭhāpetvā pādā vanditabbā”ti āgatapāḷiyā saṃsandati viya dissati. Tepi na sabbe pāḷiṃ passanti, paveṇīvaseneva karonti, tasmā sabbesaṃ hitatthaṃ pāḷinayo amhehi uddhaṭo. Paveṇīāgatanayato hi pāḷinayo balavataro, tasmā bhagavato āṇaṃ garuṃ karontehi sappurisehi pāḷinayo samāsevitabboti amhākaṃ khanti, vīmaṃsitvā gahetabbaṃ.
Having approached closely, at the time of venerating the feet, some first touch their own heads with their hands and then with both hands rub the elders’ knee-regions over the robes. Some first touch the elders’ knee-regions with the robes and then with both hands touch their own heads. Some merely touch lightly. This method too is not seen anywhere. However, monks from the Rāmañña country, having approached closely at the time of veneration, even if they do not see the elders’ feet, search for them, pull them out from under the robes, repeatedly rub the tips of the feet with their hands, bow with their heads, kiss them, and lick them, acting as if seeing a beloved and dear preceptor or teacher returned from a long absence, and thus venerate them. That action seems to align with the text in the Parivāra Pāli, which states, “With both palms rubbing the feet, establishing love and respect, the feet should be venerated” (pāci. 239). However, not all of them see the Pāli text; they act according to tradition alone. Therefore, for the benefit of all, we have extracted the method from the Pāli. The method from the Pāli is indeed stronger than the traditional method, so it is our conviction that good persons honoring the Buddha’s command should follow the Pāli method; it should be accepted after investigation.
When going near to pay respects, some, at the time of saluting the feet, first touch their own heads with their hands and then with those two hands rub the elders’ knees, even over the robes. Some first touch the elders’ knees with the robes still on, and with those same two hands, they touch their own heads. Some merely make a gesture of touching. This practice is not seen anywhere. Monks from the Rāmañña country, however, upon going near in this manner, at the time of saluting, even if they do not see the elders’ feet, they search for them, taking them out from the robe, and repeatedly rub the very tips of the feet with their hands, and then bring them to their heads, kissing and licking them, acting as if they were seeing a beloved and pleasing preceptor or teacher who had returned from a long journey. That action seems to agree with the text found in the Parivāra, “With both hands, one should lovingly and respectfully rub the feet; then the feet should be venerated.” Yet, not all of them see the Pāḷi; they do it out of tradition. Therefore, the method from the Pāḷi has been presented by us for the benefit of all. The method from the Pāḷi is stronger than the method that has come down through tradition. Therefore, it is our opinion that the method from the Pāḷi should be practiced by virtuous people who respect the Blessed One’s command. One should examine it carefully before accepting it.
Having approached closely, at the time of paying respects, some first touch their own head with their hand, then with both hands they rub the elder’s knee-circle over the robe. Some first touch the elder’s knee-circle together with the robe, then with both hands they touch their own head. Some merely make a gesture of touching. This method is not seen in any text. However, the monks from the Rāmañña region, having approached closely, at the time of paying respects, even without seeing the elder’s feet, search for them, draw them out from under the robe, and repeatedly rub the feet with their hands, then roll their head over them, kiss them, and lick them, showing great affection and reverence as if seeing a long-absent beloved preceptor or teacher. This action seems to align with the passage in the Parivāra Pāḷi: “Having rubbed the feet with both palms, showing affection and respect, one should pay homage to the feet.” However, not all of them see the Pāḷi text; they simply follow tradition. Therefore, for the benefit of all, we have extracted the Pāḷi method. Indeed, the Pāḷi method is stronger when it comes from tradition. Thus, it is our conviction that noble individuals, who respect the Buddha’s authority, should follow the Pāḷi method. This should be carefully considered and adopted.
ID1892
ID1893
55. Āsandādikathāyaṃ caturassapīṭhanti samacaturassaṃ. Aṭṭhaṅgulapādaṃ vaṭṭatīti aṭṭhaṅgulapādakameva vaṭṭati. Pamāṇātikkantopi vaṭṭatīti samacaturassameva sandhāya vuttaṃ. Āyatacaturassā pana sattaṅgapañcaṅgāpi uccapādā na vaṭṭanti. Vetteheva caturassādiākārena kataṃ bhaddapīṭhanti āha “vettamayapīṭha”nti. Dārupaṭṭikāya uparīti aṭaniākārena ṭhitadārupaṭalassa heṭṭhā. Uddhaṃ pādaṃ katvā pavesanakālañhi sandhāya “uparī”ti vuttaṃ. Eḷakassa pacchimapādadvayaṃ viya vaṅkākārena ṭhitattā panetaṃ “eḷakapādapīṭha”nti (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.297) vuttaṃ.
55. In the discourse on seats and similar matters, “caturassapīṭha” means a square seat. “Aṭṭhaṅgulapādaṃ vaṭṭati” means only a seat with eight-inch legs is permissible. “Pamāṇātikkantopi vaṭṭati” is said with reference to a square seat alone. However, rectangular seats with seven-inch or five-inch high legs are not permissible. A seat made with bamboo in a square or similar shape is called a “bhaddapīṭha,” hence it says “vettamayapīṭha.” “Dārupaṭṭikāya upari” refers to beneath a wooden plank fixed in a lattice form. “Upari” is said with reference to the time of insertion with the legs upward. Due to its legs standing bent like the hind legs of a goat, it is called “eḷakapādapīṭha” (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.297).
55. In the discourse on seats and other items, caturassapīṭha means a square seat. Aṭṭhaṅgulapādaṃ vaṭṭatīti means only a seat with legs eight fingerbreadths high is allowed. Pamāṇātikkantopi vaṭṭatīti is said with reference only to a square seat. However, rectangular seats with legs exceeding the prescribed height, whether seven-limbed or five-limbed, are not allowed. He says “vettamayapīṭha”ti, meaning a seat made of rattan crafted in a square or other shape, is called a bhaddapīṭha. Dārupaṭṭikāya uparīti means below the wooden board arranged like a frame. The word “above” is used in reference to the time of insertion, with the leg put upwards. This is called “eḷakapādapīṭha” (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.297) because it is positioned in a bent shape, like the hind legs of a goat.
55. In the discussion on seats, etc., caturassapīṭha means a square seat. Aṭṭhaṅgulapādaṃ vaṭṭatīti means it has eight-inch legs. Pamāṇātikkantopi vaṭṭatīti refers to a square seat that exceeds the standard measurement. However, elongated square seats with seven or five-inch legs are not allowed. A well-made seat of square shape, etc., is called vettamayapīṭha. Dārupaṭṭikāya uparīti means above a wooden board placed in the form of a footrest. The term “uparī” is used with reference to the time of entering after raising the feet. Because it stands with its two hind legs bent like a goat’s, it is called eḷakapādapīṭha (see Vinaya Vibhaṅga, Cūḷavagga 2.297).
ID1894
ID1895
56. Uccāsayanamahāsayanakathāyaṃ “vāḷarūpānīti āharimāni vāḷarūpāni, ’akappiyarūpākulo akappiyamañco pallaṅko’ti sārasamāse vuttaṃ. Dīghalomako mahākojavoti caturaṅgulādhikalomo kāḷakojavo. ’Caturaṅgulādhikāni kira tassa lomānī’ti vacanato caturaṅgulato heṭṭhā vaṭṭatīti vadanti. Vānacitro uṇṇāmayattharaṇoti bhitticchedādivasena vicitro uṇṇāmayattharaṇo. Ghanapupphako uṇṇāmayattharaṇoti uṇṇāmayalohitattharaṇo . Pakatitūlikāti rukkhatūlalatātūlapoṭakītūlasaṅkhātānaṃ tiṇṇaṃ tūlānaṃ aññatarapuṇṇā tūlikā. ’Uddalomīti ubhatodasaṃ uṇṇāmayattharaṇaṃ. Ekantalomīti ekatodasaṃ uṇṇāmayattharaṇa’nti dīghanikāyaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ. Sārasamāse pana ’uddalomīti ekatouggatapupphaṃ. Ekantalomīti ubhatouggatapuppha’nti vuttaṃ. ’Koseyyakaṭṭissamayanti koseyyakasaṭamaya’nti ācariyadhammapālattherena vuttaṃ. Suddhakoseyyanti ratanaparisibbanarahitaṃ. Dīghanikāyaṭṭhakathāyaṃ panettha ’ṭhapetvā tūlikaṃ sabbāneva gonakādīni ratanaparisibbitāni na vaṭṭantī’ti vuttaṃ. Tattha ’ṭhapetvā tūlika’nti etena ratanaparisibbanarahitāpi tūlikā na vaṭṭatīti dīpeti. ’Ratanaparisibbitāni na vaṭṭantī’ti iminā pana yāni ratanaparisibbitāni, tāni bhūmattharaṇavasena yathānurūpaṃ mañcādīsu ca upanetuṃ vaṭṭatīti dīpitanti veditabbaṃ. Ettha ca vinayapariyāyaṃ patvā garuke ṭhātabbattā idha vuttanayenevettha vinicchayo veditabbo. Suttantikadesanāya pana gahaṭṭhānampi vasena vuttattā tesaṃ saṅgaṇhanatthaṃ ’ṭhapetvā tūlikaṃ…pe… vaṭṭatī’ti vuttanti apare.
56. In the discourse on high and luxurious beds, “vāḷarūpāni” refers to forms of wild animals brought forth, stated in essence as “an improper form makes an improper bed or couch.” “Dīghalomako mahākojavo” refers to a large black antelope with hair exceeding four inches. From the statement “its hairs are said to exceed four inches,” they say those below four inches are permissible. “Vānacitro uṇṇāmayattharaṇo” means a woolen cover decorated with wall incisions or similar patterns. “Ghanapupphako uṇṇāmayattharaṇo” means a woolen red cover. “Pakatitūlikā” refers to a mattress filled with one of the three types of cotton: tree cotton, vine cotton, or sack cotton. “Uddalomī” means a woolen cover with fringes on both ends. “Ekantalomī” means a woolen cover with fringes on one end, as stated in the Dīghanikāya commentary. In essence, however, “uddalomī” means with flowers raised on one side, and “ekantalomī” means with flowers raised on both sides. “Koseyyakaṭṭissamaya” means made of silk and coarse silk, as stated by the teacher Dhammapāla Thera. “Suddhakoseyya” means without jeweled embroidery. However, in the Dīghanikāya commentary, it is stated, “Except for a tūlikā, all items like gonaka with jeweled embroidery are not permissible.” Here, “except for a tūlikā” indicates that even a tūlikā without jeweled embroidery is not permissible, while “not permissible with jeweled embroidery” suggests that those with jeweled embroidery may be used as floor coverings or appropriately on beds, as should be understood. Since this pertains to Vinaya rulings and requires strict adherence, the decision here should be understood according to the method stated. However, some say that in Suttanta teachings, which include laypeople, it is stated “except for a tūlikā… it is permissible” to accommodate them.
56. In the discourse on high and grand beds, “vāḷarūpānīti means brought animal forms. In the Sārasamāsa, it is said, ‘A couch or bed cluttered with unsuitable forms is an unsuitable couch or bed.’ Dīghalomako mahākojavoti refers to a black rug (kojavo) with hair longer than four fingerbreadths. It is said that it is acceptable with hair shorter than four fingerbreadths because of the statement, ‘Its hairs are said to be more than four fingerbreadths long’. Vānacitro uṇṇāmayattharaṇoti means a woolen spread that is decorated with designs of cut figures. Ghanapupphako uṇṇāmayattharaṇoti means a red woolen spread. Pakatitūlikāti refers to a mattress filled with one of three kinds of stuffing: tree cotton, creeper cotton, or poṭakī cotton. ’Uddalomīti means a woolen spread with a fringe on both sides. Ekantalomīti means a woolen spread with a fringe on one side,’ as stated in the Dīghanikāya commentary. However, in the Sārasamāsa, ’uddalomīti means with a raised nap on one side. Ekantalomīti means with a raised nap on both sides.’ ’Koseyyakaṭṭissamayanti means made of silk’ as stated by the elder teacher Dhammapāla. Suddhakoseyyanti means without a border of jewels. Here, in the Dīghanikāya commentary, it is stated, ‘excluding the mattress, all rugs and other items bordered with jewels are not allowable.’ Here, ‘excluding the mattress’ indicates that even a mattress without a border of jewels is not allowable. ‘Bordered with jewels are not allowable,’ however, indicates that those that are bordered with jewels are allowable to be used as floor coverings and, appropriately, on couches and other items. Here, indeed, the determination should be understood in accordance with the method presented here, as one must take a serious stance after having entered the Vinaya discipline. On the other hand, some say that the statement, ‘excluding the mattress…etc.… allowable’ was said for the sake of householders, since the Sutta discourse was also given for them, and for their benefit.
56. In the discussion on high and luxurious beds, vāḷarūpānīti refers to animal-shaped decorations. Dīghalomako mahākojavoti means a black animal with hair exceeding four inches. It is said that its hair exceeds four inches. Vānacitro uṇṇāmayattharaṇoti means a colorful woolen sheet with patterns like wall designs. Ghanapupphako uṇṇāmayattharaṇoti means a thick woolen sheet. Pakatitūlikāti refers to a cushion filled with cotton from trees, creepers, or grass. Uddalomīti means a woolen sheet with hair on both sides. Ekantalomīti means a woolen sheet with hair on one side, as stated in the Dīghanikāya Aṭṭhakathā. In the Sārasamāsa, uddalomīti means a sheet with raised flowers on one side. Ekantalomīti means a sheet with raised flowers on both sides. Koseyyakaṭṭissamayanti refers to a sheet made of silk threads mixed with gold threads. Suddhakoseyyanti means pure silk without gold embellishments. In the Dīghanikāya Aṭṭhakathā, it is said that except for cotton, all other materials like wool, etc., embellished with gold, are not allowed. Here, “except for cotton” indicates that even cotton without gold embellishments is not allowed. “Embellished with gold” means that those embellished with gold can be used as floor coverings or on beds, etc., as appropriate. In this context, since it pertains to the Vinaya, which is weighty, the decision should be made according to the method stated here. In the Suttanta teachings, however, since it is stated for householders, to accommodate them, it is said, “except for cotton… it is allowed,” according to others.
ID1896
Ajinacammehīti ajinamigacammehi. Tāni kira cammāni sukhumatarāni, tasmā dupaṭṭatipaṭṭāni katvā sibbanti. Tena vuttaṃ ‘ajinappaveṇī’ti. Uttaraṃ uparibhāgaṃ chādetīti uttaracchado, vitānaṃ, tañca lohitavitānaṃ idhādhippetanti āha ‘uparibaddhena rattavitānenā’ti, ’rattavitānesu ca kāsāvaṃ vaṭṭati, kusumbhādirattameva na vaṭṭatī’ti gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. Mahāupadhānanti pamāṇātikkantaṃ upadhānaṃ. Ettha ca kiñcāpi dīghanikāyaṭṭhakathāyaṃ ’alohitakāni dvepi vaṭṭantiyeva, tato uttari labhitvā aññesaṃ dātabbāni. Dātumasakkonto mañce tiriyaṃ attharitvā uparipaccattharaṇaṃ datvā nipajjitumpi labhatī’ti avisesena vuttaṃ, senāsanakkhandhakavaṇṇanāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 297) pana ’agilānassa sīsūpadhānañca pādūpadhānañcāti dvayameva vaṭṭati. Gilānassa bimbohanāni santharitvā upari ca paccattharaṇaṃ datvā nipajjitumpi vaṭṭatī’ti vuttattā gilānoyeva mañce tiriyaṃ attharitvā nipajjituṃ vaṭṭatīti veditabbaṃ. Abhinissāya nisīditunti apassāya nisīditu”nti ettako vinicchayo sāratthadīpaniyaṃ āgato.
“Ajinacammehi” means with deer and antelope hides. These hides are said to be very fine, so they are sewn double or triple, hence it says “ajinappaveṇī.” “Uttaracchado” means covering the upper part, referring to a canopy, and here a red canopy is intended, so it says “uparibaddhena rattavitānena.” In the Gaṇṭhipada, it is stated, “In red canopies, yellowish-orange is permissible, but red dyed with safflower or similar is not.” “Mahāupadhāna” means an oversized pillow. Although the Dīghanikāya commentary states generally, “Both non-red ones are permissible, and if more are obtained, they should be given to others; if unable to give, one may spread them crosswise on a bed with an upper cover and lie down,” in the Senāsanakkhandhaka commentary (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 297), it says, “For a non-sick person, only two—a head pillow and a foot pillow—are permissible. For a sick person, spreading mattresses and adding an upper cover to lie down is permissible.” Thus, it should be understood that only a sick person may spread them crosswise on a bed to lie down. “Abhinissāya nisīditu” means to sit without support.
Ajinacammehīti means with the hides of black antelope. Those hides are very soft, so they are made into double-layered sheets and sewn. Therefore, it is said ‘ajinappaveṇī’ti. That which covers the upper part is called uttaracchado, a canopy, and here it refers to a red canopy, so he says ‘uparibaddhena rattavitānenā’ti, ‘Among red canopies, a kasāva colored one is allowed, but one dyed with safflower or other dyes is not allowed,’ as stated in the Gaṇṭhipada. Mahāupadhānanti refers to a pillow exceeding the prescribed size. Here, although in the Dīghanikāya commentary it is stated without distinction, ‘Both kinds that are not red are allowed. Having obtained more than that, the excess should be given to others. If one is unable to give, one may even spread it crosswise on the couch and, placing a cover on top, lie down,’ in the explanation of the Senāsanakkhandhaka (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 297), it is said, ‘For one who is not ill, only two, a head pillow and a foot pillow, are allowed. For one who is ill, it is allowed to lie down after spreading bolsters and placing a cover on top,’ it should be understood that only an ill person is allowed to spread it crosswise on the bed and lie down. Abhinissāya nisīditunti means to sit leaning.’ This much determination has come in the Sāratthadīpanī.
Ajinacammehīti refers to hides of animals. These hides are said to be very fine, so they are stitched together after being made into double layers. Hence, it is called ajinappaveṇī. Uttaracchado means a canopy that covers the upper part. Rattavitāna refers to a red canopy, as stated: “with a red canopy attached above.” It is said in the Gaṇṭhipada that red canopies are allowed, but not those dyed with kusumbha, etc. Mahāupadhāna means a pillow that exceeds the standard size. Although the Dīghanikāya Aṭṭhakathā states that two non-red pillows are allowed, and any extra should be given to others, and that one may lie down after spreading them sideways on the bed and placing a cover on top, the Senāsanakkhandhaka Vaṇṇanā (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 297) states that only a head pillow and a foot pillow are allowed for the healthy, while the sick may lie down after spreading a mattress and placing a cover on top. Thus, it should be understood that only the sick may lie down after spreading a mattress sideways. Abhinissāya nisīditunti means to sit without leaning. This decision is found in the Sāratthadīpanī.
ID1897
Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.254) – pana vāḷarūpānīti āharimāni vāḷarūpāni. Caturaṅgulādhikānīti uddalomīekantalomīhi visesadassanaṃ. Caturaṅgulato hi ūnāni kira uddalomīādīsu pavisanti. Vānacitro uṇṇāmayattharaṇoti nānāvaṇṇehi uṇṇāmayasuttehi bhitticchedādivasena vāyitvā katacittattharaṇo. Ghanapupphakoti bahalarāgo. Pakatitūlikāti tūlapuṇṇā bhisi. Vikatikāti sīharūpādivasena vānacitrāva gayhati. “Uddalomīti ubhatodasaṃ uṇṇāmayattharaṇaṃ. Ekantalomīti ekantadasaṃ uṇṇāmayattharaṇa”nti dīghanikāyaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ. Koseyyakaṭṭissamayanti kosiyasuttānaṃ antarā suvaṇṇamayasuttāni pavesetvā vītaṃ, suvaṇṇasuttaṃ kira kaṭṭissaṃ kasaṭanti ca vuccati. Teneva “koseyyakasaṭamaya”nti ācariyadhammapālattherena vuttanti vadanti. Ratanaparisibbitanti suvaṇṇalittaṃ. Suddhakoseyyanti ratanaparisibbanarahitaṃ.
In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.254), “vāḷarūpāni” refers to forms of wild animals brought forth. “Caturaṅgulādhikāni” indicates a distinction from uddalomī and ekantalomī, as those below four inches are said to fall under uddalomī and similar categories. “Vānacitro uṇṇāmayattharaṇo” means a decorated cover woven with woolen threads of various colors, featuring wall incisions or similar patterns. “Ghanapupphako” means thickly dyed. “Pakatitūlikā” means a mattress filled with cotton. “Vikatikā” is taken as one decorated with lion forms or similar patterns. “Uddalomī” means a woolen cover with fringes on both ends. “Ekantalomī” means a woolen cover with fringes on one end, as stated in the Dīghanikāya commentary. “Koseyyakaṭṭissamaya” means woven with silk threads interspersed with golden threads, which are called kaṭṭissa or coarse, hence the teacher Dhammapāla Thera said “koseyyakasaṭamaya.” “Ratanaparisibbita” means embroidered with gold. “Suddhakoseyya” means without jeweled embroidery.
In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.254), however, vāḷarūpānīti means brought animal forms. Caturaṅgulādhikānīti is a description of a distinction, with uddalomī and ekantalomī. For those that are less than four fingerbreadths, they are considered among the uddalomī and other types. Vānacitro uṇṇāmayattharaṇoti means a patterned spread woven with woolen threads of various colors, with patterns made by cutting sections and in other ways. Ghanapupphakoti means a thick, richly colored spread. Pakatitūlikāti means a mattress filled with stuffing. Vikatikāti refers to woven designs such as lion figures, like vānacitrā. “Uddalomīti means a woolen spread with a fringe on both sides. Ekantalomīti means a woolen spread with a fringe on one side,” as stated in the Dīghanikāya commentary. Koseyyakaṭṭissamayanti means woven with threads of gold introduced among the silk threads; the golden thread is called kaṭṭissa and kasaṭa. Therefore, it is said that the elder teacher Dhammapāla said, “koseyyakasaṭamaya”’. Ratanaparisibbitanti means embroidered with gold. Suddhakoseyyanti means without a border of jewels.
In the Vimativinodanī (Vinaya Vibhaṅga, Mahāvagga 2.254), vāḷarūpānīti refers to animal-shaped decorations. Caturaṅgulādhikānīti distinguishes uddalomī and ekantalomī. It is said that hairs shorter than four inches are included in uddalomī, etc. Vānacitro uṇṇāmayattharaṇoti means a colorful woolen sheet woven with threads of various colors, creating patterns like wall designs. Ghanapupphakoti means a thick red sheet. Pakatitūlikāti refers to a cushion filled with cotton. Vikatikāti means a sheet adorned with designs like lion shapes. Uddalomīti means a woolen sheet with hair on both sides. Ekantalomīti means a woolen sheet with hair on one side, as stated in the Dīghanikāya Aṭṭhakathā. Koseyyakaṭṭissamayanti refers to silk threads mixed with gold threads. Ratanaparisibbitanti means adorned with gold. Suddhakoseyyanti means pure silk without gold embellishments.
ID1898
Ajinamigacammānaṃ atisukhumattā dupaṭṭatipaṭṭāni katvā sibbantīti vuttaṃ “ajinappaveṇī”ti. Rattavitānenāti sabbarattena vitānena. Yaṃ pana nānāvaṇṇaṃ vānacittaṃ vā lepacittaṃ vā, taṃ vaṭṭati. Ubhatolohitakūpadhānepi eseva nayo. Citraṃ vāti idaṃ pana sabbathā kappiyattā vuttaṃ, na pana ubhatoupadhānesu akappiyattā. Na hi lohitakasaddo citte vaṭṭati. Paṭaliggahaṇeneva cittakassapi attharaṇassa saṅgahetabbappasaṅgato. Kāsāvaṃ pana lohitaṅgavohāraṃ na gacchati, tasmā vitānepi ubhatoupadhānepi vaṭṭati. Sace pamāṇayuttantiādi aññassa pamāṇātikkantassa bimbohanassa paṭikkhittabhāvadassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ, na pana uccāsayanamahāsayanabhāvadassanatthaṃ tathā avuttattā, taṃ pana upadhānaṃ uposathikānaṃ gahaṭṭhānaṃ vaṭṭati. Uccāsayanamahāsayanameva hi tadā tesaṃ na vaṭṭati. Dīghanikāyaṭṭhakathādīsu kiñcāpi “ṭhapetvā tūlikaṃ sabbāneva gonakādīni ratanaparisibbitāni na vaṭṭantī”ti vuttaṃ, vinayaṭṭhakathā eva pana kappiyākappiyabhāve pamāṇanti gahetabbaṃ. Abhinissāyāti apassāyāti vuttaṃ.
Due to the extreme fineness of deer and antelope hides, they are sewn double or triple, hence it says “ajinappaveṇī.” “Rattavitānena” means with an entirely red canopy. However, one that is multicolored or decorated with woven or painted patterns is permissible. The same applies to pillows with red on both sides. “Citraṃ vā” is said because it is entirely permissible, not because it is improper for pillows on both sides, for the term “red” does not apply to decorated items. Since the inclusion of “paṭali” implies that decorated covers are also covered, and yellowish-orange does not fall under the category of red, it is permissible for both canopies and pillows on both sides. “Sace pamāṇayutta” and so forth is said to indicate the prohibition of another oversized mattress, not to suggest it pertains to high and luxurious beds, as it is not stated so, though such a pillow is permissible for laypeople observing Uposatha. Only high and luxurious beds are impermissible for them at that time. Although the Dīghanikāya commentary and others say, “Except for a tūlikā, all items like gonaka with jeweled embroidery are not permissible,” the Vinaya commentary should be taken as the standard for what is permissible or not. “Abhinissāya” means without support.
Because the hides of black antelope are extremely soft, they are made into double-layered sheets and sewn; therefore, it is said “ajinappaveṇī”. Rattavitānenāti means with an all-red canopy. However, one that is multi-colored, with woven designs, or painted designs, is allowed. The same principle applies to pillows that are red on both sides. Citraṃ vāti is said because it is completely allowable, but not because it is unallowable in the case of pillows. The word ‘red’ does not apply to designs. By the mere acceptance of a sheet, there would arise the possibility of accepting a patterned spread as well. However, a kasāva colored one does not come under the designation of ‘red’, therefore it is allowable for both the canopy and the pillows on both sides. Sace pamāṇayuttantiādi is stated to show the prohibition of another pillow that exceeds the prescribed size, but not to show that it is a high and grand bed, since it is not stated in that way. That pillow, however, is allowable for householders observing the Uposatha. For, at that time, only high and grand beds are not allowable for them. Although it is stated in the Dīghanikāya commentary and other places, ‘excluding the mattress, all rugs and other items bordered with jewels are not allowable,’ one should take the Vinaya commentary as the authority in determining what is allowable and unallowable. Abhinissāyāti means leaning, it is stated.
Because animal hides are very fine, they are stitched together after being made into double layers, hence called ajinappaveṇī. Rattavitānenāti means a completely red canopy. However, a canopy with various colors or designs is allowed. The same applies to pillows with red on both sides. Citraṃ vāti is stated as entirely allowable, but not for pillows with red on both sides, as they are not allowed. The term “lohitaka” does not apply to designs. The term “paṭaliggahaṇa” includes even designed sheets. However, kāsāva (ochre) does not fall under the category of red, so it is allowed for canopies and pillows. Sace pamāṇayuttantiādi is stated to reject pillows that exceed the standard size, but not to indicate high or luxurious beds, as such is not stated. However, such pillows are allowed for lay devotees during Uposatha. High and luxurious beds are not allowed for them at that time. Although the Dīghanikāya Aṭṭhakathā states, “except for cotton, all other materials like wool, etc., embellished with gold, are not allowed,” in the Vinaya Aṭṭhakathā, the allowance or prohibition should be determined by the standard. Abhinissāyāti means without leaning.
ID1899
ID1900
Pāsādaparibhogakathāyaṃ sāratthadīpaniyaṃ vajirabuddhiṭīkāyañca na kiñci vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.320) pana “suvaṇṇarajatādivicitrānīti saṅghikasenāsanaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Puggalikaṃ pana suvaṇṇādivicitraṃ bhikkhussa sampaṭicchitumeva na vaṭṭati ’na kenaci pariyāyena jātarūparajataṃ sāditabba’nti (mahāva. 299) vuttattā. Tenevettha aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 320) ’saṅghikavihāre vā puggalikavihāre vā’ti vuttaṃ. Gonakādiakappiyabhaṇḍavisaye eva vuttaṃ ekabhikkhussapi tesaṃ gahaṇe dosābhāvā”ti vuttaṃ.
In the discourse on the use of mansions, nothing is said in the Sāratthadīpanī or Vajirabuddhiṭīkā. However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.320), “suvaṇṇarajatādivicitrāni” is said with reference to monastic lodgings. However, a personal lodging decorated with gold or silver is not permissible for a monk to accept, as it is stated, “Gold and silver are not to be acquired by any means” (mahāva. 299). Thus, the commentary here (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 320) says, “In a monastic vihāra or a personal vihāra.” It is stated only regarding improper items like gonaka, as there is no fault in a single monk acquiring them.
In the discourse on the use of mansions, nothing is mentioned in the Sāratthadīpanī and the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā. In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.320), however, “suvaṇṇarajatādivicitrānīti is said with reference to a Saṅgha dwelling. However, a dwelling adorned with gold and silver is not even to be accepted by an individual monk, as it is said, ‘Gold and silver should not be accepted in any way’ (mahāva. 299). Therefore, in the commentary here (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 320), it is said, ‘in a Saṅgha monastery or an individual monastery.’ It is said concerning only unsuitable items such as rugs, because even for a single monk, there is no fault in accepting them.”
In the discussion on the use of mansions, nothing is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī or the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā. However, in the Vimativinodanī (Vinaya Vibhaṅga, Cūḷavagga 2.320), suvaṇṇarajatādivicitrānīti refers to the Saṅgha’s dwellings. Personal mansions adorned with gold, etc., are not allowed for a monk to accept, as it is stated, “In no way should gold or silver be accepted” (Mahāvagga 299). Therefore, in the Aṭṭhakathā (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 320), it is said, “whether in a Saṅgha’s dwelling or a personal dwelling.” This refers to allowable items like wool, etc., and even a single monk may take them without fault.
ID1901
ID1902
Upāhanakathāyaṃ “addāriṭṭhakavaṇṇāti abhinavāriṭṭhaphalavaṇṇā, udakena tintakākapattavaṇṇātipi vadanti. Uṇṇāhi katapādukāti uṇṇālomamayakambalehi, uṇṇālomehi eva vā katapādukā. Kāḷasīhoti kāḷamukhavānarajāti. Sesamettha pāḷito ca aṭṭhakathāto ca suviññeyyamevā”ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.246) vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.246) pana “addāriṭṭhakavaṇṇāti allāriṭṭhaphalavaṇṇā, tintakākapakkhavaṇṇātipi vadanti. Rajananti uparilittanīlādivaṇṇaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Tenāha ‘coḷakena puñchitvā’ti. Tañhi tathā puñchite vigacchati. Yaṃ pana cammassa duggandhāpanayanatthaṃ kāḷarattādirajanehi rañjitattā kāḷarattādivaṇṇaṃ hoti, taṃ coḷādīhi apanetuṃ na sakkā cammagatikameva, tasmā taṃ vaṭṭatīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Khallakanti sabbapaṇhipidhānacammaṃ aparigaḷanatthaṃ paṇhiyā uparibhāge apidhāya āropanabandhanamattaṃ vaṭṭati. Vicitrāti saṇṭhānato vicitrapaṭṭā adhippetā, na vaṇṇato sabbaso apanetabbesu khallakādīsu paviṭṭhattā. Biḷālasadisamukhattā mahāulūkā pakkhibiḷālāti vuccanti, tesaṃ cammaṃ nāma pakkhalomameva. Uṇṇāhi katapādukāti ettha uṇṇāmayakambalehi katapādukā saṅgayhanti. Kāḷasīhoti kāḷamukhavānarajāti. Cammaṃ na vaṭṭatīti nisīdanattharaṇaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭati, bhūmattharaṇādivasena paribhogo vaṭṭatevā”ti vuttaṃ.
In the discourse on footwear, “addāriṭṭhakavaṇṇa” means the color of a fresh arittha fruit, or some say the color of a crow’s feather wet with water. “Uṇṇāhi katapādukā” means footwear made of woolen fleece blankets or simply woolen fleece. “Kāḷasīho” refers to a species of black-faced monkey. The rest here is easily understood from the Pāli and commentary, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.246). However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.246), “addāriṭṭhakavaṇṇa” means the color of a wet arittha fruit, or some say the color of a ripe crow’s feather. “Rajana” refers to an upper layer dyed blue or similar, hence it says “coḷakena puñchitvā,” for it disappears when wiped thus. However, if the leather is dyed black, red, or similar to remove its bad smell, becoming black or red accordingly, it cannot be removed with cloth or similar means due to its inherent nature, so it is permissible, as should be noted. “Khallaka” means leather covering the entire heel, but only a strip fastened above the heel to prevent slipping is permissible. “Vicitrā” refers to those with decorated patterns in shape, not color, as they fall under khallaka and similar items that must be entirely avoided. Large owls are called “pakkhibiḷālā” due to their cat-like faces, and their hide is indeed feathered. “Uṇṇāhi katapādukā” includes footwear made of woolen blankets. “Kāḷasīho” refers to a black-faced monkey species. “Cammaṃ na vaṭṭati” means it is not permissible to make a sitting mat or cover; it is permissible only for use as a floor covering or similar.
In the discourse on footwear, “addāriṭṭhakavaṇṇāti means the color of fresh āriṭṭha fruits; some also say the color of crow feathers soaked in water. Uṇṇāhi katapādukāti means footwear made with woolen blankets or only with woolen fleece. Kāḷasīhoti means a black-faced monkey species. The rest here is easily understood from the Pāḷi and the commentary,’ as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.246). In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.246), however, “addāriṭṭhakavaṇṇāti means the color of wet āriṭṭha fruits; some also say the color of crow wings. Rajananti is said in reference to the blue and other colors applied on the surface. Therefore, he said, ‘coḷakena puñchitvā’ti. For when it is wiped in that way, it disappears. However, the color that is black, red, or another color, because it is dyed with black dye, red dye, or other dyes to remove the bad smell of the leather, cannot be removed with a cloth or other things; it is inherent in the leather itself. Therefore, it should be understood as allowable. Khallakanti means that only the fastening that is placed over the heel to prevent the entire heel-covering leather from slipping is allowable. Vicitrāti refers to straps that are varied in shape, not in color, since they are included among khallakas and other items that are to be completely removed. Great owls are called pakkhibiḷālā because they have faces resembling cats; their hide refers to the feathered skin. Uṇṇāhi katapādukāti: Here, footwear made with woolen blankets is accepted. Kāḷasīhoti means a black-faced monkey species. Cammaṃ na vaṭṭatīti means that it is not allowable to use as a sitting cloth; use as a floor covering or in other ways is indeed allowable,’ it is stated.
In the discussion on footwear, addāriṭṭhakavaṇṇāti means the color of fresh ariṭṭha fruit, or the color of a water-soaked crow’s feather. Uṇṇāhi katapādukāti means sandals made of woolen cloth or wool. Kāḷasīhoti means a black-faced monkey. The rest is clear from the Pāḷi and the Aṭṭhakathā, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.246). In the Vimativinodanī (Vinaya Vibhaṅga, Mahāvagga 2.246), addāriṭṭhakavaṇṇāti means the color of a ripe ariṭṭha fruit or a crow’s wing. Rajananti refers to colors like blue applied on top. Hence, it is said, “wiped with a cloth,” as it removes such colors. However, the color applied to remove the foul smell of leather, such as black or red dye, cannot be removed with a cloth, as it is inherent to the leather. Therefore, it is allowed. Khallakanti refers to a leather covering for the heel, tied above the heel to prevent slipping. Vicitrāti refers to patterned leather, not colored leather, as all such leathers are to be removed. Pakkhibiḷālāti refers to large owls with cat-like faces, whose leather is called “wing hair.” Uṇṇāhi katapādukāti here refers to sandals made of woolen cloth. Kāḷasīhoti means a black-faced monkey. Cammaṃ na vaṭṭatīti means leather cannot be used as a sitting mat, but it is allowed as a floor covering, etc.
ID1903
Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 259) pana “migamātukoti tassa nāmaṃ, vātamigoti ca tassa nāmaṃ. ’Kāḷasīho kāḷamukho kapī’ti likhitaṃ. Cammaṃ na vaṭṭatīti yena pariyāyena cammaṃ vaṭṭissati, so parato āvibhavissati. ’Attano puggalikavasena paccāhāro paṭikkhitto’ti vuttaṃ. ’Na, bhikkhave, kiñci cammaṃ dhāretabba’nti ettāvatā siddhe ’na, bhikkhave, gocamma’nti idaṃ parato ’anujānāmi, bhikkhave, sabbapaccantimesu janapadesu cammāni attharaṇānī’ti (mahāva. 259) ettha anumatippasaṅgabhayā vuttanti veditabba”nti vuttaṃ.
In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 259), “migamātuko” is its name, also called a wind-deer. “Kāḷasīho” is written as “black-faced monkey.” “Cammaṃ na vaṭṭati” means that the way in which leather is permissible will become clear later. It is said, “Personal use as an offering is prohibited.” Since “Monks, no leather is to be worn” (mahāva. 259) would suffice, the additional “Monks, no cowhide” is said later in “I allow, monks, all leather for floor coverings in all border regions” (mahāva. 259) to avoid the implication of permission, as should be understood.
In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 259), however, “migamātukoti is its name; vātamiga is also its name. ‘Kāḷasīho** is a monkey with a black face,’ it is written. Cammaṃ na vaṭṭatī**ti: The way in which leather will be allowable will become clear later. ‘Personal taking back is prohibited,’ it is stated. By saying only, ‘Monks, any leather should not be worn,’ it is accomplished; this, ‘Monks, cowhide,’ is said later, for fear of the possibility of permission in ‘I allow, monks, leather as floor coverings in all the border regions’ (mahāva. 259), it should be understood,’ it is stated.
In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 259), migamātukoti is its name, also called vātamigo. Kāḷasīho means black-faced monkey. Cammaṃ na vaṭṭatīti means leather is not allowed in any way, as it is prohibited for personal use. It is stated, “Monks, no leather should be worn,” and “Monks, no cow leather,” but later it is said, “I allow leather as floor coverings in all border regions” (Mahāvagga 259). This was stated out of fear of implying permission.
ID1904
ID1905
Yānakathāyaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, purisayuttaṃ hatthavaṭṭaka”nti (mahāva. 253) ettha anujānāmi, bhikkhave, purisayuttaṃ, anujānāmi, bhikkhave, hatthavaṭṭakanti evaṃ paccekaṃ vākyaparisamāpanaṃ adhippetanti āha “purisayuttaṃ itthisārathi vā…pe… purisā vā, vaṭṭatiyevā”ti. “Pīṭhakasivikanti pīṭhakayānaṃ. Pāṭaṅkinti andolikāyetaṃ adhivacana”nti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.253) vuttaṃ, “pīṭhakasivikanti phalakādinā kataṃ pīṭhakayānaṃ. Paṭapotalikaṃ andolikā. Sabbampi yānaṃ upāhanenapi gantuṃ asamatthassa gilānassa anuññāta”nti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.253).
In the discourse on vehicles, “I allow, monks, a man-drawn vehicle and a hand-pushed cart” (mahāva. 253) implies separate sentence completions as “I allow, monks, a man-drawn vehicle” and “I allow, monks, a hand-pushed cart,” hence it says “purisayuttaṃ itthisārathi vā…pe… purisā vā, vaṭṭatiyeva.” “Pīṭhakasivika” means a seat vehicle. “Pāṭaṅki” is another term for a swinging litter, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.253). “Pīṭhakasivika” means a seat vehicle made of planks or similar. “Paṭapotalika” means a swinging litter. All vehicles are permitted for a sick person unable to walk even with footwear, as stated in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.253).
In the discourse on vehicles, regarding “I allow, monks, a vehicle pulled by men, a hand-propelled cart” (mahāva. 253), he states “purisayuttaṃ itthisārathi vā…pe… purisā vā, vaṭṭatiyevā”ti, meaning that the separate completion of the sentences is intended: “I allow, monks, a vehicle pulled by men” and “I allow, monks, a hand-propelled cart”. “Pīṭhakasivikanti refers to a palanquin seat. Pāṭaṅkinti is a synonym for andolikā,’ as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.253). “pīṭhakasivikanti means a palanquin seat made with planks and other materials. Paṭapotalikaṃ is a litter. Any vehicle is permitted for a sick person who is unable to travel even with footwear,’ in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.253).
In the discussion on vehicles, “I allow, monks, vehicles drawn by men or elephants” (Mahāvagga 253). Here, “I allow, monks, vehicles drawn by men; I allow, monks, vehicles drawn by elephants” is intended as separate statements, hence it is said, purisayuttaṃ itthisārathi vā…pe… purisā vā, vaṭṭatiyevāti. Pīṭhakasivikanti means a carriage with a seat. Pāṭaṅkinti means a swing, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.253). Pīṭhakasivikanti means a carriage made of planks, etc. Paṭapotalikaṃ means a swing. All vehicles are allowed for the sick who cannot walk, even with footwear, as stated in the Vimativinodanī (Vinaya Vibhaṅga, Mahāvagga 2.253).
ID1906
ID1907
57. Cīvarakathāyaṃ “ahatakappānanti ekavāradhotānaṃ. Utuddhaṭānanti ututo dīghakālato uddhaṭānaṃ hatavatthakānaṃ, pilotikānanti vuttaṃ hoti. Pāpaṇiketi antarāpaṇato patitapilotikacīvare. Ussāho karaṇīyoti pariyesanā kātabbā. Paricchedo panettha natthi, paṭṭasatampi vaṭṭati. Sabbamidaṃ sādiyantassa bhikkhuno vasena vuttaṃ. Aggaḷaṃ tunnanti ettha uddharitvā allīyāpanakhaṇḍaṃ aggaḷaṃ, suttena saṃsibbitaṃ tunnaṃ, vaṭṭetvā karaṇaṃ ovaṭṭikaṃ. Kaṇḍupakaṃ vuccati muddikā. Daḷīkammanti anuddharitvāva upassayaṃ katvā allīyāpanakaṃ vatthakhaṇḍa”nti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ āgataṃ. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.348) pana “acchupeyyanti patiṭṭhapeyyaṃ. Hatavatthakānanti kālātītavatthānaṃ. Uddharitvā allīyāpanakhaṇḍanti dubbalaṭṭhānaṃ apanetvā allīyāpanavatthakhaṇḍa”nti vuttaṃ. Diguṇaṃ saṅghāṭinti dupaṭṭaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ. Ekacciyanti ekapaṭṭaṃ aggapaṭṭaṃ. Aggaḷaṃ ajjhāpessanti jiṇṇaṭṭhāne pilotikakhaṇḍaṃ laggāpeyyaṃ.
57. In the discourse on robes, “ahatakappāna” means those washed once. “Utuddhaṭāna” means garments removed from use after a long time due to wear, referring to rags. “Pāpaṇike” means a rag robe fallen from a shop. “Ussāho karaṇīyo” means effort should be made to seek them. There is no limit here; even a hundred pieces are permissible. All this is said with reference to a monk accepting them. “Aggaḷaṃ tunna” refers to a piece lifted and attached, “tunna” means sewn with thread, and rolling it up is “ovaṭṭika.” “Kaṇḍupaka” is called a seal. “Daḷīkamma” means a piece attached firmly without lifting, as stated in the commentary. In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.348), “acchupeyya” means to establish. “Hatavatthakāna” means worn-out garments. “Uddharitvā allīyāpanakhaṇḍa” means a piece attached after removing weak parts. “Diguṇaṃ saṅghāṭi” means a double-layered outer robe. “Ekacciya” means a single-layered prime piece. “Aggaḷaṃ ajjhāpessa” means to attach a rag piece to a worn spot.
57. In the discussion on robes, “ahatakappāna” means those that have been washed once. “Utuddhaṭāna” means worn-out cloth, discarded after a long time or from a long time ago, which are said to be remnants. “Pāpaṇike” refers to discarded remnants of cloth from a shop. “Ussāho karaṇīyo” means one should make an effort to search for them. There is no limit here; even a hundred pieces of cloth are permissible. All of this is said with regard to a monk who accepts them. Here, “aggaḷaṃ” means the application after removing a piece, “tunnaṃ” is what is sewn together with thread, “ovaṭṭikaṃ” is made by rolling it. “Kaṇḍupakaṃ” is called a ring. “Daḷīkamma” means applied by making a covering without removing the worn-out cloth, according to the commentary. In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.348), however, it states “acchupeyya” means should place. “Hatavatthakāna” means cloth passed their time. “Uddharitvā allīyāpanakhaṇḍa” means said to remove a weak spot and applied piece of cloth. “Diguṇaṃ saṅghāṭi” means a double-layered outer robe. “Ekacciya” means a single-layered principal part. “Aggaḷaṃ ajjhāpessa” means should attach a piece of cloth to a worn-out place.
57. In the discussion on robes, “ahatakappāna” refers to those washed once. “Utuddhaṭāna” refers to robes that have been removed from use after a long time, meaning old and worn-out cloth. “Pāpaṇike” refers to cloth or robes that have fallen in the marketplace. “Ussāho karaṇīyo” means that effort should be made to search for such cloth. There is no specific limit here; even a hundred pieces are acceptable. All this is said in relation to a monk who accepts such cloth. “Aggaḷaṃ tunna” refers here to a piece of cloth that has been removed and patched, called “aggaḷa,” sewn together with thread, called “tunna,” and rolled into a ball, called “ovaṭṭikaṃ.” “Kaṇḍupakaṃ” refers to a thimble. “Daḷīkamma” means not removing the cloth but patching it directly where it is worn out. This is stated in the commentary. The Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.348) explains “acchupeyya” as placing it down. “Hatavatthakāna” refers to cloth that has passed its usable time. “Uddharitvā allīyāpanakhaṇḍa” means removing the weak part and patching it with another piece of cloth. “Diguṇaṃ saṅghāṭi” refers to a double-layered saṅghāṭi. “Ekacciya” refers to a single-layered robe or the upper layer. “Aggaḷaṃ ajjhāpessa” means attaching a patch of old cloth to a worn-out area.
ID1908
ID1909
Chinnacīvarakathāyaṃ tīsu pana cīvaresu dve vā ekaṃ vā chinditvā kātabbanti ettha “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, chinnakaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ chinnakaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ chinnakaṃ antaravāsaka”nti (mahāva. 345) vacanato pañcakhaṇḍasattakhaṇḍādivasena chinditvāva kātabbaṃ, na acchinditvāti attho. Sace nappahoti, āgantukapaṭṭaṃ dātabbanti ettha yadi chinditvā kate tiṇṇampi cīvarānaṃ atthāya sāṭako nappahoti, dve cīvarāni chinnakāni kātabbāni, ekaṃ cīvaraṃ acchinnakaṃ kattabbaṃ. Dvīsu cīvaresu chinditvā katesu sāṭako nappahoti, dve cīvarāni acchinnakāni, ekaṃ cīvaraṃ chinnakaṃ kātabbaṃ. Ekasmimpi cīvare chinditvā kate sāṭako nappahoti, evaṃ sati acchinditvā āgantukapaṭṭaṃ dātabbanti attho. Tamatthaṃ pāḷiyā sādhetuṃ “vuttañheta”ntiādimāha. Tattha anvādhikampi āropetunti evaṃ appahonte sati āgantukapaṭṭampi āropetuṃ anujānāmīti attho.
In the discourse on torn robes, “tīsu pana cīvaresu dve vā ekaṃ vā chinditvā kātabba” means that, based on the statement “I allow, monks, a torn saṅghāṭi, a torn uttarāsaṅga, a torn antaravāsaka” (mahāva. 345), it must be made by cutting into five or seven pieces or similar, not without cutting. “Sace nappahoti, āgantukapaṭṭaṃ dātabba” means if the cloth is insufficient for all three robes after cutting, two robes should be made torn, and one robe made uncut. If the cloth is insufficient for two robes after cutting, two robes should be uncut, and one robe torn. If it is insufficient even for one robe after cutting, then an additional piece should be given without cutting, as the meaning. To clarify this with the Pāli, it says “vuttañheta” and so forth. Therein, “anvādhikampi āropetu” means I allow adding an extra piece when it is insufficient.
In the discussion on torn robes, regarding “tīsu pana cīvaresu dve vā ekaṃ vā chinditvā kātabba”, it means that, because of the statement “I allow, monks, a patched outer robe, a patched upper robe, a patched inner robe” (mahāva. 345), it should be made by patching in sections of five, seven, and so on, not without patching. “Sace nappahoti, āgantukapaṭṭaṃ dātabba”, here, if when it is made by cutting and the garment is not enough for all three robes, two robes should be made with patches, and one robe should be made without patches. If when two robes are made by cutting, and the garment is not enough, two robes should be made without patches and one robe should be made with patches. If when even one robe is made with patching, and the garment is not enough, in that case, an additional piece should be applied without cutting. To support this point with the Pāḷi, he says “vuttañheta” and so on. Here, “anvādhikampi āropetu” means “I allow you to attach even an additional piece when it is not enough.”
In the discussion on torn robes, “tīsu pana cīvaresu dve vā ekaṃ vā chinditvā kātabba” means that among the three robes, one or two should be cut and repaired. This is based on the statement, “I allow, monks, a torn saṅghāṭi, a torn upper robe, and a torn lower robe” (Mahāva. 345). It should be done by cutting into five or seven pieces, not by tearing it apart. “Sace nappahoti, āgantukapaṭṭaṃ dātabba” means that if, after cutting, the robe is insufficient for the purpose, two robes should be cut, and one robe should remain uncut. If even after cutting two robes, the robe is insufficient, two robes should remain uncut, and one robe should be cut. If even after cutting one robe, the robe is insufficient, then without cutting, an additional piece of cloth should be given. To explain this meaning in the Pali, “vuttañheta” is said. Here, “anvādhikampi āropetu” means that if it is still insufficient, even an additional piece of cloth should be added.
ID1910
ID1911
Akappiyacīvarakathāyaṃ “naggiyaṃ kusacīraṃ phalakacīraṃ kesakambalaṃ vāḷakambalaṃ ulūkapakkhikaṃ ajinakkhipa”nti imāni titthiyasamādānattā thullaccayavatthūnīti bhagavatā paṭikkhittāni . Tattha naggiyanti naggabhāvo acelakabhāvo. Kusacīranti kusena ganthetvā katacīvaraṃ. Vākacīranti tāpasānaṃ vakkalaṃ. Phalakacīranti phalakasaṇṭhānāni phalakāni sibbitvā katacīvaraṃ. Kesakambalanti kesehi tante vāyitvā katakambalaṃ. Vālakambalanti cāmarīvālehi vāyitvā katakambalaṃ. Ulūkapakkhikanti ulūkasakuṇassa pakkhehi katanivāsanaṃ . Ajinakkhipanti salomaṃ sakhuraṃ ajinamigacammaṃ. Tāni titthiyaddhajabhūtāni acīvarabhāvena pākaṭānīti ācariyena idha na vuttāni. Potthako pana apākaṭoti taṃ vatvā sabbanīlakādīni dukkaṭavatthukāni vuttāni. “Tipaṭṭacīvarassa vā majjhe dātabbānī”ti vuttattā tipaṭṭacīvaraṃ dhāretuṃ vaṭṭatīti siddhaṃ. Tipaṭṭādīnañca bahupaṭṭacīvarānaṃ antare īdisāni asāruppavaṇṇāni paṭapilotikāni kātabbānīti dasseti. Kañcukaṃ nāma sīsato paṭimuñcitvā kāyāruḷhavatthaṃ. Tenāha “phāletvā rajitvā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatī”ti. Veṭhananti sīsaveṭhanaṃ. Tirīṭanti makuṭaṃ. Tassa visesaṃ dassetuṃ “tirīṭakaṃ panā”tiādimāha.
In the discourse on improper robes, “naggiyaṃ kusacīraṃ phalakacīraṃ kesakambalaṃ vāḷakambalaṃ ulūkapakkhikaṃ ajinakkhipa” are prohibited by the Blessed One as gross offenses due to their adoption by sectarians. Therein, “naggiya” means nakedness or the state of an unclothed ascetic. “Kusacīra” means a robe woven from kusa grass. “Vākacīra” means the bark garment of ascetics. “Phalakacīra” means a robe made by sewing board-shaped pieces. “Kesakambala” means a blanket woven from hair threads. “Vāḷakambala” means a blanket woven from yak tail hairs. “Ulūkapakkhika” means a garment made from owl feathers. “Ajinakkhipa” means a deer or antelope hide with hair and hooves. These are well-known as sectarian emblems and not robes, so the teacher did not mention them here. However, since the text is less obvious, it mentions them and lists dark blue and similar items as minor offenses. From the statement “Tipaṭṭacīvarassa vā majjhe dātabbāni,” it is established that wearing a three-layered robe is permissible. It indicates that among many-layered robes, such unsuitable colored rag pieces should be used. “Kañcuka” refers to a garment worn over the head and body, hence it says “phāletvā rajitvā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati.” “Veṭhana” means a head wrap. “Tirīṭa” means a crown, and to specify it, it says “tirīṭakaṃ pana” and so forth.
In the discussion on unsuitable robes, “nudity, grass-cloth, bark-cloth, hair-blanket, horsehair-blanket, owl-feather cloth, animal skin” – these are prohibited by the Blessed One as they constitute grounds for a grave offense because they are the practices of sectarians. Here, “naggiya” means the state of being naked, the state of being unclothed. “Kusacīra” means a robe made by weaving kusa grass. “Vākacīra” means the bark-cloth of ascetics. “Phalakacīra” means a robe made by sewing pieces of wood shaped like boards. “Kesakambala” means a blanket made by weaving hair as thread. “Vālakambala” means a blanket woven with the hair of a yak. “Ulūkapakkhika” means a lower garment made from the feathers of an owl. “Ajinakkhipa” means the skin of a goat or deer with the hair and hooves still attached. Those are clearly defined as belonging to the sectarians’ banners, with no robe appearance, the teacher here did not mention. Potthaka, however, said it is not obvious, mentioned all those that are entirely blue, etc., constituting grounds for a minor offense. Because it is stated that “tipaṭṭacīvarassa vā majjhe dātabbānī”, it is established that it is permissible to wear a three-layered robe. He indicates that such unsuitable colors of cloth remnants should be used within the layers of the three-layered and other multi-layered robes. “Kañcukaṃ” is called a garment put on from the head to cover the body. Therefore, he says “phāletvā rajitvā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatī”. “Veṭhana” means a head-wrap. “Tirīṭa” means a crown. To show its particularity, he says “tirīṭakaṃ panā” and so on.
In the discussion on unfit robes, “naggiyaṃ, kusacīraṃ, phalakacīraṃ, kesakambalaṃ, vāḷakambalaṃ, ulūkapakkhikaṃ, ajinakkhipa”—these are prohibited by the Buddha because they are practices of ascetics and grounds for a grave offense. Here, “naggiya” means nakedness or being without clothes. “Kusacīra” refers to robes made by tying grass together. “Vākacīra” refers to the bark garments of ascetics. “Phalakacīra” refers to robes made by sewing together pieces shaped like planks. “Kesakambala” refers to blankets made by weaving hair. “Vālakambala” refers to blankets made from the hair of the yak. “Ulūkapakkhika” refers to garments made from owl feathers. “Ajinakkhipa” refers to animal hides with hair and hooves. These are considered emblems of heretics and are not suitable as robes, as they are not proper robes. The Potthaka, however, is not explicitly mentioned here. “Tipaṭṭacīvarassa vā majjhe dātabbānī” means that a triple-layered robe is permissible. It also indicates that among robes with many layers, such unsuitable colors and patches should not be used. “Kañcukaṃ” refers to a garment worn from the head down to the body. Thus, it is said, “phāletvā rajitvā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatī”—it is permissible to wear it after dyeing. “Veṭhana” refers to a headband. “Tirīṭa” refers to a crown. To explain its specifics, “tirīṭakaṃ panā” is said.
ID1912
ID1913
Cīvaravicāraṇakathāyaṃ “paṇḍito, bhikkhave, ānando, mahāpañño, bhikkhave, ānando. Yatra hi nāma mayā saṃkhittena bhāsitassa vitthārena atthaṃ ājānissati, kusimpi nāma karissati, aḍḍhakusimpi nāma karissati, maṇḍalampi nāma karissati, aḍḍhamaṇḍalampi nāma karissati, vivaṭṭampi nāma karissati, anuvivaṭṭampi nāma karissati, gīveyyakampi nāma karissati, jaṅgheyyakampi nāma karissati, bāhantampi nāma karissati, chinnakaṃ bhavissati, satthalūkhaṃ samaṇasāruppaṃ paccatthikānañca anabhicchita”nti (mahāva. 345) vacanato “passasi tvaṃ, ānanda, magadhakhettaṃ acchibaddhaṃ pāḷibaddhaṃ mariyādabaddhaṃ siṅghāṭakabaddha”nti bhagavato saṃkhittena vuttavacanaṃ sutvā āyasmā ānando bhagavato ajjhāsayānurūpaṃ sambahulānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ cīvaraṃ saṃvidahi. Tathā idānipi evarūpaṃ cīvaraṃ saṃvidahitabbaṃ.
In the discourse on robe distribution, from the statement “Wise, monks, is Ānanda; greatly wise, monks, is Ānanda. Indeed, he will understand the meaning in detail of what I have said briefly, and he will make a kusi, a half-kusi, a maṇḍala, a half-maṇḍala, a vivaṭṭa, an anuvivaṭṭa, a gīveyyaka, a jaṅgheyyaka, a bāhanta; it will be torn, coarse, suitable for a monk, and undesired by opponents” (mahāva. 345), having heard the Blessed One’s brief words, “Do you see, Ānanda, the Magadha fields bound with rows, bound with lines, bound with boundaries, bound with intersections?” the Venerable Ānanda distributed robes to many monks in accordance with the Blessed One’s intent. Likewise, such robes should be distributed now as well.
In the discussion on examining robes, “Wise, monks, is Ānanda, of great wisdom, monks, is Ānanda. Whereby he will understand the meaning in detail of what I have spoken in brief, he will indeed make a kusī, he will indeed make an aḍḍhakusī, he will indeed make a maṇḍala, he will indeed make an aḍḍhamaṇḍala, he will indeed make a vivaṭṭa, he will indeed make an anuvivaṭṭa, he will indeed make a gīveyyaka, he will indeed make a jaṅgheyyaka, he will indeed make a bāhanta, it will be patched, it will be made rough with a knife, appropriate for ascetics, and undesired by opponents” (mahāva. 345), having heard the Blessed One’s words spoken briefly, like this “Do you see, Ānanda, the Magadhan field, divided by embankments, divided by rows, divided by boundaries, divided by cross-roads?”, the venerable Ānanda, in accordance with the Blessed One’s intention, arranged the robes for many monks. Similarly, even now, a robe should be arranged in this way.
In the discussion on robe examination, “Ānanda is wise, monks; Ānanda is of great wisdom, monks. For he will understand in detail the meaning of what I have spoken briefly. He will make a kusi, a half-kusi, a maṇḍala, a half-maṇḍala, a vivaṭṭa, an anuvivaṭṭa, a gīveyyaka, a jaṅgheyyaka, a bāhanta, a torn robe, a rough robe suitable for a monk, and one that is not desired by enemies” (Mahāva. 345). Based on this statement, after hearing the Buddha’s brief words, “Do you see, Ānanda, the Magadha field marked with boundaries, paths, and landmarks?” Venerable Ānanda arranged robes for many monks in accordance with the Buddha’s intention. Even now, such robes should be arranged in this way.
ID1914
Tattha “acchibaddhanti caturassakedārabaddhaṃ. Pāḷibaddhanti āyāmato ca vitthārato ca dīghamariyādabaddhaṃ. Mariyādabaddhanti antarantarā rassamariyādabaddhaṃ. Siṅghāṭakabaddhanti mariyādāya mariyādaṃ vinivijjhitvā gataṭṭhāne siṅghāṭakabaddhaṃ, catukkasaṇṭhānanti attho. Yatra hi nāmāti yo nāma. Kusimpi nāmātiādīsu kusīti āyāmato ca vitthārato ca anuvātādīnaṃ dīghapaṭṭānametaṃ adhivacanaṃ. Aḍḍhakusīti antarantarārassapaṭṭānaṃ nāmaṃ. Maṇḍalanti pañcakhaṇḍikassa cīvarassa ekekasmiṃ khaṇḍe mahāmaṇḍalaṃ. Aḍḍhamaṇḍalanti khuddakamaṇḍalaṃ. Vivaṭṭanti maṇḍalañca aḍḍhamaṇḍalañca ekato katvā sibbitaṃ majjhimakhaṇḍaṃ. Anuvivaṭṭanti tassa ubhosu passesu dve khaṇḍāni. Gīveyyakanti gīvāveṭhanaṭṭhāne daḷhīkaraṇatthaṃ aññasuttasaṃsibbitaṃ āgantukapaṭṭaṃ. Jaṅgheyyakanti jaṅghapāpuṇanaṭṭhāne tatheva saṃsibbitaṃ paṭṭaṃ. Gīvāṭṭhāne ca jaṅghaṭṭhāne ca paṭṭānametaṃ nāmanti. Bāhantanti anuvivaṭṭānaṃ bahi ekekaṃ khaṇḍaṃ. Iti pañcakhaṇḍikacīvarenetaṃ vicāritanti. Atha vā anuvivaṭṭanti vivaṭṭassa ekapassato dvinnaṃ ekapassato dvinnanti catunnampi khaṇḍānametaṃ nāmaṃ. Bāhantanti suppamāṇaṃ cīvaraṃ pārupantena saṃharitvā bāhāya upari ṭhapitā ubho antā bahimukhā tiṭṭhanti, tesaṃ etaṃ nāmaṃ. Ayameva hi nayo mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vutto”ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 345) āgato.
Therein, “acchibaddha” means bound in square sections. “Pāḷibaddha” means bound with long boundaries in length and width. “Mariyādabaddha” means bound with short boundaries intermittently. “Siṅghāṭakabaddha” means bound with intersections where boundaries pierce each other, meaning a four-part shape. “Yatra hi nāma” means “he who indeed.” In “kusimpi nāma” and so forth, “kusī” is a term for long strips in length and width, like wind-followers. “Aḍḍhakusī” is the name for intermittent short strips. “Maṇḍala” means a large circle in each section of a five-piece robe. “Aḍḍhamaṇḍala” means a small circle. “Vivaṭṭa” means a middle section sewn together with a maṇḍala and an aḍḍhamaṇḍala. “Anuvivaṭṭa” means two sections on either side of it. “Gīveyyaka” means an additional strip sewn with different thread at the neck area for reinforcement. “Jaṅgheyyaka” means a strip similarly sewn at the shin-reaching area. These are names for strips at the neck and shin areas. “Bāhanta” means one section each outside the anuvivaṭṭa. Thus, this is how a five-piece robe is designed. Alternatively, “anuvivaṭṭa” is the name for all four sections—two on one side and two on the other of the vivaṭṭa. “Bāhanta” means the two ends placed above the arm when wearing a well-measured robe, facing outward, as their name. This method is indeed stated in the Great Commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 345).
Here, “acchibaddha” means a rectangular field embankment. “Pāḷibaddha” means long boundary embankment in length and width. “Mariyādabaddha” means short boundary embankment between them. “Siṅghāṭakabaddha” means crossing the boundary with the boundary, in crossroads shaped like a four-way junction. “Yatra hi nāmā” means who indeed. In “kusimpi nāmā” and so on, “kusī” is the term for the long pieces of cloth on the borders and so on, in length and width. “Aḍḍhakusī” is the name for the short strips in between. “Maṇḍala” is a large circle in each section of a five-sectioned robe. “Aḍḍhamaṇḍala” is a small circle. “Vivaṭṭa” is the middle section sewn with the circle and the half-circle together. “Anuvivaṭṭa” means the two sections on either side of that. “Gīveyyaka” means an additional piece of cloth sewn with other threads for strengthening at the neck-wrapping place. “Jaṅgheyyaka” means a strip of cloth similarly sewn at the place covering the shins. This is the name for strips of cloth at the neck and shins. “Bāhanta” means one section each outside the anuvivaṭṭas. Thus, it is examined with the five-sectioned robe. Or, “anuvivaṭṭa” is the name for all four sections, two on one side and two on the other side of the vivaṭṭa. “Bāhanta” means that when a full-sized robe is gathered by the wearer and placed over the arm, the two ends remain facing outwards, this is their name. This very method is mentioned in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā” is according to the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 345).
Here, “acchibaddha” refers to a field marked with four boundaries. “Pāḷibaddha” refers to a field marked with long boundaries in length and width. “Mariyādabaddha” refers to a field marked with short boundaries at intervals. “Siṅghāṭakabaddha” refers to a field marked with intersecting boundaries, forming a square shape. “Yatra hi nāmā” means “indeed.” “Kusimpi nāmā” and so on refer to the length and width of the robe, with “kusī” being a term for long strips of cloth. “Aḍḍhakusī” refers to shorter strips of cloth. “Maṇḍala” refers to a large circle in each section of a five-part robe. “Aḍḍhamaṇḍala” refers to a small circle. “Vivaṭṭa” refers to a middle section made by combining a circle and a half-circle. “Anuvivaṭṭa” refers to two sections on either side of the vivaṭṭa. “Gīveyyaka” refers to an additional strip of cloth sewn around the neck for reinforcement. “Jaṅgheyyaka” refers to a strip of cloth sewn around the leg area. These are terms for the strips of cloth around the neck and legs. “Bāhanta” refers to one section on the outside of the anuvivaṭṭa. This is how the five-part robe is examined. Alternatively, “anuvivaṭṭa” refers to two sections on one side of the vivaṭṭa, making four sections in total. “Bāhanta” refers to the ends of the robe folded over the arm when worn. This explanation is given in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 345).
ID1915
ID1916
Daṇḍakathinenacīvarasibbanakathāyaṃ – tena kho pana samayena bhikkhū tattha tattha khīlaṃ nikkhanitvā sambandhitvā cīvaraṃ sibbenti, cīvaraṃ vikaṇṇaṃ hoti. Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ – anujānāmi, bhikkhave, kathinaṃ kathinarajjuṃ, tattha tattha obandhitvā cīvaraṃ sibbetunti. Visame kathinaṃ pattharanti, kathinaṃ paribhijjati…pe… na, bhikkhave, visame kathinaṃ pattharitabbaṃ, yo patthareyya, āpatti dukkaṭassāti.
In the discourse on sewing robes with a frame, at that time monks drove stakes here and there, tied them together, and sewed robes, but the robes became uneven. They reported this to the Blessed One: “I allow, monks, a kathina frame and a kathina rope; sew the robe after tying it here and there.” They spread the kathina on uneven ground, and the kathina broke… “Monks, the kathina is not to be spread on uneven ground; whoever spreads it, commits an offense of wrongdoing.”
In the discussion on sewing robes with a wooden frame – at that time monks were driving stakes here and there, tying [the robe] and sewing the robe, the robe was becoming uneven. They informed the Blessed One of this matter. – I allow, monks, a frame, a frame-string, tie [the robe to the frame] here and there and sew the robe. They spread the frame on uneven [ground], the frame breaks…pe… monks, the frame is not to be spread on uneven [ground], whoever should spread [it], an offence of wrong-doing.
In the discussion on sewing robes with a rod—at that time, monks would drive pegs into the ground, tie the robe to them, and sew, causing the robe to become uneven. They reported this matter to the Buddha. The Buddha said, “I allow, monks, the use of a kathina frame and kathina strings to tie the robe and sew it.” They spread the kathina unevenly, and it broke… The Buddha said, “Monks, the kathina should not be spread unevenly. Whoever does so commits a minor offense.”
ID1917
Chamāya kathinaṃ pattharanti, kathinaṃ paṃsukitaṃ hoti. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, tiṇasanthārakanti. Kathinassa anto jīrati. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, anuvātaṃ paribhaṇḍaṃ āropetunti. Kathinaṃ nappahoti. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, daṇḍakathinaṃ bidalakaṃ salākaṃ vinandhanarajjuṃ vinandhanasuttakaṃ vinandhitvā cīvaraṃ sibbetunti. Suttantarikāyo visamā honti. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, kaḷimbhakanti. Suttā vaṅkā honti. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, moghasuttakanti.
They spread the kathina on the ground, and the kathina became dusty. “I allow, monks, a grass mat.” The inside of the kathina wore out. “I allow, monks, adding a reinforcing border along the length.” The kathina was insufficient. “I allow, monks, a stick-frame kathina, a split bamboo, a rod, a tying rope, and a tying thread to sew the robe after binding it.” The thread intervals were uneven. “I allow, monks, a guide-stick.” The threads were crooked. “I allow, monks, a false thread.”
They spread the frame on the ground, the frame becomes dusty. I allow, monks, a grass-mat. The inside of the frame wears out. I allow, monks, to apply a border, a lining. The frame is not sufficient. I allow, monks, a wooden frame, a split-bamboo frame, a rod, a binding string, a binding thread, tie and sew the robe. The interwoven threads are uneven. I allow, monks, a kaḷimbhaka. The threads are crooked. I allow, monks, a moghasuttaka.
They spread the kathina on the ground, and it became dirty. The Buddha said, “I allow, monks, the use of a grass mat.” The inside of the kathina wore out. The Buddha said, “I allow, monks, to attach a lining.” The kathina became insufficient. The Buddha said, “I allow, monks, the use of a rod kathina, a split rod, a peg, a tying string, and a tying thread to sew the robe.” The threads became uneven. The Buddha said, “I allow, monks, the use of a kaḷimbha.” The threads became crooked. The Buddha said, “I allow, monks, the use of a false thread.”
ID1918
Tena kho pana samayena bhikkhū adhotehi pādehi kathinaṃ akkamanti, kathinaṃ dussati. Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ – na, bhikkhave, adhotehi pādehi kathinaṃ akkamitabbaṃ, yo akkameyya, āpatti dukkaṭassāti.
At that time, monks stepped on the kathina with unwashed feet, and the kathina was soiled. They reported this to the Blessed One: “Monks, the kathina is not to be stepped on with unwashed feet; whoever steps on it, commits an offense of wrongdoing.”
At that time, monks were stepping on the frame with unwashed feet, the frame was becoming soiled. They informed the Blessed One of this matter. – Monks, the frame is not to be stepped on with unwashed feet, whoever should step on [it], an offence of wrong-doing.
At that time, monks stepped on the kathina with unwashed feet, soiling it. They reported this matter to the Buddha. The Buddha said, “Monks, the kathina should not be stepped on with unwashed feet. Whoever does so commits a minor offense.”
ID1919
Tena kho pana samayena bhikkhū allehi pādehi kathinaṃ akkamanti, kathinaṃ dussati. Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ – na, bhikkhave, allehi pādehi kathinaṃ akkamitabbaṃ, yo akkameyya, āpatti dukkaṭassāti.
At that time, monks stepped on the kathina with wet feet, and the kathina was soiled. They reported this to the Blessed One: “Monks, the kathina is not to be stepped on with wet feet; whoever steps on it, commits an offense of wrongdoing.”
At that time, monks were stepping on the frame with wet feet, the frame was becoming soiled. They informed the Blessed One of this matter. – Monks, the frame is not to be stepped on with wet feet, whoever should step on [it], an offence of wrong-doing.
At that time, monks stepped on the kathina with wet feet, soiling it. They reported this matter to the Buddha. The Buddha said, “Monks, the kathina should not be stepped on with wet feet. Whoever does so commits a minor offense.”
ID1920
Tena kho pana samayena bhikkhū saupāhanā kathinaṃ akkamanti, kathinaṃ dussati. Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ – na, bhikkhave, saupāhanena kathinaṃ akkamitabbaṃ. Yo akkameyya, āpatti dukkaṭassāti.
At that time, monks stepped on the kathina wearing footwear, and the kathina was soiled. They reported this to the Blessed One: “Monks, the kathina is not to be stepped on with footwear; whoever steps on it, commits an offense of wrongdoing.”
At that time, monks wearing footwear were stepping on the frame, the frame was becoming soiled. They informed the Blessed One of this matter. – Monks, the frame is not to be stepped on with footwear. Whoever should step on [it], an offence of wrong-doing.
At that time, monks stepped on the kathina while wearing sandals, soiling it. They reported this matter to the Buddha. The Buddha said, “Monks, the kathina should not be stepped on while wearing sandals. Whoever does so commits a minor offense.”
ID1921
Tena kho pana samayena bhikkhū cīvaraṃ sibbantā aṅguliyā paṭiggaṇhanti, aṅguliyo dukkhā honti. Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ – anujānāmi, bhikkhave, paṭiggahanti.
At that time, monks sewing robes held them with their fingers, and their fingers became sore. They reported this to the Blessed One: “I allow, monks, a thimble.”
At that time, monks while sewing the robe were holding with the finger, the fingers were becoming painful. They informed the Blessed One of this matter. – I allow, monks, a thimble.
At that time, monks sewing robes received the cloth with their fingers, causing their fingers to hurt. They reported this matter to the Buddha. The Buddha said, “I allow, monks, the use of a receiving tool.”
ID1922
Tena kho pana samayena chabbaggiyā bhikkhū uccāvace paṭiggahe dhārenti suvaṇṇamayaṃ rūpiyamayaṃ. Manussā ujjhāyanti khīyanti vipācenti “seyyathāpi gihī kāmabhogino”ti. Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ – na, bhikkhave, uccāvacā paṭiggahā dhāretabbā, yo dhāreyya, āpatti dukkaṭassāti. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, aṭṭhimayaṃ…pe… saṅkhanābhimayanti.
At that time, the group-of-six monks wore various thimbles made of gold and silver. People grumbled, criticized, and complained, “Just like laypeople enjoying pleasures!” They reported this to the Blessed One: “Monks, various thimbles are not to be worn; whoever wears them, commits an offense of wrongdoing. I allow, monks, those made of bone… up to those made of conch navel.”
At that time, the six-group monks were wearing various kinds of thimbles, made of gold, made of silver. People were disgusted, annoyed, and complained, “Just like householders enjoying sensual pleasures.” They informed the Blessed One of this matter. – Monks, various kinds of thimbles are not to be worn, whoever should wear [them], an offence of wrong-doing. I allow, monks, [thimbles] made of bone…pe… made of conch shell.
At that time, the Chabbaggiya monks wore various high and low ornaments made of gold and silver. People complained, criticized, and spread rumors, saying, “They are just like householders enjoying sensual pleasures.” They reported this matter to the Buddha. The Buddha said, “Monks, various ornaments should not be worn. Whoever does so commits a minor offense. I allow, monks, the use of bone ornaments… and conch-shell ornaments.”
ID1923
Tena kho pana samayena sūciyopi satthakāpi paṭiggahāpi nassanti. Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ – anujānāmi, bhikkhave, āvesanavitthakanti. Āvesanavitthake samākulā honti. Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ – anujānāmi, bhikkhave, paṭiggahathavikanti. Aṃsabaddhako na hoti…pe… anujānāmi, bhikkhave, aṃsabaddhakaṃ bandhanasuttakanti.
At that time, needles, scissors, and thimbles were lost. They reported this to the Blessed One: “I allow, monks, a storage peg.” The storage peg became cluttered. They reported this to the Blessed One: “I allow, monks, a thimble pouch.” There was no shoulder strap… “I allow, monks, a shoulder strap and a binding thread.”
At that time, the needles, knives, and thimbles also were getting lost. They informed the Blessed One of this matter. – I allow, monks, a needle case. In the needle case, they were getting mixed up. They informed the Blessed One of this matter. – I allow, monks, a thimble case. There is no strap…pe… I allow, monks, a strap, a binding thread.
At that time, needles, knives, and receiving tools were lost. They reported this matter to the Buddha. The Buddha said, “I allow, monks, the use of a needle case.” The needle cases became cluttered. They reported this matter to the Buddha. The Buddha said, “I allow, monks, the use of a tool bag.” There was no shoulder strap… The Buddha said, “I allow, monks, the use of a shoulder strap and a tying thread.”
ID1924
Tena kho pana samayena bhikkhū abbhokāse cīvaraṃ sibbantā sītenapi uṇhenapi kilamanti. Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ – anujānāmi, bhikkhave, kathinasālaṃ kathinamaṇḍapanti. Kathinasālā nīcavatthukā hoti, udakena ottharīyati. Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ – anujānāmi, bhikkhave, uccavatthukaṃ kātunti. Cayo paripatati. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, cinituṃ tayo caye iṭṭhakacayaṃ, silācayaṃ, dārucayanti. Ārohantā vihaññanti. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, tayo sopāne iṭṭhakasopānaṃ, silāsopānaṃ, dārusopānanti. Ārohantā paripatanti. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, ālambanabāhanti. Kathinasālāya tiṇacuṇṇaṃ paripatati . Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, ogumphetvā ullittāvalittaṃ kātuṃ setavaṇṇaṃ kāḷavaṇṇaṃ gerukaparikammaṃ mālākammaṃ latākammaṃ makaradantakaṃ pañcapaṭikaṃ cīvararajjunti.
At that time, monks sewing robes in the open were troubled by cold and heat. They reported this to the Blessed One: “I allow, monks, a kathina hall and a kathina pavilion.” The kathina hall had a low foundation and was flooded with water. They reported this to the Blessed One: “I allow, monks, making it with a high foundation.” The structure collapsed. “I allow, monks, building with three types of materials: brick, stone, and wood.” Climbers were obstructed. “I allow, monks, three types of stairs: brick stairs, stone stairs, and wooden stairs.” Climbers fell. “I allow, monks, a handrail.” Grass and dust fell into the kathina hall. “I allow, monks, covering it and making it plastered inside and out, with whitewash, black wash, red ochre decoration, garland work, creeper work, dragon-tooth patterns, five-strip designs, and a robe rope.”
At that time, monks sewing the robe in the open air were getting tired from both cold and heat. They informed the Blessed One of this matter. – I allow, monks, a frame-hall, a frame-pavilion. The frame-hall is on low ground, it is getting flooded with water. They informed the Blessed One of this matter. – I allow, monks, to make [it] on high ground. The embankment is collapsing. I allow, monks, to build up three embankments, a brick embankment, a stone embankment, a wooden embankment. While climbing up, they are getting injured. I allow, monks, three kinds of stairs, brick stairs, stone stairs, wooden stairs. While climbing up, they are falling down. I allow, monks, handrails. Dust from the frame-hall is falling down. I allow, monks, to plaster and to smooth it, to make it white, to make it black, to apply red ochre, flower-work, creeper-work, crocodile-teeth [pattern], a five-lined pattern, a robe string.
At that time, monks sewing robes in the open air suffered from cold and heat. They reported this matter to the Buddha. The Buddha said, “I allow, monks, the use of a kathina hall or a kathina pavilion.” The kathina hall had a low foundation and was flooded with water. They reported this matter to the Buddha. The Buddha said, “I allow, monks, to raise the foundation.” The pile collapsed. The Buddha said, “I allow, monks, to build three types of piles: brick piles, stone piles, and wood piles.” They had difficulty climbing. The Buddha said, “I allow, monks, to build three types of stairs: brick stairs, stone stairs, and wooden stairs.” They fell while climbing. The Buddha said, “I allow, monks, the use of a handrail.” Grass and dust fell in the kathina hall. The Buddha said, “I allow, monks, to plaster it with white, black, or red ochre, to decorate it with garlands, creepers, makara designs, five-fold designs, and robe strings.”
ID1925
Tena kho pana samayena bhikkhū cīvaraṃ sibbetvā tatheva kathinaṃ ujjhitvā pakkamanti, undūrehipi upacikāhipi khajjati. Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ – anujānāmi, bhikkhave, kathinaṃ saṅgharitunti. Kathinaṃ paribhijjati. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, goghaṃsikāya kathinaṃ saṅgharitunti. Kathinaṃ viniveṭhiyati. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, bandhanarajjunti.
At that time, monks, after sewing robes, left the kathina as it was and departed, and it was eaten by rats and termites. They reported this to the Blessed One: “I allow, monks, folding the kathina.” The kathina broke. “I allow, monks, folding the kathina with a cow-nose fold.” The kathina unraveled. “I allow, monks, a binding rope.”
At that time, monks after sewing the robe were leaving the frame just there and departing, it was being eaten by mice and termites. They informed the Blessed One of this matter. – I allow, monks, to dismantle the frame. The frame is breaking. I allow, monks, to dismantle the frame on a hook. The frame is getting tangled. I allow, monks, a binding string.
At that time, monks sewed robes and left the kathina behind, and it was eaten by rats and termites. They reported this matter to the Buddha. The Buddha said, “I allow, monks, to fold the kathina.” The kathina broke. The Buddha said, “I allow, monks, to fold the kathina with a cloth.” The kathina unraveled. The Buddha said, “I allow, monks, the use of a tying string.”
ID1926
Tena kho pana samayena bhikkhū kuṭṭepi thambhepi kathinaṃ ussāpetvā pakkamanti, paripatitvā kathinaṃ bhijjati. Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ – anujānāmi, bhikkhave, bhittikhīle vā nāgadante vā laggetunti. Ayaṃ khuddakavatthukhandhake āgato pāḷipāṭho.
At that time, monks hung the kathina on walls or pillars and left, and it fell and broke. They reported this to the Blessed One: “I allow, monks, hanging it on a wall peg or a nāgadanta peg.” This is the Pāli text found in the Minor Matters Section.
At that time, monks were propping up the frame against the wall and against a pillar and departing, falling down, the frame was breaking. They informed the Blessed One of this matter. – I allow, monks, to hang [it] on a wall-peg or on an elephant-tusk [peg]. This is the Pāḷi text that has come in the Khuddakavatthukhandhaka.
At that time, monks hung the kathina on walls or pillars and left, and it fell and broke. They reported this matter to the Buddha. The Buddha said, “I allow, monks, to hang it on a wall peg or a nāgadanta.” This is the passage found in the Khuddakavatthukhandhaka.
ID1927
“Kathinanti nisseṇimpi, tattha attharitabbakaṭasārakakilañjānaṃ aññatarampi. Kathinarajjunti yāya dupaṭṭacīvaraṃ sibbantā kathine cīvaraṃ vibandhanti. Kathinaṃ nappahotīti dīghassa bhikkhuno pamāṇena kataṃ kathinaṃ ittarassa bhikkhuno cīvaraṃ patthariyamānaṃ nappahoti, antoyeva hoti, daṇḍake na pāpuṇātīti attho. Daṇḍakathinanti tassa majjhe ittarassa bhikkhuno pamāṇena aññaṃ nisseṇiṃ bandhituṃ anujānāmīti attho. Bidalakanti daṇḍakathinappamāṇena kaṭasārakassa pariyante paṭisaṃharitvā duguṇakaraṇaṃ. Salākanti dupaṭṭacīvarassa antare pavesanasalākaṃ. Vinandhanarajjunti mahānisseṇiyā saddhiṃ khuddakanisseṇiṃ vinandhituṃ rajjuṃ. Vinandhanasuttakanti khuddakanisseṇiyā cīvaraṃ vinandhituṃ suttakaṃ. Vinandhitvā cīvaraṃ sibbitunti tena suttakena tattha cīvaraṃ vinandhitvā sibbetuṃ. Visamā hontīti kāci khuddakā honti, kāci mahantā. Kaḷimbhakanti pamāṇasaññākaraṇaṃ yaṃ kiñci tālapaṇṇādiṃ. Moghasuttakanti vaḍḍhakīnaṃ dārūsu kāḷasuttena viya haliddisuttena saññākaraṇaṃ. Aṅguliyā paṭiggaṇhantīti sūcimukhaṃ aṅguliyā paṭicchanti. Paṭiggahanti aṅgulikosakaṃ. Āvesanavitthakaṃ nāma yaṃ kiñci pāticaṅkoṭakādi. Uccavatthukanti paṃsuṃ ākiritvā uccavatthukaṃ kātuṃ anujānāmīti attho. Ogumphetvā ullittāvalittaṃ kātunti chadanaṃ odhunitvā ghanadaṇḍakaṃ katvā anto ceva bahi ca mattikāya limpitunti attho. Goghaṃsikāyāti veḷuṃ vā rukkhadaṇḍakaṃ vā anto katvā tena saddhiṃ saṃharitunti attho. Bandhanarajjunti tathā saṃharitassa bandhanarajju”nti ayaṃ aṭṭhakathāpāṭho (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 256).
“Kathina” means even a ladder, or any one of the mats, mattresses, or rugs to be spread there. “Kathinarajju” means the rope with which they sew a double robe and tie the robe to the kathina frame. “Kathinaṃ nappahoti” means a kathina frame made to the measure of a tall monk does not suffice for a short monk’s robe when it is spread out—it remains inside and does not reach the pole, that is the meaning. “Daṇḍakathina” means I allow another ladder to be tied in the middle according to the measure of a short monk, that is the meaning. “Bidalaka” means folding the edge of a mat or mattress to double it according to the measure of the daṇḍakathina. “Salāka” means a stick inserted between the layers of a double robe. “Vinandhanarajju” means a rope to tie a small ladder together with a large ladder. “Vinandhanasuttaka” means a thread to tie the robe to the small ladder. “Vinandhitvā cīvaraṃ sibbitu” means to tie the robe there with that thread and sew it. “Visamā honti” means some are small, some are large. “Kaḷimbhaka” means any marker of measure, such as a palm leaf. “Moghasuttaka” means marking with a turmeric thread, like the black thread used by carpenters on wood. “Aṅguliyā paṭiggaṇhanti” means they receive the needle’s point with their finger. “Paṭiggaha” means a finger guard. “Āvesanavitthakaṃ” means any kind of bowl or pot. “Uccavatthuka” means I allow it to be made high by piling up earth, that is the meaning. “Ogumphetvā ullittāvalittaṃ kātu” means to cover it, make a solid pole, and plaster it with clay inside and out, that is the meaning. “Goghaṃsikāya” means to insert bamboo or a wooden pole inside and fold it together with that, that is the meaning. “Bandhanarajju” means a rope for tying it after folding it in this way—this is the commentary text (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 256).
‘Kathina’ means even a ladder, or any one of the spreadable mats, bamboo frames, or screens. ‘Kathina thread’ means the thread by which they fasten the double-layered robe to the kathina frame while sewing the double-layered robe. ‘The kathina is not sufficient’ means that when a kathina made to the size of a taller monk is spread for a robe of a shorter monk, it is not sufficient; it remains within, it does not reach the frame; this is the meaning. ‘Frame kathina’ means I allow another ladder to be fastened in the middle of that [frame] according to the size of the shorter monk; this is the meaning. ‘Bidalaka’ means, according to the measure of the frame kathina, folding back the edges of the bamboo frame and making it double-layered. ‘Salāka’ means the insertion rod within the double-layered robe. ‘Fastening thread’ means the thread to fasten the small ladder together with the large ladder. ‘Fastening string’ means the string to tie the robe to the small ladder. ‘Having fastened, to sew the robe’ means to tie the robe there with that string and sew it. ‘They are uneven’ means some are small, and some are large. ‘Kaḷimbhaka’ means marking the size with anything, such as palm leaves. ‘Moghasuttaka’ means making a mark with indigo dye, like carpenters do on wood with black string. ‘They receive with their fingers’ means they cover the needle’s eye with their fingers. ‘Paṭiggaha’ means a finger protector. ‘Āvesanavitthakaṃ’ means any kind of bowl, pot, etc. ‘High ground’ means I allow making high ground by piling up dust; this is the meaning. ‘Having piled up, to make it plastered and smeared’ means having shaken off the cover, made it into a thick rod, and smeared both the inside and outside with clay; this is the meaning. ‘With a cow bone’ means having placed a bamboo or a wooden stick inside and folding it together with that; this is the meaning. ‘Binding thread’ means the binding thread of that which has been folded in this way,” this is the reading of the commentary (Cūḷava. aṭṭha. 256).
“Kathina refers to even a scaffolding, and there, any one of the mats, ropes, or pegs used for spreading. Kathinarajju means the rope by which, while sewing the robe, they tie the robe to the Kathina. Kathinaṃ nappahoti means a Kathina robe made to the measurement of a tall monk does not suffice for a shorter monk when the robe is spread out; it only reaches halfway and does not extend to the end of the stick, meaning it is insufficient. Daṇḍakathina means that in the middle of it, a shorter monk is permitted to tie another scaffolding. Bidalaka refers to folding the edge of the mat to double its thickness. Salāka means the insertion rod within the double-layered robe. Vinandhanarajju is the rope used to tie a small scaffolding together with a large scaffolding. Vinandhanasuttaka is the thread used to tie the robe to the small scaffolding. Vinandhitvā cīvaraṃ sibbitu means to tie the robe there with that thread and then sew it. Visamā honti means some are small, and some are large. Kaḷimbhaka refers to any measuring device, such as a palm leaf. Moghasuttaka refers to the marking with yellow thread on carpenters’ wood, similar to black thread. Aṅguliyā paṭiggaṇhanti means they receive the needle’s eye with their finger. Paṭiggaha refers to a finger sheath. Āvesanavitthakaṃ is any small item like a small hook. Uccavatthuka means I permit the making of a high base by sprinkling dust. Ogumphetvā ullittāvalittaṃ kātu means to shake the thatch, make a thick stick, and plaster it inside and outside with clay. Goghaṃsikāya means to take a bamboo or a tree stick inside and gather it together. Bandhanarajju is the binding rope for what has been gathered thus.” This is the commentary passage (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 256).
ID1928
“Anuvātaṃ paribhaṇḍanti kilañjādīsu karotīti gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. Bidalakanti duguṇakaraṇasaṅkhātassa kiriyāvisesassa adhivacanaṃ. Kassa duguṇakaraṇaṃ? Yena kilañjādinā mahantaṃ kathinaṃ atthataṃ, tassa. Tañhi daṇḍakathinappamāṇena pariyante saṃharitvā duguṇaṃ kātabbaṃ. Paṭiggahanti aṅgulikañcukaṃ. Pāti nāma paṭiggahasaṇṭhānena kato bhājanaviseso. Na sammatīti nappahoti. Nīcavatthukaṃ cinitunti bahikuṭṭassa samantato nīcavatthukaṃ katvā cinitu”nti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.260-262).
“Anuvātaṃ paribhaṇḍa” means it is done on mats and such, as stated in the knot section. “Bidalaka” means a designation for the special action of doubling. Whose doubling? Of that with which a large kathina frame was spread, such as a mat. For it should be folded at the edge according to the measure of the daṇḍakathina and doubled. “Paṭiggaha” means a finger sheath. “Pāti” means a special vessel made in the shape of a paṭiggaha. “Na sammati” means it does not suffice. “Nīcavatthukaṃ cinitu” means to build it low all around the outer wall—this is in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.260-262).
‘Anuvāta and paribhaṇḍa’ are made on screens, etc., as stated in the knotted places. ‘Bidalaka’ is a term for a specific action known as ‘making double-layered’. The making double of what? Of that screen, etc., by which the large kathina was spread. For that should be folded back at the edges according to the measure of the frame kathina and made double-layered. ‘Paṭiggaha’ means a finger sheath. ‘Pāti’ means a specific type of vessel made in the shape of a receptacle. ‘It is not fitting’ means it is not sufficient. ‘To pile up low ground’ means to make low ground all around the outer wall and pile it up, according to the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. Cūḷavagga 3.260-262).
“Anuvātaṃ paribhaṇḍa refers to making knots in mats, etc., as mentioned in the section on knots. Bidalaka is a term for the specific action of doubling. What is doubled? That which is spread out with mats, etc., for a large Kathina. It should be doubled by folding the edge to the measurement of the stick Kathina. Paṭiggaha refers to a finger sheath. Pāti is a specific vessel made in the shape of a receptacle. Na sammati means it does not suffice. Nīcavatthukaṃ cinitu means to make a low base around a heap of dirt and gather it.” This is from the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 3.260-262).
ID1929
“Nisseṇimpīti catūhi daṇḍehi cīvarappamāṇena āyatacaturassaṃ katvā baddhapaṭalampi. Ettha hi cīvarakoṭiyo samakaṃ bandhitvā cīvaraṃ yathāsukhaṃ sibbanti. Tattha attharitabbanti tassā nisseṇiyā upari cīvarassa upatthambhanatthāya attharitabbaṃ. Kathinasaṅkhātāya nisseṇiyā cīvarassa bandhanakarajju kathinarajjūti majjhimapadalopī samāsoti āha “yāyā”tiādi. Tattha yasmā dvinnaṃ paṭalānaṃ ekasmiṃ adhike jāte tattha valiyo honti, tasmā dupaṭṭacīvarassa paṭaladvayampi samakaṃ katvā bandhanakarajju kathinarajjūti veditabbaṃ. Pāḷiyaṃ (cūḷava. 256) kathinassa anto jīratīti kathine baddhassa cīvarassa pariyanto jīratī”ti vimativinodaniyaṃ vuttaṃ.
“Nisseṇimpi” means even a ladder made rectangular and elongated with four poles according to the robe’s measure and with a tied frame. Here, having tied the robe’s ends evenly, they sew the robe as they please. “Tattha attharitabba” means it should be spread over that ladder to support the robe. The rope for tying the robe to the ladder called kathina is kathinarajju, a compound with an elided middle word, thus it says “yāya” and so on. Since when one of the two frames becomes larger, creases form there, the rope for tying should be understood as kathinarajju, making both layers of the double robe even. In the Pāli (cūḷava. 256), “kathinassa anto jīrati” means the edge of the robe tied to the kathina wears out—this is stated in the Vimativinodanī.
‘Nisseṇimpī’ means even making a rectangular shape with four sticks according to the robe’s size and making a panel by binding. Here, having evenly tied the corners of the robe, they sew the robe comfortably. ‘Tattha attharitabba’ means that which should be spread on that ladder to support the robe. The thread for tying the robe of the kathina, known as the kathina thread, has an elided middle term compound; therefore, he says, ‘yāyā’, etc. Because when one of the two layers becomes excessive, wrinkles occur, therefore both layers of the double-layered robe should be made even and it should be understood as the binding thread, the kathina thread. In the Pali (Cūḷava. 256), ‘kathinassa anto jīratī’ means ‘the edge of the robe tied to the kathina wears out,’ it is said in the Vimativinodanī.
“Nisseṇimpī means a four-legged frame made to the measurement of a robe, with a tied cloth. Here, the corners of the robe are tied evenly, and the robe is sewn as desired. Tattha attharitabba means it should be spread out on top of the scaffolding to support the robe. The rope used to tie the robe to the Kathina scaffolding is called kathinarajju, and it is a middle-word elision compound, as explained by “yāyā” etc. There, because when one side of the cloth is longer, folds occur, the two layers of the double-layered robe should be tied evenly, and the tying rope is called kathinarajju. In the Pāli (Cūḷava. 256), kathinassa anto jīratī means the edge of the robe tied to the Kathina wears out.” This is stated in the Vimativinodanī.
ID1930
“Bidalakaṃ nāma diguṇakaraṇasaṅkhātassa kiriyāvisesassa adhivacanaṃ. Kassa diguṇakaraṇaṃ? Yena kilañjādinā mahantaṃ kathinaṃ atthataṃ, tassa. Tañhi daṇḍakathinappamāṇena pariyante saṃharitvā diguṇaṃ kātabbaṃ, aññathā khuddakacīvarassa anuvātaparibhaṇḍādividhānakaraṇe hatthassa okāso na hoti. Salākāya sati dvinnaṃ cīvarānaṃ aññataraṃ ñatvā sibbitāsibbitaṃ sukhaṃ paññāyati. Daṇḍakathine kate na bahūhi sahāyehi payojanaṃ. ’Asaṃkuṭitvā cīvaraṃ samaṃ hoti, koṇāpi samā hontī’ti likhitaṃ, ’haliddisuttena saññākaraṇa’nti vuttattā ’haliddisuttena cīvaraṃ sibbetumpi vaṭṭatī’ti siddhaṃ. Tattha hi keci akappiyasaññino. Paṭiggaho nāma aṅgulikoso. Pātīti paṭiggahasaṇṭhānaṃ. Paṭiggahathavikanti aṅgulikosathavika”nti vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 256) āgataṃ.
“Bidalakaṃ” means a designation for the special action of doubling. Whose doubling? Of that with which a large kathina frame was spread, such as a mat. For it should be folded at the edge according to the measure of the daṇḍakathina and doubled; otherwise, there would be no space for the hand in procedures like anuvāta-paribhaṇḍa for a small robe. With a salāka, it is easy to discern which of the two robes is sewn or unsewn. When a daṇḍakathina is made, there is no need for many helpers. It is written, “Without creasing, the robe becomes even, and the corners are even,” and since it says “marking with a turmeric thread,” it is established that “it is permissible to sew the robe with a turmeric thread.” Some consider it unallowable there. “Paṭiggaho” means a finger sleeve. “Pāti” means the shape of a paṭiggaha. “Paṭiggahathavika” means a bag for the finger sleeve—this is found in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. cūḷavagga 256).
‘Bidalakaṃ’ is a designation for a specific action known as the act of doubling. Doubling of what? Of that screen and so on, by which the large kathina has been spread. That should be folded at the edges to the size of the daṇḍakathina (frame kathina) and doubled; otherwise, there will be no space for the hand when making anuvāta and paribhaṇḍa etc. of small robes. When there is a salākā (needle), it is easy to distinguish which of the two robes has been sewn and unsewn. When the daṇḍakathina is made, there is no need for many assistants. It is written, ‘The robe becomes even without folding, and the corners also become even’. Since it is said, ‘making a mark with indigo dye’, it is established that ‘it is allowable to sew the robe with indigo dye thread, too’. For some, there is perception of unsuitability. ‘Paṭiggaho’ means a finger protector. Pātī is a vessel of the form of a receptacle (finger protector). ‘Paṭiggahathavika’ means ‘a finger protector sheath’, according to Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. ṭī. Cūḷavagga 256).
“Bidalakaṃ is a term for the specific action of doubling. What is doubled? That which is spread out with mats, etc., for a large Kathina. It should be doubled by folding the edge to the measurement of the stick Kathina; otherwise, there is no space for the hand in making the small robe’s folds, etc. When a rod is present, it is easy to discern whether one of the two robes has been sewn or not. When the stick Kathina is made, there is no need for many helpers. ‘The robe becomes even without wrinkling, and the corners are even,’ as written. ‘Marking with yellow thread’ means ‘it is permissible to sew the robe with yellow thread,’ and this is established. Some there are heedless of what is improper. Paṭiggaho refers to a finger sheath. Pātī means the shape of a receptacle. Paṭiggahathavika means a finger sheath cover.” This is from the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 256).
ID1931
ID1932
Gahapaticīvarādikathāyaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, gahapaticīvaraṃ, yo icchati, paṃsukūliko hotu, yo icchati, gahapaticīvaraṃ sādiyatu, itarītarenapāhaṃ, bhikkhave, santuṭṭhiṃ vaṇṇemī”ti (mahāva. 337) vacanato asamādinnadhutaṅgo yo bhikkhu paṃsukūlaṃ dhāretuṃ icchati, tena paṃsukūlikena bhavitabbaṃ . Yo pana gihīhi dinnaṃ gahapaticīvaraṃ sādiyituṃ icchati, tena gahapaticīvarasādiyakena bhavitabbaṃ. Samādinnadhutaṅgo pana bhikkhu “gahapaticīvaraṃ paṭikkhipāmi, paṃsukūlikaṅgaṃ samādiyāmī”ti adhiṭṭhahanato gahapaticīvaraṃ sādiyituṃ na vaṭṭati. Gahapaticīvaranti gahapatīhi dinnaṃ cīvaraṃ. Itarītarenapīti appagghenapi mahagghenapi yena kenacīti attho.
In the discussion on householder robes and related matters, from the statement “I allow, bhikkhus, a householder robe; whoever wishes may be a rag-robe wearer, whoever wishes may accept a householder robe; with either one or the other, bhikkhus, I praise contentment” (mahāva. 337), a bhikkhu who has not undertaken the dhutaṅga practice and wishes to wear a rag-robe should become a rag-robe wearer. But one who wishes to accept a householder robe given by laypeople should become an acceptor of householder robes. However, a bhikkhu who has undertaken the dhutaṅga practice, having resolved “I refuse a householder robe, I undertake the rag-robe practice,” may not accept a householder robe. “Gahapaticīvara” means a robe given by householders. “Itarītarenapi” means with either one or the other, whether of little value or great value, with anything, that is the meaning.
In the discussion on householders’ robes, etc., “I allow, monks, a householder’s robe. Whoever wishes, let him be a refuse-rag user; whoever wishes, let him accept a householder’s robe. I praise contentment with whatever one has. (Mahāva. 337)” Therefore, a monk who is not observing an ascetic practice and wishes to wear a refuse-rag robe, he should be a refuse-rag user. And whoever wishes to accept a householder’s robe given by laypeople, he should be an acceptor of a householder’s robe. But, a monk who is observing an ascetic practice cannot accept a householder’s robe, having determined “I reject the householder’s robe, I undertake the practice of a refuse-rag user.” Gahapaticīvara means a robe given by householders. Itarītarenapī means with whatever, whether of low or high value; this is the meaning.
In the discussion on householder robes, etc., “I allow, monks, householder robes. Whoever wishes may be a rag-robe wearer; whoever wishes may accept householder robes. In either case, monks, I praise contentment.” (Mahāva. 337) From this statement, a monk who has not undertaken the ascetic practice but wishes to wear rag-robes should do so. However, a monk who wishes to accept householder robes given by laypeople should do so. A monk who has undertaken the ascetic practice, having resolved, “I reject householder robes and undertake the rag-robe practice,” is not permitted to accept householder robes. Gahapaticīvara means robes given by householders. Itarītarenapī means whether of little or great value, by anyone.
ID1933
“Itarītarenāti itarena itarena. Itara-saddo pana aniyamavacano dvikkhattuṃ vuccamāno yaṃkiñci-saddehi samānattho hotīti vuttaṃ appagghenapi mahagghenapi yena kenacī”ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.337), “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, pāvāraṃ, anujānāmi, bhikkhave, koseyyapāvāraṃ, anujānāmi, bhikkhave, kojava”nti (mahāva. 337) vacanato pāvārādīnipi sampaṭicchituṃ vaṭṭati. Tattha pāvāroti salomako kappāsādibhedo. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, kojavanti ettha pakatikojavameva vaṭṭati, mahāpiṭṭhiyakojavaṃ na vaṭṭati. Kojavanti uṇṇāmayo pāvārasadiso. “Mahāpiṭṭhi kojavanti hatthipiṭṭhīsu attharitabbatāya ’mahāpiṭṭhiya’nti laddhasamaññaṃ caturaṅgulapupphaṃ kojava”nti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.337) vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyampi (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.337) “mahāpiṭṭhiyakojavanti hatthipiṭṭhiyaṃ attharitabbatāya ’mahāpiṭṭhiya’nti laddhasamaññaṃ uṇṇāmayattharaṇa”nti vuttaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 337) pana “mahāpiṭṭhiyakojavaṃ nāma atirekacaturaṅgulapupphaṃ kirā”ti vuttaṃ. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, kambala”nti (mahāva. 338) vacanato aḍḍhakāsiyādīni mahagghānipi kambalāni vaṭṭanti . Aḍḍhakāsiyanti ettha kāsīti sahassaṃ vuccati, taṃagghanako kāsiyo. Ayaṃ pana pañca satāni agghati, tasmā aḍḍhakāsiyoti vutto.
“Itarītarena” means with this or that. The word “itara”, when repeated, has the same meaning as “anything,” thus it is said “appagghenapi mahagghenapi yena kenaci”—this is in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.337). From the statement “I allow, bhikkhus, a shawl; I allow, bhikkhus, a silk shawl; I allow, bhikkhus, a rug” (mahāva. 337), it is permissible to accept shawls and the like. Here, “pāvāro” means one made of cotton or similar material with soft hair. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, kojava”—here, only a natural rug is allowed, not one with a large back. “Kojava” means one made of wool, similar to a shawl. “Mahāpiṭṭhi kojava” means a rug called “large-backed” because it is spread on the backs of elephants, with four-finger-wide flowers—this is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.337). In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.337), “mahāpiṭṭhiyakojava” means a woolen spread called “large-backed” because it is spread on an elephant’s back. But in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 337), it is said “mahāpiṭṭhiyakojavaṃ” means one with flowers exceeding four fingers. From the statement “I allow, bhikkhus, a blanket” (mahāva. 338), even expensive blankets like those from Aḍḍhakāsī are permissible. “Aḍḍhakāsiya”—here, “kāsī” means a thousand, a kāsī worth that much; this one is worth five hundred, hence called aḍḍhakāsiya.
‘Itarītarenā’ means with any whatever. The word ‘itara’ (other), not having a specific meaning, is repeated twice having the same meaning as the word ‘whatever’. Therefore ‘whether of small value or great value; whatever’ is stated in Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.337). Because of the statement, “I allow, monks, cloaks; I allow, monks, silk cloaks; I allow, monks, kojava (woolen spread)” (Mahāva. 337), it is proper to accept cloaks, etc. There, ‘pāvāro’ (cloak) means that which is made of hairy cotton, etc. In the statement “I allow, monks, kojava”, only the ordinary kojava is permissible, the mahāpiṭṭhiyakojava is not. ‘Kojava’ means [a spread] similar to a woolen cloak. In Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.337), it is stated, ‘Mahāpiṭṭhi kojava’ means a kojava with four-finger-breadth flowers, designated as ‘mahāpiṭṭhiya’ because it is to be spread on the backs of elephants”. In Vimativinodanī (Vi. vi. ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.337), it is stated, ‘Mahāpiṭṭhiyakojava’ means a woolen spread, designated as ‘mahāpiṭṭhiya’ because it is to be spread on the backs of elephants”. However, in Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. ṭī. Mahāvagga 337) it is said that ‘Mahāpiṭṭhiyakojavaṃ’ is said to have flowers exceeding four fingerbreadths.” Because of the statement, “I allow, monks, blankets” (Mahāva. 338), even highly valuable blankets, such as aḍḍhakāsiyādi, are permissible. ‘Aḍḍhakāsiya’: here, ‘kāsī’ means a thousand; something costing that is called kāsiyo. But this one costs five hundred; therefore, it is called aḍḍhakāsiyo (half-kāsiyo).
“Itarītarenā means by one or the other. The word itara is indefinite and, when repeated twice, has the same meaning as any term, as stated: appagghenapi mahagghenapi yena kenacī (whether of little or great value, by anyone). This is from the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.337). “I allow, monks, pāvāra; I allow, monks, koseyya pāvāra; I allow, monks, kojava.” (Mahāva. 337) From this statement, it is permissible to accept pāvāra, etc. Here, pāvāro means a woolen cloth of cotton, etc. “I allow, monks, kojava” refers only to ordinary kojava; large-back kojava is not permissible. Kojava means a woolen cloth similar to pāvāra. “Mahāpiṭṭhi kojava refers to a kojava with a four-finger flower, called ‘mahāpiṭṭhiya’ because it is spread on elephant backs.” This is from the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.337). The Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.337) states: “mahāpiṭṭhiyakojava means a woolen spread called ‘mahāpiṭṭhiya’ because it is spread on elephant backs.” The Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 337) states: “mahāpiṭṭhiyakojavaṃ refers to a kojava with an extra four-finger flower.” “I allow, monks, kambala.” (Mahāva. 338) From this statement, even expensive kambalas like aḍḍhakāsiya are permissible. Aḍḍhakāsiya means here kāsī refers to a thousand, and it is worth half of that, so it is called aḍḍhakāsiya.
ID1934
ID1935
Chacīvarakathāyaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, cha cīvarāni khomaṃ kappāsikaṃ koseyyaṃ kambalaṃ sāṇaṃ bhaṅga”nti (mahāva. 339) vacanato khomādīni cha cīvarāni dukūlādīni cha anulomacīvarāni ca vaṭṭanti. Tattha “khomanti khomasuttehi vāyitaṃ khomapaṭṭacīvaraṃ. Kappāsikanti kappāsato nibbattasuttehi vāyitaṃ. Koseyyanti kosakārakapāṇakehi nibbattasuttehi vāyitaṃ. Kambalanti uṇṇāmayacīvaraṃ. Sāṇanti sāṇasuttehi katacīvaraṃ. Bhaṅganti khomasuttādīni sabbāni, ekaccāni vā missetvā katacīvaraṃ. Bhaṅgampi vākamayamevāti keci. Dukūlaṃ paṭṭuṇṇaṃ somārapaṭaṃ cīnapaṭaṃ iddhijaṃ devadinnanti imāni pana cha cīvarāni etesaṃyeva anulomānīti visuṃ na vuttāni. Dukūlañhi sāṇassa anulomaṃ vākamayattā. Paṭṭuṇṇadese sañjātavatthaṃ paṭṭuṇṇaṃ. ’Paṭṭuṇṇakoseyyaviseso’ti hi abhidhānakose vuttaṃ. Somāradese cīnadese ca jātavatthāni somāracīnapaṭāni. Paṭṭuṇṇādīni tīṇi koseyyassa anulomāni pāṇakehi katasuttamayattā. Iddhijaṃ ehibhikkhūnaṃ puññiddhiyā nibbattacīvaraṃ, taṃ khomādīnaṃ aññataraṃ hotīti tesaṃ eva anulomaṃ. Devatāhi dinnaṃ cīvaraṃ devadinnaṃ. Kapparukkhe nibbattaṃ jāliniyā devakaññāya anuruddhattherassa dinnavatthasadisaṃ, tampi khomādīnaṃyeva anulomaṃ hoti tesu aññatarabhāvato”ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.462-463) vuttaṃ.
In the discussion on the six robes, based on the statement, “I allow, monks, six kinds of robes: khoma, kappāsika, koseyya, kambala, sāṇa, bhaṅga” (mahāva. 339), the six robes—khoma and the others—and the six subsidiary robes—dukūla and the others—are permissible. Therein, khoma refers to a robe of khoma cloth woven from khoma threads. Kappāsika is woven from threads produced from cotton. Koseyya is woven from threads produced by silkworms. Kambala is a robe made of wool. Sāṇa is a robe made from sāṇa threads. Bhaṅga is a robe made by mixing all or some of the threads such as khoma, and some say bhaṅga is exclusively plant-based. The six robes—dukūla, paṭṭuṇṇa, somārapaṭa, cīnapaṭa, iddhija, and devadinna—are not mentioned separately because they are subsidiaries of these very ones. Dukūla, being plant-based, is a subsidiary of sāṇa. Paṭṭuṇṇa is cloth produced in the Paṭṭuṇṇa region; it is said in the dictionary, “Paṭṭuṇṇa is a type of koseyya.” Cloth produced in the Somāra and Cīna regions is called somāracīnapaṭāni. Paṭṭuṇṇa and the other two are subsidiaries of koseyya because they are made from threads produced by worms. Iddhija is a robe produced by the merit-power of “Come, monk” monks, and since it is one of khoma or the others, it is their subsidiary. Devadinna is a robe given by deities, like the cloth produced from a kappa tree given by the divine maiden Jālinī to the Elder Anuruddha; this too is a subsidiary of khoma and the others due to being one of them—this is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.462-463).
In the discussion of the six robes, due to the statement, “I allow, monks, six [types of] robes: linen (khoma), cotton (kappāsika), silk (koseyya), wool (kambala), hemp (sāṇa), and mixed fibers (bhaṅga)” (Mahāva. 339), these six robes made of linen, etc., and six corresponding robes such as dukūla etc., are allowed. There, ‘khoma’ means a linen cloth robe woven with linen threads. ‘Kappāsika’ means woven with threads made from cotton. ‘Koseyya’ means woven with threads produced by silk-producing worms. ‘Kambala’ means a woolen robe. ‘Sāṇa’ means a robe made with hemp threads. ‘Bhaṅga’ means a robe made by mixing all or some of the threads, such as linen threads, etc. Some say that bhaṅga is also made of bark. However, these six robes – dukūla, paṭṭuṇṇa, somārapaṭa, cīnapaṭa, miraculously created (iddhija), and divinely given (devadinna) – are not mentioned separately, being similar to these. For ‘dukūla’ is similar to hemp, as it is made of bark. Cloth produced in the region of Paṭṭuṇṇa is ‘paṭṭuṇṇa’. It is stated in the Abhidhāna glossary that ‘Paṭṭuṇṇa is a type of silk’. Cloth made in the Somāra and Cīna regions are ‘somāracīnapaṭāni’. The three – paṭṭuṇṇa, etc. – are similar to silk as they are made of threads produced by worms. ‘Iddhija’ is a robe produced by the miraculous power of the ehibhikkhus (those ordained directly by the Buddha); it is one of the linen, etc., so it is similar to them. A robe given by deities is ‘devadinna’. It is similar to the cloth produced from the wish-fulfilling tree and given by the heavenly maiden Jālinī to the elder Anuruddha; it is also similar to the linen, etc., as it is one of those,” it is said in Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. 2.462-463).
In the discussion on the six robes, “I allow, monks, six kinds of robes: linen, cotton, silk, wool, hemp, and mixed.” (Mahāva. 339) From this statement, the six robes—linen, etc., and the six additional robes—are permissible. Here, “khoma means a robe woven with linen threads. Kappāsika means woven with cotton threads. Koseyya means woven with threads produced by silkworms. Kambala means a woolen robe. Sāṇa means a robe made with hemp threads. Bhaṅga means a robe made by mixing all or some of the linen threads, etc. Some say bhaṅga is also made of bark. Dukūla, paṭṭuṇṇa, somārapaṭa, cīnapaṭa, iddhija, and devadinna are the six additional robes, which are in line with these but are not separately mentioned. Dukūla is in line with hemp because it is made of bark. Paṭṭuṇṇa refers to cloth produced in the paṭṭuṇṇa region. ‘Paṭṭuṇṇa is a type of koseyya,’ as stated in the Abhidhānakosa. Somāracīnapaṭāni refers to cloth produced in the Somāra and Cīna regions. Paṭṭuṇṇa, etc., are in line with koseyya because they are made with threads produced by silkworms. Iddhija refers to robes produced by the merit of ehibhikkhus, which are one of the linen, etc. Robes given by deities are devadinna. Cloth produced from the kapparukkha tree, similar to the cloth given by the deity Jālinī to Ven. Anuruddha, is also in line with linen, etc., as it is one of them.” This is from the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.462-463).
ID1936
Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.463) pana “khomanti khomasuttehi vāyitaṃ khomapaṭacīvaraṃ, taṃ vākamayanti vadanti. Kappāsasuttehi vāyitaṃ kappāsikaṃ. Evaṃ sesānipi. Kambalanti eḷakādīnaṃ lomamayasuttena vāyitaṃ paṭaṃ. Bhaṅganti khomasuttādīni sabbāni, ekaccāni vā missetvā vāyitaṃ cīvaraṃ, bhaṅgampi vākamayamevāti keci . Dukūlaṃ paṭṭuṇṇaṃ somārapaṭaṃ cīnapaṭaṃ iddhijaṃ devadinnanti imāni cha cīvarāni etesaññeva anulomānīti visuṃ na vuttāni. Dukūlañhi sāṇassa anulomaṃ vākamayattā. ’Paṭṭuṇṇaṃ koseyyaviseso’ti abhidhānakose vuttaṃ. Somāradese cīnadese ca jātavatthāni somāracīnapaṭāni. Paṭṭuṇṇādīni tīṇi koseyyassa anulomāni pāṇakehi katasuttamayattā. Iddhijanti ehibhikkhūnaṃ puññiddhiyā nibbattacīvaraṃ, kapparukkhehi nibbattaṃ, devadinnañca khomādīnaṃ aññataraṃ hotīti tesaṃ sabbesaṃ anulomānī”ti vuttaṃ.
In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.463), it is said: “Khoma” is a robe of khoma cloth woven from khoma threads, and they say it is plant-based. Kappāsika is woven from cotton threads. Similarly for the others. Kambala is cloth woven from threads made of the wool of goats and the like. Bhaṅga is a robe woven by mixing all or some of the threads such as khoma, and some say bhaṅga is exclusively plant-based. The six robes—dukūla, paṭṭuṇṇa, somārapaṭa, cīnapaṭa, iddhija, and devadinna—are not mentioned separately because they are subsidiaries of these very ones. Dukūla is a subsidiary of sāṇa because it is plant-based. It is said in the dictionary, “Paṭṭuṇṇa is a type of koseyya.” Cloth produced in the Somāra and Cīna regions is called somāracīnapaṭāni. Paṭṭuṇṇa and the other two are subsidiaries of koseyya because they are made from threads produced by worms. Iddhija is a robe produced by the merit-power of “Come, monk” monks, or produced from kappa trees, and devadinna too is one of khoma or the others, thus they are subsidiaries of all of these.
However, in Vimativinodanī (Vi. vi. ṭī. 1.463), ‘khoma’ means a linen robe woven with linen threads; they say it is made of bark. ‘Kappāsika’ means woven with cotton threads. Similarly, the others. ‘Kambala’ means a cloth woven with thread made of wool from sheep, etc. ‘Bhaṅga’ means a robe woven by mixing all or some of the threads, such as linen threads, etc.; some say that bhaṅga is also made of bark. These six robes – dukūla, paṭṭuṇṇa, somārapaṭa, cīnapaṭa, miraculously created (iddhija), and divinely given (devadinna) – are not mentioned separately, being similar to these. For ‘dukūla’ is similar to hemp, as it is made of bark. It is stated in the Abhidhāna glossary that ‘Paṭṭuṇṇa is a type of silk’. Cloth made in the Somāra and Cīna regions are ‘somāracīnapaṭāni’. The three, paṭṭuṇṇa, etc., are similar to silk as they are made of threads produced by worms. ‘Iddhija’ means a robe produced by the miraculous power of the ehibhikkhus, [or] produced from wish-fulfilling trees; and that which is divinely given is one of the linen, etc., so they are all similar to those.
The Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.463) states: “khoma means a robe woven with linen threads, and some say it is made of bark. Kappāsika means woven with cotton threads. Similarly, the rest. Kambala means a cloth woven with threads from sheep, etc. Bhaṅga means a robe made by mixing all or some of the linen threads, etc., and some say bhaṅga is also made of bark. Dukūla, paṭṭuṇṇa, somārapaṭa, cīnapaṭa, iddhija, and devadinna are the six additional robes, which are in line with these but are not separately mentioned. Dukūla is in line with hemp because it is made of bark. ‘Paṭṭuṇṇa is a type of koseyya,’ as stated in the Abhidhānakosa. Somāracīnapaṭāni refers to cloth produced in the Somāra and Cīna regions. Paṭṭuṇṇa, etc., are in line with koseyya because they are made with threads produced by silkworms. Iddhija refers to robes produced by the merit of ehibhikkhus, and those produced from the kapparukkha tree, and those given by deities are also in line with linen, etc., as they are one of them.”
ID1937
ID1938
Rajanādikathāyaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, cha rajanāni mūlarajanaṃ khandharajanaṃ tacarajanaṃ pattarajanaṃ puppharajanaṃ phalarajana”nti vacanato imesu chasu rajanesu ekakena cīvaraṃ rajitabbaṃ, na chakaṇena vā paṇḍumattikāya vā rajitabbaṃ. Tāya rajitacīvaraṃ dubbaṇṇaṃ hoti. Charajanānaṃ sarūpaṃ heṭṭhā parikkhārakathāyaṃ vuttameva. Tattha chakaṇenāti gomayena. Paṇḍumattikāyāti tambamattikāya. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, rajanaṃ pacituṃ cullaṃ rajanakumbhi”nti (mahāva. 344) vacanato sītudakāya cīvaraṃ na rajitabbaṃ. Tāya hi rajitacīvaraṃ duggandhaṃ hoti. Tattha sītudakāti apakkarajanaṃ vuccati. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, uttarāḷumpaṃ bandhitu”nti vacanato uttarāḷumpaṃ bandhituṃ vaṭṭati. Tattha uttarāḷumpanti vaṭṭādhārakaṃ, rajanakumbhiyā majjhe ṭhapetvā taṃ ādhārakaṃ parikkhipitvā rajanaṃ pakkhipituṃ anujānāmīti attho. Evañhi kate rajanaṃ na uttarati. Tattha “rajanakumbhiyā majjhe ṭhapetvāti antorajanakumbhiyā majjhe ṭhapetvā. Evaṃ vaṭṭādhārake antorajanakumbhiyā pakkhitte majjhe udakaṃ tiṭṭhati, vaṭṭādhārakato bahi samantā antokumbhiyaṃ rajanacchalli. Pakkhipitunti rajanacchalliṃ pakkhipitu”nti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.344) vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.344) pana “evañhi kateti vaṭṭādhārassa anto rajanodakaṃ, bahi challikañca katvā viyojane kate. Na uttaratīti kevalaṃ udakato pheṇuṭṭhānābhāvā na uttaratī”ti vuttaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 344) pana “gomaye āpatti natthi, virūpattā vāritaṃ. Kuṅkumapupphaṃ na vaṭṭatīti vadantī”ti vuttaṃ.
In the discussion on dyeing and the like, based on the statement, “I allow, monks, six dyes: root dye, trunk dye, bark dye, leaf dye, flower dye, fruit dye” (mahāva. 344), a robe should be dyed with one of these six dyes, not with cow dung or pale clay. A robe dyed with those becomes discolored. The nature of the six dyes has already been stated below in the discussion on requisites. Therein, chakaṇena means with cow dung. Paṇḍumattikāya means with copper-colored clay. From the statement, “I allow, monks, to cook dye, a small dye pot” (mahāva. 344), a robe should not be dyed with cold water, for a robe dyed with it becomes foul-smelling. Therein, sītudaka refers to unboiled dye. From the statement, “I allow, monks, to tie an uttarāḷumpa,” it is permissible to tie an uttarāḷumpa. Therein, uttarāḷumpa is a circular support; the meaning is, “I allow placing it in the middle of the dye pot, surrounding that support, and putting in the dye.” When done this way, the dye does not overflow. Therein, “placing it in the middle of the dye pot” means placing it in the center within the dye pot. Thus, when the circular support is placed inside the dye pot, water stays in the middle, and around the support, outside, within the pot, is the dye residue. Pakkhipitu means to put in the dye residue—this is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.344). In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.344), it is said: “When done this way” means with the dye water inside the circular support and the residue outside, separated; “it does not overflow” means it does not overflow simply because there is no froth rising from the water. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 344), it is said: “There is no offense with cow dung; it is prohibited due to discoloration. They say saffron flowers are not permissible.”
In the discussion of dyeing, etc., “I allow, monks, six dyes: root dye, stem dye, bark dye, leaf dye, flower dye, fruit dye” (Mahāva. 344), therefore, a robe should be dyed with one of these six dyes, it should not be dyed with cow dung or red clay. A robe dyed with those becomes discolored. The nature of the six dyes has been described below in the discussion of requisites. There, ‘chakaṇenā’ means with cow dung. ‘Paṇḍumattikāyā’ means with red clay. “I allow, monks, a furnace and a dye pot for boiling dye” (Mahāva. 344), so a robe should not be dyed with cold water. For a robe dyed with that becomes foul-smelling. There, ‘sītudakā’ means unboiled dye. “I allow, monks, to bind a support (uttarāḷumpa)”, therefore, it is permissible to bind a support. There, ‘uttarāḷumpa’ means a circular support. I allow placing it in the middle of the dye pot, surrounding that support, and putting in the dye; this is the meaning. For when this is done, the dye does not overflow. There, ‘placing in the middle of the dye pot’ means placing in the middle of the inner dye pot. Thus, with the circular support placed inside the inner dye pot, water stays in the middle, and the dye bark is all around, outside the circular support, inside the pot. ‘Pakkhipitu’ means to put in the dye bark,” this is said in Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.344). However, Vimativinodanī (Vi. vi. ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.344) states, ‘When this is done’ means when the dye solution is inside the circular support, and the bark is outside, separated. ‘It does not overflow’ means it does not overflow due to the absence of foam rising solely from the water. But, in Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. ṭī. Mahāvagga 344) it is said, “There is no offense in [using] cow dung, it is prohibited because of its disfigurement. They say that kuṅkuma flower is not allowed.”
In the discussion on dyeing, etc., “I allow, monks, six kinds of dye: root dye, stem dye, bark dye, leaf dye, flower dye, and fruit dye.” From this statement, a robe should be dyed with one of these six dyes, not with cow dung or yellow clay. A robe dyed with these becomes discolored. The appropriate use of the six dyes has already been explained in the section on requisites. Here, chakaṇenā means with cow dung. Paṇḍumattikāyā means with yellow clay. “I allow, monks, to boil dye in a small dye pot.” (Mahāva. 344) From this statement, a robe should not be dyed with cold water. A robe dyed with this becomes foul-smelling. Here, sītudakā refers to stale dye water. “I allow, monks, to tie an upper support.” From this statement, it is permissible to tie an upper support. Here, uttarāḷumpa means a circular stand. It is placed in the middle of the dye pot, and the dye is poured around it, meaning it is allowed to pour the dye around the stand. When done thus, the dye does not overflow. Here, “rajanakumbhiyā majjhe ṭhapetvā means placing it in the middle of the dye pot. When the circular stand is placed in the dye pot, water remains in the middle of the stand, and the dye sediment is outside the stand. Pakkhipitu means to pour the dye sediment.” This is from the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.344). The Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.344) states: “evañhi kate means when the dye water is inside the stand and the sediment is outside, and the separation is made. Na uttaratī means it does not overflow because there is no foam from the water.” The Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 344) states: “There is no offense with cow dung, but it is prohibited because it is unsightly. Safflower is not permissible, they say.”
ID1939
“Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, udake vā nakhapiṭṭhikāya vā thevakaṃ dātu”nti (mahāva. 344) vacanato tathā katvā rajanassa pakkāpakkabhāvo jānitabbo. Tattha udake vā nakhapiṭṭhikāya vāti sace paripakkaṃ hoti, udakapātiyā dinno thevo sahasā na visarati, nakhapiṭṭhiyampi avisaranto tiṭṭhati. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, rajanuḷuṅkaṃ daṇḍakathālaka”nti (mahāva. 344) vacanato rajanassa olokanakāle kumbhiyā rakkhaṇatthaṃ uḷuṅkadaṇḍakathālikāni icchitabbāni. Tattha rajanuḷuṅkanti rajanauḷuṅkaṃ. Daṇḍakathālakanti daṇḍameva daṇḍakaṃ. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, rajanakolambaṃ rajanaghaṭa”nti (mahāva. 344) vacanato tānipi icchitabbāni. Tattha rajanakolambanti rajanakuṇḍaṃ. Tattha rajanakuṇḍanti pakkarajanaṭṭhapanakaṃ mahāghaṭaṃ. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, rajanadoṇika”nti (mahāva. 344) vacanato pātiyampi patte cīvare maddante cīvarassa paribhijjanato cīvararakkhaṇatthaṃ rajanadoṇikā icchitabbā. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, tiṇasantharaka”nti (mahāva. 344) vacanato chamāya cīvare patthariyamāne cīvarassa paṃsukitattā tato rakkhaṇatthaṃ tiṇasantharaṃ kātabbaṃ. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, cīvaravaṃsaṃ cīvararajju”nti (mahāva. 344) vacanato tiṇasanthārake upacikādīhi khajjamāne cīvaravaṃse vā cīvararajjuyā vā cīvaraṃ pattharitabbaṃ majjhena cīvare laggite rajanassa ubhato gaḷitattā.
“I allow, bhikkhus, a drop to be given either in water or on the back of the nail” (mahāva. 344)—from this statement, the ripeness or unripeness of the dye should be determined by doing so. Here, “udake vā nakhapiṭṭhikāya vā” means if it is fully ripened, a drop given in a water bowl does not spread quickly, and it stays without spreading even on the back of the nail. “I allow, bhikkhus, a dye ladle and a stick bowl” (mahāva. 344)—from this statement, a ladle and a stick bowl are to be desired for observing the dye and protecting the pot. Here, “rajanuḷuṅka” means a dye ladle. “Daṇḍakathālaka” means a stick alone is the stick bowl. “I allow, bhikkhus, a dye jar and a dye pot” (mahāva. 344)—from this statement, these too are to be desired. Here, “rajanakolamba” means a dye vessel. Here, “rajanakuṇḍa” means a large pot for placing ripened dye. “I allow, bhikkhus, a dye trough” (mahāva. 344)—from this statement, a dye trough is to be desired to protect the robe from tearing when pressed in a bowl or on the robe itself. “I allow, bhikkhus, a grass mat” (mahāva. 344)—from this statement, a grass mat should be made to protect the robe from becoming dusty when spread on the ground. “I allow, bhikkhus, a robe pole and a robe rope” (mahāva. 344)—from this statement, the robe should be spread on a robe pole or robe rope when the grass mat is eaten by termites and the like, since the dye drips from both sides when the middle of the robe is hung.
“I allow, monks, to give a drop in water or on the surface of a fingernail” (Mahāva. 344), thus it should be understood the state of being cooked or uncooked of the dye after doing so. There, in water or on the surface of a fingernail, if it is fully cooked, a drop given in a pot of water does not spread quickly, and also on the surface of the fingernail, it remains without spreading. “I allow, monks, a dye-stirrer and a wooden spatula” (Mahāva. 344), thus, a dye-stirrer and wooden spatulas should be sought to protect the pot at the time of observing the dye. Here, dye-stirrer means a dye-stirrer. Wooden spatula means a stick itself is a small stick. “I allow, monks, a dyeing vat and a dyeing jar” (Mahāva. 344), so those should also be sought. Here, dyeing vat means a dyeing vessel. There, dyeing vessel means a large jar for placing cooked dye. “I allow, monks, a dyeing trough” (Mahāva. 344), thus when rubbing cloth in a bowl or pot, because of the tearing of the robe, a dyeing trough should be sought for the protection of the robe. “I allow, monks, a grass mat” (Mahāva. 344), so when spreading a robe on the ground, because the robe becomes dusty, a grass mat should be made to protect it. “I allow, monks, a cloth-bamboo and a cloth-string” (Mahāva. 344), in a case that when a robe is spread on a grass mat and it is eaten by termites and other creatures, the robe should be spread on a cloth-bamboo or a cloth-string because, when the robes are tied in the middle, the dye drips from both sides.
“I allow, monks, to place the dye in water or on the nail plate,” thus, from this statement (mahāva. 344), the state of the dye being fully or partially cooked should be known. Herein, “in water or on the nail plate” means if it is fully cooked, the dye placed in a water bowl does not scatter immediately, and it also remains unscattered on the nail plate. “I allow, monks, a dye-stick and a dye-pot,” thus, from this statement (mahāva. 344), when inspecting the dye, a stick and a pot for guarding the dye should be desired. Herein, “dye-stick” means a dye-stirring stick. “Dye-pot” means a pot for dyeing. “I allow, monks, a dye-vat and a dye-jar,” thus, from this statement (mahāva. 344), these should also be desired. Herein, “dye-vat” means a dye-pit. Herein, “dye-pit” means a large jar for storing fully cooked dye. “I allow, monks, a dye-trough,” thus, from this statement (mahāva. 344), to prevent the robe from being damaged while dyeing, a dye-trough should be desired. “I allow, monks, a grass mat,” thus, from this statement (mahāva. 344), when spreading the robe on the ground, to protect it from dirt, a grass mat should be made. “I allow, monks, a robe-bamboo and a robe-rope,” thus, from this statement (mahāva. 344), when the robe is being eaten by ants or termites on the grass mat, the robe should be spread on a robe-bamboo or a robe-rope, with the robe hanging in the middle to prevent the dye from dripping on both sides.
ID1940
“Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, kaṇṇe bandhitu”nti (mahāva. 344) vacanato kaṇṇe bandhitabbaṃ cīvarassa kaṇṇe bandhiyamāne kaṇṇassa jiṇṇattā. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, kaṇṇasuttaka”nti (mahāva. 344) vacanato kaṇṇasuttakena bandhitabbaṃ evaṃ bandhante rajanassa ekato gaḷitattā. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, samparivattakaṃ samparivattakaṃ rajetuṃ, na ca acchinne theve pakkamitu”nti (mahāva. 344) vacanato tathā rajitabbaṃ. Yāva rajanabindu gaḷitaṃ na chijjati, tāva na aññatra gantabbaṃ. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, udake osāretu”nti (mahāva. 344) vacanato patthinnaṃ cīvaraṃ udake osāretabbaṃ. Tattha patthinnanti atirajitattā thaddhaṃ. Udake osāretunti udake pakkhipitvā ṭhapetuṃ. Rajane pana nikkhante taṃ udakaṃ chaḍḍetvā cīvaraṃ madditabbaṃ. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, pāṇinā ākoṭetu”nti (mahāva. 344) vacanato pharusaṃ cīvaraṃ pāṇinā ākoṭetabbaṃ. “Na, bhikkhave, acchinnakāni cīvarāni dhāretabbāni, yo dhāreyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 344) vacanato acchinnakāni cīvarāni dantakāsāvāni na dhāretabbāni. Tattha dantakāsāvānīti ekaṃ vā dve vā vāre rajitvā dantavaṇṇāni dhārenti.
“I allow, bhikkhus, to tie it at the corner” (mahāva. 344)—from this statement, it should be tied at the corner, as the corner wears out when the robe is tied there. “I allow, bhikkhus, a corner thread” (mahāva. 344)—from this statement, it should be tied with a corner thread, as the dye drips to one side when tied this way. “I allow, bhikkhus, to dye it by turning it over and over, and not to depart until the drop is exhausted” (mahāva. 344)—from this statement, it should be dyed in this way. One should not go elsewhere until the dye drop stops dripping and is exhausted. “I allow, bhikkhus, to soak it in water” (mahāva. 344)—from this statement, a spread-out robe should be soaked in water. Here, “patthinna” means stiff due to over-dyeing. “Udake osāretu” means to place it in water and let it soak. When the dye has come out, that water should be discarded, and the robe should be pressed. “I allow, bhikkhus, to strike it with the hand” (mahāva. 344)—from this statement, a coarse robe should be struck with the hand. “Bhikkhus, robes that are not fully dyed should not be worn; whoever wears them commits an offense of wrongdoing” (mahāva. 344)—from this statement, robes that are not fully dyed, meaning ivory-colored robes, should not be worn. Here, “dantakāsāvāni” means robes dyed once or twice and worn in an ivory color.
“I allow, monks, to tie the corner” (Mahāva. 344), thus the corner should be tied, because when the corner of the robe is being tied, the corner may be worn. “I allow, monks, a corner-string” (Mahāva. 344), thus it should be tied with a corner-string, so that when tying it like that the dye drips from one side. “I allow, monks, to turn it around and around to dye it, but one should not leave while the dripping is not ceased” (Mahāva. 344), it should be dyed in that way. As long as the dripping of the dye-drop is not ceased, one should not go elsewhere. “I allow, monks, to soak it in water” (Mahāva. 344), a saturated robe should be soaked in water. Here, saturated means stiff because of excessive dyeing. To soak it in water means to put it in water and leave it. But when the dye is removed, that water should be discarded and the robe should be rubbed. “I allow, monks, to beat it with the hand” (Mahāva. 344), a rough robe should be beaten with the hand. “Monks, robes that are not fully dyed should not be worn; whoever wears them, commits an offense of wrong-doing” (Mahāva. 344), robes with edges that are not cut off, which are lightly dyed, should not be worn. Here, lightly dyed means robes that are worn of a tooth-like color after being dyed one or two times.
“I allow, monks, to tie the corners,” thus, from this statement (mahāva. 344), the corners of the robe should be tied. When the corners of the robe are tied, the corners become worn out. “I allow, monks, a corner-string,” thus, from this statement (mahāva. 344), the corners should be tied with a corner-string. When tied thus, the dye does not drip from one side. “I allow, monks, to dye by turning it repeatedly, and not to leave until the dye-drop is cut off,” thus, from this statement (mahāva. 344), it should be dyed in this manner. Until the dye-drop is cut off, one should not go elsewhere. “I allow, monks, to immerse it in water,” thus, from this statement (mahāva. 344), the stiff robe should be immersed in water. Herein, “stiff” means hardened due to excessive dyeing. “Immerse in water” means to place it in water and leave it. When the dye is removed, the water should be discarded, and the robe should be beaten. “I allow, monks, to beat it with the hand,” thus, from this statement (mahāva. 344), a rough robe should be beaten with the hand. “Monks, torn robes should not be worn; whoever wears them commits an offense of wrong-doing,” thus, from this statement (mahāva. 344), torn robes, even if dyed once or twice, should not be worn. Herein, “dyed once or twice” means dyed to a pale color.
ID1941
ID1942
Atirekacīvarakathāyaṃ “na, bhikkhave, atirekacīvaraṃ dhāretabbaṃ, yo dhāreyya, yathādhammo kāretabbo”ti (mahāva. 347) vacanato niṭṭhitacīvarasmiṃ ubbhatasmiṃ kathine dasāhato paraṃ atirekacīvaraṃ dhārentassa nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, dasāhaparamaṃ atirekacīvaraṃ dhāretu”nti (mahāva. 347) vacanato ubbhatepi kathine dasāhabbhantare dhārentassa atthatakathinānaṃ anubbhatepi kathine pañcamāsabbhantare tato parampi dasāhabbhantare anatthatakathinānampi dasāhabbhantare atirekacīvaraṃ anāpatti. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, atirekacīvaraṃ vikappetu”nti (mahāva. 347) vacanato dasāhato paraṃ vikappetvā atirekacīvaraṃ dhāretuṃ vaṭṭati. Kittakaṃ pana cīvaraṃ vikappetabbanti? “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, āyāmena aṭṭhaṅgulaṃ sugataṅgulena caturaṅgulavitthataṃ pacchimaṃ cīvaraṃ vikappetu”nti (mahāva. 358) vacanato sabbantimena paricchedena sugataṅgulena aṭṭhaṅgulāyāmaṃ caturaṅgulavitthāraṃ cīvaraṃ vikappetuṃ vaṭṭati. Tattha sugataṅgulaṃ nāma majjhimapurisaṅgulasaṅkhātena vaḍḍhakīaṅgulena tivaṅgulaṃ hoti, manussānaṃ pakatiaṅgulena aḍḍhapañcakaṅgulaṃ, tasmā dīghato vaḍḍhakīhatthena ekahatthaṃ pakatihatthena diyaḍḍhahatthaṃ vitthārato vaḍḍhakīhatthena vidatthippamāṇaṃ pakatihatthena chaḷaṅgulādhikavidatthippamāṇaṃ pacchimaṃ cīvaraṃ vikappetuṃ vaṭṭati, tato ūnappamāṇaṃ na vaṭṭati, adhikappamāṇaṃ pana vaṭṭatīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
In the discussion on extra robes, “Bhikkhus, an extra robe should not be worn; whoever wears it should be dealt with according to the rule” (mahāva. 347)—from this statement, when the robe is finished and the kathina privilege is lifted, wearing an extra robe beyond ten days incurs a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. “I allow, bhikkhus, to wear an extra robe for a maximum of ten days” (mahāva. 347)—from this statement, when the kathina is lifted, there is no offense for wearing it within ten days; for those who have spread the kathina, within five months even when the kathina is not lifted, and beyond that within ten days; and for those who have not spread the kathina, within ten days, there is no offense for an extra robe. “I allow, bhikkhus, to assign an extra robe” (mahāva. 347)—from this statement, it is permissible to wear an extra robe beyond ten days by assigning it. But how much robe should be assigned? “I allow, bhikkhus, to assign a final robe eight fingerbreadths in length and four fingerbreadths in width by the Sugata finger” (mahāva. 358)—from this statement, it is permissible to assign a robe with the minimum dimensions of eight fingerbreadths in length and four fingerbreadths in width by the Sugata finger. Here, “sugataṅgulaṃ” means three fingerbreadths by a carpenter’s finger reckoned as a middle-sized man’s finger, or two and a half by a normal human finger; thus, in length, one carpenter’s handspan or one and a half normal handspans, and in width, a carpenter’s span or a normal span plus six fingerbreadths—it is permissible to assign such a final robe; less than this is not allowed, but more than this is permissible.
In the discourse on extra robes, “Monks, an extra robe should not be worn; whoever wears it, should be dealt with according to the rule” (Mahāva. 347), when the robes are finished and the kathina is withdrawn, one who wears an extra robe beyond ten days commits a nissaggiya pācittiya. “I allow, monks, to wear an extra robe for a maximum of ten days” (Mahāva. 347), there is no offense for wearing an extra robe within ten days even if the kathina is withdrawn, within five months even if the kathina of those who have spread it, beyond that, is not withdrawn; and within ten days even for those who have not spread the kathina, also within ten days. “I allow, monks, to determine an extra robe” (Mahāva. 347), beyond ten days, it is allowable to wear an extra robe after determining it. But how much cloth can be determined? “I allow, monks, to determine the smallest robe which is eight fingerbreadths in length by the Sugata fingerbreadth, and four fingerbreadths in width” (Mahāva. 358). At the very least it is permissible to determine a piece of robe of eight fingerbreadths long and four fingerbreadths wide in terms of Sugata’s fingerbreadth. Herein Sugata’s fingerbreadth, is three fingerbreadths of carpenter which considered as the fingerbreadths of a man of medium height, it means four and half fingerbreadths in normal human fingerbreadth, therefore, with carpenter’s hand it is one hand in length and with ordinary hand span one and half hand length; in terms of width with carpenter’s hand, it is one hand span and in terms of ordinary hand spans, it is six fingerbreadth more than one span; that is the least of the robe’s size which is permissible to be determined, less than that is not permissible, but more than that is allowable.
In the discussion on extra robes, “Monks, an extra robe should not be kept; whoever keeps it should be dealt with according to the rule,” thus, from this statement (mahāva. 347), after the robe season has ended and the kathina is dismantled, keeping an extra robe beyond ten days entails an offense of relinquishment. “I allow, monks, to keep an extra robe for a maximum of ten days,” thus, from this statement (mahāva. 347), even after the kathina is dismantled, keeping it within ten days is permissible. For those whose kathina is not dismantled, keeping it within five months is permissible, and beyond that, within ten days is also permissible. “I allow, monks, to allocate an extra robe,” thus, from this statement (mahāva. 347), after ten days, it is permissible to allocate and keep an extra robe. How much robe should be allocated? “I allow, monks, to allocate a robe measuring eight sugata-angles in length and four sugata-angles in width,” thus, from this statement (mahāva. 358), it is permissible to allocate a robe measuring eight sugata-angles in length and four sugata-angles in width. Herein, “sugata-angle” refers to the middle finger of an average person, which is three angles. For ordinary people, it is two and a half angles. Therefore, in length, it is one hand by a carpenter’s measure, or one and a half hands by an ordinary measure. In width, it is one span by a carpenter’s measure, or one span and six angles by an ordinary measure. It is permissible to allocate a robe of this size, but not less. More than this is also permissible.
ID1943
ID1944
Aṭṭhavarakathāyaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, vassikasāṭikaṃ āgantukabhattaṃ gamikabhattaṃ gilānabhattaṃ gilānupaṭṭhākabhattaṃ gilānabhesajjaṃ dhuvayāguṃ bhikkhunisaṅghassa udakasāṭika”nti vacanato imāni aṭṭha dānāni sampaṭicchituṃ vaṭṭati. Tattha nikkhittacīvarā hutvā kāyaṃ ovassantānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ naggiyaṃ asuci jegucchaṃ paṭikūlaṃ hoti, tasmā vassikasāṭikā anuññātā. Āgantuko bhikkhu na vīthikusalo hoti, na gocarakusalo, kilanto piṇḍāya carati, tasmā āgantukabhattaṃ anuññātaṃ, gamiko bhikkhu attano bhattaṃ pariyesamāno satthā vā vihāyissati , yattha vā vāsaṃ gantukāmo bhavissati, tattha vikālena upagacchissati, kilanto addhānaṃ gamissati, tasmā gamikabhattaṃ. Gilānassa bhikkhuno sappāyāni bhojanāni alabhantassa ābādho vā abhivaḍḍhissati, kālakiriyā vā bhavissati, tasmā gilānabhattaṃ. Gilānupaṭṭhāko bhikkhu attano bhattaṃ pariyesamāno gilānassa ussūre bhattaṃ nīharissati, tasmā gilānupaṭṭhākabhattaṃ. Gilānassa bhikkhuno sappāyāni bhesajjāni alabhantassa ābādho vā abhivaḍḍhissati, kālakiriyā vā bhavissati, tasmā gilānabhesajjaṃ. Yasmā bhagavatā andhakavinde dasānisaṃse sampassamānena yāgu anuññātā, tasmā dhuvayāgu. Yasmā mātugāmassa naggiyaṃ asuci jegucchaṃ paṭikūlaṃ hoti, tasmā bhikkhunisaṅghassa udakasāṭikā anuññātā.
In the discussion on the eight requisites, “I allow, bhikkhus, a rains robe, a meal for a newcomer, a meal for one departing, a meal for the sick, a meal for the attendant of the sick, medicine for the sick, constant porridge, and a water robe for the nuns’ community”—from this statement, it is permissible to accept these eight donations. Here, for bhikkhus who have laid aside their robes and whose bodies are wet, nakedness is impure, disgusting, and repulsive, so a rains robe is allowed. A newcomer bhikkhu is not skilled in streets or alms rounds and wanders tired, so a meal for a newcomer is allowed. A departing bhikkhu, while seeking his own meal, may miss the caravan or arrive late at his intended lodging, traveling tired, so a meal for one departing is allowed. For a sick bhikkhu, if suitable foods are not obtained, his illness may worsen or he may die, so a meal for the sick is allowed. An attendant of the sick, while seeking his own meal, may delay the sick one’s meal, so a meal for the attendant of the sick is allowed. For a sick bhikkhu, if suitable medicines are not obtained, his illness may worsen or he may die, so medicine for the sick is allowed. Since the Blessed One allowed porridge seeing ten benefits in Andhakavinda, constant porridge is allowed. Since nakedness in women is impure, disgusting, and repulsive, a water robe is allowed for the nuns’ community.
In the discourse on the eight allowances, “I allow, monks, a rains-bathing cloth, food for guests, food for those departing, food for the sick, food for those attending the sick, medicine for the sick, regular gruel, and a bathing cloth for the community of nuns”, these eight gifts are allowable to accept. Here, it is impure, disgusting, and repulsive for monks who have put down their robes to be drenched by the rain. Therefore, the rains-bathing cloth is allowed. A guest monk is not skilled in the streets, not skilled in the alms-resort, he wanders for alms tired, therefore, food for guests is allowed; a departing monk, seeking his own food, may be abandoned by the company, or he will arrive late at the place where he intends to stay; he will travel the road tired, therefore, food for those departing is allowed. A sick monk, not obtaining suitable food, his illness may increase, or he may die, therefore, food for the sick is allowed. A sick attendant monk, seeking his own food, will bring food to the sick person late, therefore food for those attending the sick is allowed. A sick monk, not obtaining suitable medicine, his illness may increase, or he may die, therefore, medicine for the sick is allowed. Because the Blessed One allowed gruel in Andhakavinda, seeing ten benefits, therefore, there is regular gruel. Because it is impure, disgusting, and repulsive for women to be naked, therefore, a bathing cloth is allowed for the community of nuns.
In the discussion on the eight requisites, “I allow, monks, a rain robe, a meal for a guest, a meal for a traveler, a meal for a sick monk, a meal for a nurse, medicine for the sick, constant gruel, and a water robe for the bhikkhuni sangha,” thus, from this statement, it is permissible to accept these eight offerings. Herein, when monks, having laid aside their robes, are drenched by rain, nakedness is impure, repulsive, and disgusting. Therefore, a rain robe is allowed. A guest monk is not familiar with the alms route or the alms area, and he becomes weary while seeking alms. Therefore, a meal for a guest is allowed. A traveling monk, while seeking his own meal, may miss the caravan or arrive late at his destination, and he becomes weary on the journey. Therefore, a meal for a traveler is allowed. A sick monk, not obtaining suitable food, may worsen in illness or die. Therefore, a meal for a sick monk is allowed. A nurse monk, while seeking his own meal, may delay in bringing food to the sick. Therefore, a meal for a nurse is allowed. A sick monk, not obtaining suitable medicine, may worsen in illness or die. Therefore, medicine for the sick is allowed. Since the Blessed One, seeing ten benefits, allowed gruel, constant gruel is allowed. Since nakedness is impure, repulsive, and disgusting for women, a water robe for the bhikkhuni sangha is allowed.
ID1945
ID1946
Nisīdanādikathāyaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, kāyaguttiyā cīvaraguttiyā senāsanaguttiyā nisīdana”nti (mahāva. 353) vacanato kāyādīnaṃ asucimuccanādito gopanatthāya nisīdanaṃ dhāretuṃ vaṭṭati. Tassa vidhānaṃ heṭṭhā vuttameva. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, yāvamahantaṃ paccattharaṇaṃ ākaṅkhati, tāvamahantaṃ paccattharaṇaṃ kātu”nti vacanato atikhuddakena nisīdanena senāsanassa agopanattā mahantampi paccattharaṇaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, yassa kaṇḍu vā pīḷakā vā assāvo vā thullakacchu vā ābādho, kaṇḍupaṭicchādi”nti vacanato īdisesu ābādhesu santesu cīvarādiguttatthāya kaṇḍupaṭicchādi vaṭṭati. Tattha pamāṇaṃ heṭṭhā vuttameva. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave , mukhapuñchanacoḷa”nti (mahāva. 355) vacanato mukhasodhanatthāya mukhapuñchanacoḷaṃ vaṭṭati. Tampi heṭṭhā vuttameva. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, parikkhāracoḷaka”nti vacanato ticīvare paripuṇṇe parissāvanathavikādīhi atthe sati parikkhāracoḷaṃ vaṭṭati. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, ticīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ na vikappetuṃ, vassikasāṭikaṃ vassānaṃ cātumāsaṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ tato paraṃ vikappetuṃ, nisīdanaṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ na vikappetuṃ, paccattharaṇaṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ na vikappetuṃ, kaṇḍupaṭicchādiṃ yāva ābādhā adhiṭṭhātuṃ tato paraṃ vikappetuṃ, mukhapuñchanacoḷaṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ na vikappetuṃ, parikkhāracoḷaṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ na vikappetu”nti (mahāva. 358) vacanato vuttanayena adhiṭṭhānañca vikappanā ca kātabbā. Ayamettha saṅkhepo, vitthāro pana heṭṭhā vuttova.
In the discussion on sitting cloths and related matters, “I allow, bhikkhus, a sitting cloth for the protection of the body, the robe, and the lodging” (mahāva. 353)—from this statement, it is permissible to wear a sitting cloth to protect the body and so forth from impurity. Its procedure has been stated below. “I allow, bhikkhus, to make a spread as large as one desires” (mahāva. 353)—from this statement, since a very small sitting cloth does not protect the lodging, it is permissible to make even a large spread. “I allow, bhikkhus, an itch-covering for one with an itch, sores, discharge, or a severe skin disease” (mahāva. 353)—from this statement, in the presence of such ailments, an itch-covering is permissible for protecting robes and the like. Its measure has been stated below. “I allow, bhikkhus, a face-wiping cloth” (mahāva. 355)—from this statement, a face-wiping cloth is permissible for cleaning the face. That too has been stated below. “I allow, bhikkhus, a requisite cloth” (mahāva. 355)—from this statement, when the three robes are complete and there is need for a filter bag or similar items, a requisite cloth is permissible. “I allow, bhikkhus, to determine the triple robe but not to assign it, to determine the rains robe for the four months of the rainy season and assign it thereafter, to determine the sitting cloth but not to assign it, to determine the spread but not to assign it, to determine the itch-covering as long as the ailment lasts and assign it thereafter, to determine the face-wiping cloth but not to assign it, to determine the requisite cloth but not to assign it” (mahāva. 358)—from this statement, determination and assignment should be done as stated. This is the summary here; the details have been stated below.
In the discourse on sitting cloths and other things, “I allow, monks, a sitting cloth for the protection of the body, for the protection of the robe, and for the protection of the dwelling” (Mahāva. 353), a sitting cloth is allowable to wear for the purpose of protection from the discharge of impurities from the body and other things. Its regulations have been mentioned above. “I allow, monks, to make a spread as large as one desires” thus, because a very small sitting cloth does not protect the dwelling, it is allowable to make even a large spread. “I allow, monks, for one who has itching, or a boil, or a discharge, or a major skin disease, an itch-covering cloth” (Mahāva. 353), when such diseases exist, an itch-covering cloth and other things are allowable for the protection of the robe and other things. The size has been mentioned above. “I allow, monks, a face-wiping cloth” (Mahāva. 355), a face-wiping cloth is allowable for cleaning the face. That, too, has been mentioned above. “I allow, monks, a requisites-cloth” (Mahāva. 355), when the three robes are complete, a requisites-cloth is allowable when there is a need for a strainer and other things. “I allow, monks, to determine the three robes, not to determine, a rains-bathing cloth for four months of the rainy season, after that to determine it; a sitting cloth to be determined, not to determine it; a spread to be determined, not to determine it; an itch-covering cloth as long as the illness exists to be determined, after that to determine it; a face-wiping cloth to be determined, not to determine it; a requisites-cloth to be determined, not to determine it” (Mahāva. 358), determination and non-determination should be done in the manner stated. This is the summary here, but the details have been stated above.
In the discussion on sitting mats, etc., “I allow, monks, a sitting mat for the protection of the body, robes, and dwelling,” thus, from this statement (mahāva. 353), it is permissible to use a sitting mat to protect the body, etc., from impurities. Its method is as stated below. “I allow, monks, to make a sitting mat as large as one desires,” thus, from this statement, since a very small sitting mat does not protect the dwelling, it is permissible to make a large sitting mat. “I allow, monks, a cover for itching, boils, discharge, or severe scabies,” thus, from this statement, when such ailments are present, a cover for itching is permissible to protect the robes, etc. Herein, the measure is as stated below. “I allow, monks, a face-wiping cloth,” thus, from this statement (mahāva. 355), a face-wiping cloth is permissible for cleaning the face. This is also as stated below. “I allow, monks, a accessory cloth,” thus, from this statement, when the three robes are complete and there is a need for a straining cloth, etc., an accessory cloth is permissible. “I allow, monks, to determine the three robes but not to allocate them, to determine the rain robe for the four months of the rains but to allocate it thereafter, to determine the sitting mat but not to allocate it, to determine the sitting mat but not to allocate it, to determine the cover for itching until the ailment persists but to allocate it thereafter, to determine the face-wiping cloth but not to allocate it, to determine the accessory cloth but not to allocate it,” thus, from this statement (mahāva. 358), determination and allocation should be done as stated. This is the summary here; the details are as stated below.
ID1947
ID1948
58. Adhammakammakathāyaṃ na, bhikkhave…pe… dukkaṭassāti idaṃ “tena kho pana samayena chabbaggiyā bhikkhū saṅghamajjhe adhammakammaṃ karonti. Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ – na, bhikkhave, adhammakammaṃ kātabbaṃ, yo kareyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 154) imaṃ uposathakkhandhake āgatapāṭhaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Anujānāmi…pe… paṭikkositunti tatheva āgataṃ “bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ – anujānāmi, bhikkhave, adhammakamme kayiramāne paṭikkositu”nti imaṃ. Tattha karontiyevāti paññattampi sikkhāpadaṃ madditvā adhammakammaṃ karontiyevāti attho. “Anujānāmi…pe… paṭikkositu”nti evaṃ adhammakamme kayiramāne sati “pesalehi bhikkhūhi taṃ adhammakammaṃ akataṃ, kammaṃ dukkaṭaṃ kammaṃ puna kātabba”nti evaṃ paṭikkositabbaṃ, na tuṇhībhāvena khamitabbanti attho. Iti vacanatoti idaṃ pana pubbapāṭhaṃ gahetvā iti vacanato. Adhammakammaṃ na kātabbanti aparapāṭhaṃ gahetvā iti vacanato kayiramānañca adhammakammaṃ bhikkhūhi nivāretabbanti dvidhā yojanā kātabbā.
58. In the discussion on unrighteous actions, “na, bhikkhave…pe… dukkaṭassa” refers to the passage in the Uposatha chapter: “At that time, the group-of-six bhikkhus performed an unrighteous action in the midst of the Sangha. They reported this matter to the Blessed One—‘Bhikkhus, an unrighteous action should not be performed; whoever performs it commits an offense of wrongdoing’” (mahāva. 154). “Anujānāmi…pe… paṭikkositu” refers to the passage there: “They reported this matter to the Blessed One—‘I allow, bhikkhus, to protest when an unrighteous action is being performed’.” Here, “karontiyevā” means even while performing an unrighteous action, trampling the established rule, that is the meaning. “I allow… to protest”—thus, when an unrighteous action is being performed, upright bhikkhus should protest, saying, “That unrighteous action is not done, the action is an offense of wrongdoing, the action should be done again,” and it should not be tolerated in silence, that is the meaning. “Iti vacanato”—this is based on taking the prior text; from the later text, “An unrighteous action should not be performed,” and when it is being performed, bhikkhus should prevent it—thus it should be construed in two ways.
58. In the discourse on unlawful acts, Monks, not… an offense of wrong-doing, this is said with reference to the passage that came in the Uposatha section: “At that time, the group of six monks were performing an unlawful act in the midst of the Sangha. They informed the Blessed One of this matter. – Monks, an unlawful act should not be done; whoever does it, commits an offense of wrong-doing” (Mahāva. 154). I allow… to protest, this is what came in the same place: “They informed the Blessed One of this matter. – I allow, monks, to protest when an unlawful act is being done.” Here, they even do means they even do an unlawful act, trampling on the prescribed training rule. “I allow… to protest”, when an unlawful act is being done in this way, it means that “virtuous monks should protest in this way: ‘That unlawful act is not done, the act is wrongly done, the act should be done again’, they should not accept it in silence.” Because of this statement, this means, by taking the former passage, because of this statement. An unlawful act should not be done, by taking the latter passage, because of this statement, it is being done, and monks should prevent that unlawful act. The connection should be made in two ways.
58. In the discussion on wrongful acts, “Monks, a wrongful act should not be done; whoever does it commits an offense of wrong-doing,” thus, this is stated with reference to the passage in the Uposatha chapter (mahāva. 154): “At that time, the six monks performed a wrongful act in the midst of the sangha. They informed the Blessed One of this matter. The Blessed One said, ‘Monks, a wrongful act should not be done; whoever does it commits an offense of wrong-doing.’” “I allow, monks, to protest against a wrongful act,” thus, this is also stated with reference to the passage: “They informed the Blessed One of this matter. The Blessed One said, ‘I allow, monks, to protest against a wrongful act being performed.’” Herein, “while it is being done” means even if the training rule is violated, a wrongful act is being performed. “I allow, monks, to protest,” thus, when a wrongful act is being performed, the virtuous monks should protest, saying, “This wrongful act is not done, the act is wrong, the act should be done again,” and not remain silent. “Thus, from this statement,” this is stated by taking the previous passage. “A wrongful act should not be done,” thus, by taking the subsequent passage, it is stated that a wrongful act being performed should be stopped by the monks. The explanation should be done in two ways.
ID1949
Nivārentehi cātiādi pana “tena kho pana samayena pesalā bhikkhū chabbaggiyehi bhikkhūhi adhammakamme kayiramāne paṭikkosanti, chabbaggiyā bhikkhū labhanti āghātaṃ, labhanti appaccayaṃ, vadhena tajjenti. Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ – anujānāmi, bhikkhave, diṭṭhimpi āvikātu”nti (mahāva. 154) pāṭhañca “tesaṃyeva santike diṭṭhiṃ āvikaronti, chabbaggiyā bhikkhū labhanti āghātaṃ, labhanti appaccayaṃ, vadhena tajjenti. Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ – anujānāmi, bhikkhave, catūhi pañcahi paṭikkosituṃ, dvīhi tīhi diṭṭhiṃ āvikātuṃ, ekena adhiṭṭhātuṃ na metaṃ khamatī”ti ime pāṭhe sandhāya vuttaṃ. Vacanatoti idaṃ pana pāḷiyaṃ tīṇi sampadānāni gahetvā tīhi kiriyāpadehi visuṃ visuṃ yojetabbaṃ. Sabbañcetaṃ anupaddavatthāya vuttaṃ, na āpattisabbhāvatoti yojanā. Kathaṃ anupaddavasambhavoti? Niggahakammaṃ kātuṃ asakkuṇeyyabhāvato, aññassa upaddavassa ca nivāraṇato. Tena vuttaṃ vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 154) “tesaṃ anupaddavatthāyāti saṅgho saṅghassa kammaṃ na karoti, aññopi upaddavo bahūnaṃ hoti, tasmā vutta”nti.
“Nivārentehi cā” and so forth refer to the passages: “At that time, upright bhikkhus protested when the group-of-six bhikkhus performed an unrighteous action; the group-of-six bhikkhus became resentful, displeased, and threatened them with harm. They reported this matter to the Blessed One—‘I allow, bhikkhus, to express a view’” (mahāva. 154), and “They expressed their view in their presence; the group-of-six bhikkhus became resentful, displeased, and threatened them with harm. They reported this matter to the Blessed One—‘I allow, bhikkhus, to protest with four or five, to express a view with two or three, and for one to resolve, “This does not please me”’” (mahāva. 154). “Vacanato”—this should be construed separately with the three verbs by taking the three datives in the Pāli. All this is stated for the sake of avoiding harm, not for the absence of an offense. How does it avoid harm? Because they are unable to perform a censure action and because it prevents other harm. Thus it is said in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 154), “tesaṃ anupaddavatthāya”—the Sangha does not perform an action against the Sangha, and other harm comes to many, therefore it is stated.
And by those preventing and so on, this is said with reference to the passage, “At that time, virtuous monks protested when the group of six monks were performing an unlawful act, the group of six monks became angry, they became displeased, they threatened them with violence. They informed the Blessed One of this matter. – I allow, monks, to even show one’s view” (Mahāva. 154), and these passages: “They show their view in their presence, the group of six monks become angry, they become displeased, they threaten them with violence. They informed the Blessed One of this matter. – I allow, monks, four or five to protest, two or three to show their view, one to determine, ‘This is not acceptable to me’”. From the statement, this means that in the Pali, taking three dative cases, they should be connected separately with three verbs. All this is said for the purpose of non-trouble, not because of the presence of an offense. How is the arising of non-trouble? Because of the inability to perform an act of censure, and because of the prevention of other trouble. Therefore, it is said in the Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā (Vajira. ṭī. Mahāvagga 154), “For the sake of their non-trouble”, the Sangha does not perform an act against the Sangha, and other trouble arises for many, therefore, it is said.
“When stopping it,” etc., is stated with reference to the passage: “At that time, the virtuous monks protested against the six monks performing a wrongful act. The six monks became angry, developed resentment, and threatened them with violence. They informed the Blessed One of this matter. The Blessed One said, ‘I allow, monks, to declare one’s view.’” And also with reference to the passage: “They declared their view in the presence of the six monks. The six monks became angry, developed resentment, and threatened them with violence. They informed the Blessed One of this matter. The Blessed One said, ‘I allow, monks, to protest with four or five, to declare one’s view with two or three, but not to determine with one; this is not acceptable to me.’” “From this statement,” this is stated by taking the three cases in the Pali and applying them separately to the three actions. All this is stated to prevent harm, not to incur an offense. How is harm prevented? By being unable to perform a disciplinary act and by preventing harm to others. Therefore, it is stated in the Vajirabuddhi commentary (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 154): “To prevent harm to them,” thus, the sangha does not perform an act against the sangha, and others are also harmed. Therefore, it is stated.
ID1950
ID1951
59. Okāsakatakathāyaṃ na, bhikkhave, anokāsakatotiādi “tena kho pana samayena chabbaggiyā bhikkhū anokāsakataṃ bhikkhuṃ āpattiyā codenti. Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ – na, bhikkhave, anokāsakato bhikkhu āpattiyā codetabbo, yo codeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, okāsaṃ kārāpetvā āpattiyā codetuṃ, karotu āyasmā okāsaṃ, ahaṃ taṃ vattukāmo”ti (mahāva. 153) idaṃ pāṭhaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Adhippāyesu cāvanādhippāyoti, sāsanato cāvetukāmo. Akkosādhippāyoti paraṃ akkositukāmo paribhāsitukāmo. Kammādhippāyoti tajjanīyādikammaṃ kattukāmo. Vuṭṭhānādhippāyoti āpattito vuṭṭhāpetukāmo. Uposathappavāraṇaṭṭhapanādhippāyoti uposathaṃ, pavāraṇaṃ vā ṭhapetukāmo. Anuvijjanādhippāyoti upaparikkhitukāmo. Dhammakathādhippāyoti dhammaṃ desetukāmo. Iti paraṃ codentānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ adhippāyabhedo anekavidho hotīti attho. Purimesu catūsu adhippāyesūti cāvanādhippāyaakkosādhippāyakammādhippāyavuṭṭhānādhippāyesu okāsaṃ akārāpentassa dukkaṭaṃ. Kārāpetvāpi sammukhā codentassa yathānurūpaṃ saṅghādisesapācittiyadukkaṭāni, asammukhā pana dukkaṭamevāti ayamettha piṇḍattho. Sesaṃ suviññeyyameva.
59. In the discussion on permission, “na, bhikkhave, anokāsakato” and so forth refer to the passage: “At that time, the group-of-six bhikkhus accused a bhikkhu of an offense without permission. They reported this matter to the Blessed One—‘Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu without permission should not be accused of an offense; whoever accuses him commits an offense of wrongdoing. I allow, bhikkhus, to accuse of an offense after having permission granted, saying, “Let the venerable one grant permission, I wish to speak to him”’” (mahāva. 153). Among intentions, “cāvanādhippāyo” means intending to expel from the Sangha. “Akkosādhippāyo” means intending to insult or revile the other. “Kammādhippāyo” means intending to perform an action like censure. “Vuṭṭhānādhippāyo” means intending to rehabilitate from an offense. “Uposathappavāraṇaṭṭhapanādhippāyo” means intending to establish the Uposatha or Pavāraṇā. “Anuvijjanādhippāyo” means intending to investigate. “Dhammakathādhippāyo” means intending to teach the Dhamma. Thus, the intentions of bhikkhus accusing another are of many kinds, that is the meaning. “Purimesu catūsu adhippāyesu”—in the first four intentions (expulsion, insult, action, rehabilitation), there is an offense of wrongdoing for not having permission granted. Even after having permission granted, accusing face-to-face incurs saṅghādisesa, pācittiya, or dukkaṭa as appropriate; but accusing without being face-to-face incurs only dukkaṭa—this is the gist here. The rest is easily understood.
59. In the discourse on asking for an opportunity, Monks, not without asking for an opportunity, and so on, this is said with reference to this passage: “At that time, the group of six monks were accusing a monk of an offense without asking for an opportunity. They informed the Blessed One of this matter. – Monks, a monk should not be accused of an offense without asking for an opportunity; whoever accuses, commits an offense of wrong-doing. I allow, monks, to accuse of an offense after asking for an opportunity, ‘Venerable sir, please give me an opportunity, I wish to speak to you’” (Mahāva. 153). In terms of intentions, intention to expel means desiring to expel from the Dispensation. Intention to insult means desiring to insult, desiring to revile. Intention to perform an act means desiring to perform an act such as a tajjanīya-kamma. Intention to rehabilitate means desiring to rehabilitate from an offense. Intention to suspend the Uposatha or Pavāraṇā means desiring to suspend the Uposatha or Pavāraṇā. Intention to investigate means desiring to examine. Intention to teach Dhamma means desiring to teach the Dhamma. Thus, the difference in intention of monks accusing others is manifold. In the first four intentions, namely, intention to expel, intention to insult, intention to perform an act, and intention to rehabilitate, one who does not ask for an opportunity commits a dukkaṭa. Even after asking for an opportunity, one who accuses face-to-face commits a sanghādisesa, pācittiya, or dukkaṭa as appropriate; but if not face-to-face, it is only a dukkaṭa. This is the condensed meaning here. The rest is easy to understand.
59. In the discussion on seeking permission, “Monks, one should not accuse a monk without seeking permission,” thus, this is stated with reference to the passage: “At that time, the six monks accused a monk without seeking permission. They informed the Blessed One of this matter. The Blessed One said, ‘Monks, one should not accuse a monk without seeking permission; whoever does so commits an offense of wrong-doing. I allow, monks, to seek permission before accusing a monk of an offense. Venerable, please grant permission; I wish to speak to you.’” (mahāva. 153). In the intentions, “the intention to remove” means to remove someone from the teaching. “The intention to abuse” means to abuse or insult another. “The intention to act” means to perform an act of censure, etc. “The intention to reinstate” means to reinstate someone from an offense. “The intention to suspend the Uposatha or Pavāraṇā” means to suspend the Uposatha or Pavāraṇā. “The intention to investigate” means to inquire. “The intention to teach the Dhamma” means to teach the Dhamma. Thus, the intentions of monks accusing others are of various kinds. “In the first four intentions,” thus, in the intentions of removal, abuse, action, and reinstatement, not seeking permission entails an offense of wrong-doing. Even if permission is sought, accusing in person entails a corresponding offense of sanghādisesa, pācittiya, or dukkaṭa, but accusing in absentia entails only an offense of wrong-doing. The rest is easily understood.
ID1952
“Ṭhapanakkhettaṃ pana jānitabba”nti vatvā taṃ dassento “suṇātu me”tiādimāha. Anuvijjakassa anuvijjanādhippāyena vadantassa okāsakammaṃ natthīti yojanā. Dhammakathikassa anodissa kammaṃ kathentassa okāsakammaṃ natthi. Sace pana odissa katheti, āpatti, tasmā taṃ dassetvā gantabbanti yojetabbaṃ. Sesaṃ suviññeyyameva.
Having said “The field of placement should be understood,” he explains it by saying “suṇātu me” and so forth. The construction is that there is no preliminary act of permission for one who speaks with the intention of examining an examiner. For a preacher of Dhamma who speaks about an act without specifying [a recipient], there is no preliminary act of permission. However, if he speaks with a specific recipient in mind, it is an offense; therefore, it should be construed that one should proceed after indicating that. The rest is easily understood.
Having said, “The field of depositing should be known,” he says, “suṇātu me” (listen to me), and so forth, to show that. There is no occasion-making action for one who is investigating with the intention of investigating. There is no occasion-making action for a Dhamma preacher who is teaching the action without specifying. But if he teaches specifying, there is an offense; therefore, having shown that, it should be connected with “should go.” The rest is easily understood.
Having said, “The field of suspension should be understood,” he then explains it by saying, “Listen to me,” and so on. There is no opportunity for one who speaks with the intention of investigating to investigate. There is no opportunity for a Dhamma speaker who teaches without specifying. However, if he teaches by specifying, there is an offense. Therefore, after explaining it, one should proceed. The rest is easily understandable.
ID1953
ID1954
60. Saddhādeyyavinipātanakathāyaṃ “mātāpitaroti kho, bhikkhave, vadamāne kiṃ vadeyyāma. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, mātāpitūnaṃ dātuṃ, na ca, bhikkhave, saddhādeyyaṃ vinipātetabbaṃ, yo vinipāteyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 361) vacanato dāyakehi saddhāya bhikkhussa dinnaṃ vinipātetvā gihīnaṃ dātuṃ na vaṭṭati. “Na ca, bhikkhave, saddhādeyyanti ettha sesañātīnaṃ dento vinipātetiyeva. Mātāpitaro pana sace rajje ṭhitāpi patthayanti, dātabba”nti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 361) vuttattā bhātubhaginīādīnaṃ ñātakānampi dātuṃ na vaṭṭati. Vuttañhi ācariyadhammasirittherena khuddasikkhāyaṃ –
60. In the discussion on the misuse of gifts of faith, it is said: “Monks, when we say ‘mother and father,’ what are we saying? I allow you, monks, to give to mother and father, but, monks, gifts of faith must not be misused. Whoever misuses them incurs an offense of wrongdoing” (mahāva. 361). Thus, it is not permissible to misuse what donors have given to a monk out of faith by giving it to laypeople. In “Na ca, bhikkhave, saddhādeyya”, giving to relatives other than parents is indeed misuse. However, as stated in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 361), “Parents, even if established in royalty, may be given to if they desire it,” it is not permissible to give to siblings or other relatives. Indeed, Venerable Ācariya Dhammasiri Thera stated in the Khuddasikkhā:
60. In the discourse on the destruction of what is given in faith, because it is said, “If one says, ‘monks, they are mother and father,’ what should we say? I allow, monks, giving to mother and father, but, monks, what is given in faith should not be destroyed; whoever destroys it, there is an offense of wrong-doing” (mahāva. 361), it is not proper to destroy what has been given to a monk by donors with faith and give it to lay people. Here, in “na ca, bhikkhave, saddhādeyya” (and, monks, what is given in faith), when giving to other relatives, one certainly destroys it. But as for mother and father, even if they are established in kingship, if they desire it, it should be given, because it is said in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 361), so it is not proper to give to sibling brothers, sisters, and other relatives. Indeed, it was said by the teacher Dhammasiri Thera in the Khuddasikkhā:
60. In the discussion on the misuse of faith offerings, it is said, “When one speaks of parents, what should we say? I allow, monks, to give to parents, but monks, a faith offering should not be misused. Whoever misuses it commits an offense of wrong conduct” (Mahāva. 361). Therefore, it is not permissible to misuse what has been given by donors out of faith to a monk and then give it to householders. “But monks, a faith offering”—here, giving to other relatives is considered misuse. However, if parents, even if they are in a position of power, desire it, it should be given, as stated in the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 361). Therefore, it is not permissible to give to brothers, sisters, or other relatives. As stated by the venerable Ācariyadhammasiri in the Khuddasikkhā:
ID1955
“Na labbhaṃ vinipātetuṃ, saddhādeyyañca cīvaraṃ; Labbhaṃ pitūnaṃ sesānaṃ, ñātīnampi na labbhatī”ti.
“It is not permissible to misuse gifts of faith or robes; it is permissible to give to parents, but not to other relatives.”
“It is not permissible to destroy what is obtained and a robe that is given in faith; What is obtained may be given to parents, but not to other relatives.”
“It is not permissible to misuse a faith offering, such as a robe; it is permissible to give to parents, but not to other relatives.”
ID1956
Kayavikkayasamāpattisikkhāpadavaṇṇanāyampi “mātaraṃ pana pitaraṃ vā ’imaṃ dehī’ti vadato viññatti na hoti, ’imaṃ gaṇhāhī’ti vadato saddhādeyyavinipātanaṃ na hoti. Aññātakaṃ ’imaṃ dehī’ti vadato viññatti hoti, ’imaṃ gaṇhāhī’ti vadato saddhādeyyavinipātanaṃ hoti. ’Iminā imaṃ dehī’ti kayavikkayaṃ āpajjato nissaggiyaṃ hotī”ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.595) vuttaṃ. Tattha “sesañātakesu saddhādeyyavinipātasambhavato tadabhāvaṭṭhānampi dassetuṃ ’mātaraṃ pana pitaraṃ vā’ti vutta”nti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.593-595) vuttaṃ.
In the commentary on the training rule regarding buying and selling (kayavikkayasamāpattisikkhāpada), it is stated in the commentary (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.595): “However, saying to a mother or father, ‘Give this,’ does not constitute a request; saying, ‘Take this,’ does not constitute misuse of a gift of faith. Saying to a non-relative, ‘Give this,’ constitutes a request; saying, ‘Take this,’ constitutes misuse of a gift of faith. Saying, ‘Give this for that,’ incurs a forfeiture offense (nissaggiya) due to buying and selling.” Therein, it is stated in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.593-595): “To show that there is no misuse in the case of other relatives due to the possibility of misuse, it says ‘mother or father.’”
Also, in the explanation of the training rule on engaging in buying and selling, it is said in the commentary (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.595), “When one says to one’s mother or father, ‘Give this,’ there is no requesting; when one says, ‘Take this,’ there is no destruction of what is given in faith. When one says to someone who is not a relative, ‘Give this,’ there is requesting; when one says, ‘Take this,’ there is destruction of what is given in faith. When one engages in buying and selling, saying, ‘Give this with this,’ it becomes something to be forfeited.” There, it is said in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.593-595), “Because there is the possibility of the destruction of what is given in faith in the case of other relatives, to show the situation where that is absent, it is said, ‘to one’s mother or father.’”
In the explanation of the training rule on the completion of trade, it is also said, “When one says to a mother or father, ‘Give this,’ there is no announcement; when one says, ‘Take this,’ there is no misuse of a faith offering. When one says to a stranger, ‘Give this,’ there is an announcement; when one says, ‘Take this,’ there is misuse of a faith offering. When one engages in trade by saying, ‘Give this for that,’ it becomes an offense requiring forfeiture” (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.595). Here, it is said in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.593-595), “To show the absence of misuse of faith offerings among other relatives, it is said, ‘to a mother or father.”’
ID1957
ID1958
61. Santaruttarakathāyaṃ antara-saddo majjhavācako. Vasati sīlenāti vāsako, “antare vāsako antaravāsako”ti vattabbe “rūpabhavo rūpa”ntiādīsu viya uttarapadalopīsamāsavasena “antaro”ti vutto. Uttarasaddo uparivācako, ābhuso sajjatīti āsaṅgo, “uttare āsaṅgo uttarāsaṅgo”ti vattabbe vuttanayena “uttaro”ti vutto, antaro ca uttaro ca antaruttarā, saha antaruttarehi yo vattatīti santaruttaro, sahapubbapadabhinnādhikaraṇadvipadabahubbīhisamāso. Atha vā saha antarena ca uttarena ca yo vattatīti santaruttaro, tipadabahubbīhisamāso. Saṅghāṭiṃ ṭhapetvā antaravāsakauttarāsaṅgamattadharo hutvā gāmo na pavisitabboti attho. “Paribbājakamadakkhi tidaṇḍakenā”tiādīsu viya itthambhūtalakkhaṇe cetaṃ karaṇavacanaṃ, tasmā antaravāsakaṃ timaṇḍalaṃ paṭicchādentena parimaṇḍalaṃ nivāsetvā kāyabandhanaṃ bandhitvā saṅghāṭiñca uttarāsaṅgañca diguṇaṃ katvā pārupitvā gāmo pavisitabbo.
61. In the discussion on inner and outer robes, the word antara denotes “middle.” One who dwells with virtue is a dweller (vāsako); “a dweller in the middle is an antaravāsako” should be said, but due to a compound with elision of the latter member, as in “rūpabhava is rūpa,” it is said as antaro. The word uttara denotes “upper”; that which adheres finely is an attachment (āsaṅgo); “an attachment above is an uttarāsaṅgo” should be said, but in the same way it is said as uttaro. Inner and outer are antaruttarā; one who exists with inner and outer is santaruttaro, a compound of two terms differing from the preceding co-referent compound (bahubbīhi). Alternatively, one who exists with both the inner and the outer is santaruttaro, a three-term bahubbīhi compound. The meaning is that one should not enter a village wearing only the inner robe (antaravāsaka) and upper robe (uttarāsaṅga), excluding the outer robe (saṅghāṭi). As in “He saw a wanderer with three staffs,” this is an instrumental case indicating a characteristic; therefore, one should enter a village wearing the inner robe (antaravāsaka) covering the three circles (timaṇḍala) neatly, tying the waistband, and donning the outer robe (saṅghāṭi) and upper robe (uttarāsaṅga) doubled.
61. In the discourse on wearing both inner and outer robes, the word antara means ‘middle’. ‘Vasati’ (dwells) by means of ‘sīla’ (virtue), therefore ‘vāsako’ (dweller). Where it should say “antare vāsako antaravāsako” (the inner dweller is the inner robe), it is said “antaro” (inner) due to the compound with elision of the latter term, as in “rūpabhavo rūpa” (form-becoming is form) and so forth. The word ‘uttara’ means ‘upper’. That which clings, ‘ābhuso sajjatīti āsaṅgo’. Where it should be said “uttare āsaṅgo uttarāsaṅgo” (the upper clinging is the outer robe), according to the stated method, “uttaro” (upper) is said. Both inner (‘antaro’) and upper (‘uttaro’) are ‘antaruttarā’. He who acts with ‘antaruttarehi’ is santaruttaro, a two-membered ‘bahubbīhi’ compound with a different base that is preceded by ‘saha’. Or, he who acts with both the inner and the outer is santaruttaro, a three-membered ‘bahubbīhi’ compound. The meaning is that one should not enter a village wearing only the inner robe and the outer robe, having placed aside the outer cloak (saṅghāṭi). This is a declaration of instrument in the sense of indicating the manner, like “He saw a wanderer with a triple staff” and so on. Therefore, having covered the three circles with the inner robe, and wearing it properly, having tied the waist-band, having folded the outer cloak (saṅghāṭi) and the outer robe twice and wearing them, one should enter a village.
61. In the discussion on the middle and upper robes, the word antara refers to the middle. “He dwells by virtue” is called the lower robe. When it should be said, “the middle robe, the lower robe,” it is said as “antara,” like in the examples “the form realm, form,” etc., due to the elision of the latter word in a compound. The word uttara refers to the upper. “He adorns with the upper” is called the upper robe. When it should be said, “the upper robe, the upper robe,” it is said as “uttara,” following the same pattern. The middle and the upper together are called antaruttara, a compound of two words with a shared base. Alternatively, it is called antaruttara, a compound of three words, meaning “what is worn with the middle and the upper.” The meaning is that one should not enter the village wearing only the lower robe and the upper robe without the outer robe. As in the examples, “the wandering ascetic with three staffs,” etc., this is a term indicating a characteristic. Therefore, one should wear the lower robe covering the three circles, tie the waistband, fold the outer robe and the upper robe double, put them on, and then enter the village.
ID1959
ID1960
62. Cīvaranikkhepakathāyaṃ saṃharīyateti saṅghāṭi, tassā saṅghāṭiyā, bhāvayoge kammatthe chaṭṭhī. Nikkhepāyāti ṭhapanāya, saṅghāṭiṃ aggahetvā vihāre ṭhapetvā gamanāya pañca kāraṇāni hontīti attho. Gilāno vā hotīti gahetvā gantuṃ asamattho gilāno vā hoti. Vassikasaṅketaṃ vā hotīti “vassikakālo aya”nti saṅketaṃ vā kataṃ hoti. Nadīpāragataṃ vā hotīti nadiyā pāraṃ gantvā bhuñjitabbaṃ hoti. Aggaḷaguttivihāro vā hotīti aggaḷaṃ datvāpi dātabbo suguttavihāro vā hoti. Atthatakathinaṃ vā hotīti tasmiṃ vihāre kathinaṃ atthataṃ vā hoti atthatakathinānaṃ asamādānacārasambhavato. Sesaṃ suviññeyyameva. Āraññikassa pana vihāro na sugutto hotīti appabhikkhukattā corādīnaṃ gamanaṭṭhānato ca. Bhaṇḍukkhalikāyāti cīvarādiṭṭhapanabhaṇḍukkhalikāya. Sesaṃ suviññeyyaṃ.
62. In the discussion on depositing robes, that which is folded is the saṅghāṭi; for that saṅghāṭiyā, the sixth case is used in the sense of action for the agent. Nikkhepāya means “for placement”; the meaning is that there are five reasons for leaving without taking the saṅghāṭi and placing it in the monastery. Gilāno vā hoti means “or one is sick” and unable to carry it. Vassikasaṅketaṃ vā hoti means “or there is an indication of the rainy season,” i.e., it has been indicated that “this is the rainy season.” Nadīpāragataṃ vā hoti means “or one must cross a river to eat.” Aggaḷaguttivihāro vā hoti means “or there is a well-protected monastery with a latch that can be given.” Atthatakathinaṃ vā hoti means “or the kathina has been spread in that monastery,” due to the impossibility of undertaking conduct without taking it up after the kathina is spread. The rest is easily understood. Āraññikassa pana vihāro na sugutto hoti means “however, the monastery of a forest-dweller is not well-protected” due to few monks and being a place thieves frequent. Bhaṇḍukkhalikāya means “with a container for placing robes and other items.” The rest is easily understood.
62. In the discourse on depositing robes, ‘saṃharīyateti’ (it is gathered), therefore ‘saṅghāṭi’ (outer cloak); of that saṅghāṭiyā, the sixth case ending in the sense of the object in relation to a verb. Nikkhepāyāti for depositing; there are five reasons for going having placed the outer cloak, not taking it, and having placed it in the monastery. Gilāno vā hotīti, being sick and unable to carry it, he is sick. Vassikasaṅketaṃ vā hotīti, “This is the rainy season,” a signal is made. Nadīpāragataṃ vā hotīti, having crossed to the far side of the river, it should be eaten. Aggaḷaguttivihāro vā hotīti, even having given a bolt, the monastery is well-guarded. Atthatakathinaṃ vā hotīti, in that monastery, the ‘kathina’ cloth has been spread, or because of the possibility of the ‘carita’ (practice) not being undertaken by those for whom the ‘kathina’ has been spread. The rest is easily understood. But for a forest-dweller, the monastery is not well-guarded, because of the small number of monks and because it is a place where thieves and others go. Bhaṇḍukkhalikāyāti, of the storage box for placing robes and other things. The rest is easily understood.
62. In the discussion on leaving robes behind, saṃharīyateti refers to the outer robe. In the genitive case, it is saṅghāṭiyā, in the context of action, the sixth case. Nikkhepāya means for placing. There are five reasons for leaving the outer robe behind in the monastery and going away: “One is sick,” meaning one is unable to take it and go due to illness. “It is the rainy season,” meaning it is designated as the rainy season. “One has crossed the river,” meaning one has gone to the other side of the river to eat. “The monastery is well-guarded,” meaning the monastery is well-secured even after locking it. “The Kathina has ended,” meaning the Kathina has been completed in that monastery, as the period for not taking up the Kathina has passed. The rest is easily understandable. “For a forest-dwelling monk, the monastery is not well-guarded,” due to the lack of monks and the presence of thieves. “The bowl and the robe rack” refer to the bowl and the robe rack for storing robes. The rest is easily understandable.
ID1961
ID1962
63. Satthakammavatthikammakathāyaṃ satthakammaṃ vā vatthikammaṃ vāti ettha yena kenaci satthādinā chindanādi satthakammaṃ nāma hoti. Yena kenaci cammādinā vatthipīḷanaṃ vatthikammaṃ nāma. “Sambādhe dahanakammaṃ paṭikkhepābhāvā vaṭṭatī”ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.279). Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.279) pana “vatthipīḷananti yathā vatthigatatelādi antosarīre ārohanti, evaṃ hatthena vatthimaddana”nti vuttaṃ.
63. In the discussion on surgical and cloth operations, satthakammaṃ vā vatthikammaṃ vā means “either a surgical operation or a cloth operation”; satthakammaṃ refers to cutting with any kind of instrument, and vatthikammaṃ refers to pressing the cloth with any material like leather. It is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.279), “Burning in a confined area is permissible due to the absence of prohibition.” However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.279), it is said: “vatthipīḷana” means “pressing the cloth with the hand so that oil or other substances from the cloth enter the body.”
63. In the discourse on surgical operation and enema, here, satthakammaṃ vā vatthikammaṃ vā (either a surgical operation or an enema), cutting and so forth with any knife and so on is called satthakamma (surgical operation). Causing pain to the bladder with any leather and so on is called vatthikamma (enema). In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.279), it is said, “In a constricted place, burning is permitted due to the absence of prohibition.” In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.279), however, “vatthipīḷana” (bladder-squeezing) is said to mean, “Just as oil and so on in the bladder ascend into the inner body, so is the squeezing of the bladder by hand.”
63. In the discussion on work with tools and leather, satthakammaṃ vā vatthikammaṃ vā—here, any cutting, etc., done with a tool is called satthakammaṃ. Any pressing of leather, etc., is called vatthikammaṃ. “In a confined space, burning is permissible due to the absence of prohibition,” as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.279). However, the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.279) states, “vatthipīḷana means pressing the leather with the hand, as oil, etc., rises within the body.”
ID1963
Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 279) pana “sambādheti vaccamagge, bhikkhussa bhikkhuniyā ca passāvamaggepi anulomato dahanaṃ paṭikkhepābhāvā vaṭṭati. Satthavatthikammānulomato na vaṭṭatīti ce? Na, paṭikkhittapaṭikkhepā, paṭikkhipitabbassa tapparamatādīpanato. Kiṃ vuttaṃ hoti? Pubbe paṭikkhittampi satthakammaṃ sampiṇḍetvā pacchā ’na, bhikkhave…pe… thullaccayassā’ti dvikkhattuṃ satthakammassa parikkhepo kato. Tena sambādhassa sāmantā dvaṅgulaṃ paṭikkhipitabbaṃ nāma satthavatthikammato uddhaṃ natthīti dasseti. Kiñca bhiyyo – pubbe sambādheyeva satthakammaṃ paṭikkhittaṃ, pacchā sambādhassa sāmantā dvaṅgulampi paṭikkhittaṃ , tasmā tasseva paṭikkhepo, netarassāti siddhaṃ. Ettha ’satthaṃ nāma satthahārakaṃ vāssa pariyeseyyā’tiādīsu (pārā. 167) viya yena chindati, taṃ sabbaṃ. Tena vuttaṃ ’kaṇṭakena vā’tiādi. Khārudānaṃ panettha bhikkhunīvibhaṅge pasākhe pamukhe anuññātanti veditabbaṃ, eke pana ’satthakammaṃ vā’ti pāṭhaṃ vikappetvā vatthikammaṃ karonti. Vatthīti kiṃ? Agghikā vuccati, tāya chindanaṃ vatthikammaṃ nāmāti ca atthaṃ vaṇṇayanti, te ’satthahārakaṃ vāssa pariyeseyyā’ti imassa padabhājanīyaṃ dassetvā paṭikkhipitabbā. Aṇḍavuddhīti vātaṇḍakā, ādānavattīti anāhavattī”ti vuttaṃ. Sesaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttanayeneva veditabbaṃ.
In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 279), it is stated: “sambādhe” means “in the privy passage”; for both monks and nuns, burning in the urinary passage is permissible in accordance with nature due to the absence of prohibition. Is it not permissible in accordance with surgical or cloth operations? No, because what is prohibited is clarified, showing only that much is to be prohibited. What is meant? Even though surgical operation was prohibited earlier, it was later restricted twice with “No, monks… up to a grave offense (thullaccaya).” Thus, it indicates that beyond two finger-breadths around the confined area, there is no further restriction regarding surgical or cloth operations. Furthermore, earlier only surgical operation in the confined area was prohibited; later, even two finger-breadths around the confined area were prohibited, thus only that is prohibited, not the other. Here, as in “satthaṃ means a surgical instrument or he would seek it” (pārā. 167), it includes everything used for cutting. Hence it says “with a thorn” and so forth. However, alkaline substances are understood to be permitted here in the nuns’ disciplinary section for sores on the face or head. Some, however, interpret the reading “satthakammaṃ vā” alternatively and perform a cloth operation. What is cloth? It is called a blade; cutting with it is called a cloth operation, they explain. They should be refuted by showing the analysis of the phrase “he would seek a surgical instrument.” Aṇḍavuddhi means “swelling of the testicles”; ādānavattī means “binding cord,” it is said. The rest should be understood as explained in the commentary.
In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 279), however, “sambādhe”ti (in a constricted place), in the passage for feces, and also in the passage for urine, for both a monk and a nun, burning is permitted, by analogy, due to the absence of prohibition. If it is said, “It is not permitted by analogy to surgical operation and enema,” no, because of the prohibition of the prohibition; because of the indication of further restriction on what is to be prohibited. What is said? Previously, even the surgical operation was prohibited collectively; afterwards, the surgical operation was restricted twice, “No, monks… there is a ‘thullaccaya’ offense.” By that, it is shown that there is no prohibition of two fingerbreadths around the constricted place other than what arises from surgical operation and enema. Moreover, previously, the surgical operation was prohibited only in the constricted place; afterwards, two fingerbreadths around the constricted place were also prohibited, therefore, it is only the prohibition of that, not of the other, that is established. Here, “satthaṃ” (knife), like in “He should seek a knife-carrier or his…” (pārā. 167), means everything with which one cuts. Therefore, it is said, “With a thorn or…” and so on. Here, the giving of salt should be understood to be allowed in the Bhikkhunīvibhaṅga, in the section on branches, and so on. But some, differentiating the reading as “satthakammaṃ vā,” perform ‘vatthikamma’. What is ‘vatthi’? It is called ‘agghikā’ (bladder), cutting with that is called ‘vatthikamma’, and they explain the meaning thus; they should be refuted by showing the word-analysis of this, “He should seek a knife-carrier or his…”. Aṇḍavuddhīti (enlargement of the testicles), those with wind-caused enlargement of the testicles. Ādānavattīti, ‘anāhavattī,’ it is said. The rest should be understood according to the method stated in the commentary.
In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 279), it is said, “sambādhe refers to the excrement passage, and for a monk and a nun, burning is permissible in the urine passage as well, due to the absence of prohibition. Is it not permissible according to the rules of tool and leather work? No, because what is prohibited is not to be prohibited again, as it is explained that the prohibition is the ultimate. What is meant? Previously, even if tool work was prohibited, it was later combined and twice the prohibition of tool work was made. Therefore, it is shown that within two fingerbreadths of the confined space, there is no prohibition above tool and leather work. Moreover, previously, tool work was prohibited in the confined space, and later, even two fingerbreadths around the confined space were prohibited. Therefore, the prohibition applies only to that, not to the other. Here, ‘satthaṃ** refers to anything that cuts, as in the examples, ‘one should seek a tool-bearer,’ etc. (Pārā. 167). Therefore, it is said, ‘with a thorn,’ etc. However, in the Bhikkhunīvibhaṅga, in the section on the branch, it is allowed at the beginning. Some, however, alter the reading ‘satthakammaṃ vā’** and perform leather work. What is vatthī? It is called agghikā. Cutting with it is called leather work, and they explain the meaning thus. They should be prohibited after showing the division of the phrase, ‘one should seek a tool-bearer.’ Aṇḍavuddhī refers to wind-eggs, ādānavattī refers to non-conducting.” The rest should be understood as stated in the commentary.
ID1964
ID1965
64. Nahāpitapubbakathāyaṃ nahāpito pubbeti nahāpitapubbo, pubbe nahāpito hutvā idāni bhikkhubhūtoti attho. Tena nahāpitapubbena bhikkhunā. Khurabhaṇḍanti khurādinahāpitabhaṇḍaṃ, “laddhātapatto rājakumāro”tiādīsu viya upalakkhaṇanayoyaṃ. “Na, bhikkhave, pabbajitena akappiyaṃ samādapetabbaṃ, yo samādapeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Na ca, bhikkhave, nahāpitapubbena khurabhaṇḍaṃ pariharitabbaṃ, yo parihareyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 303) ca dvidhā paññatti, tasmā nahāpitapubbena vā anahāpitapubbena vā pabbajitena nāma akappiyasamādapanaṃ na kātabbaṃ. Nahāpitapubbena pana bhikkhunā khurena abhilakkhitaṃ khurabhaṇḍaṃ, khurabhaṇḍakhurakosanisitapāsāṇakhurathavikādayo na pariharitabbā eva. Sesaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttanayeneva veditabbaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 300) pana “na, bhikkhave, pabbajitena akappiye samādapetabbanti vuttattā anupasampannassapi na kevalaṃ dasasu eva sikkhāpadesu, atha kho yaṃ bhikkhussa na kappati, tasmimpīti adhippāyo”ti vuttaṃ.
64. In the discussion on former barbers, one who was a barber before is a nahāpitapubbo; the meaning is one who was a barber previously and is now a monk. Thus, by nahāpitapubbena, a monk who was formerly a barber. Khurabhaṇḍa means “barber’s tools such as a razor”; this is a method of indication, as in “the prince who received a golden bowl.” It is prescribed in two ways: “Monks, one who has gone forth should not instigate an improper act; whoever instigates it incurs an offense of wrongdoing. And, monks, a former barber should not keep barber’s tools; whoever keeps them incurs an offense of wrongdoing” (mahāva. 303). Therefore, neither a former barber nor one who was not a barber, having gone forth, should instigate an improper act. However, a monk who was a former barber should not keep barber’s tools marked with a razor, such as razors, razor cases, whetstones, or razor pouches. The rest should be understood as explained in the commentary. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 300), it is stated: “Since it says, ‘Monks, one who has gone forth should not instigate an improper act,’ the intention is that even for an unordained person, it applies not only to the ten training rules but also to anything not permissible for a monk.”
64. In the discourse on having been a barber, ‘nahāpito pubbeti nahāpitapubbo’ (having been a barber before), meaning, having been a barber before, now he has become a monk. By that nahāpitapubbena (by one who was formerly a barber) monk. Khurabhaṇḍanti (barber’s equipment), razor and other barber’s equipment; this is by way of illustration, as in “The prince who has obtained an umbrella” and so on. “Monks, an improper thing should not be undertaken by one who has gone forth; whoever undertakes it, there is an offense of wrong-doing. And, monks, barber’s equipment should not be carried by one who was formerly a barber; whoever carries it, there is an offense of wrong-doing” (mahāva. 303), and thus the regulation is twofold. Therefore, either by one who was formerly a barber or by one who was not formerly a barber, going forth, namely, improper undertaking should not be done. But by a monk who was formerly a barber, barber’s equipment marked with a razor, razor-equipment, razor-case, whetstone, razor-bag and so on are indeed not to be carried. The rest should be understood according to the method stated in the commentary. But in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 300), it is said, “Because it is said, ‘Monks, an improper thing should not be undertaken by one who has gone forth,’ the intention is that even for one who is not fully ordained, not only in the ten training rules, but also in what is not proper for a monk.”
64. In the discussion on a former barber, nahāpito pubbe means a former barber, one who was a barber before and has now become a monk. Therefore, by a monk who was formerly a barber. Khurabhaṇḍa refers to barber tools such as razors, as in the examples, “a prince who has received a bowl,” etc. “Monks, one who has gone forth should not encourage what is improper. Whoever encourages it commits an offense of wrong conduct. Monks, a former barber should not carry barber tools. Whoever carries them commits an offense of wrong conduct” (Mahāva. 303). Therefore, a monk, whether a former barber or not, should not encourage what is improper. A monk who was formerly a barber should not carry barber tools marked with a razor, such as a razor case, a razor stone, a razor strap, etc. The rest should be understood as stated in the commentary. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 300), it is said, “‘Monks, one who has gone forth should not encourage what is improper.’ Therefore, it is not only in the ten training rules, but also in what is improper for a monk, that this applies to the unordained as well.”
ID1966
ID1967
65. Dasabhāgakathāyaṃ saṅghikānīti saṅghasantakāni bījāni. Puggalikāyāti puggalassa santakāya bhūmiyā. Bhāgaṃ datvāti mūlabhāgasaṅkhātaṃ dasamabhāgaṃ bhūmisāmikānaṃ datvā. Paribhuñjitabbānīti tesaṃ bījānaṃ phalāni ropakehi paribhuñjitabbānīti attho. Sesaṃ suviññeyyameva . Idaṃ kira jambudīpe porāṇakacārittanti ādikappakāle paṭhamakappikā manussā bodhisattaṃ mahāsammataṃ nāma rājānaṃ katvā sabbepi attano attano taṇḍulaphalasālikhettato pavattataṇḍulaphalāni dasa koṭṭhāse katvā ekaṃ koṭṭhāsaṃ bhūmisāmikabhūtassa mahāsammatarājino datvā paribhuñjiṃsu. Tato paṭṭhāya jambudīpikānaṃ manussānaṃ cāritattā vuttaṃ. Teneva sāratthadīpanīnāmikāyampi vinayaṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 304) “dasabhāgaṃ datvāti dasamabhāgaṃ datvā. Tenevāha ’dasa koṭṭhāse katvā eko koṭṭhāso bhūmisāmikānaṃ dātabbo’ti” vuttaṃ.
65. In the discussion on the tenth portion, saṅghikāni means “seeds belonging to the Saṅgha”; puggalikāya means “on land belonging to an individual”; bhāgaṃ datvā means “having given a portion,” i.e., giving a tenth portion, reckoned as the base portion, to the landowners; paribhuñjitabbāni means “the fruits of those seeds should be enjoyed by the planters.” The rest is easily understood. Idaṃ kira jambudīpe porāṇakacāritta means “This, it is said, was the ancient custom in Jambudīpa”: in the beginning of the eon, the first people of the eon made the Bodhisatta named Mahāsammata their king, and all of them divided the rice grains and fruits from their rice fields into ten portions, giving one portion to King Mahāsammata, the landowner, and enjoyed the rest. From then on, it is said due to the custom of the people of Jambudīpa. Hence, in the Vinaya commentary named Sāratthadīpanī (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 304), it is stated: “dasabhāgaṃ datvā” means “having given a tenth portion,” and it says, “Having made ten portions, one portion should be given to the landowners.”
65. In the discourse on the tenth share, saṅghikānīti (belonging to the Sangha) bījāni (seeds). Puggalikāyāti (belonging to an individual), on land belonging to an individual. Bhāgaṃ datvāti (having given a share), having given the tenth share, reckoned as the share of the root, to the owners of the land. Paribhuñjitabbānīti (should be enjoyed), the fruits of those seeds should be enjoyed by the planters. The rest is easily understood. This, it is said, is the ancient custom in Jambudīpati, in the time of the first aeon, the people of the first aeon, having made the Bodhisattva the king named Mahāsammata, all of them, from their own rice-fruit fields of paddy, divided the produced rice-fruits into ten portions, and having given one portion to the king Mahāsammata, who was the owner of the land, they enjoyed them. From that time on, it was said to be the custom of the people of Jambudīpa. Therefore, in the Vinaya commentary named Sāratthadīpanī (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 304), it is said, “dasabhāgaṃ datvā”ti (having given the tenth share), having given the tenth share. Therefore, it is said, ‘Having made ten portions, one portion should be given to the owners of the land.’“
65. In the discussion on the tenfold division, saṅghikāni refers to seeds belonging to the Sangha. Puggalikāya refers to land belonging to an individual. Bhāgaṃ datvā means giving a tenth part, known as the root share, to the landowners. Paribhuñjitabbāni means the fruits of those seeds should be enjoyed by the cultivators. The rest is easily understandable. “This, it is said, was the ancient custom in Jambudīpa”—in the beginning of the age, the first humans made the Bodhisatta, the great elected king, and all gave a tenth part of their rice and grain harvest to the great elected king, who was the landowner, and enjoyed it. Since then, this has been the custom of the people of Jambudīpa. Therefore, it is said in the Sāratthadīpanī Vinayaṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 304), “dasabhāgaṃ datvā means giving a tenth part. Therefore, it is said, ‘dividing into ten parts, one part should be given to the landowners.”’
ID1968
ID1969
66. Pātheyyakathāyaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave”tiādi bhaddiyanagare amitaparibhogabhūtena meṇḍakaseṭṭhinā abhiyācito hutvā anuññātaṃ, idha pana paṭhamaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, pañca gorase khīraṃ dadhiṃ takkaṃ navanītaṃ sappi”nti (mahāva. 299) pañca gorasā anuññātā. Tato paraṃ seṭṭhino abhiyācanānurūpaṃ vatvā anujānituṃ “santi, bhikkhave, maggā kantārā”tiādimāha. Sesaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttanayeneva veditabbaṃ. Tathā alabhantena aññātakaappavāritaṭṭhānato yācitvāpi gahetabbanti etena evarūpesu kālesu viññattipaccayā doso natthīti dasseti. “Ekadivasena gamanīye magge ekabhattatthāya pariyesitabba”nti vuttattā pana tato upari yācanaṃ na vaṭṭatīti dassitaṃ. “Dīghe addhāne”tiādinā sace māsagamanīye magge sattāhagamanīyo eva kantāro hoti, tattha sattāhayāpanīyamattameva pātheyyaṃ pariyesitabbaṃ, tato paraṃ piṇḍacārikādivasena subhikkhasulabhapiṇḍamaggattā na pariyesitabbanti.
66. In the discussion on provisions for a journey, “I allow, monks” and so forth was permitted after being requested by the wealthy Meṇḍaka in Bhaddiya city with unlimited enjoyment; here, however, it first says, “I allow, monks, the five dairy products: milk, curds, buttermilk, fresh butter, and ghee” (mahāva. 299), permitting the five dairy products. Then, to permit in accordance with the request of the wealthy man, he said, “santi, bhikkhave, maggā kantārā” and so forth. The rest should be understood as explained in the commentary. Tathā alabhantena aññātakaappavāritaṭṭhānato yācitvāpi gahetabba indicates that in such times, there is no fault due to requesting, even from a place not offered by non-relatives. Since it says, “Ekadivasena gamanīye magge ekabhattatthāya pariyesitabba”, it shows that requesting beyond that is not permissible. With “Dīghe addhāne” and so forth, if on a month-long journey there is a wilderness traversable in seven days, only provisions sufficient for seven days should be sought there; beyond that, due to the ease of obtaining alms through alms rounds in a region with abundant alms, it should not be sought.
66. In the discourse on provisions, “I allow, monks,” and so on, was allowed after being requested by the householder Meṇḍaka, who had abundant resources, in the city of Bhaddiya. But here, first, “I allow, monks, the five products of the cow: milk, curds, buttermilk, fresh butter, ghee” (mahāva. 299), the five products of the cow were allowed. After that, to allow according to the request of the householder, he says, “santi, bhikkhave, maggā kantārā” (there are, monks, roads that are wildernesses), and so on. The rest should be understood according to the method stated in the commentary. “Tathā alabhantena aññātakaappavāritaṭṭhānato yācitvāpi gahetabba”ti (similarly, if one does not obtain it, it should be obtained even by asking from a place where one is not related and not invited), by this it is shown that in such times, there is no fault in requesting. But because it is said, “ekadivasena gamanīye magge ekabhattatthāya pariyesitabba” (on a road that can be traveled in one day, it should be sought for the sake of one meal), it is shown that beyond that, asking is not proper. “Dīghe addhāne”ti (on a long journey), and so on, if on a road that can be traveled in a month, the wilderness is only a seven-day journey, there, provisions sufficient for only seven days should be sought; after that, because it is a road with abundant and easily obtainable almsfood by means of the almsround and so on, it should not be sought.
66. In the discussion on provisions, “I allow, monks,” etc., was permitted when requested by the wealthy merchant Meṇḍaka in the city of Bhaddiya, who was of immeasurable wealth. Here, first, “I allow, monks, five dairy products: milk, curd, buttermilk, butter, and ghee” (Mahāva. 299), the five dairy products were permitted. Then, in accordance with the merchant’s request, it was said, “There are, monks, paths and deserts,” and so on. The rest should be understood as stated in the commentary. “When one cannot obtain it, one should ask for it from a stranger in an open place,” this shows that there is no fault in requesting under such circumstances. “On a journey that can be completed in one day, provisions should be sought for one meal,” this shows that beyond that, one should not ask for more. “On a long journey,” etc., if the journey takes a month, but the desert can be crossed in seven days, provisions should be sought only for seven days, as beyond that, alms are easily obtainable on the alms route.
ID1970
ID1971
67. Mahāpadesakathāyaṃ mahāpadesā nāma appaṭikkhittā dve, ananuññātā dveti cattāroti dassento “yaṃ bhikkhave”tiādimāha. Tesu appaṭikkhittepi akappiyānulomakappiyānulomavasena dve, tathā ananuññātepīti.
67. In the discussion on the great authorities, the great authorities are four: two that are not prohibited and two that are not permitted, as he indicates by saying “yaṃ bhikkhave” and so forth. Among them, even the unprohibited are twofold: in accordance with the impermissible and in accordance with the permissible; similarly, the unpermitted are also twofold.
67. In the discourse on the great authorities, showing that the great authorities are four, two not prohibited and two not allowed, he says, “yaṃ bhikkhave” (what, monks), and so on. Among them, even in the not prohibited, there are two, by way of analogy to the improper and analogy to the proper, and similarly in the not allowed.
67. In the discussion on the great authorities, the great authorities are four: two that are not prohibited and two that are not permitted, as shown by saying, “Whatever, monks,” and so on. Among them, even the unprohibited are divided into two: what is proper and what is improper, and similarly the unpermitted.
ID1972
Tattha “parimaddantāti upaparikkhantā. Paṭṭaṇṇudese sañjātavatthaṃ paṭṭuṇṇaṃ. ’Paṭṭuṇṇaṃ koseyyaviseso’ti hi abhidhānakose vuttaṃ. Cīnadese somāradese ca sañjātavatthāni cīnasomārapaṭāni. Paṭṭuṇṇādīni tīṇi koseyyassa anulomāni pāṇakehi katasuttamayattā. Iddhimayaṃ ehibhikkhūnaṃ puññiddhiyā nibbattacīvaraṃ, taṃ khomādīnaṃ aññataraṃ hotīti tesaṃyeva anulomaṃ. Devatāhi dinnacīvaraṃ devadattiyaṃ, taṃ kapparukkhe nibbattaṃ jāliniyā devakaññāya anuruddhattherassa dinnavatthasadisaṃ, tampi khomādīnaṃyeva anulomaṃ hoti tesu aññatarabhāvato. Dve paṭāni desanāmena vuttānīti tesaṃ sarūpadassanamattametaṃ, nāññanivattanapadaṃ paṭṭuṇṇapaṭṭassapi desanāmeneva vuttattā. Tumbāti tīṇi bhājanāni. Phalakatumbo lābuādi. Udakatumbo udakukkhipanakuṭako. Kilañjacchattanti veḷuvilīvehi vāyitvā katachatta”nti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.305) vuttaṃ.
Therein, “parimaddantā” means “examining”; a cloth produced in Paṭṭaṇṇa is paṭṭuṇṇa. It is said in the dictionary, “Paṭṭuṇṇa is a type of silk.” Cloths produced in China and Somāra are cīnasomārapaṭāni. Paṭṭuṇṇa and the other three are permissible for silk because they are made of threads produced by living creatures. Iddhimayaṃ is a robe produced by the merit-power of “come, monk” practitioners, which is one of the types like cotton and thus permissible for them. A robe given by deities is devadattiyaṃ, similar to the cloth given by the divine maiden Jālinī from a wish-fulfilling tree to Venerable Anuruddha; that too is permissible for them as it is one of those types. Dve paṭāni desanāmena vuttāni means “two cloths are mentioned by way of teaching,” merely showing their nature, not as a term to exclude others, since paṭṭuṇṇa and paṭṭa are also mentioned by way of teaching. Tumbā means “three vessels”; phalakatumbo means “gourd, etc.”; udakatumbo means “a small pot for pouring water”; kilañjacchatta means “a parasol made from woven bamboo or palm leaves,” as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.305).
There, “parimaddantā”ti (investigating), examining. Fabric produced in the region of Paṭṭaṇṇa is paṭṭuṇṇa. It is said in the Abhidhānakośa, ‘Paṭṭuṇṇa is a special kind of silk’. Fabrics produced in China and Somāra are Chinese and Somāran cloths. The three, Paṭṭuṇṇa and so on, are analogous to silk because they are made of thread produced by insects. Iddhimayaṃ (created by psychic power), the robe created by the merit-power of ‘ehibhikkhus’ (come, monks), it is one of Khoma and so on, so it is analogous to them. Robe given by deities is devadattiyaṃ, it is produced on the wish-fulfilling tree, similar to the cloth given to the Elder Anuruddha by the goddess Jālinī, it is also analogous to Khoma and so on, because it is one of them. Two cloths are mentioned by the name of the countryti, this is only a showing of their form, it is not a word that excludes others, because even Paṭṭuṇṇa cloth is mentioned by the name of the country. Tumbāti (gourds), three containers. Phalakatumbo (fruit gourd), gourd and so on. Udakatumbo (water gourd), a small pot for lifting water. Kilañjacchattanti (screen-umbrella), an umbrella made by weaving with bamboo splints,” it is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.305).
Here, “parimaddantā means examining. Cloth produced in the Paṭṭaṇṇu region is called paṭṭuṇṇaṃ. ‘Paṭṭuṇṇaṃ is a type of Koseyya cloth,’ as stated in the Abhidhānakośa. Cloth produced in China and the Soma region are called Cīna and Soma cloths. Paṭṭuṇṇa and the other two are suitable for Koseyya, as they are made of threads produced by insects. Iddhimayaṃ is cloth produced by the power of the Ehi Bhikkhus’ merit, which is one of the types of Khoma, etc. Cloth given by deities is called devadattiyaṃ, which is produced on the Kapparukkha tree, given by the maiden Jālinī to the venerable Anuruddha, and is also suitable for Khoma, etc., due to its nature. “The two cloths are called by their names,” this refers to their appearance, not to any other name, as Paṭṭuṇṇa and Paṭṭa are also called by their names. Tumbā refers to three types of vessels. Phalakatumbo is a gourd, etc. Udakatumbo is a water pitcher. Kilañjacchatta is an umbrella made of bamboo strips,” as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.305).
ID1973
“Yāvakālikapakkānanti pakke sandhāya vuttaṃ. Āmāni pana anupasampannehi sītudake madditvā parissāvetvā dinnapānaṃ pacchābhattampi kappati eva. Ayañca attho mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ sarūpato avuttoti āha ‘kurundiyaṃ panā’tiādi. Ucchuraso nikasaṭoti idaṃ pātabbatāsāmaññena yāmakālikakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ, taṃ pana sattāhakālikamevāti gahetabbaṃ. Ime cattāro rasāti phalapattapupphaucchurasā cattāro”ti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.300) vuttaṃ. “Dve paṭā desanāmenevāti cīnapaṭasomārapaṭāni. Tīṇīti paṭṭuṇṇena saha tīṇi. Iddhimayaṃ ehibhikkhūnaṃ nibbattaṃ. Devadattiyaṃ anuruddhattherena laddha”nti vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 305).
“Yāvakālikapakkāna” means “referring to ripened ones.” However, unripe ones crushed in cold water by unordained persons, strained, and given as a drink are permissible even after midday. This meaning is not explicitly stated in the Great Commentary, so it says “kurundiyaṃ panā” and so forth. Ucchuraso nikasaṭo means “sugarcane juice is excluded”; this is mentioned in the discussion on daily items due to its common drinkability, but it should be understood as permissible for seven days. Ime cattāro rasā means “these four juices: fruit, leaf, flower, and sugarcane,” as stated in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.300). “Dve paṭā desanāmenevā” means “China cloth and Somāra cloth”; tīṇi means “three including paṭṭuṇṇa”; iddhimayaṃ means “produced for ‘come, monk’ practitioners”; devadattiyaṃ means “obtained by Venerable Anuruddha,” as stated in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 305).
“Yāvakālikapakkāna”nti (of what is ripe and can be kept for a limited time), it is said with reference to ripe fruits. But as for unripe fruits, having crushed them in cold water with those who are not fully ordained, having filtered them, and having given the drink, it is also proper even after the meal. And this meaning is not stated in its form in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, so he says, “kurundiyaṃ panā”tiādi (but in the Kurundī), and so on. Ucchuraso nikasaṭoti (sugarcane juice is extracted), this is said in the discourse on what can be taken at the time of the ‘yama’ due to the generality of what can be drunk, but it should be understood as what can be kept for seven days. “Ime cattāro rasā”ti (these four juices), the four juices of fruit, leaf, flower, and sugarcane,” it is said in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.300). “Dve paṭā desanāmenevā”ti (two cloths are indeed by the name of the country), Chinese cloth and Somāran cloth. Tīṇīti (three), three with Paṭṭuṇṇa. Iddhimayaṃ (created by psychic power), created for ‘ehibhikkhus’. Devadattiyaṃ (given by a deity), obtained by the Elder Anuruddha,” in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 305).
“Yāvakālikapakkāna refers to ripe fruits. Unripe fruits, however, when pressed and strained by the unordained and given as a drink, are permissible even after the meal. This meaning is not found in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, so it is said, ‘in the Kurundī,’ etc. Ucchuraso nikasaṭo refers to sugarcane juice, mentioned in the discussion on temporary allowances, but it should be understood as lasting for seven days. “These four juices” are the juices of fruits, leaves, flowers, and sugarcane,” as stated in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.300). “The two cloths are called by their names,” meaning Cīna and Soma cloths. “Three” refers to Paṭṭuṇṇa and the other two. Iddhimayaṃ is produced by the Ehi Bhikkhus. Devadattiyaṃ was obtained by the venerable Anuruddha,” as stated in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 305).
ID1974
ID1975
Saṃsaṭṭhakathāyaṃ tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ kāle kappatītiādi sabbaṃ sambhinnarasaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Sace hi challimpi apanetvā sakaleneva nāḷikeraphalena saddhiṃ pānakaṃ paṭiggahitaṃ hoti, nāḷikeraṃ apanetvā taṃ vikālepi kappati. Upari sappipiṇḍaṃ ṭhapetvā sītalapāyāsaṃ denti, yaṃ pāyāsena asaṃsaṭṭhaṃ sappi, taṃ apanetvā sattāhaṃ paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati. Baddhamadhuphāṇitādīsupi eseva nayo. Takkolajātiphalādīhi alaṅkaritvā piṇḍapātaṃ denti, tāni uddharitvā dhovitvā yāvajīvaṃ paribhuñjitabbāni, yāguyaṃ pakkhipitvā dinnasiṅgiverādīsupi, telādīsu pakkhipitvā dinnalaṭṭhimadhukādīsupi eseva nayo. Evaṃ yaṃ yaṃ asambhinnarasaṃ hoti, taṃ taṃ ekato paṭiggahitampi yathā suddhaṃ hoti, tathā dhovitvā vā tacchetvā vā tassa tassa kālassa vasena paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati.
In the discussion on mixing, “tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ kāle kappati” and so forth is all said with reference to mixed flavors. For if a drink is received with a whole coconut fruit, even removing the husk, it is permissible even at the wrong time without separating the coconut. If they give cool porridge with a lump of ghee on top, the ghee that is not mixed with the porridge can be separated and used for seven days. The same method applies to bound honey, molasses, and the like. If they give alms food decorated with cloves or nutmeg fruits, those can be removed, washed, and used for life; the same applies to ginger and the like added to gruel, or long pepper and the like added to oil. Thus, whatever is unmixed in flavor, even if received together, can be washed or separated and used according to its respective time as if it were pure.
In the context of mixed substances, it is said, “what is accepted on that day is allowable at the proper time,” etc., all referring to mixed flavors. If, indeed, the drink is accepted along with the whole coconut, excluding even the fleshy parts, then, having removed the coconut, it is allowable even at the improper time. If clarified butter is placed on top of cold rice pudding, whatever clarified butter is not mixed with the rice pudding, having removed that, it is allowable to consume it for seven days. The same principle applies to jaggery, molasses, and so on. If they offer almsfood decorated with cubeb, nutmeg, and so forth, those should be removed, washed, and are allowable to consume for life. The same principle also applies to ginger and so on, given mixed into gruel, and to long pepper and so forth, given mixed in oil and the like. Thus, whatever is unmixed in flavor, even though accepted together, can be consumed after washing or cutting it in such a way that it is pure, according to the allowable time for each substance.
In the discussion on mixed items, the phrase “what is received at that time is allowable at that time” and so on, refers to things that are not mixed in taste. For instance, if a drink is received together with a whole coconut, and the coconut is removed, the drink remains allowable even at an improper time. Similarly, if cool rice porridge is given with a lump of ghee placed on top, the ghee that is not mixed with the porridge can be removed and consumed for up to seven days. The same principle applies to bound honey, molasses, and so on. When food is offered adorned with betel nuts, nutmeg, and similar items, these can be removed, washed, and consumed for a lifetime. The same applies to items like ginger powder mixed in gruel or sticks of liquorice mixed in oil. Thus, whatever is not mixed in taste, even if received together, can be purified by washing or cutting and consumed according to the appropriate time.
ID1976
Sace pana sambhinnarasaṃ hoti saṃsaṭṭhaṃ, na vaṭṭati. Yāvakālikañhi attanā saddhiṃ sambhinnarasāni tīṇipi yāmakālikādīni attano sabhāvaṃ upaneti. Yāmakālikaṃ dvepi sattāhakālikādīni attano sabhāvaṃ upaneti. Sattāhakālikaṃ attanā saddhiṃ saṃsaṭṭhaṃ yāvajīvikaṃ attano sabhāvaññeva upaneti, tasmā tena tadahupaṭiggahitena saddhiṃ tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ vā purepaṭiggahitaṃ vā yāvajīvikaṃ sattāhaṃ kappati, dvīhapaṭiggahitena chāhaṃ…pe… sattāhapaṭiggahitena tadaheva kappatīti veditabbaṃ. Tasmāyeva hi “sattāhakālikena, bhikkhave, yāvajīvikaṃ tadahupaṭiggahita”nti avatvā “paṭiggahitaṃ sattāhaṃ kappatī”ti vuttaṃ.
However, if it is mixed in flavor and mingled, it is not permissible. For a daily item (yāvakālika) brings the other three—half-day (yāmakālika), seven-day (sattāhakālika), and lifetime (yāvajīvika)—mixed with it to its own nature. A half-day item brings the two—seven-day and lifetime—mixed with it to its own nature. A seven-day item brings a lifetime item mixed with it to its own nature; therefore, what is received on that day with a seven-day item, whether received that day or earlier, is permissible for seven days as a lifetime item; with one received two days prior, for six days; and so on, with one received seven days prior, only on that day. Hence, it is said, “With a seven-day item, monks, a lifetime item received that day” is not stated, but rather “received is permissible for seven days.”
But if it is mixed in flavor, if it is mixed, it is not allowable. Because the yāvakālika (allowable until noon), when mixed in flavor with the three others, yāmakālika (allowable for a watch), etc., brings them into its own nature. The yāmakālika brings the two, sattāhakālika (allowable for seven days), etc., into its own nature. The sattāhakālika, mixed with the yāvajīvika (allowable for life), brings it into its own nature. Therefore, what has been accepted on that day(tad-ah-upatiggahitaṃ) or accepted previously, together with that which is yāvajīvika, it is allowable for seven days, and what is accepted on the second day is allowable for six days… and so on… what is accepted on the seventh day is allowable only on that very day. For this very reason, it is not stated, “Monks, with what is allowable for seven days, what is allowable for life is permitted on that day,” but it is stated, “what is accepted is allowable for seven days.”
However, if the items are mixed in taste, they are not allowable. This is because items that are mixed in taste with one’s own food take on the nature of the time period of that food. For example, food allowable for a watch period (yāmakālika) takes on the nature of the two periods of seven-day allowable food (sattāhakālika) when mixed with them. Seven-day allowable food, when mixed with one’s own food, takes on the nature of lifetime allowable food (yāvajīvika). Therefore, when something received on the same day is mixed with something received earlier or on the same day, it is allowable for a lifetime or seven days, depending on the case. If received over two days, it is allowable for six days, and so on, up to seven days. This is why the Buddha said, “What is received is allowable for seven days,” instead of saying, “Lifetime allowable items received on the same day are allowable for seven days.”
ID1977
Kālayāmasattāhātikkamesu cettha vikālabhojanasannidhibhesajjasikkhāpadānaṃ vasena āpattiyo veditabbā. Imesu ca pana catūsu kālikesu yāvakālikaṃ yāmakālikanti idameva dvayaṃ antovutthakañceva sannidhikārakañca hoti, sattāhakālikañca yāvajīvikañca akappiyakuṭiyaṃ nikkhipitumpi vaṭṭati, sannidhimpi na janetīti. Sesaṃ sabbattha uttānatthameva.
Here, offenses should be understood according to the training rules on eating at the wrong time, storing, and medicines when the time limits of day, half-day, and seven days are exceeded. Among these four time-bound items, only the daily and half-day items are both subject to spoilage within a dwelling and require storage; the seven-day and lifetime items may even be kept in an improper hut without generating storage [offenses]. The rest is clear in all respects.
Here, regarding transgressions of time, watch, and seven days, the offenses should be understood according to the precepts concerning untimely food and stored medicine. Among these four time-limited items, only these two, yāvakālika and yāmakālika, become both what can be kept within the dwelling and stored; whereas sattāhakālika and yāvajīvika are even allowable to be placed in a non-allowable hut, and do not give rise to storage. The rest is self-explanatory in all respects.
In cases where the time limits of a watch period, a day, or seven days are exceeded, offenses should be understood according to the rules on improper food and stored medicine. Among these four time periods, the watch period (yāmakālika) and the day period (yāvakālika) are both internal and involve stored items, while the seven-day period (sattāhakālika) and the lifetime period (yāvajīvika) can be stored even in an improper place and do not generate the concept of storage. The rest is clear in meaning.
ID1978
ID1979
Pañcabhesajjakathāyaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, tāni pañca bhesajjāni kāle paṭiggahetvā kāle paribhuñjitu”nti (mahāva. 261) vacanato sāradikena ābādhena phuṭṭhānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ yāgupi pītā uggacchati, bhattampi bhuttaṃ uggacchati, te tena kisā honti lūkhā dubbaṇṇā uppaṇḍuppaṇḍukajātā dhamanisanthatagattā. Tesaṃ yaṃ bhesajjañceva assa bhesajjasammatañca, lokassa āhāratthañca phareyya, na ca oḷāriko āhāro paññāyeyya. Tatrimāni pañca bhesajjāni. Seyyathidaṃ – sappi navanītaṃ telaṃ madhu phāṇitaṃ, tāni bhesajjāni kāle paṭiggahetvā kāle paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati. Tattha “sāradikena ābādhenāti saradakāle uppannena pittābādhena. Tasmiñhi kāle vassodakenapi tementi, kaddamampi maddanti, antarantarā ābādhopi kharo hoti, tena tesaṃ pittaṃ koṭṭhabbhantaragataṃ hoti. Āhāratthañca phareyyāti āhāratthaṃ sādheyyā”ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 260) vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.260) “pittaṃ koṭṭhabbhantaragataṃ hotīti bahisarīre byāpetvā ṭhitaṃ abaddhapittaṃ koṭṭhabbhantaragataṃ hoti, tena pittaṃ kupitaṃ hotīti adhippāyo”ti vuttaṃ.
In the discussion on the five medicines, from the statement “I allow, monks, those five medicines to be received at the right time and used at the right time” (mahāva. 261), monks afflicted with a seasonal illness vomit even after drinking gruel, and even after eating food, they vomit; they become emaciated, haggard, discolored, pale with patchy skin, and with veins protruding over their bodies. For them, what is both a medicine and regarded as a medicine, and serves as food for people without being perceived as coarse food—these are the five medicines: ghee (sappi), fresh butter (navanīta), oil (tela), honey (madhu), and molasses (phāṇita). It is permissible to receive these medicines at the right time and use them at the right time. Therein, “sāradikena ābādhena” means “with an illness arising in the autumn season, a bilious affliction”; for in that season, even sprinkling with rainwater or trampling mud occurs, and intermittently the illness becomes severe, causing their bile to settle in the stomach. “Āhāratthañca phareyya” means “it should serve the purpose of food,” as stated in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 260). In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.260), it is said: “pittaṃ koṭṭhabbhantaragataṃ hoti” means “bile that has spread over the outer body and remained unbound settles in the stomach, meaning the bile becomes aggravated.”
In the story of the five medicines, because of the statement, “I allow you, monks, having accepted those five medicines at the proper time, to consume them at the proper time” (Mahāva. 261), monks afflicted with autumnal disease vomit the gruel they have drunk, and they also vomit the solid food they have eaten. Due to that, they become thin, emaciated, discolored, pale and sickly, their bodies covered with prominent veins. For them, something would be both a medicine and recognized as a medicine, would fulfill the purpose of food for the people, and yet would not appear to be gross food. There are these five medicines. Namely – ghee, butter, oil, honey, molasses. Those medicines are allowable to be accepted at the proper time and consumed at the proper time. Here, “with autumnal disease” means with a bile disorder arising in the autumn season. For in that season, they are drenched by rainwater, and they also tread on mud, and from time to time the illness is also severe, hence their bile is located within the abdomen. “Would fulfill the purpose of food” means, it would serve the purpose of food, it is said in the commentary (Mahāva. aṭṭha. 260). In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. vi. ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.260) it is said: “the bile is located within the abdomen” means the unbound bile, having spread in the outer body, becomes located within the abdomen, hence the bile is disturbed, this is the meaning.
In the discussion on the five medicines, the statement, “I allow, monks, these five medicines to be received at the proper time and consumed at the proper time” (Mahāvagga 261), refers to monks afflicted by autumn illnesses. For them, even gruel that is drunk and food that is eaten does not digest properly, causing them to become thin, pale, and emaciated, with veins protruding all over their bodies. For such monks, whatever is both medicine and recognized as medicine, and serves the purpose of nourishment without being substantial food, is allowable. These are the five medicines: ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, and molasses. These medicines are to be received at the proper time and consumed at the proper time. Here, “autumn illness” refers to bile disorders that arise in the autumn season. During this time, even rainwater is used to moisten the body, mud is applied, and intermittent severe illnesses occur, causing bile to accumulate in the abdominal cavity. “Serves the purpose of nourishment” means it fulfills the purpose of food. This is stated in the commentary (Mahāvagga Aṭṭhakathā 260). The Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.260) explains, “Bile accumulates in the abdominal cavity” means that bile, which is spread throughout the outer body, becomes concentrated in the abdominal cavity, causing bile disorders.
ID1980
Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 260) “yaṃ bhesajjañceva assāti parato ’tadubhayena bhiyyosomattāya kisā hontī’tiādinā virodhadassanato nidānānapekkhaṃ yathālābhavasena vuttanti veditabbaṃ. Yathānidānaṃ kasmā na vuttanti ce? Tadaññāpekkhādhippāyato. Sabbabuddhakālepi hi sappiādīnaṃ sattāhakālikabhāvāpekkhoti. Tathā vacanena bhagavato adhippāyo. Teneva ’āhāratthañca phareyya, na ca oḷāriko āhāro paññāyeyyā’ti vuttaṃ. Tathā hi kāle paṭiggahetvā kāle paribhuñjitunti ettha ca kālaparicchedo na kato, kutoyeva pana labbhā tadaññāpekkhādhippāyo bhagavatā mūlabhesajjādīni tāni paṭiggahetvā yāvajīvanti kālaparicchedo. Yaṃ pana ’anujānāmi, bhikkhave, tāni bhesajjāni kāle paṭiggahetvā kāle paribhuñjitu’nti (mahāva. 260) vacanaṃ, taṃ ’sannidhiṃ katvā aparāparasmiṃ divase kāle eva paribhuñjituṃ anujānāmī’ti adhippāyato vuttanti veditabbaṃ. Aññathā atisayattā bhagavato ’yaṃ bhesajjañceva assā’tiādivitakkuppādo na sambhavati. Paṇītabhojanānumatiyā pasiddhattā ābādhānurūpasappāyāpekkhāya vuttānīti ce? Tañca na, ’bhiyyosomattāyā’ti kisādibhāvāpattidassanato. Yathā ucchurasaṃ upādāya phāṇitanti vuttaṃ, tathā navanītaṃ upādāya sappīti vattabbato navanītaṃ visuṃ na vattabbanti ce? Na visesadassanādhippāyato. Yathā phāṇitaggahaṇena siddhepi parato ucchuraso visuṃ anuññāto ucchusāmaññato guḷodakaṭṭhāne ṭhapanādhippāyato, tathā navanīte visesavidhidassanādhippāyato navanītaṃ visuṃ anuññātanti veditabbaṃ. Visesavidhi panassa bhesajjasikkhāpadaṭṭhakathāvasena (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.619-621) veditabbo. Vuttañhi tattha ’pacitvā sappiṃ katvā paribhuñjitukāmena adhotampi pacituṃ vaṭṭatī’ti. Tattha sappi pakkāva hoti, nāpakkā, tathā phāṇitampi. Navanītaṃ apakkamevā”tiādi.
In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 260), it is stated: “yaṃ bhesajjañceva assa” should be understood as said according to availability without regard to the origin, due to the contradiction shown later with “they become more emaciated” and so forth. Why is it not stated according to the origin? Because of the intention dependent on something else. Even in the time of all Buddhas, ghee and the like are regarded as seven-day items. This is the Blessed One’s intention with that statement. Hence it says, “It should serve as food, and coarse food should not be perceived.” Indeed, in “received at the right time and used at the right time,” no time limit is specified; how then could the Blessed One intend a time limit dependent on something else, such as receiving root medicines and using them for life? The statement “I allow, monks, those medicines to be received at the right time and used at the right time” (mahāva. 260) should be understood as said with the intention “I allow them to be stored and used at the right time on subsequent days.” Otherwise, due to its excellence, the Blessed One’s reflection “what is both a medicine” and so forth would not arise. If it is said that it was stated with regard to suitability for illness due to permission for fine food? That is not so, because it shows their becoming emaciated and so forth with “more so.” Just as molasses is mentioned with reference to sugarcane juice, should ghee not be mentioned separately from fresh butter? No, due to the intention to show a distinction. Just as sugarcane juice is permitted separately after molasses to indicate its use in place of cane water despite being included in molasses, fresh butter is permitted separately due to the intention to show a specific procedure, which should be understood according to the commentary on the medicine training rule (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.619-621). It is stated there: “One wishing to cook ghee and use it may cook even unwashed items.” Therein, ghee is cooked, not uncooked; similarly, molasses too. Fresh butter, however, is uncooked.
In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. ṭī. Mahāvagga 260) “something would be both a medicine” because it contradicts with the words which follow, ‘because of both of these, they become even thinner,’ etc., it should be understood as being stated in reference to whatever is obtained, without consideration for the origin. If it is asked why it is not stated according to the origin? Because of the intention to refer to other things at that time. For in the time of all Buddhas, the allowance of ghee etc. for seven days is expected. Such is the intention of the Blessed One through that statement. Therefore, it is said ‘would fulfill the purpose of food, and yet would not appear to be gross food.’ Likewise, regarding, ‘having accepted at the proper time, to consume at the proper time,’ no time limit has been made here, but how can it be obtained? At that moment, when referring to other things, the Blessed One made the time-limit such that the root medicines etc can be accepted and used through out life(yāvajīvaṃ). And as for the statement, ‘I allow you, monks, having accepted those medicines at the proper time, to consume them at the proper time’ (Mahāva. 260), it should be understood that this was stated with the intention, ‘I allow you to make it stored, and consume it on subsequent days, only at the proper time.’ Otherwise, due to his excellence, the thought ‘something would be both a medicine,’ etc. would not have arisen in the Blessed One. If it is argued that these were stated in consideration of the suitable remedy appropriate for the disease, due to the well-known permission of fine foods? That is also not so, because of the statement ‘because of both of these, they become even thinner’, indicating they become thin, etc. Just as molasses is stated by reference to sugarcane juice, so too should ghee be stated by reference to butter, thus why is it that butter not spoken of separately? Because the intention is not to show distinction. Just as the separate permission of sugarcane juice later on, even though it is already established by the term ‘molasses’, is due to the intention of establishing it in the place of jaggery-water, in a general way as juice, so too butter is separately permitted with the intention of showing the specific rule regarding butter. Its specific rule, however, is to be understood according to the commentary on the precept on medicine (Pārā. aṭṭha. 2.619-621). For it is stated there: ‘for someone desiring to cook and make ghee to consume, it is allowable to cook it even if it is unwashed.’ In this context, ghee is cooked, not uncooked, and similarly molasses also. Butter, however, is only uncooked,’ and so forth.
In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 260), “whatever is both medicine” is explained as being stated without regard to specific causes, based on availability, due to the contradiction seen in the phrase “they become thin due to both.” Why is it not stated according to the cause? Because the Buddha’s intention was to consider the seven-day allowable nature of ghee and similar items throughout the Buddha’s lifetime. Thus, the statement, “serves the purpose of nourishment without being substantial food,” is made. Therefore, the phrase “received at the proper time and consumed at the proper time” does not specify a time limit, and the Buddha’s intention was to allow the root medicines and similar items to be received and consumed for a lifetime. The statement, “I allow, monks, these medicines to be received at the proper time and consumed at the proper time” (Mahāvagga 260), should be understood as allowing them to be consumed at the proper time on subsequent days after storing them. Otherwise, the Buddha’s thought, “whatever is both medicine,” would not arise. Is it because of the allowance for fine food and the need to consider suitability for illness? No, it is because of the observation of the condition of becoming thin, etc. Just as molasses is mentioned with reference to sugarcane juice, so too fresh butter should be mentioned with reference to ghee, but fresh butter is not separately mentioned. This is because there is no intention to show a distinction. Just as sugarcane juice is separately allowed by the mention of molasses, even though it is already established, for the purpose of placing it in the category of sugar water, so too fresh butter is separately allowed for the purpose of showing a distinct rule. The distinct rule should be understood from the commentary on the medicine rule (Pārājika Aṭṭhakathā 2.619-621). There it is said, “If one wishes to consume ghee after cooking it, even unwashed ghee may be cooked.” There, ghee is considered cooked, not uncooked, and the same applies to molasses. Fresh butter, however, is considered uncooked.
ID1981
ID1982
Dutiyabhesajjakathāyaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, tāni pañca bhesajjāni paṭiggahetvā kālepi vikālepi paribhuñjitu”nti (mahāva. 261) vacanato “tāni pañca bhesajjāni kāle paṭiggahetvā kāle paribhuñjantānaṃ tesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ yānipi tāni pākatikāni lūkhāni bhojanāni, tāni nacchādenti, pageva senesitāni. Te tena ceva sāradikena ābādhena phuṭṭhā iminā ca bhattācchādakena tadubhayena bhiyyosomattāya kisā hontī”ti imasmiṃ vatthusmiṃ kālepi vikālepīti anuññātattā vikālepi paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati. Tattha “nacchādentīti na jīranti, na vātarogaṃ paṭippassambhetuṃ sakkonti. Senesitānīti siniddhāni. Bhattācchādakenāti bhattaṃ arocikenā”ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 261) vuttaṃ, ṭīkāsu (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.261; vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.261-262) pana “nacchādentīti ruciṃ na uppādentī”ti ettakameva vuttaṃ, mahāvibhaṅge (pārā. 622) pana “yāni kho pana tāni gilānānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ paṭisāyanīyāni bhesajjāni. Seyyathidaṃ – sappi navanītaṃ telaṃ madhu phāṇitaṃ, tāni paṭiggahetvā sattāhaparamaṃ sannidhikārakaṃ paribhuñjitabbāni, taṃ atikkāmayato nissaggiyaṃ pācittiya”nti vacanato imesaṃ pañcabhesajjānaṃ sattāhakālikabhāvo veditabbo, idha pana aṭṭhuppattivasena vuttoti.
In the second discussion on medicines, from the statement “I allow, monks, those five medicines to be received and used at the right time and the wrong time” (mahāva. 261), “When those monks afflicted with a seasonal illness receive and use those five medicines at the right time, even the natural coarse foods they eat do not suffice, let alone the refined ones. Being afflicted both by that seasonal illness and by this insufficiency of food, they become even more emaciated.” In this context, since it is permitted “at the right time and the wrong time,” it is permissible to use them even at the wrong time. Therein, “nacchādenti” means “they do not digest” or “they cannot alleviate wind disease”; “senesitāni” means “refined”; “bhattācchādakena” means “food that does not appeal,” as stated in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 261). In the sub-commentaries (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.261; vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.261-262), however, it says only “nacchādenti” means “they do not arouse appetite.” In the Great Analysis (pārā. 622), it is stated: “Those medicines suitable for sick monks—namely, ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, and molasses—should be received and used as storable items for a maximum of seven days; exceeding that incurs a forfeiture offense (nissaggiya pācittiya).” Thus, the seven-day nature of these five medicines should be understood, though here it is stated due to the occasion.
In the story of the second medicine, because of the statement, “I allow you, monks, having accepted those five medicines, to consume them both at the proper time and at the improper time” (Mahāva. 261), “those five medicines, when consumed by those monks who have accepted them at the proper time, do not digest those ordinary coarse foods, let alone the rich ones. Because of that very autumnal disease they are afflicted with, and because of this indigestibility of food, due to both of these, they become even thinner” - because in this context it is permitted both at the proper time and at the improper time, it is allowable to consume them even at the improper time. Here, “do not digest” means they do not get digested, or they are not able to soothe the wind disorder. “Rich ones” means fatty ones. “Indigestibility of food” means the food being unappetizing, it is said in the commentary (Mahāva. aṭṭha. 261). In the Ṭīkās (Sārattha. ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.261; Vi. vi. ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.261-262), however, only “do not digest” means they do not create appetite, this much is stated. In the Mahāvibhaṅga (Pārā. 622), however, “those appropriate medicines for sick monks, namely – ghee, butter, oil, honey, molasses, having accepted them, they are to be consumed having been made stored for a maximum of seven days; if he exceeds that, there is a nissaggiya pācittiya (offense requiring forfeiture and confession),” because of this statement, the seven-day allowance of these five medicines is to be understood. Here, however, it is stated in reference to the arising of the situation.
In the second discussion on medicines, the statement, “I allow, monks, these five medicines to be received and consumed at both the proper and improper times” (Mahāvagga 261), refers to the fact that when monks consume these five medicines at the proper time, even their ordinary coarse food does not sustain them, let alone rich food. Afflicted by autumn illness and this lack of sustenance, they become even thinner. Therefore, it is allowable to consume these medicines even at improper times. Here, “does not sustain” means it does not digest properly or alleviate wind disorders. “Rich food” refers to rich and nourishing food. “Lack of sustenance” refers to lack of appetite. This is stated in the commentary (Mahāvagga Aṭṭhakathā 261). In the ṭīkās (Sārattha Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.261; Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.261-262), “does not sustain” is explained as not generating satisfaction. In the Mahāvibhaṅga (Pārā. 622), it is said, “Whatever medicines are suitable for sick monks, such as ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, and molasses, should be received and consumed for up to seven days as stored items. Exceeding this limit incurs a nissaggiya pācittiya offense.” Thus, these five medicines are understood to be seven-day allowable, but here they are discussed based on the situation.
ID1983
ID1984
Vasābhesajjakathāyaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, vasāni bhesajjāni acchavasaṃ macchavasaṃ susukāvasaṃ sūkaravasaṃ gadrabhavasaṃ kāle paṭiggahitaṃ kāle nippakkaṃ kāle saṃsaṭṭhaṃ telaparibhogena paribhuñjituṃ. Vikāle ce, bhikkhave, paṭiggahitaṃ vikāle nippakkaṃ vikāle saṃsaṭṭhaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti tiṇṇaṃ dukkaṭānaṃ. Kāle ce, bhikkhave, paṭiggahitaṃ vikāle nippakkaṃ vikāle saṃsaṭṭhaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti dvinnaṃ dukkaṭānaṃ. Kāle ce, bhikkhave, paṭiggahitaṃ kāle nippakkaṃ vikāle saṃsaṭṭhaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Kāle ce, bhikkhave, paṭiggahitaṃ kāle nippakkaṃ kāle saṃsaṭṭhaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, anāpattī”ti (mahāva. 262). Tattha “kāle paṭiggahitantiādīsu majjhanhike avītivatte paṭiggahetvā pacitvā parissāvetvā cāti attho. Telaparibhogena paribhuñjitunti sattāhakālikatelaparibhogena paribhuñjitu”nti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 262) vuttaṃ, ṭīkāsu (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.262; vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.261-262) pana “susukāti samudde bhavā ekā macchajāti, kumbhilātipi vadanti. Saṃsaṭṭhanti parissāvitaṃ. Telaparibhogenāti sattāhakālikaparibhogaṃ sandhāya vutta”nti vuttaṃ. Ayamettha saṅkhepo, vitthāro pana heṭṭhā catukālikakathāyaṃ vuttoyeva.
In the discussion on fat medicines, “I allow, monks, fat medicines: bear fat, fish fat, alligator fat, pig fat, and donkey fat, when received at the right time, cooked at the right time, mixed at the right time, to be used with oil usage. If, monks, it is received at the wrong time, cooked at the wrong time, mixed at the wrong time, and one uses it, there is an offense of three wrongdoings. If, monks, it is received at the right time, cooked at the wrong time, mixed at the wrong time, and one uses it, there is an offense of two wrongdoings. If, monks, it is received at the right time, cooked at the right time, mixed at the wrong time, and one uses it, there is an offense of wrongdoing. If, monks, it is received at the right time, cooked at the right time, mixed at the right time, and one uses it, there is no offense” (mahāva. 262). Therein, “kāle paṭiggahita” and so forth means “received before noon, cooked, and strained”; “telaparibhogena paribhuñjitu” means “to be used with seven-day oil usage,” as stated in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 262). In the sub-commentaries (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.262; vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.261-262), it is said: “susukā” means “a type of fish born in the sea, also called crocodile”; “saṃsaṭṭha” means “strained”; “telaparibhogena” means “said with reference to seven-day usage.” This is the summary here; the details were already stated in the discussion on the four time-bound items below.
In the story of fat as medicine, “I allow, monks, fat as medicine: bear fat, fish fat, alligator fat, pig fat, donkey fat, accepted at the proper time, cooked at the proper time, mixed at the proper time, to be consumed as oil is used. If, monks, it is accepted at the improper time, cooked at the improper time, mixed at the improper time, and he should consume it, there is an offense of three dukkaṭas (offenses of wrong doing). If, monks, it is accepted at the proper time, cooked at the improper time, mixed at the improper time, and he should consume it, there is an offense of two dukkaṭas. If, monks, it is accepted at the proper time, cooked at the proper time, mixed at the improper time, and he should consume it, there is an offense of a dukkaṭa. If, monks, it is accepted at the proper time, cooked at the proper time, mixed at the proper time, and he should consume it, there is no offense” (Mahāva. 262). Here, “accepted at the proper time” etc., means having accepted it before noon, having cooked it, and having strained it. “To be consumed as oil is used” means to be consumed as seven-day allowable oil is used, it is said in the commentary (Mahāva. aṭṭha. 262). In the Ṭīkās (Sārattha. ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.262; Vi. vi. ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.261-262), however, “alligator” means a certain kind of fish that lives in the ocean, it is also called a crocodile. “Mixed” means strained. “As oil is used” it is stated referring to the seven-day allowable usage, it is stated. This is the summary here; the details, however, are the same as those mentioned earlier in the section on the four time-limited substances.
In the discussion on fat medicines, the statement, “I allow, monks, fat medicines such as fish fat, crocodile fat, bear fat, pig fat, and donkey fat to be received at the proper time, cooked at the proper time, and mixed at the proper time, and consumed with the use of oil. If, monks, they are received at an improper time, cooked at an improper time, and mixed at an improper time, and one consumes them, there is an offense of three dukkaṭas. If they are received at the proper time, cooked at an improper time, and mixed at an improper time, and one consumes them, there is an offense of two dukkaṭas. If they are received at the proper time, cooked at the proper time, and mixed at an improper time, and one consumes them, there is an offense of one dukkaṭa. If they are received at the proper time, cooked at the proper time, and mixed at the proper time, and one consumes them, there is no offense” (Mahāvagga 262). Here, “received at the proper time” means received during the midday period, cooked, and strained. “Consumed with the use of oil” means consumed with the use of oil allowable for seven days. This is stated in the commentary (Mahāvagga Aṭṭhakathā 262). In the ṭīkās (Sārattha Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.262; Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.261-262), “bear fat” refers to a type of fish found in the ocean, also called crocodile. “Mixed” means strained. “With the use of oil” refers to the use of oil allowable for seven days. This is a summary; the details are as stated earlier in the discussion on the four time periods.
ID1985
ID1986
Mūlabhesajjakathāyaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, mūlāni bhesajjāni, haliddiṃ siṅgiveraṃ vacaṃ vacattaṃ ativisaṃ kaṭukarohiṇiṃ usīraṃ bhaddamuttakaṃ, yāni vā panaññānipi atthi mūlāni bhesajjāni neva khādanīye khādanīyatthaṃ pharanti, na bhojanīye bhojanīyatthaṃ pharanti, tāni paṭiggahetvā yāvajīvaṃ pariharituṃ, sati paccaye paribhuñjituṃ. Asati paccaye paribhuñjantassa āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti. Tattha vacattanti setavacaṃ. Sesaṃ heṭṭhā vuttameva.
In the discussion on root medicines, “I allow, monks, root medicines: turmeric (haliddī), ginger (siṅgivera), orris root (vaca), white orris (vacatta), aconite (ativisa), black hellebore (kaṭukarohiṇī), vetiver (usīra), and fragrant nut grass (bhaddamuttaka), and any other root medicines that do not serve as solid food for the purpose of solid food nor as staple food for the purpose of staple food; these may be received and kept for life, to be used when there is a reason. Using them without a reason incurs an offense of wrongdoing.” Therein, vacatta means “white orris.” The rest was stated below.
In the story of root medicine, “I allow you, monks, root medicines: turmeric, ginger, vaca, vacatta, ativisa, kaṭukarohiṇī, usīra, bhaddamuttaka, or whatever other root medicines there may be which do not serve the purpose of hard food in hard food, nor the purpose of soft food in soft food, having accepted them, to keep them for life, to consume them when there is a reason. Consuming them without a reason, there is an offense of a dukkaṭa.” Here, “vacatta” means white vaca. The rest is as stated earlier.
In the discussion on root medicines, the statement, “I allow, monks, root medicines such as turmeric, ginger, white orris root, ativisa, kaṭukarohiṇī, usīra, and bhaddamuttaka, or any other root medicines that do not serve the purpose of chewable or edible food, to be received and carried for a lifetime, and consumed when there is a reason. If consumed without a reason, there is an offense of dukkaṭa.” Here, “white orris root” refers to setavaca. The rest is as stated earlier.
ID1987
ID1988
Piṭṭhabhesajjakathāyaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, nisadaṃ nisadapotaka”nti (mahāva. 263) vacanato pisitehi cuṇṇakatehi mūlabhesajjehi atthe sati nisadañca nisadapotakañca pariharituṃ vaṭṭati. Tattha nisadaṃ nisadapotakanti pisanasilā ca pisanapoto ca. Nisadanti pisanti cuṇṇavicuṇṇaṃ karonti mūlabhesajjādayo etthāti nisadaṃ, pisanasilā. Nisadanti pisanti cuṇṇavicuṇṇaṃ karonti mūlabhesajjādayo etenāti nisadaṃ, posetabboti poto, dārako. Khuddakappamāṇatāya poto viyāti poto, nisadañca taṃ poto cāti nisadapoto, taṃ nisadapotakaṃ. Nipubbasada cuṇṇakaraṇeti dhātu.
In the discussion on powder medicines, from the statement “I allow, monks, a grinding stone (nisada) and a grinding pot (nisadapotaka)” (mahāva. 263), it is permissible to keep a grinding stone and a grinding pot for use with root medicines ground into powder when needed. Therein, nisadaṃ nisadapotaka means “a grinding stone and a grinding pot”; nisadaṃ means “they grind, they make into fine powder, root medicines and the like on it,” a grinding stone; “they grind, they make into fine powder, root medicines and the like with it” is nisadaṃ, and poto means “to be nurtured,” a child; due to its small size like a child, it is poto; nisada and that poto is nisadapoto, that is nisadapotaka. The root “nisad” with the prefix “ni” means “to make into powder.”
In the story of powdered medicine, because of the statement, “I allow you, monks, a grinding stone and a pestle” (Mahāva. 263), when there is a need for root medicines made into powder by grinding, it is allowable to keep a grinding stone and a pestle. Here, a grinding stone and a pestle means the grinding slab and the grinding stone. That by which root medicines etc are ground, pounded and crushed in it(ettha) is the grinding stone (nisadaṃ), the grinding slab. The meaning is that ‘they grind, that is, they pound, crushing root medicines and so forth with this’. ‘That which is to be pounded’ is ‘pounding’, a child. Because it is of small size, it is ‘like a child’ , hence, ‘grinding stone’ and ‘that’ ‘child’, thus it’s called ‘grinding pestle-(nisadapota)’,. The root is ‘ni’ prefixed to the word ‘sad’ means grinding.
In the discussion on powdered medicines, the statement, “I allow, monks, nisada and nisadapotaka” (Mahāvagga 263), means that when there is a need for powdered medicines made from roots and other substances, it is allowable to carry nisada and nisadapotaka. Here, “nisada and nisadapotaka” refer to grinding stones and grinding pestles. “Nisada” means to grind or pulverize root medicines and other substances, hence a grinding stone. “Nisadapotaka” refers to a small pestle, like a child, due to its small size. The root “nisada” means to grind or pulverize.
ID1989
ID1990
Kasāvabhesajjakathāyaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, kasāvāni bhesajjāni nimbakasāvaṃ kuṭajakasāvaṃ paṭolakasāvaṃ phaggavakasāvaṃ nattamālakasāvaṃ, yāni vā panaññānipi atthi kasāvāni bhesajjāni neva khādanīye khādanīyatthaṃ pharanti, na bhojanīye bhojanīyatthaṃ pharanti, tāni paṭiggahetvā yāvajīvaṃ pariharituṃ, sati paccaye paribhuñjituṃ, asati paccaye paribhuñjantassa āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 263) vacanato tānipi kasāvabhesajjāni paṭiggahetvā yāvajīvaṃ pariharituṃ sati paccaye paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati. Tattha phaggavanti latājāti. Nattamālanti karañjaṃ. “Kasāvehīti tacādīni udake tāpetvā gahitaūsarehī”ti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.263) vuttaṃ.
In the discussion on astringent medicines, “I allow, monks, astringent medicines: neem astringent (nimbakasāva), cutch astringent (kuṭajakasāva), gourd astringent (paṭolakasāva), emblic myrobalan astringent (phaggavakasāva), and malabar nut astringent (nattamālakasāva), and any other astringent medicines that do not serve as solid food for the purpose of solid food nor as staple food for the purpose of staple food; these may be received and kept for life, to be used when there is a reason, and using them without a reason incurs an offense of wrongdoing” (mahāva. 263). Thus, these astringent medicines too may be received and kept for life, to be used when there is a reason. Therein, phaggava means “a type of creeper”; nattamāla means “karañja.” It is stated in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.263): “kasāvehi” means “with the heat extracted into water from bark and the like.”
In the story of astringent medicine, “I allow, monks, astringent medicines: neem astringent, kuṭaja astringent, paṭola astringent, phaggava astringent, nattamāla astringent, or whatever other astringent medicines there may be, which do not serve the purpose of hard food in hard food, nor the purpose of soft food in soft food, having accepted them, to keep them for life, to consume them when there is a reason; consuming them without a reason, there is an offense of a dukkaṭa” (Mahāva. 263), because of this statement, it is also allowable to accept those astringent medicines, to keep them for life, and to consume them when there is a reason. Here, “phaggava” means a kind of creeper. “Nattamāla” means the karañja tree. “Astringents” means, the extracts obtained by heating the bark, etc., in water, it is stated in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. vi. ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.263).
In the discussion on bitter medicines, the statement, “I allow, monks, bitter medicines such as neem bark, kuṭaja bark, paṭola bark, phaggava bark, and nattamāla bark, or any other bitter medicines that do not serve the purpose of chewable or edible food, to be received and carried for a lifetime, and consumed when there is a reason. If consumed without a reason, there is an offense of dukkaṭa” (Mahāvagga 263), means that these bitter medicines can be received, carried for a lifetime, and consumed when there is a reason. Here, “phaggava” refers to a type of creeper. “Nattamāla” refers to karañja. “Bitter medicines” are obtained by soaking bark and similar substances in water. This is stated in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.263).
ID1991
ID1992
Paṇṇabhesajjakathāyaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, paṇṇāni bhesajjāni nimbapaṇṇaṃ kuṭajapaṇṇaṃ paṭolapaṇṇaṃ nattamālapaṇṇaṃ phaggavapaṇṇaṃ sulasipaṇṇaṃ kappāsapaṇṇaṃ, yāni vā panaññānipi atthi paṇṇāni bhesajjāni neva khādanīye khādanīyatthaṃ pharanti, na bhojanīye bhojanīyatthaṃ pharanti, tāni paṭiggahetvā yāvajīvaṃ pariharituṃ, sati paccaye paribhuñjituṃ, asati paccaye paribhuñjantassa āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 263) vacanato khādanīyabhojanīyatthaṃ apharantāni tānipi paṇṇāni paṭiggahetvā yāvajīvaṃ pariharituṃ, sati paccaye paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati. Acchavasantiādīsu nissaggiyavaṇṇanāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.623) vuttanayeneva attho veditabbo. Mūlabhesajjādivinicchayopi khuddakavaṇṇanāyaṃ vuttoyeva, tasmā idha yaṃ yaṃ pubbe avuttaṃ, taṃ tadeva vaṇṇayissāma.
In the discussion on leaf medicines, “I allow, monks, leaf medicines: neem leaves (nimbapaṇṇa), cutch leaves (kuṭajapaṇṇa), gourd leaves (paṭolapaṇṇa), malabar nut leaves (nattamālapaṇṇa), emblic myrobalan leaves (phaggavapaṇṇa), basil leaves (sulasipaṇṇa), and cotton leaves (kappāsapaṇṇa), and any other leaf medicines that do not serve as solid food for the purpose of solid food nor as staple food for the purpose of staple food; these may be received and kept for life, to be used when there is a reason, and using them without a reason incurs an offense of wrongdoing” (mahāva. 263). Thus, these leaves that do not serve as solid or staple food may be received and kept for life, to be used when there is a reason. The meaning in acchavasa and so forth should be understood as explained in the commentary on forfeiture items (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.623). The determination of root medicines and the like was already stated in the commentary on minor matters; therefore, here we will explain only what was not previously stated.
In the story of leaf medicine, “I allow, monks, leaf medicines: neem leaf, kuṭaja leaf, paṭola leaf, nattamāla leaf, phaggava leaf, sulasi leaf, cotton leaf, or whatever other leaf medicines there may be, which do not serve the purpose of hard food in hard food, nor the purpose of soft food in soft food, having accepted them, to keep them for life, to consume them when there is a reason; consuming them without a reason, there is an offense of a dukkaṭa” (Mahāva. 263), because of this statement, it is allowable to accept those leaves also, which do not serve the purpose of hard food and soft food, to keep them for life, and to consume them when there is a reason. The meaning of bear fat etc. should be understood in the same way as stated in the explanation of the nissaggiya (offenses requiring forfeiture) (Pārā. aṭṭha. 2.623). The determination of root medicines, etc., is also as stated in the explanation of the Minor Matters; therefore, here we will explain only whatever has not been stated previously.
In the discussion on leaf medicines, the statement, “I allow, monks, leaf medicines such as neem leaves, kuṭaja leaves, paṭola leaves, nattamāla leaves, phaggava leaves, sulasi leaves, and cotton leaves, or any other leaf medicines that do not serve the purpose of chewable or edible food, to be received and carried for a lifetime, and consumed when there is a reason. If consumed without a reason, there is an offense of dukkaṭa” (Mahāvagga 263), means that these leaf medicines, which do not serve the purpose of chewable or edible food, can be received, carried for a lifetime, and consumed when there is a reason. “Fish fat” and similar terms should be understood as explained in the nissaggiya commentary (Pārājika Aṭṭhakathā 2.623). The distinctions for root medicines and so on are as stated in the minor commentary. Therefore, whatever was not stated earlier will be explained here.
ID1993
ID1994
Phalabhesajjakathāyaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, phalāni bhesajjāni biḷaṅgaṃ pippaliṃ maricaṃ harītakaṃ vibhītakaṃ āmalakaṃ goṭṭhaphalaṃ, yāni vā panaññānipi atthi phalāni bhesajjāni neva khādanīye khādanīyatthaṃ pharanti, na bhojanīye bhojanīyatthaṃ pharanti, tāni paṭiggahetvā yāvajīvaṃ pariharituṃ, sati paccaye paribhuñjituṃ, asati paccaye paribhuñjantassa āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 263) vacanato khādanīyabhojanīyatthaṃ apharantāni tāni phalāni paṭiggahetvā yāvajīvaṃ pariharituṃ, sati paccaye paribhuñjitumpi vaṭṭati.
In the discussion on fruit medicines, it is stated: “I allow you, bhikkhus, to use fruits as medicines—biḷaṅga, pippali, marica, harītaka, vibhītaka, āmalaka, goṭṭhaphala, and any other fruits that are medicines, which neither serve as food for eating nor as nourishment for sustenance. Having received them, you may keep them for life and use them when there is a condition; if used without a condition, it is an offense of dukkaṭa” (mahāva. 263). Thus, those fruits that do not serve as food or nourishment may be received and kept for life, and it is permissible to use them when there is a condition.
In the discussion on fruit medicines, because it is said, “I allow, monks, fruit medicines: the bilva fruit, long pepper, black pepper, yellow myrobalan, beleric myrobalan, emblic myrobalan, goṭṭha fruit, or whatever other fruit medicines there may be that do not infuse savories with the purpose of savory, nor infuse staples with the purpose of staple. Having received them, one may keep them for life and use them when there is a reason; if one uses them when there is no reason, there is an offense of wrong-doing” (mahāva. 263), it is allowable to receive those fruits, which do not infuse savories or staples, keep them for life, and even use them when there is a reason.
In the discussion on medicinal fruits, “I allow, monks, medicinal fruits such as biḷaṅga, pippali, marica, harītaka, vibhītaka, āmalaka, goṭṭhaphala, and any other fruits that are medicinal, which do not serve the purpose of being chewed or eaten as food. These may be accepted and kept for a lifetime, to be used when there is a need. If used without a need, the offense is a dukkaṭa” (Mahāva. 263). Thus, those fruits that do not serve the purpose of being chewed or eaten as food may be accepted and kept for a lifetime, and used when there is a need.
ID1995
ID1996
Jatubhesajjakathāyaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, jatūni bhesajjāni hiṅguṃ hiṅgujatuṃ hiṅgusipāṭikaṃ takaṃ takapattiṃ takapaṇṇiṃ sajjulasaṃ, yāni vā panaññānipi atthi jatūni bhesajjāni neva khādanīye khādanīyatthaṃ pharanti, na bhojanīye bhojanīyatthaṃ pharanti, tāni paṭiggahetvā yāvajīvaṃ pariharituṃ, sati paccaye paribhuñjituṃ, asati paccaye paribhuñjantassa āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 263) vacanato tāni jatūni bhesajjāni paṭiggahetvā yāvajīvaṃ pariharituṃ, sati paccaye paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati. Tattha hiṅguhiṅgujatuhiṅgusipāṭikā hiṅgujātiyoyeva. Takatakapattitakapaṇṇayo lākhājātiyo.
In the discussion on resin medicines, it is stated: “I allow you, bhikkhus, to use resins as medicines—hiṅgu, hiṅgujatu, hiṅgusipāṭika, taka, takapatti, takapaṇṇi, sajjulasa, and any other resins that are medicines, which neither serve as food for eating nor as nourishment for sustenance. Having received them, you may keep them for life and use them when there is a condition; if used without a condition, it is an offense of dukkaṭa” (mahāva. 263). Thus, those resin medicines may be received and kept for life, and it is permissible to use them when there is a condition. Here, hiṅgu, hiṅgujatu, hiṅgusipāṭika belong to the hiṅgu category. Taka, takapatti, takapaṇṇi belong to the lākhā category.
In the discussion on resin medicines, because it is said, “I allow, monks, resin medicines: asafoetida, asafoetida resin, asafoetida powder, taka, takapatti, takapaṇṇi, shellac, or whatever other resin medicines there may be that do not infuse savories with the purpose of savory, nor infuse staples with the purpose of staple. Having received them, one may keep them for life and use them when there is a reason; if one uses them when there is no reason, there is an offense of wrong-doing” (mahāva. 263), it is allowable to receive those resin medicines, keep them for life, and use them when there is a reason. Here, hiṅguhiṅgujatuhiṅgusipāṭikā are varieties of asafoetida. Takatakapattitakapaṇṇayo are varieties of lac.
In the discussion on resin medicines, “I allow, monks, medicinal resins such as hiṅgu, hiṅgujatu, hiṅgusipāṭika, taka, takapatti, takapaṇṇa, sajjulasa, and any other resins that are medicinal, which do not serve the purpose of being chewed or eaten as food. These may be accepted and kept for a lifetime, to be used when there is a need. If used without a need, the offense is a dukkaṭa” (Mahāva. 263). Thus, those resins may be accepted and kept for a lifetime, and used when there is a need. Here, hiṅgu, hiṅgujatu, and hiṅgusipāṭika are types of hiṅgu. Taka, takapatti, and takapaṇṇa are types of lac.
ID1997
Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 263) pana “hiṅgujatu nāma hiṅgurukkhassa daṇḍapallavapavāḷapākanipphannā. Hiṅgusipāṭikā nāma tassa mūlasākhapākanipphannā. Takaṃ nāma tassa rukkhassa tacapākodakaṃ. Takapattīti tassa pattapākodakaṃ. Takapaṇṇīti tassa phalapākodakaṃ. Atha vā ’takaṃ nāma lākhā. Takapattīti kittimalohasākhā . Takapaṇṇīti pakkalākhā’ti likhitaṃ. Sati paccayeti ettha satipaccayatā gilānāgilānavasena dvidhā veditabbā. Vikālabhojanasikkhāpadassa hi anāpattivāre yāmakālikādīnaṃ tiṇṇampi avisesena satipaccayatā vuttā. Imasmiṃ khandhake ’anujānāmi, bhikkhave, gilānassa guḷaṃ agilānassa guḷodakaṃ. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, gilānassa loṇasovīrakaṃ, agilānassa udakasambhinna’nti (mahāva. 273) vuttaṃ, tasmā siddhaṃ ’satipaccayatā gilānāgilānavasena duvidhā’ti, aññathā asati paccaye guḷodakādi āpajjati, tato ca pāḷivirodho. Āhāratthanti āhārapayojanaṃ, āhārakiccayāpananti atthoti ca. Telaparibhogenāti sattāhakālikaparibhogena. Piṭṭhehīti pisitatelehi. Koṭṭhaphalanti koṭṭharukkhassa phalaṃ, madanaphalaṃ vāti ca likhita”nti vuttaṃ.
In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 263), however, it is written: “Hiṅgujatu refers to that produced from the maturation of the trunk, shoots, twigs, and leaves of the hiṅgu tree. Hiṅgusipāṭika refers to that produced from the maturation of its roots and branches. Taka refers to the decoction of the bark of that tree. Takapatti refers to the decoction of its leaves. Takapaṇṇi refers to the decoction of its fruit. Alternatively, taka refers to lākhā, takapatti to artificial metal branches, and takapaṇṇi to matured lākhā.” The phrase sati paccaye (when there is a condition) should be understood in two ways: with respect to the sick and the non-sick. In the exemption section of the rule against eating at the wrong time, the conditionality of yāmakālika and so forth is stated without distinction for all three. In this section, it is said, “I allow you, bhikkhus, molasses for the sick and molasses-water for the non-sick. I allow you, bhikkhus, loṇasovīraka for the sick and water-mixed for the non-sick” (mahāva. 273). Thus, it is established that “conditionality is twofold: for the sick and the non-sick”; otherwise, without a condition, molasses-water and the like would incur an offense, leading to a contradiction with the text. Āhārattha means for the purpose of sustenance, for the function of maintaining life. Telaparibhogena means with use limited to seven days. Piṭṭhehi means with ground oils. Koṭṭhaphala refers to the fruit of the koṭṭha tree, also called madanaphala, as it is written.
However, in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 263) it is written: “Hiṅgujatu is that which is produced from the ripening of the stalk, sprout, and shoot of the asafoetida tree. Hiṅgusipāṭikā is that which is produced from the ripening of its root and branches. Taka is the water from the ripening of the bark of that tree. Takapattī is the water from the ripening of its leaves. Takapaṇṇī is the water from the ripening of its fruit. Or else, ‘taka’ is lac. Takapattī is the branch of the artificial metal. Takapaṇṇī is refined lac.” Here, “when there is a reason” should be understood in two ways, according to whether one is ill or not ill. Indeed, in the section on non-offenses in the training rule regarding untimely food, the condition of “when there is a reason” is stated without distinction for all three: medicines having time limit of one day and others. In this section, it is said, “I allow, monks, molasses for one who is ill, molasses water for one who is not ill. I allow, monks, salt and gruel for one who is ill, mixed with water for one who is not ill” (mahāva. 273). Therefore, it is established that ‘the condition of having a reason is twofold, according to illness and non-illness,’ otherwise molasses water, and so forth, would be an offense when there is no reason, and there would be a contradiction with the Pāḷi. Āhārattha means for the purpose of nutriment, meaning for the maintenance of the nutriment function. Telaparibhogenāti with the seven-day-allowable consumption. Piṭṭhehīti with the oils that are pressed. It is said that “Koṭṭhaphala means the fruit of the koṭṭha tree, or it is written as madana fruit.”
In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 263), it is stated: “Hiṅgujatu** refers to what is produced from the branches, twigs, and bark of the hiṅgu tree. Hiṅgusipāṭika refers to what is produced from its roots and branches. Taka refers to the bark water of that tree. Takapatti refers to the leaf water of that tree. Takapaṇṇa refers to the fruit water of that tree. Alternatively, taka refers to lac. Takapatti refers to the branches of the lac tree. Takapaṇṇa refers to ripe lac.” ”When there is a need”** here should be understood in two ways: for the sick and the healthy. In the rule on eating at the wrong time, the allowance for yāmakālika, etc., applies equally to all three. In this chapter, it is said, “I allow, monks, sugar for the sick and sugar water for the healthy. I allow, monks, salt soup for the sick and water mixed with salt for the healthy” (Mahāva. 273). Therefore, it is established that “the need is twofold: for the sick and the healthy.” Otherwise, using sugar water, etc., without a need would incur an offense, which contradicts the Pali. “For the purpose of food” means for the purpose of nourishment, or for the function of food. “With the use of oil” means with the use of oil for seven days. “With flour” means with ground oil. “Koṭṭhaphala” refers to the fruit of the koṭṭha tree or the madana fruit, as written.
ID1998
ID1999
Loṇabhesajjakathāyaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, loṇāni bhesajjāni sāmuddikaṃ kāḷaloṇaṃ sindhavaṃ ubbhidaṃ bilaṃ, yāni vā panaññānipi atthi loṇāni bhesajjāni neva khādanīye khādanīyatthaṃ pharanti, na bhojanīye bhojanīyatthaṃ pharanti, tāni paṭiggahetvā yāvajīvaṃ pariharituṃ, sati paccaye paribhuñjituṃ, asati paccaye paribhuñjantassa āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 263) vacanato tāni loṇāni paṭiggahetvā yāvajīvaṃ pariharituṃ, sati paccaye paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati. Tattha sāmuddanti samuddatīre vālukaṃ viya santiṭṭhati. Kāḷaloṇanti pakatiloṇaṃ. Sindhavanti setavaṇṇaṃ pabbate uṭṭhahati. Ubbhidanti bhūmito aṅkuraṃ viya uṭṭhahati. Bilanti dabbasambhārehi saddhiṃ pacitaṃ, taṃ rattavaṇṇaṃ. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.263) pana “ubbhidaṃ nāma ūsarapaṃsumaya”nti vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.263) pana “ubbhidanti ūsarapaṃsumayaṃ loṇaṃ. Bilanti loṇaviseso”ti vuttaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyampi tatheva vuttaṃ.
In the discussion on salt medicines, it is stated: “I allow you, bhikkhus, to use salts as medicines—sāmuddika, kāḷaloṇa, sindhava, ubbhida, bila, and any other salts that are medicines, which neither serve as food for eating nor as nourishment for sustenance. Having received them, you may keep them for life and use them when there is a condition; if used without a condition, it is an offense of dukkaṭa” (mahāva. 263). Thus, those salts may be received and kept for life, and it is permissible to use them when there is a condition. Here, sāmuddika refers to that which stands like sand on the seashore. Kāḷaloṇa refers to natural salt. Sindhava refers to the white salt that arises in mountains. Ubbhida refers to that which sprouts from the ground like a shoot. Bila refers to that cooked with ingredients, which is red in color. In the Sāratthadīpani (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.263), it is said: “Ubbhida refers to salt mixed with alkaline earth.” In the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.263), it is said: “Ubbhida refers to salt mixed with alkaline earth. Bila refers to a specific type of salt.” The Vajirabuddhiṭīkā states the same.
In the discussion on salt medicines, because it is said, “I allow, monks, salt medicines: sea salt, black salt, rock salt, ubbhida salt, biḷa salt, or whatever other salt medicines there may be that do not infuse savories with the purpose of savory, nor infuse staples with the purpose of staple. Having received them, one may keep them for life and use them when there is a reason; if one uses them when there is no reason, there is an offense of wrong-doing” (mahāva. 263), it is allowable to receive those salts, keep them for life, and use them when there is a reason. Here, sāmudda stands like sand on the seashore. Kāḷaloṇa is natural salt. Sindhava, white in color, arises in the mountains. Ubbhida arises from the ground like a sprout. Biḷa is cooked together with medicinal ingredients; it is red in color. However, in the Sāratthadīpani (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.263) it is said, “Ubbhida is made of salt-earth dust.” In the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.263) it is said, “Ubbhida is salt made of salt-earth dust. Biḷa is a special kind of salt.” In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā also, it is said the same.
In the discussion on salt medicines, “I allow, monks, medicinal salts such as sāmuddika, kāḷaloṇa, sindhava, ubbhida, bila, and any other salts that are medicinal, which do not serve the purpose of being chewed or eaten as food. These may be accepted and kept for a lifetime, to be used when there is a need. If used without a need, the offense is a dukkaṭa” (Mahāva. 263). Thus, those salts may be accepted and kept for a lifetime, and used when there is a need. Here, sāmuddika refers to what is found on the seashore, like sand. Kāḷaloṇa refers to natural salt. Sindhava refers to white salt that arises in the mountains. Ubbhida refers to what arises from the ground like a sprout. Bila refers to what is cooked with grass materials, and it is red in color. In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.263), it is stated: “Ubbhida** refers to salt made from saline soil.” In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.263), it is stated: ”Ubbhida** refers to salt made from saline soil. Bila refers to a type of salt.” The same is stated in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā.
ID2000
ID2001
Cuṇṇakathāyaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, yassa kaṇḍu vā pīḷakā vā assāvo vā thullakacchu vā ābādho kāyo vā duggandho cuṇṇāni bhesajjāni, agilānassa chakaṇaṃ mattikaṃ rajananippakkaṃ. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, udukkhalaṃ musala”nti (mahāva. 264). “Kāyo vā duggandhoti kassaci assādīnaṃ viya kāyagandho hoti, tassapi sirīsakosumbādicuṇṇāni vā gandhacuṇṇāni vā sabbāni vaṭṭanti. Chakaṇanti gomayaṃ. Rajananippakkanti rajanakasaṭaṃ, pākatikacuṇṇampi koṭṭetvā udakena temetvā nhāyituṃ vaṭṭati, etampi rajananippakkasaṅkhameva gacchatī”ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 264) vuttaṃ. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.264) pana “chakaṇanti gomayaṃ. Pākatikacuṇṇaṃ nāma apakkakasāvacuṇṇaṃ. Tena ṭhapetvā gandhacuṇṇaṃ sabbaṃ vaṭṭatīti vadantī”ti vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyampi (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.264-265) “chakaṇanti gomayaṃ. Pākatikacuṇṇanti apakkakasāvacuṇṇaṃ, gandhacuṇṇaṃ pana na vaṭṭatī”ti vuttaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyampi (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 264) “chakaṇanti gomayaṃ. Pākatikacuṇṇaṃ nāma apakkakasāvacuṇṇaṃ. Tena ṭhapetvā gandhacuṇṇaṃ sabbaṃ vaṭṭatīti vadantī”ti vuttaṃ. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, cuṇṇacālini”nti (mahāva. 264) vacanato gilānānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ cuṇṇehi bhesajjehi cālitehi atthe sati cuṇṇacālinī vaṭṭati. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, dussacālini”nti (mahāva. 264) vacanato saṇhehi cuṇṇehi atthe sati dussacālinī vaṭṭati . “Cuṇṇacālininti udukkhale koṭṭitacuṇṇaparissāvani”nti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.264-265) vuttaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyampi (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 264) “cālitehīti parissāvitehī”ti vuttaṃ.
In the discussion on powders, it is stated: “I allow you, bhikkhus, for one who has itching, sores, discharge, gross leprosy, or an affliction, or whose body is foul-smelling, to use medicinal powders; for the non-sick, chakaṇa, mattika, and rajananippakka. I allow you, bhikkhus, a mortar and pestle” (mahāva. 264). “Kāyo vā duggandho means that some have a body odor like that of discharge and the like; for them, powders such as sirīsa, kosumba, or fragrant powders—all are permissible. Chakaṇa refers to cow dung. Rajananippakka refers to dye residue; even natural powder, when pounded, moistened with water, and used for bathing, is permissible and falls under the category of rajananippakka,” as stated in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 264). In the Sāratthadīpani (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.264), it is said: “Chakaṇa refers to cow dung. Pākatikacuṇṇa refers to unprocessed kāsa powder. They say that except for fragrant powders, all are permissible.” In the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.264-265), it is said: “Chakaṇa refers to cow dung. Pākatikacuṇṇa refers to unprocessed kāsa powder, but fragrant powder is not permissible.” In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 264), it is said: “Chakaṇa refers to cow dung. Pākatikacuṇṇa refers to unprocessed kāsa powder. They say that except for fragrant powders, all are permissible.” From the statement “I allow you, bhikkhus, a powder sieve” (mahāva. 264), a powder sieve is permissible for sick bhikkhus when there is a need for sifted medicinal powders. From the statement “I allow you, bhikkhus, a cloth sieve” (mahāva. 264), a cloth sieve is permissible when there is a need for fine powders. “Cuṇṇacālini refers to a filter for powder pounded in a mortar,” as stated in the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.264-265). In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 264), it is said: “Cālitehi means sifted.”
In the discussion on powders, “I allow, monks, for one who has itching, or eruptions, or a discharge, or a severe skin disease, or whose body has a foul odor, medicinal powders; for one who is not ill, cow dung, clay, and dye-free powder. I allow, monks, a mortar and pestle” (mahāva. 264). “Kāyo vā duggandhoti If someone has a body odor like that of horses and so forth, for him all powders of sirīsa, kosumba, and so on, or perfumed powders are allowable. Chakaṇa means cow dung. Rajananippakka means dye sediment; even natural powder, after being ground and moistened with water, is allowable for bathing; this also comes under the category of dye-free powder,” it is said in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 264). However, in the Sāratthadīpani (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.264), it is said, “Chakaṇa means cow dung. Pākatikacuṇṇaṃ means powder of unprepared astringents. With that, they say that all perfumed powder is allowable, having set it apart.” In the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.264-265) also, it is said, “Chakaṇa means cow dung. Pākatikacuṇṇa means powder of unprepared astringents; but perfumed powder is not allowable.” In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 264) also, it is said, “Chakaṇa means cow dung. Pākatikacuṇṇaṃ means powder of unprepared astringents. With that, they say that all perfumed powder is allowable, having set it apart.” Because it is said, “I allow, monks, a powder-sieve” (mahāva. 264), for sick monks, when there is a need for medicines strained with powders, a powder-sieve is allowable. Because it is said, “I allow, monks, a cloth-sieve” (mahāva. 264), when there is a need for fine powders, a cloth-sieve is allowable. In the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.264-265) it is said, “Cuṇṇacālini means a strainer for powders ground in a mortar.” In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 264) also, it is said, “Cālitehī means with those that are strained.”
In the discussion on powders, “I allow, monks, medicinal powders for those who have itching, boils, ulcers, scabies, or a foul-smelling body. For the healthy, I allow cow dung, clay, and rajananippakka. I allow, monks, a mortar and pestle” (Mahāva. 264). “A foul-smelling body” refers to someone whose body smells like that of a horse, etc. For such a person, powders such as sirīsa, kosumbha, or fragrant powders are allowed. “Cow dung” refers to cow manure. “Rajananippakka” refers to rajanakasaṭa. Even ordinary powder, when ground and mixed with water, may be used for bathing, and this is also considered rajananippakka. In the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 264), it is stated: “Cow dung” refers to cow manure. “Ordinary powder” refers to unprocessed powder. Except for fragrant powder, all other powders are allowed.” In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.264), it is stated: “Cow dung” refers to cow manure. “Ordinary powder” refers to unprocessed powder. Except for fragrant powder, all other powders are allowed.” In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.264-265), it is stated: “Cow dung” refers to cow manure. “Ordinary powder” refers to unprocessed powder, but fragrant powder is not allowed.” In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 264), it is stated: “Cow dung” refers to cow manure. “Ordinary powder” refers to unprocessed powder. Except for fragrant powder, all other powders are allowed.” “I allow, monks, a powder sieve” (Mahāva. 264). Thus, when there is a need for sick monks to sift medicinal powders, a powder sieve is allowed. “I allow, monks, a cloth sieve” (Mahāva. 264). Thus, when there is a need to sift fine powders, a cloth sieve is allowed. “Powder sieve” refers to a sieve for sifting powder ground in a mortar, as stated in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.264-265). In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 264), it is stated: “Sifted” means sieved.
ID2002
ID2003
Amanussikābādhakathāyaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, amanussikābādhe āmakamaṃsaṃ āmakamaṃsalohita”nti (mahāva. 264) vacanato yassa bhikkhuno āmakamaṃsaṃ khāditassa āmakalohitaṃ pivitassa so amanussābādho paṭippassambhati, tassa anāpatti. Tattha āmakamaṃsañca khādi, āmakalohitañca pivīti na taṃ bhikkhu khādi, na pivi, amanusso khāditvā ca pivitvā ca pakkanto. Tena vuttaṃ “tassa so amanussikābādho paṭippassambhī”ti.
In the discussion on non-human afflictions, it is stated: “I allow you, bhikkhus, in a non-human affliction, raw meat and raw blood” (mahāva. 264). Thus, for a bhikkhu whose non-human affliction subsides after eating raw meat or drinking raw blood, there is no offense. Here, “he ate raw meat and drank raw blood” does not mean the bhikkhu ate or drank; rather, the non-human entity ate and drank and then departed. Hence, it is said: “that non-human affliction subsided for him.”
In the discussion on afflictions by non-humans, because it is said, “I allow, monks, in the case of affliction by non-humans, raw meat and raw blood” (mahāva. 264), if that affliction by non-humans of a monk subsides by eating raw meat and drinking raw blood, there is no offense for him. Here, āmakamaṃsañca khādi, āmakalohitañca pivīti the monk did not eat it, nor did he drink; the non-human ate and drank and then departed. Therefore, it is said, “that affliction by non-humans of his subsided.”
In the discussion on non-human afflictions, “I allow, monks, raw meat and raw blood for non-human afflictions” (Mahāva. 264). Thus, if a monk eats raw meat or drinks raw blood and his non-human affliction subsides, there is no offense. Here, “he eats raw meat and drinks raw blood” does not mean that the monk eats or drinks it; rather, the non-human being eats and drinks it and then departs. Therefore, it is said, “his non-human affliction subsides.”
ID2004
ID2005
Añjanakathāyaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, añjanaṃ kāḷañjanaṃ rasañjanaṃ sotañjanaṃ gerukaṃ kapalla”nti (mahāva. 265) vacanato bhikkhūnaṃ cakkhuroge sati añjanādīni vaṭṭanti. Tattha “añjananti sabbasaṅgāhikavacanametaṃ. Kāḷañjananti ekā añjanajāti. Rasañjananti nānāsambhārehi kataṃ. Sotañjananti nadīsotādīsu uppajjanakaañjanaṃ. Geruko nāma suvaṇṇageruko. Kapallanti dīpasikhato gahitamasī”ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 264) vuttaṃ. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.265) “suvaṇṇagerukoti suvaṇṇatutthādī”ti vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyampi (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.264-265) tatheva vuttaṃ. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, candanaṃ tagaraṃ kāḷānusāriyaṃ tālīsaṃ bhaddamuttaka”nti (mahāva. 265) vacanato añjanūpapisanehi atthe sati imāni candanādīni vaṭṭanti. Tattha “candananti lohitacandanādikaṃ yaṃ kiñci candanaṃ. Tagarādīni pākaṭāni. Aññānipi nīluppalādīni vaṭṭantiyeva. Añjanūpapisanehīti añjanehi saddhiṃ ekato pisitabbehi. Na hi kiñci añjanūpapisanaṃ na vaṭṭatī”ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 264) ṭīkāyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.265) pana “añjanūpapisananti añjanatthāya upapisitabbaṃ yaṃ kiñci cuṇṇajātī”ti vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.264-265) pana “pāḷiyaṃ añjanūpapisananti añjane upanetuṃ pisitabbabhesajja”nti vuttaṃ.
In the discussion on ointments, it is stated: “I allow you, bhikkhus, ointments—kāḷañjana, rasañjana, sotañjana, geruka, kapalla” (mahāva. 265). Thus, ointments and the like are permissible for bhikkhus when there is an eye disease. Here, “añjana is a general term. Kāḷañjana refers to one type of ointment. Rasañjana refers to that made with various ingredients. Sotañjana refers to ointment produced from river streams and the like. Geruka refers to golden geruka. Kapalla refers to soot taken from a lamp flame,” as stated in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 264). In the Sāratthadīpani (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.265), it is said: “suvaṇṇageruka refers to golden tuttha and the like.” The Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.264-265) states the same. From the statement “I allow you, bhikkhus, candana, tagara, kāḷānusāriya, tālīsa, bhaddamuttaka” (mahāva. 265), these—candana and the like—are permissible when there is a need for ointment bases. Here, “candana refers to red sandalwood or any kind of sandalwood. Tagara and the like are well-known. Other things like blue water lilies are also permissible. Añjanūpapisanehi means to be ground together with ointments. Indeed, no ointment base is impermissible,” as stated in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 264). In the subcommentary (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.265), it is said: “añjanūpapisana refers to any type of powder to be ground for the sake of ointment.” In the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.264-265), it is said: “In the text, añjanūpapisana refers to medicines to be ground and applied with ointment.”
In the discussion on eye-salve, because it is said, “I allow, monks, eye-salve: black eye-salve, prepared eye-salve, river-source eye-salve, yellow orpiment, lampblack” (mahāva. 265), when monks have eye diseases, eye-salve, and so forth, are allowable. Here, “añjana is a term that encompasses everything. Kāḷañjana is a kind of eye-salve. Rasañjana is made with various ingredients. Sotañjana is an eye-salve that arises in river sources and so on. Geruko is golden yellow orpiment. Kapalla is soot taken from the flame of a lamp,” it is said in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 264). In the Sāratthadīpani (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.265), it is said, “Suvaṇṇageruko means golden tuttha and so forth.” In the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.264-265) also, it is said the same. Because it is said, “I allow, monks, sandalwood, tagara, black kāḷānusāriya, tālīsa, bhaddamuttaka” (mahāva. 265), when there is a need for substances to be ground with the eye-salve, these sandalwood, and so forth, are allowable. Here, “candana means any kind of sandalwood, such as red sandalwood. Tagarādīni are well-known. Others, like blue water lilies, are also allowable. Añjanūpapisanehīti with the substances to be ground together with the eye-salves. Indeed, there is nothing to be ground with eye-salve that is not allowable,” it is said in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 264). However in the commentary (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.265), it is said, “Añjanūpapisana means any kind of powder substance that is to be ground up for the purpose of eye-salve.” In the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.264-265), it is said in the Pāḷi, “Añjanūpapisana means medicine to be ground to be applied to the eye-salve.”
In the discussion on eye ointments, “I allow, monks, eye ointments such as kāḷañjana, rasañjana, sotañjana, geruka, and kapalla” (Mahāva. 265). Thus, when monks have eye diseases, these ointments are allowed. Here, “añjana” is a general term. “Kāḷañjana” is a type of ointment. “Rasañjana” is made from various ingredients. “Sotañjana” is produced in river streams. “Geruka” refers to yellow ochre. “Kapalla” refers to soot taken from a lamp wick, as stated in the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 264). In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.265), it is stated: “Yellow ochre” refers to yellow minerals. The same is stated in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.264-265). “I allow, monks, sandalwood, tagara, kāḷānusāriya, tālīsa, and bhaddamuttaka” (Mahāva. 265). Thus, when there is a need for ointments, these substances are allowed. Here, “sandalwood” refers to red sandalwood, etc. “Tagara, etc.” are well-known. Other substances such as blue lotus are also allowed. “For use with ointments” means to be ground together with ointments. There is no substance that cannot be used with ointments, as stated in the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 264). In the ṭīkā (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.265), it is stated: “For use with ointments” refers to any powdered substance to be mixed with ointments. In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.264-265), it is stated: “For use with ointments” refers to medicinal substances to be mixed with ointments.
ID2006
“Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, añjani”nti (mahāva. 265) vacanato añjanaṭhapanaṭṭhānaṃ vaṭṭati. “Na, bhikkhave, uccāvacā añjanī dhāretabbā, yo dhāreyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, aṭṭhimayaṃ dantamayaṃ visāṇamayaṃ naḷamayaṃ veḷumayaṃ kaṭṭhamayaṃ jatumayaṃ lohamayaṃ saṅkhanābhimaya”nti (mahāva. 265) vacanato etāni kappiyāni. Tattha aṭṭhimayanti manussaṭṭhiṃ ṭhapetvā avasesaaṭṭhimayaṃ. Dantamayanti hatthidantādisabbadantamayaṃ. Visāṇamayepi akappiyaṃ nāma natthi. Naḷamayādayo ekantakappiyāyeva.
From the statement “I allow you, bhikkhus, an ointment container” (mahāva. 265), a place for storing ointment is permissible. From the statement “Bhikkhus, various ointment containers should not be used; one who uses them commits an offense of dukkaṭa. I allow you, bhikkhus, those made of bone, ivory, horn, reed, bamboo, wood, resin, metal, and conch shell” (mahāva. 265), these are permissible materials. Here, aṭṭhimaya refers to anything made of bone except human bone. Dantamaya refers to anything made of ivory, including elephant tusks and all others. Even in visāṇamaya, there is nothing impermissible. Naḷamaya and the like are entirely permissible.
Because it is said, “I allow, monks, an eye-salve container” (mahāva. 265), a receptacle for storing eye-salve is allowable. Because it is said, “Monks, elaborate eye-salve containers are not to be kept; whoever should keep one, there is an offense of wrong-doing. I allow, monks, [those] made of bone, made of ivory, made of horn, made of reed, made of bamboo, made of wood, made of resin, made of metal, made of conch shell” (mahāva. 265), these are allowable. Here, aṭṭhimaya means made of bone, excluding human bone. Dantamaya means made of all ivory, such as elephant tusk. In the case of Visāṇamayepi, there is nothing that is unallowable. Naḷamayādayo are completely allowable.
“I allow, monks, an ointment container” (Mahāva. 265). Thus, a place to store ointments is allowed. “Monks, ornate ointment containers should not be used. Whoever uses one commits a dukkaṭa offense. I allow, monks, containers made of bone, ivory, horn, reed, bamboo, wood, lac, metal, or conch shell” (Mahāva. 265). Thus, these are allowable. Here, “bone” refers to any bone except human bone. “Ivory” refers to elephant tusks, etc. “Horn” also has no unallowable types. “Reed, etc.” are entirely allowable.
ID2007
“Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, apidhāna”nti (mahāva. 265) vacanato añjanīapidhānampi vaṭṭati. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, suttakena bandhitvā añjaniyā bandhitu”nti (mahāva. 265) vacanato apidhānaṃ suttakena bandhitvā añjaniyā bandhitabbaṃ. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, suttakena sibbetu”nti (mahāva. 265) vacanato apatanatthāya añjanīsuttakena sibbetuṃ vaṭṭati. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, añjanisalāka”nti (mahāva. 265) vacanato añjanisalākampi vaṭṭati. “Na, bhikkhave, uccāvacā añjanisalākā dhāretabbā, yo dhāreyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, aṭṭhimayaṃ…pe… saṅkhanābhimaya”nti (mahāva. 265) vacanato etāyeva añjanisalākā vaṭṭanti. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, salākaṭṭhāniya”nti (mahāva. 265) vacanato añjanisalākaṭṭhāniyampi vaṭṭati. Tattha salākaṭṭhāniyanti yattha salākaṃ odahanti, taṃ susiradaṇḍakaṃ vā thavikaṃ vā anujānāmīti attho. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, añjanitthavika”nti (mahāva. 265) vacanato thavikampi vaṭṭati. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, aṃsabaddhakaṃ bandhanasuttaka”nti (mahāva. 265) vacanato añjanitthavikāya aṃse lagganatthāya aṃsabaddhakampi bandhanasuttakampi vaṭṭati.
From the statement “I allow you, bhikkhus, a lid” (mahāva. 265), a lid for the ointment container is also permissible. From the statement “I allow you, bhikkhus, to tie it to the ointment container with a thread” (mahāva. 265), the lid should be tied to the ointment container with a thread. From the statement “I allow you, bhikkhus, to sew it with a thread” (mahāva. 265), sewing the ointment container with a thread to prevent it from falling is permissible. From the statement “I allow you, bhikkhus, an ointment stick” (mahāva. 265), an ointment stick is also permissible. From the statement “Bhikkhus, various ointment sticks should not be used; one who uses them commits an offense of dukkaṭa. I allow you, bhikkhus, those made of bone… up to conch shell” (mahāva. 265), only these ointment sticks are permissible. From the statement “I allow you, bhikkhus, a holder for the stick” (mahāva. 265), a holder for the ointment stick is also permissible. Here, salākaṭṭhāniya refers to where the stick is placed, meaning a hollow rod or a pouch, as I allow it. From the statement “I allow you, bhikkhus, an ointment pouch” (mahāva. 265), a pouch is also permissible. From the statement “I allow you, bhikkhus, a shoulder strap and a tying thread” (mahāva. 265), a shoulder strap and a tying thread for attaching the ointment pouch to the shoulder are permissible.
Because it is said, “I allow, monks, a lid” (mahāva. 265), a lid for the eye-salve container is also allowable. Because it is said, “I allow, monks, to tie the eye-salve container with a string” (mahāva. 265), the lid should be tied to the eye-salve container with a string. Because it is said, “I allow, monks, to sew it with a string” (mahāva. 265), it is allowable to sew the eye-salve container with a string to prevent it from falling. Because it is said, “I allow, monks, an eye-salve applicator” (mahāva. 265), an eye-salve applicator is also allowable. Because it is said, “Monks, elaborate eye-salve applicators are not to be kept; whoever should keep one, there is an offense of wrong-doing. I allow, monks, [those] made of bone…(as before)… made of conch shell” (mahāva. 265), these same eye-salve applicators are allowable. Because it is said, “I allow, monks, an applicator holder” (mahāva. 265), an applicator holder is also allowable. Here, salākaṭṭhāniya means, I allow a hollow tube or a pouch where the applicator is placed, that is the meaning. Because it is said, “I allow, monks, an eye-salve pouch” (mahāva. 265), a pouch is also allowable. Because it is said, “I allow, monks, a shoulder strap, a tying string” (mahāva. 265), a shoulder strap and a tying string for attaching the eye-salve pouch to the shoulder are also allowable.
“I allow, monks, a lid” (Mahāva. 265). Thus, a lid for an ointment container is allowed. “I allow, monks, to tie the lid with a string” (Mahāva. 265). Thus, the lid should be tied with a string. “I allow, monks, to sew with a string” (Mahāva. 265). Thus, a string may be used to sew the ointment container. “I allow, monks, an ointment stick” (Mahāva. 265). Thus, an ointment stick is allowed. “Monks, ornate ointment sticks should not be used. Whoever uses one commits a dukkaṭa offense. I allow, monks, sticks made of bone… conch shell” (Mahāva. 265). Thus, these are allowable. “I allow, monks, a stick holder” (Mahāva. 265). Thus, a holder for the ointment stick is allowed. Here, “stick holder” refers to a place to insert the stick, such as a hollow tube or a small box. “I allow, monks, an ointment box” (Mahāva. 265). Thus, a small box is allowed. “I allow, monks, a shoulder strap and a tying string” (Mahāva. 265). Thus, a shoulder strap and a tying string for the ointment box are allowed.
ID2008
ID2009
Natthukathāyaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, muddhani telaka”nti (mahāva. 266) vacanato sīsābhitāpassa bhikkhuno muddhani telaṃ vaṭṭati. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, natthukamma”nti (mahāva. 266) vacanato nakkhamanīye sati natthukammaṃ vaṭṭati. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, natthukaraṇi”nti (mahāva. 266) vacanato natthuyā agaḷanatthaṃ natthukaraṇī vaṭṭati. “Na, bhikkhave, uccāvacā natthukaraṇī dhāretabbā, yo dhāreyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, aṭṭhimayaṃ…pe… saṅkhanābhimaya”nti (mahāva. 266) vacanato etāyeva natthukaraṇiyo vaṭṭanti. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, yamakanatthukaraṇi”nti (mahāva. 266) vacanato natthu visamaṃ āsiñcayanti ce, yamakanatthukaraṇiṃ dhāretabbaṃ. Tattha yamakanatthukaraṇinti samaso tāhi dvīhi panāḷikāhi ekaṃ natthukaraṇiṃ.
In the discussion on nasal treatment, it is stated: “I allow you, bhikkhus, oil on the head” (mahāva. 266). Thus, oil on the head is permissible for a bhikkhu with a headache. From the statement “I allow you, bhikkhus, nasal treatment” (mahāva. 266), nasal treatment is permissible when it is tolerable. From the statement “I allow you, bhikkhus, a nasal applicator” (mahāva. 266), a nasal applicator is permissible to prevent dripping from the nose. From the statement “Bhikkhus, various nasal applicators should not be used; one who uses them commits an offense of dukkaṭa. I allow you, bhikkhus, those made of bone… up to conch shell” (mahāva. 266), only these nasal applicators are permissible. From the statement “I allow you, bhikkhus, a paired nasal applicator” (mahāva. 266), if the nasal application is unevenly poured, a paired nasal applicator should be used. Here, yamakanatthukaraṇi refers to a single nasal applicator made of two equal tubes.
In the discussion on nasal medication, because it is said, “I allow, monks, oil on the head” (mahāva. 266), for a monk afflicted in the head, oil on the head is allowable. Because it is said, “I allow, monks, nasal medication” (mahāva. 266), when there is a need for inhalation, nasal medication is allowable. Because it is said, “I allow, monks, a nasal applicator” (mahāva. 266), a nasal applicator is allowable to prevent the nasal medication from running out. Because it is said, “Monks, elaborate nasal applicators are not to be kept; whoever should keep one, there is an offense of wrong-doing. I allow, monks, [those] made of bone…(as before)… made of conch shell” (mahāva. 266), these same nasal applicators are allowable. Because it is said, “I allow, monks, a double nasal applicator” (mahāva. 266), if they administer the nasal medication unevenly, a double nasal applicator should be kept. Here, yamakanatthukaraṇi means one nasal applicator with two tubes even with them.
In the discussion on nose drops, “I allow, monks, oil for the head” (Mahāva. 266). Thus, oil for the head is allowed for a monk suffering from a headache. “I allow, monks, nose drops” (Mahāva. 266). Thus, when there is a need to clear the nose, nose drops are allowed. “I allow, monks, a nose drop applicator” (Mahāva. 266). Thus, a nose drop applicator is allowed to prevent the drops from falling. “Monks, ornate nose drop applicators should not be used. Whoever uses one commits a dukkaṭa offense. I allow, monks, applicators made of bone… conch shell” (Mahāva. 266). Thus, these are allowable. “I allow, monks, a double nose drop applicator” (Mahāva. 266). Thus, if the nose drops are unevenly applied, a double nose drop applicator should be used. Here, “double nose drop applicator” refers to a single applicator with two tubes.
ID2010
ID2011
Dhūmanettakathāyaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, dhūmaṃ pātu”nti (mahāva. 266) vacanato yamakanatthukaraṇiyā nakkhamanīye sati dhūmaṃ pātuṃ vaṭṭati. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, dhūmanetta”nti (mahāva. 266) vacanato tameva vaṭṭiṃ ālimbetvā pivanapaccayā kaṇṭhe dahantena dhūmanettadhūmo pivitabbo. “Na, bhikkhave, uccāvacāni dhūmanettāni dhāretabbāni, yo dhāreyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, aṭṭhimayaṃ…pe… saṅkhanābhimaya”nti (mahāva. 266) vacanato etāni eva dhūmanettāni dhāretabbāni. “Anujānāmi , bhikkhave, apidhāna”nti (mahāva. 266) vacanato pāṇakādiappavisanatthaṃ dhūmanettatthavikampi vaṭṭati. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, yamakatthavika”nti (mahāva. 266) vacanato ekato ghaṃsiyamāne sati yamakatthavikaṃ vaṭṭati. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, aṃsabaddhakaṃ bandhanasuttaka”nti (mahāva. 266) vacanato dhūmanettatthavikassa aṃsabaddhabandhanasuttaṃ vaṭṭati.
In the discussion on smoke inhalation, it is stated: “I allow you, bhikkhus, to inhale smoke” (mahāva. 266). Thus, when a paired nasal applicator is not tolerable, it is permissible to inhale smoke. From the statement “I allow you, bhikkhus, a smoke tube” (mahāva. 266), smoke from a smoke tube, lit with a wick and burning the throat as a condition for drinking, should be inhaled. From the statement “Bhikkhus, various smoke tubes should not be used; one who uses them commits an offense of dukkaṭa. I allow you, bhikkhus, those made of bone… up to conch shell” (mahāva. 266), only these smoke tubes should be used. From the statement “I allow you, bhikkhus, a lid” (mahāva. 266), a lid for the smoke tube is permissible to prevent insects and the like from entering. From the statement “I allow you, bhikkhus, a paired pouch” (mahāva. 266), when one side is rubbed, a paired pouch is permissible. From the statement “I allow you, bhikkhus, a shoulder strap and a tying thread” (mahāva. 266), a shoulder strap and a tying thread for the smoke tube pouch are permissible.
In the account of the smoking pipe, because of the statement, “I allow, monks, the smoking of tobacco” (mahāva. 266), it is permissible to smoke tobacco when there is a double-ended nasal inhaler and when it is fit for nasal administration. Because of the statement, “I allow, monks, a smoking pipe” (mahāva. 266), one should smoke the tobacco smoke through a smoking pipe, with the burning at the throat due to the cause of smoking that same wick after lighting it. Because of the statement, “Monks, various smoking pipes should not be kept; whoever should keep them, there is an offense of wrong-doing. I allow, monks, one made of bone…etc… made of conch shell” (mahāva. 266), only these smoking pipes should be kept. Because of the statement, “I allow, monks, a lid” (mahāva. 266), a container for the smoking pipe is also permissible to prevent the entry of insects and other things. Because of the statement, “I allow, monks, a double-ended container” (mahāva. 266), a double-ended container is permissible when it is rubbed on one side. Because of the statement, “I allow, monks, a shoulder strap, a binding string” (mahāva. 266), a binding string for the shoulder strap of the smoking pipe container is permissible.
In the discussion on the smoke tube, the statement, “I allow, monks, the inhalation of smoke” (Mahāva. 266), means that it is permissible to inhale smoke when there is a need to expel a worm. The statement, “I allow, monks, the smoke tube” (Mahāva. 266), means that after applying the wick, one should inhale the smoke from the smoke tube, which may cause a burning sensation in the throat. The statement, “Monks, various types of smoke tubes should not be used; whoever uses them commits an offense of wrong-doing. I allow, monks, smoke tubes made of bone…pe… made of conch shell” (Mahāva. 266), means that only these types of smoke tubes are permissible. The statement, “I allow, monks, a cover” (Mahāva. 266), means that a cover for the smoke tube is permissible to prevent insects from entering. The statement, “I allow, monks, a double pouch” (Mahāva. 266), means that when the tube is being carried, a double pouch is permissible. The statement, “I allow, monks, a shoulder strap and a tying cord” (Mahāva. 266), means that a shoulder strap and tying cord for the smoke tube pouch are permissible.
ID2012
ID2013
Telapākakathāyaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, telapāka”nti (mahāva. 267) vacanato vātābādhe sati telapāko vaṭṭati. Tattha anujānāmi, bhikkhave, telapākanti yaṃ kiñci bhesajjapakkhittaṃ sabbaṃ anuññātameva hoti. “Na, bhikkhave, atipakkhittamajjaṃ telaṃ pātabbaṃ, yo piveyya, yathādhammo kāretabbo. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, yasmiṃ telapāke majjassa na vaṇṇo na gandho na raso paññāyati, evarūpaṃ majjapakkhittaṃ telaṃ pātu”nti (mahāva. 267) vacanato yasmiṃ telapāke pakkhittassa majjassa vaṇṇo vā gandho vā raso vā na paññāyati, tādisaṃ telaṃ pivitabbaṃ. Tattha atipakkhittamajjānīti ativiya khittamajjāni, bahuṃ majjaṃ pakkhipitvā yojitānīti attho. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, abbhañjanaṃ adhiṭṭhātu”nti (mahāva. 267) vacanato atipakkhittamajjattā apivitabbe tele sati abbhañjanaṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ vaṭṭati. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, tīṇi tumbāni lohatumbaṃ kaṭṭhatumbaṃ phalatumba”nti (mahāva. 267) vacanato telapakkabhājanāni imāni tīṇi tumbāni vaṭṭanti.
In the discussion on oil decoction, it is stated: “I allow you, bhikkhus, an oil decoction” (mahāva. 267). Thus, an oil decoction is permissible when there is a wind affliction. Here, “I allow you, bhikkhus, an oil decoction” means that anything mixed with medicine is entirely permitted. From the statement “Bhikkhus, oil excessively mixed with alcohol should not be drunk; one who drinks it should be dealt with according to the rule. I allow you, bhikkhus, to drink oil mixed with alcohol in which the color, smell, and taste of the alcohol are not discernible” (mahāva. 267), such oil in which the color, smell, or taste of the mixed alcohol is not discernible should be drunk. Here, atipakkhittamajjāni means excessively mixed with alcohol, prepared with a large amount of alcohol added. From the statement “I allow you, bhikkhus, to apply it externally” (mahāva. 267), when oil excessively mixed with alcohol should not be drunk, it is permissible to apply it externally. From the statement “I allow you, bhikkhus, three containers: a metal container, a wooden container, and a fruit container” (mahāva. 267), these three containers are permissible for holding the oil decoction.
In the account of oil cooking, because of the statement, “I allow, monks, the cooking of oil” (mahāva. 267), oil cooking is permissible when there is a wind ailment. Here, “I allow, monks, oil cooking”, whatever is included as medicine, all of that is allowed. Because of the statement, “Monks, oil with excessive alcohol should not be drunk; whoever should drink it, he should be dealt with according to the rule. I allow, monks, that oil cooked with alcohol in which the color, smell, or taste of the alcohol is not discernible, such oil with alcohol added may be drunk” (mahāva. 267), oil in which the color, smell, or taste of the added alcohol is not discernible in the cooked oil, such oil should be drunk. Here, excessively infused with alcohol, means exceedingly infused with alcohol, it means prepared by adding a large quantity of alcohol. Because of the statement, “I allow, monks, to authorize anointing” (mahāva. 267), when the oil is not to be drunk due to excessive alcohol infusion, it is permissible to authorize anointing. Because of the statement, “I allow, monks, three gourds: a metal gourd, a wooden gourd, a fruit gourd” (mahāva. 267), these three gourds are permissible as containers for cooked oil.
In the discussion on oil preparation, the statement, “I allow, monks, oil preparation” (Mahāva. 267), means that oil preparation is permissible when there is a wind disorder. Here, “I allow, monks, oil preparation” means that any medicine mixed with oil is permitted. The statement, “Monks, oil mixed with an excessive amount of intoxicants should not be consumed; whoever consumes it should be dealt with according to the rule. I allow, monks, oil mixed with intoxicants in such a way that the color, smell, or taste of the intoxicant is not discernible” (Mahāva. 267), means that oil in which the mixed intoxicant’s color, smell, or taste is not discernible may be consumed. Here, “excessively mixed with intoxicants” means mixed with a large amount of intoxicants, prepared with an excessive quantity of intoxicants. The statement, “I allow, monks, to apply an ointment” (Mahāva. 267), means that when oil mixed with intoxicants cannot be consumed, it is permissible to apply it as an ointment. The statement, “I allow, monks, three types of containers: a metal container, a wooden container, and a fruit container” (Mahāva. 267), means that these three types of containers are permissible for holding oil preparations.
ID2014
ID2015
Sedakammakathāyaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, sedakamma”nti (mahāva. 267) vacanato aṅgavāte sati sedakammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati . Tattha aṅgavātoti hatthapāde vāto. Nakkhamanīyo hoti, “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, sambhāraseda”nti (mahāva. 267) vacanato sedakammena nakkhamanīye sati sambhārasedaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Tattha sambhārasedanti nānāvidhapaṇṇasambhārasedaṃ. Nakkhamanīyo hoti, “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, mahāseda”nti (mahāva. 267) vacanato sambhārasedanakkhamanīye sati mahāsedaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Tattha mahāsedanti mahantaṃ sedaṃ, porisappamāṇaṃ āvāṭaṃ aṅgārānaṃ pūretvā paṃsuvālikādīhi pidahitvā tattha nānāvidhāni vātaharaṇapaṇṇāni santharitvā telamakkhitena gattena tattha nipajjitvā samparivattantena sarīraṃ sedetuṃ anujānāmīti attho. Nakkhamanīyo hoti, “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, bhaṅgodaka”nti (mahāva. 267) vacanato mahāsedena nakkhamanīye sati bhaṅgodakaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Tattha bhaṅgodakanti nānāpaṇṇabhaṅgakuthitaṃ udakaṃ, tehi paṇṇehi ca udakena ca siñcitvā siñcitvā sedetabbo. Nakkhamanīyo hoti, “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, udakakoṭṭhaka”nti (mahāva. 267) vacanato bhaṅgodakena nakkhamanīye sati udakakoṭṭhakaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Tattha udakakoṭṭhakanti udakakoṭṭhe cāṭiṃ vā doṇiṃ vā uṇhodakassa pūretvā tattha pavisitvā sedakammakaraṇaṃ anujānāmīti attho.
In the discussion on sweating treatment, it is stated: “I allow you, bhikkhus, a sweating treatment” (mahāva. 267). Thus, a sweating treatment is permissible when there is a wind affliction in the limbs. Here, aṅgavāta refers to wind in the hands or feet. When it is not tolerable, from the statement “I allow you, bhikkhus, a herbal sweating treatment” (mahāva. 267), a herbal sweating treatment is permissible when the sweating treatment is not tolerable. Here, sambhāraseda refers to a sweating treatment with various kinds of leaves. When it is not tolerable, from the statement “I allow you, bhikkhus, a great sweating treatment” (mahāva. 267), a great sweating treatment is permissible when the herbal sweating treatment is not tolerable. Here, mahāseda refers to a large sweating treatment, meaning I allow you to fill a pit the size of a man with embers, cover it with sand or dust, spread various wind-alleviating leaves there, lie on it with a body smeared with oil, and sweat the body by rolling around. When it is not tolerable, from the statement “I allow you, bhikkhus, bhaṅgodaka” (mahāva. 267), bhaṅgodaka is permissible when the great sweating treatment is not tolerable. Here, bhaṅgodaka refers to water boiled with various leaf extracts, with which one should sweat by sprinkling the leaves and water. When it is not tolerable, from the statement “I allow you, bhikkhus, a water vat” (mahāva. 267), a water vat is permissible when bhaṅgodaka is not tolerable. Here, udakakoṭṭhaka refers to filling a vat or basin in a water enclosure with hot water and performing the sweating treatment by entering it, as I allow it.
In the account of sweat therapy, because of the statement, “I allow, monks, sweat therapy” (mahāva. 267), it is permissible to perform sweat therapy when there is wind in the limbs. Here, wind in the limbs means wind in the hands and feet. It is fit for nasal application; Because of the statement, “I allow, monks, compound sweating” (mahāva. 267), when sweat therapy is fit for nasal application, it is permissible to perform compound sweating. Here, compound sweating means sweat therapy using various kinds of leaves. When it is fit for nasal application, because of the statement, “I allow, monks, great sweating” (mahāva. 267), it is permissible to perform great sweating when compound sweating is fit for nasal application. Here, great sweating means a large sweat, I allow filling a pit the size of a man with embers, covering it with dust, sand, etc., spreading various wind-relieving leaves on it, and lying on it with the body anointed with oil, turning over and sweating the body. That is the meaning. When it is fit for nasal administration, because of the statement, “I allow, monks, decoction water” (mahāva. 267), It is permissible to perform with Decoction water when the great sweating is fit for nasal application. Here, decoction water means water boiled with various leaf decoctions, one should be made to sweat by sprinkling and sprinkling with those leaves and water. When it is fit for nasal application, because of the statement, “I allow, monks, a water hut” (mahāva. 267), It is permissible to perform with a water hut when using decoction water is fit for nasal application. Here, water hut means, I allow filling a tub or trough with warm water in a water hut, entering it, and performing sweat therapy. That is the meaning.
In the discussion on sweating treatment, the statement, “I allow, monks, sweating treatment” (Mahāva. 267), means that it is permissible to perform sweating treatment when there is a wind disorder in the limbs. Here, “wind disorder in the limbs” refers to wind in the hands and feet. It is unbearable. The statement, “I allow, monks, a medicinal sweating treatment” (Mahāva. 267), means that when sweating treatment is unbearable, it is permissible to perform a medicinal sweating treatment. Here, “medicinal sweating treatment” refers to sweating treatment using various medicinal leaves. It is unbearable. The statement, “I allow, monks, a large sweating treatment” (Mahāva. 267), means that when medicinal sweating treatment is unbearable, it is permissible to perform a large sweating treatment. Here, “large sweating treatment” refers to a large amount of sweat. A pit the size of a man is filled with charcoal, covered with sand and gravel, and various wind-relieving leaves are spread over it. The body, smeared with oil, lies there and turns over to induce sweating. It is unbearable. The statement, “I allow, monks, a medicinal bath” (Mahāva. 267), means that when large sweating treatment is unbearable, it is permissible to perform a medicinal bath. Here, “medicinal bath” refers to water mixed with various medicinal leaves. The body is repeatedly sprinkled with these leaves and water to induce sweating. It is unbearable. The statement, “I allow, monks, a water chamber” (Mahāva. 267), means that when a medicinal bath is unbearable, it is permissible to perform a water chamber treatment. Here, “water chamber” refers to filling a water chamber, such as a tub or a boat, with hot water and entering it to perform sweating treatment.
ID2016
ID2017
Lohitamocanakathāyaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, lohitaṃ mocetu”nti (mahāva. 267) vacanato pabbavāte sati lohitaṃ mocetuṃ vaṭṭati. Tattha pabbavāto hotīti pabbe pabbe vāto vijjhati. Lohitaṃ mocetunti satthakena lohitaṃ mocetuṃ. Nakkhamanīyo hoti, anujānāmi, bhikkhave, lohitaṃ mocetvā visāṇena gāhetunti (mahāva. 267).
In the discussion on bloodletting, it is stated: “I allow you, bhikkhus, to let blood” (mahāva. 267). Thus, bloodletting is permissible when there is a wind affliction in the joints. Here, pabbavāta means wind piercing joint by joint. Lohitaṃ mocetu means to let blood with a knife. When it is not tolerable, “I allow you, bhikkhus, to let blood and rub it with a horn” (mahāva. 267).
In the account of bloodletting, because of the statement “I allow, monks, to let blood” (mahāva. 267), it is permissible to let blood when there is joint pain. Here, there is joint pain means the wind is piercing in the joints. To let blood means to let blood with a lancet. When it is fit for nasal administration, “I allow, monks, after letting blood, to hold with a horn” (mahāva. 267).
In the discussion on bloodletting, the statement, “I allow, monks, to let blood” (Mahāva. 267), means that it is permissible to let blood when there is a wind disorder in the joints. Here, “wind disorder in the joints” means that wind strikes the joints. “To let blood” means to let blood with a lancet. It is unbearable. The statement, “I allow, monks, to let blood and then grasp it with a horn” (Mahāva. 267), means that after letting blood, it is permissible to grasp it with a horn.
ID2018
ID2019
Pādabbhañjanakathāyaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, pādabbhañjana”nti (mahāva. 267) vacanato pādesu phalitesu pādabbhañjanaṃ pacitabbaṃ. Nakkhamanīyo hoti, “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, pajjaṃ abhisaṅkharitu”nti (mahāva. 267) vacanato pādabbhañjanatelena nakkhamanīye sati pajjaṃ abhisaṅkharitabbaṃ. Tattha pajjaṃ abhisaṅkharitunti yena phalitapādā pākatikā honti, taṃ nāḷikerādīsu nānābhesajjāni pakkhipitvā pajjaṃ abhisaṅkharituṃ, pādānaṃ sappāyabhesajjaṃ pacitunti attho.
In the discussion on foot ointment, it is stated: “I allow you, bhikkhus, a foot ointment” (mahāva. 267). Thus, a foot ointment should be prepared when the feet are cracked. When it is not tolerable, from the statement “I allow you, bhikkhus, to prepare a liniment” (mahāva. 267), a liniment should be prepared when the foot ointment oil is not tolerable. Here, pajjaṃ abhisaṅkharitu means to prepare a liniment by mixing various medicines like coconut into it so that the cracked feet become normal, cooking a suitable medicine for the feet.
In the account of foot anointing, because of the statement, “I allow, monks, foot anointing” (mahāva. 267), foot anointing should be cooked when there are cracks in the feet. When it is fit for nasal administration, because of the statement, “I allow, monks, to prepare a foot remedy” (mahāva. 267), when foot anointing oil is fit for nasal application, a foot remedy should be prepared. Here, to prepare a foot remedy, means to prepare a foot remedy, cooking a foot-suitable medicine by adding various medicinal substances to coconuts and other things, by which the cracked feet become normal, That is the meaning.
In the discussion on foot ointment, the statement, “I allow, monks, foot ointment” (Mahāva. 267), means that when the feet are cracked, foot ointment should be prepared. It is unbearable. The statement, “I allow, monks, to prepare a medicinal paste” (Mahāva. 267), means that when foot ointment oil is unbearable, a medicinal paste should be prepared. Here, “to prepare a medicinal paste” means to prepare a paste by mixing various medicines, such as coconut, to make the cracked feet smooth, preparing a suitable medicine for the feet.
ID2020
ID2021
Gaṇḍābādhakathāyaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, satthakamma”nti (mahāva. 267) vacanato gaṇḍābādhe sati satthakammaṃ kātabbaṃ. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, kasāvodaka”nti (mahāva. 267) vacanato kasāvodakena atthe sati kasāvodakaṃ dātabbaṃ. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, tilakakka”nti (mahāva. 267) vacanato tilakakkena atthe sati tilakakkaṃ dātabbaṃ. Tilakakkena atthoti piṭṭhehi tilehi attho. “Anujānāmi bhikkhave kabaḷika”nti (mahāva. 267) vacanato kabaḷikāya atthe sati kabaḷikā dātabbā. Tattha kabaḷikanti vaṇamukhe sattupiṇḍaṃ pakkhipituṃ. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, vaṇabandhanacoḷa”nti (mahāva. 267) vacanato vaṇabandhanacoḷena atthe sati vaṇabandhanacoḷaṃ dātabbaṃ. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, sāsapakuṭṭena phositu”nti (mahāva. 267) vacanato sace vaṇo kuṇḍavatī, sāsapakuṭṭena phositabbaṃ. Tattha sāsapakuṭṭenāti sāsapapiṭṭhena.
In the discussion on swelling affliction, it is stated: “I allow you, bhikkhus, surgery” (mahāva. 267). Thus, surgery should be performed when there is a swelling affliction. From the statement “I allow you, bhikkhus, astringent water” (mahāva. 267), astringent water should be given when there is a need for it. From the statement “I allow you, bhikkhus, sesame paste” (mahāva. 267), sesame paste should be given when there is a need for it. Tilakakkena attha means a need for ground sesame. From the statement “I allow you, bhikkhus, a poultice” (mahāva. 267), a poultice should be given when there is a need for it. Here, kabaḷika refers to placing a lump of dough over the wound opening. From the statement “I allow you, bhikkhus, a bandage cloth for the wound” (mahāva. 267), a bandage cloth should be given when there is a need for it. From the statement “I allow you, bhikkhus, to sprinkle with ground mustard” (mahāva. 267), if the wound festers, it should be sprinkled with ground mustard. Here, sāsapakuṭṭena means with ground mustard.
In the account of boil ailment, because of the statement, “I allow, monks, lancet operation” (mahāva. 267), a lancet operation should be performed when there is a boil ailment. “I allow, monks, astringent water” (mahāva. 267), when there is a need for astringent water, astringent water should be given. “I allow, monks, sesame paste” (mahāva. 267), when there is a need for sesame paste, sesame paste should be given. Need for sesame paste means a need for sesame with ground flour. “I allow, monks, a lump” (mahāva. 267), when there is a need for a lump, a lump should be given. Here, a lump means to put a lump of flour on the opening of the wound. “I allow, monks, a cloth for bandaging the wound” (mahāva. 267), when there is a need for a cloth for bandaging the wound, a cloth for bandaging the wound should be given. “I allow, monks, to rub with mustard seed powder” (mahāva. 267), if the wound is festering, it should be rubbed with mustard seed powder. Here, with mustard seed powder means with mustard seed flour.
In the discussion on boil disorders, the statement, “I allow, monks, surgical treatment” (Mahāva. 267), means that surgical treatment should be performed when there is a boil disorder. The statement, “I allow, monks, alkaline water” (Mahāva. 267), means that when alkaline water is needed, it should be given. The statement, “I allow, monks, sesame paste” (Mahāva. 267), means that when sesame paste is needed, it should be given. Here, “sesame paste” refers to the use of sesame seeds. The statement, “I allow, monks, a poultice” (Mahāva. 267), means that when a poultice is needed, it should be given. Here, “poultice” refers to placing seven lumps of food on the wound. The statement, “I allow, monks, a bandage cloth” (Mahāva. 267), means that when a bandage cloth is needed, it should be given. The statement, “I allow, monks, to apply mustard paste” (Mahāva. 267), means that if the wound is festering, mustard paste should be applied. Here, “mustard paste” refers to mustard flour.
ID2022
“Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, dhūmaṃ kātu”nti (mahāva. 267) vacanato yadi vaṇo kilijjittha, dhūmaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, loṇasakkharikāya chinditu”nti (mahāva. 267) vacanato yadi vaḍḍhamaṃsaṃ vuṭṭhāti , chinditabbaṃ. Tattha vaḍḍhamaṃsanti adhikamaṃsaṃ āṇī viya uṭṭhahati. Loṇasakkharikāya chinditunti khārena chindituṃ. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, vaṇatela”nti (mahāva. 267) vacanato yadi vaṇo na ruhati, vaṇaruhanatelaṃ pacitabbaṃ. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, vikāsikaṃ sabbaṃ vaṇapaṭikamma”nti (mahāva. 267) vacanato yadi telaṃ gaḷati, vikāsikaṃ dātabbaṃ, sabbaṃ vaṇapaṭikammaṃ kātabbaṃ. Tattha vikāsikanti telarundhanapilotikaṃ. Sabbaṃ vaṇapaṭikammanti yaṃ kiñci vaṇapaṭikammaṃ nāma atthi, sabbaṃ anujānāmīti attho. Mahāvikaṭakathā pubbe vuttāva.
From the statement “I allow you, bhikkhus, to make smoke” (mahāva. 267), if the wound becomes irritated, it is permissible to make smoke. From the statement “I allow you, bhikkhus, to cut with salt and sugar” (mahāva. 267), if excess flesh arises, it should be cut. Here, vaḍḍhamaṃsa refers to extra flesh rising like a thorn. Loṇasakkharikāya chinditu means to cut with salt. From the statement “I allow you, bhikkhus, wound oil” (mahāva. 267), if the wound does not heal, wound-healing oil should be prepared. From the statement “I allow you, bhikkhus, a protective covering and all wound treatments” (mahāva. 267), if the oil drips, a protective covering should be given, and all wound treatments should be performed. Here, vikāsika refers to a cloth to stop the oil from dripping. Sabbaṃ vaṇapaṭikamma means I allow whatever wound treatment exists.
“I allow, monks, to fumigate” (mahāva. 267), if the wound is moist, it is permissible to fumigate. “I allow, monks, to cut with rock salt” (mahāva. 267), if excess flesh grows, it should be cut. Here, excess flesh means excess flesh that rises like a spike. To cut with rock salt means to cut with an alkali. “I allow, monks, wound oil” (mahāva. 267), if the wound does not heal, wound-healing oil should be cooked. “I allow, monks, a covering, all wound treatments” (mahāva. 267), if the oil leaks, a covering should be given, all wound treatments should be performed. Here, a covering means a cloth to stop the oil. All wound treatments means whatever wound treatment there is, I allow it all. That is the meaning. The account of the Great Variety has been mentioned earlier.
The statement, “I allow, monks, to produce smoke” (Mahāva. 267), means that if the wound is infected, it is permissible to produce smoke. The statement, “I allow, monks, to cut with a salt crystal” (Mahāva. 267), means that if excess flesh grows, it should be cut. Here, “excess flesh” refers to flesh that grows excessively like a peg. “To cut with a salt crystal” means to cut with a salt crystal. The statement, “I allow, monks, wound oil” (Mahāva. 267), means that if the wound does not heal, wound-healing oil should be prepared. The statement, “I allow, monks, all wound treatments” (Mahāva. 267), means that if the oil flows, a dressing should be applied, and all wound treatments should be performed. Here, “dressing” refers to a cloth soaked in oil. “All wound treatments” means that whatever wound treatments exist are all permitted. The discussion on severe disorders has been previously mentioned.
ID2023
Sāmaṃ gahetvāti idaṃ na kevalaṃ sappadaṭṭhasseva, aññasmimpi daṭṭhavise sati sāmaṃ gahetvā paribhuñjitabbaṃ, aññesu pana kāraṇesu paṭiggahitameva vaṭṭati.
Sāmaṃ gahetvā means that this applies not only to one bitten by a snake but also to any other case of poisoning from a bite; it may be taken and used by oneself. In other cases, however, only what has been received is permissible.
Having taken it oneself, this is not only for one bitten by a snake, but even if bitten by another venomous creature, one should take and consume it oneself; but in other circumstances, only what has been formally received is permissible.
“To take oneself” means that this is not only for one who has been bitten by a snake, but also in the case of other types of bites, one should take it oneself and use it. In other cases, however, it is permissible to receive it.
ID2024
ID2025
Visapītakathāyaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, gūthaṃ pāyetu”nti (mahāva. 268) vacanato pītavisaṃ bhikkhuṃ gūthaṃ pāyetuṃ vaṭṭati. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, yaṃ karonto paṭiggaṇhāti, sveva paṭiggaho kato, na puna paṭiggahetabbo”ti (mahāva. 268) vacanato tadeva vaṭṭati. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 268) pana na puna paṭiggahetabboti sace bhūmippatto, paṭiggahāpetabbo, appattaṃ pana gahetuṃ vaṭṭati.
In the discussion on poisonous swelling, it is stated: “I allow you, bhikkhus, to administer dung” (mahāva. 268). Thus, it is permissible to administer dung to a bhikkhu with a poisonous swelling. From the statement “I allow you, bhikkhus, that what he takes while doing so is considered received that day and need not be received again” (mahāva. 268), only that is permissible. In the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 268), however, na puna paṭiggahetabba means that if it reaches the ground, it should be received again, but it is permissible to take it before it falls.
In the account of poison drinking, because of the statement, “I allow, monks, to make him drink dung” (mahāva. 268), it is permissible to make a monk who has drunk poison drink dung. “I allow, monks, that which he takes while doing it, that is indeed taken, it should not be taken again” (mahāva. 268), only that is permissible. In the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 268), however, it should not be taken again, if it has fallen on the ground, it should be made to be received, but it is permissible to take what has not fallen.
In the discussion on poisonous bites, the statement, “I allow, monks, to administer feces” (Mahāva. 268), means that it is permissible to administer feces to a monk who has consumed poison. The statement, “I allow, monks, that whatever one does while receiving it counts as receiving it, and it should not be received again” (Mahāva. 268), means the same. In the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 268), however, “it should not be received again” means that if it has reached the ground, it should be received again, but if it has not reached the ground, it is permissible to take it.
ID2026
ID2027
Gharadinnakābādhakathāyaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, sītāloḷiṃ pāyetu”nti (mahāva. 269) vacanato gharadinnakābādhassa bhikkhuno sītāloḷiṃ pāyetuṃ vaṭṭati. Tattha gharadinnakābādhoti vasīkaraṇapāṇakasamuṭṭhitarogo. Ṭīkāyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.269) pana “gharadinnakābādho nāma vasīkaraṇatthāya gharaṇiyā dinnabhesajjasamuṭṭhito ābādho. Tenāha ’vasīkaraṇapāṇakasamuṭṭhitarogo’ti. Ghara-saddo cettha abhedena gharaṇiyā vattamāno adhippeto”ti vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyampi (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.267-269) “gharadinnakābādho nāma gharaṇiyā dinnavasīkaraṇabhesajjasamuṭṭhito ābādho”ti vuttaṃ. Sītāloḷinti naṅgalena kasantassa phāle laggamattikaṃ udakena āloḷetvā pāyetuṃ anujānāmīti attho.
In the discussion on household-given affliction, it is stated: “I allow you, bhikkhus, to administer cold stirred water” (mahāva. 269). Thus, it is permissible to administer cold stirred water to a bhikkhu with a household-given affliction. Here, gharadinnakābādha refers to a disease arising from a creature used for subjugation. In the subcommentary (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.269), it is said: “Gharadinnakābādha refers to an affliction arising from medicine given by a householder for subjugation. Hence it is said, ‘a disease arising from a creature used for subjugation.’ Here, the term ghara is intended to refer to the householder without distinction.” In the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.267-269), it is said: “Gharadinnakābādha refers to an affliction arising from medicine given by a householder for subjugation.” Sītāloḷi means I allow you to mix clay stuck to the plowshare of a farmer with water and administer it.
In the account of household-given ailment, because of the statement, “I allow, monks, to make him drink cold sediment” (mahāva. 269), it is permissible to make a monk suffering from a household-given ailment drink cold sediment. Here, household-given ailment is an illness caused by a potion for subjugation. In the Tika (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.269), however, it is said, “household-given ailment” means an ailment caused by a medicine given by a housewife for the purpose of subjugation. Therefore, it says ‘an illness caused by a potion for subjugation’. Here, the word “household” is intended to refer to the housewife by way of non-differentiation. In the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.267-269) also, it is said, “household-given ailment” means an ailment caused by a subjugation medicine given by a housewife.” Cold sediment means, I allow making him drink water mixed with the mud that sticks to the plough when ploughing with a plough. That is the meaning.
In the discussion on disorders caused by house-given medicine, the statement, “I allow, monks, to administer cold gruel” (Mahāva. 269), means that it is permissible to administer cold gruel to a monk suffering from a disorder caused by house-given medicine. Here, “disorder caused by house-given medicine” refers to an illness caused by medicine given by a householder for the purpose of subjugation. In the sub-commentary (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.269), it is stated, “‘Disorder caused by house-given medicine’ refers to an illness arising from medicine given by a householder for the purpose of subjugation. Hence, it is said, ‘an illness caused by subjugation medicine.’ The term ‘house’ here refers inclusively to the householder.” In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.267-269), it is also stated, “‘Disorder caused by house-given medicine’ refers to an illness arising from subjugation medicine given by a householder.” “Cold gruel” refers to clay mixed with water from plowing with a plow, which is administered.
ID2028
ID2029
Duṭṭhagahaṇikakathāyaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, āmisakhāraṃ pāyetu”nti (mahāva. 269) vacanato duṭṭhagahaṇikassa bhikkhuno āmisakhāraṃ pāyetuṃ vaṭṭati. Tattha duṭṭhagahaṇikoti vipannagahaṇiko, kicchena uccāro nikkhamatīti attho. Āmisakhāranti sukkhodanaṃ jhāpetvā tāya chārikāya paggharitaṃ khārodakaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.267-269) pana “tāya chārikāya paggharitaṃ khārodakanti parissāvane taṃ chārikaṃ pakkhipitvā udake abhisiñcite tato chārikato heṭṭhā paggharitaṃ khārodaka”nti vuttaṃ.
In the discussion on chronic constipation, it is stated: “I allow you, bhikkhus, to administer raw ash water” (mahāva. 269). Thus, it is permissible to administer raw ash water to a bhikkhu with chronic constipation. Here, duṭṭhagahaṇika refers to one with impaired digestion, meaning one whose excrement passes with difficulty. Āmisakhāra refers to water mixed with ash from burnt dry rice. In the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.267-269), it is said: “Tāya chārikāya paggharitaṃ khārodaka means water filtered below the ash after placing that ash in a sieve and pouring water over it.”
In the account of disturbed digestion, because of the statement, “I allow, monks, to make him drink alkali gruel” (mahāva. 269), it is permissible to make a monk with disturbed digestion drink alkali gruel. Here, disturbed digestion means impaired digestion, it means that excrement comes out with difficulty. Alkali gruel means the watery extract of ash from burnt dry rice. In the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.267-269), however, it is said, “the watery extract of ash” means, the alkali water that drips down from below after the ash is placed in a strainer and water is poured on it.”
In the discussion on severe constipation, the statement, “I allow, monks, to administer a meat broth” (Mahāva. 269), means that it is permissible to administer a meat broth to a monk suffering from severe constipation. Here, “severe constipation” refers to a condition where defecation is difficult. “Meat broth” refers to water mixed with ashes from burnt dry rice. In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.267-269), it is further explained, **“‘Water mixed with ashes’ refers to water mixed with ashes placed in a strainer and sprinkled with water, from which the water filtered below is collected.”
ID2030
ID2031
Paṇḍurogābādhakathāyaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, muttaharītakaṃ pāyetu”nti (mahāva. 269) vacanato paṇḍurogābādhassa bhikkhuno muttaharītakaṃ pāyetuṃ vaṭṭati. Tattha muttaharītakanti gomuttaparibhāvitaṃ harītakaṃ.
In the discussion on jaundice affliction, it is stated: “I allow you, bhikkhus, to administer urine-soaked harītaka” (mahāva. 269). Thus, it is permissible to administer urine-soaked harītaka to a bhikkhu with a jaundice affliction. Here, muttaharītaka refers to harītaka soaked in cow urine.
In the account of jaundice ailment, because of the statement, “I allow, monks, to make him drink urine-soaked myrobalan” (mahāva. 269), it is permissible to make a monk with jaundice ailment drink urine-soaked myrobalan. Here, urine-soaked myrobalan means myrobalan steeped in cow urine.
In the discussion on jaundice, the statement, “I allow, monks, to administer cow-urine-treated myrobalan” (Mahāva. 269), means that it is permissible to administer cow-urine-treated myrobalan to a monk suffering from jaundice. Here, “cow-urine-treated myrobalan” refers to myrobalan treated with cow urine.
ID2032
ID2033
Chavidosābādhakathāyaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, gandhālepaṃ kātu”nti (mahāva. 269) vacanato chavidosābādhassa bhikkhuno gandhālepaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati.
In the discussion on skin disease affliction, it is stated: “I allow you, bhikkhus, to apply a fragrant ointment” (mahāva. 269). Thus, it is permissible to apply a fragrant ointment to a bhikkhu with a skin disease affliction.
In the account of skin disease ailment, because of the statement, “I allow, monks, to apply a fragrant ointment” (mahāva. 269), it is permissible to apply a fragrant ointment to a monk with a skin disease ailment.
In the discussion on skin disorders, the statement, “I allow, monks, to apply a fragrant paste” (Mahāva. 269), means that it is permissible to apply a fragrant paste to a monk suffering from a skin disorder.
ID2034
ID2035
Abhisannakāyakathāyaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, virecanaṃ pātu”nti (mahāva. 269) vacanato abhisannakāyassa bhikkhuno virecanaṃ pātuṃ vaṭṭati. Tattha abhisannakāyoti ussannadosakāyo. Acchakañjiyā attho hoti, “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, acchakañjiya”nti (mahāva. 269) vacanato acchakañjiyaṃ pātuṃ vaṭṭati. Tattha acchakañjiyanti taṇḍulodakamaṇḍo. Akaṭayūsena attho hoti, “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, akaṭayūsa”nti (mahāva. 269) vacanato akaṭayūsaṃ pātuṃ vaṭṭati. Tattha akaṭayūsanti asiniddho muggapacitapānīyo. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.269) pana vimativinodaniyañca (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.267-269) “akaṭayūsenāti anabhisaṅkhatena muggayūsenā”ti vuttaṃ. Kaṭākaṭena attho hoti, “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, kaṭākaṭa”nti (mahāva. 269) vacanato kaṭākaṭaṃ pāyetuṃ vaṭṭati. Tattha kaṭākaṭanti sova dhotasiniddho. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.269) vimativinodaniyañca (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.267-269) “kaṭākaṭenāti mugge pacitvā acāletvāva parissāvitena muggayūsenā”ti vuttaṃ. Paṭicchādanīyena attho hoti, “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, paṭicchādanīya”nti (mahāva. 269) vacanato paṭicchādanīyaṃ pātuṃ vaṭṭati. Tattha paṭicchādanīyenāti maṃsarasena.
In the discussion on an overburdened body, it is stated: “I allow you, bhikkhus, to drink a purgative” (mahāva. 269). Thus, it is permissible for a bhikkhu with an overburdened body to drink a purgative. Here, abhisannakāya refers to a body overburdened with humors. When there is a need for clear rice water, from the statement “I allow you, bhikkhus, clear rice water” (mahāva. 269), it is permissible to drink clear rice water. Here, acchakañjiya refers to the clear liquid from rice water. When there is a need for unprepared broth, from the statement “I allow you, bhikkhus, unprepared broth” (mahāva. 269), it is permissible to drink unprepared broth. Here, akaṭayūsa refers to an unseasoned mung bean broth. In the Sāratthadīpani (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.269) and Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.267-269), it is said: “Akaṭayūsena means with unprepared mung bean broth.” When there is a need for astringent broth, from the statement “I allow you, bhikkhus, astringent broth” (mahāva. 269), it is permissible to administer astringent broth. Here, kaṭākaṭa refers to that which is washed and seasoned. In the Sāratthadīpani (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.269) and Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.267-269), it is said: “Kaṭākaṭena means with mung bean broth cooked and filtered without stirring.” When there is a need for a covering broth, from the statement “I allow you, bhikkhus, a covering broth” (mahāva. 269), it is permissible to drink a covering broth. Here, paṭicchādanīyena refers to meat broth.
In the account of a body with accumulated impurities, because of the statement, “I allow, monks, to drink a purgative” (mahāva. 269), it is permissible for a monk with a body with accumulated impurities to drink a purgative. Here, body with accumulated impurities means a body with excessive humors. There is a need for clear rice gruel, because of the statement, “I allow, monks, clear rice gruel” (mahāva. 269), it is permissible to drink clear rice gruel. Here, clear rice gruel means the scum of rice water. There is a need for unthickened soup, because of the statement, “I allow, monks, unthickened soup” (mahāva. 269), it is permissible to drink unthickened soup. Here, unthickened soup means water in which mung beans have been boiled, without being strained. In the Sāratthadīpani (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.269) and the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.267-269), however, it is said, “unthickened soup” means mung bean soup that has not been prepared.” There is a need for thickened and unthickened, because of the statement, “I allow, monks, thickened and unthickened” (mahāva. 269), It is permissible to give thickened and unthickened to drink. Here, thickened and unthickened means that same, strained, and unstrained. In the Sāratthadīpani (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.269) and the Vimativinodani (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.267-269), it is said, “thickened and unthickened” means strained mung bean soup after boiling the mung beans without stirring them.” There is a need for something to cover, because of the statement, “I allow, monks, something to cover” (mahāva. 269), it is permissible to drink something to cover. Here, with something to cover means with meat broth.
In the discussion on body congestion, the statement, “I allow, monks, to administer a purgative” (Mahāva. 269), means that it is permissible to administer a purgative to a monk with a congested body. Here, “congested body” refers to a body with excessive humors. There is a need for rice water. The statement, “I allow, monks, rice water” (Mahāva. 269), means that it is permissible to administer rice water. Here, “rice water” refers to the water from washed rice. There is a need for unfermented broth. The statement, “I allow, monks, unfermented broth” (Mahāva. 269), means that it is permissible to administer unfermented broth. Here, “unfermented broth” refers to a drink made from boiled mung beans without fermentation. In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.269) and the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.267-269), it is stated, “‘Unfermented broth’ refers to mung bean broth that has not been fermented.” There is a need for gruel. The statement, “I allow, monks, gruel” (Mahāva. 269), means that it is permissible to administer gruel. Here, “gruel” refers to a drink made from boiled mung beans without stirring. In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.269) and the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.267-269), it is stated, “‘Gruel’ refers to mung bean broth that has been boiled without stirring and then strained.” There is a need for a covering drink. The statement, “I allow, monks, a covering drink” (Mahāva. 269), means that it is permissible to administer a covering drink. Here, “covering drink” refers to meat broth.
ID2036
ID2037
Loṇasovīrakakathāyaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, gilānassa loṇasovīrakaṃ, agilānassa udakasambhinnaṃ pānaparibhogena paribhuñjitu”nti (mahāva. 273) vacanato gilānena bhikkhunā loṇasovīrakaṃ pātabbaṃ, agilānena udakasambhinnaṃ katvā paribhuñjitabbaṃ, tañca “pānaparibhogenā”ti vacanato vikālepi vaṭṭati.
In the discussion on loṇasovīraka, from the statement “I allow, bhikkhus, loṇasovīraka for the sick, and for the healthy when mixed with water to be used as a beverage” (mahāva. 273), a sick bhikkhu may drink loṇasovīraka, while a healthy one should use it mixed with water, and due to the phrase “as a beverage,” it is permissible even at the wrong time.
In the story of salt and vinegar, because it is said, “I allow, monks, for one who is sick, salt-vinegar; for one who is not sick, mixed with water, to be consumed as a drink” (Mahāva. 273), a sick monk should drink salt-vinegar; one who is not sick should mix it with water and consume it, and because it is said, “as a drink,” it is allowable even at the wrong time.
In the discussion on loṇasovīraka, it is said, “I allow, monks, loṇasovīraka for the sick, and for the healthy, it should be consumed mixed with water as a drink” (Mahāva. 273). Thus, a sick monk may drink loṇasovīraka, while a healthy monk should consume it mixed with water. And because it is said, “as a drink,” it is permissible even at an improper time.
ID2038
Tattha loṇasovīrakaṃ nāma sabbarasābhisaṅkhataṃ ekaṃ bhesajjaṃ, taṃ kira karonto harītakāmalakavibhītakakasāve sabbadhaññāni sabbaaparaṇṇāni sattannampi dhaññānaṃ odanaṃ kadaliphalādīni sabbaphalāni vettaketakakhajjūrikaḷīrādayo sabbakaḷīre macchamaṃsakhaṇḍāni anekāni ca madhuphāṇitasindhavaloṇatikaṭukādīni bhesajjāni pakkhipitvā kumbhimukhaṃ limpitvā ekaṃ dve tīṇi saṃvaccharāni ṭhapenti, taṃ paripaccitvā jamburasavaṇṇaṃ hoti, vātakāsakuṭṭhapaṇḍubhagaṇḍalādīnaṃ siniddhabhojanabhuttānañca uttarapānaṃ bhattajīraṇakabhesajjaṃ tādisaṃ natthi, taṃ panetaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ pacchābhattampi vaṭṭati, gilānānaṃ pākatikameva. Agilānānaṃ pana udakasambhinnaṃ pānaparibhogenāti.
Therein, loṇasovīraka refers to a single medicine prepared with all flavors; it is said that in making it, they mix harītakī, āmalaka, vibhītaka, decoctions, all grains, all subsidiary foods, cooked rice of all seven grains, fruits like plantain, all shoots such as bamboo, ketaka, khajjūrika, and kaḷīra, pieces of fish and meat, and various medicines like honey, treacle, rock salt, and bitters, seal the mouth of the pot, and leave it for one, two, or three years; when fully matured, it becomes the color of rose-apple juice, unmatched as a post-meal drink for ailments like wind, cough, leprosy, jaundice, and swellings, or as a digestive medicine after rich food; this is permissible for bhikkhus even after midday, naturally so for the sick, but for the healthy when mixed with water as a beverage.
Here, loṇasovīrakaṃ (salt-vinegar) is the name of a medicine concocted with all flavors. It is said that, in making it, they put in an infusion of yellow myrobalan, emblic myrobalan, and beleric myrobalan, all grains, all pulses, cooked rice of the seven kinds of grain, all fruits such as plantains, and all bulbous roots such as vetta, ketaka, khajjūri, and kaḷīra, pieces of fish and meat, and various medicines such as honey, molasses, rock salt, and the three pungent spices. After covering the mouth of the pot, they leave it for one, two, or three years. When it is fully matured, it becomes the color of rose-apple juice. For wind, cough, leprosy, anemia, goiter, and so on, and for those who have eaten rich food, there is no such after-drink and digestion-promoting medicine as that. But this is allowable for monks even after a meal; for the sick, it is the standard. However, for those who are not sick, it should be mixed with water, to be consumed as a drink.
Here, loṇasovīraka refers to a medicinal preparation made from all kinds of flavors. It is said that when preparing it, one mixes harītakā, āmalaka, vibhītaka, kasāva, all kinds of grains, all kinds of husks, the cooked rice of seven grains, plantains, all kinds of fruits, vetra, ketaka, khajjūrika, young shoots, various kinds of fish and meat pieces, and many other medicinal substances such as honey, molasses, ginger, salt, and pungent substances. After filling the pot, it is sealed and left for one, two, or three years. When fully fermented, it becomes the color of jambu fruit. There is no other medicine like it for those suffering from wind disorders, cough, skin diseases, jaundice, goiter, etc., or for those who have eaten rich food. It is also a digestive aid. For monks, it is permissible even after meals, but only for the sick. For the healthy, it must be mixed with water and consumed as a drink.
ID2039
Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.191-192) pana “pānaparibhogenāti vuttattā loṇasovīrakaṃ yāmakālika”nti vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.192) pana “pānaparibhogena vaṭṭatīti sambandho. Evaṃ pana vuttattā loṇasovīrakaṃ yāmakālikanti keci vadanti, keci pana ’gilānānaṃ pākatikameva, agilānānaṃ pana udakasambhinna’nti vuttattā guḷaṃ viya sattāhakālika”nti vuttaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 263) pana “avisesena satipaccayatā vuttā . Imasmiṃ khandhake ’anujānāmi, bhikkhave, gilānassa guḷaṃ, agilānassa guḷodakaṃ, gilānassa loṇasovīrakaṃ, agilānassa udakasambhinna’nti (mahāva. 284) vuttaṃ, tasmā siddhaṃ ’satipaccayatā gilānāgilānavasena duvidhā’ti” vuttaṃ.
However, in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.191-192), it is said, “Due to the phrase ‘as a beverage,’ loṇasovīraka is yāmakālika.” In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.192), it is said, “The connection is ‘it is permissible as a beverage.’ Thus, some say loṇasovīraka is yāmakālika, while others say, ‘For the sick it is naturally permissible, but for the healthy when mixed with water,’ like guḷa, it is sattāhakālika.” In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 263), it is said, “It is stated generally as dependent on conditions. In this section, it is said, ‘I allow, bhikkhus, guḷa for the sick, guḷodaka for the healthy, loṇasovīraka for the sick, and udakasambhinna for the healthy’ (mahāva. 284), thus it is established that ‘dependence on conditions is twofold, for the sick and the healthy.’”
However, in the Sāratthadīpani (Sārattha. ṭī. 2.191-192), it is said that “because it is said ‘as a drink,’ salt-vinegar is a yāmakālika (medicine allowable for a specific period, i.e., from dawn to noon).” In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. ṭī. 1.192), however, it is said “the connection is ‘it is allowable as a drink.’ Some, because it is thus stated, say that salt-vinegar is a yāmakālika. But some others say, because it is stated ‘for the sick, it is the standard; however, for those who are not sick, it should be mixed with water’, it is a sattāhakālika (medicine allowable for seven days), like molasses.” In the Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā (Vajira. ṭī. Mahāvagga 263), however, it is said, “without distinction, needing a cause is stated. In this Khandhaka, it is stated, ‘I allow, monks, molasses for one who is sick, molasses-water for one who is not sick, salt-vinegar for one who is sick, mixed with water for one who is not sick’ (Mahāva. 284), therefore, it is established that ‘needing a cause is twofold, according to whether one is sick or not sick’.”
In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.191-192), it is said, “Because it is said to be consumed as a drink, loṇasovīraka is permissible for a single session.” In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.192), it is said, “Because it is said to be permissible as a drink, some say loṇasovīraka is permissible for a single session, while others say it is permissible for the sick as is, but for the healthy, it must be mixed with water, like jaggery, which is permissible for seven days.” In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 263), it is said, “It is generally stated as a condition for mindfulness. In this section, it is said, ‘I allow, monks, jaggery for the sick, jaggery water for the healthy, loṇasovīraka for the sick, and water-mixed loṇasovīraka for the healthy’ (Mahāva. 284). Therefore, it is established that it is twofold, depending on whether one is sick or healthy.”
ID2040
ID2041
Antovutthādikathāyaṃ “tena kho pana samayena bhagavato udaravātābādho hoti, atha kho āyasmā ānando ’pubbepi bhagavato udaravātābādho tekaṭulayāguyā phāsu hotī’ti sāmaṃ tilampi taṇḍulampi muggampi viññāpetvā anto vāsetvā anto sāmaṃ pacitvā bhagavato upanāmesi ’pivatu bhagavā tekaṭulayāgu’nti. Jānantāpi tathāgatā pucchanti, jānantāpi na pucchanti, kālaṃ viditvā pucchanti, kālaṃ viditvā na pucchanti, atthasañhitaṃ tathāgatā pucchanti, no anatthasañhitaṃ, anatthasañhite setughāto tathāgatānaṃ. Dvīhi ākārehi buddhā bhagavanto bhikkhū paṭipucchanti ’dhammaṃ vā desessāma, sāvakānaṃ vā sikkhāpadaṃ paññapessāmā’ti.
In the discussion on residence inside and related matters, “At that time, the Blessed One had an affliction of abdominal wind; then the Venerable Ānanda, thinking, ‘Previously too, the Blessed One’s abdominal wind was eased by tekaṭulayāgu,’ requested sesame, rice, and mung beans himself, had them kept inside, cooked them himself inside, and offered it to the Blessed One, saying, ‘May the Blessed One drink tekaṭulayāgu.’ Even knowing, the Tathāgatas ask; even knowing, they do not ask; knowing the right time, they ask; knowing the right time, they do not ask; the Tathāgatas ask what is beneficial, not what is unbeneficial, for in the unbeneficial there is a barrier for the Tathāgatas. In two ways, the Buddhas, the Blessed Ones, question the bhikkhus: ‘We will teach the Dhamma, or we will establish a training rule for the disciples.’”
In the story of storing indoors and so forth, “At that time, the Blessed One had an ailment of wind in the stomach. Then the venerable Ānanda thought, ‘Previously, the Blessed One’s ailment of wind in the stomach was relieved by gruel with the three pungent spices.’ He himself requested sesame, rice, and kidney beans, stored them indoors, cooked them himself indoors, and offered it to the Blessed One, saying, ‘May the Blessed One drink the gruel with the three pungent spices.’ Tathāgatas ask knowing, and they do not ask knowing; knowing the time, they ask, and knowing the time, they do not ask. Tathāgatas ask about what is connected with the goal, not about what is unconnected with the goal; in what is unconnected with the goal, the Tathāgatas have destroyed the bridge. In two ways, the Blessed Buddhas question monks: ‘We will teach the Dhamma, or we will establish a training rule for disciples.’
In the discussion on antovuttha, etc., it is said, “At that time, the Blessed One suffered from abdominal wind disorder. Venerable Ānanda thought, ‘Previously, the Blessed One found relief from abdominal wind disorder by drinking tekaṭula gruel.’ He himself procured sesame, rice, and mung beans, soaked them, cooked them himself, and offered it to the Blessed One, saying, ‘Venerable sir, please drink the tekaṭula gruel.’ Even though the Tathāgatas know, they ask; even though they know, they do not ask. They ask knowing the time, and they do not ask knowing the time. The Tathāgatas ask what is beneficial, not what is unbeneficial. For the Tathāgatas, breaking a bridge is unbeneficial. The Blessed Buddhas question monks for two reasons: ‘Either to teach the Dhamma or to establish a training rule for the disciples.’
ID2042
Atha kho bhagavā āyasmantaṃ ānandaṃ āmantesi ’kutāyaṃ, ānanda, yāgū’ti. Atha kho āyasmā ānando bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesi. Vigarahi buddho bhagavā ananucchavikaṃ, ānanda, ananulomikaṃ appatirūpaṃ assamaṇakaṃ akappiyaṃ akaraṇīyaṃ, kathañhi nāma tvaṃ, ānanda, evarūpāya bāhullāya cetessasi, yadapi, ānanda, anto vutthaṃ, tadapi akappiyaṃ. Yadapi anto pakkaṃ, tadapi akappiyaṃ. Yadapi sāmaṃ pakkaṃ, tadapi akappiyaṃ. Netaṃ, ānanda, appasannānaṃ vā pasādāya…pe… vigarahitvā dhammiṃ kathaṃ katvā bhikkhū āmantesi – na, bhikkhave, anto vutthaṃ anto pakkaṃ sāmaṃ pakkaṃ paribhuñjitabbaṃ, yo paribhuñjeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Anto ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ anto pakkaṃ sāmaṃ pakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti tiṇṇaṃ dukkaṭānaṃ. Anto ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ anto pakkaṃ aññehi pakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti dvinnaṃ dukkaṭānaṃ. Anto ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ bahi pakkaṃ sāmaṃ pakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti dvinnaṃ dukkaṭānaṃ. Bahi ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ anto pakkaṃ sāmaṃ pakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti dvinnaṃ dukkaṭānaṃ. Anto ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ bahi pakkaṃ aññehi pakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Bahi ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ anto pakkaṃ aññehi pakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Bahi ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ bahi pakkaṃ sāmaṃ pakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Bahi ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ bahi pakkaṃ aññehi pakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, anāpattī”ti (mahāva. 274) vacanato sahaseyyappahonake ṭhāne vutthatā, tattha pakkatā, upasampannena sāmaṃ pakkatāti imesaṃ tiṇṇaṃ aṅgānaṃ sambhave sati tisso āpattiyo, dvinnaṃ sambhave dve āpattiyo, ekassa aṅgassa sambhave ekā āpattīti veditabbaṃ.
Then the Blessed One addressed the Venerable Ānanda, “Whence, Ānanda, is this yāgu?” Then the Venerable Ānanda reported the matter to the Blessed One. The Buddha, the Blessed One, rebuked him: “It is unseemly, Ānanda, unsuitable, improper, unmonastic, unallowable, not to be done; how could you, Ānanda, intend such indulgence? Whatever is kept inside, that is unallowable. Whatever is cooked inside, that is unallowable. Whatever is cooked by oneself, that is unallowable. This, Ānanda, does not conduce to the faith of the unfaithful… Having rebuked him and given a Dhamma talk, he addressed the bhikkhus: ‘Bhikkhus, what is kept inside, cooked inside, and cooked by oneself is not to be used; whoever uses it commits an offense of wrongdoing. If, bhikkhus, it is kept inside, cooked inside, and cooked by oneself, and one uses it, there are three offenses of wrongdoing. If, bhikkhus, it is kept inside and cooked inside but cooked by others, and one uses it, there are two offenses of wrongdoing. If, bhikkhus, it is kept inside but cooked outside and cooked by oneself, and one uses it, there are two offenses of wrongdoing. If, bhikkhus, it is kept outside but cooked inside and cooked by oneself, and one uses it, there are two offenses of wrongdoing. If, bhikkhus, it is kept inside but cooked outside and cooked by others, and one uses it, there is one offense of wrongdoing. If, bhikkhus, it is kept outside but cooked inside and cooked by others, and one uses it, there is one offense of wrongdoing. If, bhikkhus, it is kept outside and cooked outside but cooked by oneself, and one uses it, there is one offense of wrongdoing. If, bhikkhus, it is kept outside and cooked outside and cooked by others, and one uses it, there is no offense’” (mahāva. 274); thus, it should be understood that when all three factors—kept in a sleeping place, cooked there, and cooked by an ordained person—are present, there are three offenses; when two are present, two offenses; when one is present, one offense.
Then the Blessed One addressed the venerable Ānanda: ‘Where did this gruel come from, Ānanda?’ Then the venerable Ānanda informed the Blessed One of this matter. The Blessed Buddha rebuked him, ‘This is improper, Ānanda, unsuitable, inappropriate, unfitting for an ascetic, inadmissible, not to be done. How could you, Ānanda, think of such excess? Even though, Ānanda, it was stored indoors, that is inadmissible. Even though it was cooked indoors, that is inadmissible. Even though it was cooked by oneself, that is inadmissible. This, Ānanda, is not for the arousing of faith in those who are not faithful…’ having rebuked him and given a Dhamma talk, he addressed the monks: ‘Monks, what is stored indoors, cooked indoors, cooked by oneself should not be consumed. Whoever should consume it, incurs an offense of wrong-doing (dukkaṭa). If, monks, it is stored indoors, cooked indoors, cooked by oneself, and one consumes it, there is an offense of three wrong-doings. If, monks, it is stored indoors, cooked indoors, cooked by others, and one consumes it, there is an offense of two wrong-doings. If, monks, it is stored indoors, cooked outside, cooked by oneself, and one consumes it, there is an offense of two wrong-doings. If, monks, it is stored outside, cooked indoors, cooked by oneself, and one consumes it, there is an offense of two wrong-doings. If, monks, it is stored indoors, cooked outside, cooked by others, and one consumes it, there is an offense of wrong-doing. If, monks, it is stored outside, cooked indoors, cooked by others, and one consumes it, there is an offense of wrong-doing. If, monks, it is stored outside, cooked outside, cooked by oneself, and one consumes it, there is an offense of wrong-doing. If, monks, it is stored outside, cooked outside, cooked by others, and one consumes it, there is no offense’ (Mahāva. 274). Therefore, it should be understood that when there is a combination of these three factors — having been stored in a place sufficient for co-residence, having been cooked there, and having been cooked by oneself, a fully ordained person — there are three offenses; when there is a combination of two, there are two offenses; when there is one factor, there is one offense.”
Then the Blessed One addressed Venerable Ānanda, ‘Ānanda, where did this gruel come from?’ Venerable Ānanda then explained the matter to the Blessed One. The Blessed One rebuked him, saying, ‘Ānanda, this is improper, unsuitable, unseemly, unbecoming of an ascetic, and unallowable. How could you, Ānanda, engage in such excess? Even if it was soaked, it is unallowable. Even if it was cooked, it is unallowable. Even if you cooked it yourself, it is unallowable. This, Ānanda, does not lead to faith in the unfaithful…’ After rebuking him, the Blessed One gave a Dhamma talk and addressed the monks: ‘Monks, one should not consume what has been soaked, cooked, or cooked by oneself. If one does so, it is an offense of wrongdoing. If, monks, what has been soaked, cooked, or cooked by oneself is consumed, it is an offense of three wrongdoings. If, monks, what has been soaked and cooked by oneself but cooked by others is consumed, it is an offense of two wrongdoings. If, monks, what has been soaked outside but cooked by oneself is consumed, it is an offense of two wrongdoings. If, monks, what has been soaked inside but cooked outside by others is consumed, it is an offense of wrongdoing. If, monks, what has been soaked outside but cooked inside by others is consumed, it is an offense of wrongdoing. If, monks, what has been soaked outside and cooked outside by oneself is consumed, it is an offense of wrongdoing. If, monks, what has been soaked outside and cooked outside by others is consumed, there is no offense.’ (Mahāva. 274) Thus, in a place where one sleeps after defecating, if it has been soaked, cooked, or cooked by oneself, there are three offenses if all three factors are present, two offenses if two factors are present, and one offense if one factor is present.
ID2043
Anto vutthanti akappiyakuṭiyaṃ vutthaṃ. Sāmaṃ pakkanti ettha yaṃ kiñci āmisaṃ bhikkhuno pacituṃ na vaṭṭati. Sacepissa uṇhayāguyā sulasipaṇṇāni vā siṅgiveraṃ vā loṇaṃ vā pakkhipanti, tampi cāletuṃ na vaṭṭati. “Yāguṃ nibbāpemī”ti pana cāletuṃ vaṭṭati. Uttaṇḍubhattaṃ labhitvāpi pidahituṃ na vaṭṭati. Sace pana manussā pidahitvāva denti, vaṭṭati. “Bhattaṃ vā mā nibbāyatū”ti pidahituṃ vaṭṭati. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, puna pākaṃ pacitu”nti (mahāva. 274) vacanato pubbe anupasampannehi pakkaṃ puna pacituṃ vaṭṭati. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 274) “khīratakkādīsu pana sakiṃ kuthitesu aggiṃ dātuṃ vaṭṭati punapākassa anuññātattā”ti. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, anto vāsetu”nti (mahāva. 274) vacanato dubbhikkhasamaye taṇḍulādīni anto vāsetuṃ vaṭṭati. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, anto pacitu”nti (mahāva. 274) vacanato dubbhikkhasamaye anto pacituṃ vaṭṭati. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, sāmaṃ pacitu”nti (mahāva. 274) vacanato dubbhikkhasamaye sāmampi pacituṃ vaṭṭati. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, anto vutthaṃ anto pakkaṃ sāmaṃ pakka”nti (mahāva. 274) vacanato dubbhikkhasamaye tīṇipi vaṭṭanti.
Anto vuttha means kept in an unallowable hut. Sāmaṃ pakka means here that a bhikkhu is not permitted to cook any raw material; even if they add leaves of garlic, ginger, or salt to hot yāgu, it is not permissible to stir it, though stirring it while saying, “I am cooling the yāgu,” is permissible; even if one receives overcooked rice, it is not permissible to cover it, but if people give it already covered, it is permissible; covering it while saying, “Let the rice not cool,” is permissible; from the statement “I allow, bhikkhus, to cook again what has been cooked” (mahāva. 274), it is permissible to recook what was previously cooked by the unordained; for it is said in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 274), “In the case of milk, buttermilk, and the like, once they have been boiled, it is permissible to apply heat again due to the allowance of recooking”; from the statement “I allow, bhikkhus, to keep inside” (mahāva. 274), it is permissible to keep rice and the like inside during a famine; from the statement “I allow, bhikkhus, to cook inside” (mahāva. 274), it is permissible to cook inside during a famine; from the statement “I allow, bhikkhus, to cook oneself” (mahāva. 274), it is permissible to cook oneself during a famine; from the statement “I allow, bhikkhus, what is kept inside, cooked inside, and cooked by oneself” (mahāva. 274), all three are permissible during a famine.
Stored indoors means stored in a non-allowable hut. Cooked by oneself — here, it is not allowable for a monk to cook any food at all. Even if they put fragrant leaves, ginger, or salt into hot gruel, it is not allowable to even stir it. But it is allowable to stir it, thinking, “I am cooling the gruel.” Even having received cooked rice, it is not allowable to cover it. But if people give it already covered, it is allowable. It is allowable to cover it, thinking, “May the rice not get cold.” Because it is stated, “I allow, monks, to cook again” (Mahāva. 274), it is allowable to cook again what was previously cooked by non-fully ordained persons. For it is stated in the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 274), “However, in the case of milk, buttermilk, etc., once they have boiled, it is allowable to apply fire, because re-cooking is allowed.” Because it is stated, “I allow, monks, to store indoors” (Mahāva. 274), it is allowable to store rice and so forth indoors during a time of famine. Because it is stated, “I allow, monks, to cook indoors” (Mahāva. 274), it is allowable to cook indoors during a time of famine. Because it is stated, “I allow, monks, to cook by oneself” (Mahāva. 274), it is allowable even to cook by oneself during a time of famine. Because it is stated, “I allow, monks, what has been stored indoors, cooked indoors, cooked by oneself” (Mahāva. 274), all three are allowable during a time of famine.
Anto vuttha means soaked in an unallowable place. Sāmaṃ pakka means that a monk is not allowed to cook any food himself. If he adds ginger, salt, or other ingredients to hot gruel, he is not allowed to stir it. However, he is allowed to stir it to cool the gruel. Even if he obtains cooked rice, he is not allowed to cover it. But if people cover it before giving it to him, it is allowed. He is allowed to cover it to prevent the rice from cooling. ‘I allow, monks, to cook again what has been cooked before’ (Mahāva. 274), thus it is allowed for those who are not yet fully ordained to cook again what has been cooked before. As stated in the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 274), ‘In the case of milk, etc., once they have been boiled, it is allowed to add fire again because re-cooking is permitted.’ ‘I allow, monks, to soak inside’ (Mahāva. 274), thus it is allowed to soak rice, etc., inside during a famine. ‘I allow, monks, to cook inside’ (Mahāva. 274), thus it is allowed to cook inside during a famine. ‘I allow, monks, to cook oneself’ (Mahāva. 274), thus it is allowed to cook oneself during a famine. ‘I allow, monks, what has been soaked inside, cooked inside, or cooked by oneself’ (Mahāva. 274), thus all three are allowed during a famine.
ID2044
ID2045
Uggahitapaṭiggahitakathāyaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, yattha phalakhādanīyaṃ passati, kappiyakārako ca na hoti, sāmaṃ gahetvā haritvā kappiyakārake passitvā bhūmiyaṃ nikkhipitvā paṭiggahāpetvā paribhuñjituṃ, anujānāmi, bhikkhave, uggahitaṃ paṭiggahitu”nti (mahāva. 275) vacanato tathā katvā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati, āpatti na hotīti.
In the discussion on what is taken and received, from the statement “I allow, bhikkhus, where one sees edible fruit and there is no one to make it allowable, to take it oneself, carry it, and having seen someone to make it allowable, place it on the ground, have it received, and use it; I allow, bhikkhus, what is taken to be received” (mahāva. 275), it is permissible to use it in this way, and there is no offense.
In the story of what has been taken up and accepted, because it is stated, “I allow, monks, when one sees fruit or food, and there is no allowable-maker, to take it oneself, carry it, and having seen an allowable-maker, put it down on the ground, have it accepted, and consume it; I allow, monks, to accept what has been taken up” (Mahāva. 275), it is allowable to consume it after doing so, and there is no offense.
In the discussion on uggahitapaṭiggahita, it is said, ‘I allow, monks, when one sees edible fruits and there is no one to make them allowable, to take them oneself, bring them, and after seeing someone who can make them allowable, to place them on the ground and have them received before consuming them. I allow, monks, to receive what has been taken.’ (Mahāva. 275) Thus, it is allowed to consume them in this way, and there is no offense.
ID2046
ID2047
Tato nīhaṭakathāyaṃ “paṭiggaṇhatha, bhikkhave, paribhuñjatha. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, tato nīhaṭaṃ bhuttāvinā pavāritena anatirittaṃ paribhuñjitu”nti (mahāva. 276) vacanato yasmiṃ dāne nimantitā hutvā bhikkhū bhuñjanti, tato dānato nīhaṭaṃ bhojanaṃ pavāritena bhikkhunā bhuñjitabbaṃ, na pavāritasikkhāpadena āpatti hoti. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 276) “tato nīhaṭanti yattha nimantitā bhuñjanti, tato nīhaṭa”nti.
In the discussion on what is brought from there, from the statement “Receive it, bhikkhus, use it; I allow, bhikkhus, what is brought from there to be used by one who has eaten and been satisfied, without excess” (mahāva. 276), food brought from a place where bhikkhus eat by invitation may be used by a satisfied bhikkhu, and there is no offense under the training rule on satisfaction; for it is said in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 276), “tato nīhaṭa” means “brought from where they eat by invitation.”
In the story of what has been brought from there, because it is said, “Accept, monks, consume. I allow, monks, food brought from there to be consumed by one who has eaten and refused further food, if it is not extra” (Mahāva. 276), when monks are invited to a meal and eat, food brought from that meal should be eaten by a monk who has refused further food; there is no offense according to the training rule concerning refusing. For it is stated in the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 276), **“what has been brought from there** means brought from where they are eating after being invited.”
In the discussion on tatonīhaṭa, it is said, ‘Receive, monks, and consume. I allow, monks, to consume what has been taken from there by one who has finished eating and has not refused.’ (Mahāva. 276) Thus, food taken from a place where monks have been invited to eat can be consumed by a monk who has finished eating and has not refused, and there is no offense under the rule of refusal. As stated in the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 276), **‘tatonīhaṭa** means what has been taken from the place where one has been invited to eat.’
ID2048
ID2049
Purebhattapaṭiggahitakathāyaṃ “paṭiggaṇhatha, bhikkhave, paribhuñjatha, anujānāmi, bhikkhave, purebhattaṃ paṭiggahitaṃ bhuttāvinā pavāritena anatirittaṃ paribhuñjitu”nti (mahāva. 277) vacanato purebhattaṃ paṭiggahetvā nikkhipitaṃ pavāritena bhikkhunā atirittaṃ akatvā bhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati, pavāritasikkhāpadena āpatti na hoti.
In the discussion on what is received before the meal, from the statement “Receive it, bhikkhus, use it; I allow, bhikkhus, what is received before the meal to be used by one who has eaten and been satisfied, without excess” (mahāva. 277), what is received and set aside before the meal may be used by a satisfied bhikkhu without making it excess, and there is no offense under the training rule on satisfaction.
In the story of what has been accepted before the meal, because it is said, “Accept, monks, consume; I allow, monks, what has been accepted before the meal to be consumed by one who has eaten and refused further food, if it is not extra” (Mahāva. 277), it is allowable for a monk who has refused further food to eat what has been accepted and put down before the meal, without making it extra; there is no offense according to the training rule concerning refusing.
In the discussion on purebhattapaṭiggahita, it is said, ‘Receive, monks, and consume. I allow, monks, to consume what has been received before the meal by one who has finished eating and has not refused.’ (Mahāva. 277) Thus, it is allowed to consume food received before the meal without refusing it, and there is no offense under the rule of refusal.
ID2050
ID2051
Vanaṭṭhapokkharaṭṭhakathāyaṃ “tena kho pana samayena āyasmato sāriputtassa kāyaḍāhābādho hoti. Atha kho āyasmā mahāmoggallāno yenāyasmā sāriputto tenupasaṅkami, upasaṅkamitvā āyasmantaṃ sāriputtaṃ etadavoca ’pubbe te, āvuso sāriputta, kāyaḍāhābādho kena phāsu hotī’ti. Bhisehi ca me, āvuso, muḷālikāhi cāti…pe… atha kho āyasmato sāriputtassa bhise ca muḷālikāyo ca paribhuttassa kāyaḍāhābādho paṭippassambhi…pe… paṭiggaṇhatha, bhikkhave, paribhuñjatha. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, vanaṭṭhaṃ pokkharaṭṭhaṃ bhuttāvinā pavāritena anatirittaṃ paribhuñjitu”nti (mahāva. 278) vacanato vanaṭṭhaṃ pokkharaṭṭhaṃ pavāritena bhikkhunā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati, pavāritasikkhāpadena āpatti na hoti. Tattha vanaṭṭhaṃ pokkharaṭṭhanti vane ceva paduminigacche ca jātaṃ.
In the discussion on what grows in the forest or lotus plants, “At that time, the Venerable Sāriputta had an affliction of bodily heat; then the Venerable Mahāmoggallāna approached the Venerable Sāriputta and said, ‘Friend Sāriputta, what eased your bodily heat in the past?’ ‘By bhisa and muḷālika, friend…’ Then, after the Venerable Sāriputta used bhisa and muḷālika, his bodily heat subsided… Receive it, bhikkhus, use it; I allow, bhikkhus, what grows in the forest or lotus plants to be used by one who has eaten and been satisfied, without excess’” (mahāva. 278); thus, a satisfied bhikkhu may use what grows in the forest or lotus plants, and there is no offense under the training rule on satisfaction; therein, vanaṭṭhaṃ pokkharaṭṭhaṃ means what grows in forests and lotus thickets.
In the story of what grows in the forest and what grows in a pond, “At that time, the venerable Sāriputta had an ailment of burning in the body. Then the venerable Mahāmoggallāna approached the venerable Sāriputta and said to him, ‘Formerly, venerable Sāriputta, by what was your ailment of burning in the body relieved?’ ‘By lotus stalks and water-lily roots, venerable sir…’ … Then the venerable Sāriputta’s ailment of burning in the body subsided after consuming lotus stalks and water-lily roots… ‘Accept, monks, consume. I allow, monks, what grows in the forest and what grows in a pond to be consumed by one who has eaten and refused further food, if it is not extra’” (Mahāva. 278). Therefore it is allowable for a monk who has refused food to eat what grows in the forest and what grows in a pond; there is no offense from the training rule concerning refusing. Here, what grows in the forest and what grows in a pond means what has grown in the forest and in a cluster of lotuses.
In the discussion on vanaṭṭhapokkharaṭṭha, it is said, ‘At that time, Venerable Sāriputta suffered from a burning sensation in his body. Venerable Mahāmoggallāna approached Venerable Sāriputta and asked, “Friend Sāriputta, what previously relieved your burning sensation?” “Friend, it was relieved by lotus roots and radishes.”… After Venerable Sāriputta consumed lotus roots and radishes, his burning sensation subsided… Receive, monks, and consume. I allow, monks, to consume lotus roots and radishes by one who has finished eating and has not refused.’ (Mahāva. 278) Thus, it is allowed for a monk who has finished eating to consume lotus roots and radishes, and there is no offense under the rule of refusal. Here, vanaṭṭhapokkharaṭṭha refers to what grows in the forest and in lotus ponds.
ID2052
ID2053
Akatakappakathāyaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, abījaṃ nibbaṭṭabījaṃ akatakappaṃ phalaṃ paribhuñjitu”nti (mahāva. 278) vacanato abījañca nibbaṭṭabījañca phalaṃ aggisatthanakhehi samaṇakappaṃ akatvāpi paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati. Tattha abījanti taruṇaphalaṃ, yassa bījaṃ aṅkuraṃ na janeti. Nibbaṭṭabījanti bījaṃ nibbaṭṭetvā apanetvā paribhuñjitabbakaṃ ambapanasādi, tāni phalāni kappiyakārake asati kappaṃ akatvāpi paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati.
In the discussion on what is not made allowable, from the statement “I allow, bhikkhus, fruit that is seedless, with seeds removed, or not made allowable to be used” (mahāva. 278), seedless fruit or fruit with seeds removed may be used without being made allowable by fire or knife; therein, abīja means young fruit whose seeds do not sprout; nibbaṭṭabīja means fruit like mango or rose-apple from which seeds have been removed and which is to be used; such fruits may be used without being made allowable if no one is present to do so.
In the story of what has not been made allowable, because it is stated, “I allow, monks, to consume fruit that is seedless, has had the seeds removed, and has not been made allowable” (Mahāva. 278), it is allowable to consume fruit that is seedless and has had the seeds removed, even without making it allowable for ascetics with fire, knives, or fingernails. Here, seedless means young fruit, whose seed does not produce a sprout. Has had the seeds removed means mangoes, jackfruits, etc., from which the seeds have been removed and discarded. It is allowable to consume those fruits even without making them allowable, if there is no allowable-maker.
In the discussion on akatakappa, it is said, ‘I allow, monks, to consume seedless fruits, fruits with removed seeds, and fruits that have not been made allowable.’ (Mahāva. 278) Thus, it is allowed to consume seedless fruits and fruits with removed seeds without making them allowable by fire, knife, or nail. Here, abīja refers to young fruits that do not produce seeds. Nibbaṭṭabīja refers to fruits like mangoes and jackfruits whose seeds have been removed and can be consumed without making them allowable if there is no one to make them allowable.
ID2054
ID2055
Yāgukathāyaṃ “dasayime, brāhmaṇa, ānisaṃsā yāguyā. Katame dasa, yāguṃ dento āyuṃ deti, vaṇṇaṃ deti, sukhaṃ deti, balaṃ deti, paṭibhānaṃ deti, yāgupītā khudaṃ paṭihanati, pipāsaṃ vineti, vātaṃ anulometi, vatthiṃ sodheti, āmāvasesaṃ pāceti. Ime kho, brāhmaṇa, dasānisaṃsā yāguyāti.
In the discussion on yāgu, “These ten, brahmin, are the benefits of yāgu; what are the ten? One who gives yāgu gives life, gives beauty, gives happiness, gives strength, gives intelligence; yāgu when drunk removes hunger, dispels thirst, regulates wind, cleanses the bladder, and digests the remnants of raw food; these, brahmin, are the ten benefits of yāgu.”
In the story of gruel, “These ten, brahmin, are the advantages in gruel. What ten? Giving gruel, one gives long life, gives beauty, gives ease, gives strength, gives quick-wittedness; having drunk gruel, one subdues hunger, dispels thirst, regulates wind, cleanses the bladder, digests what remains undigested. These, brahmin, are the ten advantages in gruel.
In the discussion on yāgu, it is said, ’Brahmin, there are these ten benefits of gruel. What are the ten? Giving gruel gives life, beauty, happiness, strength, and intelligence. Drinking gruel alleviates hunger, dispels thirst, balances wind, cleanses the bladder, and digests undigested food. These, Brahmin, are the ten benefits of gruel.
ID2056
’Yo saññatānaṃ paradattabhojinaṃ; Kālena sakkacca dadāti yāguṃ; Dasassa ṭhānāni anuppavecchati; Āyuñca vaṇṇañca sukhaṃ balañca.
“He who, to the restrained who live on others’ gifts, gives yāgu at the proper time with respect, bestows these ten things: life, beauty, happiness, and strength.”
’He who gives gruel, duly and punctually, to those restrained ones who eat what others give; bestows ten things upon them; long life, beauty, ease, and strength.
’To those who are restrained and eat what is given by others, giving gruel at the proper time and with care bestows ten things: life, beauty, happiness, and strength.
ID2057
’Paṭibhānamassa upajāyate tato; Khuddaṃ pipāsañca byapaneti vātaṃ; Sodheti vatthiṃ pariṇāmeti bhattaṃ; Bhesajjametaṃ sugatena vaṇṇitaṃ.
“From this, intelligence arises for him; it removes hunger and thirst and regulates wind; it cleanses the bladder and digests food; this medicine was praised by the Sugata.”
’Quick-wittedness arises for him from that; it subdues hunger, thirst, and wind; It cleanses the bladder and digests food; this is praised by the Well-Gone One as medicine.
’Intelligence arises from it; it dispels hunger and thirst, balances wind, cleanses the bladder, and digests food. This medicine has been praised by the Sugata.
ID2058
’Tasmā hi yāguṃ alameva dātuṃ; Niccaṃ manussena sukhatthikena; Dibbāni vā patthayatā sukhāni; Mānussasobhagyatamicchatā vā’ti.
“Therefore, indeed, yāgu should be given by a person desiring happiness always, or by one aspiring to divine joys, or wishing for human prosperity.”
‘Therefore, indeed, it is proper to give gruel; Always by a person who desires happiness; whether desiring heavenly happiness; or desiring human prosperity.’
‘Therefore, one who desires happiness should always give gruel, whether aspiring for heavenly bliss or human prosperity.’
ID2059
Atha kho bhagavā taṃ brāhmaṇaṃ imāhi gāthāhi anumoditvā uṭṭhāyāsanā pakkāmi. Atha kho bhagavā etasmiṃ nidāne etasmiṃ pakaraṇe dhammiṃ kathaṃ katvā bhikkhū āmantesi – anujānāmi, bhikkhave, yāguñca madhugoḷakañcā”ti (mahāva. 282) vacanato yāguñca madhugoḷakañca sampaṭicchituṃ vaṭṭati. Anumodanāgāthāya “patthayataṃ icchata”nti padānaṃ “alameva dātu”nti iminā sambandho. Sace pana “patthayatā icchatā”ti pāṭho atthi, soyeva gahetabbo. “Na, bhikkhave, aññatra nimantitena aññassa bhojjayāgu paribhuñjitabbā, yo paribhuñjeyya, yathādhammo kāretabbo”ti (mahāva. 283) vacanato tathā bhuñjantassa paramparabhojanasikkhāpadena āpatti hoti. Bhojjayāgūti yā pavāraṇaṃ janeti. Yathādhammo kāretabboti paramparabhojanena kāretabbo.
Then the Blessed One, having rejoiced that brahmin with these verses, rose from his seat and departed; then the Blessed One, on this occasion and in this context, having given a Dhamma talk, addressed the bhikkhus: “I allow, bhikkhus, yāgu and madhugoḷaka” (mahāva. 282); thus, it is permissible to accept yāgu and madhugoḷaka; the connection of the phrases “patthayataṃ icchata” in the rejoicing verses is with “alameva dātu”; if the reading is “patthayatā icchatā,” that alone should be taken; from the statement “Bhikkhus, except when invited, one should not use another’s substantial yāgu; whoever uses it should be dealt with according to the Dhamma” (mahāva. 283), using it so incurs an offense under the training rule on successive meals; bhojjayāgu means yāgu that leads to satisfaction; yathādhammo kāretabbo means to be dealt with according to successive meals.
Then the Blessed One, having gladdened that brahmin with these verses, rose from his seat and departed. Then the Blessed One, on this occasion, in this connection, having given a Dhamma talk, addressed the monks: ‘I allow, monks, gruel and honey-lump’” (Mahāva. 282). Therefore, it is allowable to accept gruel and honey-lump. In the verses of rejoicing, the words patthayataṃ (desiring) and icchataṃ (wishing) are connected with ‘it is proper to give’ (alameva dātu). But if the reading is patthayatā icchatā, that is the one to be taken. Because it is stated, ‘Monks, food and gruel should not be consumed by one who is not invited, for another; whoever should consume it, should be dealt with according to the rule’ (Mahāva. 283), one who eats thus incurs an offense according to the training rule concerning eating in succession. Bhojjayāgū (food-gruel) is that which generates refusal. Should be dealt with according to the rule means should be dealt with according to (the rule on) eating in succession.
Then the Blessed One, having rejoiced in these verses, rose from his seat and departed. Then the Blessed One, on this occasion, gave a Dhamma talk and addressed the monks: ‘I allow, monks, to accept gruel and honey balls.’ (Mahāva. 282) Thus, it is allowed to accept gruel and honey balls. In the verse of rejoicing, ‘for those who aspire and desire,’ the phrase ‘should give’ is connected. If the reading is ‘for those who aspire and desire,’ that should be taken. ‘Monks, one should not consume invitation gruel meant for another unless invited. If one does so, one should be dealt with according to the rule.’ (Mahāva. 283) Thus, for one who consumes in this way, there is an offense under the rule of eating in succession. Bhojjayāgu refers to what generates an invitation. Yathādhammo kāretabbo means one should be dealt with according to the rule of eating in succession.
ID2060
ID2061
Guḷakathāyaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, gilānassa guḷaṃ, agilānassa guḷodaka”nti (mahāva. 284) vacanato gilāno bhikkhu guḷapiṇḍaṃ vikālepi khādituṃ vaṭṭati. Agilāno pana udakasambhinnaṃ katvā guḷodakaparibhogena paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati. “Gilānassa guḷanti tathārūpena byādhinā gilānassa pacchābhattaṃ guḷaṃ anujānāmīti attho”ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 284) vuttaṃ. “Tathārūpena byādhinā”ti vuttattā yathārūpena byādhinā gilānassa guḷo paribhuñjitabbo hoti, tathārūpena eva byādhinā gilānassāti vuttaṃ viya dissati, vīmaṃsitvā gahetabbaṃ.
In the discussion on guḷa, from the statement “I allow, bhikkhus, guḷa for the sick, guḷodaka for the healthy” (mahāva. 284), a sick bhikkhu may eat a lump of guḷa even at the wrong time; a healthy one, however, may use it mixed with water as guḷodaka; it is said in the commentary (mahāva. aṭṭha. 284), “Gilānassa guḷa means I allow guḷa after midday for one sick with such an illness”; since it says “with such an illness,” it appears as though it is said that guḷa is to be used by one sick with the kind of illness for which it is suitable, and this should be understood upon investigation.
In the story of molasses, because it is stated, “I allow, monks, molasses for one who is sick, molasses-water for one who is not sick” (Mahāva. 284), it is allowable for a sick monk to eat a lump of molasses even at the wrong time. One who is not sick, however, should mix it with water and consume it as molasses-water. In the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 284), it is stated, “Molasses for one who is sick means, I allow molasses after a meal for one who is sick with such a kind of disease.” Because it is stated, “with such a kind of disease,” it seems as if it is stated that molasses should be consumed by one who is sick with the kind of disease for which molasses should be consumed, one who is indeed sick with that very kind of disease; it should be taken after investigation.
In the discussion on guḷa, it is said, ‘I allow, monks, jaggery for the sick and jaggery water for the healthy.’ (Mahāva. 284) Thus, a sick monk may eat jaggery even at an improper time. A healthy monk, however, should consume it mixed with water as a drink. ‘Jaggery for the sick’ means that jaggery is allowed for the sick after meals for such illnesses, as stated in the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 284). ‘For such illnesses’ means that jaggery should be consumed by the sick for such illnesses, and this should be carefully considered.
ID2062
Ettakāsu kathāsu yā yā saṃvaṇṇetabbappakaraṇe na dissati, sā sā amhehi pesalānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ kosallatthaṃ pāḷito ca aṭṭhakathāto ca gahetvā ṭīkācariyānaṃ vacanehi alaṅkaritvā ṭhapitā, tasmā nikkaṅkhā hutvā paṇḍitā upadhārentu.
In these discussions, whatever is not seen in the sections to be explained has been taken by us from the Pali texts and commentaries, adorned with the words of the subcommentary teachers, and placed for the skill of virtuous bhikkhus; therefore, let the wise examine it without doubt.
In these accounts, whatever is not found in the sections to be commented upon, all that has been gathered by me from the Pāḷi and the commentaries, and adorned with the words of the teachers of the ṭīkā, for the sake of the skillfulness of virtuous monks; therefore, let the পণ্ডিত (paṇḍita, learned ones) examine it without doubt.
In these discussions, whatever is not found in the texts that should be praised, we have taken from the Pāli and the commentaries, adorned it with the words of the ṭīkā teachers, and established it for the benefit of virtuous monks. Therefore, let the wise examine it without doubt.
ID2063
ID2064
67. Yaṃ bhikkhavetiādi mahāpadesakathā nāma. Tattha mahante atthe upadissati etehīti mahāpadesā, mahantā vā atthā padissanti paññāyanti etthāti mahāpadesā, mahantānaṃ vā atthānaṃ padeso pavattidesoti mahāpadesā. Ke te? Imeyeva cattāro pāṭhā, atthā vā. Tena vuttaṃ “ime cattāro mahāpadese”tiādi. Tattha dhammasaṅgāhakattherāti mahākassapādayo. Suttaṃ gahetvāti “ṭhapetvā dhaññaphalarasa”ntiādikaṃ suttaṃ gahetvā upadhārento. Satta dhaññānīti –
67. The passage beginning Yaṃ bhikkhave is called the discussion on the great references; therein, mahāpadesā means those by which great matters are pointed out, or great matters are perceived and understood here, or it is a reference to the domain of great matters; what are they? These very four textual passages or meanings; hence it is said, “ime cattāro mahāpadese” and so forth; therein, dhammasaṅgāhakattherā refers to elders like Mahākassapa; suttaṃ gahetvā means examining a sutta such as “excepting the juice of grains and fruits”; satta dhaññāni means—
67. The discourse beginning with “Yaṃ bhikkhave” is called the Mahāpadesakathā. Herein, mahāpadesā means that by these, great matters are pointed out; or mahāpadesā means great matters are indicated, are made known by these; or mahāpadesā means that the exposition, the teaching of the great matters. What are they? These very four texts, or meanings. Therefore, it is said, “ime cattāro mahāpadese” and so on. Here, dhammasaṅgāhakattherā refers to Mahākassapa and the others. Suttaṃ gahetvā means, taking a sutta such as that beginning “ṭhapetvā dhaññaphalarasaṃ,” and examining it. Satta dhaññānī –
67. “Bhikkhus, whatever” and so on is called the discussion on the great references. Herein, because great meanings are indicated by these, they are called great references; or because great meanings are made known here, they are called great references; or because they are the means by which great meanings are conveyed, they are called great references. What are they? These four texts or meanings. Therefore, it is said, “These four great references” and so on. Herein, “the elders who compiled the Dhamma” refers to Mahākassapa and others. “Having taken the sutta” means having taken the sutta such as “excluding the juice of grain and fruit” and so on, and considering it. “Seven kinds of grain” are—
ID2065
“Sāli vīhi ca kudrūso, godhumo varako yavo; Kaṅgūti satta dhaññāni, nīvārādī tu tabbhidā”ti –.
“Sāli, vīhi, kudrūsa, godhuma, varaka, yava, and kaṅgu—these are the seven grains; nīvāra and the like are their varieties”—
“Rice, barley, millet, wheat, varaka, barley; Kaṅgū are the seven grains; nīvāra etc. are its subdivisions” –.
“Rice, barley, millet, wheat, varaka, barley, and kaṅgu—these are the seven kinds of grain; nīvāra and others are excluded.”
ID2066
Vuttāni satta dhaññāni. Sabbaṃ aparaṇṇanti muggamāsādayo. Aṭṭha pānānīti ambapānaṃ jambupānaṃ cocapānaṃ mocapānaṃ sālukapānaṃ muddikapānaṃ madhukapānaṃ phārusakapānañca.
These seven grains are mentioned; sabbaṃ aparaṇṇa means mung beans, black gram, and the like; aṭṭha pānāni means mango juice, rose-apple juice, banana juice, plantain juice, lotus-root juice, grape juice, honey juice, and phārusaka juice.
These are the seven grains mentioned. Sabbaṃ aparaṇṇa means mugga beans, māsa beans, and so on. Aṭṭha pānānī means mango juice, rose-apple juice, coca juice, banana juice, sāluka juice, grape juice, madhuka juice, and phārusaka juice.
These are the seven kinds of grain. “All other grains” refers to mung beans and the like. “Eight kinds of drinks” are: mango drink, rose-apple drink, coconut drink, banana drink, lotus-root drink, grape drink, honey drink, and phārusaka drink.
ID2067
Iminā nayenāti suttānulomanayena. Vuttañhetaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ “suttānulomaṃ nāma cattāro mahāpadesā”ti. Pāḷiñca aṭṭhakathañca anapekkhitvāti pāḷiyaṃ nītatthato āgatameva aggahetvā . Aññānipīti tato aññānipi. Etena mahāpadesā nāma na kevalaṃ yathāvuttā eva, atha kho anekāni nānappakārāni vinayadharassa ñāṇānubhāvappakāsitānīti dasseti.
Iminā nayena means by the method conforming to the sutta; for it is said in the commentary, “suttānulomaṃ** means the four great references”; pāḷiñca aṭṭhakathañca anapekkhitvā** means not taking what is explicitly stated in the Pali text; aññānipi means others besides these; by this, it shows that the great references are not limited to those mentioned but include many various types illuminated by the knowledge and power of a Vinaya expert.
Iminā nayenā means by the method of accordance with the suttas. It is said in the commentary, “suttānulomaṃ** means the four great authorities.” Pāḷiñca aṭṭhakathañca anapekkhitvā** means, without taking what has come from the definitive meaning in the Pāḷi. Aññānipī means even others besides those. By this, he shows that the great authorities are not only those as stated, but are many and of various kinds, illuminated by the power of knowledge of the Vinayadhara.
“By this method” means by following the sutta. It is said in the commentary, “Following the sutta is called the four great references.” “Without disregarding the Pāli and the commentary” means not taking what has already been established in the Pāli. “Others as well” means others besides that. By this, it is shown that the great references are not only as stated but also many other various kinds revealed by the knowledge of a Vinaya expert.
ID2068
ID2069
68. Ānisaṃsakathāyaṃ vinayaṃ dhāretīti vinayadharo, sikkhanavācanamanasikāravinicchayanatadanulomakaraṇādinā vinayapariyattikusalo bhikkhu. Vinayapariyattimūlaṃ etesanti vinayapariyattimūlakā. Ke te? Pañcānisaṃsā. Vinayapariyattiyeva mūlaṃ kāraṇaṃ katvā labhitabbaānisaṃsā, na aññapariyattiṃ vā paṭipattiādayo vā mūlaṃ katvāti attho. Atha vā pariyāpuṇanaṃ pariyatti, vinayassa pariyatti vinayapariyatti, sā mūlaṃ etesanti vinayapariyattimūlakā, vinayapariyāpuṇanahetubhavā ānisaṃsāti attho. “Katame”tiādinā tesaṃ pañcānisaṃsādīnaṃ sarūpaṃ pucchitvā “attano”tiādinā vissajjetvā taṃ vacanaṃ pāḷiyā samatthetuṃ “vuttañheta”ntiādimāha.
68. In the discussion on benefits, vinayadharo means one who holds the Vinaya, a bhikkhu skilled in Vinaya learning through study, recitation, attention, judgment, and conformity; vinayapariyattimūlakā means those rooted in Vinaya learning; what are they? The five benefits; these are benefits to be gained by making Vinaya learning the root cause, not other learning or practice and the like; alternatively, learning is pariyatti, the learning of the Vinaya is vinayapariyatti, and these are rooted in it, meaning the benefits arise from the cause of learning the Vinaya; by asking “katame” and so forth, their nature is questioned, and by answering with “attano” and so forth, and concluding that statement with the Pali, it is said, “vuttañheta” and so on.
68. In the discourse on advantages, one who maintains the Vinaya is a vinayadharo, a monk skilled in the learning of Vinaya, through learning, recitation, attention, decision, and acting in accordance with it. Vinayapariyattimūlakā means those who have the study of Vinaya as their root. What are they? The five advantages. The meaning is that the study of Vinaya is the root, the cause, for obtaining advantages, not another study, or practice, and so on as the root. Or else, learning is pariyatti, Vinaya learning is vinayapariyatti, that is root of them, vinayapariyattimūlakā, means the advantages that come from the cause of learning Vinaya. Beginning with “Katame,” he asks about the nature of those five advantages, and answers with “attano” and so on, and to support that statement with the Pāḷi, he says “vuttañheta” and so on.
68. One who retains the Vinaya is called a Vinaya expert, a monk skilled in the study of Vinaya through learning, teaching, reflection, and appropriate application. The root of Vinaya study is these, hence “rooted in Vinaya study.” What are they? The five benefits. The benefits to be obtained by making Vinaya study the root cause, not by making other studies or practices the root cause, is the meaning. Alternatively, the study is called pariyatti; the study of Vinaya is Vinaya pariyatti; that is the root of these, hence “rooted in Vinaya study,” meaning the benefits arising from the cause of studying Vinaya. “What are they?” and so on asks about the nature of these five benefits, and “for oneself” and so on answers, explaining that statement in the Pāli with “it is said” and so on.
ID2070
Evaṃ pañcānisaṃsānaṃ sarūpaṃ dassetvā idāni teyeva vitthārato dassetuṃ “kathamassā”tiādinā pucchitvā “idhekacco”tiādinā vissajjeti. Tattha attano sīlakkhandhasuguttabhāvo nāma āpattianāpajjanabhāveneva hoti, no aññathāti āpattiāpajjanakāraṇaṃ dassetvā tadabhāvena anāpajjanaṃ dassetuṃ “āpattiṃ āpajjanto chahākārehi āpajjatī”tiādimāha. Tattha –
Having shown the nature of the five benefits, now to explain them in detail, it is asked with “kathamassā” and so forth and answered with “idhekacco” and so forth; therein, the good protection of one’s own virtue aggregate occurs only by not falling into offenses, not otherwise; to show the cause of falling into offenses and the absence thereof as not falling, it is said, “āpattiṃ āpajjanto chahākārehi āpajjati” and so forth; therein—
Having thus shown the nature of the five advantages, now, to show them in detail, he asks with “kathamassā” and so on, and answers with “idhekacco” and so on. Here, the fact of being well-guarded in one’s own precepts arises only from the non-transgression of offenses, not otherwise. Therefore, showing the cause of committing and not commiting offenses, to show non-transgression through the absence of that, he says, “āpattiṃ āpajjanto chahākārehi āpajjatī” and so on. Herein –
Having thus shown the nature of the five benefits, now to explain them in detail, it is asked with “how?” and so on, and answered with “here, a certain one” and so on. Herein, the well-guarded nature of one’s virtue is indeed the state of not committing offenses, not otherwise. Therefore, having shown the causes of committing offenses, the state of not committing is shown with “committing an offense in six ways” and so on. Herein—
ID2071
“Sañcicca āpattiṃ āpajjati; Āpattiṃ parigūhati; Agatigamanañca gacchati; Ediso vuccati alajjipuggalo”ti. (pari. 359) –
“Intentionally committing an offense, concealing an offense, and going to wrong resorts—such a person is called shameless” (pari. 359)—
“He intentionally commits an offense; he conceals the offense; and he goes to wrong courses of action; such a person is called shameless.” (pari. 359) –
“He intentionally commits an offense; he conceals the offense; he goes to a wrong path; such a person is called shameless.” (pari. 359)
ID2072
Vuttena alajjīlakkhaṇena na lajjati na hirīyatīti alajjī, tassa bhāvo alajjitā. Natthi ñāṇaṃ etassāti aññāṇaṃ, tassa bhāvo aññāṇatā. Kukatassa bhāvo kukkuccaṃ, tena pakato kukkuccapakato, tassa bhāvo kukkuccapakatatā. Kappatīti kappiyaṃ, na kappiyaṃ akappiyaṃ , tasmiṃ akappiye , kappiyaṃ iti saññā yassa so kappiyasaññī, tassa bhāvo kappiyasaññitā. Itaraṃ tappaṭipakkhato kātabbaṃ, imesu pañcasu padesu yakāralopo, tasmā “alajjitāya āpattiṃ āpajjatī”tiādinā yojetabbāni. Hetvatthe cetaṃ nissakkavacanaṃ. Saratīti sati, samussanaṃ sammoso. Satiyā sammoso satisammoso, tasmā satisammosā. Hetvatthe cetaṃ karaṇavacanaṃ. Idāni tāni kāraṇāni vitthārato dassetuṃ “katha”ntyādimāha. Taṃ nayānuyogena viññeyyameva.
By the characteristic of shamelessness mentioned, one who does not feel shame or scruple is shameless, and that state is alajjitā; there is no knowledge for him, and that state is aññāṇatā; the state of wrongdoing is kukkucca, affected by it is kukkuccapakato, and that state is kukkuccapakatatā; what is allowable is kappiya, what is not allowable is akappiya, and regarding akappiye, one who perceives it as allowable is kappiyasaññī, and that state is kappiyasaññitā; the opposite should be understood as its contrary; in these five terms, the “ya” is elided, so it should be construed as “he falls into an offense due to shamelessness” and so forth; this ablative case is used in the sense of cause; what is remembered is sati, confusion is sammosa, confusion of memory is satisammosā, and this instrumental case is used in the sense of cause; now to explain those causes in detail, it is said, “kathaṃ” and so forth, which should be understood by the method of inquiry.
As stated by the characteristic of a shameless one, he is not ashamed, not modest, that is alajjī, its quality is alajjitā. He has not knowledge, so he is ignorant (aññāṇaṃ), its quality aññāṇatā. Being remorseful (kukkuccaṃ) by nature of the remorseful one, the quality is kukkuccapakatatā. What is allowable is kappiyaṃ, what is not allowable is akappiyaṃ, in that akappiye, he has the perception that it is allowable (kappiyasaññī), its quality kappiyasaññitā. The other should be done from the opposite of that. In these five places, the letter ‘ya’ is dropped, therefore, they should be connected with “alajjitāya āpattiṃ āpajjatī” and so on. This is an instrumental case in the sense of cause. Memory is sati, forgetting is sammosa. The forgetting of memory is satisammosa, from that, satisammosā. This is an instrumental case in the sense of cause. Now, to show those causes in detail, he says “katha” and so on. It should be understood through the method of reasoning.
By this statement, the characteristic of shamelessness is not being ashamed or embarrassed, hence shamelessness. The absence of knowledge is ignorance, hence ignorance. The state of wrongdoing is remorse, hence remorsefulness. What is permissible is permissible, what is not permissible is impermissible, hence perceiving the impermissible as permissible. The rest should be done in opposition to that. In these five cases, the letter ‘ya’ is elided, hence “by shamelessness, he commits an offense” and so on should be connected. This is a causal statement. “He remembers” is mindfulness; the loss of mindfulness is forgetfulness. The loss of mindfulness is forgetfulness, hence forgetfulness. This is a causal statement. Now, to explain those causes in detail, it is said with “how?” and so on. This should be understood according to the method.
ID2073
Ariṭṭho iti bhikkhu ariṭṭhabhikkhu, kaṇṭako iti sāmaṇero kaṇṭakasāmaṇero, vesāliyā jātā vesālikā, vajjīnaṃ puttā vajjiputtā, vesālikā ca te vajjiputtā cāti vesālikavajjiputtā, ariṭṭhabhikkhu ca kaṇṭakasāmaṇero ca vesālikavajjiputtā ca ariṭṭhabhikkhukaṇṭakasāmaṇeravesālikavajjiputtakā. Parūpahāro ca aññāṇañca kaṅkhāvitaraṇañca parūpahāraaññāṇakaṅkhāvitaraṇā. Ke te? Vādā. Te ādi yesaṃ teti parūpahāraaññāṇakaṅkhāvitaraṇādayo. Vadanti etehīti vādā, parūpahāraaññāṇakaṅkhāvitaraṇādayo vādā etesanti parū…pe… vādā. Ke te? Micchāvādino. Ariṭṭha…pe… puttā ca parūpahāra…pe… vādā ca mahāsaṅghikādayo ca sāsanapaccatthikā nāmāti samuccayadvandavasena yojanā kātabbā. Sesaṃ suviññeyyameva.
The bhikkhu Ariṭṭha, the novice Kaṇṭaka, those born in Vesālī as Vesālikā, sons of the Vajjīs as Vajjiputtā, both Vesālikā and Vajjiputtā as vesālikavajjiputtā, the bhikkhu Ariṭṭha and the novice Kaṇṭaka and the Vesālikavajjiputtā as ariṭṭhabhikkhukaṇṭakasāmaṇeravesālikavajjiputtakā; harm to others, ignorance, and dispelling doubt as parūpahāraaññāṇakaṅkhāvitaraṇā; what are they? Views; these are the basis of those as parūpahāraaññāṇakaṅkhāvitaraṇādayo; they speak with these as vādā, views such as harm to others, ignorance, and dispelling doubt belong to them as parū…pe…vādā; what are they? Wrong-view holders; Ariṭṭha…pe…puttā and harm to others…pe…views, and the Mahāsaṅghikas and others, enemies of the teaching, should be construed as a collective compound; the rest is easily understood.
The monk Ariṭṭha is Ariṭṭhabhikkhu, the novice Kaṇṭaka is Kaṇṭakasāmaṇero, those born in Vesāli are Vesālikā, the sons of the Vajjis are Vajjiputtā, those Vesālikā and those Vajjiputtā are Vesālikavajjiputtā, Ariṭṭhabhikkhu and Kaṇṭakasāmaṇero and Vesālikavajjiputtā are Ariṭṭhabhikkhukaṇṭakasāmaṇeravesālikavajjiputtakā. Insult and ignorance and uncertainty overcoming parūpahāraaññāṇakaṅkhāvitaraṇā. What are they? Disputes. They are foremost of those, so parūpahāraaññāṇakaṅkhāvitaraṇādayo. They dispute with these, are vādā, parūpahāraaññāṇakaṅkhāvitaraṇādayo vādā are with these, parū…pe… vādā. What are they? Those with wrong views. Ariṭṭha…pe… puttā and parūpahāra…pe… vādā and Mahāsaṅghikā and so on are called adversaries of the teaching. The connection should be made by way of a collective compound. The rest is easily understood.
Ariṭṭha is a monk, hence Ariṭṭha the monk; Kaṇṭaka is a novice, hence Kaṇṭaka the novice; born in Vesālī, hence Vesālī woman; sons of the Vajjis, hence Vajji sons; both Vesālī women and Vajji sons, hence Vesālī-Vajji sons; Ariṭṭha the monk, Kaṇṭaka the novice, and Vesālī-Vajji sons, hence Ariṭṭha the monk, Kaṇṭaka the novice, and Vesālī-Vajji sons. “Wrong livelihood, ignorance, and doubt” are wrong livelihood, ignorance, and doubt. What are they? Views. Those who hold these are wrong livelihood, ignorance, and doubt and so on. They are called wrong views. Ariṭṭha… and so on, the sons, wrong livelihood… and so on, the views, and the Mahāsaṅghikas and others are called enemies of the Dispensation. The connection should be made by combining the pairs. The rest is easily understood.
ID2074
Ānisaṃsakathā niṭṭhitā.
The discussion on benefits is concluded.
The Discourse on Advantages is finished.
The discussion on the benefits is concluded.
ID2075
Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is an explanation of the Vinaya compilation
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the collection of the Vinaya,
Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinaya compilation,
ID2076
Pakiṇṇakavinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma
The adornment of the discussion on miscellaneous judgments
the chapter called the Adornment of the Discourse on Miscellaneous Decisions
The ornament of the miscellaneous decisions is called
ID2077
Catuttiṃsatimo paricchedo.
Is the thirty-fourth chapter.
is the thirty-fourth chapter.
The thirty-fourth chapter.
ID2078
ID2079
Nigamagāthāsu paṭhamagāthāyaṃ saddhammaṭṭhitikāmena sāsanujjotakārinā parakkamabāhunā narindena ajjhesito so ahaṃ vinayasaṅgahaṃ akāsinti yojanā.
In the concluding verses, in the first verse, the construction is: Requested by the king Parakkamabāhu, a lord of men who desires the stability of the true Dhamma and illuminates the teaching, I composed this Vinaya compilation.
In the concluding verses, in the first verse, the connection is: “Requested by the king Parakkamabāhu, who illuminates the teaching, desiring the continuance of the True Dhamma, I have made this collection of the Vinaya.”
In the concluding verses, in the first verse, the meaning is that I, being requested by a king with strong arms, who desires the stability of the true Dhamma and illuminates the Dispensation, composed the Vinaya compilation.
ID2080
Dutiyatatiyagāthāyaṃ teneva parakkamabāhunarindeneva kārite ramme ramaṇīye pāsādasatamaṇḍite pāsādānaṃ satena paṭimaṇḍite nānādumagaṇākiṇṇe bhāvanābhiratālaye bhāvanāya abhiratānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ ālayabhūte sītalūdakasampanne jetavane jetavananāmake vihāre vasaṃ vasanto hutvā, atha vā vasaṃ vasanto sohaṃ so ahaṃ yogīnaṃ hitaṃ hitabhūtaṃ sāraṃ sāravantaṃ imaṃ īdisaṃ vinayasaṅgahaṃ akāsinti yojanā.
In the second and third verses, teneva means by that very king Parakkamabāhu alone, kārite ramme means in the delightful, pāsādasatamaṇḍite means adorned with a hundred palaces, nānādumagaṇākiṇṇe bhāvanābhiratālaye means a residence for bhikkhus delighting in meditation, filled with various groves, sītalūdakasampanne jetavane means in the Jetavana monastery endowed with cool water; vasaṃ means dwelling, or alternatively, vasaṃ means while dwelling, sohaṃ means I, that very one, yogīnaṃ hitaṃ means for the welfare of yogis, sāraṃ means essential, imaṃ means this, vinayasaṅgahaṃ means Vinaya compilation, and I composed it.
In the second and third verses, the connection is: “While dwelling in the Jetavana Monastery, endowed with hundreds of mansions, built by that very king Parakkamabāhu, beautiful, delightful, filled with various kinds of trees, a dwelling place for monks delighting in meditation, filled with cool water, or dwelling, I, that I, have made this such collection of the Vinaya, beneficial being a benefit, essential full of essence for yogis.”
In the second and third verses, “by that very king with strong arms”, in the delightful “palace adorned with a hundred towers”, in the “Jetavana monastery” with its cool waters, surrounded by various trees, a place where monks delight in meditation, “dwelling there”, or “dwelling there, I, for the welfare of the meditators, composed this Vinaya compilation”, is the meaning.
ID2081
Sesagāthāsu iminā ganthakaraṇena yaṃ puññaṃ mayhaṃ siddhaṃ, aññaṃ ito ganthakaraṇato aññabhūtaṃ yaṃ puññaṃ mayā pasutaṃ hoti, etena puññakammena dutiye attasambhave tāvatiṃse pamodento sīlācāraguṇe rato pañcakāmesu alaggo devaputto hutvā paṭhamaṃ paṭhamabhūtaṃ phalaṃ sotāpattiphalaṃ patvāna antime attabhāvamhi lokaggapuggalaṃ nāthaṃ nāthabhūtaṃ sabbasattahite rataṃ metteyyaṃ metteyyanāmakaṃ munipuṅgavaṃ muniseṭṭhaṃ disvāna tassa dhīrassa saddhammadesanaṃ sutvā aggaṃ phalaṃ arahattaphalaṃ adhigantvā labhitvā jinasāsanaṃ sobheyyaṃ sobhāpeyyanti ayaṃ pākaṭayojanā.
In the remaining verses, iminā means by this act of composition, yaṃ puññaṃ means whatever merit, siddhaṃ means accomplished by me, aññaṃ means other than this composition, mayā pasutaṃ means produced by me, with this meritorious act, in my second existence, rejoicing in Tāvatiṃsa, delighting in the virtues of morality and conduct, unattached to the five sense pleasures, becoming a devaputta, paṭhamaṃ means the first, phalaṃ means fruit, attaining sotāpattiphala, and in my final existence, seeing the lord, the supreme person of the world, nāthaṃ means protector, devoted to the welfare of all beings, metteyyaṃ means the one named Metteyya, munipuṅgavaṃ means the chief of sages, hearing the true Dhamma teaching of that wise one, aggaṃ phalaṃ means the supreme fruit, attaining arahattaphala, adhigantvā means having attained, sobheyyaṃ means I would adorn the teaching of the Conqueror; this is the evident construction.
In the remaining verses, the clear connection is: “By this making of the book, whatever merit has been attained by me, whatever other merit produced by me besides this making of the book, by this deed of merit, in the second existence, delighting in Tāvatiṃsa, devoted to the virtues of morality and good conduct, unattached to the five sense pleasures, having become a devaputta, having attained the first fruit, the fruit of stream-entry, in the final existence, having seen the supreme person of the world, the Lord, devoted to the welfare of all beings, Metteyya, the noble sage, having heard the teaching of the Dhamma of that wise one, having attained the highest fruit, the fruit of arahantship, may I adorn the teaching of the Victor.”
In the remaining verses, “by this composition, whatever merit I have acquired, and other merit produced by me”, by this meritorious deed, in the next life, rejoicing in the Tāvatiṃsa heaven, delighting in virtue and good conduct, detached from the five sensual pleasures, becoming a devaputta, “first attaining the fruit” of stream-entry, in the final existence, seeing the world’s foremost person, the protector, Metteyya, the bull among sages, hearing his Dhamma teaching, “attaining the supreme fruit” of arahantship, “I would adorn the Dispensation of the Victor”, this is the apparent meaning.
ID2082
Etissāya pana yojanāya sati ācariyavarassa vacanaṃ na sampaṭicchanti paṇḍitā. Kathaṃ? Ettha hi ito dutiyabhave tāvatiṃsabhavane devaputto hutvā sotāpattiphalaṃ patvā antimabhave metteyyassa bhagavato dhammadesanaṃ sutvā arahattaphalaṃ labheyyanti ācariyassa patthanā, sā ayuttarūpā hoti. Sotāpannassa hi sattabhavato uddhaṃ paṭisandhi natthi, tāvatiṃsānañca devānaṃ bhavasatenapi bhavasahassenapi bhavasatasahassenapi metteyyassa bhagavato uppajjanakālo appattabbo hoti. Athāpi vadeyya “antarā brahmaloke nibbattitvā metteyyassa bhagavato kāle manusso bhaveyyā”ti, evampi na yujjati. Na hi brahmalokagatānaṃ ariyānaṃ puna kāmabhavūpapatti atthi. Vuttañhi abhidhamme yamakappakaraṇe (yama. 2.anusayayamaka. 312) “rūpadhātuyā cutassa kāmadhātuṃ upapajjantassa satteva anusayā anusentī”ti. Athāpi vadeyya “brahmalokeyeva ṭhatvā aggaphalaṃ labheyyā”ti, tathā ca ācariyassa vacane na dissati, “sobheyyaṃ jinasāsana”nti vuttattā bhikkhubhūtattameva dissati. Na hi bhikkhubhūto sāsanaṃ sobhāpetuṃ sakkoti. Abhidhammatthavibhāvaniyañca –
However, with this construction, the wise do not accept the teacher’s words; why? Here, the teacher’s aspiration is that in the second existence, becoming a devaputta in Tāvatiṃsa, he attains sotāpattiphala, and in the final existence, hearing the Dhamma teaching of the Blessed One Metteyya, he attains arahattaphala; this seems unreasonable; for a sotāpanna has no rebirth beyond seven existences, and the devas of Tāvatiṃsa cannot reach the time of the Blessed One Metteyya even in a hundred, a thousand, or a hundred thousand existences; even if one says, “He could be reborn in the Brahma world in between and become a human at the time of the Blessed One Metteyya,” that too does not fit; for noble ones in the Brahma world do not return to the sense-sphere existence; it is said in the Yamaka section of the Abhidhamma (yama. 2.anusayayamaka. 312), “For one who dies in the form realm and is reborn in the sense realm, only seven latent tendencies remain”; even if one says, “He could attain the supreme fruit while remaining in the Brahma world,” this is not seen in the teacher’s words, and since it says, “sobheyyaṃ jinasāsana,” it appears only as a bhikkhu; for one not a bhikkhu cannot adorn the teaching; and in the Abhidhammatthavibhāvanī—
But, with this connection, the learned ones do not accept the words of the venerable teacher. How so? Here, indeed, the aspiration of the teacher is that, in the second existence from here, having become a devaputta in the Tāvatiṃsa realm, having attained the fruit of stream-entry, in the final existence, having heard the teaching of the Dhamma of the Blessed One Metteyya, he may attain the fruit of arahantship. That is inappropriate. For a stream-enterer, there is no rebirth beyond seven existences. And for the devas of Tāvatiṃsa, even in a hundred existences, or a thousand existences, or a hundred thousand existences, the time of the appearance of the Blessed One Metteyya cannot be reached. Even if one were to say, “Having been reborn in the Brahma-world in the meantime, he would become a human being in the time of the Blessed One Metteyya,” even so, it is not appropriate. For there is no return to sensual existence for the noble ones who have gone to the Brahma-world. Indeed, it is said in the Yamakappakaraṇa of the Abhidhamma (yama. 2.anusayayamaka. 312), “For one who has passed away from the form realm and is being reborn in the sense realm, only seven underlying tendencies lie latent.” Even if one were to say, “Remaining in the Brahma-world, he would attain the highest fruit,” even so, it is not seen in the words of the teacher. Because it is said, “May I adorn the teaching of the Victor,” it is seen that he becomes a monk. For a non-monk cannot adorn the teaching. And in the Abhidhammatthavibhāvanī –
However, regarding this explanation, the wise do not accept the words of the esteemed teacher. Why? Here, the teacher’s aspiration is that in the next life, becoming a devaputta in the Tāvatiṃsa heaven, attaining the fruit of stream-entry, and in the final existence, hearing the Dhamma teaching of the Blessed Metteyya, he would attain the fruit of arahantship. This is inappropriate. For a stream-enterer, there is no rebirth beyond seven existences, and even with a hundred or a thousand existences in the Tāvatiṃsa heaven, the time of the arising of the Blessed Metteyya cannot be reached. Even if one were to say, “having been reborn in the Brahma world in the interim, one would become a human at the time of the Blessed Metteyya,” this is also not acceptable. For noble ones who have gone to the Brahma world do not return to the realm of sensual pleasures. As stated in the Abhidhamma, in the Yamaka (yama. 2.anusayayamaka. 312), “For one who has passed away from the realm of form and is reborn in the realm of sensual pleasures, the latent tendencies remain.” Even if one were to say, “remaining in the Brahma world, one would attain the supreme fruit,” this is not seen in the teacher’s words, for it is said, “I would adorn the Dispensation of the Victor,” and it is seen that one must be a monk. For a monk cannot adorn the Dispensation. And in the Abhidhammatthavibhāvanī—
ID2083
“Jotayantaṃ tadā tassa, sāsanaṃ suddhamānasaṃ; Passeyyaṃ sakkareyyañca, garuṃ me sārisambhava”nti. –
“Illuminating his teaching then, with a pure mind, I would see and honor my revered teacher born like me”—
“Illuminating his teaching at that time, with a pure mind; May I see and honor him, my teacher, born of Sāri.” –
“At that time, illuminating the Dispensation with a pure mind, I would see and honor my teacher, the noble one.”
ID2084
Bhikkhubhūtameva vuttaṃ. Athāpi vadeyya “antarā dīghāyuko bhummadevo hutvā tadā manusso bhaveyyā”ti, evampi ekassa buddhassa sāvakabhūto ariyapuggalo puna aññassa buddhassa sāvako na bhaveyyāti, ācariyo pana sabbapariyattidharo anekaganthakārako anekesaṃ ganthakārakānaṃ therānaṃ ācariyapācariyabhūto, tena na kevalaṃ idheva imā gāthāyo ṭhapitā, atha kho sāratthadīpanīnāmikāya vinayaṭīkāya avasāne ca ṭhapitā, tasmā bhavitabbamettha kāraṇenāti vīmaṃsitabbametaṃ.
It is stated only as a bhikkhu; even if one says, “Becoming a long-lived terrestrial deva in between and then a human at that time,” even so, a noble disciple of one Buddha does not become a disciple of another Buddha; yet the teacher, a bearer of all learning, a composer of many texts, a teacher and preceptor of many elder composers, placed these verses not only here but also at the end of the Vinaya subcommentary named Sāratthadīpanī; therefore, there must be a reason for this, which should be investigated.
It is said that he would be a monk. Even if one were to say, “In the meantime, having become a long-lived earth-bound deva, he would then become a human being,” even so, a noble disciple of one Buddha would not become a disciple of another Buddha. But the teacher is one who knows all the scriptures, the maker of many books, the teacher and preceptor of many book-making elders. Therefore, not only here are these verses placed, but they are also placed at the end of the Vinaya commentary called Sāratthadīpanī. Therefore, there must be a reason for this, and this should be investigated.
It is stated that one must be a monk. Even if one were to say, “in the interim, becoming a long-lived earth deity, one would then become a human,” this is also not acceptable, for a noble disciple of one Buddha does not become a disciple of another Buddha. However, the teacher, being a master of all scriptures, a composer of many texts, and the teacher of many text-composing elders, has not only placed these verses here but also at the end of the Sāratthadīpanī Vinayaṭīkā. Therefore, this should be investigated with reason.
ID2085
Atha vā iminā…pe… devaputto hutvā paṭhamaṃ tāva phalaṃ yathāvuttaṃ tāvatiṃse pamodanasīlācāraguṇe rataṃ pañcakāmesu alaggabhāvasaṅkhātaṃ ānisaṃsaṃ patvāna antime attabhāvamhi…pe… sobheyyanti yojanā. Atha vā iminā…pe… pañcakāmesu alaggo hutvā antime attabhāvamhi…pe… saddhammadesanaṃ sutvā paṭhamaṃ phalaṃ sotāpattiphalaṃ patvā tato paraṃ aggaphalaṃ arahattaphalaṃ adhigantvā jinasāsanaṃ sobheyyanti yojanā. Yathā amhākaṃ bhagavato dhammacakkappavattanasuttantadhammadesanaṃ sutvā aññātakoṇḍaññatthero sotāpattiphalaṃ patvā pacchā arahattaphalaṃ adhigantvā jinasāsanaṃ sobhesi, evanti attho. Ito aññānipi nayāni yathā therassa vacanānukūlāni, tāni paṇḍitehi cintetabbāni.
Alternatively, iminā… with this… becoming a devaputta, paṭhamaṃ means first, phalaṃ as mentioned, attaining the benefit known as rejoicing in Tāvatiṃsa, delighting in the virtues of morality and conduct, and detachment from the five sense pleasures, and in my final existence… adorning…; or alternatively, iminā… unattached to the five sense pleasures, and in my final existence… hearing the true Dhamma teaching, attaining paṭhamaṃ phalaṃ sotāpattiphala, and thereafter attaining the supreme fruit arahattaphala, I would adorn the teaching of the Conqueror; just as the Elder Aññātakoṇḍañña, hearing the Dhammacakkappavattanasutta Dhamma teaching of our Blessed One, attained sotāpattiphala and later arahattaphala, adorning the teaching of the Conqueror, so it is meant; other methods conforming to the elder’s words should be considered by the wise.
Or else, by this…pe… having become a devaputta, having first attained the fruit, as stated, the advantage known as delighting in Tāvatiṃsa, devotion to the virtues of morality and good conduct, and non-attachment to the five sense pleasures, in the final existence…pe… may I adorn, is the connection. Or else, by this…pe… having become unattached to the five sense pleasures, in the final existence…pe… having heard the teaching of the Dhamma, having attained the first fruit, the fruit of stream-entry, thereafter, having attained the highest fruit, the fruit of arahantship, may I adorn the teaching of the Victor, is the connection. Just as, having heard the Dhammacakkappavattanasuttanta teaching of our Blessed One, the elder Aññātakoṇḍañña attained the fruit of stream-entry, and later, having attained the fruit of arahantship, adorned the teaching of the Victor, so it is. Other methods besides these, as they are in accordance with the words of the elder, should be considered by the learned ones.
Alternatively, by this… becoming a devaputta, first attaining the fruit as stated, rejoicing in the Tāvatiṃsa heaven, delighting in virtue and good conduct, detached from the five sensual pleasures, in the final existence… adorning the Dispensation, is the meaning. Alternatively, by this… detached from the five sensual pleasures, in the final existence… hearing the true Dhamma teaching, first attaining the fruit of stream-entry, then attaining the supreme fruit of arahantship, adorning the Dispensation of the Victor, is the meaning. Just as after hearing the Dhamma teaching of our Blessed One’s Discourse on Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion, the Elder Aññāta Koṇḍañña attained the fruit of stream-entry and later attained the fruit of arahantship, adorning the Dispensation of the Victor, so is the meaning. Other methods in accordance with the elder’s words should be considered by the wise.
ID2086
Nigamanakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.
The commentary on the concluding discussion is concluded.
The Commentary on the Concluding Verses is finished.
The explanation of the conclusion is concluded.
ID2087
ID2088
1. Jambudīpatale ramme, marammavisaye sute; Tambadīparaṭṭhe ṭhitaṃ, puraṃ ratananāmakaṃ.
1. In the delightful land of Jambudīpa, in the renowned Maramma region, in the land of Tambadīpa stands the city named Ratana.
1. In the beautiful land of Jambudīpa, renowned in the Maramma country; situated in the kingdom of Tambadīpa, is the city named Ratana.
1. In the delightful land of Jambudīpa, in the renowned Maramma region; In the Tambadīpa country, stands the city named Ratana.
ID2089
2. Jinasāsanapajjotaṃ , anekaratanākaraṃ; Sādhujjanānamāvāsaṃ, soṇṇapāsādalaṅkataṃ.
2. A lamp of the Conqueror’s teaching, a mine of many jewels, a dwelling for good people, adorned with golden palaces.
2. Illuminating the teaching of the Victor, a mine of many jewels; the dwelling place of good people, adorned with golden mansions.
2. The light of the Victor’s Dispensation, a mine of many jewels; The abode of good people, adorned with golden palaces.
ID2090
3. Tasmiṃ ratanapuramhi, rājānekaraṭṭhissaro; Sirīsudhammarājāti, mahāadhipatīti ca.
3. In that Ratana city, a king, lord of many lands, named Sirīsudhammarājā, and also a great ruler.
3. In that city of Ratana, the king, the lord of many kingdoms; was Sirisudhammarāja, and also Mahādhipati.
3. In that city of jewels, the king, lord of many countries; Known as Sirīsudhammarāja, the great sovereign.
ID2091
4. Evaṃnāmo mahātejo, rajjaṃ kāresi dhammato; Kārāpesi rājā maṇi-cūḷaṃ mahantacetiyaṃ.
4. This king of great splendor, named thus, ruled the kingdom righteously; the king caused the great cetiya maṇi-cūḷaṃ to be built.
4. Thus named, of great power, he ruled righteously; the king had built the great cetiya Maṇicūḷa.
4. Thus named, of great majesty, he ruled righteously; The king caused to be built Maṇicūḷa, a great cetiya.
ID2092
5. Tassa kāle brahāraññe, tiriyo nāma pabbato; Pubbakāraññavāsīnaṃ, nivāso bhāvanāraho.
5. In his time, in the Brahma forest, a mountain named tiriyo, a dwelling for former forest-dwellers, suitable for meditation.
5. At that time, in the great forest, there was a mountain named Tiriyo; the dwelling place of those dwelling in the former forest, suitable for meditation.
5. At that time, in the great forest, Tiriyo by name, a mountain; The dwelling of former forest dwellers, suitable for meditation.
ID2093
6. Aṭṭhārasahi dosehi, mutto pañcaṅgupāgato; Araññalakkhaṇaṃ patto, baddhasīmāyalaṅkato.
6. Free from eighteen faults, endowed with five qualities, attaining the characteristics of a forest, adorned with a fixed boundary.
6. Free from the eighteen faults, endowed with the five factors; attained to the characteristics of a forest, adorned with a boundary.
6. Freed from eighteen faults, endowed with five factors; Attaining the characteristics of the forest, adorned with a boundary.
ID2094
7. Tasmiṃ pabbate vasanto, mahāthero supākaṭo; Tipeṭakālaṅkāroti, dvikkhattuṃ laddhalañchano.
7. Dwelling on that mountain, a great elder, well-known, named Tipeṭakālaṅkāro, twice honored with distinction.
7. Dwelling on that mountain, the well-known great elder; twice awarded the title Tipeṭakālaṅkāra.
7. Dwelling on that mountain, the great elder, well-known; Tipeṭakālaṅkāra, twice honored.
ID2095
8. Tebhātukanarindānaṃ, garubhūto supesalo; Kusalo pariyattimhi, paṭipattimhi kārako.
8. Revered by the three brother kings, virtuous, skilled in learning, a doer of practice.
8. The revered teacher of the kings of the three realms, virtuous; skilled in the scriptures, a doer in practice.
8. Revered by the kings of the three worlds, virtuous and skilled; Expert in the scriptures, a doer of practice.
ID2096
9. Sohaṃ lajjīpesalehi, bhikkhūhi abhiyācito; Sāsanassopakārāya, akāsiṃ sīlavaḍḍhanaṃ.
9. I, requested by virtuous bhikkhus who feel shame, composed this for the benefit of the teaching and the enhancement of virtue.
9. I, requested by modest and virtuous monks; for the benefit of the teaching, have made the Sīlavaḍḍhana.
9. Requested by the modest and virtuous monks, for the benefit of the Dispensation, I made the Vinaya compilation.
ID2097
10. Vinayālaṅkāraṃ nāma, lajjīnaṃ upakārakaṃ; Suṭṭhu vinayasaṅgaha-vaṇṇanaṃ sādhusevitaṃ.
10. Named Vinayālaṅkāra, beneficial to the scrupulous, a well-explained commentary on the Vinaya compilation, frequented by the good.
10. Called Vinayālaṅkāra, beneficial to the modest; the well-expounded commentary on the collection of the Vinaya, well-resorted to by the good.
10. Vinayālaṅkāra by name, beneficial to the modest; A well-composed commentary on the Vinaya compilation, esteemed by the good.
ID2098
11. Rūpachiddanāsakaṇṇe , sampatte jinasāsane; Chiddasuññasuññarūpe, kaliyugamhi āgate.
11. When the Conqueror’s teaching has gaps in form, and in the Kali age, empty and void forms have come.
11. When the teaching of the Victor had reached the year Rūpachiddanāsakaṇṇa; when the Kali age, Chiddasuññasuññarūpe, had arrived.
11. When the Dispensation of the Victor is full of flaws, in the age of strife,
ID2099
12. Niṭṭhāpitā ayaṃ ṭīkā, mayā sāsanakāraṇā; Dvīsu soṇṇavihāresu, dvikkhattuṃ laddhaketunā.
12. This subcommentary was completed by me for the sake of the teaching, in two golden monasteries, twice marked with a banner.
12. This ṭīkā has been completed by me, for the sake of the teaching; twice awarded the banner in the two golden monasteries.
12. This commentary was completed by me for the sake of the Dispensation; Twice honored in the two golden monasteries.
ID2100
13. Iminā puññakammena, aññena kusalena ca; Ito cutāhaṃ dutiye, attabhāvamhi āgate.
13. By this meritorious act and other good deeds, after departing from here, in my second existence when it comes.
13. By this deed of merit, and by other goodness; having passed away from here, in the second existence.
13. By this meritorious deed and other wholesome deeds, after passing from here, in the next life,
ID2101
14. Himavantapadesamhi, pabbate gandhamādane; Āsanne maṇiguhāya, mañjūsakadumassa ca.
14. In the Himavanta region, on the mountain Gandhamādana, near a jewel cave and the mañjūsaka tree.
14. In the region of the Himālayas, on the Gandhamādana mountain; near the Maṇiguhā cave, and the Mañjūsaka tree.
14. In the region of the Himalayas, on the Gandhamādana mountain, near the jewel cave and the mañjūsaka tree,
ID2102
15. Tasmiṃ hessaṃ bhummadevo, atidīghāyuko varo; Paññāvīriyasampanno, buddhasāsanamāmako.
15. There I will be a terrestrial deva, of exceedingly long life, excellent, endowed with wisdom and energy, devoted to the Buddha’s teaching.
15. There, I will be an earth-bound deva, of very long life, excellent; endowed with wisdom and energy, devoted to the teaching of the Buddha.
15. There I will be a earth deity, of very long life, endowed with wisdom and energy, devoted to the Buddha’s Dispensation.
ID2103
16. Yāva tiṭṭhati sāsanaṃ, tāva cetiyavandanaṃ; Bodhipūjaṃ saṅghapūjaṃ, kareyyaṃ tuṭṭhamānaso.
16. As long as the teaching endures, so long may I joyfully honor cetiyas, worship the Bodhi tree, and honor the Sangha.
16. As long as the teaching lasts, I will worship the cetiya; I will make offerings to the Bodhi tree, I will make offerings to the Saṅgha, with a joyful mind.
16. As long as the Dispensation lasts, I will worship the cetiyas, honor the Bodhi tree and the Saṅgha, with a joyful mind.
ID2104
17. Bhikkhūnaṃ paṭipannānaṃ, veyyāvaccaṃ kareyyahaṃ; Pariyattābhiyuttānaṃ, kaṅkhāvinodayeyyahaṃ.
17. I would serve the practicing bhikkhus, and dispel the doubts of those engaged in learning.
17. I will perform service for the monks who are practicing; I will dispel the doubts of those engaged in the scriptures.
17. I will serve the practicing monks, and dispel the doubts of those devoted to the scriptures.
ID2105
18. Sāsanaṃ paggaṇhantānaṃ, rājūnaṃ sahāyo assaṃ; Sāsanaṃ niggaṇhantānaṃ, vāretuṃ samattho assaṃ.
18. I would be a companion to kings who uphold the teaching, and able to restrain those who suppress the teaching.
18. I will be a helper to the kings who uphold the teaching; I will be able to prevent those who suppress the teaching.
18. I will be a friend to kings who support the Dispensation, and able to restrain those who oppose it.
ID2106
19. Sāsanantaradhāne tu, mañjūsaṃ rukkhamuttamaṃ; Nandamūlañca pabbhāraṃ, niccaṃ pūjaṃ kareyyahaṃ.
19. But in the disappearance of the Sāsana, I would constantly offer worship to the reliquary, the supreme tree, Nandamūla, and the mountain dwelling.
19. When the Dispensation disappears, I will always offer worship to the excellent Mañjūsa tree, and the Nandamūla cavern.
19. In the event of the disappearance of the Dispensation, I would constantly make offerings to the relic shrine, the excellent tree, Nandamūla, and the cave.
ID2107
20. Yadā tu paccekabuddhā, uppajjanti mahāyasā; Tadā tesaṃ niccakappaṃ, upaṭṭhānaṃ kareyyahaṃ.
20. Whenever Paccekabuddhas, of great renown, arise, then I would perpetually serve and attend to them.
20. But when Paccekabuddhas of great renown arise, then I will always render them due service.
20. When the glorious Paccekabuddhas arise, I would then constantly attend upon them.
ID2108
21. Teneva attabhāvena, yāva buddhuppādā ahaṃ; Tiṭṭhanto buddhuppādamhi, manussesu bhavāmahaṃ.
21. With that very self-existence, until the arising of a Buddha, I would remain, and at the Buddha’s arising, I would be among humans.
21. Remaining in that same existence, until the arising of a Buddha, I will be reborn among humans, at the time of a Buddha’s arising.
21. With that very existence, until the arising of a Buddha, I would remain among humans, awaiting the appearance of a Buddha.
ID2109
22. Metteyyassa bhagavato, pabbajitvāna sāsane; Tosayitvāna jinaṃ taṃ, labhe byākaraṇuttamaṃ.
22. Having gone forth in the Sāsana of the Blessed Metteyya, and having pleased that Conqueror, I would obtain the supreme prediction.
22. Having gone forth in the dispensation of the Blessed Metteyya, and having gladdened that Victor, I will receive the supreme declaration.
22. Having gone forth in the Dispensation of the Blessed One Metteyya, and having pleased that Victor, I would receive the highest prediction.
ID2110
23. Byākaraṇaṃ labhitvāna, pūretvā sabbapāramī; Anāgatamhi addhāne, buddho hessaṃ sadevaketi.
23. Having received the prediction and fulfilled all the pāramīs, in a future time, I shall become a Buddha, together with the devas.
23. Having received the declaration, and having fulfilled all the perfections, in a future time, I will be a Buddha, together with the devas, it is said.
23. Having received the prediction and fulfilled all the perfections, in the future age, I would become a Buddha, revered by gods and humans.
ID2111
Vinayālaṅkāraṭīkā samattā.
The Vinayālaṅkāra-ṭīkā is complete.
The Vinayālaṅkāra-ṭīkā is complete.
The Vinayālaṅkāraṭīkā is completed.